Asian Alliance for Solidarity Economy

TOKYO, Nov 23, 2009, 2009 (IPS/GIN via COMTEX) –

The outbreak of the global financial crisis that followed the collapse of the U.S.’s major financial institutions last year sent many economies into a downward spiral. Many were also forced to rethink their economic development models.

For Dr Jun Nishikawa, professor emeritus at Waseda University in Tokyo, there is no more viable option than a solidarity-based economy, or one that promotes human and social development. This, in his view, contrasts with a profit- and greed-driven economy to which grassroots development is often hostage.

Dr Nishikawa is Japan’s leading theorist of the social development and solidarity economy (SE), an alternative framework for the development of grassroots people, which he thinks is not possible in a globalised market economy. He says it is a concept that seeks to transform a capitalist economy that advocates of solidarity economy like him believe engenders oppressive social conditions.

The concept of SE evolved during the first World Social Forum of civil society organizations in 2001. The forum sought to counter the ill effects of economic globalization and denounced the anti-human aspects of a market- oriented economy, where everything is “merchandised and transaction- based” and the environment is rapidly deteriorating, he says.

His dream is to see a society marked by a sustainable environment that can realise genuine human growth through the combined efforts of civil society and the public sector. This aspiration of his reverberated anew in the Asian Forum for Solidarity Economy, held in Tokyo last week.

In Japan the prospects for propagating SE appear promising against a backdrop of social and gender gaps, job insecurity and poverty, which have assumed disturbing proportions. In fact, Dr Nishikawa proudly says, a number of activities promoting solidarity economy are taking place in his country. These include social enterprises, social financing schemes, fair trade and non-profit undertakings in the fields of welfare, medical and care work and agriculture-all of which are intended to promote grassroots development.

He ponders the prospects for the pursuit of solidarity economy in Japan and elsewhere in the world.

IPS: What does SE mean in this time of economic crisis?

JUN NISHIKAWA: The economic globalisation has in recent decades brought about increasing poverty, unemployment and social division on a global scale, and this was heavily criticised by civil society groups.

On the other hand, it has promoted money-oriented, or greed, economy among transnational corporations and financial institutions. Their collective failures led to a global financial crisis in 2007-08.

In this situation, the governments tend to promote various regional cooperation schemes such as free trade and economic partnership agreements. However, there are fears that such schemes will only lead to a failed regional globalisation.

IPS: What is the role of the SE forum in this regard?

JN: The forum advocates a more humanistic economy and society both at the regional and global levels. This is particularly vital in Asia, where rapid economic growth has created enormous poverty, social division and environmental deterioration. IPS: What did the Asian Forum in Tokyo achieve that in your view can help address these issues?

JN: On one hand, the Forum in Tokyo is a good departure point to develop further SE activities in Japan as well as in Asia. On the other, it is a good beginning to exchange experiences, mutual support and partnerships among SE advocates in the five continents of the world.

In fact, we were amazed to see so many delegates, not only from Asia but also from Europe, North America, Oceania and other parts of the world. It means that the role of the SE movement in Asia is considered important not only among Asian nations but also in other parts of the world.

IPS: How would you describe Japan in the post-World War II era and what does its current mean for promoting SE in the world’s second largest economy?

JN: The post-World War II economy in Japan is marked by “development- oriented dictatorship,” which was led by a coalition of politicians, business groups and bureaucrats. The non-profit sector that existed in the form of cooperatives, however, largely survived within the said development-oriented regime. The force of civil society organisations has long been weak.

But the situation started to rapidly change after the collapse of the bubble economy, which took place through the 1990s. As a result, the development- oriented dictatorship ceased to function properly. It was prompted by the rise of civil society and people’s movements in this decade, which are seeking more public sector accountability and democratisation.

After 1993, the domination of Liberal Democratic Party (LDP), which symbolised the development-oriented dictatorship, ended and the Japanese politics entered a new era of coalition government made up of a plurality of parties. This change was accelerated by a change in the international environment, where the East-West Cold war ended and where the world has become more multilateral.

After the Asian currency and financial crisis between 1997 and 1998, and during the incumbency of Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi, who promoted globalisation and liberalisation in Japan, the ill effects of globalisation became visible in this country, where 90 percent of the population thought they belonged to the middle class.

These international and domestic changes have pushed democratisation in Japan-a boost to CSO activities.

All this bodes well for pushing a solidarity-based economy.

IPS: Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama has vowed to support civil society, non-profit and citizens’ actions. How do you view his leadership and what does it imply for the pursuit of SE in Japan?

JN: The election of Prime Minister Hatoyama brought an end to the old-style development-oriented political regime. He equates politics with ‘yuai’ (fraternity). This means giving a voice to marginalised sectors, including minority groups, and pursuing an economic programme that is fundamentally based on human development.

The ‘yuai’ is in stark contrast to the rapid marketisation pursued by past governments that created a lot of unemployment and poverty. In today’s Japan, the Democratic Party is committed to addressing these issues more than pursuing a growth-based economy as advocated by LDP.

All this means that the new government is keen to address social issues and involve the CSOs in resolving them.

IPS: Are you optimistic about the potential of SE to gain more adherents in Japan and consequently take root in the country?

JN: In a situation where major enterprises are moving their factories abroad and the government is running a heavy deficit every year, and poverty and job loss are on the rise, the people have no other choice but to depend on grassroots-led development or entrepreneurship.

In Japan, public-private sector collaboration has traditionally involved government and big private enterprises. Today we need to promote collaboration between the government and civil society to resolve the failures that have accumulated through the years under the traditional setup.

IPS: What is the role of Japan in promoting SE across Asia and the rest of the globe?

JN: Many Asian countries have followed the Japanese way of growth based on export-oriented industrialisation. Japan should lead the way in reversing this cycle, among others through a change of lifestyle-one that emphasizes responsible citizenship, positive social ties and sustainable environment.

These are not alien to Japanese and Asian cultures on the whole. SE is showing both Japan and other Asian countries that an alternative way of living is not only possible but also inevitable.

IPS: How do you expect the Japanese people act to respond to the SE challenge?

JN: Many Japanese have become conscious of the necessity to reverse today’s trends. This is evident in their overwhelming support for a new government during the election, inspired by the chain of events leading to President Barack Obama’s victory. A positive social development combined with environment conservation efforts will strengthen the people’s resolve toward an alternative lifestyle that is consistent with the ethos of solidarity economy.

Copyright (c) 2009 IPS-Inter Press Service. All Rights Reserved.

By Ben Quinones

Chairman, CSRSME Asia

Solidarity economy initiatives are grounded at the community/local level and they usually start with a socially responsible stakeholder – be it a producer, investor, buyer, or consumer – who undertakes an innovation aimed at overcoming the adverse effects of the market economy.  The story of Kaneko – an organic farmer we the participants of the 2^nd Asian Forum on Solidarity Economy visited on November 9 & 10, 2009 – is a good example. It is easy to understand from Kaneko’s story how solidarity economy works on the ground. We hope PARC (Pacific Asia Resource Center) can write a more extensive analysis of the Kaneko case to serve as an example of an appropriate case study of a local solidarity economy initiative.

The Case of Kaneko, an Organic Farmer

Kaneko is a pioneer of organic farming in Ogawa-machi, Saitama district of Japan.  He was the only one doing organic farming some twenty years ago when he started it; nobody believed it could become sustainable.  But Kaneko persisted because he believed that organic food is best for man’s health and the environment too. To advance his advocacy, he cultivated personal relationships with his neighbors while educating them on the ill-effects of chemicals on the soil and health of people.  He encouraged local people and local processors of agricultural products to “buy local” and patrionize the local industries. Little by little he gained adherents, more and more people and local industries bought local products including organic farm products, and until recently, all farmers in his locality have converted to organic farming.

Little did Kaneko realize that his pioneering efforts and “buy local” advocacy would lead to the creation of a solidarity economy in his locality. Because the term “solidarity economy”  was unknown to him, he refers to the economic interdependencies that he built as “organic relations”.  His role being that of a producer- investor, Kaneko established direct economic ties with his buyers, both end-users and the agricultural processors which use Kaneko’s farm products as raw materials.  The local sake manufacturer buys all of Kaneko’s rice produce and all the rice produced by farmers in Ogawa-machi.  The local tofu manufacturer also buys all of Kaneko’s soya bean production and all local produce of soya bean. Some local restaurants serving organic food have sprouted in various spots in Saitama district, and the local television features organic farming in a regular program.  Kaneko exchanges seeds and planting materials with fellow organic farmers locally and also from other parts of Saitama. Kaneko found that local seeds and planting materials are best suited to the climatic conditions of Saitama. Today, the whole municipality of Ogawa-machi has become an unwitting symbol of a movement for an alternative economy that holds the promise for overcoming the marginalizing effects of market-oriented globalization.

Stories about Solidarity Economy Initiatives in Local Communities

Case stories for the 3^rd Asian Forum for Solidarity Economy

What we need to bring to the 3^rd Asian Forum for Solidarity Economy in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia are more stories of local initiatives of socially responsible economic stakeholders like Kaneko, and the various stakeholders who comprise their supply chain.  Although Kaneko’s dominant farm practice can be labeled as “organic farming”, the solidarity economy initiative he has co-created with other stakeholders extends beyond the thematic confines of organic farming.  For example, the sake manufacturer and the tofu manufacturer were not buying organic produce only. To these local manufacturers, the more important criteria for their action is whether or not they’re buying organic produce but rather, whether or not they’re buying local products. But they would readily buy more organic produce when more will become available in the local market.

Scope of Study

It is important to limit the scope of inquiry to the level of the community or a specified local geographic area.  This is an effective method for tracing the industrial supply chain of a given product among the local stakeholders. Given the more focused local scope, the analyst of solidarity economy should conduct a mapping of local innovative practices that are geared towards creating an alternative to the market-oriented, for-profit-only economy.  Included among the alternative development approaches might be fair trade, organic farming, microfinance, social/solidarity/ ethical finance, solidarity markets, ethical consumption, and the like.

The case study can take two alternative methodologies.

One, the study could investigate the inter-relationships – the points of interactions and/or integration – between and among the various alternative development approaches. This methodology is useful when looking at the various facets of solidarity economy in a locality with the view of ascertaining whether they interact with each other, and how their interactions can possibly create a collective impact on the economy that could overcome the marginalizing effects of market-led globalization.

And two, alternatively, the study could focus on one approach, identify the various stakeholders involved in it, and investigate the points of interactions and/or integration among these stakeholders. This was what we did in the Kaneko case.  Although this methodology starts with a thematic focus (i.e. organic farming, or fair trade, or microfinance, or social finance, etc), the analysis broadens as the analyst brings into the picture the other stakeholders of the concerned industrial supply chain.

From General to Particular

During the 3^rd Asian Forum for Solidarity Economy, we can devote a whole day comparing local stories of solidarity economy initiatives in various parts of Asia. We shall investigate and share our insights on the inter-relationships, interactions, and interdependencies among various stakeholders in their ongoing journey to build an alternative, more compassionate economy.  We can draw lessons from these cases and identify principles of organizational development that could be useful in advancing solidarity economy initiatives to higher levels of development.

On the second day, we can take a closer look at the components, the various facets of solidarity economy. We can organize workshops around thematic concerns such as fair trade, organic farming, microfinance, solidarity/ social finance, solidarity markets, socially responsible investing, etc.  Given the more encompassing framework for looking at solidarity economy that is tackled on the first day, participants can “zoom” in on the SE components  without losing the perspective that all these specialized approaches are integral part of people’s attempt to create an alternative, more compassionate economy.   These specialized, more focused approaches would no longer appear as though they are an all-cure to the ill effects of market economy.  Participants would also have a much broader view of the usefulness of each individual approach as they interact, interrelate and integrate with other innovative approaches.

From individual networks to national, regional and international networking

At the concluding session of the Asian Forum, it should become more evident to the participants that each individual innovative practice that we collectively review aims at making less developed and poor economies grow stronger and better in meeting the needs of people, conserving the environment, and making life on earth more sustainable.  But the more strategic view is the realization that an integrative approach is needed to advance these economies to a higher level of operations. This view should contribute to a reflection on the importance of individual networks working on specialized themes and approaches to come together and collectively build solidarity economy initiatives throughout their respective countries. We may have a plethora of specialized development approaches in a given setting, but only one country in which we intend to apply these development approaches for the country’s socio-economic advancement.

To Mr. Benjamin R. Quinones Jr.

I am a Tokyo-based reporter for Inter Press Service and I met you at the Asian Forum of Solidarity Economy a few days ago. I had some questions for you for my story on the Forum.

1. As a chief organizer and leader of the first Asian Forum in the Philippines two years ago, did you see any notable progress at the second Forum in Tokyo last weekend?

Yes, the progress was notable. First of all, the high turn out of Japanese participants (almost 90% of the more than 400 participants) in the Asian Forum for Solidarity Economy (AFSE) 2009 was beyond expectations considering that ‘solidarity economy’ is little known in Japan. Furthermore, the quality of participation from Japan was rather high, what with the presence of highly respected researchers from noted Japanese universities, top management officers of private banks including NPO banks, fair trade organizations, cooperatives, credit unions, and other civil society organizations. Secondly, this was the first time that South Korea was represented in AFSE by a good number of civil society organizations and social enterprises. The provision of interpretation (Korean to Japanese and English) was a key factor for a visible presence of South Korean delegation in AFSE 2009. Third and finally, the thematic areas for discussion at AFSE 2009 had a much broader coverage with the inclusion of new topics such as solidarity tax levy and social welfare for the elderly, handicapped and unemployed.

2. What was the most interesting discussion through the Forum in Tokyo? Can you specify one or two?
In my opinion, the most interesting discussion at AFSE 2009 was on the issue of global and Asian perspectives of solidarity economy. Notably, all speakers agreed on one point – that solidarity economy is a timely and appropriate response to the adverse effects of neoliberal globalization (e.g increasing poverty, social exclusion, degradation of environment). Furthermore, participants through a “Statement of Commitment” enumerated a number of solidarity economy initiatives that can be found in Asia and in other continents. These included fair trade, organic farming, ethical/social finance, microfinance, solidarity markets, solidarity trading, ethical consumption, and many others. An important realization arising from this discussion was the need for mapping out solidarity economy initiatives in a given geographic area and for building inter-relationships, interactions, and interdependencies among the various solidarity economy stakeholders. It was suggested that the 3^rd AFSE in Malaysia in 2011 should give more prominent focus on the status of inter-relationships among solidarity economy stakeholders in specific geographic areas of respective participating countries.

3. Did you learn anything new, what was it?

Indeed I learned something new. During our field visit to Ogawa-machi, Saitama district, we met a local farmer, Mr. Kaneko, who pioneered organic farming some 20 years ago. Nobody listened to him at first, but he persisted. Not only did he tell his neighbors about the ill effects of chemical fertilizers and pesticides on the soil and environment in general, he also encouraged them to “buy local”. Gradually, Mr. Kaneko won over some of his neighbors to buy his organic produce, and soon even the local agricultural processors (e.g. sake producer, tofu manufacturer) started buying from him. Local restaurants serving organic dishes also emerged and a TV program occasionally feature Mr. Kaneko’s farm and the local industries that patronize his products. More and more local farmers went to Mr. Kaneko’s farm for training in organic farming. They began exchanging seeds and planting materials among themselves to ensure that local varieties that adjust well to the climate of Saitama are preserved for continuing cultivation. Only a few months ago, all farmers in Ogawa-machi converted to organic farming.

Mr. Kaneko’s example showed that a single entrepreneur can unite the whole village in co-creating a new economy based on the principle of solidarity among stakeholders and respect for the environment. The case of Mr. Kaneko deepened the understanding of participants on the concept of solidarity economy and the fact that any of the individual initiatives (fair trade, organic farming, ethical/social finance, microfinance, etc.) can be an entry point for building solidarity economy at the local level. This case strengthened the conviction of participants about the relevance of looking at solidarity economy initiatives at the local or community level in their own respective countries.

4. How can you apply your new findings or learning to your activities at the Coalition of Socially Responsible Small and Medium Enterprises in Asia (CSRSME Asia)?
At CSRSME Asia, we have already been involved in the development of the supply chains of SMEs since the establishment of the organization in 2004. However, unlike in the case of Mr. Kaneko who as social entrepreneur and prime mover of a solidarity economy initiative took the burden of building the supply chain of his own enterprise, in the Philippines it is CSRSME Asia that is carrying the burden. Unless this burden is shouldered by the social entrepreneur himself, the efforts of CSRSME Asia may not prove to be sustainable. Fortunately, the role of CSRSME Asia is limited to that of an advocate and think tank. It has established four subsidiary organizations to provide technical support services to social enterprises at affordable cost. CSRSME Asia can point to the experience of Mr. Kaneko and encourage the social entrepreneur to establish linkages with the various suppliers, buyers, workers, and other stakeholders of his enterprise for the purpose of co-creating a more robust and mutually beneficial solidarity economy initiative.

5. How fast do you predict the solidarity economy (SE) is spreading in Asian region do you think? Any evidence for it?

With the establishment of the Asian Alliance for Solidarity Economy (AASE) as the hub of SE activities in Asia, it is now possible to foresee a more organized process of coordinating the promotion of SE in various Asian countries. If our partners in Europe, North America (US and Canada) and Australia could act on their commitments in the coming months to help the fledgling AASE generate resources for a concerted promotion of SE in Asian countries, it is quite possible to see a more robust participation in the 3^rd Asian Forum for Solidarity Economy in Malaysia in 2011.

Thank you, again, and I look truly forward to hearing from you VERY SOON!

Sincerely,

Mutsuko Murakami
Tokyo reporter for Inter Press Service