1

The Social Economy as Scholarly Discipline and Socio-Economic

PracticeBenoît Lévesque

Associate ProfessorUQÀM and ENAP

levesque.benoit@uqam.caCSE Hub

Montreal, 13 November 2006

2

Presentation Outline

• From utopia to disciplinary approaches

• Contrasting practices based on convergence (France and Québec)

• Theoretical constructions for analyzing the social economy (SE)

3

From utopia to so-called scientific

disciplines

4

Theorization of the political sphere and the

economic spherePolitical Theory(State: social contract)

Economic Theory(Market: invisible hand)

Social Theory(society as whole)

Machiavel (1516)Hobbes (1651)(Absolutism)

Mercantilism UtopiaThomas More (1512)(Community)

Political liberalismLocke (1690)Montesquieu

Economic liberalismMandeville (1714)Smith (1776)

Utopian socialism utopique(Owen, Fourrier, S.Simon)

Political science Economics ( science) Social Sciences

5

Two utopias?

• Liberalism

• Reason (a science)

• Nature (of things)

• Individuals• A posteriori demonstration

• Utopianism

• Reason (a science)• Nature (human)• Association • Construction a priori– Current disorder– Proposal (utopia) Construction appealing to the imagination.

6

Sociology and social economy

• Le Play (1806-1882)– SE: science of peace and of the happy life, volunteer and

contractual relationships, improvement in the physical and moral state of the population

– Founded the Société d’économie sociale (1856-1914)– Paris World Exposition (1855; 1867); Journal: La Réforme sociale

(1881)

• Weber (1864-1920)– Sozialokonomische Wissenschaft (beginning in 1904)

• Economic events: Institutions with economic objectives• Non-Economic phenomena (religion) though economically relevant

• Phenomena conditioned by the economy – Wirtschaftssoziologie (beginning in 1910)

• Durkheim (1858-1917) during his stay in Germany (1886)

• Social economy (Volkswirtschaft) - institutionalism• Another definition of the economy: history, institution, moral fact

• Socio-Economics (Etzioni)

7

Economics and SE• Charles Gide (1847-1932)• Economist

– Before: SE an alternative approach– After: SE a complementary approach to economics

• Social economy actor – World Exposition in Paris– Actor in cooperative sphere (1886): École de Nîmes, FNCC (1902), unification of the cooperative movement (1912), etc.

• Leon Walras (1834-1910)– SE: “that part of the science of wealth that deals with the distribution of wealth between individuals and the State, and that makes use of the principle of justice” et non pas “charity, fraternity, voluntary association” …

• Social Economics (Gary Becker) – economics of social phenomena

8

Contrasting practices -- inspired by a variety of ideas

(The cases of France and Québec)

9

Reformulation of utopia?

• Four SE schools (1890-1920)– Socialist school (Jaurès)– Liberal school: self-help by individuals and economic advantages

– Christian socialist school: social doctrine of the Church (1891)

– Solidarity school: a cooperative republic (Gide)

• From utopia to the third way (reorientation toward cooperation) – Cooperation as an end (as utopia)

• From the “community” to the cooperative Republic (State as a form of coop.)

• From the cooperative Republic to a cooperative sector (1932) alongside a public sector (cooperation = in the general interest)

– Cooperation as a means: socialist, Christian and liberal views

10

Return of the social economy (1975)

• a demand from cooperatives and mutuals (mutual associations, mutual benefit societies)– Redevelopment of relationship with the State (e.g. mutuality)– Cooperatives and mutuals in compwetition with the private sector – Need for legislative fine-tuning + and external financing– A search for meaning: death of the utopian republic– Choice of the term SE: historical reference

• Support from socialists (Rocard, Delors), Marxism in crisis

• Extensive consultation among stakeholders• Recognition strategy

– Between the major sectors (cooperatives and mutuals) – By the public authorities of France (1981: IM delegation to the

ES*) – By the EEC, ILO, CIRIEC International and other countries (1978)

• Centripetal forces and centrifugal forces

11

Centripetal forces and centrifugal forces

1800-1850 1850-1901 1890-1920 1920-1970 1980-2000

Multi-functionalassociations

SSE

SE SE

M 1852, 1898

C 1894

A 1901

TA

Political Context

Economical context

M

C

A

TA 1884

Lévesque according to Vienney

12

Tensions and revivial of the SE (1990-2000)

• For a European status for the SE– European cooperative status – Mutuals and associations without specific recognition

• Remobilization based on the solidarity-based economy (1990)

• Solidarity-based economy, opposition to the SE established*– Promoters: NMS, Green Party and local initiatives– Sectors: the emerging SE and relational services

• Labour-market integration projects• Proximity services • Social enterprises and solidarity (social) cooperatives• Alternative rather than complementary

• Toward a compromise (2000): the social and solidarity-based economy?

• Interdepartmental delegation• Revue internationale de l’ÉS (an international review on the SE)• CIRIEC France

13

Emergence and recognition in the Quebec context• Global context

– The Quebec model of voluntarist and corporatist development

– A plural economic structure: importance of collective enterprises (government corporations and cooperatives)

– Strong unions, community and women’s groups – Limited consultation: summits, forums (e.g. job),

conventions, symposia (cooperation, rural society, community-based, etc.)

• Immediate context: Summit on the economy and employment (1996)– Exchange of ideas for a zero deficit and job creation– Traditional social partners + women’s and community

groups– “Chantiers” (focussed working groups) over six months,

including a working group on the SE.

14

Founding compromise = emerging SE • Government: budgetary cuts and job creation• Community groups: a fully-fledged element• Women’s groups: quality jobs + war on poverty• Cooperatives: a new legitimacy + worried about image• Unions: reject job substitution + seek jobs with a

future• Employers: say YES to a downsizing of the State,

discover the SE• “Independent community action”: refuses inclusion in SE• Consequently, a SE development plan

– Market SE + non-market SE– Emerging SE, pilot projects or experienced projects– Labour-market integration, one of several types of SE – Objectives: job creation and meeting unfulfilled needs – SE stakeholder in development model– “Independent community action” = separate financing– Women’s groups: a Fund to wage war on poverty through

labour market integration

15

Development plan of the SE working group: emerging SE (1996-2001) • Evolution of the emerging SE

– 300 projects mainly in emerging sectors (cooperatives and associations)

– Identification of promotion groups– Objective: 20,000 jobs

• Development tools– Capitalization: RISQ– Training: CSMO-ESAC– Research: ARUC-ÉS– Technical resources for monitoring and coaching

• A flexible governance structure– For 2 years at first (1996-1998), under the responsibility

of the premier– Support from the Mouvement Desjardins and the CCQ (Quebec

Cooperation Council)– In 1999, this structure is transformed into an

“independent body’• CCQ refuses to join • Union representation• CRES representation

• Representation of emerging SE sectors

16

One definition = SE as “inclusive”

• The question of definition• The Québec institutional definition: three aspects – A definition of ‘economy’ and of ‘social’

• economy: substantive (inclusion of non-market economy)• social: welfare and citizenship

– Ethical principles• The Walloon influence • The cooperative influence

– Legal statuses: cooperatives, mutuals and associations

• For the inclusion of the emerging SE – Quebec: an inclusive definition, but a mandate and a development/growth plan for the emerging SE

– Canada: plays a part in the emerging SE: social cohesion and war on poverty

17

Observations concerning the 1996-2006 period

• Benefits obtained (assessment still to be carried out)– Recognition of the SE by governments and most other sectors– Growth and strengthening of SE enterprises and organizations– New tools, especially in the area of funding/financing– University research on the SE and on cooperatives (Chairs and ARUC)– International influence (North-South)

• Tensions are more structural than ideological– Between the initial mandate (growth of the emerging SE) and a so-

called inclusive definition of the SE– Between the mission of the CCQ and that of the SE “Chantier”

• CCQ grouping on the basis of legal status, monopoly of the cooperative representation SE “Chantier” whose mission extends the 1996 SE working group mandates, namely to promote and develop the emerging SE (associations and cooperatives)

• Tension mounts as a result of the implementation of tools dedicated to the SE

– In the administrative machinery of the State: the Direction des coopératives (the government of Québec cooperatives directorate) and the Bureau de l’économie sociale (social economy office)

– Québec (provincial level) and the federal government level– The necessary resolution of the most obvious and immediate conflicts

will not make the structural tensions generating conflict disappear

18

FIGURE 1: SYSTÈME COOPÉRATIF QUÉBÉCOIS D’INNOVATION

• .RECHERCHE:Chaires, IRECUS,Centre Desjardins (HÉC)CIRIEC, Fondation del’entrepreneurship,Direction des coop

SERVICES AUX ENTRE-PRISES COOPERATIVES:Fédérations sectoriellesCDR, GRT, CLD, MCE,ORION,Tandem, RQCCTet alii,

FORMATION ETÉDUCATION:Fondation de l’éducationà la coopération, CDR,GRT, Entente avec CSQ,Programmes universitaires

FINANCEMENT:CRCD (Desjardins), RISQ,RIC, Fiducie, FIER-Région,Fondaction (CSN),Filaction, InvestissementQuébec

CCQ regroupements sectoriels+ territoriauxentreprises et organisations coopératives

MDEIE Direction des coopératives

Lévesque, 2005

19

FIGURE 4: SYSTÈME QUÉBÉCOIS D’INNOVATION ENÉCONOMIE SOCIALE (ÉMERGENTE)

• .RECHERCHE:ARUC-ÉS, Réseauquébécois de rechercheen ÉS, Chaires, IRECUS,CIRIEC, Fondation del’entrepreneurship,

SERVICES AUX ENTRE-PRISES D’ÉS:Regroupements sectorielsCDEC, SADC, CLD, CDR,GRT, RQCCT, MCE et alii,

FORMATION ETÉDUCATION:CSMO-ÉSAC, Chantier,Programmes universitaires

FINANCEMENT:RISQ, RIC, Fiducie, FIER-Région, Filaction, Caissed’Économie Solidaire,Investissement Québec,Fondaction (CSN), Fondsde solidarité,

CHANTIER DE L’ÉS regroupements sectoriels+pôles régionauxentreprises et associations

MDEIE Bureau de l’économie sociale (équipe)

Lévesque, 2003

20

Comparison of France and Quebec

French Model Quebec Model

Initiative Groups/coalitions cooperatives, mutuals

Quebec State and corporatist framework

Political context

The revived socialism (1970-80), then the Green mov.

Reconfiguration of State interventionism (1995)

Definition of Social Econ.

Legal status Status, ethics and the substantive economy

Development “plan”

Mature SE emerging(Consolidation of sectors)

Emerging SE (jobs and new demands)

Gouvernance Body

Sector Liaison Committee + interdepartmental

Working group on the SE, followed by the Chantier

Tools Strengthening existing tools

Nouveaux outils pour ÉS émergente

Structural tensions

The social economy VS solidarity economy

CCQ and Chantier, definition VS development plan

21

Theoretical Constructions for the Analysis of Social

Economy Practices

22

For an analysis of a societal and sectoral

configurations • Immediate historical context• Compromise and institutional recognition of the SE– Actors, definition adopted, growth strategy

• Components of the SE– Enterprises and organizations

• Cooperatives, mutuals and their affiliates • Associations with economic activities• Other forms of enterprises and organizations

– Intersectoral and sectoral clusterings

• Public policies and a development strategy– SE development programs– Development strategy and tools

• Role of the SE in economic development and social development

23

Diverse theoretical constructions (1)

• Through the components (with their various legal statuses) and actors in the enterprise/association combination (Desroche).

• Through the actors, activities and rules (Vienney)– Necessary but neglected activities– Comparatively dominated actors– Rules for harnessing the market (actors and the

enterprise/association combination)• Values: equity, mutual aid/support (Defourny)

– Ultimate aim of service to members or to the community (non-profit)

– Management independence– Democratic process– Primacy of people over capital in the distribution of

profits • Co-construction of supply and demand +

hybridization of resources (Laville)

24

Diverse theoretical constructions (2)

• Neo-institutionalism: transaction costs, agency relationships, property rights, game theory (failure of markets and of the State) - Hansmann

• Approaches based on conventions: SE as a compromise between conventions (civic, domestic, market, opinion-based, project-related) - Enjolras, Thévenot

• Regulation approach: institutional compromise, mode of regulation, development model - Lipietz

• Evolutionary approaches: trajectory, path of dependency, collective learning, etc.

25

Diverse theoretical constructions (3)

• Context (development model)

• Collective and individual actors: project (NMS)

• Institutional form (regulation)

• Organizational form (conventions)

• Evaluation (economic and social performance)

26

Conclusion• In any given society or region, the predominant

definition is institutional -- and it has a certain stability. On the other hand, whatever the society or region, researchers may choose from several definitions, depending on the theoretical approaches they adopt.

• For a socio-economic or institutional approach; all economies are social, including corporate capitalism (which, however, does not recognize this social aspect). There is a continuum that extends beyond legal status.

• As concerns the practices and actors that, we maintain, belong to the social economy, the question is not so much one of “who belongs” as one of ‘who WANTS to belong” and what project they have in mind.

27

• “One of the lessons in the history of the social economy is that it feeds on alternative utopias while developing as a regulatory economy. It defines an ideology, that is, a group of ideas capable of providing actors with reasons for getting involved, but does not produce an autonomous economic system.”

Jean-François Draperi, 2000.

• “But we cannot imagine a society without a utopia, for this would be a society without purpose.”

Paul Ricoeur