Every commodity has its peculiarities. However, to the extent that labour is a commodity, its characteristics are arguably, in a league of their own. At the Constitutional Convention of 1878 Benjamin Franklin pinned down the essence of these peculiarities, with reference to slave labour, with the quip: 'Other cargoes do not rebel'. (1) He could have added that other cargoes may leak, radiate, explode or simply entail significant logistical challenges relating to their transport, transfer and use. They may be troublesome, but they never rebel against their owner. The emergence of capitalism represented a great change in labour relations. Successive waves of commodification emancipated bonded labour and turned societies that featured some markets (including markets for slaves) into fully fledged market societies. Vibrant markets for the labour services of free men and women underpinned exponential economic growth. The labour contract had arrived and humanity's productive capacities were enhanced immeasurably. And yet it is questionable whether feudalism's receding tide left behind a labour market which works, even approximately, like other markets. Whether the market for labour actually is a market, and whether it works like the market for coal, are questions that have found their way into the policy domain, notable in view of the ILO's pronouncement (1919) that labour is not a commodity. To many, the ILO's policy statement that labour is not a mere commodity seems, understandably, self evident. Unlike commodities, the labour units for hire must, uniquely, remain physically attached to their 'seller' during the period it takes the 'buyer' to use them up. Thus, labour remains the only 'commodity' with a mind of its own; with a consciousness that its buyer can never fully tame because of its obligatory attachment to the seller. While the ghost in the machine is a metaphorical anthropomorphism by which to declare our puzzlement with our own artefacts, labour power is possessed by its seller in the most real and enduring manner. Once 'purchased', or more precisely hired, a grid of social relations between its individuated units, and also between them and their buyer, continually determine the buyer's utility from the purchase (see also Biernacki 1994). Characteristics distinguishing labour from commodities include agency, group identity and actions which challenge the notion of the workplace as a realm of consensual or pure exchanges (Thompson and Ackroyd 1995). Collective action, individual resistance to managerial imperatives, the links between productivity and workplace norms; these are all reasons to think of labour as an inalienable resource; an activity that combines, without conflating, work and labour, cooperation and resistance, constrained freedom and the opportunity to develop. (2) The value of labour is, therefore, derived not simply in relation to economic factors but also cultural, political and legal concerns (Orren 1991; Deakin and Wilkinson 2005). Nonetheless, despite the obvious arguments distinguishing labour power from other commodities, many economists resist such a distinction passionately. And since the influence of economics on public debate, not to mention government policy, is ubiquitous, it is important to re-visit this question, asking: Why does labour's distinctive character warrant a serious examination? Does it matter whether it is ontologically a commodity, akin to for instance electrical power, or whether it is in a category of its own, a special resource? The idea behind the workshop that led to this special issue is that the mere possibility of an affirmative answer to these questions renders them important. It is an idea which, we believe, grew in pertinence with the events of 2008 and beyond. As the papers in this issue were being prepared, the world was shocking itself in a manner not seen since 1929. The credit crunch of 2008, which spawned a global recession that is still reverberating, caused the greatest monetary and fiscal injection the world has seen. …
Read full abstract