Archive for February, 2013

Learn More About Mondragon

Review the following links to learn more about Mongradon:

Introduction to the Mondragon Corporation:

Our Management model

Structure & Sectors

Most Relevant Data, 2011 (We “close” the year on 31st March, so all the consolidated results for 2012 will be published by June 2013.)

Corporate Profile

Annual Report

Cooperativisim Experience

Co-operatives Information, Publications, Literature:

a. http://www.mondragon-corporation.com/language/en-US/ENG/Co-operativism/Co-operative-Experience.aspx

b. http://www.mondragon-corporation.com/language/en-US/ENG/Co-operativism/Co-operative-Legislation.aspx

c. http://www.mondragon-corporation.com/language/en-US/ENG/Co-operativism/Interesting-links-in-the-field-of-Co-operativism.aspx

 

SOCIAL-REPUBLICAN PROPERTY | UCLA Law Review

by William H. Simon

UCLA Law Review, 38 UCLA L. Rev. 1335, August, 1991

Copyright 1991 by the Regents of the University of California; William H. Simon

INTRODUCTION

Economic democracy is the idea that the norms of equality and participation that classical liberalism confines to a narrowly defined sphere of government should apply to the sphere of economic life. Economic democracy thus entails a challenge to the classical liberal notion of property. In classical liberalism, property defines a realm of private enjoyment. No particular property right is a prerogative of, or a prerequisite to, citizenship, and the exercise of property rights by those who have them is not assessed in political terms.

One alternative to classical liberalism responsive to the ideal of economic democracy is classical socialism. Classical socialism opposes to the liberal notion of private property the notion of state property—property controlled by the officials of a democratically constituted state. Another alternative to classical liberalism inspired in part by the ideal of economic democracy is social democracy or welfare-regulatory liberalism. Social democracy retains the classical liberal notion of private property rights, but it both qualifies them by regulatory restrictions on their exercise and supplements them with welfare rights to minimal subsistence funded and administered through a tax-transfer system.

This essay is about aspects of a further alternative to classical liberalism inspired by the ideal of economic democracy. This alternative can be found in converging elements of the traditions of republicanism and market socialism. Like social democracy, the alternative rejects both state property and the unrestricted accumulation and exercise of private property rights. However, to a greater extent than social democracy, it pursues its concerns by encouraging a politically desirable primary organization of economic activity and distribution of income and wealth. The distinctive notion of property in this alternative view is sometimes called social property in the market socialist tradition, but its simultaneous affinity with the republican tradition leads me to call it social-republican property.

The distinctive feature of social-republican property is that it is held by private individuals subject to two types of conditions—one requiring that the holder bear a relation of potential active participation in a group or community constituted by the property, and another designed to limit inequality among the members of a group or community. Among the more familiar forms of social-republican property are interests in certain producer cooperatives and “limited equity” housing cooperatives.

In contemporary American society, the characteristics associated with social-republican property are routinely imputed to a narrow set of political or citizenship entitlements, such as voting rights, but these characteristics seem anomalous in private economic life. Nevertheless, there are some interesting examples of social-republican property in the private sphere, and there has recently been a variety of proposals that would increase its importance there. 81 Moreover, a variety of regulatory and welfare policies, such as certain forms of tax relief and rent control, create interests that resemble social-republican property and may be inspired by social-republican principles.

This essay has both historical and political purposes. One historical purpose is to clarify certain distinctive aspects of the republican and market socialist traditions and to emphasize an affinity that accounts for their frequent convergence in 19th century radicalism. Part I develops the notion of social-republican property as a heuristic designed to serve this purpose.

Another historical purpose is to illustrate that, while social-republican principles are usually treated as utopian and marginal in American public discourse, there is in fact a wide variety of property rights in the American economy that express such principles. Parts II through IV thus survey some contemporary examples of social-republican property in America (with some references to Europe for purposes of comparison).

The essay’s political purpose is to contribute to contemporary debates about radical economic reform, in particular to debates over the possibility of a “third way” between capitalism (both its classical liberal and social democratic versions) and socialism. The social-republican vision may be the closest thing we have to a reform model that is both distinguishable from the capitalist and socialist models and at least moderately institutionally concrete.

To be sure, the sophisticated contemporary response to the question of the “third way” is to assert the indeterminacy of all general reform models, and to insist that any plausible program for a particular economy would have to be an amalgam of a diverse variety of forms of property. General models do not generate concrete programs by themselves, and no single general model could plausibly serve as a unique inspiration for the restructuring of an entire economy. Nevertheless, general models inescapably influence even the most contextual thinking about particular reforms. Enlarging our repertory of general models thus seems likely to enhance the flexibility of our thinking and the range of particular alternative possibilities we can summon in appraising particular practices and institutions.

Thus, the essay concludes in Part V with a tentative normative appraisal of the social-republican vision. It defends social- republican institutions against the charge that they have strong general tendencies toward economic inefficiency. On the other hand, it concedes that such institutions have a troubling tendency toward exclusiveness. The cultural exclusiveness attributed to republicanism in some recent critiques has a counterpart in the economic logic of social-republican property. Plausible applications of social-republican principles would have to confine or neutralize this tendency.

Find the article from the UCLA Law Review.

 

Social Democracy in the Age of Austerity | Renewal

by Joe Guinan

Democratic wealth-holding can give social democracy a new set of economic institutions and political power bases.

Social democracy at a crossroads

Historians joke that, no matter what the period, the middle class is always rising. In the same vein, social democracy seems perpetually at a crossroads. This may not be surprising, given the revisionist origins and protean political tendencies of a tradition whose leadership has always been prepared to hedge and trim and accommodate to the prevailing political winds. But today, more than a hundred years after the first of the parties affiliated to the Second International won a plurality in a parliamentary election (in Finland in 1907; Anderson, 1992, 307), social democracy may finally be running out of rope. All the main European social democratic parties are facing a crisis, registering at long last endlessly postponed questions about their fundamental purpose and programme. The strategic choices they make now and in the next few years could determine whether social democracy survives as the principal political force on the left or finally gives up the ghost, expiring not with a bang but a whimper and with scarcely a mourner at the funeral. (more…)

Let’s play fantasy economics. Things could really get better. | The Guardian

Andrew Simms

A family-oriented nation of fairness, social justice and mutual ownership? It exists – just not all in one place

Do you grudgingly accept there is no fundamental alternative to how things are, hard times and difficult choices? Then come to Goodland. You might want to live here.

Its president refuses the state mansion. He gives away 90% of his pay, living on the national average wage to share in the struggles of his people. Goodland has a new constitution, written by citizens. When its financial sector fell apart, speculators had to take their losses and the guilty were taken to court, not given a public bailout.

The country has a dynamic, largely mutually owned, local banking system. It avoids bad risk and bends over backwards to help small businesses. In Goodland, human wellbeing is more important than economic growth. There is a national plan for good living, free health and education services, subsidised childcare allowing for a more equal workplace, and support for the elderly. It has a law enshrining protection of its life-supporting ecosystems that stands above all other laws.

Goodland’s cities are green and grow healthy, organic food for the inhabitants. A phase-out of most fossil fuels is planned by 2017, and its business sector has large, intelligently connected and productive cooperatives. A shorter working week is available by choice.

Utter fantasy? No. Goodland exists. It is just a little, well, spread out. Each aspect can be enjoyed in the real world, just not all in the same place. It’s like fantasy football, where you build your perfect team from all known players, but better. Fantasy economics is not limited by the supply of players, but rather grows from emulating best practices wherever you find them.

Read the article from The Guardian.

 

Green consumer products: Good? Or just less bad? | The Socially Conscious Consumer

How can we create products that provide a net good for the planet and for its inhabitants? I often focus on this question because it’s a key challenge facing business leaders and consumers who seek to promote sustainable lifestyles through the purchase and use of consumer products.

Unfortunately, while we have made incremental steps by creating products that are “less bad,” we haven’t even scratched the surface of what we really need: products that are “good.” “Less bad” initiatives, such as smaller caps on water bottles, are small steps in the right direction. Yet they only slow the rate of environmental destruction. In other words, they buy us a few more seconds before we crash into the wall, when what we need to do is turn the car around.

Definitions of a “good” product can vary, but this is mine: from a holistic, systems-based perspective, the product produces a positive and regenerative effect on our ecosystem from start to finish, encompassing the entire supply chain and including the impact consumers have when they use and dispose of the product. Instead of degrading resources and leaving the world worse off, a good product contributes toward restoring the planet and creating a more habitable environment for future generations.

Read this entire post from Jeffrey Hollender at McKinsey’s The Socially Conscious Consumer.

Subscribe

Subscribe to the RSS Feed