Download Social Economy in Europe

Peter Herrmann
Social Economy in Europe – In Search of a Positive Outlook.
Presentation on occasion of the Co-Operative Conference, Kuopio, 28th of October 2008
1. European Concerns – Introductory Remarks
Nearly over the last twenty years the social economy and cooperative enterprises find various
acknowledgements within EU debates and beyond. However this is a somewhat double-edged
sword.
The current turmoil of the economy only reflects a much wider economic crisis, going beyond the
crisis of the financial markets. The three major factors can be highlighted by the following
catchwords:
* the breaking away of production as basis of the economy
* the tendency of the fall of the profit rate
* the nearly synchronic development of the global economy.
Sure, these are complex issues – and they are complex in terms of (i) the economic mechanisms,
(ii) the very blunt social implications (as for instance the increasing social gaps, going hand in
hand with such developments, the threat on the social insurance funds etc.) and not least, though
usually left without consideration, (iii) the link between the economy and the social.
European Union policies tackled many of the issues by following a very traditional way – a way
compatible with both, Keynesian and Liberal tradition. The fundamental argument is simple.
Economic growth is the most crucial moment to drive social progress, both measured in global
economic figures as especially GDP as expression of general economic growth, the employment
rate as individuals’ integration into the economy and income as matter of individuals’ wellbeing.
Leaving aside that such arguments are already extremely questionable in terms of econometric
arguments, and actually do not properly consider the link between production and circulation,
another important issue is of particular interest when we discuss the cooperative sector. The
traditional understanding of production is with the emergence of capitalism specifically limited,
being only concerned with the production of commodities. In the perspective of a sound politicaleconomic analysis there are, however, two limitations of these classical approaches. The first is:
the process of production itself is very much a genuinely social process, not least as it is based on
a specific pattern of control over means of production and power relations between people and
permanently reproduces them. The second is concerned with the fact that the reproduction of life
– and any production is at the end of the day only meaningful if it is concerned with this
‘production’ – is going much beyond the production of consumables and the commodified form of
goods and services. In other words: production has to look at what people need. And it has to
look at how this is produced and the complex economic, social, cultural and value-related
relationships of this productive process.
Looking from here at EUropean politics and policies, their limitations are soon getting obvious.
The three major strands of such policy are quickly mentioned: The first major interest can be
dated back to the White Paper Growth, Competitiveness, Employment: The Challenges and Ways
Forward into the 21st Century (COM[93] 700, Brussels: December 1992). The document’s main
ambition had been the final establishment of the single market and the push a growth strategy
which had been seen as essential condition. However, the Commission, under Jacques Delors’
leadership and with Padraig Flynn as Commissioner for Employment and Social Affairs, was
aware of two issues: the widespread lack of legitimacy and acceptance of European policies at the
time and the fundamental problems of European economy: any growth strategy would need a
major shift towards job creation as precondition.
Thus, the second point of reference had been the so-called “Third System of Employment”. Here,
the two issues focussed upon had been the orientation towards local policies, i.e. the of job
creation policies on the local level and with this the orientation on jobs outside of the traditional
labour market. In other words, part of the strategy can be seen as transforming activities from
outside of the labour market into jobs. This included the support of cooperatives – the latter
understood in a very wide sense. It had been a more or less systematic, though project-based
policy in the area, aiming to support an economy taking a wider notion of economics into
account. An evaluation report on the issue ascertains that
[t]hird-system organisations:
* pursue economic, social and general-interest objectives;
* set limits on private and individual benefit levels;
* work for and with local individuals or groups of people with common
interests;
* are self-managed and try to involve their employees, voluntary workers and
users in their management.
(The New Actors of Employment. Synthesis of the Pilot Action ‘Third system and
Employment’. 1997-2000; Brussels: European Commission, 2003;
http://ec.europa.eu/employment_social/local_employment/publications/ke45
02555_en.pdf; 19/10/08 – 12:55: 8)
The initiative showed that the European economies had been build substantially on an economic
foundation which is left outside of the formal framework though being fundamentally and
essentially a condition even for maintaining the core of capitalist market economy in the strict sense
(see
e.g.
the
Commission’s
website:
Third
System
&
Employment.
http://ec.europa.eu/employment_social/empl_esf/3syst/index_en.htm; 19/10/08 – 12:30; Laville, J.L. et altera: Third System European Definition; paper produced in the course of the research project
“The enterprises and organizations of the third system. A strategic challenge for employment” in the
framework of the pilot action “Third System and Employment” of the European Commission; the
paper has been finished in its present form in the end of 1999 http://www.istr.org/networks/europe/laville.evers.etal.pdf; 19/10/08 – 12.32).
A third strand of the debate is coming from a somewhat different direction – dealing with the
more political orientation from the sector itself. By and large we can see this as a revival of and
political articulation by the ‘traditional coop-movement’, though coming very much from the
small enterprises of the sector. The basic idea in this case is definitely to lobby for the idea of
coops as organisational form with some special value, being very much based on a specific idea of
alternative economy – coined by the social-democratic labour movement. However, it is in this
respect important to highlight the fact that this strand is actually closely linked to the civil society
organisations, thus strongly adding a somewhat new perspective or at least changing the focus
by shifting more to the civic function of these organisations.
Taking this as background, the following definition is given, presenting a commonly agreed
common denominator:
Ensemble des entreprises privées avec une structure formelle dotées d'une
autonomie de décision et jouissant d'une liberté d'adhésion, créées pour
satisfaire aux besoins de leurs membres à travers le marché en produisant des
biens ou en fournissant des services d'assurance ou de financement, dès lors que
les décisions et toute répartition des bénéfices ou excédents entre les membres
ne sont pas directement liées au capital ou aux cotisations de chaque membre,
chacun d'entre eux disposant d'un vote. L'économie sociale regroupe aussi les
entités privées avec une structure formelle qui, dotées d'une autonomie de
décision et jouissant d'une liberté d'adhésion, proposent des services non
marchands aux ménages et dont les excédents, le cas échéant, ne peuvent être
une source de revenus pour les agents économiques qui les créent, les
contrôlent ou les financent.1
(Rafael Chaves Ávila/ José Luis Monzón Campos : L'Économie Sociale dans
l'Union Européenne; N°. CESE/COMM/05/2005; Comité économique et social
européen (CESE); DI CESE 97/2007 EN/ES-GT/JL/nr: 20)
2. Some Major Challenges
From different perspectives it is obvious that the cooperative sector has at least within the EU a
major new role to play – though this can be seen from two divergent perspectives. The one is
concerned with seeing the sector as corrective and even sheet anchor of the structurally ailing
economy. Politicians still orient on growth and suggest the sector as gatekeeper. In this light,
strengthening this sector is seen as means of overcoming the traditional economy by stepping in
and providing temporary niches and mobilising additional forces that can be utilised for flanking
the economic system and that allow for some state activities without suggesting state support.
Thus, many of the relevant jobs are actually temporary and in sectors that are barely sustainable
and in itself growth oriented. However, they do provide a framework for labour market
integration by serving as stepping-stone for individuals. As such these cooperatives are very
much innovative instruments towards a traditional end. Many of the cooperatives in this segment
are actually set up as initiative with the special aim of development employment opportunities
on the ‘free market’. Another political orientation sees these organisations as different in more
substantial terms. Then, these organisations are particularly linked to three issues: (i)
orientation along a claimed general interest, (ii) the obligation of providing a minimum of
involvement of different interest groups as in particular the employed and the clients and (iii) the
obligation to employ persons that are for different reasons distant from the labour market – this
concerns in particular people with disabilities and being in need of special support. Usually, the
law, regulating these coops requires that the workers get special support as part of their
employment contract (see lege no 381 di 1991 as Italy is a forerunner in this respect).
Though we find in Italy the furthest reaching implementation of such orientation, similar courses
can be found for instance in France (law no 624; 2001; SCIC), Portugal, Greece and Spain. The
following three types of recognition can be distinguished:
1) la reconnaissance par les pouvoirs publics de l'identité spécifique des
structures concernées, qui appellent un traitement particulier - à cet égard,
l'ordre juridique entend les institutionnaliser avec un statut d'acteur privé -;
2) la reconnaissance de la capacité et de la liberté dont elles disposent d'œuvrer
dans toute branche d'activité économique et sociale;
3) la reconnaissance de leur fonction d'interlocutrices dans le processus
d'élaboration et de mise en œuvre des différentes politiques publiques, à
l'égard desquelles elles sont conçues comme des intervenants de codécision et
de coexécution.
(Rafael Chaves Ávila/ José Luis Monzón Campos : L'Économie Sociale dans
l'Union Européenne; N°. CESE/COMM/05/2005; Comité économique et social
européen (CESE); DI CESE 97/2007 EN/ES-GT/JL/nr: 68)
1
Cette définition est conforme aux critères qui ont été établis par le "Manuel pour l'établissement des comptes satellites
des entreprises de l'économie sociale: coopératives et mutuelles", récemment élaboré pour le compte de la
Commission européenne, et par Barea (1990 y 1991), Barea et Monzón (1995) et Chaves et Monzón (2000). Elle
converge tant avec les critères de délimitation de l'économie sociale établis par ses acteurs (Charte de CNLAMCA,
1980; Conseil wallon de l'économie sociale, 1990; CCCMAF et CEP-CMAF, 2000) qu'avec les définitions formulées
dans les documents économiques, dont Desroche (1983), Defourny et Monzón (1992), Defourny et al (1999), Vienney
(1994) et Demoustier (2001 et 2006).
It is important that we can find in all these cases a certain ambiguity, seeing these enterprises set
up as enterprises with special emphasis of their “specific” character: being part of policies for
social integration and being at the same part of a “profitable economy”, aiming on selfsustainment. From here we can see as well in many cases tensions and conflicts. Many of these
enterprises are set up in political contexts where they are intentionally used for securing the
general interest (fulfilling public services) and at the same time performing as basin of
outsourced state activities.
The tension gets for instance clear when we look at a statement from a recent Italian document
points on the organisations by stating:
Le organizzazioni del Terzo settore pur svolgendo attività prevalentemente
orientate all’interesse sociale, di fatto concorrono in maniera significativa alla
produzione di “beni e servizi” (come ad esempio lo sviluppo di servizi di
comunità, il recupero dall’esclusione e dall’emarginazione sociale, il sostegno
alle relazioni comunitarie, la valorizzazione di beni culturali e ambientali),
partecipando all’attuazione del principio di sussidiarietà introdotto nella Carta
Costituzionale con la riforma del Titolo V.
(Consiglio Nazionale dell’Economia e del Lavoro/Istituto di Statistical: Primo
Rapporto CNEL/ISTAT sull’economia sociale. Dimensioni e caratteristiche
strutturali delle istituzioni nonprofit in Italia; Roma: Giugno 2008)
Taking the Italian example, the actual challenge is to reconcile the fact that relevant organisations
are “figure giuridiche private” and we deal with “le società cooperative e gli altri enti di carattere
privato, con o senza personalità giuridica”. But at the same time we find under this heading Le
organizzazioni non lucrative di utilità sociale (ONLUS), explicitly defined by the fact that they are
working in the public realm, not being a matter of private distributive interest.
Against this background we can distinguish three major groups:
* coops with the central aim of generating employment
* coops with the central aim of social integration of people with specific social disadvantages
* traditional cooperatives.
3. A Tentative Consideration on a Positive Definition of Social Economy for (a) Changing Society
Be it as part of the discussions about the economic crisis, be it as part of the debate on the need of
global sustainability of the global economy we can see the increasing acknowledgement of the
fact that economic growth, measured in GDP is not sufficient to secure an overall assessment of
issues concerning the economy. One crucial, though within the mainstream debate hardly
solvable question is the narrow understanding of what the economy is about. Still, this is of
course a gentle way of mentioning the contradiction between the profit orientation on the one
side and a socially comprehensive and sustainable economy. Several approaches, more general in
character, try to solve this contradiction – worth to be mentioned are approaches as the debate
on corporate social responsibility, the commitment for a “sustainable growth going beyond GDP”
(http://www.beyond-gdp.eu/), the UN-Human Development Project, the debate on Human
Security and the like.
However, the present thesis is that such approaches, though definitely being important
contributions to the current debate, are limited as they are still based on the concept of a single
growth strategy, suggesting a synergy effect of economic growth, seeing this as translating
automatically into increasing wellbeing. However, the two main obstacles of such approaches are
(i) that they do not ask what they actually produce and (ii) see the major problem in the lack of a
just, equitable distribution.
The challenge is to find a positive definition of cooperatives, seeing them as consciously
producing both products and personalities and social relationships. From here we can introduce
ethical considerations of economic processes on the micro and the macro level that are aiming at
elaborating an understanding of social economy that is based on a different understanding of
production and economy.
Pays
Nom de l'instance publique
Belgique
Secrétariat d'État au développement durable et à l'économie sociale
Chypre
Office de contrôle et de développement des sociétés coopératives
Espagne
DGES (direction générale de l'économie sociale, des travailleurs
indépendants et du Fonds social européen), une au sein du ministère du
travail et des affaires sociales et une autre dans celui de l'agriculture.
Ces administrations ont un pendant dans la plupart des gouvernements
régionaux.
France
DIIEES (délégation interministérielle à l'innovation, à l'expérimentation
sociale et à l'économie sociale) du ministère de l'emploi, de la cohésion
sociale et du logement,
ministère de la jeunesse, des sports et de la vie associative
Au niveau régional, des services d'économie sociale et solidaire existent dans
les conseils régionaux.
Au niveau municipal ou intercommunal, on trouve des élus et des techniciens.
Irlande
Unité de l'économie sociale, au sein de l'Office pour la formation et l'emploi
(FÁS)
Italie
Direction générale pour les
développement économique
organisations
coopératives,
ministère
du
Agence pour les organisations non lucratives d'utilité sociale (ONLUS)
Malte
Unité de liaison avec les ONG, département des normes du bien-être social,
ministère de la famille et de la solidarité sociale
Portugal
Institut António Sérgio pour le secteur coopératif (INSCOOP)
Royaume-Uni
Unité de l'entreprise sociale, département du commerce et de l'industrie,
actuellement rattachée au cabinet du premier ministre, et unité des finances des
organisations caritatives et du troisième secteur, au sein du Trésor
76)