The assumptions, logic, and predictions of these theories are examined and the impact of subsistence is typically found to have important implications in terms of producers decisions about supply, consumption and price.
Dalton also argued that peasant societies based their economic production much more on cultural and religious tradition, as opposed to purely environmental conditions.
They would have extremely similar environmental conditions and yet would have very different economies, which he argued demonstrated that social structure and culture were the primary determining factors of the economic activity of peasant societies.
"[8] Alongside this, Dalton suggests that much of the organization of work would occur through social relationships within the community, such as "kinship and friendship reciprocity."
He concludes that this largely social and cultural organization of production is due to relative absence of the pressure of market economies to reduce costs and maximize profits, which would "enforce economizing decisions on local producers."
Soviet economist Chayanov argues that the peasant holdings did not operate in order to maximize their profits like a business would in a capitalist economy, but instead would seek to maintain an "equilibrium between family demand satisfaction and the drudgery of labour itself.
(Harman, 142-143) Harman suggests that the development of these new production techniques was a byproduct of serfdom, where peasants who owned an agricultural holding were incentivised to increase their food production to increase their own wealth, and lords would take a greater share from their levy.
[12] Harman further suggests that this was compounded by little investment in agriculture by the feudal lords, who spent the majority of their wealth funding luxury goods and wars.
Towns increased in importance, as rural food production on fertile land was linked to market networks.
Merchants who were able to trade between Europe and India, South-East Asia, and China gained a large amount of wealth.
[14] In the context of the peasantry in Vietnam, moral economists argue that Confucian and Vietnamese cultural values underpin peasant society, and that this ultimately was the source of the resistance to French colonial rule.
[14] The general assumptions of moral economists is that peasants are "anti-market, prefer common property to private, and dislike buying and selling".
[14] On the other hand, Popkin argues that these assumptions are not fixed, and are generally dependent on individual assessments of risk and reward amongst different peasants in different contexts.
[14] Pierre Brocheux argues that a 'moral economy' in relation to peasants is one where the state and the peasantry form a contract which involves mutual and reciprocal obligations.
However, as Nirmul Kumar Chandra suggests, peasants are often stratified by their wealth and amount of land they possessed, as was the case in Russia up to and during the Soviet Union.