Asian Alliance for Solidarity Economy

by: Miguel Yasuyuki Hirota (mig@olccjp.net)

1. 1. SE’s achievements in Asia

The arrival of the concept of SE to Asia was rather late in comparison with other continents and it was only October 2007 when the 1^st Asian Forum for SE took place at Manila, the Philippines.  Workshops on this new economy took place in October 2008 at Bangkok, Thailand and in March 2009 at Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia when the Asian Alliance for SE (AA4SE, http://www.aa4se.com/) was established, but the term SE is still very little known, even in comparison with Europe or Latin America.

But this does not mean that SE experiences are foreign to Asia: there are indeed a number of unarticulated grass-root practices in many countries, such as consumers’ coops and NPO Banks in Japan, social enterprises in Korea, microfinance initiatives (remember that this movement was born in Bangladesh!) all over the region, local currencies in Japan, Korea, Taiwan and Hong Kong, elderly-care groups in Japan and CSR-minded small businesses throughout Southeast Asia, just to name a few.

1. 2. Challenges for Asia:

Some challenges should be taken into account seriously if we are to promote SE and to articulate its players all over this continent.

Linguistic diversity: it should be remembered that Asia has a number of mutually-unintelligible languages, such as: Bengali (Bangladesh), Burmese (Myanmar), Cambodian (Cambodia), Hindi-Urdu (India and Pakistan), Japanese (Japan), Korean (North and South Korea), Lao (Laos), Mandarin (China and Taiwan), Malay-Indonesian (Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore), Mongolian (Mongolia), Sinhalese (Sri Lanka), Filipino (the Philippines), Tamil (India, Sri Lanka etc.), Thai (Thailand), Vietnamese (Vietnam).  While in some countries English is widely spoken, it should be taken into account that most SE players in Asia only speak their respective country’s official language (Thai if they live in Thailand, for instance), making it tough for SE players to be articulated and to communicate each other beyond the language (=national) border.

This linguistic diversity poses another challenge on promoting SE in each Asian country too: since most people, including professors and public servants, are often not good at English, it is required that at least some basic information on this topic should be given in each country’s official language so that opinion leaders throughout the continent could share our perspective on SE and let it known to people in their respective language.

Geographical and psychological distance from other continents: another important remark is that most countries where the SE movement has been consolidated are non-English-speaking countries (France, Italy, Spain, Latin America and Québec) with which Asians usually do not have strong relationship. The traditional lack of links between these continents makes it harder for Asians to grasp what is happening globally in terms of SE and to exchange experiences with them.

1. 3. Perspectives and proposals for the next decade

Although the consolidation of SE players in Asia is still in an early stage, the coming years will see important events, such as the 3^rd Asian Forum in Malaysia in 2011 and the 5^th RIPESS conference in 2013.  It is quite important to make the best use of all available resources in order to maximise our synergy and take more steps forward.  Some proposals will be given below to help promote the SE movement in Asia:

Creation of multilingual platforms: the lack of information on SE and of international communication among Asian SE players who do not speak English has been the biggest hurdle, so it is crucial to set up platforms to get it over.  I would like to suggest the creation of following tools so that more Asians should be familiar with SE and be articulated better.  Obviously a huge amount of money would be required for translation services, but this cost should be regarded as something indispensable and efforts should be done to win such a funding.

-       Creation of another portal website on SE in Asian languages (not only English but also Chinese, Japanese, Thai etc.): this is not to deny AA4SE’s efforts so far to share information, but it would be ideal if more information could be provided in more Asian languages so that SE players, researchers, policymakers etc. could learn what SE is, how SE is practiced in Asia and other continents etc.

-       Creation of multilingual communication method: the multilingual discussion groups managed by Alliance 21 WSSE (now ALOE) with translation service between English, French and Spanish / Portuguese has been a key factor on articulating SE players and to stimulate communications among them, but it is crucial to provide similar services among key Asian languages if we are to expect same results. More SE players are expected to be articulated only when they feel linguistically comfortable, so it is indispensable to set up a platform in which people could communicate in Chinese, Indonesia, Japanese, Thai and other Asian languages.

Exchange of young SE players / students: it is essential that more Asians should understand how SE has been growing in the world in order to transfer such experiences to their own countries.  So it would be helpful if some programmes could be set up to promote exchange of the youth.  The mutual exchange (not only Asian youth to other continents but youths from other continents to Asia) would strengthen mutual understanding in terms of SE practices, and such articulators will help both quantitative and qualitative development of solidarity economy in Asia.

Some Facets or Dimensions of Solidarity Economy

By Benjamin R. Quiñones, Jr.

Founder and Chairman, CSRSME Asia

Responsibility

Solidarity economycan only be established and sustained when its stakeholders adhere to their social responsibilities. The Alliance for a Responsible, Plural and Solidarity Economy (ALOE) regards Solidarity Economy as a RESPONSIBLE approach to development because it anticipates the long-term social and environmental consequences of different forms of economic behaviour and pro-actively engages the stakeholders to accept the consequences of their actions on the basis of the principle that those who have greater resources at their disposal, have greater responsibility towards society and the environment. “The one who pollutes, pays”. SE upholds the value of collectiveness and the sense of co-responsibility of stakeholders for each other, and the necessity of conserving the planet for future generation.

Social responsibility to the community and the environment has been found to be generally inherent among indigenous people. In his study of Mangyans, the indigenous people of Mindoro, Philippines, Dr. Ruben Martinez reveals that the social responsibilities of both the upland Mangyans and the lowland non-Mangyan peasants (the Tagalogs) are embedded in their social norms and practices.

With no written record, the customary law, Batas Mangyan, is handed down among the Mangyans from generations through oral tradition. Certain aspects of Batas Mangyan are embedded in the Mangyan folklore such as ambahan (Hanunoo) or pamuybuyan (Iraya), and in the value system and attitude of utang na loob (debt of gratitude), walang hiya (without shame), and smooth interpersonal relationship.

In the course of the social and economic interaction between the Mangyan and the lowland non-Mangyan peasants, the value system and attitude of ‘utang na loob’ (debt of gratitude) and the concept of walang hiya (no shame) have been adopted by both culture through the process of assimilation and integration. It is on the basis of these value system that Sandugo, an incipient solidarity economy, emerged among the Mangyans.

Sandugo is a mechanism for reciprocity based on the concept of utang na loob and avoidance of ‘walang hiya’. Any assistance provided by the host family to a visiting relative or community member is reciprocated. The reciprocal exchange is based on social responsibility rather than material gain or monetary consideration.

In more recent years, however, these social norms and values have been eroded, as the Mangyans’ system of solidarity economy interacted with the predominantly market-oriented economy of the lowland non-Mangyan households. As a result, the social responsibility of the Mangyan individual and community was adversely affected. Younger generations who have become more exposed to the market-oriented economic system no longer see the importance of Sandugo. They perceive Sandugo as a tool for exploitation and preservation of the uneven relations between the Mangyan and non-Mangyan. This perception arose from the interaction and experience of Mangyans with the lowland non-Mangyans, where the latter systematically exploited the former.

Plurality

An economy, be it market-oriented or solidarity-based, requires a high degree of specialization (denoting differentiation or diversity) in order to be efficient. In the market economies of developing countries, there is a great tendency for people to produce the same things owing to capital limitations, low skills and low level of knowledge. As an alternative economy, solidarity economy seeks to foster greater plurality among the stakeholders in terms of skills, knowledge, and application of capital.

ALOE maintains that SE is PLURAL in the sense that it recognises the diversity of socio-economic stakeholders who participate in different initiatives. It also denotes the plurality of forms of capital resources and the means to produce goods and services to meet people’s needs. There is an interplay of three forms of capital that sustain SE: economic capital, which engages in the production, financing, exchange, and consumption of goods and services; social capital, which includes the values, culture, social relations, networks, institutional arrangements and governance of institutions involved in the development of SE; and ecological capital comprising the biodiversity of resources (land, oceans, rivers, metals, energy sources, air, etc). The conservation of ecological capital’s productivity serves as the ultimate constraint to the application of both economic and social capital.

In his study of the indigenous people of Lao PDR, Graham Harper notes that the mixing of different ethnic groups in the Seuang River Community-Based Tourism Project (SRP) has resulted in cultural and linguistic diversity. All villages in the SRP area are a recent mixing of ethnic groups, producing a rich cultural and linguistic diversity.

A decade ago ethnic groups lived separately and were classified according to the geographic elevation where they lived. The majority of the population and dominant group are lowlanders – Lao Lum. Next are the upland people – Lao Tum. Finally, the highlanders – Lao Sung. Each has a different language/dialect and culture. Over the past decade the government has worked to provide road access, water supply, education and health care to rural communities. Due to financial and geographic constraints government projects have been implemented mainly in valley areas. As a result, upland and highland people have migrated to lowland communities.

Such cultural/linguistic diversity presents difficulties. Not all these groups get along each other and there are some long standing historical differences between Lao Lum and Lao Sung. Although cooperation between groups within a community does not always exist, the SRP villagers view cultural diversity as an important attraction for tourists and should be promoted.

The Lao PDR government supports this perspective as it gives value and equal opportunity to all ethnic groups. Economic diversity has blossomed in the SRP area with the government promotion of alternative livelihoods to supplement traditional upland swidden agriculture, hunting and work outside the villages. Alternative livelihood has become strategically important in the face of increasing pressure on land for traditional employment as more people migrate to the area. Diversity of world-views is also evident in the SRP area as people from different communities mix with the government officials and tourists from overseas.

Solidarity

Solidarity naturally arises among people who have the capacity and willingness to cooperate with one another. Members of the group have to rise above their self-centered ends and see the bigger picture in order to get motivated to act in solidarity with the others. SE is said to be SOLIDARITY-based in as much as it embraces the principles of mutual help, reciprocity and cooperation among stakeholders in undertaking collective actions but differentiated responsibilities in sustaining the process of organising SE activity.

The word “solidarity” has an equivalent term in national languages – “Bayanihan” in the Philippines, “Gotong-Royong” in Indonesia and in Malaysia, and “Anyonya Sahayogaya” in Sinhala, the national language of Sri Lanka.

Modestus Karunaratne reports that members of the Parakum Farmer Association (PFA) in the rural village of Wanniamunukula, Sri Lanka act in solidarity in many traditional farming activities. Land preparation and natural soil sterilization prior to seed planting all require a collective effort of the community. When harvesting, farmers from the neighboring farmlands contribute their labor on a reciprocal basis. Therefore every farmer has his moral obligation to reciprocate and extend his services when the other neighboring farmer is in need of extra labor during harvest.

Solidarity amongst the farmers is also displayed when they have to face social obligations such as during funerals, weddings and disasters. When natural disaster strikes, private disputes and differences are set aside and the farming community act in solidarity with the others. Ecological Conservation and Innovation People who depend a lot on their environment for sustenance will naturally protect it. They will also introduce innovations to avert stagnation of, and enhance, environmental productivity.

But people who are far removed from the production of products they consume are often ignorant of the impact of their untoward actions on the environment. For the farming community of Wanniamunukula, economic sustainability depends on three critical factors: favorable weather, soil conditions and water. The lack of technological knowledge has constrained local efforts at soil conservation. It took the intervention of a development-oriented NGO, the Peoples’ Organization for Development of Imports and Exports (PODIE), to enable the PFA farmers to conserve their environment.

PODIE reinforced the traditional solidarity practice in the farming community by encouraging cooperation and collective action among PFA members in carrying out a Natural Soil Treatment programme PODIE capitalized on the traditional practice among the FPA members called Shrama Danaya in which every community member is expected to contribute one’s labor to the collective effort of dealing with common threats to society. For example, Shrama Danaya was employed in restoring the irrigation tank which was old and in a state of neglect for several years.

Soil erosion continued for years and there was the impending danger of water shortage during the dry season. Even with constant lobbying and petition to address this issue, there was no support from the provincial or central government in restoring the tank. PODIE and a Fair Trade organization in New Zealand contributed a sum of USD 7,500 while the FPA members contributed their labor to dredge the tank and restore the sluice gates. The community took turns in providing labor (valued at USD 2,000), working on this project. This is a good example of a collective effort by this community to contribute positively to ecological conservation.

Governance

The power structure of a community or society shows the extent to which political power is shared its members. An autocratic political system cedes unlimited power to the ruler who is answerable to no other person. On the other hand, a democratic political system is characterized by free and equal participation in government or in the decisionmaking processes of an organization or group. In some instances, however, democratically elected leaders rule like autocrats. Checks and balances are, therefore, instituted by the community/ society to prevent autocratic tendencies from getting out of hand.

Community governance of tribal communities in Lao PDR features socio-political relationships that are based on age or seniority, social position or status. Juniors show deference to seniors or those with a specific social standing such as monks, government officials, and so forth. The indigenous people in SRP will typically not challenge authority directly. However, this should not be confused with acceptance. There are many quiet ways the indigenous people will use to deal with authority they do not agree with.

The position of women is complex and not always as it seems. On the one hand, the role of women is traditional. Women carry a great responsibility in the family with little recognition from men. The inferior position of Lao women is deeply entrenched in Buddhist tradition and is perceived as natural by both men and women. Yet much of the informal business and merchant vendors are run by women. The family system is essentially matriarchal. Land, house and inheritance are passed on to the next generation through the wife not the husband.

However, in greetings, a woman’s status derives from that of her husband. For example, if a woman is younger than another but the latter’s husband is older or more senior in position then the former would greet the latter by using the term “older sister.” Women in general have considerable freedom and independence. Given the opportunity, Lao women will assume responsibility and demonstrate their competence.

In the case of the Orang Asli (OA) community in Malaysia, Dr. Christopher Shun reports that the dominant governance system is democratic in nature and based on consensus. The Village Leader (Adun) is appointed based on his seniority, general goodwill and sincere interest for the well being of the village community. As a result, a paternalistic leader tends to emerge. He is chosen for his knowledge of and fair mindedness to each family. Autocratic forms of leadership are despised and overtly rejected leading to societal ostracism.

Traditionally the women are regarded as lesser members of the community despite them contributing more in terms of labor, animal husbandry and communal vegetable cultivation not to mention household chores. Recognizing for external intervention in this area, a developmental NGO, the Yayasan Kajian dan Pembangunan Masyarakat (YKPM) conducts extensive training in gender sensitization among OA communtieis. These training programs seek to create a space for women to participate in leadership and decision making. YKPM deliberately ensures equal participation by both men and women in development projects. The equal distribution of project benefits to both men and women is very important because traditionally the OA men hunted in the forest while the OA women engaged in subsistence farming, small scale animal husbandry, and backyard crop cultivation.

o0o

by Yvon Poirier

Québec, Canada

November 16, 2009

During the last session, I mentioned the problems with the way the origins of Solidarity Economy as a concept were presented in the draft Statement.  The draft says that the concept emerged within the WSF process (2001 to today).  This is not the case.  The different meetings of the WSF were useful, but other meetings and activities probably had more impact in developing the concept.

Early origins: 1986 to 1997

After contacted many different persons, I have found that the concept was first used in South America and in France, at about the same time, 1985 or 1986.

The exact origins in South America are known.  Luis Rozetto from Chile is regarded as the author who has made the concept well known in South America since 1986.  In his website (in Spanish only), http://www.economiasolidaria.net/, he has many publications on this subject. He even mentions that the Pope John Paul II said in a speech in his trip to South America «An economy of solidarity is a great hope for South America».  This website is dedicated to an online Masters on «Solidarity Economy and Sustainable Development».

At about the same time, the expression became known in France. However, I have not found which author first used the expression, and in what year. One possible author is Jean-Louis Laville. However, I have not been able to confirm this.  Different activists in France have confirmed that it started getting used in the late eighties.

The concept started being used in a fairly large scale by practitioners, in France and in South America in the nineties. In France, a non-profit calling itself REAS was started in 1990 or 1991. The acronym in English would be «Alternative and Solidarity Economy Network».  They had members in many regions in France. In 1993, I visited the headquarter in Paris (established in an abandoned factory). They were running different businesses such as a restaurant training young people who were on welfare, a Fair Trade shop, an incubator for small businesses,  microfinance activities, etc. Even if they went bankrupt in 1998, they had a large impact. There still exists today a REAS in Spain.

Again in France, in October 1995, a half page advertisement was published in the newspaper Le Monde. It was called «Appeal for a Solidarity Economy». This appeal was signed by hundreds of leading Solidarity Economy practitioners and intellectuals.  At about the same time, the expression became known in the French speaking province of Quebec in Canada, since extensive links exist with France.

In March 1997, a group of University people, from French and Spanish speaking countries, met at Leuven University in Belgium.  They decided the time was ripe to organise international meetings.

Building Solidarity Economy: 1997 to 2009

Three initiatives that complement each other.

A. Globalisation of Solidarity meetings  : RIPESS

The first meeting was held in Lima, Peru, in September 1997. They were expecting 175 participants. Much to their surprise, they had almost 400, from about 35 countries.  Considering this success, and the growing interest of networking in an era of growing neoliberalism, they decided to organise other meetings.

Since then, international meetings are held every four years, alternating South-North.  In October 2001 in Quebec City (over 400 participants), in Dakar Senegal in November 2005 (1200 participants) and in Luxemburg last April (700 participants). At the first two meetings, almost all participants were either, French, Spanish or Portuguese, speaking.  At the 2005 and 2009 meetings, there have been more and more participants from other countries, including Asian countries. However, they are still in minority (in part because of lack of funds for travel).

In most continents, continental meetings are being organised since 2005. Latin America has had 3 continental meetings and now Asia has had two.

B. The Workshop on Social Solidarity Economy (WSSE) and ALOE

After the world meeting organised by the FPH in 2001 in France, the FPH supported the creation of different work groups (over 20).  One of them, the WSSE, became quite dynamic in promotion Solidarity Economy. The WSSE became a sort of think tank of SSE, made up of individuals from different continents, including some members of organisations involved in RIPESS. In 2007, the WSSE became ALOE: Alliance for a Responsible, Plural and Solidarity Economy. The ALOE was formally launched by Marcos Arruda in October 2007 at the first Asia Forum. http://aloe.socioeco.org/

C. The WSF events: 2001-2009

Solidarity Economy activists have been attending WSF events since the first Forum in 2001.  The process of the WSF needs to be explained. The organisers, in respecting the Charter they have, let different movements organise themselves workshops and other activities.

In other works, the WSF does not organise activities on SE (or any other subject).  The initiatives come exclusively come the social movements themselves.

The WSF was a great opportunity for Brazilian SE activists.  It was in one of the first Forums that they decided to set up the Brazilian Solidarity Economy Forum (FBES). At the 2003 Forum in Brazil and at the 2004 event in Mumbai, many workshops were organised by activists. For the 2005 event in Porto Alegre, «economic alternatives» was one of the 11 themes.  Together, RIPESS and ALOE organised different workshops.

At the last Forum in Belém last January, there were again many workshops organised either by the FBES or different other organisations.  The FBES was in charge of logistics (food for example) for this section of the event.

Our friends from the FBES have explained that SE has a strategic problem within the WSF process.  Solidarity Economy itself is not used by the WSF organisational committee.  The organisers (and the official programs) use expressions such as alternative economy, etc.  One of the reasons is that RIPESS is not a member of the WSF international council.  The «members» of the organisation have a bigger say on the format, and the way things are named, than non-members.  On light of this situation, the RIPESS Board has decided to apply to become a member of the International Council. This is not done yet. However, RIPESS has now started to attend meetings as observer.

Even if SE does not have full recognition in the WSF process, the different meetings have been a great occasion for SE practitioners, supporters, activist, intellectuals, etc.  Since the meetings are yearly (either in the global meetings every 2 years, or the regional or country forums), this has helped very much.  For example, it was at the first US Social Forum in Atlanta in June 2007 that US SEN (Solidarity Economy Network) was born.

To conclude

The promotion and use of Solidarity Economy has grown through a complex and interrelated process.  The three related initiatives have been intertwined in good part. Many individuals and organisations have participated directly within the 3 initiatives. Since the RIPESS meetings are held every four years, the annual events of the WSF have been of strategic importance to meet regularly, including meetings of the RIPESS Board. The WSSE and now ALOE has also helped extensively in elaborating the concept, and in its promotion.

This document was written according to the knowledge gathered over the years. However, a note of caution.  There are certainly many facts that are incomplete (not having attended all meetings) and the above analysis is certainly an interpretation on my part.

For North America, I am attaching to this message a paper written with the help of Emily Kawano. In particular, we relate the way the concept got to be known and grown in North America.

Marcos Arruda of PACS (Institute of Alternative Policies for Southern Cone of Latin America), Brazil and Member of the Global Coordinating Team of the Alliance for a Responsible, Plural and Solidarity-based Economy (ALOE, France): Solidarity economy is an economy centered on people, not on profits, and on ecological sustainability, instead of on immediate gains at any cost. It takes people‘s needs, not profit maximization, as the goal of economic activity, which means putting economic and technical development at the service of social and human development.  It also means adopting conscious altruism and solidarity, not extreme individualism, as the core of the new socioeconomic culture, and cooperation, not competition, as the main form of relationship among humans and between them and Nature.

A growing number of practitioners view solidarity economy as a post-capitalist mode of defining and organizing society, human work, consumption, production, exchanges, money, technology; and, further, as a new way of life that inspires attitudes and behaviors with values such as sharing, co-responsibility, reciprocity, plurality, respect for diversity, freedom equality and equity, ethics, brotherhood-sisterhood. At present, millions of people and a few nations already live by these values and practice another economy and work relationships emancipated from the chains of the labor market and of mere physical survival. This happens in concrete spaces like cooperatives and other self-managed firms, family farming, communities, peoples.

The empowerment of the social individual to become the main protagonist of her-his own development is the ultimate goal of Solidarity Economy. This means that working people, i.e. people who live mainly from their work, rather than from capital gains, must become the protagonist of development. It is important to redefine the role of the State from one which has pervasive political power to one that is truly a democratic institution, organized in ways that serve society as a whole, orchestrating diversity and seeking to build unities within diversity.

Yvon Poirer, Member of the Coordination Committee of the North American Network for Solidarity Economy (NANSE) and participant of the Workshop on Socially Responsible Governance. Solidarity economy, as defined by the 2001 International Forum of the Alliance for a Responsible, Plural and United World, refer to activities of production, distribution and consumption which contribute to the democratization of the economy based on the involvement of citizens at a local and global level. It takes form through different modalities on all continents. It encompasses the different forms of organizations that a population adopts to create its proper resources for work or to access quality goods and services; this is accomplished through a dynamic socially responsible reciprocity which articulates individual and collective interests.

Another definition of solidarity economy is the one adopted by the U.S. Social Forum (June 2007) organized by the US Solidarity Economy Coordination Committee. According to the U.S. Social Forum, Solidarity Economy constitutes an alternative economic model to neoliberal capitalism, one which is grounded on solidarity and cooperation, rather than the pursuit of narrow, individual self-interest, and that promotes economic democracy, alternative models of local economic governance, equity and sustainability rather than the unfettered rule of the market.

Yoko Kitazawa, founding member of Pacific Asia Resource Center in Japan and facilitator of the Workshop on Socially Responsible Governance: Solidarity economy is an economy which does not seek maximum profit, but works with solidarity among people.

Cecile Lapenu, Executive Director of CERSIE (France), International Coordinator of ProsperA (France), and resource person of the Workshop on Socially Responsible Financing: Solidarity Economy is oriented towards reaching a triple bottom line (financial efficiency, social impact and respect of the environment). It promotes activities that reinforce social capital and respect human being. In this context,  short-term profits do not lead the decisions in solidarity economy, but rather the impact of the economic activities on the individuals, their families, the communities where they live and the environment. It is important to have a broad vision, as in ALOE (Alliance for a Responsible, Plural and Solidarity Economy). Social responsibility, diversity of actors and alliances, and solidarity among people, among countries are key issues for a more humane economy.

Giovanni Acquati, from Italy, President of INAISE (International Association of Investors in Social Economy) and participant of the Socially Responsible Investment Workshop: Solidarity Economy is a form or branch of Social Economy that looks particularly to the poor, the weak and the excluded persons, as for example the people supported by the microcredit system. Being part of Social Economy, the respect of people is the operative philosophical base of Solidarity Economy . In every process of Solidarity Economy, people and the respect of environment should be the core focus, and that the impact of every human activity on the environment has to be considered wherever this activity develop. Solidarity Economy also implies the idea of Solidarity among Enterprises, that is, Enterprise Networks that decide to work together and practice self help in their development.

Sudha Reddy, Director of SHARE (Solidarity for Harmony, Awareness, Responsibility & Empowerment) of India, and resource person of the Workshop on Socially Responsible Governance: Solidarity Economy is an alternative form of life-centered economic process based on the democratic, ethical and humane principles and collective action that leads to overall wellbeing of the humankind and environment.

Dr.Christopher Shun, Finance and Administration Director of Foundation for Community Studies and Social Development (YKPM, Malaysia): The term solidarity economy is used interchangeably with social economy, popular economy and labour economy. But the word Solidarity Economy has a special meaning because it describes the coming together of people as a cohesive unit working to serve common vision and interests to form the economic foundation of these initiatives. As their interests vary, so do the activities. These interests range from micro-credit schemes through local exchange systems, income generation groups, barter groups to collective kitchens. Solidarity Economy is free, harmonious, mutually binding, and organized, wherein the relationships are of cooperation and for the construction of a social power. It looks to create economic growth stressing the importance and priority of the well-being of society and seeks to preserve and sustain the original indigenous culture, which is the source of personal identity, heritage and legacy.

Bienvenido Padilla, Consultant of Timor Aid (Timor Leste), and resource person of the session on Investment Opportunities in Solidarity Economy: In solidarity economy, all stakeholder-members are affected or involved, directly or indirectly not only in the creation of wealth but also in its appropriation. Each stakeholder-member contributes to the productive undertaking and corporately all the members benefit equitably from the same. This is in contrast to the maintstream economy where only some or a few individuals get all the benefits.

Arun Raste, Director of International Resources for Fairer Trade (IRFT, India) and resource speaker of the Workshop on Socially Responsible Enterprise: Solidarity economy does not exploit either nature or people. It gives the small and primary producers the chance to manage both their production and the economy and cares for all people of the planet, as well as for future generations. It treats human beings in a humane way and not as machines.

Kyoko Sakuma, Executive Director of Sustainability Analysis and Consulting (Belgium), and Coordinator of the Workshop on Socially Responsible Investment: Solidarity economy can operate side by side with the market economy for as long as its approaches continue to be innovative . Solidarity economy cannot operate independently of the market economy, but on the contrary, it needs to compete in the real market logic of traditional market. Creating one‘s own niche or segment within the market economy requires innovation, or an innovative mind. In this context, solidarity economy can be called social entrepreneurship, which may be defined as a network of people with entrepreneurial spirit and an innovative mind in
providing solutions to societal problems and their supporters in joining the newly created segment of the market.

Dr. Tito E. Contado, President/CEO of Philippine Morinda Citrifolia Inc. and case study presentor of the Workshop on Socially Responsible Enterprise: Solidarity Economy is a new concept. It can be associated with the word ’solidarity‘ and Lech Walesa of Poland who in the early 1990s toppled down the communist leadership in his country under the rallying battlecry of “Solidarity” which eventually became the name of his political party. Solidarity economy is  the unity of interests, objectives and standards of the different economic actors/sectors characterized by their interdependent relationships.

Takashi Sawaguchi, Chairman of Policy Research Institute for the Civil Section (Japan) and participant of the Workshop on Socially Responsible Enterprise: I am not an intellectual, so I do not know how to define. Therefore I would like to tell you just facts about the solidarity between consumers and producers that we have been doing for last nearly forty years in Japan. Seikatsu Club is a consumers‘ co-operative, but it has established its own three milk plants with 100 dairy farmer-families and 4000 cows. We have our own chicken farms with producers. We have been co-operating with rice farmers and pork meat producers for the last nearly 35years. Seikatsu Club has created some of the sustainable agriculture models through the solidarity between consumers in urban areas and producers in rural areas. We have been living our lives as the consumers who are also the producers, Takashi says. That is the not only our philosophy but also our own practical standard.

Charisse Baldo Development Programme Officer of the Advocate of Philippine Fair Trade Inc. (APFTI) and co-facilitator of the Workshop on Socially Responsible Enterprise: Solidarity economy is an economic model of cooperation. It involves different sectors of society working together towards creating an economy that looks out for the weak. The different sectors are in ’solidarity‘ with a certain cause, a certain group of stakeholders. It looks not just at the numbers, but also at the people, the stories behind the numbers. Fair Trade is a concrete example of solidarity economy. Fair Trade tries to level the playing field for the small producers, in what has become a flatter but more competitive and unequal world .It is a model of development that focuses on trade, not aid.

Dr. Miguel P. Niez, Assistant Vice President of Tagum Agricultural Development Company, Inc (TADECO, Philippines) and participant of the Workshop on Socially Responsible Enterprise: Solidarity economy is a process of producing goods and services that utilizes available resources to meet social needs. It recognizes the value of labor and finds ways for product maximization and the preservation of environment‘. Solidarity economy is an attractive alternative to neo-liberal globalization in terms of the ethics, political, social, cultural and ecological dimensions. Solidarity economy is about sharing of resources in the process of mobilizing people, nature and capital for sustainable growth.

Franck Renaudin, Founder and Director of Entrepreneurs du Monde (France), a partner organization represented in the Asian Forum by a sizeable delegation that participated in the Worshop on Socially Responsible Financing: Solidarity economy is an economy that puts respect for Human Beings and the Earth at the heart of its concerns. The different actors of solidarity economy fully perceive and understand the need and interest to fight against inequalities and to protect planet Earth.

Jeanne Bernardo, Executive Director of Bayanihang Pilipino Inc. (Philippines) and co-Coordinator of the Workshop on Socially Responsible Governance: Solidarity economy as comprising the whole spectrum of economic activities which socially responsible and values-led organizations undertake by collaborating with and networking among other like-minded organizations and the communities they serve to meet the needs of all concerned.

Jimmy Ching, Chairman of Christian Businessmen‘s Forum International (Philippines), and co-Coordinator of the Workshop on Socially Responsible Enterprise: Solidarity economy is an alternative economy that is based on compassion for people and care for the environment. It is an economy where self-interest gives way for the interest of the whole; where greed, as the motive for profit is eliminate. In solidarity economy, love for God and country becomes the center of everything. The standard therefore is based on objective truths that can only be found in the Word of God, he says.

Vicente L. ”Sonny” Domingo, National Chariman of the Kapisanan ng Magsasaka, Mangingisda at Manggagawa Ng Pilipinas Inc. (KaMMMPi, Philippines), and participant of the Workshop on Socially Responsible Governance: Solidarity economy is the convergence of socially oriented individuals.  Leaders and institutions that recognize man as the center of economic activity are the ones who desire righteous relations with others. Solidarity economy also recognizes the existence of a social capital (vis-à-vis financial capital) coming from people who have a solid stand on a common cause. In developing a business or an enterprise, whether micro or a business conglomerate, the human resources or manpower should be recognized as  ‘capital‘ and their aspirations as ‘collateral‘ (vis-à-vis money capital and real estate) so that ordinary people can have an equity share in the business and its profits‘. This viewpoint represents a paradigm shift in business development which usually recognizes only money as capital and real estate as collateral.

In sum, Solidarity Economy denotes an economic system oriented towards people and ecological balance as opposed to the mainstream economy which is geared towards maximization of profit and wanton accumulation of private wealth. Some countries (e.g. France, Canada) adopt the term ’social economy’ instead of solidarity economy, the latter being more widely used in Latin America.

Some people make a distinction between Solidarity Economy and Social Economy but the more important thing to remember is that they share similar basic principles. For example, the five key principles established by the Chantier l‘ Economie Sociale of Quebec to distinguish social economy enterprises can well be applied to solidarity economy initiatives.

These are:
● the objective is to serve its members or the community, instead of simply striving for financial profit;

● the economic enterprise is autonomous of the State;

● in its statute and code of conduct, a democratic decision-making process is established that implies the necessary participation of users and workers;

● it gives priority to people and work over capital in the distribution of revenue and surplus; its activities are based on principles of participation, empowerment, and individual and collective responsibility. It can be said that the concept of solidarity economy is much better entrenched than it was before the Asian Forum in the Philippines, and for the participants from other countries

by Françoise Wautiez, Alliance for a Responsible, Plural & Solidarity Economy (ALOE)

I have just returned from the Regional Workshop on Social Finance for SMEs with CSR Agenda held in Kuala Lumpur , Malaysia , from 10 to 13 March. What a meeting, what organization, what methodology, what a team! A very successful event indeed. There were 13 countries represented, 45 participants, prestigious guests and a closing event in the form of the official inauguration of a social enterprise research centre in Kuala Lumpur …but I’m getting ahead of myself.

The 4-day workshop was organized faultlessly, and led efficiently by the outstanding Ed Canela, whose energy was equalled only by his enthusiasm. Presentations were given by participants, both social enterprises and microfinance organizations, as well as Laurent Fraisse on the European concept of the social enterprise. Everyone had a role, which varied according to the different workshop stages. A site visit was organized to a credit cooperative: Workers Credit Cooperative, KKR, of Malaysia . The workshop ended on the future partnership with the Binary College University on the theme of social enterprise.

continue reading…

by Laurent Fraisse