The concept of moral economy was first used by 18th-century thinkers trying to make sense of the rising capitalist values. In feudal society, a “fair price” was preferred over a free price especially for the necessities of the day.  

The reciprocal rights and responsibilities of feudalism let the lord set the fair price. The British historian E. P. Thompson showed how farmers clung to this belief.  Large farmers who sold their product at a higher price elsewhere while there was some still in need in the village where ostracized.  

The concept is being revisited in practice if not in name. The heightened sensitivity to the disparity of income and wealth is pervasive within high income countries. Sometimes it is expressed in pragmatic terms in the sense that the disparity is inhibiting a stronger economic recovery. However, the populist appeal is also based on a sense of fairness.

What is fairness?  Among the first classes a law student takes is on contracts. Contracts are the bedrock of modern society. What is fair and just is fulfilling one’s contractual obligations. You committed to performing some service in exchange for some recognition. Now do it. That is fair.

However, this concept of fairness is dramatically different than the fairness that was the basis of traditional society. Perhaps more influenced by the Catholic Church’s teachings, fairness about one’s social obligations. Justice was in recognizing fellow Catholics as brothers and sisters.

Market economies turned the traditional meaning of fairness on its head. To some extent, non-market spheres that persist, including to different extent and in different ways, the family, and church, have kept the embers of the earlier meaning of fairness alive.

Although we would not push it too far, there is some evidence that a sense of fairness crosses cultural lines. There is an exercise called the Ultimatum Game.  It involves two people. The first is given a modest sum of money, say $100, and they can split it any way they want. The second person can accept it or not.  If it is rejected both people get nothing. Repeated tests have found that provided the game is played within a particular social group; a 70-30 split is rejected.