The Moral Economy of the Peasant: Rebellion and Subsistence in Southeast Asia

by James C. Scott

James C. Scott places the critical problem of the peasant household—subsistence—at the center of this study. The fear of food shortages, he argues persuasively, explains many otherwise puzzling technical, social, and moral arrangements in peasant society, such as resistance to innovation, the desire to own land even at some cost in terms of income, relationships with other people, and relationships with institutions, including the state.

Once the centrality of the subsistence problem is recognized, its effects on notions of economic and political justice can also be seen. Scott draws from the history of agrarian society in lower Burma and Vietnam to show how the transformations of the colonial era systematically violated the peasants’ “moral economy” and created a situation of potential rebellion and revolution.

Demonstrating keen insights into the behavior of people in other cultures and a rare ability to generalize soundly from case studies, Scott offers a different perspective on peasant behavior that will be of interest particularly to political scientists, anthropologists, sociologists, and Southeast Asianists.

“The book is extraordinarily original and valuable and will have a very broad appeal. I think the central thesis is correct and compelling.”—Clifford Geertz

“In this major work, … Scott views peasants as political and moral actors defending their values as well as their individual security, making his book vital to an understanding of peasant politics.”—Library Journal

Genres: History, Anthropology, Nonfiction, Economics, Politics, Asia, Sociology

254 pages, Paperback

First published December 31, 1976

About the author

James C. Scott was an American political scientist and anthropologist specializing in comparative politics. He was a comparative scholar of agrarian and non-state societies, subaltern politics, and anarchism.

Reviews

[Stefania Dzhanamova · Rating 5 out of 5]

In colonial Southeast Asian societies, no segment of the population was worse off than the peasants. According to one historian, the position of the rural population could be compared to "that of a man standing permanently up to the neck in water, so that even a ripple is sufficient to drown him." Indeed, local droughts and floods, epidemics that killed plow animals, winds and rains at harvest that spoiled much of the grain, and parasites were only some of the misfortunes that constantly befell the peasants. Not to mention such problems as too dry or too wet land, the working head of the household's falling ill, too many mouths to feed etc. that plagued individual families. And even if the crop was sufficient, egregious rents and taxes easily made it insufficient. 
The ever present fear of food shortages and famine had prompted the rural population to devise what James C. Scott calls a "subsistence ethic." This vague term denominates all the strategies the peasants had designed over centuries of trial and error to preserve enough food to survive. The Southeast Asian peasant's needs were simple: enough rice for his household, a few other necessities, such as salt and cloth, and meeting the demands of the government. His subsistence ethic, which included planting techniques, forced generosity to other villagers, communal land, and work-sharing helped him achieve at least minimal economic stability. He valued safety above everything else and was often ready to sacrifice even his own future for it by selling some of his already scarce land or draft animals. 
Although the subsistence ethic was by far not the ideal solution, it still soothed some of the needs and fears of the rural population. Colonialism severely damaged this ethic, thus undermining the peasant's makeshift insurance. Control of the land passed from the hands of the villagers to those of a small class of landlords, whose unrestrained power over the rural population hindered any improvement in the peasants' living standard. Capitalism destroyed the protective relationship that had existed between landlords and tenants. What had once been a mutually beneficial agreement that provided economic help to the peasant in case of food shortage turned into a fixed claim by the landholder.  The new landholders gained the opportunity to be as exploitative as they wished. Supported by the colonial state's militia and corrupt courts, they were able to break the traditional terms of tenancy, which obliged them to protect their tenants against disaster, to seize the land of debtors, and to violate the subsistence ethic of the peasants as a whole. 
The more commercialized the colonial agriculture became, the more it aggravated the rural population's wretched conditions. The biggest problem of the peasantry became the lack of minimum income. In order to be a fully functioning member of the village community, a family needed a certain amount of resources for ceremonial and social obligations. To fall below this level – a frequent, and unfortunate, occurrence – meant not only starvation, but also loss of social standing. The colonial economic system both stripped the villagers of their self-made insurance ethic, which, while not wholly effective, at least safeguarded the peasants from common calamities, and at the same time did not provide for a minimum income. On top of that, because the colonial authorities maintained a colonial mindset and their first and foremost care was to received as much profit from the colony as possible, the rural population was crushed under a backbreaking burden of governmental taxation. 
While all of the aforementioned is more than enough to provoke the peasants' outrage, nothing caused as much discontent among them as the taxes. "One would be hard pressed to find many demonstrations, petitions, or rebellions involving the peasantry in which the burdens of taxation were not a prominent grievance," writes Scott. The trouble with those taxes was that they were fixed — they fell indiscriminately on the rich and the poor in good times and in bad. They were exacted regardless of how much the land had produced in that particular season, and if half of the crop was lost, it meant the tax burden would be twice as heavy as it would have been in a good season. Furthermore, the insatiable colonial officials imposed additional taxes – on salt, alcohol, wood, boats, and other items the peasant family could not do without, and on the sale of water buffaloes – at a whim. The main way colonial taxation differed from and was worse than the pre-colonial one, however, was that it was stringently enforced and impossible to circumvent. 

This outrageous exploitation of the rural population provoked its justified indignation, and since all attempts to negotiate with the authorities fell on deaf ears, the peasant was faced with two frightening options: to starve or to revolt. And revolt he did. Throughout the years, the colonial government was incessantly plagued by a variety of subversive activities. Wayward groups, bandits and smugglers, peasants all resisted colonial oppression as they could. The ordinary villagers, in particular, were the most frequent troublemakers despite the fact that the lack of modern weapons obviously doomed each local uprising to a failure from the very beginning. It is clear that the peasantry did not revolt for fun; it did so out of desperation. However, the exploitation they were subject too was a necessary but not sufficient condition to spur the peasants toward such risks, argues Scott. Otherwise, he adds, all colonies would have been in a permanent state of civil war. 
To resolve to rise in revolt, the villagers have to experience a "shock." It may come in the form of severe price fluctuation or a serious natural disaster. With the expansion of the colonial system, such a shock became the mass migration of young men to the cities, which deprived the village of work-hands and leadership. The introduction of capitalism tied the village to the urban economy. This dependence "on the crumbs of the labor market" and the vulnerability to urban economic recessions that came with it proved to be the biggest collective shock for the rural population, much bigger than poor harvests or low crop prices. 

James C. Scott has written an insightful analysis of Southeast Asian colonial peasantry, the roots of its economic plight, and the nature of rural rebellion. While grasping some of his arguments might prove challenging for a reader unversed in Economics, Scott conveys his main ideas clearly and often compellingly. This is an interesting study, full of important questions and answers and even tinged with witty humor. Worth a read.

[Giyanto · Rating 4 out of 5]

Buku ini saya temukan pertama kali di Perpustakaan Fakultas Geografi. Rencana akan saya ulas secara mendetail tapi masih dalam tahap riset pustaka pendukungnya. Namun demikian akan saya coba cicil sedikit ulasannya di sini.

Buku ini memiliki landasan argumen tentang ekonomi moral petani, yaitu etika subsistensi. Yang kemudian ditarik untuk menjelaskan secara logis mengapa ketika masa kolonial banyak terjadi pemberontakan petani. Riset buku ini mengambil setting penelitian pada pemberontakan Saya San di Burma dan Soviet-Soviet Nghe-Tinh di Vietnam. Kemudian dicoba untuk digeneralisasikan untuk kasus pemberontakan masyarakat Petani di Asia Tenggara pada masa kolonial.

Inti gagasan tentang etika subsitensi ialah, prinsip "dahulukan selamat" dari para petani. Etika ini muncul dari kondisi ekologi petani yang seringkali menghadapi ketidakpastian cuaca dan hasil panen. Dampaknya kemudian adalah sikap konservatif petani. Dari sikap konservatif, dahulukan selamat, menciptakan sikap enggan terhadap segala bentuk inovasi pertanian dan meminimkan segala bentuk resiko. Dengan bahasa yang lebih sederhana, petani lebih memilih hidup pas-pasan asal bisa makan setiap harinya daripada memilih penghasilan yang tinggi dengan resiko kegagalan yang lebih besar di masa depan---yang bisa mengancam landasan subsistensinya.

Sikap ini kemudian menciptakan bentuk 'asuransi' terselubung dalam relasi komunitas desa. Para petani, khususnya petani kecil yang tidak memiliki lahan, lebih suka memilih menyewa lahan daripada menjadi buruh yang menjual tenaganya. Keuntungan tidak langsung dari menyewa lahan ialah kedekatan mereka terhadap para pemilik lahan, dalam bahasa antropologi disebut patron. Sehingga memunculkan hubungan patron-klien. Hubungan-hubungan tidak resmi ini dijadikan modus para petani untuk mengamankan tingkat subsistensi dasar mereka ketika terjadi masa-masa sulit atau gagal panen---dengan harapan mendapat bantuan dari para patron. Dalam hubungan inilah kemudian menciptakan sebuah sistem hubungan normatif tentang makna keadilan.

Seorang penguasa (patron) disebut adil ketika tidak membiarkan, tanpa memberi bantuan, kepada seorang yang sedang mengalami kesulitan. Seorang yang kaya dalam masyarakat desa dianggap wajib melindungi kebutuhan subsistensi bagi si lemah. Katakanlah membantu dalam bentuk dana ketika ada hajatan, memberi pinjaman atau bantuan biaya sekolah anak-anak para klien, ataupun memberi kebutuhan pokok di saat terjadi kegagalan panen yang cukup panjang.

Sebaliknya, imbal balik dari sikap yang demikian adalah sebuah kebutuhan simbolis atas penghormatan dari para klien terhadap patron-patron mereka. Hubungan simbiosis ini memberi sebuah legitimasi bagi para patron untuk dapat mengendalikan sumberdaya yang ada dalam komunitas desa. Dengan demikian, posisi superior dari para patron dapat dilanggengkan.

Dari sinilah cerita mulai berubah pada saat datangnya kolonialisme. Hubungan patron-klien dari masyarakat petani menjadi terdistorsi karena perubahan relasi politik masyarakat desa. Sebelum datangnya kolonialisme, semua bentuk pajak dan pungutan ditetapkan dengan cara yang sangat luwes. Yaitu dengan mempertimbangkan kondisi panen. Namun berbeda dengan sistem politik kolonial yang menetapkan pajak per kepala, dan pajak-pajak lainnya tanpa memperhatikan kondisi para petani. Dampaknya adalah terganggungnya batas-batas keterjaminan subsistensi kehidupan petani. Selain itu, para petani juga dipaksa menanam tanaman yang bukan menjadi kebutuhan subsistensinya.

Kondisi tersebut juga merusak relasi patron-klien. Sebelum datangnya kolonialisme, seorang patron mendapatkan legitimasi dari kebaikan tanganya dalam membantu para klien. Tapi setelah datangnya kolonialisme, para patron lebih memperkokoh legitimasinya berdasarkan hubungan mereka terhadap pemerintah pusat, yaitu pemerintah negara kolonial. Hal ini menyebabkan terhimpitnya kaum lemah masyarakat petani. Sehingga menciptakan batu landasan bagi bentuk-bentuk pemberontakan (disambung . . .)

[Pepe · Rating 4 out of 5]

A groundbreaking work in challenging the (neo)classical economics, that tries to discredit peasant politics in rebellion. Scott shows us peasants have their own calculation based on risk-aversion behavior. Hence, it's not always "rationality" of which never belongs to peasants' own assertion on themselves either. Nevertheless, some questions remain. For example, the depiction of the peasantry in Scott's work here is quite unidimensional and static. There is no discussion of upward mobility or intergenerational politics within the peasantry household. Also, peasants in his account seem like an individual agent. Although such a take is admirable, but peasant studies have proved that household plays a decisive role in shaping peasants' decision and cultivation pattern. Still, this book is a crucial source to understand in what under circumstances peasants would and, more importantly, would not engage into rebellions--without discrediting peasants' own political and socio-economic vision.

[Enrico La Vina · Rating 5 out of 5]

Scott explores "the nature of exploitation in peasant society as its victims are likely to see it, and what one might call the creation of social dynamite rather than its detonation." In other words, he doesn't focus on the specific reasons why Southeast Asian farmers rebel. He is, instead, interested in the conditions that make peasant uprisings more likely. He argues that peasant rebellion is linked to their (in)ability to meet the basic necessities of life. Farmers were more likely to rebel when they were living below subsistence level. Conversely, they would accept the status quo if they met their basic needs.

Scott claims that landlords were traditionally expected to, among other things, sponsor lavish weddings, provide cheap loans, and pay for the medical bills of peasants. In exchange, the landlords would receive their obedience and support. Peasants would accept—begrudgingly or not—unfair dealings with landlords if they fulfilled what Scott calls "the norm of reciprocity." The failure of landlords to fulfill their traditional obligations provoked the ire of peasants.

Two global trends accelerated the demise of traditional rural life, and with that, the capacity of peasants to meet the bare necessities: (1) the imposition of colonialism and (2) the rise of the bureaucratic state. For Scott, the imposition of colonialism meant the integration of local farming villages into the global economic system. Among other things, this meant that the fortunes of peasants were tied to the ebbs and flows of the global economy. Consequently, the income of Southeast Asian farmers cratered with the occurrence of the Great Depression in the United States. They could also no longer rely on landlords for help. The commodification of agriculture meant that the farmers were now the employees—not clients—of landlords. These landlords no longer helped peasants get through bad times. They were on their own.

The rise of the bureaucratic state made things worse. Pre-colonial states tried to impose harsh taxes on their peasants. Farmers, in response, would simply move elsewhere. The pre-colonial state was too weak to go after them. The bureaucratic state, however, had the administrative capacity and military might to impose unpopular regressive taxes on farmers. These policies not only made life harder for peasants—they were considered unjust. Many of the peasant rebellions started as protests against regressive taxes that accounted for neither the need or circumstances of farmers. In sum, peasant discontent stemmed from the twin problems of colonialism and state-building.

What are the characteristics of these uprisings? Scott notes that peasants were rarely proponents of socialism. He argues instead that "they take up arms less often to destroy elites than to compel them to meet their moral obligations." Many of them sought the reinstatement of the traditional landlord-tenant relationship—the return of the benevolent landlord—rather than the eradication of landlords as a class. For Scott, mainstream theories of exploitation and revolution—Marx comes to mind—cannot explain the behavior and motivation of these Southeast Asian peasants. He says that "deductively realized concepts of exploitation" are limited because they "rarely provide a conceptual link between the a priori notion of exploitation and the subjective feelings of the exploited." In other words, policies which are theoretically unjust may be felt as legitimate. Case in point: the traditional patron-client relationship that many peasants accepted and yearned for is theoretically exploitative. Here's a more modern example: in the USA, universal healthcare is repudiated by many of the people who stand to gain the most from it. Scott concludes that deductive approaches to exploitation should give way to more empirically oriented analysis.

Scott's insights conform with my experience as a rural development worker. For a couple of years, I helped farmers, fisherfolk, and indigenous people fend off human rights violations from the private and public sectors. The villagers whom I worked with were critical of the landgrabbers, yes. They rightfully pointed out that the rich tended to richer, while the poor became poorer. They did not, however, demand the complete end of inequality. They simply wanted to have a dignified life. This means plenty of food on the table, the provision of public services like education and healthcare, and unlimited access to the land and the seas. Now, I am not at all claiming that my limited experience with these farmers is representative of all rural social movements. Groups like La Via Campesino have, among other things, fought for peasants' rights, climate justice, and food sovereignty. They are at the forefront of the fight for a more humane world. Still, I think there is something fundamentally correct about Scott's analysis. Leftists such as myself may often be tempted to superimpose their conception of justice and exploitation on the very people that they claim to be in solidarity with.

With that said, I don't think we should discard normative theories of justice entirely. Descriptive analysis of exploitation can only get us so far. At some point, we have to transition from analyzing "what is" to thinking about "what it ought to be." While empirical analysis can tell us what the world is like, it cannot tell us what the world should be. By Scott's own admission, the moral economy of the peasants still sanctioned the exploitative relationship between landlord and peasant. To break the cycle of oppression, we need to go beyond what we can simply observe. In the parlance of political theory, we need to construct a new political imaginary. Notwithstanding Scott's critique, the Marxist conception of false consciousness still has analytical utility.

Ultimately, this book is a must-read for anyone interested in peasant rebellions and social change. His expertise is only surpassed by his empathy for the farmers. In the words of the great Benedict Anderson, James Scott has "the breadth of vision, intellectual self-confidence, and moral purpose required of a true Southeast Asianist of stature." Like all great books, its importance has only become more apparent throughout the years.

As I publish this review, the Amazon has burned for months, food insecurity is still prevalent, and and farmers continue to be exploited. Climate change will have a devasting effect on the food supply and the welfare of farmers. In the Philippines, where I am from, Asia's longest-running insurgency still has no end in sight and the government, in all its wisdom, recently removed restrictions on rice importations. Under-resourced farmers now have to compete with large-scale farmers outside the country. This may have led to a 21% decrease in the average total income of rice farmers who are already poor to begin with. Undoubtedly, the conditions for a global rural crisis are in place.

Scott's book has a lot to say about our current predicament. Among other things, it tells us what will likely happen when the powers-that-be mistreat farmers. For everyone's sake, let's hope that the lessons of this book are internalized by policymakers.

[Bryan]

In The moral economy of the peasant: rebellion and subsistence in Southeast Asia, Scott attempts to articulate a certain logic within the chaos that is the history of peasant society in Southeast Asia. It is the logic of the “moral economy” – a system of values and norms particular to peasants living near the subsistence margin which provides a framework to explain why they might or might not rebel.

The central argument of the book is a fairly simple one: The peasantry has particular notions of justice and exploitation that are based on the need to protect the peasant family’s ability to assure its basic survival. It is these particular notions which underpin its view of the elite and their exactions, and therefore also its inclinations to rebel at any one historical moment. Scott argues that it is this “subsistence ethic” which constitutes a fundamental part of the morality of all peasants who live close to the margin and face a perpetual threat to their existence. Due to his precarious position, the peasant avoids risk and prizes security instead. The overwhelming concern of the peasant to ensure that his family has enough food year after year leads him to avoid undue risks in subsistence decisions, an economic logic that runs against neoclassical predictions of profit maximization. What is equally important, he highlights further, is that this “subsistence ethic” is not just based on an economic and materialist logic; it is at the same time a moral claim. Having enough food to eat is both a physiological need and an ethical right. It is precisely this moral quality that justifies anger and rebellion against unjust claims by the state and elite.

The book consists of seven chapters. In the introduction and first two chapters, Scott lays the theoretical foundation for the rest of the book, explaining what he means by the “subsistence ethic”. Scott demonstrates how this subsistence logic of “safety first” underlies many of the concrete choices and values that are characteristic of the peasantry in terms of their view of hierarchy, village reciprocity, occupational preferences, tenancy and taxation in pre-capitalist society. In chapters 3 and 4, he proceeds to show how this peasant ethic was increasingly violated with the advent of the colonial state and the capitalist economy. In the colonial era, the pecuniary burden on the peasantry increased as taxation became more ubiquitous and rigidified, and as the commercialization of the village economy exposed the peasantry increasingly to the vagaries of the market. As a result, they had less and less recourse to the protective and mutual-help institutions of the pre-capitalist village. In chapter 5, he examines this more closely in the effect of the Great Depression on Cochinchina, Nghe An, Ha Tinh (Nghe-Tinh Revolt) and Lower Burma (Saya San rebellion). In chapter 6, Scott emphasizes the moral dimension of these peasant claims which he expresses in terms of “the norm of reciprocity” and “the right to subsistence”. In the final chapter, besides restating the essential points of his argument, Scott concludes on the observation that these values and grievances are captured in everyday peasant cultural expression, and that it is therefore possible to turn to popular art forms to glean for evidence of this peasant morality.

The moral economy of the peasant counts as one of the more influential pieces of literature on peasant insurrection. When juxtaposed with other works in the field employing a structuralist line of argumentation, Scott’s book stands on the side of those of a more phenomenological approach, with his focus on the subjective understandings and inner worlds of the peasant rather than exogenous factors, even if he remains sympathetic to structural explanations of rebellion. The moral economy of the peasant has perhaps most famously been remembered in opposition to Samuel Popkin’s The rational peasant (1979), which was written expressly in reaction to the former. The Scott-Popkin debate has revolved around several issues: First, Scott’s moral rationality differs from Popkin’s material rationality in that while peasants base their decisions essentially on subsistence and survival needs according to the former, the latter highlights the wider range of factors which peasants take into account as actors with a rational choice. Popkin argues that peasants, though poor, do often still have surplus in some form, and are hence not as risk-averse as what Scott claims. Rather, they often make investments which may even be risky at times. Second, Scott’s negative view of the capitalist economy vis-à-vis the peasant has been challenged with a more nuanced (and optimistic) perspective that recognizes the possible benefits of the market for the peasant. Third, Scott’s description of the norms of the pre-capitalist village is rather romanticized. It has been pointed out that norms may actually be more malleable and dependent on political interactions, not unchanging and orthodox, than what Scott implies.

Perhaps the most glaring weakness of the book is the ostensible lack of local or indigenous sources. What do we make of Scott’s claims of valuing the morality and cultural universe of the peasantry when an overwhelming portion of Scott’s sources are Western or colonial? Although Scott devotes one entire chapter to elaborating the morality which he argues is key to understanding peasant behavior, there are no Vietnamese or Burmese sources to validate his claims. He notes in the final pages of the book that popular songs, poems and other art forms are a medium through which the peasant voice may be heard, but this is rather late and insufficient.

To be sure, The moral economy of the peasant is nevertheless valuable for how it highlights the rationality of the peasant, albeit a moral one, making logical what initially seems to be counter-intuitive behavior. For example, the observation that the peasant works himself disproportionately hard for marginal returns should not be attributed to some exotic peasant personality, but rather reflects a particular logic based on subsistence needs, Scott notes. Furthermore, by focusing on the peasant’s morality and worldview, his phenomenological approach is an insightful attempt at bringing the peasant’s agency to the fore in the study of rebellion, even if this is not entirely successful. The book is a valuable read for those interested in development, rebellion and resistance, or peasant politics in general. It will be particularly useful to the student of peasant insurrection keen on becoming acquainted with the debates between the moral economists and the rational choice theorists, as well as with the contentions between scholars of a more structuralist inclination and those in favor of a more phenomenological approach – debates which remain pertinent even today.

[Aatrey Saxena · Rating 5 out of 5]

Extremely thought provoking and forced me to re-evaluate my opinion of feudalism. Also highlights the destructiveness of colonialism on the peasantry.

Scott focuses on Burma and Vietnam. Would be keen to read whether the conclusions he has translate across other geographies.

[Brurce Mecca · Rating 5 out of 5]

I am grad student at Yale and reading this makes me want to take James's class on agrarian study next spring. His way on walking the reader to understand subsistence ethics is easy to digest, a wide array of examples in several peasant societies are presented, and I enjoy his way of contrasting different ideas. It is difficult to come up with thesis sentences even for one of his chapter, since there are many things that are wrapped up. The book is recommended especially if you have mind-boggling questions on economy and morality

[John · Rating 4 out of 5]

Interesting take on the decision making process utilized among generationally high-risk individuals. Volatility with critical risk sets in motion a game of risk minimization with all the institutions that follow rather than a game of value maximization which we would normally encounter in a society w/ social safety nets. A mismatch of these two institutions results in eventual loss whether through revolt or famine. My critique would rest in the objectivity of fairness rather than a reliance on the behavioral perspective wherein we can measure the aggregate feelings towards reciprocity. Additionally there were a variety of revolts and movements among peasants utilized in the study, but their comparisons were made with broad strokes. I don't know if we can safely support the assertion made by the author utilizing such units of comparison.

[Gus · Rating 4 out of 5]

"There are districts in which the position of the rural population is that of a man standing permanently up to the neck in water, so that even a ripple is sufficient to drown him."

An excellent study on the economics, politics and moral systems of peasant societies.

Throughout the course of history, with the rise of global capitalism, there has been a mass shift from agrarian states to market-based economies. Such shifts have never been peaceful, from 18th century Europe to 20th century colonial regimes in Southeast Asia and Africa.

However, for the modern observer, including politicians and economists around the world, the actions of the peasantry can appear puzzling and thus, it's tempting to label them as backwards and irrational: Why do peasants grow rice that can barely feed them when they could grow a cash crop like coffee and earn a lot more by selling it on the market?

Focusing on the colonial regimes of Myanmar and Vietnam, Scott masterfully debunks the myth of the irrational peasant and instead presents us with the concept of a Moral Economy, which can be summarized as follows: It's not the amount of grain that's taken by the landlord (and the state) that's the issue, it is the amount of grain that's left.

For the peasant, subsistence is at the center of everything. It does not matter how much money he can make from coffee. If the market prices drop, he very much risks starving to death.

Scott shows how the rise of the colonial state, and with it the introduction of markets, have resulted in a constant and systematic erosion of an array of securities that guaranteed the subsistence of the peasant in precolonial times: the remission of rent in times of bad harvests, the access to credit from his landlord, etc.

The book covers a depth of topics which I cannot do justice in this review. Being an academic work, it can be hard to get through and the author restates his point multiple times. Best chapters are six, a fascinating analysis of the morals of explotation and justice for the peasant, and seven, a theorisation on what causes Peasant rebellions and what prevents them.

Written in the 70's, about events that happened in the first half of the past century, the theme of inequality is omnipresent and resonates just as much today, especially in post-colonial societies.

[Caleb Parks · Rating 5 out of 5]

Read as a part of my ongoing attempt to read all of Abu Muquwama's counterinsurgency book list. This text fills an interesting niche for that reason because of the subject matter engaged. This treatment of the situation surrounding peasant farmers and the political economy of the area of southeast Asia is enlightening. While the book itself is coming up on 50 years old, extrapolations can be made from it in regards to current political situations. Scott deals with the rapid transition from a classical agrarian society constantly on the brink of starvation to a market economy with more starvation and deficit. I don't want to spoil the text for the reader so I'll be brief. Scott details the old order, now over a century ago, to the capitalist one of the current day. His focus is on the political economy of the previous era and it's customs as they are eventually ended by the rapid imposition of market capitalism. The spoon that stirs the pot are arrangements of the poor and rich regarding rice from the previous era, and the effects of those customs disappearing within the span of about a decade. The onset of radicalization due to many factors play a role in the terrorism and eventual Communist influence in the region.

The resistance to capitalist modernity and more specifically it's ideas, as well as Pashtunwali, can be seen within these pages. I am of course speaking about the Graveyard of Empires, Afghanistan. With just a bit of background and imagination, we see why they don't wish to change their ways to a Neoliberal regime.

Worth the read; I even suggest it.

[Gina · Rating 3 out of 5]

Really thorough and well done. I appreciated the way Scott balanced with comparisons between different towns in the same region to comparisons to different countries and time periods. It feels like everything has been looked at.

It is interesting but logical to see how decisions are made, and what factors are tolerable and what aren't. It is not at all surprising that factors were less likely to balance out under colonialism, or that smaller and closer relationships lead to better conditions. If you see your neighbor in trouble, that is harder to ignore than the people several villages away who are just part of the taxes you expect.

The unexpected result is that it makes me feel like I should read The Prince again for that take on preserving peace and stability.

[Liam · Rating 5 out of 5]

"'Oh my dear children, remember this saying: / those who steal by night are the brigands / those who steal by day are the mandarins.'" (quoting a Vietnamese saying, 109)

"We can begin, I believe, with two moral principles that seem firmly embedded in both the social patterns and injunctions of peasant life: the norm of reciprocity and the right to subsistence. There is good reason for viewing both the norm of reciprocity and the right to subsistence as genuine moral components of the 'little tradition.' Reciprocity serves as a central moral formula for interpersonal conduct. The right to subsistence, in effect, defines the minimal needs that must be met for members of the community within the context of reciprocity." (167)

[Matthew Sadowski · Rating 4 out of 5]

“It is especially at the level of culture that a defeated or intimidated peasantry may nurture its stubborn moral dissent from an elite-created social order. This symbolic refuge is not simply a source of solace in a precarious life, not simply an escape. It represents an alternative moral universe in embryo—a dissident subculture, an existentially true and just one, which helps unite its members as a human community and as a community of values. In this sense, it is as much a beginning as an end.”

[Deva · Rating 5 out of 5]

Buku ini menceritakan bagaimana peasant (wong tani) melakukan perlawanan ketikda ketidakadilan sistem ekonomi termasuk rezim agraria yang berlaku - telah melewati batas subsistensi (hidup pas-pasan) yang selama ini mereka terima. Tidak ada malaikat penolong, hanya usaha diri-sendiri yang dapat menyelematkan mereka untuk kembali ke keadaan semua yang tironis di tengah lumbung pangan : subsistensi.

[Peter Goggins · Rating 5 out of 5]

Another Scott banger - good insights into the motivations of peasants in Southeast Asia paddy civilizations. Yet another work by him that could serve as the basis for a dozen thesis. Dry, as per usual, with the core points beaten to death, but entirely worth plowing through.

[aldo zirsov · Rating 4 out of 5]

4/5

[aldo zirsov · Rating 4 out of 5]

4/5

[Jenny · Rating 3 out of 5]

it's really cute how dr. mccarthy thinks i'm smart enough to understand this

[Matthew Kowalyk · Rating 3 out of 5]

It’s very dry and not organized in a very engaging way, but if you get through that, it’ll provide a really neat way of thinking about non-monetary relationships in political arrangements.

[Anto]

fgdfgrtg

[Gill · Rating 5 out of 5]

Outlines how peasants react to volatility and threats of volatility to their livelihoods (though not in so many words). This book is fascinating for its predictions about peasant resistance and violence. Must be read with his other work to really draw out the lineage.

[عبدالله · Rating 3 out of 5]

نظرية فريدة من نوعها ، تفسر الكثير من الظواهر الإجتماعية والإقتصادية والدينية ؛ ولكنها انتقائية قاصرة على ثقافة الشرق الأقصى وبعض الفترات المسيحية التي تخدم فكرة الكاتب .. لو كان الكاتب أكثر موضوعية لفشلت فكرته جزئيًا مرتين على الأقل بين بيت لحم ومكة المكرمة.

كتاب جيد.

[William · Rating 5 out of 5]

The southeast asian farmer was always on the brink of subsistence as this book describes. Scott marshalls evidence from the 19th and 20th century to paint a picture of the peasant and his moral universe.

[Genevieve · Rating 2 out of 5]

This book helps you understand substance living and thinking.

[Adi Dizkrullah]

nice book

[Michael · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is another really interesting study wherein Scott tries to delineate when and why peasants engage in rebellion.

[Phyllis]

I don't want to say this but his view is pretty much the other side of classical utilitarianism.

[Muhammad Caesar · Rating 5 out of 5]

i want to reading this book

[Hunter Marston · Rating 3 out of 5]

Intensely dry and not a fun read, but it was definitely educational.

[Michael Catalano · Rating 3 out of 5]

The Moral Economy of the Peasant was recommended to me by an old Comparative Politics professor after I had expressed interest in reading scholarly works on authoritarian regime structure. While this book did not satisfy my initial intent in reading it, I found the analysis compelling enough to continue through the book (dry as it might have been).

Though the book has limitations, not least of which 40 years have passed since publication, Scott effectively utilizes historical data from provinces across Southeast Asia to analyze how colonialism, agricultural capitalization, and political change caused a breakdown of feudal tradition/social responsibility. With subsistence farmers often up to their neck in water, even the slightest economic wave or change to tax/rent can submerge the farmer and the family. As a result, farmers view exploitation not in terms of how much a landlord/the state takes, rather it is how much is left to subsist on.

Unfortunately, theory and the case studies do not fit neatly together to make the connection of a peasant farmer's view of exploitation and their choice of recourse (revolt, resistance, nonresistance, etc.). Limited in scope as the case studies might be, the structure of this subsistence-exploitation theory used in Southeast Asia can be transferred and applied to case studies spanning the world and time periods past. While I have not had a chance to read any follow up studies using the frame work, I am more inclined to at this point.

I only recommend this book to political science/social science junkies as it is a dense thicket of scholarly work, most likely a grad school read.