Technology and Economics

By Greg McCulley

Drafted 30 November 1999

����������� As discussed in the previous essay, there are fundamental differences in how the moral and political economists perceive peasant society.� One of the differences discussed was the moral economist's approach that the peasant was averse to the taking of risks unless they were imperative.� The political economist observes that life for the agrarian peasant is fraught with risk.� Technological progress is seen by many sociologists as a risk to the individuals undergoing the progress or change.� This paper discusses which of the peasant society perspectives would be more apt to espouse technological changes in society.

����������� "Technology resistance" is the term of art applied to the friction that individuals display when forced to cope with new and different methods of work.� According to the moral economist, technology or innovation would be resisted.� It is a risk to adopt new methods of doing business, even if the new methods accompanied higher levels of productivity.� The moral economist says that peasants will avoid such a change in favor of the security of doing things in the traditional ways.� Even saying this, moral economists would maintain that any rebellion made by peasants would not be against current technology changes, but rather an attempt to return to an earlier, purer way of existence.

����������� The political economist would be quick to embrace the new technology, if only for the opportunity for greater levels of production.� This could equate to higher profitability, which would mean a more secure future.� In addition, technology exists to provide a technical means for a practical result.� One such result might be to ensure a crop of agriculture that is free from pests, or an irrigation system that provided a buffer to drought.� These types of technology mitigate risk in the long run, so when peasants take these risks, they do so in order to prevent a larger risk of starvation or bankruptcy later in life.� The moral economist sees the short-term risk and ignores the fact that a greater quality of life is one the driving factors behind production.�

�        These are the motives of the peasant according to the political economist.� Obtaining security and status for the family means the children will have a firm foundation from which to become prosperous, which serves as the peasant's retirement program.� Peasants are accustomed to taking chances.� Farming requires such a mindset, given that it is so chancy an endeavor.� The chance to secure a better future would entice the peasant.� Another enticement would be the individualistic desire for status within the community.� Being able to seize new technology is a proactive behavior that is seen as a status symbol among any people, peasant or otherwise.�

     It seems that the moral economy approach lends itself to viewing developing nations as mystic paradises, but upon closer examination, it appears this is not a realistic view and it discounts individual effort and innovation.  These are tenants of capitalism.  The view of the political economist is more accurate, realistic, and in support of the national aims of the United States.