‘People are willing to fight to the end’. Romanticising the ‘moral’ in moral economies of irrigation

Elizabeth Harrison

doi:10.1177/0308275x20908298

Abstract

This article is about the continued salience of a particular understanding of moral economy in sub-Saharan Africa. Despite the fact that a significant body of anthropological theory argues against simplified binaries of market and moral economies, such binaries persist. These either romanticise or vilify moral economies and exist in both policy and academic contexts. Thus, moral economies are said to drive corruption or shape anti-market cultural stances. Meanwhile, a romantic fantasy of a non-capitalist rural economy oriented by morality rather than economic rationality continues to animate areas of development policy and to direct funding. My argument is not with the concept of moral economy itself, but with how it is marshalled in support of both romantic and sometimes negatively essentialised conceptions of people and places. The article sets out the case for the persistence of these ideas, focusing on their application to irrigation development and the problems with this. I then use an example from southern Malawi to illustrate how moral ideas of fairness and reciprocity interplay with processes of differentiation in access to (and exclusion from) land and labour and influence how people manage scarce resources. Whilst there are moral discourses and a mutual embeddedness of the moral and economic, these reflect a range of ethically informed positions which are influenced by social position and power. However, this emic perspective is largely absent from the more romanticised models. I conclude by reflecting on the politics of their persistence.

Highlights

How do ‘moral economies’ play a role in the collective management of natural resources? Are there ‘African’ moralities that enable or constrain this? Despite a wealth of anthropological argument against reification and dichomotising in the treatment of the relationship between economy and morality (Alexander et al, 2019; De Neve et al, 2008; Fassin 2012; McNamara, 2019; Olivier de Sardan, 2013; Palomera and Vetta, 2016; Simeant, 2015), these questions are still posed by those who seek to make sense of ‘the social’ and ‘culture’ as barriers to the success of development interventions
The possible benefits of the generalised reciprocity and mutual obligation implied by notions such as moral economy may be viewed positively, especially when seen as an element of the ‘social capital’ that is of interest to some development donors (Fine, 2008; Levien, 2015), and as key to the successful functioning of a ‘New Green Revolution’ (Kimambo et al, 2008) or underpinning reciprocity and sharing (Brewis et al, 2019)
This paper interrogates these uses of moral economy, as they have been discussed in relation to agriculture and to the specific case of irrigation management

Summary

Introduction

How do ‘moral economies’ play a role in the collective management of natural resources? Are there ‘African’ moralities that enable or constrain this? Despite a wealth of anthropological argument against reification and dichomotising in the treatment of the relationship between economy and morality (Alexander et al, 2019; De Neve et al, 2008; Fassin 2012; McNamara, 2019; Olivier de Sardan, 2013; Palomera and Vetta, 2016; Simeant, 2015), these questions are still posed by those who seek to make sense of ‘the social’ and ‘culture’ as barriers to (or facilitators of) the success of development interventions. This paper interrogates these uses of moral economy, as they have been discussed in relation to agriculture and to the specific case of irrigation management.

Results

Conclusion