Hostname: page-component-68945f75b7-6rp8b Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-05T03:17:34.640Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Note on the Idea of the Moral Economy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2013

William James Booth
William James Booth
Affiliation:
McGill University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In their research note Robert Bates and Amy Curry (1992) have drawn our attention to the importance for political science of the challenges posed by the moral economic approach. Using their essay as a springboard and recasting their understanding of the idea of the moral economy, I show that the full significance of this controversy would be better illuminated by moving the debate on to a different terrain, one that captures the fundamental sources of the antagonism between the moral economic and competing approaches. I begin by setting out the central difficulty in Bates and Curry's reading of the moral economy argument and relate that to how the controversy has been framed in the recent political science literature. I then offer a sketch of the core claims of the moral economic approach, drawing out the radicalness of their challenge, and offer an estimate of their weaknesses and value. I conclude with some observations about political philosophy and the idea of the moral economy.

Type
Research Notes
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 87 , Issue 4 , December 1993 , pp. 949 - 954
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1993

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bates, Robert H. 1983. Essays on the Political Economy of Rural Africa. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bates, Robert H., and Curry, Amy Farmer. 1992. “Community Versus Market: A Note on Corporate Villages.” American Political Science Review 86:457–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Booth, William James. 1993. Households: On the Moral Architecture of the Economy. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coase, R. H. 1952. “The Nature of the Firm.” In Readings in Price Theory, ed. Stigler, George J. and Boulding, Kenneth E.. Chicago: Richard Irwin.Google Scholar
Dalton, George. 1961. “Economic Theory and Primitive Society.” American Anthropologist 63:1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans-Pritchard, E. E. 1940. The Nuer. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Finley, Moses I. 1973. The Ancient Economy. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Gauthier, David. 1986. Morals by Agreement. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Geertz, Clifford. 1983. Local Knowledge. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Godelier, Maurice. 1974. “Débat sur l'œuvre de Karl Polanyi.” Annales: Économies, sociétés, civilisations 29:1371–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gunderson, Gerald A. 1982. “Economic Behavior in the Ancient World.” In Explorations in the New Economic History, ed. Ransom, Roger L., Sutch, Richard, and Walton, Gary W.. New York: Academic.Google Scholar
Hampton, Jean. 1986. Hobbes and the Social Contract Tradition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hechter, Michael. 1983. “Karl Polanyi's Social Theory: A Critique.” In The Microfoundations of Macrosociology, ed. Hechter, Michael. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
Kolm, Serge-Christophe. 1983. “Introduction à la réciprocité générale.” Information sur les sciences sociales 22:569–621.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kolm, Serge-Christophe. 1984. La bonne économie: La réciprocité générale. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mansbridge, Jane J. ed., 1990. Beyond Self-Interest. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
North, Douglass C. 1977. “Markets and Other Allocation Systems in History: The Challenge of Karl Polanyi.” Journal of European Economic History 6:703–16.Google Scholar
North, Douglass C. 1981. Structure and Change in Economic History. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
Pearson, Harry W. 1957. “The Economy Has No Surplus: Critique of a Theory of Development.” In Trade and Market in the Early Empires, ed. Polanyi, Karl, Arensberg, Conrad M., and Pearson, Harry W.. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Polanyi, Karl. 1944 [1957]. The Great Transformation. Boston: Beacon.Google Scholar
Polanyi, Karl. 1960. “On the Comparative Treatment of Economic Institutions in Antiquity.” In City Invincible, ed. Kraeling, Carl H. and Adams, Robert M.. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Polanyi, Karl. 1968. Primitive, Archaic, and Modern Economies: Essays of Karl Polanyi. ed. Dalton, George. Garden City, NJ: Doubleday.Google Scholar
Polanyi, Karl. 1977. The Livelihood of Man. New York: Academic.Google Scholar
Popkin, Samuel L. 1979. The Rational Peasant. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Posner, Richard A. 1981. The Economics of Justice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Scott, James C. 1976. The Moral Economy of the Peasant. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Taylor, Michael. N.d. “Structure, Culture, and Action in the Explanation of Social Change.” In Politics and Rationality, ed. Booth, William James, James, Patrick, and Meadwell, Hudson. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Forthcoming.Google Scholar
Titmuss, Richard M. 1971. The Gift Relationship. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
Tribe, Keith. 1978. Land, Labour, and Economic Discourse. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Veyne, Paul. 1974. “Debat sur l'oeuvre de Karl Polanyi.” Annales: Économies, sociétés, civilisations 29:1375–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Veyne, Paul. 1976. Le pain et le cirque. Paris: Éditions du Seuil.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.