IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/pophec/v19y2020i1p62-82.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Liberalism, commodification, and justice

Author

Listed:
  • Vida Panitch

    (Carleton University, Canada)

Abstract

Anti-commodification theorists condemn liberal political philosophers for not being able to justify restricting a market transaction on the basis of what is sold, but only on the basis of how it is sold. The anti-commodification theorist is correct that if this were all the liberal had to say in the face of noxious markets, it would be inadequate: even if everyone has equal bargaining power and no one is misled, there are some goods that should not go to the highest bidder. In this paper, I respond to the anti-commodification critique of liberalism by arguing that the political liberal has the wherewithal to account not only for the conditions under which goods should not be sold, but also for what kinds of goods should not be for sale in a market economy. The political liberal can appeal to a principle of equal basic rights, and to one of sufficiency in basic needs and the social bases of self-respect, I argue, to account for what’s problematic about markets in civic goods, necessary goods, and physical goods including body parts and intimate services.

Suggested Citation

  • Vida Panitch, 2020. "Liberalism, commodification, and justice," Politics, Philosophy & Economics, , vol. 19(1), pages 62-82, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:pophec:v:19:y:2020:i:1:p:62-82
    DOI: 10.1177/1470594X19877653
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1470594X19877653
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/1470594X19877653?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Anderson, Elizabeth, 1990. "The Ethical Limitations of the Market," Economics and Philosophy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 6(2), pages 179-205, October.
    2. Satz, Debra, 2010. "Why Some Things Should Not Be for Sale: The Moral Limits of Markets," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780195311594.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Beckert, Jens, 2011. "Die Sittlichkeit der Wirtschaft: Von Effizienz- und Differenzierungstheorien zu einer Theorie wirtschaftlicher Felder," MPIfG Working Paper 11/8, Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies.
    2. Pies, Ingo, 2020. "Das Moralparadoxon der Moderne: Ordonomische Überlegungen zur modernen Ethik als Ethik der Moderne," Discussion Papers 2020-01, Martin Luther University of Halle-Wittenberg, Chair of Economic Ethics.
    3. Ian Loader & Adam White, 2017. "How can we better align private security with the public interest? Towards a civilizing model of regulation," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 11(2), pages 166-184, June.
    4. Kader, Haithem, 2021. "Human well-being, morality and the economy: an Islamic perspective," Islamic Economic Studies, The Islamic Research and Training Institute (IRTI), vol. 28, pages 102-123.
    5. Casella, Alessandra & Turban, Sébastien, 2014. "Democracy undone. Systematic minority advantage in competitive vote markets," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 47-70.
    6. Katharina Huesmann & Achim Wambach, 2015. "Constraints on Matching Markets Based on Moral Concerns," CESifo Working Paper Series 5356, CESifo.
    7. Alshamy, Yahya & Coyne, Christopher J. & Goodman, Nathan, 2023. "Noxious government markets: Evidence from the international arms trade," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 205(C), pages 87-99.
    8. Gregory J. Robson, 2023. "How to Object to the Profit System (and How Not To)," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 188(2), pages 205-219, November.
    9. Kapetaniou, Chrystalla & Lee, Soo Hee, 2017. "A framework for assessing the performance of universities: The case of Cyprus," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 123(C), pages 169-180.
    10. Della Giusta, Marina & Di Tommaso, Maria Laura & Jewell, Sarah & Bettio, Francesca, 2019. "Quashing Demand Criminalizing Clients? Evidence from the UK," IZA Discussion Papers 12405, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    11. Bjorn Bartling & Ernst Fehr & Yagiz ozdemir, 2023. "Does Market Interaction Erode Moral Values?," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 105(1), pages 226-235, January.
    12. Della Giusta, Marina & Di Tommaso, Maria Laura & Bettio, Francesca & Jewell, Sarah, 2018. "Criminalising clients: some evidence from the UK," MPRA Paper 91480, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    13. Ewelina Badura, 2019. "Taxation Aspects of International E-Commerce," MIC 2019: Managing Geostrategic Issues; Proceedings of the Joint International Conference, Opatija, Croatia, 29 May–1 June 2019,, University of Primorska Press.
    14. Pillutla, Madan M. & Chen, Xiao-Ping, 1999. "Social Norms and Cooperation in Social Dilemmas: The Effects of Context and Feedback, , ," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 78(2), pages 81-103, May.
    15. Nasreen Nawaz, 2021. "Efficiency on the dynamic adjustment path in a financial market," Journal of Economics and Finance, Springer;Academy of Economics and Finance, vol. 45(1), pages 49-74, January.
    16. Sophie Bacq & Ruth V. Aguilera, 2022. "Stakeholder Governance for Responsible Innovation: A Theory of Value Creation, Appropriation, and Distribution," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 59(1), pages 29-60, January.
    17. Francesca Bettio & Marina Della Giusta & Maria Laura Di Tommaso & Sarah Jewell, 2016. "Stigmatising Prostitution: Some Evidence from the UK," Economics Discussion Papers em-dp2016-13, Department of Economics, University of Reading.
    18. Nicolás Maloberti, 2019. "Markets in votes: Alienability, strict secrecy, and political clientelism," Politics, Philosophy & Economics, , vol. 18(2), pages 193-215, May.
    19. Piotr Dworczak & Scott Duke Kominers & Mohammad Akbarpour, 2021. "Redistribution Through Markets," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 89(4), pages 1665-1698, July.
    20. Louis-Philippe Hodgson, 2018. "Cohen’s community," Politics, Philosophy & Economics, , vol. 17(1), pages 23-50, February.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:pophec:v:19:y:2020:i:1:p:62-82. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.