Alliance for a responsible, plural and united world
Forum «economy  of solidarity»
Synthesis, March 23th, 2001
  
By Manon Boulianne  
Coordinator of the forum  
  
Introduction
  
This synthesis aims at giving an account of the contributions of the participants to the electronic forum «economy  of solidarity» of the workgroup socio-economy of solidarity (WSES) from the alliance for a responsible, plural and united world that was held in the month of February 2001.    
  
The workshop animation team had prepared a discussion paper in order to provoke some debate and help generate contributions that would be integrated in a collective document. This discussion paper contained a set of questions about definitions of the social economy, practices in progress, the place to give, in a plural economy, to the social economy in relation to the market and the State, ways of reinforcing it as a source of creation of wealth, conditions that would facilitate a globalization of solidarity partly based on the social economy and, finally, proposals or strategies.
  
Almost 50 people from three continents (America, Europe, Africa) enrolled in the forum (some of them a few days after the official ending of proceedings). On March 20th, 20 people had contributed with messages and/or documents, which have been distributed on the electronic list and made available on the site web of the workshop. One finds 20 documents, sent by about 15 people, in the section «documents of reference» on the web site. Links to other pertinent web sites, most of them signaled by participants, have also been added on the site.   
  
To prepare this synthesis, I printed and reread all the contributions (messages and documents submitted to the forum). I assigned them a number of identification whenever several were sent by the same person. In the pages that follow, when I make reference to these contributions, I indicate the source in brackets. One finds at the end of the document a complete list of the quoted sources (from the French version of the website).   
  
For reasons of convenience, I generally use in this text the generic expression "social economy" to make reference to what some have named either the economy of solidarity, the popular economy or the social/solidarity economy.   
  
This brief synthesis will not do justice to the richness of the contributions to our electronic forum. It only underlines some key elements that may help with the writing of a collective text. I invite you to return to the sources, which you can reach by clicking on the references provided at the end of document, for more details on the experiences described and on the reflections of the contributors.

1. The general problematic : the social economy, globalization and development   
  
The practices and discussions held about the social economy take place in a specific socio-historic context, as has been signaled by several persons although in different ways : "socioeconomic crisis" (Gueye), «non regulation of the world economy" (Favreau and Lachapelle), "capitalistic globalization" (Mance), phase of "globalization/transformation" (Coraggio), etc. Marked by rapid change, mutations are operating and opening possibilities for social innovation. The present period is not only marked by the emergence of new practices but also by a renewal or a rediscovery of ancient practices, what has also been signaled by several persons (Veloso 1; Garrigues 2; Joyal 5).   
  
One finds references to the notion of development in many of the contributions. The social economy is considered like a dynamic element of «local development», «community development», «sustainable local development» or «sustainable development». After having signaled that the Index of human development human of UNDP, based on measures of life expectancy, level of instruction and the GDP, is still too productivist, Euclides Mance proposes to take more distance from the hegemonic conception of the development and consider it rather as "the widening of the fields of exercise of the liberty of people and collectivities, from the autonomous establishment of their existential, personal and collective projects» (my translation; Mance 1, p. 3). The notion of liberty is also used by Bernard Garrigues, who considers it as a means and a product of development (Garrigues 2). For Euclides Mance, the notion of development should refer to a regulation between production and consumption. The latter should be a means of reaching "collective well living" (that includes a good personal life -for the consumers-, a good life for the producers and the balance of the ecosystems (Mance 2, pp.9-10). André Joyal agrees when he proposes "voluntary simplicity" instead of an infinite increase in production and consumption as a condition for development (Joyal 5).  
  
Bernard Garrigues establishes a relation between sustainable development and solidarities: solidarity between generations, between producers and consumers, between territories (Garrigues 3, p.1).    
  
Louis Favreau, René Lachapelle as well as Rosemary Gomes consider that the popular economy, the «conomy of the ground floor» (to which also refers Bernard Garrigues - Garrigues 1), constitute an essential element of development.   
  
In short, what comes out in general regarding the notion of development is that the participants in the forum suggest to approach it from a multidimensional perspective that represents an alternative to the neoliberal approach, centered on growth and economic productivity. In this alternative perspective, development possesses an economic dimension (the economy being considered a means and not an end in itself), a social dimension, a political dimension and an environmental dimension.   

 2. Definitions of the social economy  
  
The question of the definition has not (fortunately, because it can be interminable) be the center of much debate. No matter if they name it economy of solidarit; social,  alternative (A. Joyal), popular (R. Gomes, J.L. Coraggio) economy; the economy of work (Coraggio); the third sector, the third system (J. Veloso) or the non state-controlled public sector (réf?), participants share a same normative position: the economy of solidarity is about producing for the good of all people on the planet; it is not about producing social inequalities, nor poverty, nor exclusion. Without denying differences between the practices and the national institutional settings, what especially interested participants was to construct a vision and a strategy which would transcend these differences, what probably explains why so few contributions were about questions of definition. As Yves Bajard noticed, social justice is the center of preoccupation for the participants in the forum, no matter if they speak about  an "other" economy, or  an "other" development, or an "other" globalization.   
  
Furthermore, the relation between production and consumption characteristic of the capitalistic economy is reversed completely in the contributions. For the participants in the forum, it is the needs for consumption that must lead to production, and not the other way around. Besides, Euclides Mance notices that consumption represents an economic act but also a political and an ethical one.  Also, it was brought about by Marthe Nyssens that multiple logics cut across initiatives of the popular or social economy: subsistence, job creation, income generation, research of equity in the access to services, will of local development, research of conviviality, etc. Finally, Pantaleo Rizzo considers that «redistributive centralization» is the common principle shared by the various practices that constitutes the social economy.  

3. The concrete experiences of the social economy  
  
Some people underlined that the initiatives of the social economy are often generated by the popular classes, by the people excluded from production and consumption (Favreau and Lachapelle; Mance 2), especially when it is about endowing themselves with goods and services otherwise not available or overpriced, while others put forward that people of different social classes are at the origin of, or take part in, social economy experiences, especially when it is about endowing themselves with services qualitatively different from those offered by the market economy or the public sector (réf?). 

Numerous experiences have been mentioned:  
  
· fair trade   
· regrouping of organizations for the production of commercial labels (fair trade or organic)  
· finance in solidarity (ecological and solidarity banks, savings and credit - ex: the French CIGALES)  
· systems of local exchange (of which the systems of indirect reciprocity in Rizzo)  
· economy of "communion" (Mance 2)  
· self-management of the enterprises by the workers  
· critic-ethical consumption  
· networks of communication, notably on internet (for example the Stock market for financing in solidarity – Rouyat; the Networking for a Common Future in Sustainability - Bajard) and free computer software. 
· cooperatives (of agricultural producers, of workers, of consumers, of solidarity)  
· centers for adapted work, programs and enterprises for insertion  
· domestic production of subsistence  
· micro-credit for the starting of micro-enterprises  
· associations of urban residents 
· places of artistic expression and conviviality (coffees for and by youngsters for example)  
· association of unemployed persons (defense of the rights and creation of jobs)  
· units of multi-services activities in rural environments  
· women’s groups  
· associations of youngsters  
· associations of farmers  
· regroupings of local organizations  
· associations of defense (the environment, the consumers, health, etc.)  
· local institutions offering formation and accompaniment for the starting of enterprises   
  
This list, which  is not exhaustive but takes examples mentioned by the participants, is nevertheless sufficient to note the large diversity of the experiences considered as constituent of the social economy. Some have to do with particular "moments" of the production-consumption chain, others to movements of specific social actors; some are located at a first level of action, while others are initiatives that oversee to a second or a third degree the initiatives of the basis; some are completely autonomous and self-managed while others are achieved in partnership with the public sector; etc.

  4. The globalization of solidarity   
  
In relation with this theme, several questions had been asked in the discussion paper of the forum. They were the following:   
1.	In what way can the Economy of Solidarity be a part of economic development, and how should it relate with the market and the state to set up a more balanced pluralist economy, at local, regional, national and international levels? 

2.	How can we strengthen the Economy of Solidarity so that it will contribute to the various ways of creating wealth in society? 

3.	Under what conditions are the initiatives and networks of the Economy of Solidarity standard-bearers of a globalization that exhibits responsibility and Solidarity?

4.	What concrete proposals can be presented to municipal, provincial and national governments, as well as international authorities for economic and social control such as the UNDP, the IMF or the WTO, so that Economy of Solidarity is given proper recognition?

4.1 Relations to the State and to the market  

First, concerning the relations to the State, Euclides Mance notices that when the State gives its support (and when a government sensitive to the project of the solidarity economy is elected as Arruda signals it), it is easier for the networks of solidarity to expand. This State support is not, however, determinant in his opinion (nor to the one of Benoît Granger) because it is the relation between consumption and production that is at the heart of such networks (Mance 2, p. 4). According to André Joyal, the enterprises of the social economy should be able to benefit from financial support from the State in the same way as the enterprises of the traditional economy (capitalist). He thinks, however, as Marcos Arruda and Joana Veloso do (Veloso 1), that it is important that the initiatives of the social economy keep their autonomy of management and decision in relation to the State. It appears therefore desirable that the financial needs be assured by modes of financing that don't rest entirely on credits or on state-controlled subsidies but resort also to the solidarity savings and include capital of risk,  as is already done in some regions of the world. Otherwise, one of the approaches adopted by the State in regard to the social economy may, according to Marthe Nyssens, lead to the transformation of the social economy in a more or less temporary device for the struggle against poverty or as a palliative for the failures of the public programs in different domains that were under its responsibility (education, health, maintenance or creation of employment, for example).   

Therefore, relations with the State do exist, by way of financing and fiscal measures or legislation (see the example of the statute of Italian  non lucrative organizations of social utility in Rizzo 2), that facilitate or inhibit its development. Relations with the State must continue to exist and improve in favor of the social economy, but without loss of autonomy nor instrumentalization.

As for the market, several contributions make a distinction between the capitalistic market and the more abstracted idea of the market, a «transaction space» that permits multilateral exchanges and, therefore, a globalization of the social economy (Coraggio). In this second perspective, the establishment of a solidarity  market in which would take place the transactions of the components of system of socio-economy of solidarity (they intervene in production, exchange, financing, consumption) (Arruda, p. 1) or of a collaboration network (Mance 1 and 2) that articulates the activities of production, consumption and services of its constituting cells, is suggested. Without speaking of an alternative market as such, Carliez evokes a similar idea under the notion of "regulation in short circuit". For Garrigues, the legal, political and fiscal autonomy in relation to the (capitalist) market is one of the potential realizations of the social economy. But it doesn't mean that it must maintain no relation with the capitalistic market. In fact, for some, the establishment of relations with the capitalistic market, where social economy enterprises can sell a part of the production, is a way to get resources that can be shared between the partners or the members of the enterprise (Arruda, p.1,; Garrigues 2, p. 2). As a warning, Joana Veloso underlines that some «successful» solidarity initiatives get fully integrated to the capitalistic market and to a private logic and loose their solidarity principles.    

Thus, the popular economy (Coraggio) and the social economy would be part of a third sector, or system (Veloso), and would represent a possible third pole of development (Favreau and Lachapelle) next to the capitalistic market (private economy) and to the State (public economy). If the contribution of each of these poles is to develop in a complementary fashion (Joyal, 3) it is necessary according to Favreau and Lachapelle that the State and the international organizations, as organs of regulation, formulate public policies that guarantee a dynamic coexistence of these three poles. How can this be achieved?

4.2 Conditions for the development and globalization of the social economy (statements that concern questions 1 to 3)  
  
Here, two notions call the attention: that of nertwork / system and that of horizontality / verticality. Marcos Arrudas, Rosemary Gomeses, Euclides Mances and Bernard Garrigues, although they name it differently, insist on the centrality of systems, based on the constitution of networks that link every element of the productive chain, to ensure the establishment and the development of the social economy. From production to consumption, including financing and merchandising, the social economy can organize itself at local levels then in regional, national, continental and international networks. This proposition takes us back to the first hypothesis exposed in the discussion paper of the forum. In the model describes by Euclides Mance, the surpluses of the productive cells are reinvested in new productive cells, which create more employment, that in turn generates a growth of the demand in consumption and therefore of the whole system on the basis of a continuing feedback between consumption and production. This feedback would permit (Mance 1, p. 2), in a spiraling fashion, to gradually integrate local networks to regional, national and international networks. 

The most often cited illustration of the possibility to create international networks within an horizontal model is the fair trade based on direct ties between producers and consumers.

4.3 Concrete proposals (statements that concern question no. 4)  
  
In relation to international organizations, for Marcos Arruda, there is not any hope on the side of the IMF but the UNDP, the UNESCO and the ILO (L.Favreau and R.Lachapelle, p. 4) show a certain opening and for Marcos Arruda it is important to seize the opportunity and to dialogue with its representatives at local, national and international levels. Yves Bajard’ opinion is that it is necessary to act right now and to put forward the initiatives that one considers viable, sustainable and socially equitable, even without having planned the whole set of what would constitute an alternative system. Joining these two positions, Louis Favreau and René Lachapelle identify a double edged strategy : one the one hand, political resistance (addressed in part to the international organizations) and organization of counter-powers; on the other hand, the construction of a development pole based on solidarity (p. 8).  
  
In this line of thought, in relation with the State, Marcos Arruda signals that the efforts made by the networks of the socio-economy of solidarity in Brazil have succeeded : some municipal and states governments have integrated the social economy in their priorities. He also mentions that in Colombia, the efforts led by the cooperative movement have encouraged a recognition of the social economy by the State, and it now appears in the national legislation. In Quebec, the efforts of the social movements aiming at the recognition of the social economy also have created an opening on the government side, as André Joyal underlines (Joyal 4). Elsewhere also (France, Italy), the social economy has gained a certain recognition, often written down in texts of laws that regulate (for good or not) its statutes.   

Regarding networking and the structuring of the local and regional efforts, we find in several countries social economy networks (the GRESP in Peru, the GESQ in Quebec, the inter-network of solidarity economy in France, the RBSES in Brazil - see the document of the Participants of the Brazilian meeting of Mendes for ampler details, etc.). On a more global level, Marcos Arruda underlines the creation of a Global Network of Socio-economy of Solidarity in January 2001. Composed  of people and organizations from 21 countries, it established clear norms of conduct for its associated members. The network model is strongly privileged by the participants of the forum. Pantaleo Rizzo suggests to operate a distinction between social currency and personal currency, the first being in his opinion the basis of the social economy because it corresponds to a system based on the principle of «centralité redistributive» (Rizzo 1 and 2).  
  
Besides these observations, several proposals are aimed at what remains to be done. First, in relation to the State and the public sector, Juan Carlos Vila considers that service contracts for the municipal, provincial or state governments on the part of the social economy should be encouraged. Joana Veloso and Juan Carlos Vila mention the possibility to resort to the tax system to facilitate the development of the social economy, either in relation to productive enterprises or the organizations that promote savings in solidarity. Other devices of the legislative type, for example one that would limit the use of savings of solidarity on the territory where it has been collected, could be implanted or imagined (Veloso 1). Public policies that would integrate, on the one hand, an elevation of the minimum wage and social protections associated with employment and, on the other hand, education,  labour formation and professional insertion (also in Vila and in Veloso 1), notably in the associative and cooperative sector, would facilitate according to Rosemary Gomes the development of the social economy in the local and regional spaces.     
  
Djibril Gueye and Juan Carlos Vila consider that existing relations between organizations and enterprises of the social economy and NGOs should be reinforced.  
  
About the supra - national level, Joana Veloso suggest to exercise pressures on the European Community in order to adjust the fiscal, administrative and credit legislations to the needs of the micro and small enterprises (Veloso 3). André Joyal  also considers that it is important to develop financing tools adapted to the enterprises of the social economy (Joyal 4).    
  
To ensure the passage from the local to the global level, and in continuity with the meeting held in Lima in 1997, Louis Favreau and René Lachapelle suggest for their part the creation of an International Coordination (with representations by continent and by theme) that would work on political regulations and of an International Secretary for Social and Solidarity Economy, that would define a plan of action.   

References 

Adhérents au Réseau global. Réseau global de socioéconomie solidaire. (http://ecosol.socioeco.org/fr/ressourcesdocuments.html)

Arruda, Marcos. Commentaires de Marcos Arruda sur le texte de lancement du forum
(http://ecosol.socioeco.org/fr/ressourcesdocuments.html)

Bajard, Yves. Atelier économie solidaire, ma contribution. (http://ecosol.socioeco.org/fr/ressourcesdocuments.html) 

Carliez, Dominique. Entreprise solidaire ?  (http://ecosol.socioeco.org/fr/ressourcesdocuments.html)

Coraggio, José Luis. Commentaires sur le texte de lancement du forum.   (http://ecosol.socioeco.org/fr/ressourcesdocuments.html)

Favreau, Louis et René Lachapelle. Une autre mondialisation: résister et construire. (http://ecosol.socioeco.org/fr/ressourcesdocuments.html)

Garrigues, Bernard 1. Message électronique du 6 mars, «réaction au message d'Yves Bajard»

Garrigues, Bernard 2. Développement local durable, libertés, échelons et autres petits monstres (http://ecosol.socioeco.org/fr/ressourcesdocuments.html)

Garrigues, Bernard 3. Subsidiarité active (http://ecosol.socioeco.org/fr/ressourcesdocuments.html)

Gomes, Rosemary. La Génération de Travail et de Revenus et les Défis du Développement Solidaire. (http://ecosol.socioeco.org/fr/ressourcesdocuments.html)

Granger, Benoît. Message électronique du 5 février, «entreprises d'insertion/social insertion entreprises/empresas de insercion»

Gueye, Djibril. LES ONG AFRICAINES, L'AJUSTEMENT STRUCTUREL ET L’ECONOMIE SOLIDAIRE (http://ecosol.socioeco.org/fr/ressourcesdocuments.html)

Joyal, André 1. Message électronique du 2 février, «Definitions et exemples d'economie solidaire,»

Joyal, André 2. Message électronique du  4 février, «Financement de l'economie social/Financing the social economy/El financiamiento de la economia social»

Joyal, André 3. Message électronique du 18 février, «passerelles entre economie solidaire et economie dominante»

Joyal, André 4. Message électronique du 27 février, «contribution de participant / contribution form a participant / contribucion»

Joyal, André 5. Message électronique du 28 février, «simplicité volontaire / voluntary / simplicidad voluntaria»

Joyal, André 6. Développement local/ communautaire, economie sociale/alternative : quel enseignement pour le tiers-monde? (http://ecosol.socioeco.org/fr/ressourcesdocuments.html)

Les participants de la Rencontre brésilienne de Mendes. Rencontre brésilienne pour une culture et une socioéconomie solidaires: nos stratégies.
(http://ecosol.socioeco.org/fr/ressourcesdocuments.html)
 
Mance , Euclides 1. L'Économie solidaire dans les réseaux de collaboration et le développement. (http://ecosol.socioeco.org/fr/ressourcesdocuments.html)

Mance, Euclides 2. La collaboration solidaire comme alternative a la globalisation capitaliste. (http://ecosol.socioeco.org/fr/ressourcesdocuments.html)

Nyssens, Marthe . Économie sociale, économie populaire, cheval de Troie ou alternative au marché ? (http://ecosol.socioeco.org/fr/ressourcesdocuments.html)

Ramos Correa, Luis Oscar. Message électronique du 18 mars, «The Necessity of Continuing Education for a Self-Managed Economy of Solidarity»

Rizzo, Pantaleo 1. La mondialisation de la reliance multilatérale par les LETS, SEL, TR, BdT, SRI (http://ecosol.socioeco.org/fr/ressourcesdocuments.html)

Rizzo, Pantaleo 2. Message électronique du 1er mars, «Réponses aux questions posées /Answers to the questions that were asked / Respuestas a las preguntas que se hicieron»

Rouyat, Julien. Message électronique du 20 février, «finance solidaire / solidary financing / finanzas solidarias»

Veloso, Joana. 1 Message électronique du 27 février, «.proposition sur le financement de l'economie solidaire/ some recommendations for the financing of the economy of solidarity/ algunas sugerencias para el financiamiento de la economia solidaria»

Veloso, Joana 2. Message électronique du 27 février, «sur le support public a l'economie solidaire / on public support to the economy of solidarity/ comentarios sobre la ayuda publica a la economia solidaria»

Veloso, Joana 3. ÉCONOMIE SOCIALE ET ÉCONOMIE SOLIDAIRE. Pouvoirs publiques et initiatives locales privées au Portugal. (http://ecosol.socioeco.org/fr/ressourcesdocuments.html)

Vila, Juan Carlos. Message électronique du 21 février, «economie solidaire au Nord et au Sud»

Von Werlhof, Claudia. Message électronique du 3 février, «Contribution de Claudia von Werlhof»