WIREs Water - 2020 - Beresford - The Embedded Economics of Water Insights From Economic Anthropology

Received: 17 January 2020 Revised: 23 March 2020 Accepted: 2 April 2020
DOI: 10.1002/wat2.1443
PRIMER
The embedded economics of water: Insights from economic

anthropology
Melissa Beresford
Department of Anthropology, San José

State University, San Jose, California
Abstract
Over the past two decades, scholars and policy makers have promoted the idea
Correspondence
that water can be analyzed and managed according to the principles of eco-
Melissa Beresford, Department of
Anthropology, San José State University, nomics. Yet, many policy prescriptions based on economic principles have
San Jose, CA. struggled to deliver the results they intend. As such, scholars note the need for
Email: melissa.beresford@sjsu.edu
alternative approaches to understanding water economies, and many propose
Funding information that embedded economic perspectives are able to give more holistic and locally
NSF-BCS, Grant/Award Number: 1759972 grounded insights. In this article, I explain the embedded economic perspec-
tive, how it is different from a conventional economic perspective, and how
the embedded economics of water makes important contributions to under-
standing water economies more broadly. I highlight three key areas of embed-
ded economic insight on water derived from recent scholarship in economic
anthropology: human meanings and values for water, nonmarket water
exchanges, and diverse water economies. I conclude by discussing implications
these insights have for interdisciplinary water scholarship.
This article is categorized under:

Human Water > Value of Water
Human Water > Rights to Water
Human Water > Methods
KEYWORDS
alternative economies, cultural economies, diverse economies, exchange, reciprocity, sharing,
water values
1 | INTRODUCTION
Across the world today, leaders face the dilemma of how to respond to situations of acute and chronic fresh water scar-
city, whether spurred by natural hazards (e.g., Enqvist & Ziervogel, 2019) or the fault of human actions
(e.g., Hoover, 2017; Pauli, 2019). The growing recognition over the past two decades that water crises are problems of
governance and management, rather than problems of availability (Johnston, 2011; Rockström et al., 2009), has led
many scholars and policy makers to call for conceptualizing and analyzing water as economic good—something that
can be understood and managed via economic principles of supply and demand, the defining of property rights, and
the management of market signals (Garrick, Hanemann, & Hepburn, 2020). Yet, many policy prescriptions based on
such principles have not had the success initially imagined, evidenced by the failed attempts at water privatization in
Cochabamba, Bolivia (Olivera & Lewis, 2004), or the vehement protests against prepaid water meters in Durban and
Johannesburg, South Africa (Chance, 2018; von Schnitzler, 2016). With increasing water scarcity driven by processes of
WIREs Water. 2020;7:e1443. wires.wiley.com/water © 2020 Wiley Periodicals LLC. 1 of 10

https://doi.org/10.1002/wat2.1443
20491948, 2020, 4, Downloaded from https://wires.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wat2.1443 by South African Medical Research, Wiley Online Library on [30/01/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
2 of 10 BERESFORD
globalization, urbanization, and climate change (McDonald et al., 2011), it is more vital than ever for scholars and pol-
icy makers to have holistic and nuanced understandings of the intersection of water and economy. Given this need,
some scholars have advocated for alternative approaches to research on water and economy—ones that mobilize more
embedded perspectives of the economics of water (Ballestero, 2019a; Johnston, Hiwasaki, Klaver, Castillo, &
Strang, 2011; Linton, 2010; Linton & Budds, 2014; Strang, 2004, 2015; Wutich & Beresford, 2019).
In this primer, I explain the embedded economic perspective, how it is different from a conventional economic per-
spective, and how the embedded economics of water makes important contributions to understandings of water and
economy. While an embedded economic perspective is broad and mobilized by scholars across many disciplines, I focus
this primer on the insights gained from recent scholarship on water in economic anthropology. I maintain this focus
because economic anthropology is the primary field from which the embedded economic perspective emerged, and it is
a field in which the embedded economic perspective remains foundational. I conclude by discussing ways that embed-
ded economic insights are vital for burgeoning areas of interdisciplinary water scholarship.
2 | W H A T I S A N E M B E D D E D EC O N O M I C A P PR O A C H ?
The embedded economic perspective was first articulated by economic historian Karl Polanyi (1944) in the mid-twentieth
century. Drawing heavily on anthropological research that examined human livelihoods in nonmarket societies,
Polanyi developed the concept of economic embeddedness in reaction to what he called a “conventional” economic
approach that dominated academic and popular ideas of economics both then and now. Conventional economic
approaches are based on neoclassical principles of microeconomics and stem from the writings of Adam Smith and
other Scottish Enlightenment philosophers. Conventional economic approaches make two key assumptions: (a) that
scarcity is a fact of all social life, and (b) that all humans make decisions about how to use scarce resources to their best
advantage. Conventional economic approaches, therefore, are largely interested in analyzing how humans make deci-
sions under conditions of scarcity and uncertainty. Additionally, because scholars using this approach consider scarce
conditions and maximizing behavior to be human universals, conventional economic approaches conceptualize human
economic decision-making (i.e., the decisions people make around the production, consumption, and distribution of
resources) to be a separate and distinct sphere of human life that can theoretically be analyzed, modeled, and predicted
independently from social and cultural contexts.
In contrast, embedded economic approaches view human economic actions as deeply embedded in the cultural,
social, material, and political relations of their respective society. Because of this contextual view of economic behavior,
an embedded economic perspective makes no prior assumptions about the motivations behind human economic behav-
ior, nor does it assume that there are any universal human motivations for economic action (i.e., it does not assume that
all humans are motivated to maximize their benefits). Rather, scholars who embrace an embedded economic perspec-
tive argue that we cannot understand economic actions and decision-making without understanding the social and cul-
tural contexts in which they take place.
It is important to remember, however, that conventional economic approaches and embedded economic approaches
are not mutually exclusive (Chibnik, 2011; Granovetter, 1985; Halperin, 1985; Isaac, 1993; Wilk & Cligget, 2007).
Rather, these two approaches investigate different questions at different levels of analysis. Scholars who mobilize con-
ventional economic approaches are primarily interested in analyzing and understanding human decision-making under
conditions of scarcity. Conventional economic approaches begin their analysis at the level of the individual and work
up to theorize how larger economic systems function based on individual behaviors. On the other hand, scholars who
mobilize embedded economic approaches are interested in understanding the cultural and social institutions that affect
how people make decisions. Embedded economic research, therefore, works down, investigating how socio-political
relations, cultural values, and natural environments shape the economic behaviors and decisions of individuals.
Scholars across many disciplines and subdisciplines have embraced the embedded economic approach, but anthropolo-
gists have perhaps been some of its most enthusiastic proponents (see Table 1). This is largely because the emphasis
that the embedded approach places on the local specificity of historical, cultural, political, and environmental condi-
tions fits well with the ethnographic and culturally relativistic modes of inquiry that are the foundation of cultural
anthropology.
While not all anthropologists embrace the embedded economic approach (see Box 1), those who do argue that all
economic activity is culturally embedded—that to understand the economic activity of a particular group or society,
one must account for the cultural understandings, meanings, and norms that guide those activities (Chibnik, 2011;
BERESFORD 3 of 10
TABLE 1 Embedded economic perspectives in interdisciplinary scholarship
Perspective Embedded view of economy

Marxian political Economies and economic actions are embedded in class relations that have historically developed out of
economy asymmetrical distributions of power
Institutional Economies and economic actions are embedded in and facilitated through the rules, norms, and values of a
economics society
Feminist economics Economies and economic actions are interdependent upon societal gender norms and have historically exploited
gendered power imbalances
Ecological Economies and economic actions are interdependent upon earth's natural ecosystems
economics
Critical race theory Economies and economic actions are interdependent upon historically rooted legacies of racism
Economic Economies and economic actions are culturally relative and mediated through culturally learned views and
anthropology behaviors
Note: The embedded economic approach encompasses many perspectives that analyze economies (i.e., systems that
encompass an array of practices) and economic actions (i.e., individual behaviors) in the context of different aspects of
society. Some of these perspectives are outlined here. In practice, scholars often draw on insights from multiple of these
perspectives.
BOX 1: ANTHROPOLOGICAL DEBATES AROUND THE EMBEDDED ECONOMIC PERSPECTIVE

Within anthropology, the embedded economic approach did not emerge without critique. When Karl
Polanyi introduced the concept of economic embeddedness—drawing from anthropological research in
indigenous societies—he argued that indigenous economies were embedded in the kinship and social rela-
tions of those societies and thus were fundamentally different than capitalist economies. Polanyi argued
that Western capitalist economies (based on impersonal market exchange) were disembedded from social
relations. Thus, Polanyi and many anthropologists who supported his theories stated that the conventional
economic theories of capitalist economies (i.e., principles of neoclassical microeconomics) could not be
used to study indigenous economies; rather, such economies must be understood on their own terms
(e.g., Dalton, 1962; Sahlins, 1972). Many anthropologists, however, argued that conventional economic the-
ories were universal and could be applied to indigenous societies, if appropriate modifications were made
(e.g., Cook, 1966; Schneider, 1974). These views became a heated debate within anthropology during the
1960s and 1970s, known as the formalist versus substantivist debate (see Chibnik, 2011; Wilk &
Cliggett, 2007 for overviews of this debate). Anthropologists today largely do not recognize any “winner” of
this debate. Rather most anthropologists agree that both sides of this debate offered valuable contributions
to understanding human economies (Halperin, 1985; Isaac, 1993). For example, many scholars have syn-
thesized these perspectives to argue: (a) that rationality and utility maximization are culturally embedded
practices themselves in capitalist economies, and (b) that capitalist economic practices, including those
ostensibly disembedded practices of market exchange and profit seeking, are actually embedded within the
context of social and cultural relations such as kinship, care work, and power differentials
(e.g., Fraser, 2013; Gibson-Graham, 2008; Granovetter, 1985; Meillassoux, 1972; Zelizer, 2013).
Halperin, 1985; Isaac, 1993; Sahlins, 1972). This means that even in market-based societies, many economic anthropolo-
gists (along with many scholars outside of anthropology such as Granovetter, 1985; Gibson-Graham, 2008;
Fraser, 2013) view practices like the rational calculation of costs and benefits as an embedded practice that is mediated
through culturally learned views and behaviors (Henrich et al., 2005).
4 of 10 BERESFORD
3 | W H A T A R E TH E M A J O R DI F F E R E N C E S B E T W E E N C O N V E N T I O N A L
ECONOMIC VIEWS O N WATER AND EMBEDDED ECONOMIC VIEWS ON
WATER?
Economic research on water conducted through a conventional economic lens typically views water as a scarce
economic good that is subject to economic laws of supply and demand and responsive to price and market signals
(Garrick et al., 2020; Spulber & Sabbaghi, 2012; Winpenny, 2005). This understanding of water is consistent with
a scientific hydrological view of water—often referred to by critical water scholars as “modern water” (Bakker,
2010; Linton, 2010)—which conceptualizes water as a material substance available for human control and
exploitation.
In taking this view of water, scholars working from conventional economic frameworks typically conduct research
to find “efficient” and “optimal” solutions for water management in which “water prices reflect marginal costs and
property rights enable efficient water use as supply and demand fluctuate” (Garrick et al., 2020, p. 4). Policy reforms
based on this research attempt to manage incentives (often through adjustments to pricing and property rights) with
the goal of altering human behaviors around water use (e.g., Grafton, 2017; Hanemann & Young, 2020; O'Donnell &
Garrick, 2019; Wheeler & Garrick, 2020). This conventional economic approach provides crucial insights and applica-
tions, including the development of policies that have been successful in managing complex and interlocking chal-
lenges such as natural occurring aridity; competition for fresh water; and the need to balance human and
environmental water requirements (see Garrick et al., 2020 for a complete review). However, some scholars also note
that conventional economic frameworks—and the policy prescriptions derived from such frameworks—often struggle
to account for the vast array of human values and uses of water (Garrick et al., 2020; Linton & Budds, 2014). Calls for
water to be viewed as a human right (Sultana & Loftus, 2015)—especially seen in high-profile protests such as those
against water privatization in Cochabamba, Bolivia (Olivera & Lewis, 2004) and the implementation of pre-paid water
management devices in South Africa (Chance, 2018; von Schnitzler, 2016)—demonstrate the widespread popular resis-
tance to viewing water as an economic good that can or should be managed according to conventional economic princi-
ples (Garrick et al., 2020).
On the other hand, researchers who mobilize an embedded economic approach in water research take more
hydrosocial views of water (Linton & Budds, 2014) and investigate the activities, social relationships, cultural
values, and political processes that mediate human–water relations (Ballestero, 2019b; Orlove & Caton, 2010;
Wutich & Beresford, 2019). Importantly, an embedded economic approach does not assume a priori that people
conceptualize or understand water in any specific or consistent ways. Rather researchers who mobilize an embed-
ded economic approach investigate the multifaceted ways that people conceptualize and value water across diverse
cultural contexts (e.g., Johnston et al., 2011; Strang, 2004; Wilson, 2014). Analyses that focus on how humans
acquire and use water are thus considered in the context of how people conceptualize and value water. Often,
embedded economic research on water mobilizes a critical lens to highlight the disruption and destruction of local,
socioecological practices for provisioning and using water (like those grounded in indigenous knowledge) via
larger structural forces like imperialism, settler colonialism, militarism, and racial capitalism (Eichelberger, 2012;
Hoover, 2017; Johnston et al., 2011; McGregor, 2004; Wilson, 2014). Recent embedded economic research on water
employs cross-cultural and comparative research designs to build towards broader theories of water and economy
(e.g., Brewis et al., 2019; du Bray, Stotts, Beresford, Wutich, & Brewis, 2019; Stoler et al., 2020; Wutich &
Brewis, 2014, 2019).
Because researchers who employ an embedded economic perspective for water research frequently focus their ana-
lyses on localized cases, one of the challenges of this approach has been the synthesis of a vast array of scholarship into
meso- and macro-level theories that more easily translate into actionable policy at higher levels of governance. In this
way, embedded economic approaches have been historically criticized for an overly acute focus on isolated case-studies
and a lack of theory building (Cook, 1966; Schneider, 1974). However, when localized cases are synthesized and viewed
together (as with the emerging body of comparative and cross-cultural research), embedded economic approaches are
key to building mid-range theories on human–water relations that can complement conventional economic research on
water and inform policy applications that are locally valid and relevant. In the next section, I discuss how research
within the field of economic anthropology has mobilized the embedded economic approach to make such contributions
to understandings of water and economy.
BERESFORD 5 of 10
4 | K EY I NS IGHTS ON THE EM BEDDED ECONOMIC S OF WATER FROM

ECONOMIC ANTHROPOLOGY
Economic anthropologists have a long tradition of mobilizing embedded economic approaches to examine water. For
example, many mid-twentieth century scholars used Marxist frameworks to analyze the role of water in the develop-
ment and ascendance of larger political-economic and ecological systems (Childe, 1946; Steward, 1949; Wolf, 1959). In
more recent years, however, there has been a resurgence of economic anthropology scholarship that mobilizes embed-
ded economic approaches to study water (see a complete review by Wutich & Beresford, 2019). In this section, I discuss
three key domains within this contemporary body of work—research on human meanings and values for water,
research on nonmarket water exchange, and research on diverse economies of water—to highlight the contributions
that embedded economic research makes to understandings of water and economy.
4.1 | Human meanings and values for water
Within economic anthropology, research on how people value and make meaning for water often occurrs through ana-
lyses of commodification. Economic anthropologists define a commodity as something that can be bought and sold;
analyses of commodification within anthropology seeks to understand when and how different goods acquire or resist
commodity status (Appadurai, 1988). While water has been increasingly discussed as a commodity in public discourse
(Bakker, 2010; Linton, 2010), embedded economic research explicates why water often resists commodity status. For
example, many indigenous populations view water as living and sentient, irreducible to a commodity (Harmsworth &
Awatere, 2013; Hoover, 2017; Paerregaard, 2018; Salmond, 2014). Other research explains the spiritual and religious sig-
nificance of water to some people (Oestigaard, 2017), exemplified by the Hindu belief that the waters of the Ganges
river are sacred and imbued with the restorative powers of Mother Ganga (Alley, 2002; Drew, 2012). But even when
people view water as a resource (and not necessarily as living or imbued with spiritual meaning), many communities
consider it to be a communal resource to which all people are equally entitled (Paerregaard, 2019; Trawick &
Hornborg, 2015). The recognition that many people view water as a communal good has guided much research on the
economic rules, norms, and values (collectively known as institutions; Ostrom, 1990) that facilitate communal gover-
nance of water (McCay & Acheson, 1987; Schnegg, Bollig, & Linke, 2016; Trawick, 2001, 2003a, 2003b; Wutich, 2009).
These diverse understandings, meanings, and values that people hold for water illustrate why water is often considered
to be priceless, antithetical to commodification, and something that should never be subject to market forces.
Nevertheless, many people accept the view of water as a commodity (Bakker, 2007), as evidenced by the rapid rise
of the bottled water industry (Kaplan, 2007; Pacheco-Vega, 2019; Wilk, 2006). Anthropologists have explained the his-
torical processes that gave rise to the commodification of water, arguing that commodification disembeds water from
traditional social and cultural meanings and reembeds it into the cultural logic of modern science and neoliberal capi-
talism (Ballestero, 2019a; Eichelberger, 2012; Johnston et al., 2011; Strang, 2004). Other research, however, shows that
even when people conceptualize water as a commodity, the process of assigning it monetary value can be fraught with
difficulty given the role that water plays in solidifying social relations, creating recreation and joy, or marking cultural
heritage (Chan, Satterfield, & Goldstein, 2012; du Bray et al., 2019). Anthropologists also show that when water is
assigned a monetary price, people do not always respond to prices points and consume water in predictable or “ratio-
nal” ways. For example, some people conspicuously consume water as a highly valued economic good to display class
status and prestige (Kaplan, 2007; O'Leary, 2019; Wilk, 2006).
Anthropologists also argue that mobilizing water to display status and prestige occurs not only among individuals
and households, but also among nations on the world stage. For example, Folch's (2019) research on the Itaipu Dam in
Paraguay and Hoag's (2019) research on the Lesotho Highlands Water Project show that national elites use the con-
struction of large-scale water infrastructures to assert their nations' sovereignty and development status, especially in
relation to more powerful neighboring nations. Such insights give further nuance to the economics of dams
(Jeuland, 2020) and shows that considerations for building dams and other large-scale water infrastructures often go
beyond cost–benefit analysis of ecological impacts and economic benefits and include “nonefficiency” motivations like
the desire for national status and prestige.
Taken together, the vast body of research on human meanings and values for water demonstrates why the assump-
tions of human rationality and efficiency on which conventional economic frameworks are based often struggle to bring
6 of 10 BERESFORD
about policy prescriptions that are valid and responsive to local water needs. Embedded economic analyses of the
locally grounded values and meanings for water are necessary for holistic understandings of economic behaviors.
4.2 | Human motivations for nonmarket water exchange
Polanyi's conceptualization of the embedded economic perspective was largely derived from anthropological scholar-
ship that analyzed the roles of gift-giving, transfers, and trades in nonmarket societies. In this research, scholars argued
that these nonmarket exchanges both helped to ensure human survival but also served to undergird social cohesion
(Polanyi, 1944; Sahlins, 1972; Wiessner, 1982). Historically, much of this work focused on exchanges of food
(Cashdan, 1985; Wiessner, 1982). In recent years, however, a growing body of work has examined the nonmarket
exchange of water. This emerging body of scholarship is largely aimed at understanding if and when nonmarket water
transfers can alleviate or mitigate conditions of water insecurity (Wutich et al., 2018; Wutich & Brewis, 2014).
Embedded economic research on nonmarket water exchanges examines the environmental, social, and cultural con-
texts that facilitate water sharing (Wutich et al., 2018). With regard to environmental contexts, recent cross-cultural
research on water sharing indicates that water sharing practices may be fundamentally different from food sharing
practices (Brewis et al., 2019). For example, most people generally share both food and water under conditions of scar-
city; however, food sharing predominantly takes place between family members, while water sharing occurs more fre-
quently among neighbors (Brewis et al., 2019). Brewis et al. (2019) venture that this may be due to the physical nature
of water as heavy and hard to carry over long distances. Additionally, ethnographic work that shows the difficulty of
storing of water (e.g., Wutich, 2011; Wutich, Beresford, & Carvajal, 2016), has led some anthropologists to speculate
that availability of certain infrastructures and technologies may have an impact on when, how, and if people share
water (Wutich et al., 2018).
Other recent ethnographic work demonstrates the implications of social relations for water sharing practices. In
Uganda, Pearson, Mayer, and Bradley (2015) found that people largely choose to share water only with ethnic insiders,
forcing ethnic outsiders to rely on water purchases and outmigration during times of water scarcity. Other anthropolo-
gists show that water sharing is entangled with social obligations for the sharing and exchange of many other resources
within a given community, including food and labor (Schnegg & Linke, 2015). And similar to the conspicuous purchas-
ing of water, people may choose to share water to display their wealth and/or prestige in their community (Pearson
et al., 2015; Zug & Graefe, 2014).
Anthropologists also show that sharing and exchange practices must be considered in the context of the values and
meanings that people hold for water. For example, in Mozambique, Walker (2019) found that water sharing practices
vary according to the values that people held for different types of water (e.g., ground water vs. surface water). Research
by Trawick (2001), Trawick, Ortega Reig, and Palau Salvador (2014), and Wutich (2011) on moral economies of water
show that some water sharing practices are deeply embedded in communally shared ideas about the moral right to sur-
vival and the role that water plays to ensure that right. Other ethnographic examples indicate that water sharing is
mobilized as a form of resistance and protest (Harris et al., in press). For example, Chance (2018, p. 53) documented
that a local gas station owner in Soweto, South Africa made his station water taps available for community members to
collect water free of charge as a statement against the incursion of prepaid water meters. And recent media have
highlighted activists along the U.S.-Mexico border who have left bottled water for undocumented migrants
(La Coalición de Derechos Humanos & No More Deaths, 2018, cited in Wutich et al., 2018).
By mobilizing an embedded perspective, anthropological work on nonmarket water exchanges highlights the envi-
ronmental, social, and cultural contexts that shape the exchange of water. These findings underscore that water is
unique from other resources and that multiple human motivations guide economic actions around water.
4.3 | Water economies in diverse and holistic perspective
While conventional economic frameworks have historically conceptualized “the economy” to be a distinct sphere of
life—encompassing production, consumption, and exchange via the market—scholars who embrace an embedded eco-
nomic perspective typically understand economy in a broader way and often adopt what geographers J.K. Gibson-
Graham (2008) called a diverse economies view. In this view, economies (as opposed to “the economy”) constitute a vast
array of practices that enable human livelihoods. Such practices certainly include those traditionally studied in
BERESFORD 7 of 10
conventional economics (like capitalist market exchange and wage labor), but they also include less-acknowledged
practices like domestic care work, tithing, gift-giving, charity, bartering, pilfering, and theft (Fraser, 2013; Gibson-
Graham, 2008). Diverse economies research typically seeks to uncover “hidden” economic practices in order to paint a
more holistic picture of human economic life (Gibson-Graham, 2008).
Research in economic anthropology has been integral to highlighting the diverse economies of water. This has been
especially true in ethnographic research that examines water practices in informal settlements—areas of housing that
arise outside of government control and are typically not connected to networked water systems (e.g., Bulled, 2015;
Radonic & Kelly-Richards, 2015; Wutich, 2009, 2011; Wutich et al., 2016). In such environments, residents typically rely
on a patchwork of economic activities to secure their water needs, including collecting rain water (Button, 2017),
hauling water from public tap points (Bulled, 2015), purchasing water from mobile water venders (Wutich et al., 2016)
or vending stations (Jepson & Brown, 2014), and the resale of water among neighbors and community members (Zuin
et al., 2011; Zuin, Ortolano, & Davis, 2013). Other ethnographic work indicates that a significant number of people may
acquire water via pilfering from municipal water systems (Meehan, 2013; von Schnitzler, 2016). Additionally, the chari-
table giving of bottled water is seen to play an important role for some water economies (DeMyers, Warpinski, &
Wutich, 2017).
Anthropologists also argue that the oft-overlooked practices that constitute diverse water economies may have the
potential to help bring about water justice if given recognition and support (Wutich et al., 2016; Zuin et al., 2013). For
example, in informal settlements in Bolivia, households are forced to self-provision water via purchases from locally
sourced water-vending trucks (Wutich et al., 2016). Within the context of these water sales, however, vendors and cli-
ents embed an indigenous economic practice called yapa that entitles clients to receive extra gifts of water and create
affective ties (called casero relationships) with the local water vendors. In these ways, Cochabamban water vendors
and clients marry a market-based form of water distribution with an indigenous economic practice to increase water
security for precarious residents. Wutich et al. (2016) found that these practices occur more frequently among unionized
water vendors who are based in the communities that they serve, and thus, they argue that greater recognition and
support for local water vending unions may help to improve water security.
Viewed together, research on the vast array of economic practices for water shows the multiplexity of local water
economies, the need to take all of these economic actions into account when designing interventions, and the potential
that hidden, locally embedded customs and practices may have for designing future water economies.
5 | C ON C L U S I ON
The embedded economics of water demonstrates that the human uses of water do not exist in a vacuum. People
acquire, use, distribute, and exchange water in ways that cannot be holistically understood outside of their localized
cultural, social, material, and political contexts. Research in economic anthropology demonstrates key insights that an
embedded economic approach can make to understanding water and economy, including (a) the multitude of under-
standings and values that humans hold regarding water; (b) the environmental, social, and cultural conditions that
guide water exchange practices outside of markets; and (c) the diversity and multiplexity of water economies. These
contributions underscore the reality that a singular framework to understand or solve the many water crises that
humans face is unlikely to exist. However, an embedded economic perspective allows for holistic understandings of the
historical factors that have led to many of these crises, and it can enable researchers to highlight and mobilize knowl-
edge and insight from local populations that may be able to help to build more equitable, just, and resilient water econ-
omies for the future. In this way, the embedded economics of water makes crucial contributions to burgeoning areas of
interdisciplinary water scholarship, for example, showing how people cope with household water insecurity (Wutich &
Brewis, 2014), how water can be governed beyond state or formal market mechanisms (Trawick et al., 2014), or how
certain types of water economies facilitate well-being or engender emotional distress (Tallman, 2019; Wutich &
Ragsdale, 2008). In doing so, the embedded economics of water provides fundamental and complementary insights to
understandings of water and economy.
A C K N O WL E D G M E N T S
This article developed out of conversations had with Dr Amber Wutich and draws on research we conducted for our
co-authored introduction to the “Water and Economy” special issue of Economic Anthropology (Wutich &
Beresford, 2019). I am also grateful for the conversations had with scholars at the 2018 Society for Economic
8 of 10 BERESFORD
Anthropology annual meeting on “Water and Economy” held at Arizona State University. Furthermore, I would like to
acknowledge the mentorship of Drs Amber Wutich and Alexandra Brewis, especially during my time as postdoctoral
fellow for the Global Ethnohydrology Study at the Arizona State University Center for Global Health. I have also greatly
benefited from the work and insights of my colleagues in the Household Water InSecurity Experience (HWISE) net-
work of scholars (https://hwise-rcn.org/), funded by NSF Grant BCS-1759972.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
The author has declared no conflicts of interest for this article.
ORCID
Melissa Beresford https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5707-3943
R EL ATE D WIR Es AR TI CL ES
Encounters with the moral economy of water: Convergent evolution in Valencia
Household water sharing: A review of water gifts, exchanges, and transfers across cultures
Valuing fresh waters
R EF E RE N C E S
Alley, K. D. (2002). On the banks of the Gaṅga: When wastewater meets a sacred river. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Appadurai, A. (Ed.). (1988). The social life of things: Commodities in cultural perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bakker, K. (2007). The “commons” versus the “commodity”: Alter-globalization, anti-privatization and the human right to water in the
global south. Antipode, 39(3), 430–455.
Bakker, K. (2010). Privatizing water: Governance failure and the world's urban water crisis. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Ballestero, A. (2019a). A future history of water. Duke University Press.
Ballestero, A. (2019b). The anthropology of WATER. Annual Review of Anthropology, 48, 405–421.
Brewis, A., Rosinger, A., Wutich, A., Adams, E., Cronk, L., Pearson, A., … Household Water Insecurity Experiences-Research Coordination
Network (HWISE-RCN). (2019). Water sharing, reciprocity, and need: A comparative study of interhousehold water transfers in sub-
Saharan Africa. Economic Anthropology, 6(2), 208–221.
Bulled, N. (2015). Conceptualizing biopolitics: Citizen-state interactions in the securing of water services in South Africa. Medical Anthropol-
ogy, 34(6), 533–550.
Button, C. (2017). Domesticating water supplies through rainwater harvesting in Mumbai. Gender and Development, 25(2), 269–282.
Cashdan, E. A. (1985). Coping with risk: Reciprocity among the Basarwa of Northern Botswana. Man, 20, 454–474.
Chan, K. M., Satterfield, T., & Goldstein, J. (2012). Rethinking ecosystem services to better address and navigate cultural values. Ecological
Economics, 74, 8–18.
Chance, K. R. (2018). Living politics in South Africa's urban shacklands. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Chibnik, M. (2011). Anthropology, economics, and choice. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.
Childe, G. (1946). What happened in history. London, England: Penguin Books.
Cook, S. (1966). The obsolete “anti-market” mentality: A critique of the substantive approach to economic anthropology. American Anthro-
pologist, 68(2), 323–345.
Dalton, G. (1962). Traditional production in primitive African economies. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 76(3), 360–378.
DeMyers, C., Warpinski, C., & Wutich, A. (2017). Urban water insecurity: A case study of homelessness in Phoenix, Arizona. Environmental
Justice, 10(3), 72–80.
Drew, G. (2012). Meaningful waters: Women, development, and sustainability along the Bhagirathi Ganges. Tuscon, AZ: University of Arizona
Press.
du Bray, M. V., Stotts, R., Beresford, M., Wutich, A., & Brewis, A. (2019). Does ecosystem services valuation reflect local cultural valuations?
Comparative analysis of resident perspectives in four major urban river ecosystems. Economic Anthropology, 6(1), 21–33.
Eichelberger, L. (2012). Sustainability and the politics of calculation: Technologies of ‘safe water,’ subject-making, and domination. Journal
of Political Ecology, 19(1), 145–161.
Enqvist, J. P., & Ziervogel, G. (2019). Water governance and justice in Cape Town: An overview. WIREs: Water, e1354.
Folch, C. (2019). Hydropolitics: The Itaipu Dam, sovereignty, and the engineering of modern South America. Princeton University Press.
Fraser, N. (2013). Fortunes of feminism: From state-managed capitalism to neoliberal crisis. Verso Books.
Garrick, D. E., Hanemann, M., & Hepburn, C. (2020). Rethinking the economics of water: An assessment. Oxford Review of Economic Policy,
36(1), 1–23.
Gibson-Graham, J. K. (2008). Diverse economies: Performative practices for other worlds. Progress in Human Geography, 32(5), 613–632.
Grafton, R. Q. (2017). Responding to the ‘wicked problem' of water insecurity. Water Resources Management, 31(10), 3023–3041.
Granovetter, M. (1985). Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology, 91(3), 481–510.
Halperin, R. (1985). The concept of the formal in economic anthropology. Research in Economic Anthropology, 7, 339–368.
BERESFORD 9 of 10
Hanemann, M., & Young, M. (2020). Water rights reform and water marketing: Australia vs the US West. Oxford Review of Economic Policy,
36(1), 108–131.
Harmsworth, G., & Awatere, S. (2013). Indigenous Maori knowledge and perspectives of ecosystems. In Ecosystem Services in New Zealand
(pp. 274–286). Manaaki Whenua Press.
Harris, L., Staddon, C., Wutich, A., Budds, J., Jepson, W., Pearson, A., & Adams, E. (in press). Water sharing and the right to water: Refusal,
rebellion and everyday resistance. Political Geography.
Henrich, J., Boyd, R., Bowles, S., Camerer, C., Fehr, E., Gintis, H., … Tracer, D. (2005). “Economic man” in cross-cultural perspective: Behav-
ioral experiments in 15 small-scale societies. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 28(6), 795–815.
Hoag, C. (2019). ‘Water is the gift that destroys’: Making a national resource in Lesotho. Economic Anthropology, 6(2).
Hoover, E. (2017). The river is in us: Fighting toxics in a Mohawk community. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Isaac, B. L. (1993). Retrospective on the formalist-substantivist debate. Research in Economic Anthropology, 14, 213–233.
Jepson, W., & Brown, H. L. (2014). ‘If no gasoline, no water’: Privatizing drinking water quality in South Texas colonias. Environment and
Planning A, 46(5), 1032–1048.
Jeuland, M. (2020). The economics of dams. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 36(1), 45–68.
Johnston, B. R. (2011). Manufacturing water scarcity, generating environmental inequity. In B. R. Johnston, L. Hiwasaki, I. J. Klaver, A. R. Castillo,
& V. Strang (Eds.), Water, cultural diversity, and global environmental change (pp. 265–287). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
Johnston, B. R., Hiwasaki, L., Klaver, I. J., Castillo, A. R., & Strang, V. (Eds.). (2011). Water, cultural diversity, and global environmental
change. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
Kaplan, M. (2007). Fijian Water in Fiji and New York: Local politics and a global commodity. Cultural Anthropology, 22(4), 685–706.
La Coalición de Derechos Humanos & No More Deaths. (2018). Disappeared: How the us border enforcement agencies are fueling a missing
persons crisis. Part II: Interference with humanitarian aid. Retrieved from http://www.thedisappearedreport.org/uploads/8/3/5/1/
83515082/disappeared_report_part_2.pdf
Linton, J. (2010). What is water? The history of a modern abstraction. Vancouver: UBC Press.
Linton, J., & Budds, J. (2014). The hydrosocial cycle: Defining and mobilizing a relational-dialectical approach to water. Geoforum, 57, 170–180.
McCay, B. J., & Acheson, J. M. (Eds.). (1987). The question of the commons: The culture and ecology of communal resources. University of Ari-
zona Press.
McDonald, R. I., Green, P., Balk, D., Fekete, B. M., Revenga, C., Todd, M., & Montgomery, M. (2011). Urban growth, climate change, and
freshwater availability. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 108(15), 6312–6317.
McGregor, D. (2004). Coming full circle: Indigenous knowledge, environment, and our future. American Indian Quarterly, 28(3/4), 385–410.
Meehan, K. (2013). Disciplining de facto development: Water theft and hydrosocial order in Tijuana. Environment and Planning D: Society
and Space, 31(2), 319–336.
Meillassoux, C. (1972). From reproduction to production: A Marxist approach to economic anthropology. Economy and Society, 1, 93–105.
O'Leary, H. (2019). Conspicuous reserves: Ideologies of water consumption and the performance of class. Economic Anthropology, 6(2).
O'Donnell, E. L., & Garrick, D. E. (2019). The diversity of water markets: Prospects and perils for the SDG agenda. WIREs: Water, 6(5),
e1368.
Oestigaard, T. (2017). Holy water: The works of water in defining and understanding holiness. WIREs: Water, 4(3), e1205.
Olivera, O., & Lewis, T. (2004). Cochabamba!: Water war in Bolivia. South End Press.
Orlove, B., & Caton, S. C. (2010). Water sustainability: Anthropological approaches and prospects. Annual Review of Anthropology, 39,
401–415.
Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge university press.
Pacheco-Vega, R. (2019). (Re) theorizing the politics of bottled water: Water insecurity in the context of weak regulatory regimes. Water, 11
(4), 658.
Paerregaard, K. (2018). Power in/of/as water: Revisiting the hydrologic cycle in the Peruvian Andes. WIREs: Water, 5(2), e1270.
Paerregaard, K. (2019). Liquid accountability: Water as a common, public and private good in the Peruvian Andes. Water Alternatives, 12(2),
488–502.
Pauli, B. J. (2019). Flint fights back: Environmental justice and democracy in the flint water crisis. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Pearson, A. L., Mayer, J. D., & Bradley, D. J. (2015). Coping with household water scarcity in the savannah today: Implications for health
and climate change into the future. Earth Interactions, 19(8), 1–14.
Polanyi, K. (1944 [2001]). The great transformation. The political and economic origins of our time (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
Radonic, L., & Kelly-Richards, S. (2015). Pipes and praxis: A methodological contribution to the urban political ecology of water. Journal of
Political Ecology, 22(1), 389–409.
Rockström, J., Steffen, W., Noone, K., Persson, Å., Chapin, F. S., III, Lambin, E. F., … Nykvist, B. (2009). A safe operating space for humanity.
Nature, 461(7263), 472–475.
Sahlins, M. (1972). Stone age economics.
Salmond, A. (2014). Tears of Rangi: Water, power, and people in New Zealand. HAU: Journal of Ethnographic Theory, 4(3), 285–309.
Schnegg, M., Bollig, M., & Linke, T. (2016). Moral equality and success of common-pool water governance in Namibia. Ambio, 45(5),
581–590.
Schnegg, M., & Linke, T. (2015). Living institutions: Sharing and sanctioning water among pastoralists in Namibia. World Development, 68,
205–214.
10 of 10 BERESFORD
Schneider, H. K. (1974). Economic man; the anthropology of economics. New York: The Free Press.
Spulber, N., & Sabbaghi, A. (2012). Economics of water resources: From regulation to privatization. Springer Science & Business Media.
Steward, J. (1949). Cultural causality and law. American Anthropologist, 51(1), 1–27.
Stoler, J., Pearson, A. L., Staddon, C., Wutich, A., Mack, E. A., Brewis, A., … the HWISE-RCN. (2020). Cash water expenditures are associated
with household water insecurity, food insecurity, and perceived stress in study sites across 20 low- and middle-income countries. Science
of the Total Environment, 716, 135881. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.135881
Strang, V. (2004). The meaning of Water. Oxford, England: Berg Publishers.
Strang, V. (2015). Water: Nature and culture. Reaktion Books.
Sultana, F., & Loftus, A. (2015). The human right to water: Critiques and condition of possibility. WIREs: Water, 2(2), 97–105.
Tallman, P. S. (2019). Water insecurity and mental health in the Amazon: Economic and ecological drivers of distress. Economic, 6(2), 304–316.
Trawick, P. (2001). The moral economy of water: Equity and antiquity in the Andean commons. American Anthropologist, 103(2), 361–379.
Trawick, P. (2003a). The struggle for water in Peru. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Trawick, P. (2003b). Against the privatization of water: An indigenous model for improving existing laws and successfully governing the
commons. World Development, 31(6), 977–996.
Trawick, P., & Hornborg, A. (2015). Revisiting the image of limited good: On sustainability, thermodynamics, and the illusion of creating
wealth. Current Anthropology, 56(1), 1–27.
Trawick, P., Ortega Reig, M., & Palau Salvador, G. (2014). Encounters with the moral economy of water: Convergent evolution in Valencia.
WIREs: Water, 1(1), 87–110.
von Schnitzler, A. (2016). Democracy's infrastructure: Techno-politics and protest after apartheid. Princeton University Press.
Walker, M. M. (2019). Negotiating access to water in central Mozambique: Implications for rural livelihoods. Economic Anthropology, 6(2),
222–233.
Wheeler, S. A., & Garrick, D. E. (2020). A tale of two water markets in Australia: Lessons for understanding participation in formal water
markets. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 36(1), 132–153.
Wiessner, P. (1982). Risk, reciprocity and social influences on !Kung San economics. In E. Leacock & R. Lee (Eds.), Politics and history in
band societies (pp. 61–84). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wilk, R. (2006). Bottled Water: The pure commodity in the age of branding. Journal of Consumer Culture, 6(3), 303–325.
Wilk, R., & Cliggett, L. (2007). Economies and cultures: Foundations of economic anthropology. Routledge.
Wilson, N. J. (2014). Indigenous water governance: Insights from the hydrosocial relations of the Koyukon Athabascan village of Ruby,
Alaska. Geoforum, 57, 1–11.
Winpenny, J. (2005). Managing water as an economic resource. Routledge.
Wolf, E. R. (1959). Sons of the shaking earth. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Wutich, A. (2009). Water scarcity and the sustainability of a common pool resource institution in the urban Andes. Human Ecology,
37(2), 179.
Wutich, A. (2011). The moral economy of water reexamined: Reciprocity, water insecurity, and urban survival in Cochabamba, Bolivia. Jour-
nal of Anthropological Research, 67(1), 5–26.
Wutich, A., & Beresford, M. (2019). The economic anthropology of water. Economic Anthropology, 6(2), 168–182.
Wutich, A., Beresford, M., & Carvajal, C. (2016). Can informal water vendors deliver on the promise of a human right to water? Results from
Cochabamba, Bolivia. World Development, 79, 14–24.
Wutich, A., & Brewis, A. (2014). Food, water, and scarcity: Toward a broader anthropology of resource insecurity. Current Anthropology, 55
(4), 444–468.
Wutich, A., & Brewis, A. (2019). Data collection in cross-cultural ethnographic research. Field Methods, 31(2), 181–189.
Wutich, A., Budds, J., Jepson, W., Harris, L. M., Adams, E., Brewis, A., … Young, S. (2018). Household water sharing: A review of water gifts,
exchanges, and transfers across cultures. WIREs: Water, 5(6), e1309.
Wutich, A., & Ragsdale, K. (2008). Water insecurity and emotional distress: Coping with supply, access, and seasonal variability of water in a
Bolivian squatter settlement. Social Science & Medicine, 67(12), 2116–2125.
Zelizer, V. A. (2013). Economic lives: How culture shapes the economy. Princeton University Press.
Zug, S., & Graefe, O. (2014). The gift of water. Social redistribution of water among neighbours in Khartoum. Water Alternatives, 7(1),
140–159.
Zuin, V., Ortolano, L., Alvarinho, M., Russel, K., Thebo, A., Muximpua, O., & Davis, J. (2011). Water supply services for Africa's urban poor:
The role of resale. Journal of Water and Health, 9(4), 773–784.
Zuin, V., Ortolano, L., & Davis, J. (2013). The entrepreneurship myth in small-scale service provision: Water resale in Maputo, Mozambique.
Journal of Water, Sanitation and Hygiene for Development, 4(2), 281–292.
How to cite this article: Beresford M. The embedded economics of water: Insights from economic
anthropology. WIREs Water. 2020;7:e1443. https://doi.org/10.1002/wat2.1443

WIREs Water - 2020 - Beresford - The Embedded Economics of Water Insights From Economic Anthropology

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

WIREs Water - 2020 - Beresford - The Embedded Economics of Water Insights From Economic Anthropology

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

WIREs Water - 2020 - Beresford - The Embedded Economics of Water Insights From Economic Anthropology

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Received: 17 January 2020 Revised: 23 March 2020 Accepted: 2 April 2020

The embedded economics of water: Insights from economic

Department of Anthropology, San José

This article is categorized under:

WIREs Water. 2020;7:e1443. wires.wiley.com/water © 2020 Wiley Periodicals LLC. 1 of 10

TABLE 1 Embedded economic perspectives in interdisciplinary scholarship

Perspective Embedded view of economy

BOX 1: ANTHROPOLOGICAL DEBATES AROUND THE EMBEDDED ECONOMIC PERSPECTIVE

4 | K EY I NS IGHTS ON THE EM BEDDED ECONOMIC S OF WATER FROM

4.1 | Human meanings and values for water

4.2 | Human motivations for nonmarket water exchange

4.3 | Water economies in diverse and holistic perspective

You might also like