ABSTRACT
Most contributions to the commoditization debate relate either to peripheral agricultural systems or to the history of agricultural systems of the center. The assumption that West European and North American agriculture represents full commoditization leads in turn to a strong bias in the analysis of peripheral systems, where partial commoditization thus emerges as a central characteristic of underdevelopment, closely bound to the notion of the “intrinsic backwardness” of these systems. Theoretical perspectives combine an assumption, that development procedes in a unilinear manner from a “natural economy” to complete commoditization. The way in which Friedmann relates the concepts of simple commodity production and petty commodity production is a pregnant expression of the tendency to equate development with the “historical completion” of the commoditization process. Different degrees of commoditization represent differences in the social relations of production. Differential degrees of commoditization form an important part of the relevant social relations of production.
