Ongoing capitalist crises along with the current turbulence of economic markets and associated austerity politics have ignited interest in the possibility of breaking away from neoliberal capitalist discourses. Literature challenging the idea that there-is-no-alternative to the capitalist market has gone a long way in bursting the unquestioned myths of capitalism (e.g. Dodd, Reference Dodd2014; Gibson-Graham, Reference Gibson-Graham2006; Gibson-Graham et al., Reference Gibson-Graham, Cameron and Healy2013). Yet while the mythology of money and the very nature of (neoliberal) capitalism have increasingly become an object of debate, we seldom challenge the capitalist nomos that time-is-money: nothing more than a measure of duration and productivity.

In his latest book, ‘Trading Time: Can Exchange Lead to Social Change?’, Lee Gregory tackles this issue. He eloquently deconstructs the universalising hegemony of the capitalist nomos of time, uncovering an alternative understanding of time that can provide a way forward. His book expands the discussions on social change, focusing on the role time-banking and a novel discourse of time might play in welfare reform. This way, Gregory broadens our understanding of time and by making a mark on non-capitalocentric literature manages to join the league of Dodd (e.g. Reference Dodd2014) and Gibson-Graham (e.g. Reference Gibson-Graham2006).

The argument, in brief, is that heterodox time discourses can promote social welfare against capitalist enclosures. First, drawing on social policies in the UK, Gregory argues that market practices have come to dominate welfare provision and public discourse around it, thus ‘subordinating the social democratic ideology to the requirements of neoliberal economics’ (p.18). This is exemplified by focusing on the socially and environmentally destructive colonisation of clock time and the time-is-money discourse and its associated financial profit motive (ch.3). Second, drawing on the social theory of time, he breaks away from the discursive hegemony of the time-is-money calculation to resist these narratives and uncover how alternative time values can contribute to greater well-being and social advancement. Using time-banking as a case-study he highlights how feelings of pride and self-worth can become embedded in social valuations of time and, subsequently, argues that time-banking can constitute a form of resistance to neoliberal capitalism and austerity (ch.4-6).

Equally commendable is how Gregory maintains a vigilant eye by simultaneously considering how their emancipatory potential is challenged by the neoliberal mainstream. He focuses on the co-option of time-banking into neoliberal doings and the David vs Goliath relation between the mainstream economy and time-banking that undermine its potential to contribute towards greater social welfare (ch.5-6). He is, thus, pragmatic in concluding (see ch.7) that only through a bundle of broader social policy reforms drawing on such heterodox time discourses might we break away from the profit-first principle of neoliberalism.

In raising these arguments Gregory writes with great skill. The style is simple and compelling and the book is valuable to both academics and a lay audience interested in time-banking. On the one hand, the accessible summaries offered at the end of each chapter guarantee that the reader is not thrown into deep waters. On the other hand, most arguments are well grounded – both conceptually and empirically – and the book can also cater to the requirements of a more demanding audience.

At the same time however, the style of argumentation can also raise a few eyebrows. For instance, in attempting to present a simple and coherent narrative of time-banking, Gregory falls into the trap of presenting such schemes as monolithic constructs. By not providing background information on his specific case-studies of time-banking in the UK, he underplays the heterogeneity of the field – something widely contested by the whole body of research on community currencies.

Most importantly though, any academic interested in processes of social change will immediately recognise Gregory's failure to skilfully deal with the issue of social change. First, for a book posing through its title the question of whether exchange can lead to social change, it is a misfortune to ignore a broad and diverse literature on social change and take for granted a vision of social policy reform. Second, it is a travesty that Gregory does not adequately deal with how the transformative potential of this heterodox discourse around time might be unleashed. He largely restricts himself to concluding that the ‘major challenge is to find the right language for promoting these alternatives’ (p.164). For a book uncovering the manifold ways in which the capitalist mainstream co-opts alternatives, exercises a discursive hegemony across social fields and dictates certain ways of life, the very idea that discursive reframing is a possible and viable means of enabling social change is a paradox. Third, the very question of social change posed in the title is – in fact – misleading. The book outlines how time-banking is desirable because alternative conceptions of time are invested in it rather than exploring how exchange might nourish a potentially transformative discourse around time. Further, it is a surprise to pose this question when a response to it should, most definitely, include reflection on how big of an impact time banks can have.

These shortcomings are, of course, understandable. Gregory does not aim to offer a panacea to the co-option of time-banking into neoliberal thinking, nor to provide a definitive answer to the ongoing issue of social change. Some readers might definitely miss a more comprehensive synthetisation. In its shortcomings, however, the book proves how intriguing it is to take different perspectives and stances on the polymorphic concept of time.

To repeat: yes, the book is not flawless. But it is far more rewarding. Some might not accept every argument Gregory develops. Yet for sure this book helps reconsider views and claims on time taken for granted. It is a must-read for anyone interested in the topic as it helps to better understand the discursive nature of time. Further, my partial discontentment suggests how fruitful it might be to incorporate the insights provided into a broader debate around capitalocentrism and social change. Future attempts to challenge the unquestioned norms of neoliberal capitalism will surely gain from this work.