Moral versus Political Analysis in Economics
Drafted 25 November 1999
By Quynh Bliss
����������� Most people in this world are ignorant of how difficult life can be sometimes.� We put names and labels on phenomena in the world around us in order to make sense of what we see, and some systems of labels, or approaches to analysis, are more accurate than others.� The approaches of the moral and political economist are examples of two approaches to describe and define peasant society, and these are the topics of this essay, but first I would like to share some observations that have shaped my perception of the world around me.
Three years ago I had the opportunity to visit my mother's birthplace, Dha-Nang, Vietnam, and I was amazed to see how primitively my relatives live.� My relatives live in an open village, something that I had believed to have been replaced by suburban type neighborhoods.� The conditions of life there really surprised me. My relatives still live in nothing more than thatch roof huts with open doorways and windows which are sealed with thatch coverings when necessary.�� The nicest huts are nothing more than single rooms built of bricks, and in the center of each stands a solid wooden dining room table that separates two hard wood beds surrounded by mosquito netting.� The floor is dirt.� Every hut in this village is very similar to the next hut, and also similar are the assets of each family in the village.
It appeared that each family in the village owned at least one dog, two pigs, a water buffalo, and a few chickens (the number of chickens seemed to vary with affluence).� The more affluent villagers had water wells and outdoor showers on their property, which I appreciated the use of on occasion. Although some village members had more assets (one older woman actually had a television set and karaoke machine), to me they appeared to be happy with their way of life.� It wasn't very long until I learned otherwise.
At every turn a relative requested money from me.� They needed money for college, for a new home, for clothes, for a new brick hut, for alcohol: it was endless.� And although there were communication problems due to my lack of understanding of the Vietnamese language, I understood clearly when they wanted money.� Their requests for money became very annoying and ruined my image of what I assumed to be "perfect" village life.�
This perfect village is at the heart of the view of the moral economist view of peasant society. I believe that the moral economist has the best of intentions when evaluating the lives of peasants in developing countries.� However, when one looks in these countries at peasant communities, the moral economist's version of life is just not evident.� There are several notions the moral economist feels are true about life in these villages.
One such notion is that the peasant villager is averse to risk and risk taking.� The moral economist maintains that because the threat of starvation is so persistent, there is more of a desire for conservatism and continuance of status quo.� The only time the peasant will go out on a limb is when his back is really against the wall.� Related to this view is the idea that peasants are anti-capitalist and thus will avoid entering market production or innovation unless to do otherwise would spell starvation or ruin. They believe capitalism leads to exploitation. The peasants believe that a resistance to innovation reflects a concern for the poor. In promoting this ideology, the moral economist presents a fa�ade of egalitarianism within these villages. For a moral economist, inequality is considered a "dirty word".� But, the inequality is very apparent in the patron-client relationships (Popkin, 1979, 9).
According to the moral economist, patron-client relationships are linked to social norms and consideration of prestige and operates on a subsistence ethic (Popkin,14).� Both the patron and the client must uphold the social norms of fairness and justice.� The patron has the added responsibility of protecting clients.� The clients in turn must respect the patron and not take advantage of the poor.� When there are misunderstandings with social norms of fairness, a feud can occur.� The moral economist views feudalism as ideal for the peasant.� It is their opinion that when peasants revolt or rebel, it is in an attempt to restore their lives to a previous state, to a condition that existed in the past that was perceived to be some utopia.� This idea discounts the possibility that innovation and risk taking in the form of rebellion could occur because of the desire by peasants to improve their present condition to some better future ahead.� By making these assumptions, the moral economist makes a misjudgment in understanding what drives people, not just peasants, into action.
If the above assumptions illustrate what a peasant is averse to doing, according to the moral economist, what characterizes what the peasant does believe?� The avoidance of risk myth leads to the resistance of advancement myth.� Both of these myths lead to the notion that peasant's prime focus is on support of the community and of their fellow man.� This idealized picture of village life is not found in reality.� These notions exist in theory only.� That peasants are purely selfless devotees to the village unit, with no thought to their own advancement, is na�ve.� The view of the political economist is a more accurate reflection.
The political economist takes a more realistic, gritty and almost jaded view of village life.� Their microview perspective permits them to understand not only the village, but the individuals and their differences as well.� This school of thought realizes that their differences are motivated by legitimate needs that can cause conflict. Because political science can never be an exact science due to individual differences, the political economist's views oppose those of the moral economist.
The political economist view peasants as risk takers when there is a reasonable chance of advancement.�� It is difficult to imagine a farmer-peasant who is not a risk taker.� Farming is a risky business; to say that these peasants are not inclined to take risks is false.� Innovation and advancement in technology being resisted by peasants because of a love for the past or the aversion to risk taking is not wholly the case.� More accurate is that there is distrust that hinders the cost sharing and coordination amongst peasants when these incidences arise.� This distrust is further exacerbated by the patron who often prevents the spread of literacy, forcibly keeps the peasants from direct involvement in markets, and rejects innovation and risk-taking.� Peasants will eventually see that these behaviors of the patron go against the social norms of fairness and fight to bring their individual goals to fruition (Popkin, 34).
In the final analysis, the approach of the moral economist is not as accurate or realistic as the political economist's approach. Speaking from firsthand experience and observations, the world of the peasant is not utopian.� It is often a subsistence existence that the villager would prefer to be free of, and the moral economist idea that such a life is by choice is not supportable by the facts.