Research,the application of ideas from the literature, problem solving and critical analysis (REPORT)

Futures 35 (2003) 857–868 www.elsevier.com/locate/futures

Evaluating the penetration of the commodity economy

C.C. Williams∗

Department of Geography, University of Leicester, Leicester LE1 7RH, UK

Abstract

A recurring theme across the social sciences is that there is a natural and inevitable shift towards commodification. In this linear view of the trajectory of economies, ‘non-commodi- fied’ economic activities are rapidly vanishing as the commodity economy, in which goods and services are produced by capitalist firms for a profit under conditions of market exchange, becomes ever more victorious, powerful and hegemonic. Until now, few have questioned this meta-narrative. Here, however, the intention is to evaluate critically the penetration of com- modification. Investigating the depth and speed of the permeation of the advanced economies by the commodity economy, it is revealed that the non-commodified sphere has far from disappeared. Indeed, over the past 40 years, it has grown relative to the commodity economy and is now equal in size when the time spent working in these spheres is measured. Explaining this in terms of both the inherent contradictions embedded in the pursuit of commodification as well as the existence of ‘cultures of resistance’, the paper concludes that commodification is not only far from inevitable but the possibility of alternative futures for work beyond the all-conquering on-going advance of capitalism.  2003 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Across the social sciences, a recurring theme is that the commodity economy, where goods and services are produced by capitalist firms for a profit under con- ditions of market exchange, is becoming ever more pervasive[8]. Based on this assumption, the future of work becomes no longer open. As Amin et al., put it, “the pervasive reach of exchange-value society makes it ever more difficult to imagine

∗ Tel.: +44-116-252-5242; fax:+44-116-252-3854. E-mail address: [email protected] (C.C. Williams).

0016-3287/03/$ - see front matter 2003 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/S0016-3287(03)00040-5

858 C.C. Williams / Futures 35 (2003) 857–868

and legitimate non-market forms of organisation and provision” [1]. Commonly, therefore, the only future of work envisaged is one in which economic activity is increasingly undertaken on a commodified basis.

The aim of this paper, however, is to evaluate critically this commodification thesis and thus the idea that the future of work inevitably lies in an ever more expansive, dominant and invasive commodified economy. Until now, this meta-narrative about the all-conquering on-going advance of capitalism has been so widely accepted that few have deemed it necessary to seek evidence of whether this is indeed the case. Here, however, the intention is to question whether this received canon of wisdom is indeed as valid as many suppose. To do this, answers are sought to a number of questions. What evidence is there of how deeply the logic of the market has pen- etrated the advanced economies? To what extent, if at all, has the commodity econ- omy advanced and the non-commodified realm receded over the past decades? Do alternative economic spaces persist where commodification is absent? If so, where are they to be found? And why do they persist? And what are the consequences of their existence for how we think about the future of work?

To answer these questions, Section 2 commences by defining what is meant by the commodification thesis and displaying how it has taken on the aura of a meta- narrative that few deem it necessary to question. Following this, and to evaluate critically the idea of an on-going all-conquering advance of commodification, evi- dence is reviewed of the depth and speed of its penetration in the very heart of commoditisation, namely the advanced economies. This will reveal that for some 40 years, the process of commodification has not only stalled but has even gone into reverse in some advanced economies. The outcome is that today, the non-commodi- fied sphere is equal in size to the commodity economy when the time spent working in these spheres is measured. Explaining this stalled commodification in terms of both the inherent contradictions embedded in the structural shifts associated with the pursuit of commodification as well as the existence of ‘ cultures of resistance’ to commodified work practices, the paper concludes by highlighting how commodifi- cation is not only far from inevitable but also how these alternative economic spaces demonstrate alternative futures for work beyond the all-conquering on-going advance of capitalism.

2. The commodification thesis

Every society must produce, distribute and allocate the goods and services that people need to live [24]. As such, all societies have an economy of one sort or another. Economies, however, can be organised in various ways. Throughout the social sciences, the consensus is that the current form of economic organisation is one in which the production, distribution and allocation of goods and services are becoming increasingly commodified, by which is meant that “ goods and services… are [increasingly] produced by capitalist firms for a profit under conditions of market exchange” [34]. Yet despite the near universal adoption of this commodification thesis that results in closure regarding the future of work, it is somewhat disturbing

859C.C. Williams / Futures 35 (2003) 857–868

that hardly any evidence has been provided to show the extent of commodification or how work is increasingly becoming commodified.

For example, when Rifkin argues that “ The marketplace is a pervasive force in our lives” [33] and Gudeman how “ markets are subsuming greater portions of every- day life” [25], neither offer supporting data of any kind. Similarly, despite Carruthers and Babb asserting that there has been “ the near-complete penetration of market relations into our modern economic lives” , no evidence is mustered because as they put it, “ markets enter our lives today in many ways ‘ too numerous to be mentioned’” [7]. Meanwhile, Watts substantiates his claim that although “ commodification is not complete…the reality of capitalism is that ever more of social life is mediated through and by the market” , simply by noting that subsistence economies are increas- ingly rare [37].

Commodification, therefore, appears to have attained the status of a meta-narrative that few question. Given that no other idea in the social sciences is accepted without detailed corroboration, there is no reason why commodification should be an excep- tion. Here, therefore, the intention is to put this canon of wisdom under the spotlight. To understand the depth and speed of its permeation, the level of activity in the commodity economy needs to be measured against the amount of economic activity in the non-commodified sphere along with how the balance is changing over time. One cannot analyse solely the level of commodified activity. This does not tell us anything about how the balance is changing over time, especially given the finding that the commodified and non-commodified spheres are complementary, rather than alternatives, to each other [36].

To commence, therefore, it is necessary to define what constitutes commodified and non-commodified work. As already stated, the widely held view is that the com- modity economy refers to goods and services produced for monetised exchange in order to generate a profit. As such, commodified activity has three constituent compo- nents. First, goods and services are produced for exchange. Secondly, exchange is monetised and third and finally, these monetised exchanges of goods and services are motivated by the pursuit of profit. The non-commodified sphere, conversely, is all work that does not possess one or more of these three characteristics. First, it includes work that is not exchanged, or what is sometimes referred to as ‘ domestic work’ , ‘ self-provisioning’ , ‘ self-servicing’ or ‘ subsistence activity’ . This is unpaid work conducted by a household member either for themselves or for some other member of the household. Secondly, the non-commodified sphere includes non-mon- etised exchange, or what is called ‘ unpaid community work’ , ‘ volunteering’ or ‘ mut- ual aid’ . This is unpaid work carried out by a household member for somebody outside of the household. Third and finally, non-commodified work covers economic activities where there is monetary exchange but the profit motive is absent.

3. Evaluating the penetration of commodification

To evaluate the depth and speed of commodification, it is necessary to investigate the amount of non-exchanged work, non-monetary exchange and non-profit-mot-

860 C.C. Williams / Futures 35 (2003) 857–868

ivated monetary exchange relative to the amount of commodified work and how this is changing over time. In order to do this here, first, the amount of unpaid work relative to paid work is considered and secondly, the prevalence of monetised exchange outside the logic of profit.

3.1. The persistence of unpaid work

A first constituent component of the commodification thesis is that goods and services are increasingly produced for the purpose of monetised exchange. Here, this characteristic of the emerging structure of the advanced economies is evaluated critically. To do this, attention turns toward a vast social science literature that since the 1970s has highlighted the persistence of non-exchanged work [3] and non-monet- ised exchange [6].

To measure the amount of unpaid work (i.e. non-exchanged work and non-monet- ised exchange) that is taking place in the advanced economies relative to paid work, in theory, either the volume and/or value of either the inputs or outputs of paid and unpaid work could be measured [22]. In practice, however, it is the volume and value of the inputs that have been assessed using a time-budget methodology [17]. This is a technique for data collection where research participants fill in diaries show- ing the activities in which they were engaged in each segment of the day. Using the results, the time spent on different forms of work is then calculated [19].

Table 1 collates the findings of these time-budget studies conducted in 20 coun- tries. It reveals that across these 20 countries as a whole, unpaid work occupies 44.7% of all working time. The implication, therefore, is that the tentacles of com- modification are rather shorter than previously imagined. Unpaid work, so long con- sidered a residual and diminishing ‘ other’ , is not much smaller than the paid sphere, measured in terms of the volume of the time spent on it. Indeed, in some nations (e.g. Canada, France, Netherlands, UK, USA), the time spent engaged in unpaid work is greater than the time spent carrying out paid work. As Gibson-Graham (1996)

Table 1 Unpaid work as a percentage of total work time, 1960–present

Country 1960–1973 1974–1984 1985–Present Trend

Canada 56.9 55.4 54.2 Monetisation Denmark 41.4 – 43.3 De-monetisation France 52.0 55.5 57.5 De-monetisation Netherlands – 55.9 57.9 De-monetisation Norway 57.1 55.4 – Monetisation UK 52.1 49.7 53.9 De-monetisation USA 56.9 57.6 58.4 De-monetisation Hungary 53.6 46.8 – Monetisation Finland – 51.8 54.5 De-monetisation 20 Countries 43.4 42.7 44.7 De-monetisation

Sources: derived from Gershuny [17] (2000: Tables 7.6, 7.12, 7.16).

861C.C. Williams / Futures 35 (2003) 857–868

intimates, it is thus perhaps a little early to talk of a hegemonic, pervasive, victorious and all-powerful commodity economy [20].

Indeed, it is also perhaps presumptuous to talk of an expansive commodity econ- omy. As Table 1 further reveals, the shift of work from the unpaid to the paid sphere has not only stalled over the past 40 years but has even gone into reverse in some nations. In Denmark, Finland, France, the UK and the USA for example, unpaid work is occupying an increasing proportion of people’ s total working time. However, this is not due to an absolute growth in the time spent on unpaid work. The total hours spent in such work have declined. Rather, it is because the time spent in paid work has decreased faster than the time spent in unpaid work. The result is a de- commodification of work over the past four decades in terms of the time that paid work occupies in people’ s overall workload. These data thus reinforce across a wider range of countries some earlier findings reported in Futures with regard to France, the UK and USA [39].

The implications are potentially profound. Contrary to those who adhere to the commodification thesis, a process of de-commodification appears to be taking place, at least measured in terms of how people spend their working time. This, however, is not perhaps as unexpected as it might at first seem. The origins of much of the contemporary literature on commodification lie in Karl Polanyi’ s seminal book, The Great Transformation, which identified the shift from the non-market to the market sphere [31]. In this volume, Polanyi went to great lengths to point out that this great transformation referred merely to a shift in the balance of economic activity from the non-market to the market sphere. Even if some have since portrayed this trans- formation as rather more complete than Polanyi ever wished to suggest [27], the above time-budget data display that Polanyi was quite correct not to exaggerate the advance and reach of the market. What is so interesting about these time-budget studies, however, is that they provide tentative evidence that in the half a century since Polanyi wrote his seminal text, a second ‘ great transformation’ has taken place in many advanced economies from the market and towards the non-market sphere.

There is even evidence that these time-budget studies might be under-estimating the extent of de-commodification. First, this is because time-budget studies exagger- ate the time spent in paid work due to people counting meal- and coffee breaks, associated travel as well as socialising as time spent in employment [18]. Secondly, it is due to time-budget studies under-estimating the time spent in non-commodified work, such as by failing to capture the time and effort involved in planning and managing one’ s own and others’ activities [26]. Third and finally, these data, by using paid to unpaid work as a proxy indicator of the depth of commodification, fail to distinguish non-commodified and commodified forms of monetised exchange and thus exaggerate the total amount of commodified work.

It is not only time-budget data, however, that reveal a need to tread more carefully than has so far been the case when discussing the penetration of commodification. There is also a voluminous literature on gift giving, voluntarism and reciprocity that displays the persistence of non-monetised exchange on a large-scale basis in advanced economies [4]. Take, for example, the 2001 Home Office Citizenship Sur- vey that examined the extent of participation in formal and informal volunteering in

862 C.C. Williams / Futures 35 (2003) 857–868

the UK [32]. Analysing its results, the finding is that some 3.7 billion hours of volunteering occurred in the previous 12 months. This is the equivalent in hours to the total work of just over 2 million people in full-time formal employment (i.e. at 35 h per week). Or put in another way, for every 14 h worked in formal employment in the UK (assuming 27 million people working an average of 35 h), approximately one hour is spent working on a voluntary basis. Unpaid work, including non-monet- ised exchange, in consequence, is thus far from some marginal leftover.

3.2. Is there monetised exchange where the profit motive is absent?

Even when taken alone, these data on the relative amount of unpaid to paid work thus indicate that commodification is far from complete. The argument here, how- ever, is that even these data exaggerate the extent of commodification. It infers that all paid work is commodified work when this is by no means the case. The view that monetary exchange is always profit-motivated runs deep in both neo-classical and Marxian economistic discourse. There is a widespread belief that the incursion of monetised exchange into ever more areas of daily life marches hand-in-hand with the permeation of the profit motive. With the cultural turn across the social sciences, however, this cannon of wisdom has been challenged [11]. As Crewe and Gregson point out, “ the major defect of such market-based models of exchange is simply that they do not convey the richness and messiness of the exchange experience” in the advanced economies [12].

To display this, analysts have recently investigated a number of alternative econ- omic spaces including the car boot sale [13], charity and second-hand shops [14] and local currency systems [28]. These studies have highlighted forms of sourcing, commodity circulation, transaction codes, pricing mechanisms and value quite differ- ent from those that typify profit-motivated market-orientated exchange. Even the realm of paid informal exchange, often seen as the exemplar of the worst excesses of profit-motivated monetised exchange, has been found to be largely non-profit motivated [38]. Moreover, studies examining how people spend their money, which find that expenditure on Christmas accounts for about 4% of total annual expendi- tures [5] and that some 60% of people give money to help the poor [15], add further weight to the idea that monetised exchange is not always profit motivated. There have even started to be investigations of mainstream economic culture showing how monetary exchanges in the realm of formal business practices are not always mot- ivated purely by profit [21].

It thus appears that there is a pressing need for further investigation of the tenuous relationship between monetary exchange and the profit motive and how it is unfolding over time. At present, there is no clear evidence whether the relationship is becoming closer or more distant. On the one hand, that is, privatisation and quasi- privatisation of the public sphere, de-mutualisation and various public–private fin- ance initiatives [10] intimate that the relationship is perhaps becoming stronger in that previously not-for-profit activity is becoming profit motivated. On the other hand, however, the growing importance of the ‘ third sector’ , not-for-profit enterprises and voluntary and community-based organisations [2] intimate a possible weaker

863C.C. Williams / Futures 35 (2003) 857–868

relationship. Whether monetised exchange and the profit motive are increasingly, or decreasingly, marching hand-in-hand and how this relationship varies between places will be resolved only through detailed investigative studies. Currently, and due to the dominance of an ideology that views the profit motive and the advance of monetised exchange as inextricably interwoven, this remains relatively uncharted territory that few have deemed worthy of further investigation.

What is certain, however, is that the hegemony of commodification and its expans- ive qualities can no longer be accepted without question. The above evidence of the persistence on a large-scale of non-exchanged work, non-monetised exchange and monetised exchange where the profit motive is absent as well as the tentative indi- cation that at least some of these non-commodified realms may be growing relatively faster than the commodity economy raises serious doubts about whether commodifi- cation is so victorious and on-going as is often widely supposed. How can this be explained? Put in another way, why are these alternative economic spaces beyond the commodity economy continuing to prevail and even perhaps witnessing resurgence in the advanced economies?

4. Explaining alternative economic spaces

Having shown that there are large alternative economic spaces that are non-com- modified either in the sense that the goods and services produced are not exchanged, the exchanges are non-monetised or the monetary transactions are not imbued with the profit motive, the intention here is to explore how their persistence can be explained. Previously, such spaces have been sometimes seen as the last vestiges of a pre-capitalist past that are awaiting their inevitable incorporation into capitalism. However, this view assumes a linear trajectory towards commodification and that the co-option of these alternative economic spaces, as the last remaining remnants of pre-capitalist production, into capitalism is inevitable. The above review of both the magnitude and even growth of these alternative economic spaces, however, sug- gests that this representation is grounded in a view of commodification as not only near complete but also preordained.

An alternative explanation, and one that recognises the size and growth of the non-commodified realm, is to view these alternative economic spaces as a by-product of a post-Fordist regime of accumulation that is off-loading social reproduction func- tions from the commodified sphere back onto the non-commodified sphere [9]. From this perspective, the demise of post-war economic regulations and welfare states through deregulation and flexibilisation of social relations of production and the transferring of social services to private and communal hands [29] is viewed as having resulted in de-commodification. Non-commodified work has thus expanded to occupy spaces of production and reproduction previously covered by market relations and state subsidies.

From this viewpoint, in consequence, the inherent contradictions embedded in the commodification process have led to the de-commodification of some spheres of social reproduction. For advanced economies to compete in the global (commodified)

864 C.C. Williams / Futures 35 (2003) 857–868

economy in spheres where goods and services can generate external income, social costs have had to be reduced. Activities associated with social reproduction, there- fore, have been extracted from the commodified sphere and re-imposed on the non- commodified realm, resulting in a shifting balance between the commodity and non- commodity economies. The result is that between 1993 and 1998 in the EU, for example, there has been a decrease in the expenditure on social protection as a percentage of GDP [16] as the EU has sought to compete more effectively in the global economy. Similarly, some business sectors have reduced costs by off-loading the final stage of production, portrayed in the growth of self-servicing such as in food acquisition (e.g. supermarkets) and assemblage and construction (e.g. DIY).

Although such an economically deterministic explanation is necessary and perhaps even sufficient for comprehending the persistence and even resurgence of alternative economic spaces, the fact that non-commodification can also be read in cultural terms cannot and should not be ignored. Rather than view alternative economic practices as purely imposed on people by structural economic conditions, they can also be read in agency-orientated terms. It is becoming increasingly apparent that confronted by dissatisfaction in their formal employment, many people view non-commodified activity as a source of work satisfaction, pleasure and a means of individualising the products of consumer society for their own purposes [23]. As formal employment becomes more intense (displayed in the on-going increases in productivity throughout the advanced economies), individuals are thus not externalising their domestic activi- ties and reducing their reciprocal obligations by commodifying their livelihoods but instead, are seeking solace in this realm in order to get the pleasure that they cannot find in their commodified activity.

Indeed, this perhaps explains why multiple-earner households throughout the advanced economies conduct more non-exchanged work, non-monetised exchange and non-profit-motivated monetary exchange than their jobless counterparts [30]. It is thus doubtless the case that alternative economic spaces are sometimes and for some social groups ‘ chosen spaces’ . To view at least some of the non-commodified work that takes place in contemporary advanced economies in such a manner thus reinforces the view of Urry that “ a largely unintended effect of a highly individual- ised and marketised society has been the intensification of social practices which systematically ‘ evade the edicts of exchange value and the logic of the market’” [35].

Here, therefore, the explanation for de-commodification is not seeking to use either economically determinism or cultural essentialism. Rather than adopt a dualistic either/or approach, a both/and perspective is adopted in which alternative economic spaces are viewed as a product of both structural economic transformations and the existence of cultures of resistance to the logic of commodification. Such a both/and approach, however, needs to be sensitive to the experiences of different social groups. For some deprived populations, it is doubtless the case that economic determinism is the principal factor constraining the advance of commodification and that the non- commodified realm represents an economic survival practice. For some relatively affluent populations, however, participation in alternative economic spaces needs to be read in less economically deterministic terms and more as acts of resistance to the logic of commodification. Engagement in various forms of self-provisioning such

865C.C. Williams / Futures 35 (2003) 857–868

as do-it-yourself activity as well as caring work is for these populations conducted on a non-commodified basis more out of choice rather than economic necessity [40].

5. Conclusions

Given the ubiquity across the social sciences of the idea that advanced economies are witnessing a process of commodification, but the lack of evidence on its depth and speed, this paper has attempted to bridge this gap. Analysing the extent and pace of its permeation in the advanced economies, a non-commodified sphere has been uncovered that is not only the same size as the commodified sphere but is growing relative to the commodity economy in at least some advanced economies. This has important implications for how the future of work is envisaged. Until now, the assumption has been that there is an inevitable, on-going and unstoppable process of commodification. Here, however, this has been shown to be not the case. The future is not so closed as has been previously imagined. It is much more open.

Examining the degree to which there exists non-profit orientated monetised exchange, non-monetised exchange and non-exchanged work in contemporary society, I have here shown that even in the heartland of commodification—the advanced economies—there are large alternative economic spaces where the logic of commodification is absent. Rather than view these sites as vestiges of a pre- capitalist past awaiting incorporation into capitalism, I have here argued that in part, they are a manifestation of the contradictions inherent in the contested notion of a post-Fordist society. They reflect how advanced commodified economies have had to move social reproductive functions from the commodified sphere back onto the non-commodified sphere to effectively compete in a globalised economic order. In other part, however, these alternative economic spaces are also ‘ chosen spaces’ . They provide a lens through which the demonstrable construction and practice of alterna- tive social relations and logic’ s of work beyond market-orientated exchange and the profit motive can be seen. Put in another way, they display the existence of ‘ cultures of resistance’ to the edicts of commodification.

So far, however, little attention has been paid to these alternative sites or ‘ resistant spaces’ . Instead, the pre-supposition has been that due to the inevitability of com- modification, they will disappear as commodification takes hold. In this paper how- ever, it has been shown that this is far from inevitable and that alternative futures for work exist beyond the all-conquering on-going advance of capitalism. No longer, therefore, should the false prophecies of the commodification thesis blind us to the realisation of alternative futures of work that might arise from within these alternative economic spaces.

References

[1] A. Amin, A. Cameron, R. Hudson, The UK social economy: panacea or problem?, in: I. Bartle, D. Castiglione (Eds.), Social Capital in the Economy, University of Essex, Colchester, 2002, p. 60 Rusel Papers Civic Series 2002/4.

866 C.C. Williams / Futures 35 (2003) 857–868

[2] A. Amin, A. Cameron, R. Hudson, Placing the Social Economy, Routledge, London, 2002; J. Birchall (Ed.), The New Mutualism in Public Policy, Routledge, London, 2001; M. Lutz, Economics for the Common Good; Two Centuries of Social Economic Thought in the Humanistic Tradition, Routledge, London, 1999.

[3] L. Beneria, The enduring debate over unpaid labour, International Labour Review 138 (1999) 287– 309; C. Delphy, Close to Home, Hutchinson, London, 1984; A. Gregory, J. Windebank, Women and Work in France and Britain: theory, practice and policy, Macmillan, Basingstoke, 2000; L. McDowell, Life without father and Ford: the new gender order of post-Fordism, Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 16 (1991) 400–419.

[4] H. Berking, Sociology of Giving, Sage, London, 1999; T. Caplow, Christian gifts and kin networks, American Sociological Review 47 (1982) 383–392; R. Putnam, Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community, Simon and Schuster, London, 2000.

[5] H. Berking, Sociology of Giving, Sage, London, 1999; T. Caplow, Christian gifts and kin networks, American Sociological Review 47 (1982) 383–392.

[6] T. Caplow, Christian gifts and kin networks, American Sociological Review 47 (1982) 383–392; R. Putnam, Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community, Simon and Schuster, London, 2000.

[7] B.G. Carruthers, S.L. Babb, in: Economy/Society: Markets, Meanings and Social Structure, Pine Forge Press, Thousand Oaks, CA, 2000, p. 4.

[8] M. Castells, The Rise of the Network Society, Blackwell, Oxford, 1996; I. Gough, Global Capital, Human Needs and Social Policies, Palgrave, Basingstoke, 2000; S. Gudeman, The Anthropology of Economy, Blackwell, Oxford, 2001; M. Keck, K. Sikkunk, Activist Beyond Borders, Princeton Uni- versity Press, Ithaca, NY, 1998; R. Lee, Production, in: P. Cloke, P. Crang, M. Goodwin (Eds.), Introducing Human Geographies, Arnold, London, 1999; R. Lee, Economic geography, in: R.J. John- ston, D. Gregory, G. Pratt, M. Watts (Eds.), The Dictionary of Human Geography, Blackwell, Oxford, 2000; K. Polanyi, The Great Transformation, Beacon Press, Boston, 1944; E. Thompson, Customs in Common, Penguin, London, 1991; N.J. Thrift, Commodities, in: R.J. Johnston, D. Gre- gory, G. Pratt, M. Watts (Eds.), The Dictionary of Human Geography, Blackwell, Oxford, 2000; M. Watts, Commodities, in: P. Cloke, P. Crang, M. Goodwin (Eds.), Introducing Human Geo- graphies, Arnold, London, 1999.

[9] M. Castells, A. Portes, World underneath: the origins, dynamics and affects of the informal economy, in: A. Portes, M. Castells, L.A. Benton (Eds.), The Informal Economy: Studies in Advanced and Less Developing Countries, John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, 1989; R. Lee, Production, in: P. Cloke, P. Crang, M. Goodwin (Eds.), Introducing Human Geographies, Arnold, London, 1999; A. Portes, The informal economy and its paradoxes, in: N.J. Smelser, R. Swedberg (Eds.), The Handbook of Economic Sociology, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1994.

[10] G.L. Clark, A. Root, Infrastructure shortfall in the UK: the private finance initiative and government policy, Political Geography 18 (1999) 341–365; D. Kerr, The private finance initiative and the chang- ing governance of the built environment, Urban Studies 35 (1998) 277–301; A. Tickell, Progress in the geography of services II: services, the state and the rearticulation of capitalism, Progress in Human Geography 25 (2) (2001) 283–292.

[11] P. Crang, Displacement, consumption and identity, Environment and Planning A 28 (1996) 47–67; L. Crewe, N. Gregson, Tales of the unexpected: exploring car boot sales as marginal spaces of contemporary consumption, Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 23 (1998) 39–54; J. Davies, Exchange, Open University Press, Milton Keynes, 1992; S. Gudeman, The anthropology of economy, Blackwell, Oxford, 2001; R. Lee, Moral money? LETS and the social construction of economic geographies in southeast England, Environment and Planning A 28 (1996) 1377–1394; R. Lee, Economic geographies: representations and interpretations, in: R. Lee, J. Wills (Eds.), Geo- graphies of Economies, Arnold, London, 1997; R. Lee, Shelter from the storm? Geographies of regard in the worlds of horticultural consumption and production, Geoforum 31 (2000) 137–157; R. Lee, Economic geography, in: R.J. Johnston, D. Gregory, G. Pratt, M. Watts (Eds.), The Diction- ary of Human Geography, Blackwell, Oxford, 2000; N. Thrift, K. Olds, Refiguring the economic in economic geography, Progress in Human Geography 20 (1996) 311–337; V.A. Zelizer, The social meaning of money, Basic Books, New York, 1994.

867C.C. Williams / Futures 35 (2003) 857–868

[12] L. Crewe, N. Gregson, Tales of the unexpected: exploring car boot sales as marginal spaces of contemporary consumption, Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 23 (1998) 41.

[13] L. Crewe, N. Gregson, Tales of the unexpected: exploring car boot sales as marginal spaces of contemporary consumption, Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 23 (1998) 39–54.

[14] L. Crewe, N. Gregson, K. Brooks, The spaces of creative work: retro retailers and the production of the alternative, in: A. Leyshon, R. Lee, C.C. Williams (Eds.), Alternative Economic Geographies, Sage, London, 2002.

[15] European Commission, The Social Situation in the European Union 2001, Commission of the Euro- pean Communities, Brussels, 2001.

[16] European Commission, The Social Situation in the European Union 2001, Commission of the Euro- pean Communities, Brussels, 2001.

[17] J. Gershuny, Changing Times: Work and Leisure in Post-Industrial Society, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2000; L. Murgatroyd, H. Neuburger, A household satellite account for the UK, Economic Trends 527 (1997) 63–71; C. Roy, Les emplois du temps dans quelques pays occidentaux, Donnes Sociales 2 (1991) 223–225.

[18] J. Gershuny, Changing Times: Work and Leisure in Post-Industrial Society, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2000; A. Gregory, J. Windebank, Women and Work in France and Britain: Theory, Practice and Policy, Macmillan, Basingstoke, 2000.

[19] J. Gershuny, S. Jones, The changing work/leisure balance in Britain 1961–84, Sociological Review Monograph 33 (1987) 9–50; J. Gershuny, M. Godwin, S. Jones, The domestic labour revolution: a process of lagged adaptation, in: M. Anderson, F. Bechhofer, J. Gershuny (Eds.), The Social and Political Economy of the Household, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1994; T.F. Juster, F.P. Staf- ford, The allocation of time: empirical findings, behavioural models and problems of measurement, Journal of Economic Literature 29 (2) (1991) 471–522.

[20] J.K. Gibson-Graham, The End of Capitalism (as we knew it)?: A Feminist Critique of Political Economy, Blackwell, Oxford, 1996.

[21] J.K. Gibson-Graham, The End of Capitalism (as we knew it)?: A Feminist Critique of Political Economy, Blackwell, Oxford, 1996; R. Lee, Shelter from the storm? Geographies of regard in the worlds of horticultural consumption and production, Geoforum 31 (2000) 137–157; E. Schoenberger, Discourse and practice in human geography, Progress in Human Geography 22 (1998) 1–14; M. Zafirovski, Probing into the social layers of entrepreneurship: outlines of the sociology of enterprise, Entrepreneurship and Regional Development 11 (1999) 351–371.

[22] L. Goldschmidt-Clermond, Unpaid Work in the Household: A Review of Economic Evaluation Methods, ILO, Geneva, 1982; A. Gregory, J. Windebank, Women and Work in France and Britain: Theory, Practice and Policy, Macmillan, Basingstoke, 2000.

[23] A. Gorz, Reclaiming Work: Beyond the Wage-based Society, Polity, Cambridge, 1999; C.C. Willi- ams, J. Windebank, The uneven geographies of informal economic activities: a case study of two British cities, Work, Employment and Society 16 (2) (2002) 229–248.

[24] I. Gough, Global capital, human needs and social policies, Palgrave, Basingstoke, 2000; K. Polanyi, The Great Transformation, Beacon Press, Boston, 1944; E. Thompson, Customs in Common, Pen- guin, London, 1991.

[25] S. Gudeman, in: The Anthropology of Economy, Blackwell, Oxford, 2001, p. 144. [26] M. Haicault, La gestion ordinaire de la vie en deux, Sociologie du Travail 3 (1984) 268–277. [27] D. Harvey, The Limits to Capital, Blackwell, Oxford, 1982; N.J. Thrift, Commodities, in: R.J. John-

ston, D. Gregory, G. Pratt, M. Watts (Eds.), The Dictionary of Human Geography, Blackwell, Oxford, 2000.

[28] R. Lee, Moral money? LETS and the social construction of economic geographies in southeast England, Environment and Planning A 28 (1996) 1377–1394; P. North, Explorations in heterotopia: local exchange trading schemes (LETS) and the micropolitics of money and livelihood, Environment and Planning D 17 (1999) 69–86; C. Offe, R.G. Heinze, Beyond Employment, Polity, Cambridge, 1992; C.C. Williams, T. Alridge, R. Lee, A. Leyshon, N. Thrift, J. Tooke, Bridges into Work? An Evaluation of Local Exchange and Trading Schemes (LETS), The Policy Press, Bristol, 2001.

[29] J. Gershuny, I. Miles, The New Service Economy: The Transformation of Employment in Industrial Societies, Frances Pinter, London, 1983; R.E. Pahl, Divisions of Labour, Blackwell, Oxford, 1984.

868 C.C. Williams / Futures 35 (2003) 857–868

[30] R.E. Pahl, Divisions of Labour, Blackwell, Oxford, 1984; D. Prime, M. Zimmeck, A. Zurawan, Active Communities: Initial Findings from the 2001 Home Office Citizenship Survey, Home Office, London, 2002; R. Putnam, Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community, Simon and Schuster, London, 2000; C.C. Williams, J. Windebank, The uneven geographies of infor- mal economic activities: a case study of two British cities, Work, Employment and Society 16 (2) (2002) 229–248.

[31] K. Polanyi, The Great Transformation, Beacon Press, Boston, 1944. [32] D. Prime, M. Zimmeck, A. Zurawan, Active Communities: Initial Findings from the 2001 Home

Office Citizenship Survey, Home Office, London, 2002. [33] J. Rifkin, in: The Age of Access, Penguin, Harmondsworth, 2000, p. 3. [34] A.J. Scott, Capitalism, cities and the production of symbolic forms, Transactions of the Institute of

British Geographers 26 (1) (2001) 11–23. [35] J. Urry, in: Sociology Beyond Societies: Mobilities for the Twenty-first Century, Routledge, London,

2000, p. 146. [36] M. Leonard, Informal Economic Activity in Belfast, Avebury, Aldershot, 1994; M. Leonard, Invis-

ible Work, Invisible Workers: The Informal Economy in Europe and the US, Macmillan, Basings- toke, 1998; R.E. Pahl, Divisions of Labour, Blackwell, Oxford, 1984; P. Renooy, The Informal Economy: Meaning, Measurement and Social Significance, Netherlands Geographical Studies no. 115, Amsterdam, 1990; R. Van Geuns, J. Mevissen, P.H. Renooy, The spatial and sectoral diversity of the informal economy, Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie 78 (1987) 389–398; C.C. Williams, J. Windebank, The uneven geographies of informal economic activities: a case study of two British cities, Work, Employment and Society 16 (2) (2002) 229–248.

[37] M. Watts, Commodities, in: P. Cloke, P. Crang, M. Goodwin (Eds.), Introducing Human Geo- graphies, Arnold, London, 1999.

[38] C.C. Williams, J. Windebank, Reconceptualising paid informal exchange: some lessons from English cities, Environment and Planning A 33 (2001) 121–140.

[39] C.C. Williams, J. Windebank, The formalisation of work thesis: a critical evaluation, Futures 31 (6) (1999) 547–558.

[40] C.C. Williams, J. Windebank, The uneven geographies of informal economic activities: a case study of two British cities, Work, Employment and Society 16 (2) (2002) 229–248.