Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-09T22:46:02.541Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Commodification of Care

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 March 2020

Rutger Claassen
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper discusses the question whether care work for dependent persons (children, the elderly, and disabled persons) may be entrusted to the market; that is, whether and to what extent there is a normative justification for the “commodification of care.” It first proposes a capability theory for care that raises two relevant demands: a basic capability for receiving care and a capability for giving care. Next it discusses and rejects two objections that aim to show that market-based care undermines the caring motives essential to care, one of them because of its reliance on contracts and the other because of the corrupting influence of payment on motivation. If market care is in principle legitimate, the commodification question transforms into one about the appropriate combinations of market and non-market care. This question can be answered only by adding an additional complication: care is to be balanced against other activities, most notably work for the labor market. This brings in the problem of gender inequality, since paid work has been traditionally distributed to men and caring activities to women. I show how the capability theory of caring presented in this paper can help resolve the dispute between competing models for balancing work and caring.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Hypatia , Volume 26 , Issue 1 , Winter 2011 , pp. 43 - 64
Copyright
Copyright © 2011 by Hypatia, Inc.

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alstott, Anne. 2004. What does a fair society owe children—and their parents? Fordham Law Review 72:1941–79.Google Scholar
Anderson, Elizabeth. 1993. Value in ethics and economics. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Anderson, Elizabeth. 1997. Practical reason and incommensurable goods. In Incommensurability, incomparability, and practical reason, ed. Chang, Ruth. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Brighouse, Harry, and Swift, Adam. 2006. Parents’ rights and the value of the family. Ethics 117 (1): 80–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chang, Ruth. 2001. Against constitutive incommensurability of buying and selling friends. Nous 35 (1): 33–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Claassen, Rutger. 2009. Institutional pluralism and the limits of the market. Politics, Philosophy, and Economics 8 (4): 420–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crocker, David. 2008. Ethics of global development: Agency, capability, and deliberative democracy. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engster, Daniel. 2005. Rethinking care theory: The practice of caring and the obligation to care. Hypatia 20 (3): 50–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Espeland, Wendy Nelson, and Stevens, Mitchell L. 1998. Commensuration as a social process. Annual Review of Sociology 24:313–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Folbre, Nancy. 1995. “Holding hands at midnight”: The paradox of caring labor. Feminist Economics 1 (1): 73–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Folbre, Nancy, and Nelson, Julie. 2000. For love or money—or both? Journal of Economic Perspectives 14 (4): 123–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Folbre, Nancy, and Weisskopf, Thomas E. 1998. Did father know best? Families, markets, and the supply of caring labor. In Economics, values, and organization, ed. Ben‐Ner, Avner and Putterman, Louis. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fraser, Nancy. 1994. After the family wage: Gender equity and the welfare state. Political Theory 22 (4): 591–618.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Held, Virginia. 2002. Care and the extension of markets. Hypatia 17 (2): 19–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Himmelweit, Susan. 1999. Caring labor. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 561:27–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobs, Jerry A., and Gerson, Kathleen. 2004. The time divide: Work, family, and gender inequality. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Kaveny, M. Cathleen. 1999. Commodifying the polyvalent good of health care. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 24 (3): 207–23.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kittay, Eva Feder. 1999. Love's labor. Essays on women, equality, and dependency. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kittay, Eva Feder. 2001. A feminist public ethic of care meets the new communitarian family policy. Ethics 111 (3): 523–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krebs, Angelika. 2002. Arbeit und liebe. Die philosophischen grundlagen sozialer gerechtigkeit. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
León, Margarita. 2005. Welfare state regimes and the social organization of labour: Childcare arrangements and the work/family balance dilemma. Sociological Review 53 (2): 204–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, Jane. 2001. The decline of the male breadwinner model: Implications for work and care. Social Politics 8 (2): 152–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, Jane, and Giullari, Susanna. 2005. The adult worker model family, gender equality and care: The search for new policy principles and the possibilities and problems of a capabilities approach. Economy and Society 34 (1): 76–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lynch, Kathleen. 2007. Love labour as a distinct and non‐commodifiable form of care labour. Sociological Review 53 (2): 104–15.Google Scholar
Nelson, Julie A. 1999. Of markets and martyrs: Is it ok to pay well for care? Feminist Economics 5 (3): 43–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nussbaum, Martha. 2000. Women and human development. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nussbaum, Martha. 2003. Capabilities as fundamental entitlements: Sen and social justice. Feminist Economics 9 (2/3): 33–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pellegrino, Edmund D. 1999. The commodification of medical and health care: The moral consequences of a paradigm shift from a professional to a market ethic. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 24 (3): 243–66.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Qureshi, Hazel. 1990. Boundaries between formal and informal care‐giving work. In Gender and caring: Work and welfare in Britain and Scandinavia, ed. Ungerson, Claire. London: Harvester Wheatsheaf.Google Scholar
Raz, Joseph. 1986. The morality of freedom. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Rössler, Beate. 2007. Work, recognition, emancipation. In Recognition and power: Axel Honneth and the tradition of critical social theory, ed. van den Brink, Bert and Owen, David. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Stone, Deborah. 2005. For love nor money. The commodification of care. In Rethinking commodification: Cases and readings in law and culture, ed. Ertman, Martha M. and Williams, Joan C.New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
Walzer, Michael. 1983. Spheres of justice. A defense of pluralism and equality. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Young, Iris Marion. 2007. Recognition of love's labor: Considering Axel Honneth's feminism. In Recognition and power: Axel Honneth and the tradition of critical social theory, ed. van den Brink, Bert and Owen, David. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar