The Moral Economy Is a Double‐edged Sword: Explaining Farmers’ Earnings and Self‐exploitation in Community‐Supported Agriculture

Abstract

In this article I develop a political economic understanding of community‐supported agriculture (CSA). I first develop the relevance of three concepts—economic rents, self‐exploitation, and social embeddedness—to CSA and then introduce a framework that relates CSA farmers’ earnings to the average rate of profit, economic rents, and self‐exploitation. I then examine qualitative and quantitative data from a study of 54 CSAs in California's Central Valley and surrounding foothills to explain the wide range of farmers’ earnings in relation to the characteristics of production of CSAs, the social embeddedness of CSAs, and the farmers’ motivations and rationalities. Qualitative data from interviews are used to interpret the results of an ordinary least squares regression analysis showing that (1) farmers’ age, number of employees, and type of CSA strongly shape farmers' earnings; (2) the moral economy of CSA cuts both ways economically, allowing for the capture of economic rents but more often resulting in self‐exploitation because of farmers’ strong sense of obligation to their members; and (3) farmers’ motivations are diverse, but tend toward low and moderate instrumentalism, meaning that earning an income is often not a high priority relative to other values. The conclusion recommends the need to recognize alternative rationalities but also to discuss and confront strong self‐exploitation in alternative food networks because of the broader political economic context in which they exist.

Oregon producer and consumer engagement in regional food networks: Motivations and future opportunities

“…In one survey, smaller operations were more motivated by consumer and community connections and enhancing sustainability; while facing more barriers, a significant number felt that participation in alternative marketing channels improved their financial viability (Liang & Dunn, 2014;. In California, CSA producers were motivated by an obligation toward CSA members, while farm income ranked relatively low (Galt, 2013). Research on alternative food supply chains that sell into regional or national markets is a rich and growing field, but most involve case studies of the supply-chain business partners rather than focusing on the producers (e.g., Ostrom, 2013;Stevenson, 2013;Stevenson & Lev, 2009;2010;.…”

Effects of consumer-producer interactions in alternative food networks on consumers’ learning about food and agriculture

“…In several studies, effects of AFN participation such as healthier diets or changes in nutrition (Andreatta et al, 2008;J. N. Cohen et al, 2012;Minaker et al, 2014;Wilkins et al, 2015) or effects on farm income (Galt, 2013;McIlvaine-Newsad et al, 2004;Oberholtzer, 2004;Tegtmeier and Duffy, 2005) have been investigated.…”

The spaces and times of community farming

“…In their recent work, for example, Pole and Gray (2013, p. 97) suggest that the community aspects of CSA may now-for many people-be ''ancillary'' to securing fresh, local and seasonal produce (which may well have associated health benefits). Galt et al (2015) have similarly questioned who belongs to CSA and why, while in earlier work Galt (2013) also notes (following claims by Groh and McFadden 1997) how CSA farmers continue to subsidise CSA members through failing to take adequate compensation for their labour, a situation not dissimilar from that found in early CSAs in China (Shi et al 2011;Chen 2015b). Indeed, with the availability of virtual platforms such as Taobao and Wechat in China, and Facebook in the West, it is apparent that spatial detachment to growing communities has become a customary practice as few CSA members need to visit the farms from which they secure their food meaning that, for many, CSA need be little more than a consumption decision (Carolan 2011;Chen 2015a).…”

“…Many records of community supported agriculture contain similar details (see, for example, Groh and McFadden 1997;Ravenscroft et al 2013), often with overt reference to the social, pedagogic and therapeutic potential of such institutions (Wells and Gladwell 2001;Jarosz 2011;Ravenscroft et al 2012). Yet we need equally to recognise that not all CSA members experience this (DeLind 1998(DeLind , 2011, nor necessarily want it, certainly in terms of a totalizing notion of community (Mount 2012;Galt 2013;Si et al 2015). Following work by Henderson and Van En (2007), it may be that some kinds of farms or CSAs facilitate therapeutic practices of community-building while others do not, just as some people seek community and others do not.…”