Decommodification and the Welfare State
Decommodification as a concept originates with Polanyi (1980), who argued that capitalism had to treat labour as though it were a commodity like any other, produced for exchange. That labour is produced for the purpose of exchange is, however, a ‘fiction’, and to maintain this fiction consistently would lead to the very destruction of society (Polanyi, 1980, p. 73). In practice, therefore, some measure of decommodification of labour is necessary if the system is to survive. As Offe (1984, p. 263) explains it, since labour power is unlike any other commodity, it requires non-commodified support systems to preserve and enhance it whenever it is not traded in labour ‘markets’. The concept has probably gained most currency as a way of understanding modern welfare states through the work of Esping-Andersen, who placed his own view of decommodification at the heart of his typology of welfare state regimes. In this account, decommodification ‘occurs when a service is rendered as a matter of right, and when a person can maintain a livelihood without reliance on the market’ (Esping-Andersen, 1990, pp. 21–2). Esping-Andersen points out that the notion of rights was central to Marshall’s conception of
social citizenship (Marshall, 1950): ‘If social rights are given the legal and practical status of property rights, if they are inviolable, and if they are granted on the basis of citizenship rather than performance, they will entail a decommodification of the status of individuals vis-à-vis the market’ (1990, p. 21). Other authors also stress the relationship with citizenship, arguing that decom modification‘ refers in the most general sense to the empowerment of the citizenry against the forces of the market. Decom modified social policies permit actions and choices by citizens – to get married, have children, seek higher education, engage in political activity – that are, in principle, unconstrained by market considerations. Decommodification frees people from the market’(Messner and Rosenfeld, 1997, p. 1394). Esping-Andersen uses decommodification to illustrate key differences between ‘corporatist’, ‘liberal’ and ‘social democratic’ welfare regimes. According to a range of criteria (relating to unemployment and sickness benefits, and pensions), each of these can be seen to decom modify labour power to different extents and in different ways.
商品化作为一个概念源于博兰尼（1980），他认为，资本主义就把劳动似乎与其它大宗商品一样，产生交流。劳动是交流为目的的产生，然而，一个“虚构”，并保持这一小说始终会导致社会的破坏（博兰尼，1980，p. 73）。在实践中，因此，如果系统是生存的一些措施去商品化的劳动力是必要的。为提供（1984，p. 263）解释说，由于劳动力是不同于其他任何商品，它需要非商品化的支持系统来保持和提高它的时候不在劳动市场上交易的。概念有可能作为一种现代福利国家的理解通过艾斯平-安徒生获得大多数货币的工作，他把自己的观点去商品化在他类型的福利国家制度的心。在这个帐户，商品化”发生时，提供服务作为一项权利，当一个人可以维持一个没有对市场的依赖的生活”（艾斯平-安徒生，1990，页21–2）。艾斯平-安徒生指出，权利的概念是马歇尔的概念中心
社会公民（马歇尔，1950）：“如果社会权利的财产权利的法律和实践状况，如果他们是神圣的，如果他们被授予公民权的基础上，而不是性能，他们将需要去商品化的个人与à相对于市场的地位”（1990，p. 21）。其他作者也应力与公民权的关系，认为在最一般的意义上，分解性”指的是市民对市场力量的授权。改性的社会政策允许分解的公民–结婚，行为和选择有孩子，追求更高的教育，从事政治活动–是，原则上，不受市场的思考。商品化使人们从市场（梅斯纳和罗森菲尔德，1997，p. 1394）。艾斯平-安徒生使用的商品说明之间的关键差异的“社团主义”，“自由”和“社会民主福利制度。根据一系列标准（有关失业和疾病津贴，和养老金），这些可以看出，分解修改劳动力不同程度、不同的方式。