Asian Alliance for Solidarity Economy

By Mike Lewis

The 2010 National Summit is right around the corner. May 30-June 1, 300plus people will gather in Ottawa to put in place the cornerstones for rendering more coherent our efforts to strengthen a movement that holds great promise.

Ranging from neighbourhood development organizations and individual social enterprises to associations representing hundreds of thousands of people, from researchers and students in the academy to people involved in labour, women’s, and environmental movements, the diversity and breadth is inspiring. (You can still register on-line until midnight Friday, May 21.)

Whether together we can craft a vision and an agenda that will reinforce our efforts to secure public recognition and public policy that leverages and builds on our contribution to Canadian society is the challenge we have.

The six Issue Papers leading up to the Summit contain excellent work that will stimulate a dynamic discussion. What are our collective priorities? At this conjuncture, what things can we do that will strengthen the movement for a People-Centered Economy? Certainly the excellent research and related papers identify key dimensions of what we have to advance. Concrete propositions will shape Summit debate. Moreover, we have important findings from elsewhere in the world that can help us perceive strategic pathways forward.

Combine all this with some of the incredible speakers addressing Summit plenary sessions and the 3.5 hour theme workshops, and I expect a rich and productive debate.

Yep, I am excited. But I am also just a wee bit nervous. As I read the Issue Papers I failed to see two key issues missing, issues that I do not think any of us can duck, issues that are hugely challenging to get our minds around. Both point to trends which radically challenge dominant assumptions in our society, trends which many of us are ambivalent about. Indeed, careful reading of the papers indicates, not surprisingly, that we too are struggling to embrace their implications.

Of course, the two issues I now want to bring to your attention are also assumptions, based on a reading of the signs. They are shared by increasing numbers of people around the globe. They are vigorously criticized by many more.

So let me set them out, followed by a third issue that has more to do with the peculiar challenges of holding a “National” Summit in this place we call Canada.

First, given the challenges the planet faces, the dominant assumption that economic growth is the road out of our global predicaments is “akin to driving towards a cliff and then stepping on the accelerator.”

Second, Peak Oil (Energy) and Climate Change will become increasingly disruptive to the global economy. These overarching trends will drive us to reinvent our economies on a much more local and regional basis. Lengthy global supply chains will unravel as oil prices escalate. Local economies dependent on global markets will suffer. Financial systems, backed by debt, will remain vulnerable. The broad implication: we must intentionally focus on meeting our basic needs much closer to home – food, energy, finance, shelter. Increasing the measure of self-reliance locally and regionally is not an answer to all our challenges, but it is essential to navigating the difficulties ahead.

The third subject I want to raise in this article is one we all know well. Living as we do in a highly decentralized federation, how we focus our sector organizing and political and advocacy efforts is a key issue. Québec, Manitoba and Nova Scotia have all made progress in strengthening CED and the Social Economy through organizations and networks that have given priority to provincial and municipal levels of organizing. National efforts have been and continue to be important. However, in many of the domains in which we work, the power is at the provincial level. We also have limited resources. How do we understand this issue and what are the implications for our strategy?

The Economic Growth Assumption

I am not going to cite the mountains of evidence here. Let it suffice to say that the current and projected implications of peak oil and climate change (my second point) render meaningless worn assumptions that economic growth should be our guiding mantra. Economic growth is completely dependent on flows of energy. Our institutions, markets, attitudes are adapted to the paradigm of economic growth based on cheap, accessible energy.

This is not our future, though all of us have a difficult time imagining a non-growth economy, or as the 19th Century economist John Stuart Mill put it, a “steady state” economy. Indeed, we are faced with central conundrum – culturally, economically and socially. On the one hand, economic growth is destroying the environment we all depend on. On the other, there remain great economic inequities.

Can we take hold of the steering wheel and veer away from the cliff? This is the central question to which there is a wide range of responses from, on the one hand, “of course we can, we are resilient, inventive and will manage somehow,” and on the other hand, “civilization will collapse and there will be a major die-off of human population.” I accept neither, although as the evidence continues to pour in it is clear we are in serious and unprecedented do-do.

Several of the Issue Papers talk of sustainable development. However, none of them elevate with any clarity the issue of economic growth. Indeed, there are several instances where we argue the importance of the social economy sector in terms of its contribution to economic growth.

This is understandable. Our history reveals a movement focussed on creating economic improvement through the growth of enterprises, democratic ways of creating wealth etc. This is the social justice foundation we draw from. We want to make things better for those at the bottom, for those who are excluded and more generally, to foster healthy, vibrant communities. And so we should. However, the context for pursing these goals is changing rapidly.

Given the realities we face, I would argue that our passion for social justice needs to be radically reframed within an analysis that clearly faces the bankruptcy of economic growth as a paradigm. Navigating the volatile times ahead challenges us move into strategic retreat from the life-damaging consequences of the growth paradigm and energetically forging pathways to a steady state economy.

How we define our assumptions shapes how we see the world. How we see the world at this conjuncture in human history shapes our choices and our strategies, with whom we seek to ally, and what we choose to resist. These are considerations that will shape our movement-building efforts.

Peak Oil, Finance and Climate Change: Trends that are Shaping our Context – Whether We Like it or Not

Five out of the last six recessions have been associated with a peak in oil prices. The latest crash of the financial system is often linked to the sub-prime mortgage crisis. There is no doubt this was a key factor. However, the evidence is persuasive that oil prices were an even more fundamental contributor.

One pillar critical to keeping the current system functioning is confidence in money and the ability of banks to keep it flowing. As energy flows decline money, backed by little more than debt, will also unravel; money has no intrinsic value.

In a growing economy debt and interest can be repaid; in a declining economy not even the principle can be paid back. In other words, reduced energy flows cannot maintain the level of economic production necessary to service debt. Real debt outstanding in the world will not be repayable. New credit will almost vanish.

Our communities are highly vulnerable. We have few indigenous, locally owned production, distribution or financial systems in place; in other words, our economic resilience is low.

There are no simple answers or quick fixes. Oil prices in July 2008 hit $147 per barrel. By Christmas it was $34. By March it was over $70. It is now over $80. Jeff Rubin, former Chief economist for CIBC World Markets, who predicted the last July 2008 rise, predicts over $200 by 2012. Whether this is the case or not, there is a large body of evidence which argues that prices will be volatile. One increasingly common scenario is prices hitting new peaks, which will drive an economic contraction or recession, each one settling at higher ‘new low’ oil price levels. This cyclic pattern will cause significant impacts in jobs and business viability. Similar to what we have seen in the last two years, credit will be squeezed and bank stability threatened. Thus the provocative but perfectly reasonable title of Rubin’s book, Why Your World Is About to Get a Whole Lot Smaller.

When one faces up to the fact that 90% of the world’s transportation (and 40% of all energy produced) is dependent on oil, it helps us understand why global supply chains are so vulnerable. Given how they are tied into these chains as producers and consumers, local communities too are extremely vulnerable. The cost of living related to food, heating our homes, generating electricity, transport, shelter affordability and the provision of financial services will rise, significantly. Moreover, meeting these needs securely cannot be assured as supply chains break down.

So what does this mean for building a people-centered economy? What strategies and models are in play that might represent signposts to navigate such an unprecedented set of circumstances?

Well, there are some – reconstructing local food systems hollowed out by global commodity markets; integrated, community-based approaches to energy conservation; land tenure reform aimed at farm succession and agriculture transition and increased affordability of housing; fee-based solidarity financing rather than credit provision based on compound interest; models that increase local ownership and control of renewable energy production, etc. Best practice models are emerging in each of these areas, the elaboration of which is beyond the scope of this memo. (U.K. based Patrick Conaty and I are endeavouring to write a book on these themes at the moment.)

When it comes to “Strengthening the Movement” (see Issue Paper 5, by my friend Rupert Downing), contending with these issues cannot be neglected. Opening ourselves to thinking about and actively discussing their implications is an important first step in our movement-building efforts. It is hard, no doubt. Are we able to face up to our fears about these prospects, however reluctantly, and start thinking outside of the box? Are we able to SEE the context differently, or not? Perhaps we significantly disagree and if we do, on what basis? Our answers will shape our strategies to strengthen the movement.

The second step is to seek the most strategic pathways and models relevant to strengthening local and regional economies, particularly those that focus on addressing basic needs and ways of weaving together social, economic, and ecologically-framed strategies and partnerships. There are models directly relevant to each of the basic needs sectors. Should we not be considering them as centrally important to how we think through building a people centered economy? Is this not actually one of the strategic contributions a revitalized movement could make? We come from this struggle and our exemplary practice is part of the solution. I cannot help but think that the Issue Papers all point to parts of the puzzle, but are silent or vague on the issues that may well become, strategically speaking, the main drivers of change.

The third step, intimately linked to the first two, and of course not nice, neat, and linearly tidy as implied in this 1-2-3 step language, is how to federate our efforts to secure a much more powerful, effective, and sustainable platform from which to try and steer away from the cliff. Clearly, we must become even more capable of inspiring, equipping, and shaping changes where we live; but if we are not organized to connect the dots more broadly we will not be well placed to influence the discourse, the policy, or to secure the kinds of resources that scaling up innovation always requires.

Strengthening the Movement in the Most Decentralized Federation on the Planet

Thus far I have suggested, firstly, elevating the issue of economic growth for debate. What are our assumptions? Where do we agree or disagree? We cannot paper over this debate and expect we will be effective in strengthening the movement. Secondly, I have argued that we must face the reality of Peak Oil (Energy) and the implications of accelerating climate change (though much more could be said about the latter). They will drive us to reweave our economies into a more local and regional framework and focus our priorities on meeting basic needs.

My third point has to do with how we understand where to put our priorities for organizing. Recommendations #1 and #2 at the end of Issue Paper 5 assume a federal focus. I am not against these but, as said earlier, much of the progress made in several areas of our work has come from provincially- and municipally-based organizing of the sector and subsequent influence over policy. Rupert makes this point very well in his fifth recommendation under government outreach, saying that we should go forward with “a particular focus on supporting momentum in provinces and territories” and (Recommendation #1) with the creation of “networks … in provinces and territories.”

I guess I just want to add a point here.

In Manitoba some 10 years ago the then draft CCEDNet National Policy framework played a key role in influencing the new NDP government. However, the subsequent strengthening of the work there has been due to provincially-focussed organizing. In Nova Scotia the focus has been very provincial as it has been in Québec, though the latter has expertly leveraged federal support as well.

Given the extent to which mandates and governmental power have devolved even further to provincial jurisdictions over the last decade, should we not explicitly examine where we put our organizing and advocacy efforts in the next several years? True, this is a National Summit and we will focus on how we unite our efforts at the Pan-Canadian Level more effectively. However, as Nancy Neamtan has so often said, in this country, if we do not have strong regional bases, the influence of the national level work will be muted. She is right I think, even though the presence of national networks was of strategic importance in leveraging the federal government’s Social Economy Initiative in 2004.

I think we have to move on all levels as Issue Paper 5 suggests. But what is the balance? Given capacity and resource challenges, I believe it is very important that we come to terms with what the respective priorities are between each level and explore the implications for how we deploy what movement building resources we have.

That is it for now. Thanks Rupert. I look forward to the discussion in at the National Summit in Ottawa.

Mike Lewis
Canadian Centre for Community Renewal
B.C. – Alberta Social Economy Research Alliance
May 19, 2010

This announcement is provided by CEDworks!, an e-news service for resources of interest and importance to practitioners of community economic development and social enterprise.

Click here to start receiving CEDWorks!

Click here to stop receiving CEDWorks!

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.

Recent advances in internet-based financial services have so far made it possible for SMEs and other unbanked sectors of society to make payments via text messaging. But their credit access to banks remains elusive.

To find ways of enhancing SME access to the full benefits of internet banking, CSRSME Asia will team-up with BDO, the country’s largest bank, and the Shared Vision Cooperative of SMEs to create the Bayanihan Cash Card (BaCC), a debit card that will connect SMEs and their clients with BDO’s ATM, mobile phone, point of sale facilities and automatic financial statement generation.

The approach is innovative firstly because it targets socially responsible SMEs or social enterprises with the triple bottom line of economic sustainability, social development, and ecological conservation.

Secondly, it allows social enterprises to strengthen their supply chains with the development of a financial intermediation system that will mobilize savings and provide financing for production and marketing of local products.

Finally, the project hints at a framework for participatory local development that increases the benefits of all stakeholders including small producers, consumers, wholesalers, trading/auction centers, retail distribution centers, vendors, banks, social enterprises, NGOs, and local government units.

The Inherent Conflicts of the Profit-Maximizing Market Economy

By Benjamin R. Quiñones, Jr.

Founder and Chairman, CSRSME Asia

In a profit-maximizing market economy, stakeholders are in constant conflict with each other while trying to look for ways to advance their own “stake” in the market. The final arbiter of resource allocation or the “allocator of resources” in this kind of economy is market price.

This situation creates a breeding place for conflicts among stakeholders throughout the system. The wholesaler wants to buy at a low price from the producer and sell at a high price to the consumer. The consumer/worker wants to buy at a low price while contending for a high wage. The investor/ banker wants higher interest for his loans to distributors and producers alike, but the latter want lower interest rate. Each stakeholder tries to protect its own interest and thinks very little about social responsibility.

The market solution towards integration is the reign of monopoly or oligopoly. One of the major stakeholders, or a collusion of a few of them, integrates the whole economic system through a global supply chain under a regime of economic and financial liberalization.

The globalization process has hastened the integration of national economies into a global market system dominated by transnational corporations (TNCs). This has deepened the gap between the haves and the have-nots and further marginalized the vast majority of people who have no access to productive resources.

In the midst of adversity and alienation, the human spirit time and again rises up to regain man’s dignity and freedom. Every epoch in various areas throughout the world is witness to heroic attempts of people to mitigate the harsh impact of market economy through self-help efforts and egalitarian outreach programs. A few examples are cited below:

● Solidarity-based initiatives (e.g. cooperatives, associations, fair trade, social enterprises) are created by people to try to overcome adversities and live a life that would otherwise be devoid of hope. Oftentimes, these solidarity-based struggles are waged without fanfare and independent of similar initiatives in other parts of the world. They aspire for a responsible, plural, social and solidarity economy that deliberately chooses serving the needs of people and ecological sustainability as the goal of economic activity rather than sheer maximization of profits under the unfettered rule of the market. They place economic and technological development at the service of social and human development rather than the pursuit of narrow, individual self-interest.

● There are institutions in various countries (some are called microfinance institutions, others are savings and credit cooperatives, still others are social finance or solidarity finance institutions) that mobilize funds from sources who support a fairer, more people- and environmentally oriented world and make these funds available to projects that do not merely seek profits for self-gain but also pursue the greater good of the community and the environment.

Solidarity Economy : A Sustainable Alternative

Solidarity Economy is a socio-economic order and new way of life that deliberately chooses serving the needs of people and ecological sustainability as the goal of economic activity rather than maximization of profits under the unfettered rule of the market. It places economic and technological development at the service of social and human development rather than the pursuit of narrow, individual self-interest.

Solidarity Economy is an alternative economic model to neo-liberal capitalism. This alternative socio-economic order and new way of life inspires attitudes and behaviors with values such as sharing, co-responsibility, reciprocity, plurality, respect for diversity, freedom, equality, ethics, brotherhood, and sisterhood [1]/ ^.

The Chantier Economie Sociale of Quebec cites five key principles to distinguish solidarity economy initiatives. These are [2]/:

(1) the objective is to serve its members or the community, instead of simply striving for financial profit;

(2) the economic enterprise is autonomous of the State;

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

(4) it gives priority to people and work over capital in the distribution of revenue and surplus; and

(5) its activities are based on principles of participation, empowerment, and individual and collective responsibility.

Solidarity Economy adopts conscious altruism and solidarity, not extreme individualism, as the core of the new socioeconomic culture. It tends to favor cooperation, not competition, as the main form of relationship among humans and between them and Nature [3]/.

Solidarity Economy does not constitute a SECTOR of the mainstream economy. It is rather a global APPROACH encompassing initiatives in most sectors of the economy. This alternative approach to socio-economic development operates side by side with the market economy and is capable of sustaining its initiatives and competing in the market logic of traditional markets for as long as its approaches continue to be innovative [4]/^.

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.