A Haat Is Not Just a Market, It Is a Commons

Niraj Kumar

22nd January, 2026

The occasion was a round-table discussion on Haat as a Commons, organised by the Foundation for Ecological Security (FES) and Ecociate Consultants, on the morning of 19 January in Bhubaneswar. The morning was cold, but the discussion gathered momentum quickly and kept the group engaged through to lunch. More than the format or the setting, it was the quality of exchange and the range of perspectives in the room that made the discussion linger well beyond the session itself.

I did not expect a conversation on rural markets to substantially alter how I think about markets and institutions. Yet, as the discussion unfolded, the haat emerged as far more than a local trading space. What began as an exploration of rural economies became a reflection on how institutions lose much of their transformative potential when they are viewed narrowly, primarily through an economic lens.

The haat as a shared space. Open, informal, and sustained by proximity, trust, and repeated exchange.

For those trained in economics, management, public policy, or development practice, markets are often understood as neutral platforms designed for efficiency, scale, and integration. The haat disrupts this framing. It reveals markets as socially embedded institutions, shaped by power relations, ecological contexts, cultural practices, and informal norms. Value creation here cannot be separated from the relationships and systems within which it occurs.

This blog draws from that collective reflection and dialogue. It explores why viewing the haat as a commons matters not only for understanding rural markets but also for anyone grappling with questions of sustainability, resilience, and inclusion in complex socio-economic systems.

Why the Haat Matters

India has over 40,000 rural haats, serving half of the country’s rural population, a figure that was itself a revelation for me. These weekly or biweekly markets handle an estimated ₹40,000 to ₹50,000 crore in transactions each year. Yet their significance lies not in volume alone, but in the roles they quietly perform within local systems.

A haat is often the only space where small producers meet consumers directly, where women participate in economic exchange with relative autonomy, where forest, farm, and livestock economies intersect, and where information circulates without formal infrastructure. These interactions are informal, repeated, and relational, qualities rarely captured in standard market analyses.

The haat reveals different truths to different audiences. For academics, it is a living laboratory of informal institutions. For corporate leaders, it demonstrates how value moves through decentralised, trust-based systems. For development professionals, it lays bare why well-intentioned interventions fail when social and political realities are ignored.

The central insight from the discussions was both simple and instructive. The haat reflects the health of its commons, land, forests, water, and social relationships. When these commons are intact, markets remain diverse and resilient. When they erode, markets tend to become narrow, extractive, and exclusionary.

Circularity Lives in Relationships, Not Just in Supply Chains

While boardrooms and policy documents often reduce circularity to waste management or resource efficiency, at the haat it appears less as a framework and more as a set of everyday practices shaped by local culture, proximity, and need.

The haat as a shared space. Linking economy, ecology, and local culture.

Seeds, fodder, manure, and forest produce circulate within the same landscape, creating short value chains that reduce transport emissions, retain local value, and sustain biodiversity, without being named as circular economy practices.

Research indicates that such short chains can lower carbon emissions by 30 to 40 per cent while improving producer incomes. At the haat, this is achieved not through formal design or technology, but through trust, repeated interaction, and ecological familiarity.

When Circularity Becomes Fragile

The discussions also made clear how vulnerable these local circular systems are. As standardised products, external traders, and monoculture production gain dominance, diversity steadily declines. The haat begins to mirror the logic of distant supply chains, weakening its connection to the landscape that sustains it.

This shift is not merely economic. It reflects changing power relations within the market, where scale and external demand start to override local needs and ecological limits. Without deliberate governance and collective oversight, practices that once sustained circularity gradually give way to extractive patterns.

Geography Shapes Markets More Than We Admit

One of the most instructive insights from the discussion was the way geography decisively shapes markets. A haat in a forested landscape functions very differently from one in coastal areas, and equally differently from those in irrigated agricultural belts or semi-arid regions, not by choice but by necessity. The product mix, whether dominated by agricultural surplus, non-timber forest produce, or livestock and animal products, directly reflects the surrounding ecology.

The haat as a shared space. Shaped by trust, familiarity, and the dignity of work.

This relationship is not incidental. The haat is the commercial extension of the local ecosystem, and its diversity mirrors the condition of the commons that sustain it. Where forests degrade, pastures shrink, or water sources are polluted, markets narrow and weaken accordingly.

For development professionals, this explains why uniform market interventions often fail. For corporate leaders, it highlights the risks of overlooking ecological limits in the pursuit of scale. For academics, it offers a grounded view of economic geography as lived practice rather than an abstract model.

Changing Forms Changing Power

The discussions also examined how haats themselves are changing. Many are being formalised through permanent structures, regulated fees, and integration with larger value chains. While such upgrades are often necessary, they also reconfigure power within the market.

As haats formalise, entry barriers rise, aggregators displace small sellers, and women, who constitute nearly 60 to 70 per cent of sellers in many markets, face growing constraints on space and mobility. When structures become formalised and governance weakens, they are often the first to be excluded. What is framed as modernisation can quietly erode inclusion.

The haat as a shared space. With women at the centre of everyday exchange.

At the same time, buyer profiles are shifting. Urban-linked traders and bulk buyers increasingly dominate transactions. While this may raise volumes, it often suppresses prices and reduces the bargaining power of small producers.

The lesson is uncomfortable but unavoidable. Markets are not neutral spaces. They are shaped by power, and when new power relations take hold, inequity does not disappear. It deepens.

When Social and Political Malaises Enter the Market

One of the most direct discussions focused on how social and political malaises shape local markets. Issues such as informal taxation, contractor-led rent extraction, elite capture, and weak Panchayat oversight were openly acknowledged as structural problems, not exceptions.

In many cases, revenue collected from haats does not return to improve infrastructure or services. Instead, it exits the local system altogether. This breaks what could have been a closed fiscal loop and steadily erodes trust and collective local stewardship.

The discussion also highlighted how identity politics and social divisions fragment markets that were once relatively inclusive. When access to selling space is determined by power rather than need, the haat loses its character as a commons. The implication is clear. Governance is not a technical add-on to market design. It is the foundation of market resilience.

Repositioning the Haat as a Commons

The concept note shared during the discussions makes a clear case for repositioning the haat as a commons, a shared institution governed collectively rather than managed for extraction. This shift moves the focus away from revenue maximisation and towards stewardship, access, and long-term value.

The haat as a shared space. Sustained by trust, familiarity, and everyday labour.

Viewing the haat as a commons implies recognising the right to market as a shared right, strengthening Panchayat-led governance and market committees, reinvesting market revenues locally, and integrating haats with public programmes for infrastructure and basic services. It also requires treating markets as socio-ecological assets embedded in landscapes, not merely as points of transaction.

Evidence from commons governance across sectors, from forests to fisheries, shows that collective management consistently outperforms privatisation when users have real decision-making power. Applied to haats, this approach offers a pathway to markets that are more inclusive, resilient, and locally rooted.

Closing Reflections: What the Haat Demands of Us

This engagement reinforced a simple truth. Institutions do not fail because they are inefficient. They fail when they are misunderstood. The haat endures not because it is informal, but because it is embedded in landscapes, relationships, and everyday exchange. Treating it merely as a market weakens what makes it work.

Seeing the haat as a commons shifts it from a relic of the past to a model for the future. It shows how markets can operate within ecological limits, uphold social accountability, and engage in shared governance at a time of fragile supply chains and widening inequality.

The message is clear. Strong markets need strong governance. Long-term value cannot be extracted from systems whose foundations are eroding. If circularity, resilience, and inclusion matter, the task is not to invent new systems, but to govern existing ones better. The haat reminds us that many solutions are already in practice and waiting to be recognised and protected.

*****