Social economy of value

This document aims to build the conceptual foundations for the Dried Fish Matters project (DFM). The DFM project was proposed on two main theoretical foundations: Value Chains and Social Economy. In this paper, while we first attempt to ground the foundations of the DFM project on these two theories; we will also explore the possibility of integrating various other concepts and theories such as Socio-ecological systems, interactive governance, political ecology, political economy and feminist theory. These concepts are the interest areas of the different partners of the project and will be part of the larger eclectic study of the DFM project.

We acknowledge that these different concepts may not neatly weave into a coherent conceptual framework at initial stages of the project. In-fact, many of these concepts are bound to throw up various contradictory ideas as well. However, our goal is to both understand the commonalities and acknowledge the contradictions, thereby establishing a set of conceptual building blocks for the DFM project.

This is intended to be a working paper and we are hoping that towards the end of the first phase of the project we would have contributions from the different teams and their disciplines to further develop this conceptualization.

Social Economy  

Figure outlining the role of feminist theory in connecting economic anthropology, social economy, and theoretical perspectives used in the DFM project

In this section, we will first sketch out the ideas of ‘social economy’ and ‘value chain’ in relation to the project. We will then try to look at the intersection of other theories and concepts that the project partners will engage with during the course of the of the project.

Social Economy and Economic Anthropology

The term ‘Social Economy’ has been used in a variety context. Most commonly, it is used to denote the wide spectrum of economic activities that is out side the purview of the market economy, such as the non- profits sector, cooperatives etc. (Toye & Ninacs, 2002, Restakis, 2006). A lot has been written about such an understanding of social economy both as a theory and as a practice (ibid) As a practice, social economy is seen as an alternative to main stream market based economy that works on the principles such as reciprocity, redistribution and social justice (Demoustier & Rousselière, 2006).

We will however be using social economy in a slightly different context. While we would be borrowing some ideas from the broader literature in social economy, we will be focusing largely on the gamut of social relations that are build around the production, processing and trade of dried fish, we will also try to shift our focus on the nature and content of these relationships. We root our understanding of social economy in the academic traditions of Economic Anthropology, where the production, processing, trading and consumption of goods and services are seen not as impersonal economic activities, but understood and situated in the larger context of social interactions. Studying these social relations involves understanding social hierarchies, caste/class relations, culture, institutions, power, gender, and environment among many others.

Economic Anthropology has a rich tradition in theorizing social relations in reference to economic processes. Early debates in modern economic anthropology centered around the substantivist vs formalist debate (Hann & Hart, 2011 pp 55 -71).  The central argument for the formalist have been that an individual’s participation in an economic process is based on the rational choice he/she makes. This strand is very much aligned to the neo classical economic model (ibid). The substantivist on the other hand, largely led by the works of Karl Polyani (ibid), argue that not all economic transactions are governed by rational choices. In many non western and in some western economies there are enough examples to show that there are other societal choices such as redistribution and reciprocity govern economic interactions.  While the substantivist vs formalist debate dominated the discussions in economic anthropology in the mid 20^th century, there were other ‘traditions’ that were being developed and discussed largely in the western academic sphere (Elardo & Campbell, 2006). As various traditions influenced Economic Anthropology over the years, of particular interest to us is political economy and feminist theory. Political economy captures the interplay between politics, society and economy and feminist’s theory foregrounds the gender differences and marginalization of women in economic processes.

Social Economy of Dried fish

As mentioned earlier, in this paper we use the term ‘Social Economy’ to study the importance and content of social relations in structuring the economy of the dried fish. This is generally refereed to as the notion of embeddedness (Granovetter,1985). Thus, the term ‘social economy’ is used in a more anthropological tradition.

We will, for the purpose of study, heuristically divide the dried fish economy into different segments such as Production, Processing, Wholesaling, Retailing and Consumption and look at the various social relations among these different sections. While these divisions serve only as a heuristic division, we are aware that many social relations transcends these categories.

Value and its chains in the dried fish economy

Value chain is used in economics to describe the range of activities, from production to consumption of a product (Kaplinsky & Morris , 2000). In its simplest form, value chain analysis helps us to trace the activities and the addition of value through these activities on any commodity right from its production to consumption (Ibid). Through a wider understanding of value chains, the project hopes to unwrap the various social relations that accompany the range of activities associated with the production, trading and consumption of dried fish in South and South east Asia.

Value chains in the social economy: an analytical framework from European cooperative value chains

Among the regions with significant cooperative networks, such as France’s Scop Enterprises network (e.g. Dhoquois 2002) and Mondragon in the Spanish Basque Country, Emilia Romagna stands out. In contrast to France, where there are “links but no ties” between cooperatives (Halary 2006, 255), the Emilian cooperative networks are well established and strong (Halary 2006; Menzani and Zamagni 2010).[1] Unlike Mondragon, where the cooperative ‘network’ is strong due to the fact that the institutions are all actually part of the same highly centralized umbrella cooperative firm, the Emilian cooperatives are formally decentralized and independent enterprises that voluntarily coordinate their networks along political, regional, and sectoral lines (Halary 2006; Menzani and Zamagni 2010).

In their studies of these networks, Menzani and Zamagni (2010) have developed a typology of five network types. Horizontal networks are defined by collaboration between cooperatives to increase their collective market power, make production more efficient, and share risks and opportunities, often leading to the formation of consortia, allowing the region’s characteristic small and medium-sized firms to secure larger contracts.[2] Vertical networks refer to supplier-client relationships in a value chain, allowing for productive specialization while distributing democratic control through the value chain. Complementary networks offer clients complementary goods and services through coordinated production among specialized firms. Financial networks allow cooperatives to provide mutual financial support. Networks of networks are higher-order networks that allow strategic coordination of cooperative networks.

Linking other Theoretical and conceptual frameworks

Political economy of dried fish

Though Political Economy has been shared among different disciplines such as Political Science, Sociology, Economics and Anthropology to mention a few, they have been studied using different analytical view points (Rudel et.al, 2011). Environment, becomes a key element that will link Political Economy in our study. Initially focused with the ‘modes of production’ ,political economy, has over the years shifted to understanding  the inequality in the distribution of natural resource. Subsequently, quite a lot of studies have looked at social movements and alternative forms of economy that are more environmental friendly (ibid). Our challenge, using a political economic lens would be to understand the changes in social relations that that accompanied the changes in the production of nature (in our case the changes in fishing and its allied activities which forms the basis of the commodity that is being produced).

Socio-ecological systems framework (SES)

The SES framework, used widely in Natural Resource Governance is another important framework through which the social economy of the dried fish will be studied. The SES framework attributes its origins from the Institutional Analysis and Design (IAD) frame work (McGinnis & Ostrom, 2014). With reference to the DFM project the SES framework would bring out the dynamic institutional mechanisms that mediate the different social relations accompanying the dried fish economy. The Multi tier systemic approach to resource systems will be a useful framework to understand the dynamics of how different components in the system work and more importantly interact.

Interactive governance framework

Fisheries literature, has of late been greatly influenced by the Interactive Governance Framework. ‘Governance’ in this body of knowledge is broad and inclusive of state and non state actors such as civil society ( Kooiman et.al , 2008) . As defined by Kooiman et al. (2005, p.17), Interactive Governance is "The whole of interactions taken to solve societal problems and to create societal opportunities; including the formulation and application of principles guiding those interactions and care for institutions that enable and control them". Social Economy, as defined in this project also looks at the various social interactions, however the context in which the interactions takes place does not always have to be to address problems or create opportunities.

While the interactive governance framework would be helpful in studying the social interaction of the died fish economy, the social economy approach would be useful to explore the cultural context in which these interactions happen.

Feminist Theory

A cross cutting and important theme across the different frameworks we employ in our understanding of the dried fish economy is the feminist theory. In addition to contextualizing gender relations across the different sections of the dried fish economy, there would be a special focus on the role of women in the dried fish economy. This is aligned with feminist theory to unearth the hidden contribution of women to economic process not only within the different sections of the dried fish economy but also across the different scales starting from the household economy (Dyck , 2005). Another important strand would be exploring the role of dried fish as a source of nutrition for women. The differential emphasis on food security among gender in the household and at the community level will also be an important sub theme in the understanding of the gendered nature of nutrition access and consumption ( Tibesigwa & Visser, 2016).

Economic Diversity

Originating in economic geography, the diverse economies research project seeks to examine the multiplicity of existing and potential economic institutions and practices within and beyond capitalism.  This field is defined by activist scholarship aiming to develop alternative visions of ‘the economy’ and identify how those visions are embodied and reproduced through practices. The diverse economies project is fundamentally “centred on the well-being of people and the planet” (Gibson-Graham 2014, S147); the goal is to “understand the world in order to change it” (Gibson-Graham 2008, 615). Reading for economic diversity reflects a ‘performative ontological project’ (Gibson-Graham 2008) of rethinking the economy as plural and culturally embedded, opening a door to the re-evaluation of various activities as economic and to a vision of what is ‘economic’ beyond capitalist paradigms.

Gibson-Graham and Dombroski remind readers of a central tenet of Marxist research: “Philosophers have hitherto only interpreted the world in various ways; the point is to change it” (Marx 1845, cited in Gibson-Graham and Dombroski 2020, 6), themselves asserting that “the measure of success in any intellectual endeavour is the change that it provokes and enables” (2020, 6).  From its inception, the diverse economies research program has been aimed at creating meaningful ‘real-world’ change for social and ecological well-being.  To do so, Gibson-Graham (2008) propose researchers become ‘different academic subjects’ as part of a “co-implicated process of changing ourselves / changing our thinking / changing the world” which they identify as an ‘ethical practice’ (618). Ethics for them means both the continual choice to feel, think, and act in certain ways, and the “embodied practices that bring principles into action” (2008, 620).  Diverse economies research is a “performative ontological project” for researchers to actively and intentionally identify and describe “marginalized, hidden, and alternative economic activities” (2008, 613).  The goal is to make such alternative and diverse economic practices more real and credible as “objects of policy and activism” (2008, 613).  This is inherently an activist approach to scholarship; this research is a conscious political act of locating, representing, and fostering the possibility for ‘other worlds’ (Gibson-Graham 1996, 2008).  In short, the aim of diverse economies research is to “understand the world in order to change it;” “to change our understanding is to change the world” in small and sometimes significant ways (Gibson-Graham 2008, 615).

While the literature on economic diversity in a fisheries context is limited, St. Martin’s work has played a foundational role in the development of diverse economies research and others have considered economic diversity in food systems more broadly. Koretskaya and Feola (2020) and Sarmiento (2017) identify food systems and alternative food networks, respectively, as important sites of economic diversity.  Koretskaya and Feola argue that, despite widespread calls for agri-food systems to adopt more sustainable models, the “analytical conceptualization of diversity with regards to capitalism in agri-food systems remains limited” (2020, 302). Their paper addresses this gap in the literature by introducing the performative recognition and language of economic diversity to the study of ‘capitalist’ food systems.  Examining cases of community-supported agriculture, they identify the coexistence of capitalist, non-capitalist, and more-than-capitalist logics and practices (2020).  Sarmiento (2017) goes further, arguing that alternative food networks (including community-supported agriculture, cooperatives, and certification schemes such as Fair Trade) have the power to transform broader food systems, highlighting the value of recognizing alterity and economic diversity in food networks.

St. Martin (2005, 2007) argues that such an approach can illuminate both ecological and class issues, focusing his lens on fisheries.  Problematizing the traditional binary framing of fisheries – as either ‘First World’ or ‘Third World’, ‘capitalist’ or ‘pre-capitalist’ – he (2005) notes that this representation severely limits the imaginary of how ‘First World’ fisheries may be organized.  The traditional perception is that, in contrast to ‘Third World’ fisheries, which may have more freedom to explore non-capitalist modes of organization due to less capitalist infiltration, the dominance of capitalist organizational and regulatory logics in ‘First World’ fisheries will inevitably and universally lead to their privatization (2005).  He calls for the “undermining [of] the presence of capitalism in the First World” through recognizing the already diverse range of economic logics and practices in ‘First-World’ fisheries, which both requires and allows “a new economic and spatial imaginary” (2005, 959).  His research on the coexistence of projects of neoliberalization and non-capitalism in the New England fishing industry demonstrates the complexity of fisher identities and class processes (2007).  St. Martin presents fishing as simultaneously embedded in non-capitalist/community-based and capitalist/individualist economic logics, reflecting a complex relationship between fishers and the environment structured by both common and private property regimes (2007).  This work has implications for rethinking both food production and environmental regulation.  As interest grows in often-problematic state approaches to ecological conservation (e.g., Duffy 2016), St. Martin’s hopeful research offers an alternative path to conservation beyond privatization – instead rooted in community and stake-holder control over the regulation of fishing grounds (2007).

Areas for future research relevant to DFM include economic diversity in dried fish economies (and fisheries more broadly), economic diversity in coastal southeast Asia, and perhaps most importantly, economic diversity in value chains from theoretical and applied perspectives. Research is needed to understand the intersection of social economy institutions and practices, economic diversity, and value chains.  Value chains may be key sites to illustrate how diverse economies are integrated into a ‘whole’.  Are certain segments more likely to exhibit diversity or alterity?  Does having an alternative economic model in one segment contribute to the likelihood of further expressions of economic diversity along the value chain? In some cases, such as in Emilia Romagna, social economy institutions such as cooperatives (also sites of alternative/diverse economic practices) are able to coordinate entire value chains through cooperative networks. How are these networks created and maintained? What is the nature of social exchange facilitated by these networks? How are diverse economic logics transmitted, contested, and reconciled through the interactions enabled by such networks?

References

Demoustier, D., & Rousselière, D. (2006). Social economy as social science and practice. Ethics and the market: insights from social economics, 112.

Dyck, I. (2005). Feminist geography, the ‘everyday’, and local–global relations: hidden spaces of place‐making. Canadian Geographer/Le Géographe canadien, 49(3), 233-243.

Elardo, J. A., & Campbell, A. (2006). Choice and the substantivist/formalist debate: A formal presentation of three substantivist criticisms. In Choice in Economic Contexts (pp. 267-284). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

Granovetter, M. (1985). Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness. American journal of sociology, 91(3), 481-510.

Hann, C., & Hart, K. (2011). Economic Anthropology: History, Ethnography. Critique. Cambridge, UK and Malden, MA: Polity Press.

Kaplinsky, R., & Morris, M. (2000). A handbook for value chain research (Vol. 113). University of Sussex, Institute of Development Studies.

Kooiman, J.,M. Bavinck, S. Jentoft and R. Pullin (eds.) (2005): Fish for life. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.

Kooiman, J., Bavinck, M., Chuenpagdee, R., Mahon, R., & Pullin, R. (2008). Interactive governance and governability: an introduction. Journal of Transdisciplinary Environmental Studies, 7(1), 1-11.

McGinnis, M., & Ostrom, E. (2014). Social-ecological system framework: initial changes and continuing challenges. Ecology and Society, 19(2).

Rudel, T. K., Roberts, J. T., & Carmin, J. (2011). Political economy of the environment. Annual Review of Sociology, 37, 221-238.

Restakis, J. (2006). Defining the social economy: The BC context. http://ec.msvu.ca/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10587/404/Defining%20the%20Social%20Economy%20-%20The%20BC%20Context.pdf?sequence=1. Accessed 10th May 2019.

Tibesigwa, B., & Visser, M. (2016). Assessing gender inequality in food security among small-holder farm households in urban and rural South Africa. World Development, 88, 33-49.

Toye, M., & Ninacs, W. A. (2002). A Review of the Theory and Practice of Social Economy. SRDC Working Paper Series 02-02.