Straightening out definitions of commodification and decommodification

Introduction

Commodification and decommodification have been observed to be terms whose definitions are “frequently contested but not contradictory” (Zaman 2006, 8). Yet, can there be little argument that in practice commodification and decommodification are used in many different ways. (Even Zaman (2006, ix) notes that commodification needs further exploration and that decommodification is an "under-developed" concept). For example, does commodification mean that something has been standardized, objectified vs. regarded primarily in terms of its intrinsic worth as suggested by scholars such as Suddaby & Greenwood (2001) and Heller (2003)? Or is commodification a cultural increase in the place commodities have in a given society (Burke 1996, Cook 2004, Thrift 2006)? Does commodification mean that something is exchanged in a market (vs. non-market) setting (Willmott 1995, Halewood & Hannam 2001)? Or does commodification mean payment for informal services (Ungerson 1997, Williams & Windebank 2003)?

If the diversity of those definitions is problematic, discussions of decommodification become even more problematic as they are often not the opposite of commodification (as logic would argue they should be). For example, decommodification is often seen as exchanges taking place in informal settings or as state regulation. In the case of the latter, there is an abundance of literature on decommodification and the welfare state ( Orloff 1993, Savolainen 2000, Scruggs & Allan 2006). Ironically, unless one defines commodification as “state deregulation,” this definition (decommodification as state regulation) becomes somewhat illogical—or at least somewhat logically inconsistent.

What should the definition of decommodification be?

This is difficult to posit without first having a well-established definition of commodification (of which decommodification should logically be the opposite). First, however, it should be noted that many scholars writing about decommodification and the welfare state are careful to use wording that does not conflate state regulation with decommodification. For example, Huber, Ragin and Stephens (1993) describe the “decommodifying effect of (the) welfare state…” (emphasis added). Brady, Beckfield & Seeleib-Kaiser (2005) denote decommodification as one of three measures of the welfare state (rather than asserting that decommodification is synonymous with the welfare state or state regulation).

Certainly state regulation is a highly related topic to decommodification. However, to say that state regulation is decommodification misses the underlap that occurs between state deregulation and decommodification. For example, think of the way commodification has been described as objectification of something. An object can become regarded primarily vis-à-vis its measurable worth vs. its intrinsic value (some scholars would say that commodification is when something’s use value is displaced by its market value [Willmott 1995]). This objectification can exist in a way that is completely independent of state regulation or deregulation. This is not to say that state regulation cannot impact conceptions of commodification or decommodification, but commodification and decommodification are largely social (Sharp 2000). Markets are socially constructed, and commodities are only deemed so to be based on social perceptions. Consequently, commodification is a social construct, and whether or not something is seen as a commodity may be influenced by a host of factors, of which state intervention is only one aspect.

In partial support of Zaman’s point, the many definitions of commodification, as described in the first paragraph, are not completely contradictory. However, they are often imprecise, creating confusion in their usage. Consider defining commodification in a way that is consistent with the term “commodity” (Robison, Oliver & Frank 2015). In fact, even Karl Marx, the "father" of commodification declared that because the commodity is the most basic unit in capitalist societies, "Our investigation must...begin with the analysis of a commodity" (Marx 1967). If a commodity is something that is generally mass produced, exchanged in a market, and valued largely for its form, quality and function rather than the specific individuals that produce or consume it, then what is commodification? Simply put, it is any process that converts something into an object that is exchanged in a market and primarily valued for its form, quality and function rather than the specific individuals involved in the production or consumption of that object.

Consequently, it becomes apparent that the definitions given in the introduction are not all inaccurate, but often imprecise or not all inclusive. For example, the definition of commodification as “objectification” is not incorrect, but only takes in part of the definition (converting something into an object with measurable values rather than intrinsic worth). The definition of commodification as a cultural increase in the preoccupation with commodities in a society certainly is useful as it employs commodities in the definition. In this case the “thing” that is commodified is societal preoccupations. In general, things in society are given more worth or are more highly esteemed if they are seen as commodities. Additionally, saying that commodification is a conversion to market (vs. non-market) exchange is at least partially correct as commodities are exchanged in markets.  However, it has been noted that certain special cases of decommodification can take place in market settings as well—a point that will not be thoroughly undertaken in this piece but can has been taken up in Robison, Oliver & Frank (2015).

The last definition of commodification implies that payment for informal services can be seen as commodification. While this can be true, it is certainly not necessarily the case. The exchange of money corresponds highly to the purchase of commodities, but money can be exchanged for non-commodities. If one purchases friendship or sexual intimacy it is said to “commodify” those objects. In other words, buying something with money tends to commodify things that were not previously commodities. However, consider the caring friend or family member that buys your freedom with money. This has the opposite effect of restoring your value as a human being rather than an object that could be owned like a commodity (personal conversation with Lindon Robison December 2014).

Additionally, definitions of decommodification (or commodification) will have different a different focus based on the unit of analysis. For example, "commodifying" a person might mean to treat them like a commodity, while commodification of culture or society might focus on the way commodity exchange is emphasized or valued in a society (as well as possible discussions of reasons why they are valued). 

Conclusion

While it can be argued that the current definitions of commodification are “frequently contested but not contradictory” (Zaman 2006, 8), it should be noted that the current definitions are often incomplete. This is very academically precarious as notions of commodification appear to be conflated with other things such as dehumanization and state deregulation. While these are related terms, it is very risky to confuse them with the basic definition of commodification as any process that increase the position of commodities in human exchanges or perceptions. Additionally, the many varying definitions of commodification appear to be spilling over into the logical opposite of commodification—decommodification. If the definition of commodification is being contested, how can we agree on the definition of its opposite? Returning to the basic definition of a commodity in finding a definition for commodification (as suggested in Robison, Oliver & Frank [2015]) is recommended in order to have inclusive definitions of commodification that will not create further confusion in academic studies.

Works cited

Brady, D., Beckfield, J., & Seeleib-Kaiser, M. (2005). Economic globalization and the welfare state in affluent democracies, 1975–2001. American Sociological Review, 70(6), 921-948.

Huber, E., Ragin, C., & Stephens, J. D. (1993). Social democracy, Christian democracy, constitutional structure, and the welfare state. American journal of Sociology, 711-749.

Marx, 1967 Capital, Volume 1 New York: International Publishers

Orloff, A. S. (1993). Gender and the social rights of citizenship: The comparative analysis of gender relations and welfare states. American sociological review, 303-328.

Robison, L., Oliver, J., & Frank, K. (2015). Commodity and Relational Good Exchanges: Commodification and Decommodification. In 2015 Allied Social Science Association (ASSA) Annual Meeting, January 3-5, 2015, Boston, Massachusetts (No. 189690). Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.

Scruggs, L., & Allan, J. (2006). Welfare-state decommodification in 18 OECD countries: a replication and revision. Journal of European Social Policy, 16(1), 55-72.

Zaman, H. (2006). Breaking the iron wall: Decommodification and immigrant women's labor in Canada. Lexington Books.