Download Week 16

COMPARING THE SOCIAL ECONOMY TO THE GOVERNMENT AND
PRIVATE SECTORS IN CANADA
Jack Quarter, “Chapter 1: Defining the Social Economy,” from Canada’s Social
Economy (1992)
Social Economy
Primary purpose is to serve
a defined membership or
the public in a manner
whereby the organization
can develop.
Financially self-reliant =
“social enterprises,” at risk
in marketplace to external
sources of funding, etc.
Risk of capital = social
objectives
Government
Social Objectives
Crown corporations
established by government
to provide a service
(essential services, health,
education, defense, roads,
etc.), because gov’t wants
influence in policy, private
sector won’t get involved
because no profit.
Private Sector
Control associated with
property rights, property
represents investment of
owners or shareholders, risk
for personal return on
investments. Profit driven.
Risk of capital =
competition and
marketplace.
Risk of capital = votes and
tax revenues, world
economy.
Loyalties to a community =
“community enterprises”
Independence from Gov’t
Socialize economy via
Traditional
working with the state, give socialist/communist desire
control of means of
= Social economy and
production, distribution, and means of production via the
consumption to local
state
stakeholder groups, users of
services, workers, etc.
Community leads social
ownership
Privatize the means of
production, reduce the
incursion of the state
State leads social ownership No social ownership,
private ownership instead
JQ’s question: Can S.E.
have independence from
gov’t if rely on gov’t
funding?
615,000 full time jobs =
amount of volunteering
Cdns do per year
Volunteerism
Some (i.e., at election time), Volunteer wants something
but almost all paid work.
from private sector (i.e.,
internships to get a job in
1
the future).
Informal economy related
to this.
Business can get free labour
from this (more
exploitation?)
Are volunteer financial
donations equal to value of
physical volunteering of
time?
Profit and Loss / Surplus and Deficit
No shares (non-profits)
No shares. Tax revenues.
Number of shares own
Voters decide how
determines earnings at end
Shares (cooperatives, but
governments manage
of year.
retain a constant value).
budgets.
Shares for coops are like a
Owners keep profits.
membership fee, really a
Corruption
loan to coop until member
possibilities/temptations?
leaves (i.e., Mondragon
workers’ coop strategy)
Surplus earnings paid via
patronage dividend
(consumed so much in
coop, or worked so much,
etc.)
Coops = surpluses go back
to coop, some dividends
may be paid out to
membership
Community owns. Mutual
aid tends to dictate.
Inclusion is a leading ideal.
Ownership Rights
The citizenry at large
“owns” government.
Taxpayers “own”…
Investors and shareholders
own. Workers may own but
usually a smaller percentage
than financial owners.
Charities and non-profits =
collective ownership by
community of interest
Cooperatives = may or may
not be non-profit.
Coops and non-profits =
assets owned by no one,
passed on generationally as
a “social dividend”
2
These “social dividends”
part of social economy
Ownership not based on
property rights, a broader
definition of ownership
Not really a concept of
ownership but of a
patriarchal state, really.
Governance
Indirect, representational
democracy electing
“representatives”.
Ownership based on
property rights.
Voting rights based on age
and time.
Voting rights based on
“property holdings”
Board of directors ……..
…..like Parliament or Leg.
Senior managers………..
……like Deputy Minsters
Management often based on
technical competence, often
not, based on other values
(cunning…)
Open, voluntary
menbership in coops. But,
“Open membership has
always been tempred by
pragmatic conerns about
suitability and availability
of space”. Membership has
some limits, based on
interest and need.
Membership relegated to a
select, privileged few of
society, on the whole.
Politicking.
More direct types of
democracy.
Democratic control by
members is a fundamental
characteristic = a “social
democracy”
Voting rights = one
member/one vote
No democracy, really. Yes,
shareholders elect boards
and boards may fire
managers, etc., but based on
amount of money invested=
vote. Not inclusive. And
workers, as wage labour,
have no say in management
really because of the
capital-labour contract.
Provide service to a public
that has the opportunity to
democratically elect its
governance.
Membership based on
money and connections, or
specific skill sets
3