View source for MARE Roundtable 1 meeting 2021-06-08

'''Topic:''' Planning for MARE 2021 DFM Roundtable 1, "Building out collaborations on dried fish social economies in Asia 1: Ideas"

'''Present:''' Derek, Eric, Madu, Johny, Mahfuz, Jessie, Kyoko, Jonah, Ben, Sisir, Jenia

==Reference==

*[[Social economy of value]] - Theory background paper (Working Group 1), originally authored by Johny Stephen with Jonah Olsen.

==Overview==
DEREK: Roundtable 1 (RT1) is on “social economy”; it is DFM's flagship session for the entire MARE conference. This has been scheduled for Tuesday June 29 at 11:00 in Holland.
{| class="wikitable"
|+Panel timings
!Time (minutes)
!Presenter
!Presentation
|-
|10
|Derek
|Introduction to the three Roundtables
|-
|20
|Mahfuz and Sisir
|“Complicating value in dried fish value chains” (Contributors: Mahfuzar Rahman, Sisir Pradhan, Ben Belton, Jonah Olsen, Derek Johnson). The main outline of the theoretical ideas in the project. The contrast between Mahfuz and Sisir's approaches may be fertile.
|-
|20
|Madu
|Paper on gender. This is an “operationalizing” case study, illustrating the application of a social economy framing.
|-
|8
|Kyoko
|Commentary on Madu's paper. Kyoko has a long history of working in gender + fisheries.
|-
|8
|Jenia
|Summary
|-
|50
|Jenia (facilitator)
|General discussion. 
|}
At the end of RT3, there is also an overall discussion facilitated by Ben. 

''What is “social economy”?'' There was originally an idea to write a theory paper with Ben at the outset of the project. Conceptually, the goal is to present a multidimensional approach to value, especially connected to well-being, that is linked to value chains. It should integrate social, cultural, and political aspects. We want to think about economies and value in creative ways. 

Ideally, we will start to apply these ideas in the panel. In the discussion, we will link back to the structure/conduct/performance framing in the [[Social economy approach to value chains|Stacked Value Chains]] approach.

MAHFUZ: I will discuss the diverse meanings of “value” that people use in their everyday lives, through economic and social relations, i.e., relational value. (Also: human rights as a normative approach to value.) I confirm that I am willing to present in this section.

SISIR: I am looking at social-ecological linkages across nodes in value chains, giving prominence to resources. This involves talking about “uncertainty” (social-ecological resilience) vs. “risks” (economics), and recognizing multiple equilibrium states.

JOHNY: I recall the original challenge of bringing all these different theories and models together into the DFM project, and the effort to encapsulate them in a figure on Feminist Anthropology. I have an interest in being part of the team – but note that the approach is much deeper than before.

[[File:Economic anthropology and feminist theory.svg|Economic anthropology and feminist theory|thumb|600px|alt=|center]]

JONAH: My research draws on political economy and the diverse economies framework. I focus on worker cooperatives, though not in a fisheries context. This is an exploration of values in a collective context; tracing networks; and cooperative value chains. 

DEREK: Jonah's work reinforces the importance of collective action (as ideals, working together to achieve action toward shared goals) in a capitalist economy, but also how the State has a sabotaging role, by changing policy frameworks. This as an area for action within DFM.

JESSIE: I am new to this conversation; my previous work concerned cultural issues and livelihoods. I am using the “assemblage” concept, mainly from geography. We should have an interest in disrupting theoretical framings based on field data, brought by other PhD candidates: for example, in talking about value chain “actors” we continue to assume calculated rationality, but our empirical data may suggest alternative approaches. 

DEREK: We could plant Jessie in the audience to ask questions, even though he is not ready to present his own research.

BEN: Social economy is a very broad concept, open to intersections with a wide range of theories. Everyone brings their own academic interests and theoretical perspectives, and can use this concept in their own way. Like “sustainability”, it is on the one hand vague, but also powerful in that it can be used in different settings. Going back to the proposal, the goal was to bring together value chains, political economy, and well-being. Value chains are networks that structure economic behaviour, but they are socially embedded. The structure/conduct/performance paradigm gives the structure but lacks attention to power, as in "who gains and who loses", and well-being – both relational and subjective, in terms of identity, meaning, and other forms of value. We could also say that they are “ecologically” embedded, in the sense of being shaped by materialities (political ecology). These are all important areas of interest. The term “value chains” is a bit of red herring – it is about networks that structure economic activity, and much less about value or value-added; we can think of "value chains" as essentially a synonym for “commodity chains”.

MADU: In looking at gender in dried fish value chains, I hope to pull together threads from different bodies of literature, aiming for a broader and more contextual understanding of value that is linked to social well-being. I want to bring social connections to the centre, with a link to intersectionality and a focus on relationality. 

DEREK: This contribution has an overlap with Mahfuz’s work. Gender illustrates the broader analytical perspective, which should be at the forefront.

KYOKO: The limitations of the concept of ''value chains'' are perhaps not from the word “value”, but the word “chain”. It is less of a “chain” (which is something linear) than a “net”. This is complicated in dried fish economies, given that the fish stay with people for longer – they are processed, rather than being sold right away – so there is a greater value or attachment to the fish among the processors.

JENIA: What is the role of gender in social economy? We can return to Johny’s diagram and update it. We can shift from political economy to political ecology. Let's think about hybridity, fluidity, and liminality: for example, the Sundarabans are neither land nor water; we have pluralistic forms of governance.

==Follow-up==
DEREK: I wonder whether a focused output from the group could look at some of the intersections between different applications of this malleable concept, while also presenting something relatively concrete. There is a need to turn the MARE conference discussions into outputs, ideally synthetic outputs. I urge everyone to pay attention to the term “value” in value chains, as Ben suggests – within the concept of “value chains”, ''value'' is in fact incidental. Nonetheless it is an important analytical term. 

BEN: Value chains theory is either asocial, or concerned only with a limited set of social interactions (e.g., governance). 

SISIR: We may think about the type of product, not just value chains in the abstract: there are different types of ecological value (gained or lost) connected to dried fish than with other types of commodity.

JESSIE: Following Kyoko’s comment on rethinking "chain", I recently came across this article on "flow", which might be useful to include in the review of "ideas": https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/660912

== ACTION ==
*MAHFUZ and SISIR will put together draft presentation summaries for their contributions (June 14)
*MADU will send her paper to Kyoko (June 14)
*MAHFUZ will share his literature review or paper outline/draft (June 14)
*SISIR will share his paper draft (June 14)
*EVERYONE will prepare key questions for Jenia (what is value? what is a “chain”?)
*ERIC will pencil in another meeting before the conference

[[Category:MARE 2021]]
[[Category:Minutes]]
[[Category:WG1]]