Decommodification is seen as the primary goal of social democratic movements, and Esping-Andersen demonstrates that (by his criteria) welfare states in countries with a longer history of government by social democratic parties display a greater degree of decommodification. Social democratic movements struggle for decommodification because: When workers are completely market dependent, they are difficult to mobilise for solidaristic action. Since their resources mirror market inequalities, divisions emerge between the ‘ins’ and the ‘outs’, making labour movement formation difficult. Decommodification strengthens the worker and weakens the absolute authority of the employer. It is for exactly this reason that employers have always opposed decommodification (Esping-Andersen, 1990, p. 22). Esping-Anderson argues that the Swedish system typifies this ‘socialist’ type of welfare capitalism. Yet as Layard et al. (1991; 1994) show, the Swedish system is built on fostering ‘a culture of work’ and on time-limited benefits. Whether this emphasis on work can really be regarded as ‘decommodification’ is questionable. The decom modifying aspect of this approach surely comes from the fact that much of that work is provided by the state itself, rather than from the fact that there is a culture of work. Without state intervention to provide jobs, rather than simply to enforce work, a system cannot be regarded as decom modified. Some authors have argued that state provision of welfare services also constitutes a form of decommodification. For example, Offe (1984) has argued that institutions such as hospitals and schools effectively become decom modified when they are provided by the state. Defined in this way, the extent of decommodification brought about by modern welfare states is evinced by Flora’s observation that: ‘Including the recipients of [pensions], unemployment benefits and social assistance – and the persons employed in education, health and the social services – in many countries today almost half of the electorate receive transfer or work income from the welfare state’ (cited in Pierson, 1996,p. 146). Whilst this article focuses solely on debates about those welfare interventions which affect the commodity status of labour, the decommodification of services is obviously also an important area which deserves greater investigation, especially given current UK government policies extending the involvement of private providers in health and other welfare services.
商品化是社会民主运动的主要目标，和艾斯平-安徒生表明，（按他的标准）有较长的历史，政府由社会民主党在国家的福利国家显示更大程度的商品化。社会民主运动奋斗去商品化因为：当工人完全市场的依赖，他们是很难实施的行动动员。因为它们的资源反映市场的不平等，分歧出现“INS”和“输出”之间，使劳工运动形成困难。商品化加强工人和雇主的绝对权威的弱化。这正是这一原因，雇主一直反对去商品化（艾斯平-安徒生，1990，p. 22）。艾斯平-安德森认为，瑞典的系统代表这个“社会主义”式的福利资本主义。然而，莱亚德等人。（1991；1994）表明，瑞典的系统是建立在培养“文化的工作和时间有限的好处。本文重点对工作是否真的可以被视为“商品化”是值得怀疑的。这种方法的应用修改方面肯定来自于这样的事实：大量的工作是由国家提供的，而不是从事实上有一个文化的工作。没有国家干预提供工作，而不是简单地执行工作，系统不能被视为包含改性。有些作者认为，福利国家提供的服务也构成一种形式的商品化。例如，提供（1984）认为，医院和学校等机构的有效性成为分解时，由国家提供。这样的定义，商品化的现代福利国家带来的程度是明证，植物区系的观察：“包括[ ]受养老金，失业救济和社会救助–，教育者，健康和社会服务–今天在许多国家几乎有一半的选民收到转让或从福利国家的工作收入（在校园，1996，p. 146引）。同时，本文仅对影响劳动力商品的地位，这些福利措施的辩论，服务的商品化也显然是一个值得更多的研究重要领域，尤其是目前英国政府的政策延伸的私营医疗机构在医疗和其他福利服务的参与。
