Asian Alliance for Solidarity Economy

Posted by Socialist WebZine

The mascot of the Alvarado Street Bakery (ASB) is an orange and black cat, with a swinging tail and a sly grin. Perhaps his feisty smile is the result of good working conditions. ASB is the worker owned and run cooperative featured in Michael Moore’s recent film Capitalism: A Love Story as an example of economic democracy. ASB is based in Petaluma, California, but ships nationally through their website. In this interview, Joseph Tuck of ASB tells The Socialist about the company’s practices.



The Socialist – Can you describe how your cooperative works? In particular, how are the big decisions made about what is produced and how much and how are the small day-to-day decisions made, how fast and how much people work, breaks, etc.?



Joseph Tuck of the Alvarado Street Bakery – Generally in our worker cooperative all large decisions that impact the cooperative are decided by the worker/members at our quarterly membership meetings. Our by-laws specify these as
(a) approval of new members and membership criteria
(b) approval of by-law changes;
(c) approval of annual business plan;
(d) approval of annual budget;
(e) commitment of resources greater than the amount allowed in the policy adopted from time to time by the membership;
(f) setting of wage policy;
(g) setting of major policies on hiring and firing;
(h) determining product line produced; and
(i) election of the board of directors.


The day-to-day affairs of the cooperative are coordinated through our management structure. My position (I am hired by the board) coordinates departmental managers who do things like scheduling, setting of breaks, line speed, determining the amount of product to be made on a day, etc. We, of course, use worker input in these types of decisions, as they are the experts in their particular discipline.



TS – What do you see as the advantages of this non-traditional way of organizing your company?



ASB – The economic advantages of being a worker cooperative stem from the fact that workers decide the fate of the cooperative and reap the rewards if we do well. This tends to build more trust internally in one another and less of a need for managers for issues such as oversight etc as traditional organizations may have. Workers get that they are the sole benefactor of the company doing well. The transparency in financial statements etc. allow everyone to know and feel like a stakeholder. If we are not doing well everyone one knows it and knows the reasons for the situation. In our group, there is peer pressure for everyone to do their best. Our workers do not tolerate well their co-workers not putting in effort.



TS – What were some of the hurdles you had to overcome in setting up a workers’ co-operative and how did you address them?



ASB – The largest hurdle for us to overcome was the lack of access to capital when we were a young company. Though this is a universal issue for companies starting out, our being a cooperative made it more difficult as there are no guarantors in a cooperative for loans (as there are no real owners in a worker cooperative). We initially resolved this issue by some small personal loans along with years of delayed gratification (sweat equity) in terms of what we paid ourselves. We finally had stand alone financial strength to be considered for a loan without a traditional guarantor. We also structurally evolved in the thirty years we have been in business in ways that helped us continue to grow and prosper. Our initial collective form (and low flat pay for all) needed to evolve to the system we now employ. This was necessary for us to do to stay in business. All changes were not universally agreed upon and in fact, there were some very fractious years during the time of change. It was not easy for the membership to change wage policy or delegate power. However, these changes are the real reasons why we all have prospered as a worker cooperative.



TS – You were featured in Michael Moore’s Capitalism: A Love Story how has that effected your operation.



ASB - The impact of the film on our business was in reality fairly negligible. There are certainly some more customers buying our bread due to the film, but not in such quantities that we see it in our sales numbers. It was great internally and made us all proud of what we represent. It has had more interest put on worker cooperatives in general which for us is a great thing.



TS – Why organic ingredients? How did you balance the desire to provide good food with the motivation to lower costs for your business?


ASB – Organic was part of our original philosophy when we formed the cooperative. We wanted to create a business that did not exploit workers or the environment and provided health to the community. There is always a balance between such goals and, of course, there are trade offs. We found that in our world technology, expertise, and a lack of bureaucracy has allowed us to provide ourselves a good standard of living while providing the community with whole grain organic baked goods at a reasonable price. We are one of the lower priced breads in the whole grain category (including the large companies such as Oroweat).



Visit ASB at www.alvaradostreetbakery.com


Developing a theoretical framework for social and solidarity economy: in view of an alternative model for society A social and solidarity economy theory for a different social model.

Over a period of ten years the meetings of the University Network for Social and Solidarity Economy and many scientific events have dealt
with a variety of topics that have increased our understanding of the various challenges, areas and problems facing the SSE (visit our website
at www.riuess.org).

Despite the amount of research on and publications concerning SSE, there is still no agreement even internally as to its shape or foundation.
By comparison with traditional theories and analyses, this is certainly a scientific weakness. The problem needs to be resolved and the tenth anniversary of RIUESS presents an opportunity to do so. We need to draw on what we have learned from our work over the years while laying the foundations for the next ten years. Without agreement on what social and solidarity economy is and where disagreements about it lie, researchers into SSE could dissipate or lose their object.

This is the aim of the meeting to be held at the University of Luxembourg 3/4 June 2010. Identifying the foundations is essential if SSE is to be
a credible alternative to prevailing economic thought. Without anticipating the outcome – SSE concepts need considerable discussion among
its various schools of thought – SSE is increasingly distancing itself from the prevailing, itself controversial, model. We must now look at the
true similarities and differences between the concepts.

We are proposing that this should be done by taking two lines that will be sub-divided into six workshops, since a solid theoretical basis
for SSE must rely on both clearly defined essential concepts and consideration of its epistemology, whose very complexity might well be an
inherent characteristic.

A social and solidarity economy theory for a different social model
I) Basic concepts
The main focus will be on the three main concepts underlying SSE: economic, because SSE is essentially grounded in production and circulation; political, even though for SSE this is an area that gives rise to constant controversy; and ethical because SSE aims to embrace man in his entirety.

A) SSE, production and trade – the public and private economies?

The market economy is today indisputably the dominant economic model at both practical and theoretical levels. Despite the battles raging
within the heart of current orthodoxy, its position is solid and generally accepted. Profits are vital to the accumulation of productive and
financial capital and individualism is vital to acquisition and market mechanisms.

The public economy presents a different face by emphasising the role of the State. Although constantly retreating before the onslaught
of dominant economic and financial liberalism, it continues to represent aims and ideals that are fundamentally different from those of the
market economy. The present challenge to the limits of public policy and its areas of involvement highlights the discussions between the
upholders of the various economic views on the purpose and scope of public authority.

In the case of SSE the scenario is entirely different. SSE has gone through a number of phases and directions that with a number of different
variations and names all have a more or less firm foothold on all five continents. After their initial economic outbursts, the co-operative and
mutual sectors have gained institutional recognition and their own identities. But a large number of subsequent changes totally muddied
these waters.

Firstly, not-for-profit associations have now entered the economic field, leading to a more or less happy reconsideration of social economy
as a concept with the aim of collecting institutions with previously different purposes under one single roof and name. A major hit with
researchers and politicians, the players themselves see the reviewed concept as unreliable and empty. The new line was immediately challenged by the solidarity economy current which proclaimed similar values but highlighted its differences by insisting on the political nature of entrepreneurial activity, overhauled the concepts of solidarity and connection with the public interest and rejected the institutional criterion as being proper to a different concept altogether. The attempt over the last ten years to link the social and the solidarity economies so as to reduce differences has had some success but owing to the lack of any theoretic basis, it cannot do more than paper over the cracks and at
best relies on concepts that cannot be said to have the same meaning for all.

Beyond these two lines, there are the SSE third sector and social benefit (charities and voluntary non-profit organisations redistributing wealth
downwards towards the poorest in the English-speaking world) and 3rd economic pillar (local development e.g. Canadian community development and Luxembourg’s solidarity economy) approaches.

Finally, in various countries and ranging from charitable associations to social entrepreneurship via social co-operatives, more or less subsidised systems generally classed within SSE have been set up to deal with unemployment. Despite their differences, do these systems together constitute one common whole that can be used as a basis for a new form of society? And how would it be organised?

B) SSE and politics: choosing the democratic model
The relationship between the social and solidarity economy and politics is not without its ambiguities and cracks tend to appear, depending on your definition of SSE. The first thing to note is the potential interlinking of the public and private sectors. Historically, the most committed supporters of co-operatives and mutuals have also been committed to politics. This is certainly true today where militant associationism is concerned, although here political commitment is primarily local in scale. Solidarity economy movements might seem in rebellion against this commitment (their own being possibly more to new political structures) but this indicates less a lack of interest than a trend towards other means of expressing citizenship.

Going beyond this rather superficial phenomenon, we must look at the importance SSE wishes to give to politics within its structures and actions. Co-operative republics, a French concept with alternative but similar forms within France, came to mean members’ aim of deeply transforming all social relationships by developing a co-operative model that would cover society in its entirety. This view was abandoned after the Second World War (at least in Northern Europe) and co-operatives and mutuals pursuing a more modest ambition of establishing themselves despite the predominance of the liberal model, associations seeking to gain a firm economic footing. At the same time in South America, SEE became part of the democratic debate where this was possible or formed part of the resistance to totalitarianism
as an alternative to capitalism.

Politics is now raising new questions about what citizenship means in our modern societies. As political decision-making methods evolve, they are increasingly encompass what we call “civil society”. We must therefore determine what SSE’s role is to be in this discussion, assuming it can be established how (or in what way) SSE will ally the political and economic natures of its actions. One traditional form of action is participation in public life. The practice of democracy lies at the heart of public life, educating its members in political democracy. But participation is subject to rules that are themselves governed by the reality of political life.

Does this mean that SSE is no longer a utopia? And if so, what is its political philosophy and how does it see political democracy?
C) SSE and ethics: the subjective and the collective. The social and solidarity economy does not just raise questions about the system, it also and primarily looks at the individual, the subjective.  Where liberalism focuses on homo oeconomicus who makes rational choices, SSE considers the relevance of the perfect calculator/optimiser model that lies at the heart of traditional macro-economics. There is good reason to believe that this is a more solid subject than would first appear, one that reacts to more than just market prices.

This question is typical of the problems involved in localising SSE. The associationism that lies at the basis of SSE is traditionally attributed to
Proudhon, known for his libertarian and self-management theories. Within SSE, associationism takes the form of distrust in the State, as the
social and solidarity economy prefers to organise itself rather than to submit to State governance. Proudhon also advocated a society whose
organisation is based on the individual via a multiplicity of contracts. Yet SSE is also (primarily) known for its opposition to individualism and
its support of the collective ideal (the community). While there is no question of reducing individualism to egotism, the ambivalence about
individualism does cast doubt on the clarity of SSE’s essential concept of the subjective.

The attachment to Proudhon is an example only. Similar comments could be made about affiliations with Fourier, Owen or Leroux whose
criticisms of liberalism and their alternatives to it are based on original views of the subjective and its place in society. The views are not necessarily convergent and cannot be included without mutual contradiction within the social and solidarity economy we know today.
Two antiguous concepts deserve our attention as a way of measuring present equilibriums: solidarity and emancipation. In the case of solidarity, SSE thinking insists on the fact that it is not only the foundation of commitment to SSE but also that it is generated by action within its
organisations. Solidarity as a theory has been sufficiently misused, including by SSE thinkers, to require a more serious definition. This could
be useful in scientific relations between individual and the collective and when defining the individual. It might also clarify the differences
between SSE concepts, depending on whether solidarity is viewed or internal or external to the reference group. The link between solidarity
and responsibility could also be reviewed from the same perspective, especially since public opinion and some management science works
seem vague about the distinction between “durability” and “responsibility”.

Research into emancipation was undertaken when we started and more recently. It would be tempting to look here for an answer to the
apparent divergences between those in favour of an alternative political project and the reformists, by viewing the emancipation of the individual as a common goal. This would be approached at a general, including spiritual, level, with SSE providing a suitable framework for the whole. Sociology provides another line by looking at organisations’ actual practices. This shows the gaps between the institutional framework and the actual behaviour of members and brings us back to one key, controversial question: should SSE be defined in terms of its institutions or
its practices? This is not a new question – but it has never been answered.

II) Epistemological foundation of SSE
Epistemology as a term is difficult to manage. Yet to the extent that SSE is both a field of action and a utopia, it is the domain of both those
who bring it to life and of the thinkers who imagine it or theorise it. It is not a question than can be avoided. Naturally this leads to the question
of the relationships between SSE and academic disciplines. But we must also consider SSE itself. Theoretically, this means looking at the
disciplines with which it is linked. Practically, this means how SSE in action interacts with the theory it creates.

D) SSE and other disciplines
Although the three above characteristics of SSE do not fall into any clearly defined discipline, as human activities they nevertheless are an area
for study by the human and social sciences. SSE is not just a theory: it is also, and probably primarily, experience and practice.
The scientific discussion of SSE is bringing in increasing numbers of researchers from various academic disciplines such as political science,
economics, sociology, management, psycho-sociology, ethnology, law, philosophy. pedagogy, communications etc.

The first discipline that springs to mind as regards the development of SSE research is probably economics, since SSE practices raise questions
about the rigid concepts underlying basic tenets such as the market or currency. The same applies to the sociology of organisations, if we
look at e.g. the concept of the solidarity economy company and governance (networking, production, values, professions etc.). Or the law,
whose contribution would be in the area of the legitimacy of socio-economic action using legal principles other than private property.
It would therefore be as well to consider what SSE owes to these disciplines at the practical as well as the theoretical levels. This is not about
listing all the concepts and mechanisms it may have borrowed from them but about giving a more global assessment of the links between
them, the currents within each related discipline and the uniformity these different influences have created.

Conversely, we might wonder about the impact SSE has had on the scientific disciplines it draws from. Beginning with the principle that SSE
is increasingly a current of thought, should we not recognise its impact on other disciplines during interaction? SSE’s contribution to research
stems from its development of concepts and methodologies that traditional disciplines have, or might, appropriate to themselves. This is
particularly true in the case of applied research , which no other discipline has pushed so far, or organised to form consistent theories.
Another main question is the scientific status of SSE itself. Going beyond the interest it might present to traditional disciplines, we must ask
what its epistemological status is: is it a new, developing discipline or a meeting of other disciplines around one single object or set of objects?
Is it an area of study for a number of different academic disciplines or is it a solid body of concepts and homogeneous scientific methods that
together form a separate scientific discipline? Using the study classification method common to a number of disciplines, we must establish
whether SSE is a multi-disciplinary approach (parallel studies), an inter-disciplinary approach (intersecting studies), or a trans-disciplinary approach (convergent studies).

E) The historical roots of SSE
SSE is not the only alternative offered to capitalism and economic liberalism. Over the last few years, as fissures have appeared in the market
economy and the limitations of the demonstrations and predictions of mainstream economists have come to light, Keynesian and Marxist
theories have resurfaced. At the same time, new trans-disciplinary heterodoxies have appeared (economics of conventions, cognitive economics, regulatory theory, institutionalism, socio-economics etc.) to accompany or respond to social challenges (degrowth movements). All heterodoxies consequently have links or connections with SSE that need investigation. But we also need to move beyond the view of SSE as
an alternative to the market and State models. In other words, we need to look at how independent SSE thinking is and how influential it is
in reality.

While the reason for the dominance of the liberal economy must remain at least in part a mystery, a number of writers have built equally
credible theoretic bases that are today of acute topicality. Building a solid foundation for SSE means finding bases that despite their diversities
are convergent, that render it durable and that in other words continue to generate current and future experience.

F) SSE – testing the theory in practice Territory, social cohesion, prosperity and new indicators, governance. These are the areas in which SSE is seeking new legitimate reasons for its inclusion in the field of the sciences so that it can form part of the political scene.  SSE is a naturally territorial and “local” economy (in the sense that it links the individual with the society in which he lives), characteristics that may now enable it to play a new and more legitimate role. SSE has a long tradition of partnerships: the interaction of different resources gives better results. It revitalises politics in the sense that expertise supports but does not replace decision-making. It creates social cohesion and even wealth so long as it is measured using appropriate indicators that take account of population well-being.

The current international crisis means that all diagnostics point to SSE’s criticisms of the capitalist system but has there been any significant
increase in the attraction of SSE’s arguments and practices? Should we not be looking at the relationships between theory and practice? Is
researchers’ scientific interest in SSE a sign of recognition or mummification? What do SSE players expect from scientific research and do they
find it in the results? What can SSE rely on when seeking legitimacy for its actions and for the gains it contributes? What tools, references,
training and communication methods should be used and to what end?

NB:
Since the lack of clarity about the theoretical bases for SSE is to some extent caused by the open differences among various SSE currents,
the Xth RIUESS meetings on 3/4 June in Luxembourg will be preceded by a working meeting attended by a number of recognised different
theoreticians of the social and solidarity economy who will discuss their thoughts under the critical eyes of a number of traditional thinkers.
Attending alongside RIUESS members at the University of Marne-la-Vallée at the beginning of February will therefore be:
Third sector- Helmut Anheier, Professor of Sociology, U • niversity of Heidelberg;
• Quebec School of Social Economics – Marie Bouchard, Professor of the Department of Organisation and Human Resources, ESG UQÀM Montreal;
• South American solidarity economics – Jose Luis Coraggio, economist, School of Economics, University of Buenos Aires (UBA);
• Social enterprises – Jacques Defourny, Professor of Social Economy and Comparative Economic Systems, HEC Management School, University
of Liège, Director of the Centre of Social Economics and President of the EMES network;
• Social economy – Jean-François Draperi, Senior Lecturer in Sociology and Director of the Centre for Social Economy, Employment and
Society (CESTES), CNAM Paris;
• Community development – Susanne Elsen, Professor and Head of the Faculty of Applied Social Sciences in Munich;
• Solidarity economy – Jean-Louis Laville, Professor of Service Relations, National Arts and Crafts Conservatoire (CNAM – Paris);
• Cooperatives in Europe – Rainer Schlüter, SSE representative;
who will be questioned by:
Regulation theory – Robert Boyer (not confirmed), economist at CEPREMAP, Director o • f Studies, EHESS;
• Anti-utilitarian movement in the social sciences (MAUSS) – Alain Caillé, Professor of Sociology, University of Paris X, Co-Director of SOPHIAPOL
(ex-GEODE), Political Sociology, Philosophy and Anthropology Workshop, University of Paris-X Nanterre;
• Sociology – Philippe Corcuff, Senior Lecturer in Political Sciences, Institute of Political Sciences, Lyons – CERLIS;
• Degrowth movement – (to be confirmed);
• NGO development – Xavier Ricard, Director for International Partnerships, Catholic Committee against Hunger and for Development
(CCFD);
• Philosophy – Patrick Viveret, conseiller maître (senior magistrate) at the French Court of Auditors.
the Scientific Committee:
• Edith Archambault, Emeritus Professor, University of Paris I Panthéon-Sorbonne;
• Geneviève Azam, Senior Lecturer in Economic Sciences, University of Toulouse le Mirail;
• Bernard Billaudot, Emeritus Professor of Economics, University Pierre Mendès France, Grenoble;
• Danièle Demoustier, Senior Lecturer in Economic Sciences, Institute of Political Studies, Grenoble;
• Bernard Eme, Professor of Sociology, University of Lille 1;
• Patrick Loquet, Réseau 21, Senior Lecturer in Law, University of Valenciennes et du Hainaut-Cambrésis;
• Carmen Parra, Professor of Social and Solidarity Economy, University Abat Oliva CEU, Barcelona;
• Francesca Petrella, Senior Lecturer in Economic Sciences, Faculty of Economic Sciences and Management, University of the Mediterranean;
• Nadine Richez-Battesti, Senior Lecturer in Economic Sciences, Faculty of Economic Sciences and Management, University of the Mediterranean;
• Jean-Michel Servet, Professor at the University Institute of Development Studies (IUED), Geneva.
the Steering Committee:
• Jérôme Blanc, Senior Lecturer in Economic Sciences, University Lumière Lyon 2;
• Gilles Caire, Senior Lecturer in Economic Sciences, University of Poitiers;
• Josette Combes, solidarity economy consultant, Course Manager, University of Toulouse le Mirail;
• Eric Dacheux, Professor of Information Sciences and Communication, University Blaise Pascal (Clermont-Ferrand);
• Laurent Fraisse, sociology researcher, LISE, CNAM, Paris;
• Laurent Gardin, Senior Lecturer in Sociology, University of Valenciennes and Hainaut Cambrésis;
• Patrick Gianfaldoni, Senior Lecturer in Economic Sciences, University of Avignon and Pays de Vaucluse;
• Pascal Glémain, Professor of Social and Solidarity Economy, ESSCA-Catholic University of the West;
• David Hiez, Professor of Law, University of Luxembourg.
• Eric Lavillunière, Head of Management, European Institute for the Solidarity Economy;
• David Vallat, Senior Lecturer in Economic Sciences, University Claude Bernard Lyon 1.
Submission of papers, evaluation and timetable
Selected papers will be put on line and some will be published. Papers will be put on line 15 days before the meeting and in June the best papers
will be published. Proposals may be submitted in French or English.
If you wish to submit a paper, please draft a max. 5000- lines letter of intent giving the subject, methodology and theoretical framework, to reach
us before 20 January 2010. Since proposals will be assessed on a double blind basis by the Scientific Committee, each must contain the following
two separate items:
- an identification page giving the name of the author(s), his/her/their position, the title of the paper and a five-letter acronym;
- the proposal proper, identified by its acronym alone.
Answers will be sent to authors by 15 February.
Final papers must be received before 30 April.
Proposals should be sent to:
riuess.unilu@inees.org (you will be sent a receipt within 8 days, please check your proposal has been sent if you receive no receipt)
Website: www.riuess.org

by Jeanne Marie O. Bernardo, CSRSME Asia

I have always had high hopes for the BSV Davao Team. During the first ever BSV Workshop in Davao in May of this year, the enthusiasm they showed as participants was exhilarating. This was a group that truly caught the vision of solidarity economy, we at CSRSME Asia all thought. But even this did not prepare me for what I was about to witness when I was in Davao to observe them conduct their own brand of the Building Shared Vision Workshop.

My Cebu Pacific flight was right on schedule. When I arrived at the Davao International airport at 4:30 pm on August 20, no less than the Chairman of the Davao Team, Mr. Ben Aquino, and his charming wife, were there to meet me. Braving the traffic  caused by the ongoing Kadayawan sa Dabaw Festival, we went straight to Kuya Ed’s Restaurant where the rest of the Davao Team was waiting for us for a sumptuous buffet dinner, and a pre-workshop meeting at the JIL Office soon after. The Team was in full force, more than 10 of them, each ready for their respective roles and excited about the next day. I found out they met like this regularly, which explains why they have kept fire and passion for the vision they articulated last May still burning within them. I couldn’t wait to see how the Workshop would turn out.

Call time for the Davao Team was 7:30am and they were there! When I went into the conference hall at 7:50am everyone was abuzz with the preparations. Busy at the Secretariat table were Ms. Monette Niez and Ms. Lorelyn Rivera. Participants started trickling in by 8:00 am and the activity was underway by 8:30am, just 15 minutes off-target, with Ms. Kaye Quinones as overall workshop moderator. After a soulful Praise and Worship led by Mr. Jess Baldecanas, the participants had fun with the “Getting-to-Know-You Game.” With just 17 participants and 15 Davao Team members in attendance, it was not long before a winner was announced and everyone could rest from all the commotion.

The speakers did a fantastic job. And all within their respective time limits. Mr. Ben Aquino explained what CSRSME Asia stood for as well as how the BSV Davao Team enters into the picture. Pastor Dennis Castillanes articulated the importance of having a vision using video and his own string of examples and anecdotes. Ms. Kaye Quinones focused on the learning disabilities that impede the development of learning organizations and how to overcome these. A role-play was done to demonstrate the dynamics within a dialogue team and the roles of the facilitator, discussant, inquirer and documentor. The four roles were effectively played by Mr. Ben Aquino as facilitator, Pastor Dennis Castillanes as discussant, Glen Nazareno as inquirer, and Monette Niez as documentor.

The participants were divided into four groups – green, blue, yellow and violet – for the workshops, wherein they used the methodology of dialogue to answer two questions: (1) What is your vision for a better Philippines? and (2) What concrete steps can I take to achieve my vision? Monitors from the Davao Team were assigned to each workgroup to check if the participants are able to effectively carry out their roles in their respective dialogue teams. After the workshops, each monitor was asked to report the “performance” of their groups to the plenary. With some monitors using individual scorecards to rate their workgroup’s “performance”, the overall consensus was that the workgroups were able to carry out the dialogue effectively.

The overall workshop documentor, Mr. Jerick Axalan, consolidated all the outputs of the group and came up with the following consolidated vision, which was approved by the plenary:

A God-fearing nation promoting social justice, good governance, financial security, and a healthy environment; where every Filipino loves their family, community and environment, and embedded in their hearts and minds the culture of cooperativism, nationalism, leadership and excellence.

Another innovation introduced by the Davao Team in the Workshop was the portion “Business in Focus” where they allowed two of their members to present their respective enterprises to the plenary. The enterprises presented in this case were QuadAcres Corporation, a real estate development company which offers lots at very affordable prices to low-income families, and GMP Ink Station, which markets the continuous ink supply system and allows you to save up to 90% in printing expenses.

Mr. Sam Sale presented the aa4se web portal, how to register and take advantage of its various features. The workshop moderator emphasized that regular blogging at the aa4se portal may give one’s blog the chance of being featured in CSRSME Asia’s bimonthly newsletter “Our Journey”.

I was given the privilege to present a more detailed explanation of the history of the solidarity economy movement in the country, and CSRSME Asia’s current initiatives towards the achievement of its vision of an alternative, compassionate, and socially responsible economy, through its Social Entrepreneurship Discipleship Program, of which the BSV Workshop is the first module. In particular, the Shared Vision Savings and Credit Cooperative was presented, how it differs from other cooperatives, and how it can contribute to the achievement of solidarity economy. It was quite encouraging to see the participants’ faces light up when they finally understood how all these initiatives will achieve solidarity economy and help uplift the life of the ordinary Filipino and move us out of the traditional market economy motivated by materialism, into a bayanihan compassionate economy motivated by social and environmental justice, as well as profit for sustainability rather than greed.

Mr. Jun Carmelotes provided a superb presentation on the Introduction to the Fundamentals of Financial Stewardship, the difference between social and commercial enterprises, the importance of savings and its impact on the financial security of the Filipino family, particularly if such savings are invested into sustainable social enterprises. The presentation was rich in personal testimony which enabled the participants to truly appreciate the concepts and realize the truth behind them. The participants were asked to write down an amount which they were willing to save each month. As a result, it did not become difficult for Mr. Boy Felix, the facilitator for the roundtable discussion, to usher in the idea of bringing these pledges into the Davao Shared Vision Cooperative, which the participants gladly agreed to. As a matter of fact, the participants consented to a monthly meeting with the Davao Team in setting up and joining the Cooperative.

This agreement among the participants and the Davao Team was a fitting end to a very fruitful BSV Workshop. This was evident when the participants gave their impressions during the closing ceremonies after dinner.

And, lest I forget, meals for the workshop were prepared by another batch of BSV Davao graduates, the young professionals group led by Mr. Michael Wong, who labored and toiled the whole day to provide delicious and nutritious food to all the participants.

This Davao BSV Workshop was truly a labor of love and commitment by the entire BSV Davao Team. As I told them during the Closing Ceremonies of the Workshop, never have I seen the spirit of Bayanihan so alive and in action than in Davao. We at CSRSME Asia salute you! May your passion be contagious and your light shine even brighter for ages and generations to come.

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

Mary Rose Rontal is working as an Assisting Professional in a USAID-funded project that focus on implementing strategic actions for environmental management while observing the principles of transparency, accountability and participatory decision-making in the local government units…

Feeding the piggy bank is what I and my husband taught Amyrrh, our one-year old son. We save every ten-peso coin we collect during the day from buying something or paying a fare.  We save it in my baby’s piggy bank ever since he was still in my tummy. Now, he’s already enjoying the feeding time of his “piggy”.

However, I can personally say that my or my family’s saving habit is poor because we only save every time we got a ten-peso coin, otherwise, no savings happened.

As an economist, I know that savings should come first before spending your money. Yet, I am not practicing it. The idea to save comes across my mind every time I can think of something I want to have in the future like house and lot, car, clothes and Amyr’s education. Bad thing is, the moment I received my salary, no thought of saving. All I can think of are the payments for my debts, my baby’s milk, the showing on the cinema, the food I craved to eat prior to my payday, groceries for the week, transportation expenses, board and lodging expenses, latest gadgets, everything except the thing called Savings.

I tend to ask how, when and where to save my money. How to start? When to start? And where is the most secured place to save? I already heard several financial institutions that did not succeed, got the money of their investors and become thief of the night, or they just simply bankrupted because of bad management. The uncertainty of financial institutions makes me anxious to save and invest in any particular financial institution.

It was then during the BSV workshop that I appreciated more the importance of Saving. I was enlightened with the idea of saving not just for myself but for the economy, more importantly for the small and medium enterprises, which I know is the “backbone” of the Philippine economy.

As an individual, I am not quite aware of the specific things I can do to help achieve a better state of nation, but thanks to my dear friend Jerick who invited me to join the BSV Workshop. It is very interesting to know that I am sharing the same vision with my groupmates and with other groups. As a Christian, as an economist and as an environmentalist, I was delighted to know that all of us hope for a “God-fearing” nation, a stable economy and a sustainable environment. These three aspects are underscored and for me, these characterized a perfect country. Though we are different individuals, yet we found out that we have common hopes for our country and that we are not just driven by our selfish desires but of what is good for the Filipinos a whole. That was indeed a “shared vision”.

I was also awakened on the topic “Learning Organization”, which made me realize my learning disabilities that I am not quite aware of for a long time. No wonder we hardly reach our goals in life. Now, I’m excited to share it with my colleagues.

As a whole, the one-day workshop on “Building Shared Vision” was indeed very informative. In fact, I would like to know more about the technical side of the cooperative, its management and operation, how to become a member, what are the logistical requirements to become an official member of the cooperative and the sustainable mechanisms of the organization. I think this should be discussed more during the Pre-Membership Education Seminar (PMES) which I believe is one of the requirements prior to being a member of any cooperative.

Further, I am glad that this concept was introduced to Filipinos. Though savings, credit and investments are not new to me but combining the three, with emphasis to “savings” in order to achieve a “Solidarity Economy” is relatively a new and fascinating concept. It is a good news that I find it very interesting to share with my networks of family, friends and colleagues. Indeed, I myself even want to conduct the same workshop to groups of people I know. Aside from that, I also want to see myself as part of the “think tank” of the CSRSMEAsia and be able to contribute in the development of concepts and designs that are worth implementing for the development of our community.

By Datuk Dr Denison Jayasooria

Datuk Dr Denison Jayasooria is a Principal Research Fellow at the Institute for Ethnic Studies (KITA), National University of Malaysia (UKM). These thoughts were shared at a panel discussion held on April 20, 2009 at Luc, Southern France where the local Mayor Jean-Claude Pons was the chief guest and 25 local development leaders attended.

Southern France has a beautiful country side with mountain range and vine yards in the valley. It has a pleasant cool climate and peaceful environment away from busy cities like Paris. This part of the county side is also lowly populated.

Ben Quiñones of the Philippines and I had the opportunity of being a guest of a local NGO called ‘Pactes Locaux’ together with three other international participants from April 16 till 21, 2009 prior to the International Forum on Globalisation of Solidarity which was held from April 22 till 25, 2009 at Luxemburg. continue reading…