Asian Alliance for Solidarity Economy

A lot of small persons, in a lot of small places, doing small things, will move the face of the world.

(African proverb)

To Networks, Forums, Economy Solidarity Enterprises and partner organizations,

It is with great joy and renewed enthusiasm that we invite Networks, Forums, every economy solidarity enterprises and partner and supporter organizations to the big events that will play an important role in the history of the World Social Forum: Social Forum 10 years – Porto Alegre and neighbor cities, from January 25^th to 29^th of 2010.

The 1^st World Solidarity Economy Market and the 1^st Solidarity Economy Social Forum adopt the methodology of the World Social Forum. This methodology is participative, interactive, self-managed and transforming. It has as a goal the construction of “another possible world” through “another economy that already exists”. The aim of our mobilization is to make visible the whole path of the Solidarity Economy, during these 10 years of World Social Forum.

The 1^st World Solidarity Economy Market is a great space and a mobilization collectively built through committees – formed by enterprises and partners entities – in a participative interactive and self-managed way. The process of exchanges happens in different ways: by the dialog among the groups and the public, by the sharing of experiences lived and collectively built and by the important spaces of formation and interaction among the participants. The direct commercialization, at this space, happens in a solidarity and interactive way. The consumer is a partner when he or she decides for the ethics and solidarity consume of products free of work exploration, of pesticides, chemicals addictives and products that offends the life quality.

The 1^st Solidarity Economy Social Forum and the 1^st World Solidarity Economy Market will work, nationally and internationally, in a transversal way and in a multiplier process with the World Economy Solidarity Networks. The Organizer Committee and the Thematic Committees which are in Santa Maria take will apply the local dynamic accumulated in more than 16 years of Markets and Solidarity Economy and Self-Management Meetings. There is, also, the Coordination of the 1^st Solidarity Economy that is dialoguing with Networks and Forums to prepare the event. Thus, in order organize these World Events; there is a big network including governmental and non-governmental entities and organizations which are contributing greatly. This is a national and international prophetic reply to the arbitrary judicial decision that canceled the 16^th FEICOOP and the 5^th Solidarity Economy Market, in July of 2009, in Santa Maria – RS – Brazil, due to the Influenza H1N1.

While we prepare to meet ourselves in January, we ask you to do your registration through the papers annexed or on the home page www.fsmecosol.org.br. Bellow there are important pieces of information to do the registration. More information, look at the specific paper.

• 1^st Solidarity Economy Market – Santa Maria: registration until January 10^th of 2010. Each enterprise that commercialize its products will be invited to contribute with 5% of the gross sales, in order to help with the organization and structure expenditures of the International Events.
• 1^st International Showing about Biodiversity – Santa Maria: registration until January 10^th of 2010.
• 1^st Solidarity Economy Social Forum:

A-   Self-managed activities and experiences spaces: registration until January 10^th of 2010.

B-   Individual registration: Registration until January 10^th of 2010. Each individual registration has a contribution of R$10,00 to be deposited in a specific bank account.

C-   Registration of organization: Registration until January 10^th of 2010.

Each enterprise will be responsible for its transportation, food and hosting expenditures

Welcome to the World Solidarity Economy Events that will reinforce our World Solidarity Economy Networks in order to construct a Sustainable and Solidarity Development Project.

Coordination of the 1^st Solidarity Economy Social Forum

For more information and registrations:

E-mail: ecosol@fsmecosol.org.br

Site: www.fsmecosol.org.br

Project Esperança/Cooesperança

Address: Rua Silva Jardim, 1704 – 97.010-490 -Santa Maria- RS – Brasil

Telephone/Fax: 55 3219-4599 /3222-8275/3223-0219

E-mail: projeto@esperancacooesperanca.org.br / projespcooesp@terra.com.br

Site: www.esperancacooesperanca.org.br

Speech by Edith SIZOO [1] at the Final Plenary Session of the Asian Forum for Solidarity Economy

TOKYO Conference 7-10 November 2009

Being the last speaker in a long range of interesting preceding ones is not that easy, but it has the advantage of having had the privilege to listen not only to all that has been said, but also to what has not been said. …[A]t the end of two days of detailed information on fascinating and very concrete experiences related to Solidarity Economy (hereafter SE), it is good to go back to some basic questions. ..[O]ne aspect in the analyses that have been provided about the current situation in the world, has not been highlighted very clearly.

SE has been presented as a reaction to the dominant economic systems, as one way of realising the slogan “another world is possible”, as an alternative. If the word “alternative” is meant to imply that the dominant economic system should be replaced by more socially equitable forms of economy, I’m afraid that there is a long way to go before this dream comes true. A too long way.

Thus the question is: what to do between today and the moment our dream comes true ?

There is no need to stress here that our world is facing unprecedented crises : the ecological crisis, the financial and economic crisis, political crises in the sense of good leadership and good governance, social and cultural crises. The phenomenon of globalisation implies that never before have human beings had such far-reaching impacts on one another’s social, political, economic and cultural lives. And never before have the challenges to face the economic and ecological consequences of these crises been so enormous. And never before have human beings possessed so much knowledge and so much power to change their environments.

And still, in spite of all the available knowledge and all the new possibilities that have opened up, the responses to these crises have been insufficient :

- the role of States is undermined by the pervasive power of international markets

- scientific institutions are pursuing specialised interests

- international institutions have failed to turn the rising tide of inequality

- and religious institutions have not adequately fulfilled their role of providing adequate answers to the new challenges.

Therefore, the key-question to be asked is : why are these responses insufficient ?

There is, of course, not one answer to this question. But among the many aspects of this complicated issue, I would like to propose for reflection that underlying all these crises and insufficient answers, there is another fundamental crisis : a crisis in values, or more precisely :a crisis, a breaking down of a common ethical basis which helps people to make choices.

One of the characteristics of modernity and of so-called post-modern thinking is fragmentation.

Fragmentation

- of the social fabric (e.g. within families : divorces)

- within the sciences (e.g. : far-going specialisations within the medical sciences, at least the Western ones, where each part of the human body is given specialised attention, but the complex whole is not taken into consideration)

- fragmentation in the workplace, factories, offices where one is given tasks of which one often does not quite know how it serves the overall objective of the company.

These and other forms of fragmentation are less visible, but very much present as well in the underlying ethical foundations of our societies. Traditional values of respect, consideration for others, hospitality, compassion, peace and harmony are usually still practiced at family level, but less and less predominant at the workplace, in politics, in the business world, not to speak of the financial world…

I remember a debate that took place in the Parliament of my country, the Netherlands, some years ago. The question was whether a law should be made to control the application of advanced technologies in genetic engineering. Should we at the end of the day allow human beings to be cloned ? In the course of the debate the differences between the 28 political parties seemed to fade away as every single parliamentarian was facing dilemmas between moral consciousness on the one hand and economic profit or freedom of scientific research on the other. Towards two o’clock in the morning, the chairman stood up and said that there was no use continuing the debate. The real problem is, he said, that this debate shows that in this country we do not have anymore a common ethical base of values that tell us “so far and no further”. We are not able to put ethical limits to what technologies may make possible.

Loss of values means loss of a sense of self-limitation. Is there an answer to this loss ? Is there still a value common to all humankind, to all human beings from street cleaners to villagers to teachers to business people, fair traders, social activists, scientists, journalists, politicians, religious and social leaders ? One value of which no one can say : that’s good for others but not for me ? That’s good for family-life but not for the workplace ?

Or, the other way around ; is there one value common to all human beings that is not applied sufficiently so that all current crises in the world are so far from being solved ?

It took two World Wars in the last century before the Nations of the world united at the General Assembly of the United Nations to create and sign two agreements that can be considered the two pillars of international life : the UN Charter for Peace and Development, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Peace…development… rights… We all know that these important objectives have not been reached. But at least… they constitute international reference points, notions one can refer to when they are not observed or violated.

The problem in the present crises the world is facing - ecological, economic, financial and social- is that there is not a commonly worldwide accepted international reference point that can be pointed at.

Is the underlying problem not the lack of clarity about the age old idea of Responsibility in modern times ? Confusion about what “responsibility” implies ? for each and all of us ? for professional groups, social groups, politicians, scientists, the media, the world of money and profit-making ?

Nowadays there is a lot of political discourse about “responsibility”. The US President, Barack Obama, said in one of his speeches with regard to the financial crisis : “We have to transform a culture of greed into a culture of responsibility”.

He is perfectly right. But the problem with political discourses is that subsequently no specification is given of who is responsible for what ? and who has to account for what to whom ?

For instance : for what are multi-nationals responsible ? for the common good ? and to whom do they account for their choices of products ? good or bad for the climate, health of people ? good or bad for local village industries ? To whom do banking traders account for the way they are trading with the money of others ? To whom do scientists account for the potential consequences of the things that are invented thanks to new technological discoveries ?

Would it not be useful for all activists in Solidarity Economy to be able to refer to an internationally recognised reference point, a Charter or a Universal Declaration of Human Responsibilities, a “third pillar” of international life ? And would it not be useful to have oneself a checkpoint with regard to one’s personal and professional responsibilities ?

The new challenges humankind is facing in the XXIst century are urgently calling for such an agreement, certainly not to replace the two existing ones but as an additional reference point, to re-enforce the agreements for Peace, Development and Rights.

In this framework of thinking an initiative was taken in 2001 at the World Assembly of Citizens, organised by the Foundation Charles Léopold Mayer, to start up a process to promote the idea of such a Charter. A text was proposed as a working document, a pretext for dialogue, a text in evolution. It was translated in some 25 languages, each of them adapted to the cultural context concerned. An International facilitation Committee was formed with coordinators in 15 countries around the world. They formed national committees and submitted the Charter of Human Responsibilities for discussion to all kinds of professional and social groups. The ten principles of the Charter were thus discussed by journalists, lawyers, scientists, social activists and even schoolchildren. Sectoral and professional charters were created based on the principles of the Charter of Human Responsibilities.

The process we have thus started up is essentially a bottom-up approach, but does not exclude in any way the world of politics. It is felt though that we need to work towards creating cultures of responsibility in all spheres of life and work. We need to create the groundswell, that is to say massive support from civil society to oblige political, economic and social leaders to accept that an internationally recognised Charter or Declaration of Human Responsibilities is unavoidable.

I would like to end by saying that the idea of “Responsibility” is a unifying concept, because it applies to each and all human beings at all levels of activity. The French philosopher Emmanuel Lévinas said : “I am responsible because you are”. It is true that “responsibility” is by definition a relational notion. But not only between human beings. In Asian traditions as well as in indigenous worldviews there are much deeper and larger conceptions of “responsibility”. There one finds the idea of “the woven universe”, the idea that all living beings and forms of life are interconnected and that the human being is just one among them, and… not superior to other forms of life. This implies that responsibility is evident. In indigenous languages there is not even an adequate word for the western notion of responsibility, because it is too evident to be named. The deepest reason why Responsibility is a key-value, is found in Asian wisdom which teaches to be aware of the wholeness of the universe. It is summed up by the following sentence :

“You are like a drop in the ocean.

The ocean is nothing without the drop. The drop is nothing without the ocean.

You are the ocean. The ocean is you”.

May this wisdom guide us in our search for a responsible world.

***************

Some Facets or Dimensions of Solidarity Economy

By Benjamin R. Quiñones, Jr.

Founder and Chairman, CSRSME Asia

Responsibility

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

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

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

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

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

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

Plurality

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

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

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

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

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

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

Solidarity

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Governance

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

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

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

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

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

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

o0o

Social economy, solidarity economy, community development…there is a general expression of the need to think and implement a different kind of economic activity.

But the actors often use different terms from one country to another, even if the principles and the values are similar. The wealth of practice and concepts of socialand solidarity economy are both a challenge for building cohesion and a recognition of its existence.

A space for sharing and disseminating social and solidarity economy concepts and practices

Solecopedia is an open multilingual intercultural encyclopaedia based on the participation of actors and researchers in the social and solidarity economy sector in many different countries. The work process is collaborative and participatory and is moderated by a team of intercultural professional moderators.

Its aim is to help actors gain a better mutual understanding of each other. It hopes to overcome the communication problems that exist between different languages and different sectors through exchanging views and thoughts on the words that are most frequently used.

A collaborative and participatory way of working

A simplified platform (Wiki) allows all actors to upload and comment the main terms used in their practice in their own language. It is already operational in 5 languages: French, English, Spanish, German and Portuguese; other languages can be added as needed. The links between languages and comments allow people to develop a grasp of the subtleties, while strengthening the shared ground.

Complementarities with ongoing projects

Solecopedia is part of a number of current initiatives aimed at developing a reference framework and mapping the companies and initiatives whose values are those of this economic alternative. By providing the possibilities to exchange on the ideas and values involved, Solecopedia hopes to contribute to the overall coherence of the process. We are currently working to identify and contact the authors of existing glossaries and dictionaries in the field of social and solidarity economy, and hope to include them under a Creative Commons free licence.

We are also contacting the key actors in the main countries in Western Europe, North and Latin America; we are of course open to exchange with other continents. The links to the dynamics of reference frameworks and mapping are largely thanks to our team’s participation in the RIPESS Europe “communication” group.

Participate in the launch of Solecopedia www.solecopedia.org

If you are an actor in social or solidarity economy; you can contribute to developing Solecopedia by inputting the theoretical and practical aspects you know. As in all collaborative approaches, the first steps are particularly critical. This is why your participation is important, even if you write only one or two items.

1. Write one or several items on the key notions that you consider essential in the practice of your social and solidarity economy activities (fair trade, solidarity finance…) and/or alternative economy (organic agriculture, eco-design…). Try to be neutral, factual, objective and clear, and also to contextualise the information. At this point, please feel free to refer to texts that you have written, and also use existing material on Wikipedia to complete and extract items where they exist.

(Wikipedia is a general encyclopaedia, and the social and solidarity terms may be insufficiently explained). Write in the language your networks normally use. Solecopedia is available in French, English, Spanish, Portuguese and German. Other languages will be added as required. If you know terms that are specific to another language, please include them with an explanation in one of the above languages.

Please bear the readers in mind, and take the following simple rules available on the site into account. Here is a summary:

- Start by an introductory summary

- Contextualise your article, bearing ordinary readers in mind

- Write paragraphs that are short enough to be understandable, and long enough to develop the ideas. Separate ideas by new paragraph titles.

- Prepare the list of new terms, the references to articles, any bibliographic elements, internal links, interwiki links (other languages, other wikis) and external links for the appendix.

2. You can publish your contribution in one of two ways, depending on your articles, and your familiarity with Internet:

a) You can send us your contributions to contact@solecopedia.org using the software of your choice, with a summary (list of paragraph titles) and appendix. Please include all links.

b) Create your account on Solecopedia.org in a few simple clicks (the link is on the top right-hand side of the page). Then check if the term or expression is already there. If it isn’t, create the page. If it is, read and complete or comment on the existing page.

The Lexis project team

The team is composed of professionals with many years experience of moderation in intercultural communication. They have been involved in social and solidarity economy projects in many different countries and are members of European networks that will contribute to the Solecopedia contents.

Pierre Johnson, project co-ordinator. Researcher in ecological economy and consultant, WFTO associate member. Specialist in international trade, Fair Trade, and sustainable development. He was the creator of the first international fair trade social network in 2000.

Judith Hitchman, consultant, interpreter and intercultural mediator. One of the initiators of intercultural management in business in the 1970s; joint editor of the International Newsletter for Sustainable Local Development, with Yvon Poirier (Quebec) and Martine Theveniaut (France).

Do not hesitate to contact us for any additional information. If you do, please send us your:

Your name:

Your association /NGO/company

Your job title

Your country

Summary of the object of your question of proposal

Many thanks for your participation

The Solecopedia team

Pierre Johnson & Judith Hitchman

contact@solecopedia.org

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]/^.

By Benjamin R. Quinones, Jr.

Founder and Chairman, CSRSME Asia

Based on the anecdotal evidence from the CSRSME Asia case studies (Malaysia, Philipines, Sri Lanka, and Thailand), it can be inferred that Solidarity Economy emerges out of informed actions of people. SE does not appear in the economic landscape spontaneously. Rather, it sprouts from the struggles of people for a better life in the midst of harsh realities and deliberately informed by socially responsible organizations which aspire for a more responsible, more diverse, and solidarity-based economy.

Being a deliberate initiative of people towards a more caring society, SE needs a governance system that enlightens the citizens on their social responsibility and makes them accountable for it. The CSRSME Asia case studies show that the traditional governance system of indigenous people tends to be democratic, but it is powerless against the modern governance system that supports a more market-oriented economic system. For the system of solidarity economy to prosper at the local, national, and global levels it is important to have an alternative governance paradigm that supports and is supported by a high sense of social responsibility among the citizens.

It must be borne in mind, though, that while Solidarity Economy may provide a revolutionary blueprint for a new socio-economic contract, the system itself does not transform individuals into selfless, servant leaders. Individual advocates and practitioners of Solidarity Economy should undergo a revolutionary transformation from being self-centered operators of the old, exploitative social order into socially responsible citizens who purposely create wealth so as to enhance the well-being of all mankind and conserve the environment for future generations.

In this light, it is important first and foremost that people who promote and practice solidarity economy and those who govern under the new socio-economic paradigm undergo a personal transformation that leads them to possess the attributes of a servant leader. Otherwise, individuals with self-serving intentions can join the solidarity economy movement and use it for their own personal gain once they rise to power and hold the reins of governance.

It is equally important to educate people about their social responsibilities and make them accountable for their actions that negatively impact on the economic welfare of the greater majority of the people and the environment. This is where the CHR (Charter of Human Responsibilities) developed by a Workgroup of the Alliance for a Plural, Responsible, and United World can play a strategic role. The CHR proposes a new social contract which will lead to the creation of new rules for every social and professional group in its relationship with society. Although the Alliance Workgroup that drafted the CHR recognizes the contributions to social development of the UN Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and United Nations Charter, it also noted the failure of these two pillars of international conventions to sufficiently address the widening economic gaps within and between nations, the concentration of economic and political power in ever-fewer hands, threats to cultural diversity, or the over-exploitation of natural resources.

The CHR has the potential of informing solidarity economy initiatives of a better way of organizing society based on the recognition of stakeholders of their respective responsibilities towards man and the environment. The CHR aims to provide a new framework, not only for personal conduct, but for the political, institutional and legal domains as well. The CHR preamble states that all people have an equal entitlement to human rights, but their responsibilities are proportionate to the possibilities open to them. The more freedom, access to information, knowledge, wealth and power someone has, the more capacity that person has for exercising his/her responsibilities, and the greater that person’s duty to account for his or her actions.

The CHR maps out responsibilities and how responsibilities, at the individual and the collective levels, can be exercised. It is a concrete step towards developing a democratic global governance based on broad acceptance of human responsibilities towards society and the environment.