the pervasive nature of heterodox economic spaces at a time of neoliberal crisis

The Pervasive Nature of HeterodoxEconomic Spaces at a Time

of Neoliberal Crisis: Towards a“Postneoliberal” Anarchist Future

Richard J. WhiteFaculty of Development and Society, Sheffield Hallam University, Sheffield, UK;

[email protected]

Colin C. WilliamsSchool of Management, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK

[email protected]

Abstract: Re-reading the economic landscape of the western world as a largely non-capitalist landscape composed of economic plurality, this paper demonstrates howeconomic relations in contemporary western society are often embedded in non-commodified practices such as mutual aid, reciprocity, co-operation and inclusion. Byhighlighting how the long-overlooked lived practices in the contemporary world ofproduction, consumption and exchange are heavily grounded in the very types andessences of non-capitalist economic relations that have long been proposed by anarchisticvisions of employment and organization, this paper displays that such visions are far fromutopian: they are embedded firmly in the present. Through focusing on the pervasivenature of heterodox economic spaces in the UK in particular, some ideas about how todevelop an anarchist future of work and organization will be proposed. The outcome is tobegin to engage in the demonstrative construction of a future based on mutualism andautonomous modes of organization and representation.

Keywords: anarchist geographies, heterodox economics, crisis, postneoliberalism

[I]t becomes evident that the economic institutions which control production andexchange are far from giving to society the prosperity which they are supposed toguarantee; they produce precisely the opposite result. Instead of order they bring forthchaos; instead of prosperity, poverty and insecurity; instead of reconciled interests, war;a perpetual war of the exploiter against the worker, of exploiters and of workers amongthemselves. Weary of these wars, weary of the miseries which they cause, society rushesto seek a new organization (Peter Kropotkin 2002 [1880]:36).

An anarchist society, a society which organizes itself without authority, is always inexistence, like a seed beneath the snow (Colin Ward 1982:14).

IntroductionOnce more we find ourselves bearing witness to another crisis of neoliberalism(Castree 2010; Hart 2010; Wade 2010). It is crisis which, at the very least, signalsthat “(t)he free-market project is on the ropes” (Peck, Theodore and Brenner

Antipode Vol. 00 No. 00 2012 ISSN 0066-4812, pp 1–20 doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8330.2012.01033.xC© 2012 The Authors. Antipode C© 2012 Antipode Foundation Ltd.

2 Antipode

2010:94) and perhaps even that “the global capitalist system is approaching anapocalyptic zero-point” (Zizek 2011:x). Despite this, the thesis of commodificationwhich asserts that, “the market is becoming more powerful, expansive, hegemonicand totalizing as it penetrates deeper into each and every corner of economic life”(Williams 2005:1) continues to exert a powerful and popular influence in mainstreameconomic thought and practice (Cahill 1989; Shiva 2005).

The central argument of this paper is that to move purposefully towards “post-neoliberal” (anarchist) futures the blind faith given to the orthodox neoliberaleconomic model needs to be radically critiqued. As Fournier (2008:534) observed,“an escape from the economy is at least as much a question of decolonising theimagination as one of enacting new practices”. Strategies for economic change,to be successful, must simultaneously address both the economic practice and theeconomic imagination. To focus on one, but not the other, would be irrational giventheir complementary relationship. As Hardt and Negri (2001:386–387) argue:

The bizarre naturalness of capitalism is a pure and simple mystification, and we have todisabuse ourselves of it right away . . . The illusion of the naturalness of capitalism and theradicality of the limit actually stand in a relationship of complementary. Their complicityis expressed in an exhausting powerless.

To realise this, this paper identifies itself closely with that “body of work in economicgeography and cognate fields, which through an attention to space, place anddifference, rejects the tendencies towards formalism and homogeneity inherentwithin orthodox economics—(and) has begun to theorise the proliferative natureof economic life” (Leyshon 2005:860). Over the last 20 years, this re-readinghas gained significant influence within geography and other critical approachestoward “the economic” by conceptualising, capturing and understanding the rich,complex, multiple and “diverse” economic landscapes of contemporary society(Burns, Williams and Windebank 2004; Leyshon, Lee and Williams 2003; Samers2005; Williams 2005, 2007, 2011).

One of the most impressive interventions to de-centre capitalism and developtransformative projects of non-capitalist development has been the work of Gibson-Graham (1996, 2006a, 2006b). More widely, there have been complementary(eco)feminist campaigns to recognise the value of unpaid work (for example,Benston 1969; England 1996; Katz and Monk 1993; McDowell 1983; McMahaon1996); an unpacking of the nature of monetary exchange to rework the socialnature of the economic (eg Crang 1996; Crewe and Gregson 1998; White 2009);and attempts to highlight non-traditional neglected sites of consumption such asalternative retail spaces (Crewe, Gregson and Brooks 2003); garage sales (Soifferand Hermann 1987); car boot sales (Gregson and Crewe 2002, 2003); charityshops (Williams and Paddock 2003); and local currencies (eg Cahn 2000; Lee1996; North 1996). This radical commitment to re-reading the orthodox neoliberalapproaches to “the economic” has led to diverse, multiple and heterogenic modesof economic conceptualisation, representation, meaning and materialisation beingidentified and represented. This in turn has resulted in far richer contemporaryeconomic landscapes emerging, within which the capitalist mode of production inis seen to be highly uneven and incomplete.

C© 2012 The Authors. Antipode C© 2012 Antipode Foundation Ltd.

Towards a “Postneoliberal” Anarchist Future 3

This paper further exposes the misleading representations of the economyby orthodox (neoliberal) economic interpretations, by critically addressing thecommodification thesis. Drawing on empirical evidence from a selection of westerneconomies (the heartlands of commodification), it brings a range of vibrant, creative,heterodox, and non-commodified crypto-economic practices in our contemporaryeconomic landscapes to the fore. Crucially, it argues that many of these practicesare ideologically orientated toward anarchist-based visions of work and organisationand discusses the implications of this recognition for anarchist thought andpractice. In doing so the intention is to reconsider future possibilities of work andorganisation.

At a time when anarchist praxis is once again growing in importance as asocio-political mobilizer both within the academy and beyond, the paper arguesthat many non-commodified economic practices that occupy pervasive roles inproduction, exchange, and consumption are the very types of non-capitalisteconomic relations that have long been proposed by classical anarchistic visionsof work and organisation. One of the important implications for anarchism is toshow that “post-neoliberal” visions grounded in anarchist thought and praxis arefar from utopian: indeed they are deeply rooted within contemporary society. Theaim for anarchism to build a concrete utopia, and embed future possibilities withinpresent praxis is crucial, and was certainly central to the work of Peter Kropotkin,one of the most outstanding and influential anarchists of the last century:

“As to the method followed by the anarchist thinker,” he (Kropotkin) wrote in 1887, “itis entirely different from that followed by the utopists . . . He studies human society asit is now and was in the past . . . tries to discover its tendencies, past and present, itsgrowing needs, intellectual and economic, and in his ideal he merely points out in whichdirection evolution goes” (Cleaver 1994:120).

The opening section of the paper will focus on the body of critical economicliterature that has sought to map the limits to capitalism and promote a heterodoxreading of “the economic”. This will then be followed by a discussion of howthe key outcomes emerging from this critical reading of economics resonates withanarchist-inspired visions of human engagement, work and organisation. Followingthis, some empirical evidence will be provided of the plurality of economic practicesevident within western societies. This will be achieved both inter-nationally (usingtime-budget studies) and intra-nationally (through a household work practicessurvey conducted in an array of UK communities) so as to reveal at the humanscale the current pervasiveness of diversity and difference in livelihood practicesin order to open up the future to alternative neoliberal hegemony. Following anevaluation of the reasons for the pervasiveness of these non-commodified economicspaces in the contemporary western world, some provisional proposals of economicpractices and economic imagination about how to develop an anarchist futureof work and organisation will emerge. Importantly the proposals engage with botheconomic practices and the economic imagination. The hope is that this will instigatefurther discussion and exploration about how best to engage in the demonstrativeconstruction of a non-commodified anarchist future based on mutualism, pluralism,autonomous modes of organisation and representation.


4 Antipode

Anarchist Economics and the Pervasivenessof Heterodox Economic Spaces in ContemporaryWestern Society

The Nature and Meaning of AnarchismDespite its distinct, long and impressive history, anarchism has been the victim ofmalicious characterisation and misrepresentation in popular circles (see Amster et al2009). Emma Goldman (1979:48) for example considered there to be two principal(and flawed) objections to anarchism:

First, Anarchism is impractical, though a beautiful ideal. Second, Anarchism stands forviolence and destruction; hence it must be repudiated as vile and dangerous. Both theintelligent man and the ignorant mass judge not from a thorough knowledge of thesubject, but either from hearsay or false interpretation.

However to interpret a “true” nature and meaning of anarchism is highlyproblematic in much the same way as defining and locating an “authentic” versionof Marxism is. As Castoriadis (1987:9) argued, “to speak of Marxism has becomeone of the most difficult tasks imaginable . . . Of which Marxism, in fact, shouldwe be speaking?” In order to make some constructive headway, an appeal tothe (pluralistic) natures and meanings of anarchism will be interpreted in thefirst instance by engaging with the historical roots of classical anarchism, andunderstanding the wider context in which it came to prominence.

The emergence of classical anarchism is closely situated within the late nineteenthand early twentieth century. Viewed in this context, the rise of “anarchist” thoughtsand ideas were seen as a direct response to the feverish rise and expansion of themodern state and industrial capitalism (Goodway 1989). Importantly the emergingcontribution and role of anarchism has often been framed with critical reference toits relationship with Marxism (see Guerin 1989). For example, Carter (1989:177)argued that:

Anarchism and Marxism have, since the middle of the nineteenth century, strenuouslycompeted for the minds of the Left. The major strength of anarchist theory hascorresponded with the most obvious weakness of Marxism, namely the prediction(successful in the cases of anarchism, unsuccessful in the case of Marxism) of the natureof a post-capitalist society brought into being by a revolutionary party seizing control ofthe state.

On many levels, the seeds of the highly contested nature(s) of anarchism andMarxism can be traced back the difficult relationships that developed betweenPierre-Joseph Proudhon (the first to invoke the word “an-archy”); Michael Bakunin,and Karl Marx. As Kenafick (1990:10) observed:

Bakunin had many discussions with Marx . . . and though greatly impressed by theGerman thinker’s real genius, scholarship and revolutionary zeal and energy, was repelledby his arrogance, egotism and jealously . . . But at this period of the early eighteen fortiestheir differences had not yet matured and Bakunin no doubt learned a good deal fromMarx of the doctrine of Historical Materialism which is so important an element in boththese great Socialistic thinkers’ work.



The events at the Congress of the International at the Hague in 1872 is frequentlycited as a decisive moment in the acrimonious schism that has inspired often (bitter)relations between Anarchism and Marxism, for it was here that:

This meeting . . . was “packed” by the Marxists in a manner which later “Communist”tactics have made only too familiar. The equally familiar tactics of character-assassinationwere also resorted to by Marx, to his every lasting discredit, and Bakunin and hisclosest friends and Collaborator, James Guillaume, were expelled from the International(Kenafick 1990:14).

The subsequent momentum and development of anarchist thought to thought andpractice is in many ways a testimony to its protean and pluralistic appeal. Thus, asMarshall (1993:3) argues:

It would be misleading to offer a neat definition of anarchism, since by its very natureit is anti-dogmatic. It does not offer a fixed body of doctrine based on one particularworld-view. It is a complex and subtle philosophy, embracing many different currentsof thought and strategy. Indeed anarchism is like a river with many currents and eddies,constantly changing and being refreshed by new surges but always moving toward thewide ocean of freedom.

McKay (2008:18) makes another crucial and related point when arguing thatanarchism is:

a socio-economic and political theory, but not an ideology. The difference is veryimportant. Basically, theory means you have ideas; an ideology means ideas have you.Anarchism is a body of ideas, but they are flexible, in a constant state of evolution andflux, and open to modification in light of new data. As society changes and develops, sodoes anarchism.

It is important that any understanding of anarchism does not overemphasisethe (common) belief that anarchism is simply anti-government. In appealing to itsetymological roots to elicit a definition this imbalance is evident here:

What we are concerned with, in terms of definition, is a cluster of works which inturn represents a cluster of doctrines and attitudes whose principal uniting feature isthe belief that government is both harmful and unnecessary. A double Greek root isinvolved: the word archon, meaning a ruler, and the prefix an, indicating without; henceanarchy means the state of being without a ruler. By derivation, anarchism is the doctrinewhich contends that government is the source of most of our social troubles and thatthere are viable alternative forms of voluntary organization. And by further definitionthe anarchist is the man (sic) who sets out to create a society without government(Woodcock 1986:11).

A more nuanced and critical understanding of anarchism would properlyrecognise that anarchist thought has mobilised not only around opposition to thestate and capitalism, but in opposition to all forms of external authority and thus allforms of domination. This argument is well represented here by Goodway (1989:2):

Anarchists have traditionally identified the major social, economic, and politicalproblems as consisting of capitalism, inequality (including the domination of womenby men), sexual repression, militarism, war, authority, and the state. They have


6 Antipode

opposed parliamentarianism, that is, liberal or bourgeois democracy, participation inrepresentative institutions—as any kind of means for rectifying these ills.

Only through acknowledging such diversity and critical intersections can therichness and diversity of the movements which are “anarchist”—including anarchist-communism, individualist anarchism, collectivist anarchism, anarcho-syndicalism,pacifist anarchism and Christian anarchism—begin to be appreciated. As Ward(2004:3) argues, this helps account for “more recently emerging varieties ofanarchist propaganda, (such as) green anarchism and anarcha-feminism. Like thosewho believe that animal liberation is an aspect of human liberation, they claim thatthe only ideology consistent with their aims is anarchism.”

However, and despite the many advantages in maintaining an inclusive approachto anarchism, there have been unintended—and unwanted—consequences. Forexample by including any form of anti-authoritarianism as overtly “anarchist”, thishas led to a mis-appropriation of the anarchist ideal, as is evident in the debatessurrounding the oxymoronic notion of “anarcho”-capitalism for instance (see McKay2008:section F). Attempts to address any overly inclusive interpretation of anarchismmust be careful not to go too far. Such is the accusation levied against Walt andSchmidt (2009) who in arguing that class struggle anarchism (syndicalism) is theonly coherent expression of anarchism, consequently excluded such luminary figuresas Godwin, Stirner, Proudhon, Tucker, and Tolstoy from the anarchist tradition.

To better understand the nature of anarchism, effort must also be made toascertain what it stands for, rather than just stands against. Goodway (1989:2–3),for example, argues that:

(W)hat anarchists advocate are egalitarianism, co-operation (mutual aid), workers’control (self-management), individualism, freedom, and complete decentralization(organization from the bottom up). As means, they propose direct action (spontaneity)and direct democracy (wherever possible, for they are ultra-democrats, supportingdelegation against representation).

Focusing on anarchist economics, Cahill (1989:244) argues that: “The economicsof anarchism must be (1) decentralized, (2) equalitarian, (3) self-managing andempowering, (4) based on local needs, and (5) supported by other autonomousunits in a non-hierarchical fashion.”

Finally, McKay (2008:21) rightly draws attention to the fact that anarchism is, andalways has been:

more than just a means of analysis or a vision of a better society. It is also rooted instruggle, the struggle of the oppressed for their freedom. In other words, it provides ameans of achieving a new system based on the needs of people, not power, and whichputs the planet before profit.

Similarly, Bookchin (1989:274) considered that “in its greatest moments, anarchismwas always a people’s movement as well as a body of ideas and visions”.

To sum up, when addressing the nature and meaning of anarchism, it is imperativethat anarchism is not reduced:

to the mere use of the word “anarchism,” but rather might highlight and propose socialrelations based on cooperation, self-determination, and negating hierarchical roles. From



this perspective, one can find a much richer and more global tradition of social andpolitical thought and organization that while not raising a black flag in the air is veryuseful for expanding the scope of human possibilities in a liberatory direction (Shukaitis2009:170).

Even if packaged definitions of anarchism are elusive, we can be certain that manyof the findings emerging from a “diverse economies” approach have much to offeranarchist-oriented critiques of economy and society. This includes the advocacy ofa move away from capitalocentric economic discourse (Gibson-Graham 2006a);from “thin” to “thicker” readings of economic exchange (White and Williams2010; Zelizer 1997); emphasising voluntary co-operation and mutualism (Burns,Williams and Windebank 2004; Williams and Windebank 2001); and engagingwith the complex economic geographies present within “the local” (White 2009).Moreover, the desire to explore non-capitalist alternative economic practices withincontemporary society has a great precedence in anarchism, and is certainly evidentin Kropotkin’s extensive body of work. As Cleaver (1994:122) observes:

(Kropotkin’s) work fascinates not because it gives us formulae for the future but becauseit shows us how to discover tendencies in the present which provide alternative pathsout of the current crisis and out of the capitalist system. As that system has developedin the years since he wrote, some of the alternatives he saw were absorbed and ceasedto provide ways forward. Others have survived. Others, inevitably, have appeared. Ourproblem is to recognize them, to evaluate them and, where we find it appropriate, tosupport their development.

Ward (1982:5) similarly asserts that:

Many years of attempting to be an anarchist propagandist have convinced me thatwe win over our fellow citizen to anarchist ideas, precisely through drawing upon thecommon experience of the informal, transients, self-organising networks of relationshipsthat in fact make human community possible, rather than through the rejection ofexisting society as a whole in favor of some future society where some different kind ofhumanity will live in perfect harmony.

It is toward unearthing these informal and self-organising networks of relationshipsacross the contemporary economic landscape to which the paper now turns.

Before doing so, a contextual point is necessary. The central evidence basebelow is focused on the western economies, the so-called heartland of ourcommodified world. When analysed from a global economic perspective, thisgeographical focus is obviously partial and incomplete. However, such a focuschallenges head on the conventional wisdom of the natural and inevitable trajectoryof economic development. The popular assumption imagines that the economiclandscapes of the advanced economies are highly commodified, and that significantnon-commodified spaces are mostly found in “under-developed” or transitionaleconomies of the “majority world”. This is certainly evident in policy approaches toglobal economic development. For example, the International Labour Organization(ILO 2008, 2010) under the agenda of “decent work”, has included extensiveresearch on the informal sector of Latin America (ILO 2002a), Central America (ILO2002b) and other non-western countries to help enable an economic transitionto formalization (ILO 2007). However, the focus here upon western economies


8 Antipode

Formal paid job in in private sector

Formal paid job in public/third sector

Informal employment

Monetised community exchanges

Formal unpaid work in private sector

Formal unpaid work in public/thirdsector

Off-the-radar non-monetisedwork inorganisation

One-to-one non-monetised exchanges

Monetised

InformalFormal

Non-exchanged labour

Monetised family labour

Non-monetised

Figure 1: A typology of work practices

illustrates that non-commodified spaces are still at the core (rather than the margins)of even the “advanced”, and “commodified” economies. The clear implicationis that non-commodified spaces cannot be depicted as “the mere vestige of adisappearing past [or as] transitory or provisional” (Latouche 1993:49), located inthe so-called periphery or margins of the global economic landscape, but persist inthe very heartlands of our commodified world.

Economic TypologiesGiven the richness and complexity of economic exchange in society, some ofwhich is memorably captured in Gibson-Graham’s (2006b:70) “economic iceberg”model, any attempts to conceptualise the relationship(s) between different typesof economic space will be inevitably crude in their execution.1 Recognising this,economic representations have become increasingly nuanced in the hope of bettercapturing the diversity of economic lived practice. One of the most promising ofthese is the use of a total social organisation of labour approach (TSOL) designedto capture the multiplicity of labour practices that exist on a horizontal spectrum,moving from formal to informal work practices, which are cross-cut by a verticalspectrum that moves from wholly monetised to wholly non-monetised practices(see Williams 2011). This representation of different (but inter-linked) spheres ofwork (see Figure 1) has been influential.

In an orthodox (neoliberal) reading of economic development, the assumptionis that the world is becoming increasingly commodified (Polanyi 1944; Scott 2001)with work becoming increasingly concentrated in formal paid jobs in the privatesector. The thesis is that this sphere is expanding at the expense of all otherspheres. However, when evidence is sought to corroborate this grand narrativeof commodification, the “most worrying and disturbing finding . . . is that hardlyany evidence is ever brought to the fore by its adherents either to show that aprocess of commodification is taking place or even to display the extent, pace orunevenness of its penetration” (Williams 2005:23). Instead, quite the opposite hasbeen found.



Table 1: Allocation of working time in western economies

Time spent onPaid work Non-exchanged work non-exchanged work

Country (min per day) (min per day) as% of all work

Canada 293 204 41.0Denmark 283 155 35.3France 297 246 45.3Netherlands 265 209 44.1Norway 265 232 46.7UK 282 206 42.2USA 304 231 43.2Finland 268 216 44.620 countries 297 230 43.6

Source: derived from Gershuny (2000:Table 7.1)

Table 2: Unpaid and paid work as a% of total work time across 20 countries, 1960–present

1960–1973 1974–1984 1985–present

Min per % of all Min per % of all Min per % of allCountry day work day work day work

Paid work 309 56.6 285 57.3 293 55.4Subsistence work 237 43.4 212 42.7 235 44.6

546 100.0 497 100.0 528 100.0

Source: derived from Gershuny (2000:Table 7.1)

The Inter-National Persistence of Non-commodifiedWork PracticesAt the inter-national level, the results generated by time-budget studies have beenparticularly influential (Gershuny 2000). As Table 1 indicates, across 20 countries,an average of 43.6% of working time is spent engaged in unpaid domesticwork (ie non-exchanged labour), which seriously calls into question the extent ofcommodification of the so-called “advanced” western economies.

Neither is there evidence that there has been a definite transition over timetowards commodified work or even monetised transactions (see Table 2). Indeedpaid work, when taken as a percentage of total working time across the 20 countries,is decreasing over time.

Evaluating the Intra-national Persistence of Non-commodifiedWork PracticesTo evaluate the intra-national persistence of non-commodified work practices,evidence is drawn from 861 face-to-face interviews undertaken across a rangeof deprived and affluent urban and rural English localities (see Williams 2011).The term deprivation, as understood here, is based upon a range of indices(including income levels, employment, health, education, skills, housing, crime andthe environment) used by the UK government to form their Index of Deprivation to


10 Antipode

Table 3: UK localities studied

Locality type Area Number of interviews

Affluent rural Fulbourn, Cambridgeshire 70Affluent rural Chalford, Gloucestershire 70Deprived rural Grimethorpe, South Yorkshire 70Deprived rural Wigston, Cumbria 70Deprived rural St Blazey, Cornwall 70Affluent suburb Fulwood, Sheffield 50Affluent suburb Basset/Chilworth, Southampton 61Deprived urban Manor, Sheffield 100Deprived urban Pitsmoor, Sheffield 100Deprived urban St Mary’s, Southampton 100Deprived urban Hightown, Southampton 100

rank England’s wards relative to each other. Although there is no standard definitionof “neighbourhood”, it is generally viewed as an appropriate scale to help focusattention on those areas where comparative deprivation/affluence are apparent.Drawing on data generated by the UK government’s Index of Multiple Deprivation(ODPM 2000), a maximum variation sampling was used to select localities amongstthe highest and lowest ranked in terms of multiple deprivation (see Table 3).The rural localities studied, for example Grimethorpe, St Blazey and Wigton, havemuch higher proportions of low-income households, unemployment and lowereducational attainment levels than Fulbourn and Chalford.

The interviews undertaken in these localities were semi-structured. Havinggathered necessary socio-demographic background data (age, gender, householdincome, employment status, work history), the interview then focused on the typeof labour that a household had called upon to undertake up to 44 domestic tasks.2

For each task, the respondent was asked whether the task had been undertaken; ifso who had carried out the work (and why), and whether or not it was done on apaid or unpaid basis (and why). Then the same tasks were addressed but this timeasking the respondent if they (or other members of their household) had done workfor other households and, if so, under what basis.

The finding is that participation rates in monetised labour are not extensive (seeTable 4). In lived practice, less than a fifth of respondents in deprived localitieshad participated in paid formal labour over the previous 12 months. In affluentlocalities, this figure was higher but still accounted for less than 50% of therespondents. Moreover, when these findings are taken in conjunction with non-exchanged labour and non-monetised informal community exchanges then whatemerges is an economic reality in which private sector formal labour is marginal,and is of significance only to a small minority of the population.

When focusing on the labour practices employed by households to complete thetasks investigated, Table 5 again suggests only a shallow and uneven penetrationof formal market labour. Hence, only a limited commodification has taken place inthese English localities. Indeed, just 16% of tasks when last undertaken had usedformal market labour.



Table 4: Participation rates in different labour practices

% Respondents in last 12 Deprived Affluent Deprived Affluentmonths participating in: urban urban rural rural

Monetised labourFormal paid job in private

sector16 48 19 49

Formal paid job in public andthird sector

20 27 18 25

Informal employment 5 7 6 8Monetised community

exchange60 21 63 30

Monetised family labour 3 6 2 4

Non-monetised labourFormal unpaid work in

private sector1 2 1 2

Formal unpaid work in publicand third sector

19 28 21 30

Off the radar/non-monetisedwork in organisations

2 0 2 1

One-to-one non-monetisedexchanges

52 70 54 73

Non-exchanged labour 99 100 100 100

Source : Colin Williams’s own English localities survey

Table 5: Type of labour practices used to conduct 44 domestic tasks by locality type

% Tasks last conducted Deprived Affluent Deprived Affluent Allusing: urban urban rural rural areas

Monetised labourFormal paid job in private

sector12 15 18 22 16

Formal paid job in public andthird sector

2 2 2 2 2

Informal employment 2 8 <1 4 2Monetised community

exchange3 1 4 1 3

Monetised family labour 1 <1 1 1 1

Non-monetised labourFormal unpaid work in

private sector<1 0 <1 <1 <1

Formal unpaid work in publicand third sector

<1 0 <1 0 <1

Off the radar/non-monetisedwork in organisations

<1 0 <1 0 0

One-to-one non monetisedexchanges

4 2 8 7 6

Non-exchanged labour 76 72 67 63 70Total 100 100 100 100 100χ2 102.89 29.87 89.76 28.88 –

Note: χ2>12.838 in all cases, leading us to reject Ho within a 99.5% confidence interval that there areno spatial variations in the sources of labour used to complete the 44 household services.Source: Colin Williams’s own English localities survey


12 Antipode

The results also indicate the uneven permeation of formal market labour andthe existence of contrasting work cultures across populations. For example, lower-income populations are less monetised than higher-income ones. The householdwork practices of higher-income populations are also less reliant upon communityexchange between close social relations (monetised and non-monetised). Self-help(self-provisioning) is still very dominant, with little work being sourced within themarket realm.

When the multifarious labour practices are taken into account alongside theevidence generated though time budget surveys, the empirical case to supportthe commodification thesis is weak. This understanding—that the commodificationthesis is a popular myth—is one which should give much inspiration to thoseanticipating and advocating a “post-neoliberal” economic future. The implicationsare considerable and transformative. To paraphrase the Community Collective(2001:3–4):

If we no longer understand capitalism as necessarily expansive and naturally dominant,we retain the imaginative space for alternatives and the rationale for their enactment. Inreconconceptualizing the economy differently we can then enact a different economy.More specifically, in de-naturalizing capitalist dominance we represent noncapitalistforms of economy (including ones we might value and desire) as both existing andemerging, and as possible to create.

If this discussion encourages anything, it is one which will re-appraise theconventional readings of the economy from an anarchist perspective. The economiclandscape of the western world should be more properly understood as a largelynon-capitalist landscape composed of economic plurality, wherein relations areoften embedded in non-commodified practices such as mutual aid, reciprocity,co-operation and inclusion.

This raises an important question:”Why are non-commodified spaces sopervasive?” And it is this question that (classical) anarchist readings concerning thenature of humans, and their relationship with others, are particularly well equippedto answer. The slim volume of research that has explored this question explicitlycites several key reasons for its persistence. For example, Williams and Windebank(2001) found that the main motivations for conducting non-commodified practicesare economic necessity, ease, choice and pleasure.

When contrasting higher and lower income neighbourhoods in a UK studyof Sheffield and Southampton, Burns, Williams and Windebank (2004:chapter 3)found that economic necessity was the primary reason why lower-income urbanneighbourhoods engaged in this form of activity, cited by 44% of the respondents.For higher-income households this accounted for just 10% of non-commodifiedtasks with other non-economic rationales such as ease, choice and pleasure comingto the fore instead. Thirty seven percent of higher-income neighbourhoods, and18% of lower income neighbourhoods used non-commodified practices becausethis was easier than contacting and employing formal labour in the private sector.

Elsewhere, households preferred to use non-commodified practices because thetasks would be completed to a higher standard and/or would be more individualisedthan if commodified labour was used. This preference was closely linked to engaging



in non-commodified practices because it was a pleasurable experience (the rationalefor 32% of non-commodified tasks in affluent neighbourhoods and 14% in deprivedneighbourhoods) (Burns, Williams and Windebank 2004:57–58). To engage in do-it-yourself projects (like decorating or other home improvement tasks) was somethingparticularly worthwhile and rewarding. Of course this simple pleasure in undertakingthe non-routine tasks, in direct contrast to formal work, has been highlighted inmany anarchist writings. As Ward (1982:95) noted:

(A man or women) enjoys going home and digging in his garden because he is free fromforemen, managers and bosses. He is free from the monotony and slavery of doing thesame thing day in day out, and is in control of the whole job from start to finish. He isfree to decide for himself how and when to set about it. He is responsible to himself andnot to somebody else. He is working because he wants to and not because he has to. Heis doing his own thing. He is his own man.

This spirit of this argument is also captured by Berkmann (1986 [1929]:336):

The need of activity is one of the most fundamental urges of man. Watch the child andsee how strong is his instinct for action, for movement, for doing something. Strongand continuous. It is the same with the healthy man. His energy and vitality demandexpression. Permit him to do the work of his choice, the thing he loves, and his applicationwill know neither weariness nor shirking. You can observe this in the factory when he islucky enough to own a garden or patch of ground to raise some flowers or vegetables on.

Given this body of evidence, what can be meaningfully and constructively takenforward to help inform discussions and debate that are concerned with harnessinga post-neoliberal anarchist future?

Towards a Post-neoliberal Anarchist FutureSuppose our future in fact lies, not with a handful of technocrats pushing buttons tosupport the rest of us, but with a multitude of small activities, whether by individual orgroups, doing their own thing? Suppose the only plausible economic recovery consistsin people picking themselves up off the industrial scrapheap, or rejecting their slot inthe micro-technology system, and making their own niche in the world of ordinaryneeds and their satisfaction. Wouldn’t that be something to do with anarchism? (Ward1982:13).

The above analysis has re-asserted the centrality of non-commodified spaces in anage of neoliberal economic crisis. Many alternative forms of social co-operation andways of being not only persist in the contemporary world, but occupy a central placein many household and community livelihood practices. Moreover, many of thesepractices are empowering and desirable in that they are harnessed through choice,and not economic necessity. It is hoped that this will encourage anarchist-basedvisions of “post-neoliberal” futures to assert themselves confidently from withinthese current economic landscapes, and help a secure bridge to be establishedbetween the contemporary world and that of a future (“post-neoliberal”) world.This bridging between “what is” and “what could be” is of critical importance formany reasons, but particularly given that: “The problem of transcending capitalismis the search for the future in the present, the identification of already existing


14 Antipode

activities which embody new, alternative forms of social co-operation and ways ofbeing” (Cleaver 1994:129).

This brings us to an important consideration: “What . . . will it be like to live ina world dominated more and more by household and hidden economies and lessby the formal economy?” (Ward 1982:13) What possible new or alternative crypto-economic-anarchist spaces, might emerge from different modes of engagement,exchange and participation? It is to this consideration that we now turn.

Enabling Crypto-Economic Spaces to Emerge andThriveBy seeking to unpack economic plurality, this paper has begun to criticallyundermine the commodification thesis. There exist large swathes of non-commodified spaces of production, exchange and consumption in both higher andlower income communities. This opens up alternative economic routes for movingpurposefully toward a “post-capitalist” society.

Crucially, however, attempts to sketch what crypto-economic spaces are possible,or desirable, must consciously avoid the temptation of unnecessarily imposing anoverly narrow, singular, or “best” interpretation of what that economic future shouldbe. Indeed plurality, diversity, and heterodox approaches to the future should bepositively encouraged and embraced. As Baldelli (1972:82) argues:

In an anarchist society there will be positive freedom, freedom as power, but only inassociation with others, not over or against them. There is only one way to avoid makingthe individual powerless against society, and that is a plurality of societies within society,and a plurality of powers within or in accompaniment to each society. This doubleplurality should provide ample room for each individual to choose from a fair variety ofpossible destinies.

To this end, and situated firmly in the anarchist tradition, we would like to outlinea two-pronged complementary approach that will enable crypto-economic spacesto emerge and thrive. The first concerns the role of education, and the secondfocuses on the social and structural barriers to participation in non-commodifiedpractices.

Liberating EducationFrom William Godwin’s (1986 [1793]) polemic about the evils of national educationto the present day, anarchists and other dissident thinkers, notably Friere (1972)and Illich (1971), have invested a great deal of attention toward the role of (state-controlled) schools and education. As Ward (1982:79) argues: “Ultimately the socialfunction of education is to perpetuate society: it is the social function. Societyguarantees its future by rearing its children in its own image.” At a fundamental level,encouraging the recognition and development of crypt-economic spaces dependson the ability of contemporary society to unshackle itself from the current straitjacketof neoliberal economic thought and discourse, and instead be inspired to envisagemultiple possibilities of a “post-neoliberal” future. Education thus—as it always has—becomes a critical key, not only in inspiring greater critical thought and engagement



through engaging with heterodox economics, but also with re-inserting this inbroader political frameworks. Undoubtedly education—both compulsory and athigher levels—must give serious consideration as to how best to incorporate thesebroader economic and political frameworks of reference and understanding.

We would argue strongly that a core element of geography must (at all levels) turntowards its anarchist roots once more, dedicate resources not only to de-mystifyingthe anarchist tradition, but where relevant and possible, engaging directly withthe (new) challenges and critiques that anarchism extols as a political and socialideology. Anarchist studies must strive to be, in the words of Shukaitis (2009:169),“more than the study of anarchism and anarchists by anarchists, weaving a strangeweb of self-referentiality and endless rehashing of the deeds and ideas of beardednineteenth-century European males”.

Pepper (1988:339–340) suggests two ways to introduce the subject of anarchisminto the geography classroom:

First pupils could be informed of some of the principles underlying various formsof anarchism (e.g., decentralism, self-reliance, anti-specialism, anti-urban/ pro-rural,egalitarianism), and asked to speculate on what changes would occur in Britain’sgeography if these principles were applied.

Indeed the crisis of both neoliberal economics and the state demands that the needto radicalise and re-think approaches to these domains is taken up, and the currentvogue for the “business as usual” model, or the oxymoronic call for “sustainablecapitalism” is firmly critiqued, exposed and rejected. As Pepper (1988:350) argues,getting children to critically consider the contemporary (economic, social, political)landscapes should:

wean pupils away from a-historicism: that is, the distressing tendency to see thefuture as inevitable—i.e., over-conditioned by the present—and only imaginable interms of extrapolation from present assumptions (of gigantism, capitalism, technologicaldeterminism, etc.).

Importantly, with respect to the economic the evidence base presented here—which constructively builds upon the critical interventions and interpretations arisingfrom other dissident/heterodox economists—acts as another excellent point ofdiscussion and departure from conventional neoliberal economic dogma.

Barriers to Participation in Non-commodified PracticesIn addition to influencing hearts and minds through pedagogic intervention as astrategy to ensure possibilities for crypto-economic spaces to emerge and thrive,close attention must also be placed to addressing the structural and social barriersto participation in non-commodified work practices.

If a “post-capitalist” world is to be constructed, then a greater awareness of thestructural and social barriers that prevent greater participation in non-commodifiedpractices is required. Put broadly, and again drawing on previous research in theUK (Burns, Williams and Windebank 2004; White, 2009; Williams and Windebank,2001) the nature of these barriers are uneven, and not only reflect (a combination)of a household’s lack of money, time, skills, and social networks, but also several


16 Antipode

social taboos that include “being a burden to others”; “false expectations”, “beingtaken advantage of” and “being unable to say no to others”. More understandingthrough empirical research is thus required regarding how individuals can existbetter outside the capitalist money economy. A nuanced bottom-up approach tounderstanding these barriers from the household and community level is desirableif they are to be successfully addressed.

There must certainly be a holistic and sensitive, reflective approach in place,one which is committed to recognising the critical intersections that operate insociety. Without doubt the anarchist gaze should continue to focus on the sitesof production and re-production at the human scale (Sale 1980), including thosedominant spaces of education, housing, employment and the family in particular.With respect to the family, any intervention may take on new and unpredictableforms. As Ward (1982:129) argues:

Family life, based on the original community, has disappeared. A new family, based oncommunity of aspirations, will take its place. In this family people will be obliged to knowone another, to aid one another and to lean on one another moral support on everyoccasion.

It is also important to put the local, the community and the individual, at the heartof change, a point made by Norberg-Hodge (1992:181) in her study of Ladakhsociety:

The fabric of industrial society is to a great extent determined by the interaction ofscience, technology, and a narrow economic paradigm—and interaction that is leadingto ever-greater centralization and specialization. Since the Industrial revolution, theperspective of the individual has become more limited while political and economicunits have grown larger. I have become convinced that we need to de-centralize ourpolitical and economic structures and broaden our approach to knowledge if we are tofind our way to a more balanced and sane society. In Ladakh, I have seen how human-scale structures nurture intimate bonds with the earth and an active and participatorydemocracy, while supporting strong and vital communities, healthy families, and agreater balance between male and female. These structures in turn provide the securityneeded for individual well-being and, paradoxically, for a sense of freedom.

A Final ThoughtThe anarchist sees the question of change as an immediate one, not something to bepostponed until practical pressing matters are dealt with in an effective, but amoral, way(Cahill 1989:235).

That many seemingly entrenched obstacles can be overcome by direct action—by“ordinary people” taking responsibility for changing their own situation—can bewitnessed on many levels, and in many places. Indeed there has been a greatdeal of evidence of good (anarchist-based) practice arising via the work that(radical) geographers have undertaken, particularly those focused on engaging withautonomous communities (eg Pickerill and Chatterton 2006). There is no doubtthat many new and exciting strategies of resistance have yet to be explored, orproperly understood, and not least from within the western world. This was a point



of considered reflection by Chatterton (2010:898) while working with the Zapatistaautonomous municipality of Morelia:

I began to think about the inspiring struggles and people I had met back home inthe UK over the last few years. People ripping up genetically modified crops, breakinginto warehouses to hold raves or military bases to dismantle jet fighters, blocking roaddevelopments or holding parties in the middle of motorways. The silent army of peopleorganising free language classes for migrants or solidarity events against the poll tax,developing open source software, hacklabs and alternative news media. Under the brightinspiring lights of the Zapatista struggle, I had begun to forget just how many peoplecontinue to resist neoliberalism, the deadlock of consumer-led market fundamentalismand the patronising deadhand of representative democracy in a wealth of untold ways;often putting their own liberty on the line to struggle for a better, more equal societywhere everyone has a say in how it is built.

Critical academics and activists alike should take great heart and inspirationthat we can perceive clear (anarchist) spaces and methods of social andeconomic organisation that are being continually produced and re-produced in thecontemporary world. Given this, it would seem rational that any approaches whichlook to pursue “post neoliberal” economic futures should try wherever possible tolocate non-commodified practices at the heart of these “new” worlds. As Burns,Williams and Windebank (2004:28) observe: “Community self help should not beseen as an off-the-wall radical philosophy. It is for the most part what we do already.”And this is where the rub lies for “anarchists must begin to construct the world asanarchists want it to be, but do it in the world-as-it-is” (Cahill 1989:243).

Anarchist visions aside, it is also important to reflect and consider what strategiesand tactics can be used to successfully promote anarchist-inspired praxis. Thismay prove the greater challenge. As Goldman (1979:48) noted, “as the mostrevolutionary and uncompromising innovator, Anarchism must meet needs with thecombined ignorance and venom of the world it aims to reconstruct”. One significantstep forward would be the wider re-integration of a re-vitalised and re-energisedanarchism within the contemporary theory and praxis of human and economicgeography. It is disappointing to reflect on the fact that direct engagement withanarchist ideas and practice within geography have been neglected, or overlookedin favour of other radical geographies (Marxist and feminist critiques for example),for much of the twentieth century. As Blunt and Willis (2000:2) note: “Anarchistideas have inspired enormous change within the discipline, but as yet, they havespawned only the outlines of a tradition of geographical scholarship and there isplenty of scope for further elaboration.” If this paper has contributed in some smallway toward a (re)turn to anarchist geography, opened up some new opportunitiesand possibilities to unleash our economic imaginations, helped suggest ways tomove beyond authoritarian methods of social organisation, and move purposefullytoward a “post-neoliberal” future, then it will have achieved its purpose.

AcknowledgementsThe authors would like to thank the four anonymous referees for their constructive insightsand valuable suggestions that have helped strengthen the original version of the papersignificantly.


18 Antipode

Endnotes1 On a related point, an important gap in heterodox economics literature concerns the lackof a poststructuralist anarchism intervention. This would be another potential exciting andworthwhile endeavour, and one that has begun to be of influence elsewhere (eg Jeppesen2011; Koch 2011; May 1994 2011; Mueller 2011; Newman 2011).2 The tasks included aspects of house maintenance (outdoor painting, indoor painting,wallpapering, plastering, mending a broken window and maintenance of appliances), homeimprovement (putting in double glazing, plumbing, electrical work, house insulation, puttingin a bathroom suite, building a garage, building an extension, putting in central heatingand carpentry), housework (routine housework, cleaning windows outdoors, spring cleaning,cleaning windows indoors, doing the shopping, washing clothes and sheets, ironing, cookingmeals, washing dishes, hairdressing, household administration), making and repairing goods(making clothes, repairing clothes, knitting, making or repairing furniture, making or repairinggarden equipment, making curtains), car maintenance (washing car, repairing car and carmaintenance), gardening (care of indoor plants, outdoor borders, outdoor vegetables, lawnmowing) and caring activities (daytime baby-sitting, night-time baby sitting, educationalactivities, pet care).

ReferencesAmster R, Deleon A, Fernandez, L A, Nocella II, A J and Shannon D (eds) (2009) Contemporary

Anarchist Studies: An Introductory Anthology of Anarchy in the Academy. London: RoutledgeBaldelli G (1972) Social Anarchism. Harmondsworth: PenguinBenston M (1969) The political economy of women’s liberation. Monthly Review 21(4):13–27Berkmann A (1986 [1929]) Lazy men and dirty work. In G Woodcock (ed) The Anarchist

Reader (pp 334–338). Glasgow: Fontana PressBlunt A and Willis J (2000) Dissident Geographies. Harlow: PearsonBookchin M (1989) New social movements: the anarchic dimension. In D Goodway (ed) For

Anarchism: History, Theory and Practice (pp 259–274). London: RoutledgeBurns D, Williams C C and Windebank J (2004) Community Self-Help. Basingstoke: PalgraveCahill T (1989) Co-operatives and anarchism: A contemporary perspective. In D Goodway

(ed) For Anarchism: History, Theory and Practice (pp 235–258). London: RoutledgeCahn E (2000) No More Throw-Away People: The Co-operative Imperative. Washington DC:

Essential BooksCarter A (1989) Outline of an anarchist theory of history. In D Goodway (ed) For Anarchism:

History, Theory and Practice (pp 176–197). London: RoutledgeCastoriadis C (1987) The Imaginary Institution of Society. London: PolityCastree N (2010) Crisis, continuity and change: Neoliberalism, the left and the future of

capitalism. Antipode 41(s1):185–213Chatterton P (2010) Autonomy: The struggle for survival, self-management and the common.

Antipode 42(4):897–908Cleaver H (1994) Kropotkin, self-valorisation and the crisis of Marxism. Anarchist Studies

2(2):119–135Crang P (1996) Displacement, consumption and identity. Environment and Planning A

28(1):47–67Crewe L and Gregson N (1998) Tales of the unexpected: Exploring car boot sales as marginal

spaces of contemporary consumption. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers23(1):39–53

Crewe L, Gregson N and Brooks K (2003) Alternative retail spaces. In A Leyshon, R Lee and CC Williams (eds) Alternative Economic Spaces (pp 74–106). London: Sage

England K (ed) (1996) Who Will Mind Baby? Geographies of Child Care and Working Mothers.London: Routledge

Fournier V (2008) Escaping from the economy. International Journal of Sociology and SocialPolicy 28(11/12):528–554

Friere P (1972) Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Harmondsworth: Penguin



Gershuny J (2000) Changing Times: Work and Leisure in Post-Industrial Society. Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press

Gibson-Graham J-K (1996) The End of Capitalism (As We Knew It): A Feminist Critique of PoliticalEconomy. Oxford: Blackwell

Gibson-Graham J-K (2006a) The End of Capitalism (As We Knew It): A Feminist Critique of PoliticalEconomy (new edition). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press

Gibson-Graham J-K (2006b) A Postcapitalist Politics. Minneapolis: University of MinnesotaPress

Godwin W (1986 [1793]) The evils of national education. In G Woodcock (ed) The AnarchistReader (pp 267–270). Glasgow: Fontana Press

Goldman E (1979) Anarchism: What it really stands for. In A K Shulman (ed) Red Emma Speaks(pp 47–63). London: Wildwood House

Goodway D (1989) Introduction. In D Goodway (ed) For Anarchism: History, Theory andPractice (pp 1–22). London: Routledge

Gregson N and Crewe L (2002) Second-Hand Worlds. London: RoutledgeGregson N and Crewe L (2003) Second-Hand Cultures. Oxford: BergGuerin D (1989) Marxism and anarchism. In D Goodway (ed) For Anarchism: History, Theory

and Practice (pp 109–126). London: RoutledgeHardt M and Negri A (2000) Empire. Harvard: Harvard University PressHart G (2010) D/developments after the meltdown. Antipode 41(s1):117–141Illich I (1971) Deschooling Society. New York: Harper and RowILO (2002a) Decent Work in the Informal Sector: Latin America. Geneva: International Labour

OfficeILO (2002b) Decent Work and the Informal Economy in Central America. Geneva: International

Labour OfficeILO (2007) The Informal Economy: Enabling Transition to Formalization. Geneva: International

Labour OfficeILO (2008) Bringing Focus to ILO Country-level Contributions: A Guidebook for Developing and

Implementing Decent Work Country Programmes Version 2. Geneva: International LabourOffice

ILO (2010) World of Work Report 2010: From one crisis to the next? Geneva: InternationalLabour Office

Jeppesen S (2011) Things to do with poststructualism in a life of anarchy: Relocating theoutpost of post-anarchism. In D Rousselle and S Evren (eds) Post-Anarchism: A Reader (pp151–159). London: Pluto

Katz C and Monk J (1993) Full Circles: Geographies of Women over the Life Course. London:Routledge

Kenafick K J (1990) Bakunin: Marx, Freedom and the State. London: Freedom PressKoch A M (2011) Poststructualism and the epistemological basis of anarchism. In D Rousselle

and S Evren (eds) Post-Anarchism: A Reader (pp 23–40). London: PlutoKropotkin P (2002 [1880]) Anarchist morality. In R N Baldwin (ed) Peter Kropotkin, Anarchism:

A Collection of Revolutionary Writings (pp 79–113). New York: DoverLatouche S (1993) In the Wake of Affluent Society: An Exploration of Post-Development. London:

ZedLee R (1996) Moral money? LETS and the social construction of local economic geographies

in southeast England. Environment and Planning A 28:1377–1394Leyshon A (2005) Diverse economies. Antipode 37(5):856–862Leyshon A, Lee R and Williams C C (eds) (2003) Alternative Economic Spaces. London:

SageMarshall P (1993) Demanding the Impossible: a History of Anarchism. London: FontanaMay T (1994) The Political Philosophy of Poststructuralist Anarchism. University Park:

Pennsylvania State University PressMay T (2011) Is poststructuralist political theory anarchist? In D Rousselle and S Evren (eds)

Post-Anarchism: A Reader (pp 42–45). London: PlutoMcDowell L (1983) Towards an understanding of the gender division of urban space.

Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 1(1):59–62McKay I (2008) An Anarchist FAQ, Vol. I. Edinburgh: AK Press


20 Antipode

McMahon M (1996) From the ground up: Ecofeminism and ecological economics. EcologicalEconomics 20:163–173

Mueller T (2011) Empowering anarchy: Power, hegemony and anarchist strategy. In DRousselle and S Evren (eds) Post-Anarchism: A Reader (pp 75–94). London: Pluto

Newman S (2011) Post-anarchism and radical politics today. In D Rousselle and S Evren (eds)Post-Anarchism: A Reader (pp 46–68). London: Pluto

Norberg-Hodge H (1992) Ancient Futures: Learning from Ladakh. London: RiderNorth P (1996) LETS: A tool for empowerment in the inner city? Local Economy 11(3):284–293ODPM (2000) Index of Multiple Deprivation 2000. London: Office of the Deputy Prime MinisterPeck J, Theodore N and Brenner N (2010) Postneoliberalism and its malcontents. Antipode

41(s1):94–116Pepper D (1988) The geography of an anarchist Britain. The Raven 1(4):339–350Pickerill J and Chatterton P (2006) Notes towards autonomous geographies: Creation,

resistance and self-management as survival tactics. Progress in Human Geography30(6):730–746

Polanyi K (1944) The Great Transformation. Boston: BeaconSale K (1980) The Human Scale. London: Secker & WarburgSamers M (2005) The myopia of “diverse economies”, or, A critique of the “informal

economy”. Antipode 37(5):875–886Scott A J (2001) Capitalism, cities and the production of symbolic forms. Transactions of the

Institute of British Geographers 26:11–23Shiva V (2005) Earth Democracy, Justice, Sustainability, and Peace. London: ZedShukaitis S (2009) Infrapolitics and the nomadic educational machine. In R Amster, A Deleon,

L A Fernandez, A J Nocella II and D Shannon (eds) Contemporary Anarchist Studies (pp166–174). London: Routledge

Soiffer S S and Hermann G M (1987) Visions of power: Ideology and practice in the Americangarage sale. The Sociological Review 35:48–83

The Community Collective (2001) Imagining and Enacting Non-capitalist Futures. http://www.communityeconomies.org/site/assets/media/old%20website%20pdfs/Papers/on%20rethinking%20the%20economy/Imagining%20and%20Enacting.pdf (last accessed15 July 2011)

Wade R (2010) Is the globalization consensus dead? Antipode 41(s1):142–165Walt L and Schmidt M (2009) Black Flame: The Revolutionary Class Politics of Anarchism and

Syndicalism. Edinburgh: AK PressWard C (1982) Anarchy in Action. London: Aldgate PressWard C (2004) Anarchism: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University PressWhite R J (2009) Explaining why the non-commodified sphere of mutual aid is so pervasive in

the advanced economies. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy 29(9/10):457–472

White R J and Williams C C (2010) Re-thinking monetary exchange. Review of Social Economy68(3):317–338

Williams C C (2005) A Commodified World? Mapping the Limits of Capitalism. London: ZedWilliams C C (2007) Rethinking the Future of Work: Directions and Visions. Basingstoke: Palgrave

MacmillanWilliams C C (2011) Geographical variations in the nature of community engagement.

Community Development Journal 46(2):213–228Williams C C and Paddock C (2003) The meanings of informal and second-hand retail

channels. The International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research 13(3):317–336

Williams C C and Windebank J (2001) Revitalising Deprived Neighbourhoods: An Assisted Self-help Approach. Aldershot: Ashgate

Woodcock G (1986) Anarchism: A historical introduction. In G Woodcock (ed) The AnarchistReader (pp 11–56). Glasgow: Fontana Press

Zelizer V A (1997) The Social Meaning of Money: Pin Money, Paychecks, Poor Relief, and OtherCurrencies. Princeton: Princeton University Press

Zizek S (2011) Living in The End Times. London: Verso


the pervasive nature of heterodox economic spaces at a time of neoliberal crisis

Documents