Social Economy, Third Sector and Solidarity Relations: a Conceptual Synthesis from History to Present

Home , Frank Moulaert, Social economy, Voluntary sector

Urban Studies, Vol. 42, No. 11, 2037–2053, October 2005

Social Economy, Third Sector and Solidarity Relations: A Conceptual Synthesis from History to Present

Frank Moulaert and Oana Ailenei

[Paper ﬁrst received, June 2004; in ﬁnal form, June 2005]

Summary. This paper attempts to provide a clear perspective on deﬁning the social economy today. It addresses the question of the relevance of a unifying concept with its need to embrace the existing diversity of approaches and concepts. To this end, it surveys both historical and contemporary academic literature, as well as practice-rooted conceptualisations of the social economy. The ﬁrst section outlines the analytical challenges to a reconstruction of the social economy concept. The second enhances the historical and space-bound diversity in theorising and institutionalising social economy practices. Section 3 focuses on contemporary reconceptualisations of the social economy in Francophone and Anglo-Saxon literature, while section 4 then suggests improvements to current ‘social economy’ concepts, by linking them to both the lessons of history and the views of social economy practitioners today.

1. Introduction understood within the institutional contexts and epochs from which they arose. This paper reviews the various meanings of Social innovation in the economy is mainly the term ‘social economy’, especially as used about the (re)introduction of social justice into in Francophone and Anglo-Saxon academic literature and institutional practice over the production and allocation systems. Although past 150 years.1 The choice of this long current literature on the social economy time-span and wide linguistic area is justiﬁed addresses the challenge of bringing social by the purpose of the analysis—i.e. to evalu- justice values back into the economy— ate the relevance of various concepts used in for example, by combating social exclusion, the analysis of social economy dynamics and fostering development in particularly how they can contribute both to a better deprived localities and reinventing solidarity understanding of social innovation in the in production relations—it says little, and contemporary globalising economy and to that inadequately, on the analytical questions the construction of shared concepts to under- arising from current social economy practice. pin future social economy research, action The existing literature surveys (for example, and policy. Despite a wide proliferation of Salomon and Anheier, 1995; Laville and terminologies, there is increasing osmosis Delfau, 2000; Leyshon et al., 2003) deal among the terms used; however, their real with a variety of features of social economy meaning can only be fully grasped when initiatives such as redistribution of income

Frank Moulaert is in the Global Urban Research Unit (GURU), University of Newcastle, Newcastle, NE1 7RU, UK. Fax: 0191 222 6008. E-mail: [email protected] and CNRS-IFRESI, France. Oana Ailenei is a PhD student in Economie Industrielle, University of Lille I, France. Fax: 00 33 (0) 320 12 5831. E-mail: [email protected]. The authors wish to thank Jacques Nussbaumer, Patsy Healey, Flavia Martinelli, Serena Vicari, Sara Gonza´lez and anonymous referees for their comments on earlier versions of this paper. 0042-0980 Print=1360-063X Online=05=112037–17 # 2005 The Editors of Urban Studies DOI: 10.1080=00420980500279794 2038 FRANK MOULAERT AND OANA AILENEI and wealth within the market economy, practices. Sections 3 and 4 place the debate various allocation systems and their political on the role of the social economy in a contem- governance, solidarity and reciprocity rela- porary context—first, by looking at recent tions, satisfaction of alienated individual and reconceptualisations of the social economy collective needs, the role of the public, private in the Francophone and Anglo-Saxon world and third sector in operating and governing (section 3) and, secondly, by validating the the social economy, and global governance potential of these concepts for empirical as an alternative for Keynesianism, but do analysis and practice-oriented research not establish the theoretical links between against both practitioners’ views and the them. Verifying these links is a key condition lessons drawn from the historical survey in of the recognition of the factors and mecha- section 2. Section 5 draws some methodologi- nisms of ‘reproducibility’ of both the social cal conclusions from this validation that are economy today and its governance. then elaborated in Moulaert and Nussbaumer A large part of the literature uses an histori- (in this issue). cal perspective, but fails to address the analytical consequences of the history- and 2. The Emergence and Re-emergence context-bound challenges of each epoch and of the ‘E´ conomie Sociale’: Solidarity social space for the construction of a theory Practice and Social Economy Concepts of the features of the social economy with, on the one hand, a necessary compromise ‘Social economy’ in its various meanings and between generally shared concepts and pro- through its terminological space- and time- cesses and, on the other, specific terminology bound proliferation, can only be analysed by referring to particular contexts and insti- combining a ‘history of practice’ with ‘a tutions. Awareness of this methodological history of thought perspective’. Section 2.1 challenge gives definition to this paper. The provides a short, somewhat eclectic, historical overall starting-point is that each epoch has ‘Euro-centred’ overview of social economy its own socioeconomic conditions bringing practice and organisation as they have subsequent opportunities and challenges to inspired early Francophone conceptualis- the lien solidaire (solidarity bond) which it ations of the social economy in Europe produced. As section 2 shows, when the econ- (section 2.2). This is the starting-point for omic growth engine starts to stutter, formal laying the foundations of a theory of emer- distribution mechanisms begin to fail and gence and re-emergence of social economy new social forces develop and give rise practices, institutions and concepts for at to alternative institutions and mechanisms of least two time-perspectives: an epochal solidarity and redistribution as a means staging starting in the mid 19th century and of addressing the failures of the institutions a contemporary periodisation covering the of the socioeconomic movements to guarantee past 30 years (section 2.3). solidarity among economic agents. The survey claims that, within the historically produced 2.1 A Short ‘History of Practice’ of the social spaces over the past 150 years, different Social Economy periods can be distinguished in which these spaces have developed their own institutional Antiquity and medieval times. Defourny and initiatives to combat poverty, either within the Develtere (1997) and Demoustier (2001) formal state (social policy) and market system retrace the ancient roots of the social (entrepreneurial initiative, employment), or economy within Egyptian corporations, the within ‘alternative circuits’. Most of these Greek funds for the ritual organisation of periods also delivered their own philosophical funerary ceremonies and the Roman colleges and theoretical analysis of exclusion and soli- of craftsmen. The first guilds2 appeared in darity, social development and redistribution Germanic and Anglo-Saxon regions in the that inspired or analysed social economy 9th century and, in the 11th century, there SOCIAL ECONOMY 2039 emerged the confraternities which responded The 19th century—especially the second to objective needs for assistance, reciprocal half—was also a period of intense experimen- support and charity in the shaky early tation with various forms of social action Middle Ages. The corporations (associations and initiatives in defence of the weakest organised on the basis of a trade or a segments of the population—i.e. the industrial profession) and the first compagnonages workers whose numbers were growing (guilds) developed in the 14th century.3 significantly. The medieval epoch and beyond was Before being institutionalised at the end of characterised by a very rich associative life, the 19th century or the beginning of the 20th not only in Europe, but also on other century, the various forms of ‘associationism’ continents: the food corporations in medieval were inspired by a number of visions, ideol- Byzantium, the post-medieval guilds in the ogies, theories and philosophies, sometimes Muslim countries, the professional castes competing, that influenced the formation of in India, the confraternities of craftsmen the social economy. According to Defourny in primitive Africa and in pre-Colombian and Develtere (1997), the main ideas that America (Defourny and Develtere, 1997). played a fundamental role were: 18th and These ‘associations’ were created in order to 19th century ‘utopian socialism’ (Owen, organise and protect communities. Fourier, Leroux, Saint-Simon, Proudhon) (Hardy, 1979; Mellor et al., 1988) that pro- The industrial revolution and the role of ideals moted the values of co-operation and of in Europe. As Gueslin (1987) asserts, modern mutual support; Christian socialism that forms of social economy came into being as a established the ‘intermediary corps’ to result of theorising practical experiences and combat individual isolation and absorption their institutionalisation in the 19th century, of individuals by the state)4 (Defourny and while the associative experiences of the 19th Develtere, 1997, p. 3) and the liberal move- century took place in the context of a solidarity ment that favoured the mutual help associ- practice inherited from the late Middle Ages ations by praising economic liberty and and the Renaissance. But until the French refusing state interference. These movements revolution, the associative organisations were not limited to one country, but spread remained under the control of the Church or all over Europe. of the State. Clandestine associations—often Defourny and Develtere (1997) show savagely repressed by the authorities—would how all these important ideologies contributed contribute to the dissemination of the ‘new’ significantly to the emergence of the social idea of ‘freedom of association’. It has been economy, but none of them can assert exclu- argued that the French revolution fostered sive paternity. For instance, two contradictory political equality, meeting thereby the desire tendencies characterised the French approach of the bourgeoisie. But the material inequality to the creation of associations: the republican that remained was not dealt with until the 19th ideal deriving from the French revolution that century (Hardy, 1979, p. 21). denied any organised mediation between the The 19th century was, indeed, a formative individual and the state, and the anti-individu- century for the modern social economy, as it alist tendencies that stressed the importance of was characterised by an outburst of ideas, intermediary structures (Barthe´lemy, 2000, concepts, experiences, co-operative, associ- p. 15). In England, utopian socialism gave ative or mutual aid practices, institutional birth to many co-operative initiatives, where and utopian initiatives in reaction to the the community was considered the most social brutalities of the Industrial Revolution appropriate body for achieving a harmonious (poverty and exploitation), the emergence society (Hardy, 1979, p. 20). However, of the liberal philosophies and the actions each of these initiatives is connected to the taken by the state against the workers’ move- specific needs of communities, protecting or ments or associations (Le´vesque et al., 2001). promoting particular social relations. 2040 FRANK MOULAERT AND OANA AILENEI

2.2 Early Francophone Conceptualisation justice (the task of the state) as a necessity: of the Social Economy the Walrasian social economy appears as a contribution of the economic sphere to First appearance of the term. The term social justice (Bidet, 1997, p. 32). Walras ećonomie sociale was used for the first time distinguishes three levels of economic analy- in 1830 by the French economist Charles sis: the pure political economy (the science Dunoyer (Nouveau traite´ d’ećonomie sociale) of the production of wealth by the mobilis- in a meaning close to the contemporary use. ation of the individual interest, the science Dunoyer was followed by the French of the relationships between people and Auguste Ott, who published his Traite´ d’ećon- things), the applied economy (the study of omie sociale in 1851.5 But it was the French economic resources as they relate to the sociologist Fre´de´ric Le Play who contributed laws of nature) and the social economy (the significantly to the rise and acceptance of science of the distribution of wealth, of this concept in socioeconomic analysis. In social justice) (Bidet, 1997; Demoustier, 1856, he founded the Socie´te´ Internationale 2001; Walras, 1872–1874/1996, p. 115). des Etudes Pratiques d’Economie Sociale According to Desroche (1991), quoted by and the Revue d’Economie Sociale and in Bidet (1997, p. 32), this third component of 1867 he introduced the term ećonomie the economy defined by Walras—i.e. the sociale at the Universal Exhibition (Bidet, social economy—comprises both the philan- 1997, p. 31). In his programmatic text, he thropic economy of private assistance and defines the social economy as the economy of public services, with some- the study of the situation of the working where in the middle the ‘solidarity economy’ class and of its relations with other classes as defined by Gide. (Topalov, 1999, p. 13). The history of the social economy, as out- lined above, goes back to the oldest forms of Thanks to Charles Gide and later to León human association (Defourny and Develtere, Walras (Etudes d’ećonomie sociale, 1896), 1997) but, according to Gueslin (1987), it was the term social economy received full academic in the 19th century that the concept of a social and institutional recognition. Charles Gide economy was ‘invented’.6 This statement (1912) defined the social economy as ‘natural may sound boastful, but there are arguments laws’ that govern the spontaneous relations in its favour: the emergence of the social between people and things; it was the science economy as an explicit concept is the result of of social justice, as distinct from political the institutionalisation and theoretical assess- economy (i.e. the science of social utility). ment of practical experiences, including According to Gide experiences in earlier epochs such as the associ- The social economy ...could be defined in ations in the Middle Ages and those lived and the strict sense: the study of all efforts made described by early utopians and socialists. to improve the condition of the people The end of the 19th century also marks the (Gide, 1912, p. 10). identification and the legal recognition of the three pillars of the social economy—i.e. such as the workers’ associations, the state the mutual support companies, co-operatives (the social components of the state’s policy), and associations—which, since the 19th the capitalists (their charities) (Rapport sur century, have constituted the core of the social le Palais de l’ećonomie sociale de l’Expo- economy (Monzoń Campos, 1997, p. 92). sition universelle de 1900). For Walras, the social economy covers 2.3 The Emergence and Re-emergence of state action, which must play an essential the Social Economy role as the regulator of the market’s excesses. Walras considered the conjugation of the Several authors contend that the emer- (private) ‘interest’ (the market) and social gence and re-emergence of the social SOCIAL ECONOMY 2041 economy—practice, concepts and policy/ system, while other activities remained con- institutions—is linked to periods of crisis: nected to alternative philosophies and move- the social economy is a way to respond to ments, as shown by the many co-operative the alienation and non-satisfaction of needs activities that emerged from the 1970 alterna- by the traditional private sector or the public tive movements (Moulaert et al., 2005). sector in times of socioeconomic crisis. A periodisation in terms of specific crisis Thus, Bouchard et al. (2000, p. 6) distin- mechanisms can also be made for the recent guish three generations of enterprises in the period of capitalist history. In the 1970s, the framework of what they call the ‘old social initiatives in the field of social economy economy’, linked to the three big pre-war were, on the one hand, reactions to the crisis periods of crisis. of the mass-production system and, on the The first generation of social economy other hand, responses to the overburdening organisations emerged in the 1840s and welfare state. The return to ‘small is beautiful’ 1850s, in the context of the transition from includes favouring the creation of SMEs for the old regulation (through craftsmen corpor- local economic development and the emer- ations) to competitive regulation. Thus, the gence of not-for-profit organisations with mutual support organisations (mutuelles) social objectives. The work co-operatives and appear in the middle of 19th century as a collective services were designed to meet the form of resistance of the workers grouped in need to work in a different way, favouring corporations of craftsmen against deregula- ecological and co-operative production; the tion of the associative economy, in order goal was to establish a collective well-being to secure protection against social risks and recreate social bonds between the people (disease, accidents, death), professional risks within their communities (Lipietz, 2003) in (unemployment, strikes) or the alienation order to provide alternatives for services from basic needs (shelter, food) (Demoustier, usually rendered by the state.7 2001; Gueslin, 1987; Nussbaumer, 2002). The high unemployment in the 1980s and The second generation concerns the especially in the 1990s, and the loss of protec- agricultural co-operatives and the saving co- tion by the welfare system, explain the operatives that rose in response to the needs growing interest in the social economy: to of small producers affected by the crisis seek solutions for the crisis of employment (1873–95) of the extensive regime of accumu- by the creation of entreprises d’insertion lation that required heavy investments in agri- and of worker-owned co-operatives (Mellor culture and natural resources (Boyer, 1986). et al., 1988). If in the 1970s the collective ser- The third generation emerged from vices belonging to the social economy offered the economic collapse of 1929–32 and was alternatives to the state services, in the 1990s to a large extent the result of the crisis in they also sought to satisfy the needs neglected competitive regulation. The consumption co- by the state in the context of a crisis of operatives for food and housing supported public finance (Bouchard et al., 2000, p. 7). workers and unemployed people to allow In France, the contemporary (as of the 1980s) them to procure goods and services at re-emergence of the social economy as affordable prices. ‘social and solidarity economy’ is narrowly It should be observed that, during the post- linked to the reaction against neo-liberal World-War-II period, some of the activities principles and individualist ideology connected to the social economy became part of national institutions, as in France, ce qui distingue l’ećonomie solidaire, c’est where trade unions, as well as mutuelles or tout de meˆme que l’initiative vient de mutual aid associations, were recognised as citoyen(ne)s re´solu(e)s a` faire quelque ‘partners’ and participants in the welfare chose, parce qu’ils (elles) inte`grent dans system. Significant sections of the social leur comportement individuel l’utilite´ pour economy were integrated into the welfare tous, donc pour eux-meˆmes, de retisser 2042 FRANK MOULAERT AND OANA AILENEI

des liens sociaux, d’accumuler du capital control) of the private, public and third social, d’ame´liorer leur environnement, de sectors in the various countries, their regions de´fendre leurs voisins (parce qu’avoir des and cities. Setting some order to these terms voisins constitue souvent la premie`re and the concepts and contexts to which they ressource) (Lipietz, 2001a, p. 51). refer is necessary. The ‘solidarity economy’ thus creates synergies between actors (local authorities, private 3.1 Terminological Synergies and Confusions enterprises, state, citizens) and generates Generally speaking, the term social economy workplaces by offering new services (for designates the universe of practices and forms example, the associations for the development of mobilising economic resources towards the of proximity services, the French re´gies du satisfaction of human needs that belong quartier).8 neither to for-profit enterprises, nor to the institutions of the state in the narrow sense. Today, the term is not only used in European debates 3. Contemporary Conceptual Elucidation: but is also widespread in Latin European Defining ‘Social Economy’, ‘Third Sector’ countries where the social economy has been and ‘Solidarity Economy’ addressed as an alternative to state socialism, How can we conceptualise the ‘social making it also attractive to the church economy’ as it exists and is developing Even if [in the 20th century] parts of the today? According to the approach used by social economy have had views that Le´vesque et al. (1999), there exists a ‘third not always have corresponded with the sector’, different from the traditional public Church’s, the social economy has been ‘general interest serving’ and the private seen as an alternative to state socialism market sectors, that combines: formal and and hence been accepted by the Church informal elements at the level of organisation (Westlund, 2003, p. 165). (market, state, volunteering, self-help and the domestic economy), market and non- Essentially, the social economy is made up of market-oriented production and valorisation the voluntary, non-profit and co-operative of goods and services, monetary and sectors that are formally independent of the non-monetary resources at the level of state. Their market activities are means of funding. achieving social development goals that trans- Today, almost everywhere in western cend the market per se. Thus defined, the Europe, the US and eastern Europe, the social economy should be logically con- ‘third sector’ (French troisie`me secteur or sidered as a third sector (Browne, 1997, tiers secteur) co-exists with the private p. 1). In the US, the terms non-profit sector and public sectors. Terms such as social or voluntary sector are dominant: Salamon economy, third sector, solidarity economy and Anheier underline that “or alternative economy, non-lucrative there are those (de Tocqueville, 1835/ sector, non-profit sector, not-for-profit sector, 1945; Hall, 1992) who believe that voluntary sector, idealist sector etc. are the ‘non-profit sector’ is a distinctively increasingly used as synonyms. In particular, American concept, invented in response to the terms social economy, third sector and America’s distinctive tradition of individu- solidarity economy are often used inter- alism and hostility to statism, and its long- changeably, thus overlooking the considerable standing practice of organized action differences in meaning in different countries, outside the confines of the State (Salamon to which we want to turn our attention now. and Anheier, 1994, p. 2). These differences frequently refer to the particular forms of ‘co-existence’ (such as Non-profit sector and voluntary sector relations of co-operation, dependency or combined are used as synonymous with third SOCIAL ECONOMY 2043 sector (Lorendahl, 1997, p. 76). According to escape from the logic of the actors that Salamon and Anheier (1994, p. 3), “the UK have historically been occupied in develop- shares with the United States a rea- ment ... breaking the separation between sonably clear concept of a non-profit sector economic life (Second Sector) and social (‘voluntary sector’ in UK usage)”. Still, life (First Sector) and suscitating protago- in Anglo-Saxon terminology a distinction nists that contain this possibility (Gaiger, should be made between non-profit sector 2000, p. 2). and not-for-profit organisations. Both types of organisation are guided by the principle Voluntary sector and non-statutory sector are of not making profits as the overriding motiv- concepts mainly used in the UK tradition. ation of their activity (Wolpert and Reiner, The term social economy is of relatively 1985). But in the first case making profits recent currency in the UK and its meaning can be illegal and surpluses should be is still evolving and susceptible to many automatically allocated to the organisation’s often-contradictory interpretations (Pearce, statutory activities (Ilczuk, 2001), whereas in 1999, p. 2; Amin et al., 2003). According the second case part of the profits can be to Defourny and Monzoń Campos (1992), divided among owners or shareholders—the the term third sector is often used as the latter referring to the continental European English translation of the French concept practice in co-operatives. The term third ećonomie sociale (Lorendahl, 1997, p. 76) in sector was put forward especially by order to distinguish that part of the national Rifkin (1995), as comprising all the activities economy which is neither the private sector that are not public and not profit-oriented nor the public sector and to define all (Vuorinen et al., 1999). Rifkin makes a distin- voluntary sector or voluntary organisation ction between the North American and activity. The voluntary sector term embraces European use of the concept: while the all those organisations, large or small, which Anglo-American charitable model refers are not part of the state or part of the private mainly to non-profit organisations (associ- profit sector and will include very small com- ations and foundations, etc.), the continental munity groups, social and sports clubs, all European perception of the third sector also types of leisure groups as well as the major includes co-operative and mutual support national charities. Recently, a useful dis- organisations. Perri 6 and Vidal (1994; tinction has been drawn within the third or quoted in Vuorinen et al., 1999) stress that voluntary sector between non-governmental in the 1980s the expression third sector was organisations (NGOs) and community organ- used in a much narrower sense within the isations: the former will be large and, European context of ‘the crisis of work and despite their designation, often rely on state society’. In the sociological literature of the funding or contracts, while the latter will 1980s, the term was employed to include usually be smaller and quite independent, activities rejecting the (mainstream) capitalist operating only at local community level (labour) market, whereas today it is studied as (Pearce, 1999, p. 2). A remarkable conclusion a way of expanding the social sphere of the from all these typologies is that the market. According to Gaiger (2000), the use Anglo-Saxon literature devotes little attention of the term ‘third sector’ supposes abandon- to the role of market agents (co-operative ment of the duality between social life (first firms, mutuelles, ...) which have managed to sector) and economic life (second sector) introduce modes of organisation based on and the market/state dichotomy solidarity and reciprocity, and serving niche markets formed by members or particular the so acclaimed Third-Sector’s newness target user groups. In the (continental) and innovator potential is justified only if European contexts, many of those are not it performs an innovator-constructor role charities or foundations but, using Gaiger’s of ways of development. This means to qualifications, a different articulation of 2044 FRANK MOULAERT AND OANA AILENEI social into economic life by often-powerful institutional-political dimensions (from a socioeconomic organisations and not only historical perspective); property and control the petty underscaled or undercapitalised relations; type of ‘core’ agent; market local initiatives of moaning communities orientation; model of co-operation; contempor- (compare Amin et al., 2003). ary definitions and related concepts. These As explained in section 2, the term ećonomie dimensions have a significant role in the analy- socialeetsolidaireis used quite frequently sis in Moulaert and Nussbaumer (in this issue). today, especially in Francophone literature Observe that in Table 1 a distinction is made (France and Que´bec). Jean-Louis Laville between the encompassing concept of the (1992) had defined the ećonomie solidaire as ‘social economy’ as a whole and the ‘social a new generation of social economy with a economy’ as the more restricted economy of plurality of forms of economic activities. The co-operatives and mutuelles. The Solidarity term ećonomie sociale et solidaire is used to Economy is quite clear in its ambition to stress that the ećonomie solidaire represents a strengthen co-operation and solidarity among re(emergence) of the ‘old’ social economy agents, mainly on a voluntary and reciprocity principles. According to Lipietz (2001a, basis. In the UK and Ireland in particular, p. 53), the social economy recognises in the systems of non-monetised metrics of exchange solidary economy9 its ‘prodigal child’, and (Amin et al., 1999) and in particular local the ećonomie solidaire sees in the social exchange trade systems (LETS) are strongly economy its slightly ‘sclerotic parent’. This developed pillars of the solidarity economy image is certainly exaggerated, but it has the (O’Dohertyetal.,1999;North,1999).However, advantage of expressing the necessity of a it leaves doubts about any potential links with new approach to a different type of economy, the state or the market sector which might be that accounts more explicitly for the new brought about by aiming to create synergy, in challenges and recognises the general value the name of the same values, between of economic co-operation and reciprocity. the activities belonging to the third sector, the private sector and the public sector, or to the non-monetary sector (domestic, mutual aid 3.2 The Social Economy: The Emergence of etc.) (Lipietz, 2001a, p. 56). a Hybrid Typology The third sector concept which, as a poss- Today, the social economy represents a ible consensus concept, expresses some wide family of initiatives and organisational general contemporary society tendencies, forms—i.e. a hybridisation of market, non- especially the formation of a third practice market (redistribution) and non-monetary field, distinct from the private sector, with (reciprocity) economies showing that “the profit intention and of the state, is probably the economy is not limited to the market, but most ambiguous (Fernandes, 1994, Gaiger, includes principles of redistribution and 2000, p. 24; CBS Network, 2003, p. 13). But reciprocity” (Laville, 1994, p. 10; Godbout, although CBS does not do so, this third 2000). As a conclusion to this section, we try sector should be defined and analysed as con- to synthesise the specific features of and the nected to the other two. The first and second relations between the three concepts of third sector are defined first as a function of the sector, social economy and solidarity type of actors (private enterprise, state depart- economy, and to overcome blocks hampering ments) and second as referring to the mode of the arrival at a comprehensive definition. allocation of goods and services, whereas the We also refer to parallel concepts mentioned variety of actors and modes of social inter- in the above text, which add omitted action is the norm to define the third sector. dimensions to the three core concepts. The The diversity of actors, institutional settings main threads of the argument are presented in and activities or purposes of third-sector activi- Table 1, which compares the main features of ties is not accounted for in this typology, the three concepts according to their: whereas the variety of interactions and actors Table 1. Dimensions of social economy concepts: an overview Social economy Concepts and dimensions Social economy Third sector Solidarity economy 1. Institutional-political 19th century: institutionalise better wages, better Immediate response to crisis of ... reinforce institutional dimensions and historical work conditions, consumer satisfaction work and society in the 1980s capital perspectives 1930s: housing and food cooperatives to avoid blunt poverty 1970s: sustainable social entrepreneurship post-1980s: worker-oriented co-operatives, LETS 2. Property and control Regulatory role of state (social justice): not for profit? Non-profit? But in EU also Civil society þ public

relations Members are shareholders co-operatives þ mutual partnerships? ECONOMY SOCIAL organisations 3. Type of ‘core’ agent Firms with social objectives or socially inspired work Defined at level of sectoral Bottom–up initiatives organisations (co-operatives, mutuelles) interaction (meso-economic) or associative agents 4. Market orientation Most core agents operate in the market but according Partly—quite eclectic definition Neither market nor state? to solidarity principles (see Le´vesque et al., 1999) Lipietz: synergies with market and state sector 5. Model of co-operation– Solidarity practices of guilds, confraternities, Large component of voluntary Hybridisation of market, non- social bond– co-operative, associative þ mutual aid practice work market and non-monetary organisational model Contemporary definition Historical—eclectically integrating, most dimensions Social-economy initiatives by Stressing rediscovery of of social economy in previous epochs: social agents in civil society lien social objectives, reciprocity þ solidarity, self- Associations management, state-regulated Related concepts Non-lucrative sector Not-for-profit, independent Voluntary sector sector (UK) Non-profit (US) 2045 2046 FRANK MOULAERT AND OANA AILENEI

(and their agendas) do not play a role in the defi- socioeconomic crises and the emergence nition of sectors 1 and 2. This leads to unba- of the various forms of social economy. lanced and incomplete definitions of all Certainly, the economic crises of the 19th and sectors, easily generating analytically useless 20th centuries had a considerable impact on conclusions about ‘bad market firms’ and the emergence of various initiatives and organ- ‘good community LETS’. In fact, to talk in isations of the social economy seeking to a balanced way about the different sectors provide appropriate answers to the needs in the economy, and within the social which the troubled mechanisms of the market economy, it is important to look at all five or the less flexible mechanisms of the state dimensions of each concept, and understand fail to satisfy. In the third section, we provided why they differ in relevance. For example, in an overview of contemporary reconceptualisa- LETS as a form of solidarity economy, a large tions of the social economy, in the light of component of voluntary work and reciprocity various national approaches—stressing the in delivery relations is of higher relevance Francophoneand Anglo-Saxon—while keeping than in the economie sociale co-operatives and a record of the historical roots of the various mutuelles where the ethics and practice of concepts and definitions. Weak points of shared control and ownership relations are key the reconceptualisation turned out to be: the to the reproduction of its institutions. non-reflexive diversity of focal agents and Finally, to make progress with a comprehen- activity agendas, the superficial analysis sive definition of the social economy, of organisational relations—including the we should step beyond the question of governance of the social economy and espe- whether social economy activities (can) make cially the role of property and control relations. profits or not. The literature on the social Neglect of the articulation between different economy is characterised by an ambiguity spatial and institutional scales of the social about the orientation of financial benefits: an economy and its governance should be added ideell or non-lucrative association can make to this list. Untreated up to now, this will be a profits (considering the profits as a surplus concern of practitioners in the social return to investment after having paid all part- economy (section 4.1). ners), but these cannot be distributed to its In this fourth section of the paper, we seek to members. But, on the other hand, co- improve the connection between contemporary operatives distribute their profits to their concepts of social economy, social economy members, in proportion to their purchases or practice experiences and lessons from the their supplies of goods and services. ‘historical’ definitions surveyed in section Lorendahl (1997, p. 76) observes the tendency 2. These connections should lead to a more among American scholars to exclude co- context-grounded and institutionally embedded operatives and mutual aid organisations as conceptualisation of the social economy. associations (associative sector or third sector in the limited sense) because of their commer- 4.1 Practice-oriented Challenges: Orienting cial character. In contrast, European definitions the Definition and Delimitation of Social of social economy and of third sector, usually Economy towards Human Needs include the co-operatives, the mutual aid associations (mutuelles) and the organisations Strangely enough, many of the academic of commercial character.10 definitions of social economy hardly speak of the needs they address. In practice, however, these (often-unsatisfied) needs are 4. The Role of Practice and History in where the logic of the social economy is Analysing Today’s Social Economy rooted. Human needs are multiple and conti- In the second section of this paper, we nuously developing. Despite the knowledge stressed the existence of a clear correspon- that the finality of all productive activity is dence between the manifestations of the big the satisfaction of these needs, the market SOCIAL ECONOMY 2047 and public sector increasingly fail to satisfy to achieve all or some of the following cri- them, especially when the potential users are teria: sustainable and self financing activity, financially deprived citizens or groups operat- of benefit to those who are involved in it, to ing in the margins of mainstream society. address the needs of those who are currently At the same time, important groups of unem- disadvantaged, to encourage the ethic of ployed are no longer or have never been self-help, to replace dependency with self involved in productive activity; naturally reliance, to enhance the social fabric of a speaking, many of these unemployed people community (CAN consultants, 2002).12 could be at work in activities satisfying unsatis- INTEGRA (part of an EC EMPLOYMENT fied human needs. According to Weitzman measure). For the EC’s INTEGRA, (1987; quoted by Monzoń Campos, 1997), involuntary unemployment is the most expen- The social economy may be seen as a new, sive failure of capitalism, but the macro- or newly defined, arena of economic economic explanations based on the rigidity activity which: of real wages and on the non-flexibility of the —straddles the market, the state and non- labour market are not sufficient to account for market sectors (the latter includes activi- the size and variety of the phenomenon. ties traditionally falling within systems Monzoń Campos (1997) shows that the organi- of care and reciprocity in families and sations of the social economy (especially neighbourhoods, child-care and the care workers’ co-operatives) are efficient instru- of the elderly) ments for economic stabilisation—they —serves social as well economic ends produce more stable workplaces than the tradi- —operates on the principles of solidarity tional enterprises, for the allocation of and sustainability rather than profit resources and for the distribution of income— (INTEGRA).13 ideal forms for the allocation of public services in the social field, for the professional re- Economie sociale in the Poitou–Charente employment of workers and for the generation region. The definition that is provided here is of a culture of responsibility and participation. quite inductive. First, the types of organisation Monzoń Campos’ analysis is reflected that are involved are listed: co-operative in the operational definitions provided by enterprises, mutual aid societies and not-for- 14 ‘local’ and ‘global’ organisations working profit organisations. These activities are built with or co-ordinating micro social economy on common values: solidarity is more important initiatives. The satisfaction of various basic than financial resources; freedom of member- needs is the most straightforward socio- ship; democratic management and decisional economic objective put forward in contem- transparency (each member has one voice, one porary practice-oriented definitions of social vote). Further reading of this website shows economy.11 It is in general mentioned in com- the importance of the connection between the bination with the criteria of the organisation of social economy as a vehicle of local develop- allocation systems (market, state, redistribu- ment and social emancipation. tion, LETS) and production organisation, both from a technical and a social point of Discussion. What do we learn from these view. Let us briefly look at three ‘operational’ ‘practice’ definitions? First, there is a strong definitions of the social economy: one in the focus on production agents, rather than, as UK, one at the EU level, one in France. in many of the theoretical definitions, on opaque systems including various types of CAN consultants. According to CAN non-defined agents that work as invisible consultants, hands in the three sectors of the economy. Secondly, these agents’ activities are The social economy is the sector of activity defined in the first place with reference that functions for social purposes. It seeks to what they produce—usually for the 2048 FRANK MOULAERT AND OANA AILENEI satisfaction of needs neglected by ‘either initiatives themselves (Perna, 1998; Moulaert market or state’—and in the second place by et al., 2002, ch. 6). describing their modes of organisation and institutionalisation. There is more interest in 4.2 Historical Lessons analysing the modes of governance of social economy organisations in these practice- There is a striking correspondence between oriented definitions, than in the conceptual the ‘lessons from practice’ and the lessons analyses we addressed in the previous sec- from history (of practice and of thought) we tions. Still in these practice-based definitions, looked at in section 2. The modes of organi- there is little focus on the modes of allocation sation of the social economy and their institu- of the production output. Needs are not tionalisation in a particular period and necessarily defined on the basis of material context, the strong concern about higher existential principles, social organisational levels of governance and the explicit link to principles also play a part: solidarity and reci- ethical values found in the historical analysis procity in human production and allocation are also shared by contemporary definitions. relations are explicitly recognised as human But there are also meaningful differences, of needs by many of the social economy organis- which we will identify only two here. ations and needs satisfaction is pursued by The first, which also has an impact on iden- social innovation in the governance of these tifying the second, is the dynamic intertem- organisations. poral perspective of historical analysis and Thirdly, in most cases the link between the socio-political cycles it identifies. Very rel- social economy and local development is evant here is the historical meaning of scale explicitly recognised: it is assumed that suc- dynamics: the history of the 19th-century cessful experiences are embedded in specific social economy shows the evolution of territorial contexts. These assumptions are small local initiatives (co-operatives, support often based on satisfactory experiences, organisations) to national—and from the sounding-out a more positive discourse on ideological-political perspective also inter- the ‘local social economy’ than that developed national—initiatives such as the creation of by Amin et al. (2003). nation-wide co-operatives and their associ- Fourthly, as in the theoretical debates, there ations, the design and approval of legal is an explicit reference to the ethical values of instruments to guarantee their operations. solidarity and reciprocity. Again, as in the This ‘up-scaling’ of the social economy theoretical analysis, there is a recognition received a major new impetus under Fordism, that the social economy is a wide-spectrum when the national social security and welfare reality ranging from market firms with a par- systems integrated part of, or worked out, a tially social agenda to purely solidarity firms division of labour with social economy insti- or LETS initiatives where the capitalist tutions (especially mutual support organis- market mechanism is completely neutralised. ations). When, in the 1970s, Fordism entered Fifthly, there is an explicit concern about a major crisis, this also provoked reactions the ‘higher’ levels of governance, the need among the ‘new’ social economy initiatives to provide stabilising levers and institutions against large institutions, paternalist welfare that will guarantee the positive impact of the agents, suffocating public bureaucracy, etc. social economy on the economy and society This, together with the strong focus on local as a whole and, at the same time, provide development, explains why today’s social the instruments needed to make the social economy initiatives, despite their concern economy work. These higher levels of govern- about ‘up-scaling their governance’, are not ance are not necessarily the national state well organised at higher spatial scales, cannot or protected niche markets—although these benefit from proper legal instruments guaran- can be very effective—but can be net- teeing their sustainability and show a grand works established between social economy amateurism regarding their financial structure. SOCIAL ECONOMY 2049

This leads us to the second major difference economy in Europe, thus improving their from the lessons from history. History shows effectiveness. the importance of the material infrastructure Other lessons can be drawn from confront- of social economy initiatives. Today, this ing contemporary concepts and practice dimension remains neglected: the solidarity within an historical perspective. We think for economy must rely either on short-term example of the absence of social philosophies funding from public agencies (as in the inser- in justifying contemporary social economic tion par l’ećonomique) and grants through practice—while they were very present in the charities—which are not well defined in the social economy initiatives in other periods of continental European system, or through history, the translation of the ‘globalisation’ pseudo-market schemes as in the UK’s of the social economy in the 19th century to ‘New Deal’ third-sector initiatives—preparing problems of multilevel governance today (for social economy initiatives to reintegrate with example, maybe the need for an ‘international’ the market. The co-operative economy is of social economy organisations), learning looking for a new institutional impetus and from historical experiences in overcoming the framework, but nation-states are not providing tension between specific community needs it at present. History learns that the social and the political realism of wide-scale change economy needs its own funding schemes, movements. These issues are taken up in temporalities and supralocal governance the paper by Swyngedouw (in this issue). dynamics. A concrete example is the funding basis of the 19th-century co-operatives and 5. Conclusions their rights to make profits, if reinvested or distributed according to the norms of the Because of the challenges stemming from social economy. But also the long-standing day-to-day practice and the specific outcomes tradition of non-profit organisations in the of historical dynamics, it is very difficult— US offers a much sounder financial basis for and probably not scientifically useful—to social economy initiatives than the idealist reconcile the wide world of initiatives and contemporary constructions in continental activities connected to social economy in a Europe today. ‘one for all’ definition. Social economy is so In its criticism of the European co-operative much embedded in historical, institutional model, the Anglo-American view of funding and local contexts that it seems to escape the social economy does not stress sufficiently generalisation. Still, some guiding principles that many co-operatives were created in emerge from the variety of experiences and response to a mutual or general interest of their analysis. historical relevance (example: producing and The first is the refutation of the traditional distributing decent affordable food to the polarising views on production, distribution working class which was initially forced to and exchange. The real-life spectrum of buy overpriced foodstuffs from the 19th- initiatives and institutions lying between century factory shop). Egalitarian property pure market functioning and state adminis- rights and mutual interest (satisfaction of tration is wide. It seems that social economy basic needs) were usually two criteria for the develops as a permanent stream of inventions creation of co-operatives by the working of various social mechanisms, mixing market class; and these principles are also recognised exchange, state intervention, collective civil- in social economy practice today. Still, despite sector organisation based on social move- these differences in reading history lessons, ments driven by solidarity and reciprocity. features of the many co-operative and com- The concomitance of the development of munitarian initiatives in the US (see, for social economy and socioeconomic crises example, Bruyn and Meehan, 1987) could be can be interpreted in these terms. purposefully integrated into future operational Dissatisfaction and frustration due to models and legal frameworks of social both state intervention and market failures, 2050 FRANK MOULAERT AND OANA AILENEI widespread state and market paternalism experiences. Is a social economy ‘sustainable’ or micro-community powerlessness leave a and under which criteria? The utopian com- place for the use of other (often pre-existing) munities in 19th-century England definitely social bonds in meeting natural, psychological failed and collapsed (see Hardy, 1979). The and cultural needs. This is where social inno- third sector in France and also in Quebec is vation plays an important role in the social often threatened by financial bankruptcy economy: social innovation means innovation (Nussbaumer, 2002). And the state’s fluctuat- in social relations as well as new modes of ing commitment to social economy, essential satisfying needs. Still, social innovation does to its durability, is a source of uncertainty not mean that new social bonds emerge for the future (see Le´vesque et al., 2001; ex nihilo, but instead arise in ways more like Lipietz, 2001). This second question also a reinterpretation or reproduction of already relates to the problem of different temporal- lived social relations but within new contexts ities in the social economy: the time needed (see Gonza´lez and Healey, in this issue). to implement an ‘alternative’ investment These new contexts, however, are embedded project, the time it takes to transform state in a multiscalar society entangled in webs of governance of the social economy into a power relations (see Swyngedouw, 2005 in system supportive to durable strategies, etc., this special issue). hardly ever match. The analytical work on defining the social The last paper in this Special Topic (by economy and its governance as required by Moulaert and Nussbaumer) offers a clearer today’s unmet economic, social and political methodological positioning for defining the needs, has not progressed very significantly social economy. A distinction will be made yet. The social economy is presented as a between an essentialist and a holistic defi- family of hybrids between market, state and nition of the social economy. An essentialist civil society; but this traditional social definition uses abstract categories only and science ‘classificatory’ approach does not claims in its abstraction a conceptual general- lead to an operational definition of the social ity for a variety of specific phenomena economy. A proper analysis of the features and situations (historical epochs, territorial of each of these ‘allocation systems’ must be dynamics, institutional contexts). A holistic left to empirical analysis that shows the definition in contrast does not pursue genera- immense diversity of social economy patterns. lity, but inclusiveness. A holist theory A definition of the term must account for focuses on the dialectics between general the many forms of social relations that mechanisms, on the one hand, and specific exist and their embeddedness in specific situations on the other hand. A holist defi- social, cultural, historical and institutional nition, therefore, looks more like a dialectal backgrounds. argument between generality and specificity, At least two questions remain to be taking into account history, institutions and addressed while considering the history of territorial context, practice and reflection; it the concept of the social economy. Does the takes distance from an omni-valuable formula diversity within social economy concepts as provided in an essentialist definition. and practices leaves a space for a normative approach that could help to improve the social efficiency of the various initiatives? Notes Are there any guidelines that could enable 1. In this paper, we use the term ‘social the evaluation of the social economy? This economy’ with two meanings; first, as an issue is important for understanding what is general overarching concept, ‘a family meant by good governance for the social name’ representing a wide variety of other terms which themselves cover diverse economy (see Moulaert and Nussbaumer, in features; secondly, as a comprehensive, this issue). It also leads us to a second more tightly defined concept which we question that rises from the analysis of past hope to elaborate in this paper, and in SOCIAL ECONOMY 2051

Moulaert and Nussbaumer (in this issue). combined with a broader objective (recrea- The terminological wealth in social economy tion of social links, creation of workplaces, literature is legion, but does not arrive at a participation to the political life, etc.). conflation of terms, only at highlighting 9. The term ‘solidary’ is not proper English, but particular dimensions of the social economy is also in English increasingly used as an which receive specific names in particular adjective in contemporary debates on ‘soli- social and historical circumstances. darity’ bonds in co-operative organisations. 2. The aims of the guilds (associations of 10. L’ećonomie sociale ... regroupe une large craftsmen) are to guarantee mutual aid and varie´te´ d’organisations a` but lucratif to protect their members from improper comme les socie´te´s d’assurances mutuelles, competition. les banques d’e´pargne, les coope´ratives et 3. Associations of workers, securing lodging, les organisations de commercialisation food, education and social protection for agricoles qui pourraient eˆtre conside´reés the ‘companions’. The Socie´te´ des fourreurs comme incluses dans la sphe`re commerciale de vair appeared in Paris in 1319, as a (Salamon and Anheier, 1992, p. 129; quoted society of mutual support, providing its in Lorendahl, 1997, p. 76). members with support when they fell sick 11. Basic needs can be biological (food, rest), or unable to work. bio-psychological (clothing, shelter), psycho- 4. D’une manie`re geńe´rale, les chre´tiens logical (knowledge, relational) or socio- sociaux du XIXe sie`cle appellent de leurs cultural (intellectual, autonomy) (see Ekins voeux des ‘corps interme´diaires’ pour lutter and Max-Neef, 1992). contre l’isolement de l’individu, tare du libe´- 12. CAN is a workers co-operative of specialist ralisme et contre l’absorption de l’individu trainers and consultants. Established in dans l’Etat, pie`ge du jacobinisme (Defourny 1989, CAN draws on a wide range of experi- and Develtere, 1997, p. 3). ence in developing the social economy 5. Auguste Ott (1814–1903), French lawyer, sector and is now recognised as a leader in essayist and journalist was interested in phil- the field (http://www.co-op-assist.co.uk/ osophy and political economy. socecon.htm#cda). 6. Meaning that ‘inventing’ things often 13. In May 1996, the European Commission happens after they have been around for a introduced a new strand to the EMPLOY- while. MENT Initiative called INTEGRA. This 7. Avec la crise des anneés 70, de petites replaced the Horizon Disadvantaged structures empruntent les meˆmes formes Strand. This information has been obtained juridiques, mais en retrouvent la mystique from a publication by the Irish part of originelle. Elles mettent en avant l’ideéde Integra entitled The social economy: poten- “travailler autrement”, l’ideé “d’autonomie” tial and pitfalls (Integra Review, 2, Winter et choisissent leur activite´ pour servir la 1996; available at http://www.iol.ie/ communaute´ bien au-dela` des besoins EMPLOYMENT/integra/sepp.html). de leurs clients directs. On veut recreér du 14. See http://www.cres-pch.org/cestquoi/ lien social, entre les gens, redonner du sens default.htm. Persons do not become a` ce qu’on fait, commercer avec son voisin members as shareholders—associations are (ou des fournisseurs d’un autre continent) governed according to democratic principles pas seulement pour l’inte´reˆt du produit, and not as a function of the financial capital mais pour se sortir tous ensemble de la that members provide. ‘One person, one crise. Dans cette ećonomie sociale ET vote’ is one of the formal rules of the AUSSI solidaire, l’ećologie (le rapport social economy. Georges Fauquet (1935/ entre tous les humains par le biais de leur 1965) suggests the notion of ‘associations environnement) devient une preóccupation de personnes’ to illustrate this principle. cardinale. Il faut produire, mais produire du bien-eˆtre collectif et pourquoi pas du References bonheur (Lipietz, 2003). 8. A type of association that appeared in AMIN, A., CAMERON, A. and HUDSON, R. (1999) 1980 in Roubaix, Meaux, Marseilles and Welfare as work? The potential of the UK Besançon (cities in France), which join social economy, Environment and Planning A, together local communities, organisations 31, pp. 2033–2051. of social housing and inhabitants to manage AMIN, A., CAMERON, A. and HUDSON, R. (2003) their territory. The technical mission (main- The alterity of the social economy, in: R. LEE, tenance of housing, of green spaces, the ani- A. LEYSHON and C. WILLIAMS (Eds) Alternative mation of the neighbourhood, etc.) is Economic Spaces, pp. 27–54. London: Sage. 2052 FRANK MOULAERT AND OANA AILENEI

BARTHE´ LEMY, M. (2000) Associations: un nouvel GODBOUT, J. (2000) Le don, la dette et l’identite´: aˆge de la participation? Paris: Presses de L’homo donator vs homo œconomicus. Paris: Sciences Po. La Dećouverte. BIDET, E. (1997) L’ećonomie sociale. Paris: Le GUESLIN, A. (1987) L’invention de l’ećonomie Monde-Editions. sociale. Paris: Economica. BOUCHARD,M.,BOURQUE,G.andLE´ VESQUE,B. HALL, P. (1992) Inventing the Nonprofit Sector. (2000) L’e´valuation de l’ećonomie sociale dans Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University la perspective des nouvelles formes de re´gulation Press. socio-ećonomique de l’inte´reˆtgeńe´ral. Working HARDY, D. (1979) Alternative Communities in Paper No. 0013, Cahiers du CRISES. Nineteenth Century England. London: Longman. BOYER, R. (1986) La theórie de la re´gulation: une ILCZUK, D. (2001) Private action for the public analyse critique. Paris: La Dećouverte. good: regulations, incentives and examples of BROWNE, P. L. (1997) The two faces of the social practice (http://www.coe.int/). economy. Paper presented at the Eighth Confer- LAVILLE, J.-L. (1992) Les services de proximite´ en ence of Canadian Welfare Policy, University of Europe. Paris: Vuibert. Regina, Saskatchewan, June. LAVILLE, J.-L. (Ed.) (1994) L’ećonomie solidaire, BRUYN, S. T. and MEEHAN, J. (1987) Beyond the une perspective internationale. Paris: Descleé Market and the State: New Directions in Com- de Brouwer. munity Development. Philadelphia, PA: Temple LAVILLE, J.-L. and DELFAU, G. (2000) Aux sources University Press. de l’ećonomie solidaire. Domont: Ed. Thierry CBS (COMMUNITY BUSINESS SCOTLAND) Quinqueton. NETWORK (2003) Social enterprise development LE´ VESQUE, B., BOURQUE, G. L. and FORGUES,E. and the social economy in Scotland (http:// (2001) La nouvelle sociologie ećonomique. www.cbs-network.org.uk). Paris: Descleé de Brouwer. DEFOURNY, J. and DEVELTERE, P. (1997) Jalons LE´ VESQUE,B.,MALO,M.-C.andGIRARD,J.-P. pour une clarification des de´bats sur l’ećonomie (1999) L’ancienne et la nouvelle ećonomie sociale. ADA (Appui au De´veloppement Auto- sociale, in: J. DEFOURNY,P.DEVELTERE and nome) Dialogue No. 2, Luxembourg (http:// B. FONTENEAU (Eds) L’ećonomie sociale au Nord www.globenet.org/horizon-local/ada/9721.html). et au Sud, pp. 195–216. Paris: De Boeck & Larcier. DEFOURNY, J. and MONZO´ N CAMPOS, J. L. (1992) LEYSHON, A., LEE, R. and WILLIAMS, C. C. (Eds) E´ conomie Sociale–Third Sector. Brussels: De (2003) Alternative Economic Spaces. London: Boeck. Sage. DEMOUSTIER, D. (2001) L’ećonomie sociale et LIPIETZ, A. (2001a) Pour le tiers secteur. L’ećon- solidaire: s’associer pour entreprendre autre- omie sociale et solidaire: pourquoi, comment. ment. Paris: Syros. Paris: La Dećouverte. DESROCHE, H. (1991), Histoire d’ećonomies LIPIETZ, A. (2001b) Du halo socie´tal au tiers sociales. D’un Tiers E´ tat aux Tiers secteurs. secteur: pour une loi-cadre sur les socie´te´sa` (1791–1991). Paris: Syros-Alternatives. vocation sociale, in: C. FOUREL (Ed.) La nou- DUNOYER, CH. (1830) Nouveau traite´ d’ećonomie velle ećonomie sociale: efficacite´, solidarite´, sociale, ou simple exposition des causes sous de´mocratie, pp. 27–42. Paris: La Dećouverte l’influence desquelles les hommes parviennent & Syros. a` user de leurs forces avec le plus de LIPIETZ, A. (2003) Travailler autrement, pour autre LIBERTE´ , c’est-a`-dire avec le plus FACILITE´ chose, Vert Mensuel, 3(December) (http:// et de PUISSANCE. Paris: Sautelet. lipietz.net/article.php3?id_article¼1162). EKINS, P. and MAX-NEEF, M. (1992) Real-life LORENDAHL, B. (1997) L’inte´gration de l’ećono- Economics: Understanding Wealth Creation. mie publique et de l’ećonomie sociale et London: Routledge. coope´rative: vers un nouveau mode`le sue´dois?, FAUQUET, G. (1935/1965) Le secteur co-operatif. in: L. MONNIER and B. THIRY (Eds) Mutations Paris: Institut des e´tudes co-operatives. structurelles et inte´reˆtgeńe´ral, pp. 73–88. FERNANDES, R. C. (1994) Privado, pore´mpu´blico: Bruxelles: De Boeck. o terceiro setor na Ame´rica Latina. Rio de MELLOR, M., HANANH, J. and STIRLING, J. (1988) Janeiro: Relume-Dumara´. Worker Cooperatives in Theory and Practice. GAIGER, L.-I. (2000) Solidary popular economy in Milton Keynes: Open University Press. third-sector Horison. Paper presented at the MONZO´ N CAMPOS, J. L. (1997) Les contributions ISTR Fourth International Conference, Dublin, de l’ećonomie sociale a` l’inte´reˆtgeńe´ral, in: July. L. MONNIER and B. THIRY (Eds) Mutations GIDE, C. (1912) Les Institutions de Progre`s Social. structurelles et inte´reˆtgeńe´ral, pp. 89–100. Paris: Librairie de la Socie´te´ du Recueil Sirey. Bruxelles: De Boeck. SOCIAL ECONOMY 2053

MOREAU, J. (1994) L’ećonomie sociale face a` SALAMON, L. M. and ANHEIER, H. K. (1992) In the l’ultralibe´ralisme. Paris: Syros search of the nonprofit sector. I: the question of MOULAERT, F. (2002) Globalization and Inte- definitions, Voluntas, 3(2), pp. 125–151. grated Area Development in European Cities. SALAMON, L. M. and ANHEIER, H. K. (1994) London: Oxford University Press. Caring sector or caring society? Discovering MOULAERT, F., MARTINELLI, F. and SWYNGE- the nonprofit sector cross-nationally. Working DOUW, E. (2005) Social innovation, governance Papers on the Johns Hopkins Comparative Non- and community building. EC FP6, Final Report. profite Sector Project, Institute for Policy Lille/Newcastle, IFRESI and GURU. Studies, The Johns Hopkins University. NORTH, P. (1999) Explorations in heterotopia: SALAMON, L. M. and ANHEIER H. K. (1995) The Local Exchange Trading Schemes (LETS) and Emerging Sector: The Nonprofit Sector in Com- the micropolitics of money and livelihood, parative Perspective. An Overview. Baltimore, Environment and Society D: Society and MD: Johns Hopkins University. Space, 17, pp. 69–86. TOCQUEVILLE,A.DE (1835/1945) Democracy in NUSSBAUMER, J. (2002) Le roˆle de la culture et des America. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, Inc. institutions dans les de´bats sur le de´veloppement TOPALOV, C. (1999) Les ‘re´formateurs’ et leurs local: la contribution de l’Ecole Historique re´seaux: enjeux d’un objet de recherche, in: Allemande. PhD Thesis, Lille: University of C. TOPALOV (Ed.) Laboratoires du nouveau Lille I, Faculty of Social Science. sie`cle: la ne´buleuse re´formatrice et ses re´seaux O’DOHERTY, R. K., DURRSCHMIDT, J. and en France, 1880–1914, pp. 11–58. Paris: PURDUE, D. A. (1999) Local exchange and Editions de l’E´ cole des Hautes E´ tudes en trading schemes: a useful strand of community Sciences Sociales. economic development policy?, Environment VUORINEN,P.ET AL. (1999), Elargir le Marche´ du and Planning A, 31, pp. 1639–1653. Travail pour une Cohesion Sociale. une OTT, A. (1851) Traite´ d’ećonomie sociale. Paris: recherche d’initiatives pour la creátion Renou-e´diteur. d’emplois. Final report for the Council of PEARCE, J. (1999) Epose Regional Report— Europe. Office of the European Committee for Community Business Scotland Network. CBS Social Cohesion, 2nd meeting, Strasbourg, Network, Edinburgh: Princes House (http:// June (http://www.coe.int). www.cbs-network.org.uk/EPOSErep.html). WALRAS, L. (1872–74/1996) Cours. Paris: PERNA, T. (1998) Fair Trade. La sfida etica al Economica. mercato mondiale. Torino: Bollati Boringhieri, WALRAS, L. (1896) Etudes d’ećonomie sociale 1998. (Theórie de la re´partition de la richesse PERRI 6 and VIDAL, I. (1994) (Eds) Delivering sociale). Lausanne: F. Rouge. Welfare: Repositioning non-profit and co- WEITZMAN, M. L. (1987) La economıá de partici- operative action in Western European welfare pacioń. Me´xico: Fondo de Cultura Econo´mica. states. Barcelona: Centre d’Iniciatives de WESTLUND, H. (2003) Social economy and l’Economia Social (CIES). employment: the case of Sweden, Review of RAHNEMA,MA. (2001) La production de la pauv- Social Economy, 61(2), pp. 163–182. rete´ moderne, L’E´ cologiste, 2(4), pp. 29–32. WOLPERT, J. and REINER, T. (1985) The not-for- RIFKIN,J.(1995)The End of Work: The Decline of profit sector in stable and growing metro- the Global Labor Force and the Dawn of the politan regions, Urban Affairs Quarterly, Post-market Era. New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons. 20(4), pp. 487–510.