دانلود رایگان مقاله Decommodification به عنوان پایه و اساس اقتصاد محیط زیست

Abstract

Ecological economists have emphasized the study of commodification (i.e., the development of market-based exchange and valuation) rather than decommodification processes (i.e., the degree of immunization from market dependency). This is surprising given the fact that large-scale decommodification may be our best option for a post-growth transition so dear to many ecological economists. Based on Heinsohn and Steiger's theory of ownership, we seek to provide an institutional foundation to processes of (de)commodification. These two authors distinguish between ‘property’ and ‘possession’, two bundles of rights generating different logics and consequences. We illustrate this approach with three cases taken from an advanced capitalist economy, Switzerland, showing how commodification and decommodification processes may appear together or vigorously oppose each other. Cooperatives, forests and municipal land are examples of (partial) decommodified assets that follow a logic of possession and are therefore more likely to be sustainable. It is high time that the study of decommodification becomes central to ecological economics.

5. Conclusion

Ecological economics conceptualizes the economy as a subsystem of society, itself a subsystem of a larger, finite global ecosystem. The analytical instruments developed by ecological economics have greatly contributed to appraise the meaning of this embeddedness. However, over time, ecological economics has given too much attention to market-based exchange and valuation (i.e. to commodification processes). Decommodification-oriented public policies and local alternatives have somehow disappeared from the picture, although they form a crucial component of industrialized as well as developing economies. This is a serious omission given the fact that larger-scale decommodification may remain our best option for a sustainable future. Indeed, decommodification introduces a different logic in the relationship between societies and the environment or, more specifically, between users and resources. Our three examples taken from an advanced property-based economy – housing cooperatives, state forests and municipal land – show that decommodification reduces the control of the laws of the market on goods and services, thereby diminishing the pressure to generate financial profit. This gives more leeway and more opportunities for communities to shape the governance of the flows of benefits generated by the environment and it may lead to shifts in the balance between long- and short-term considerations, between efficiency and democracy, or between conservation and exploitation. In this context, Heinsohn and Steiger's theory of ownership provides a valuable framework highlighting the institutional foundation of (de)commodification processes and their consequences. Decommodification opens a path away from market considerations alone that might be worth following in a transition toward more equity and sustainability.