Decommodification in action: Common property as countermovement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Our purpose is twofold: to contribute to the case for seeing the economy as a rich landscape of practices for producing and distributing livelihood extending beyond the capitalist market and to highlight an important element in the current dynamic of organizational change within that landscape. We focus on a particular set of practices that not only deserve attention as departures from the market model but also exemplify an important interplay in current economic life: the resistance mounted by some elements in economic activity to the hegemony of market capitalism. Our argument sheds light on a form of organizing that is based on a distinctive economic form – common property, and arises in a distinctive setting – the heightened marketization characteristic of neo-liberalism. The factor of commodification binds these two as the force that arouses the organizational reaction. We sketch the neo-liberal environment of current economic life and then outline Polanyi’s notion of ‘fictitious commodities’ in the market economy and the countermovement aimed at protecting and recovering them. We focus on two families of practice that effectively decommodify land and labour – community land trusts and worker cooperatives – and suggest that these represent a widespread interplay of forces in the countermovement. We conclude by outlining a fertile programme of research that flows from our argument.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.090 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".