Methodological Approaches to the Question of the Commons

In this essay we argue that the key barriers to interdisciplinary work between economists and anthropologists are differences of methodology and epistemology -in what the two disciplines consider important to explain, and how they evaluate the criteria for a good explanation. The essay is an introduction to three papers, on economics, anthropology, and the question of the commons, that illustrate some of these differences, and that suggest both the potential and the pitfalls of trying to bridge these methodological gaps. Our goal in this paper was not somehow to resolve the differences. Rather, we were motivated by the belief that understanding what is important to the other discipline, and seeing the differences in the light of that understanding, is important for interdisciplinary work and for respectful conversation. We have highlighted three dichotomies that are emblematic of some of these differences: autonomy versus embeddedness, outcomes versus processes and parsimony versus complexity. We hope that our discussion leads economists and anthropologists to re-examine the assumptions and modes of analysis that prevail within the disciplines, and to open up new conversations in new directions. † Department of Economics, University of California at Berkeley; [email protected] ‡ Energy and Resources Group, 310 Barrows Hall #3050, University of California at Berkeley, Berkeley, Ca 94720. [email protected] (Corresponding author) PK Bardhan & Isha Ray Methodological Approaches to the Commons 1 Methodological Approaches to the Question of the Commons Pranab Bardhan† and Isha Ray‡ Interdisciplinary work in the social sciences is generally held to be desirable, but in practice it has proven rather difficult. This is because while the themes studied by social scientists are often similar, the intellectual histories, the questions that are considered salient, the field research methods, the ways in which theories are applied to empirical observations and even the approaches to systems of knowledge vary widely from discipline to discipline. As a result economists, political scientists, sociologists, anthropologists and geographers often fail to make their analyses and even their assumptions comprehensible to the others. Many do not even try. In this issue we put together four papers (including this one) to illustrate some of the methodological differences within the social sciences. We highlight in particular the divisions between economics and anthropology, and, anchoring ourselves to issues of the local environmental commons, we explore the possibilities of bridging some of these divisions,. Economics and anthropology are seen as extremes along the social science continuum, and interdisciplinary work bridging their differences has been especially challenging. Our goal in this introductory paper is not to resolve the methodological, epistemological and normative divides among the disciplines, or between economics and anthropology. It is not clear that ‘resolution’ is either possible or desirable. But understanding what is important to the other discipline, and seeing the differences in the light of that understanding, is surely important for interdisciplinary work and for respectful conversation. This introduction is our attempt to reduce the oft-heard complaints from anthropologists that economists are ‘often in error but seldom in doubt’; and from economists that anthropologists spend forever in the field but never bring back any properly tested hypotheses. Recent cross-disciplinary conversations In 1985 the Social Science Research Council, with the support of the Ford Foundation, facilitated an innovative workshop in Bangalore, India, that brought together economists and anthropologists to discuss and compare their analytical methods. The workshop – Conversations Between Economists and Anthropologists -focused on diverse approaches to the measurement of economic change in rural India, such as data collection through large n surveys versus intensive village-level studies, and the inability of macro surveys (favored in economics) in capturing “dynamics, processes and relations” (the domain of anthropology). Some of the papers in that workshop were published in Bardhan (1989).That first econ-anthro dialogue exposed both “unsuspected areas of † Department of Economics, University of California at Berkeley; [email protected] ‡ Energy and Resources Group, 310 Barrows Hall #3050, University of California at Berkeley, Berkeley, Ca 94720. [email protected] (Corresponding author) 1 This quote is attributed to the physicist Lev Landau; he was apparently denigrating cosmologists. PK Bardhan & Isha Ray Methodological Approaches to the Commons 2 potential agreement” and “legitimate rock-bottom differences” and, twenty years later, remains an insightful guide to interdisciplinary field research methods. The last five years have seen a revival of workshops, seminars, papers and books focused on crossing the boundaries between economics, anthropology and sociology. In March 2001, the Qualitative versus Quantitative (or ‘Q2’) theme was discussed in a workshop convened at Cornell University by Ravi Kanbur. Particular, attention was paid to how (and if) borrowing from ‘quant’ methods could make ‘qual’ methods more generalizable and comparable, and to how ‘qual’ could explicate relationships between variables and so introduce context into ‘quant’ research. In 2002, the journal World Development published a series of papers on development economics and the ‘other’ social sciences, in which John Harriss, Cecile Jackson and Howard White critiqued the too-powerful role of economics in development circles, and made the case that sociology, anthropology and politics should be equal players in development policy. The dominant impressions from many of the Q2 and the World Development papers are that (i) cross-disciplinary work on social problems is critical and (ii) the onus is mostly on the economists to change. The two most recent additions to cross-boundary conversations between economists and anthropologists are Culture and Public Action, in which scholars across the social sciences discuss the role of culture in furthering, and even defining, the goals of development (Rao and Walton 2004); and Foundations of Human Sociality, in which economists and anthropologists present new findings about human social behavior from a series of experimental games in ‘traditional’ cultures around the world (Henrich et al 2004). It would be premature to suggest that key ‘conclusions’ have emerged from these conversations on how economists and anthropologists can most fruitfully collaborate with each other. On the one hand, economists have modified their behavioral premises, say, about common-pool resources, based on the results of anthropological case studies (as in the Sethi and Somanathan paper in this issue). Some anthropologists have gone to their field sites ready to test economists’ hypotheses on who cooperates and why, and with what degree of fairness or selfishness (as in Henrich et al 2004). On the other hand, many economists and anthropologists are still divided on their views of human agency, on what constitutes data, on how to interpret their respondent’s words, and on what constitutes an adequate explanation. As Appadurai wrote in the first Conversations, “At bottom, in my opinion, are not issues about sampling size, respondent error...though these are important issues...The deeper issue is epistemological.” (Appadurai 1989, p276; italics in the original). The selection of essays in this issue represents another such contribution to this ongoing conversation. This particular endeavor is focused on methodological and epistemological approaches to the analysis of local common pool resources. Why the local commons? 2 The papers from the conference can be read at (www.arts.cornell.edu/poverty/kanbur/QQZ.pdf ). 3 This is also the theme of a new book, Rethinking Social Inquiry: Diverse Tools, Shared Standards, edited by Henry Brady and David Collier, and geared towards political scientists. 4 World Development v 30 no. 3, 2002. 5 Two of the four papers (those by Ray and Sethi and Somanathan) were presented in preliminary form at a workshop – Conversations Between Economists and Anthropologists II – held in Goa, India, in August