Explaining why the non‐commodified sphere of mutual aid is so pervasive in the advanced economies

Emerald - Tập 29 Số 9/10 - Trang 457-472 - 2009
Richard JamesWhite1
1Faculty of Development and Society, Sheffield Hallam University, Sheffield, UK

Tóm tắt

PurposeUsing new empirical data from the UK focused on mutual aid and reciprocity, the purpose of this paper is to offer robust challenges to the logic and dominance of the commodification thesis. In finding mutual aid to be a significant coping strategy to get household tasks completed, in both affluent and deprived communities, the paper addresses the important question as to “why” mutual aid is so pervasive. Using qualitative insights as to “why” respondents engaged in mutual aid and reciprocity a considered response to this question, revolving around the instinctive and social nature of reciprocity, is made.Design/methodology/approachThe research draws on previous Household Work Practice Studies, which have been influential in exploring the geographies of community self‐help. An in‐depth semi‐structured questionnaire, which adapts and develops previous successful approaches focused on mutual aid and volunteering, was employed across 100 households in two neighbouring wards in Leicester, UK.FindingsThe research found that the non‐commodified sphere of mutual aid was employed as a central coping strategy within the two communities investigated. The suggestion is that the extent of mutual aid in both deprived neighbourhoods and affluent neighbourhoods has been underestimated in previous research. However, the strength of the methodology resides with its understanding of the rationales being participation in mutual aid. This suggests that the natural and instinctive nature of reciprocity, and the social role that mutual aid plays within kin and non‐kin relations, helps explain its pervasiveness in the advanced economies.Research limitations/implicationsThe methodology and methods were designed to explicitly harness a deep qualitative understanding of the relationship and attitudes that households adopt toward their informal coping strategies, and mutual aid in particular. Thus though this approach has uncovered rich qualitative data to inform the key arguments, the quantitative findings must be treated as speculative rather than conclusive.Practical implicationsIn undermining the commodification thesis, the paper concludes that alternate and better approaches toward harnessing “the economic” in society must be pursued by policy makers. Crucially economic policy which promotes co‐operation over competition within society should be seen as earning the qualification of “advanced” economic practice.Originality/valueThis is the first paper which explicitly looks at the pervasive nature of mutual aid within the advanced economies, using primary data from Leicester. The value is seen on three levels: first, the original arguments made which highlight the pervasiveness of this informal coping strategy; second, the manner with which these contemporary insights are then contextualised with reference to the wider literature; third, the way in which this research adds to the calls to fundamentally re‐think our dominant attitudes (and policies) toward the commodified and non‐commodified spheres of work in the advanced economies.

Từ khóa


Tài liệu tham khảo

Afzal, W. (2008), “Community, identity, and knowledge: a conceptual framework for LIS research”, LIBRES Library and Information Science Research Electronic Journal, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 1‐15.

Atkinson, D., Jackson, P., Sibley, D. and Washbourne, N. (Eds) (2005), Cultural Geography: A Critical Dictionary of Key Concepts, IB Tauris, London.

Burns, D., Williams, C.C. and Windebank, J. (2004), Community Self‐Help, Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke.

Callero, P.L. (2003), “The political self: identity resources for radical democracy”, in Burke, P.J., Owens, T.J., Serpe, R.T. and Thoits, P.A. (Eds), Advances in Identity Theory and Research, Springer, New York, NY, Ch. 4.

Chadeau, A. and Fouquet, A.‐M. (1981), “Peut‐on mesurer le travail domestique?”, Economie et Statistique, No. 136, pp. 29‐42.

Ciscel, D.H. and Heath, J.A. (2001), “To market, to market: imperial capitalism's destruction of social capital and the family”, Review of Radical Political Economics, Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 401‐14.

Gershuny, J. and Jones, S. (1987), “The changing work/leisure balance in Britain 1961‐84”, Sociological Review Monograph, No. 33, pp. 9‐50.

Gough, I. (2000), Global Capital, Human Needs and Social Policies, Palgrave Macmillan, London.

Harvey, D. (1982), Limits to Capital, Blackwell, Oxford.

Killen, M. and Cords, M. (2002), “Prince Kropotkin's ghost”, American Scientist, Vol. 90 No. 3, p. 208.

Kropotkin, P. (1902 [1998]), Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution, Freedom Press, London.

Lawler, E.J. (2003), “Interaction, emotion, and collective identities”, in Burke, P.J., Owens, T.J., Serpe, R.T. and Thoits, P.A. (Eds), Advances in Identity Theory and Research, Springer, New York, NY, Ch. 9.

Leonard, M. (1994), Informal Economic Activity in Belfast, Avebury, Aldershot.

Lightburn, A. and Sessions, P. (2005), “Community‐based clinical practice: re‐creating the culture of care”, in Lightburn, A. and Sessions, P. (Eds), Handbook of Community‐based Clinical Practice, Oxford University Press, New York, NY.

Offer, A. (1997), “Between the gift and the market: the economy of regard”, Economic History Review, Vol. 50 No. 2, pp. 450‐76.

Osterman, K.F. (2000), “Students' need for belonging in the school community”, Review of Educational Research, Vol. 70 No. 3, pp. 323‐67.

Pahl, R.E. (1984), Divisions of Labour, Blackwell, Oxford.

Pilluta, M.M., Malhotra, D. and Murnigham, J.K. (2003), “Attributions of trust and the calculus of reciprocity”, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 39 No. 5, pp. 448‐55.

Polanyi, K. [1944] (2001), The Great Transformation: The Political and Economic Origins of Our Time, Beacon Press, Boston, MA.

Robinson, J. and Godbey, G. (1997), Time for Life: The Surprising Ways Americans Use Their Time, Pennsylvania State University Press, Pennsylvania, PA.

Ruston, J. (2003), Volunteers, Helpers and Socialisers: Social Capital and Time Use, Office for National Statistics, London.

Smiles, S. (1866 [1997]), Self‐Help, IEA Health and Welfare Unit, Suffolk.

Veblen, T.B. (1919), The Place of Science in Modern Civilisation and Other Essays, Huebsch, New York, NY.

Watts, M. (1999), “Commodities”, in Cloke, P., Crang, P. and Goodwin, M. (Eds), Introducing Human Geographies, Arnold, London.

White, R.J. (2000), “Geographies of self‐provisioning and mutual aid: some case study evidence from Leicester”, unpublished MSc thesis, University of Leicester, Leicester.

Williams, C.C. (2001), “Beyond the commodity economy: the persistence of informal economy activity in rural England”, Geografiska Annaler, Series B, Vol. 83 No. 4, pp. 221‐33.

Williams, C.C. (2002), “A critical evaluation of the commodification thesis”, The Sociological Review, Vol. 50 No. 4, pp. 525‐42.

Williams, C.C. (2003), “Evaluating the penetration of the commodity economy”, Futures, No. 35, pp. 857‐68.

Williams, C.C. (2004a), Cash‐in‐hand Work: The Underground Sector and the Hidden Economy of Favours, Palgrave MacMillan, Basingstoke.

Williams, C.C. (2004b), “Rethinking the ‘economy’ and uneven development: spatial disparities in household coping capabilities in contemporary England”, Regional Studies, Vol. 38 No. 5, pp. 505‐16.

Williams, C.C. (2005), A Commodified World? Mapping the Limits of Capitalism, Zed, London.

Williams, C.C. and White, R.J. (2002), “The transformation of English rural communities”, Municipal Engineer, No. 151, pp. 167‐72.

Williams, C.C. and Windebank, J. (2002), “The uneven geographies of informal economic activities: a case of two British cities”, Work Employment, and Society, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 229‐48.

Williams, C.C. and Windebank, J. (2003), “Alternative economic spaces”, in Leyshon, A., Lee, R. and Williams, C.C. (Eds), Alternative Economic Spaces, Sage, London.

Williams, C.C., White, R.J. and Aldridge, T. (2001), Community self‐help in rural England: its role in tackling poverty and exclusion, unpublished report, The Countryside Agency, London.

Bishop, J. and Hoggett, P. (1986), Organizing around Enthusiasms: Patterns of Mutual Aid in Leisure, Comedi, London.

Ewald, O. (1908), “Philosophie des Geldes”, reprinted in Simmel, G. (2004), The Philosophy of Money, Routledge, London.

Gudeman, S. (2001), The Anthropology of Economy, Blackwell, Oxford.

Hodgson, G.M. (1996), Economics and Evolution: Bringing Life Back into Economics, University of Michigan Press, Michigan, MI.

Hutchinson, F. and Mellor, M. (2004), “Capitalist malestream monetised markets versus social provisioning: proposals for the socialisation of ‘the economy’”, paper presented to the ASE World Congress, Albertville, available at: http://cog.kent.edu/archives/ownership/pdf00017.pdf (accessed 1 September 2008).

Lee, R. (1999), “Production”, in Cloke, P., Crang, P. and Goodwin, M. (Eds), Introducing Human Geographies, Arnold, London.

Minkoff, D.C. (1997), “Producing social capital”, American Behavioural Scientist, Vol. 40 No. 5, pp. 606‐19.

Pahl, R.E. (1985), “The restructuring of capital, the local political economy and household work strategies”, in Gregory, D. and Urry, J. (Eds), Social Relations and Spatial Structures, Macmillan, London.

Simmel, G. (2004), The Philosophy of Money, Routledge, London.

Williams, C.C. and Windebank, J. (1999), A Helping Hand: Harnessing Self‐help to Combat Social Exclusion, York Publishing Services, York.

Thông tin
Thông tin xuất bản

Emerald

Tập 29 Số 9/10

457-472

Thông tin tác giả