Chapter 1: Introduction
1.2 Social and Solidarity Economy
國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
hunting and use of wildlife for traditional ritual use (Reid, 2011). The caveat to both laws is that the actual rules of resource use are left to the central government to determine, thus effectively preventing indigenous freedom to use and manage their traditional lands.
After Taiwan’s democratization, regulations in Wulai focused on protecting natural areas, with special consideration focusing on the watershed area that supplies the Taipei area’s 8 million inhabitants. Strict governmental regulations on land use and building
construction that were meant to protect the urban water supply have seriously hampered the local indigenous peoples’ ability to improve their life conditions (Tang 2018,
unpublished). At the same time, lowland capitalists had already been able to retain, or even gain new benefits from prior projects that may or may not have been undertaken within the legal regulatory framework. The social situation in Wulai became one seen in many indigenous communities in the world, that of economic stagnation, youth out-migration, loss of identity, drug and alcohol abuse, while illegal developments fueled by outside capital produced environmental degradation and economic disparity. The situation became one where the indigenous Atayal of Wulai are involved in tourism-based ventures for the most part as employees, without the business knowledge or financial capital to strike out on their own. Such a historical context is similar to those found in many indigenous areas around the world. Questioning the historical fairness and present use of resources has become a driving factor for scholars seeking to find
alternative economic developmental strategies that seek more fair and equitable alternatives to existing systems.
1.2 Social and Solidarity Economy
Social and solidarity economy (SSE) as outlined by Utting refers to forms of economic activity that prioritize social and often environmental objectives, and involve producers, workers, consumers, and citizens acting collectively and in solidarity, and involves
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
trade networks, solidarity purchasing, informal economy workers, and other new forms of for-profit social enterprises and social entrepreneurs, and has at its core the idea of
pushing forward social and systematic transformation through redistributive justice, sustainability, alternatives to traditional capitalism, and democratic and emancipatory politics (Utting, 2015). The new social associational economics are democratically structured and operate with non-traditional motivations. These motivations go beyond the simple maximization of profits under a hegemonic capitalism. Of present and growing interest is the inclusion in SSE of non-traditional alternatives to competition, using social capital as “the infrastructure and the engine of economic activities for human-centered local development” (Dash, 2016).
With the historical basis of SSE coming in part from utopian socialists, some theorists see SSE as a panacea of alternative community based economic pathways to address
problems caused by market globalization, the decline of the welfare state, and a
monopoly of the paradigm of profit as a bottom line that stem from traditionally imperial economics. By expanding economics to include different rationalities, relational capital, cooperative logic, psychic income, social profit, and ecological well-being, they suggest a future of restored socio-cultural and environmental well-being (Dash, 2016). Although there is a long and diverse history of SSE-type concepts, there remains a good degree of fluidity in the evolving field.
This diversity of views can become rather vocal with some authors lamenting the possibility the field is moving away from the utopian ideal, instead facing the risk of being coopted by connections with the existing capitalist system. Some ways SSE could be diluted come from destabilizing policy and regulatory environments, or top-down policy making that is often associated with a particular party; states actively promoting SSE but only giving priority to certain aspects; SSE expansion towards market principles and practices, and splits and tensions arising within SSE networks and movements due to ideological and/or personal differences (Utting, 2012). Nonetheless, characteristics of
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
solidarity, trust, cooperation, and community spirit that are rooted in the local social fabric are common factors throughout the SSE literature.
Ideological assertiveness notwithstanding, there is considerable potential in the SSE even when operating in a capitalist environment. For sustainable and equitable economic development in order to “correct the flaws” of traditional economics, there is both a risk of approaching the task from an overly romantic position that could neglect difficulties and contradictions when attempting to increase the scope of SSE projects (Utting, 2012).
Indeed, there exists danger of “glossing over the heavy constraints of structure internal group dynamics, and the relationships between internal and external actors”.
An approach that takes into account such internal and social constraining factors may be an important factor to the successful implementation of SSE programs. SSE goals may be of grand and positive vision, but there remains a need to consider the actual tensions and difficulties that are often encountered at community and individual levels during the development and implementation of SSE programs. Bringing people onboard is vital to achieve consensus of purpose and long term follow-through, as stated by Pereira Morais and Bacic:
… the success of these alternative production and community organization experiences in the territories depend, to a large extent, on their capacity to integrate processes for economic
transformation and cultural, social and political changes, building networks of collaboration and mutual support, which implies in a progressive participation in formulation and implementation of public policies activities, based on the idea of co-creation of these policies. (Pereira Morais & Juan Bacic, 2017).
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
Bringing in external expertise through the negotiating the cultural, social, and political changes, building networks, and co-creation of policies requires skillful negotiations that depend to a great extent, open, communicative, and respectful partnerships. In this way, the action researcher may be best suited to implement SSE ideals.
The following document will consist of a literature review encompassing program background, social capital, and agency theory. This literature will then be used to set out the direction for research methods. The data concerning how the Lokah project dealt with difficulties and challenges of relationship building will then be reviewed. Finally
concluding comments will be made.
‧
國立 政 治 大 學