A Comparison of Rural Social Enterprises in Britain and the Czech Republic
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Department of Environmental Humanities, Faculty of Social Studies, Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic A Comparison of Rural Social Enterprises in Britain and the Czech Republic PhD. Thesis Brno 2007 Nadia Johanisova Supervisor: Jan Keller 1 I hereby declare that I fully worked out this thesis by myself with the use of the references cited. Ostrolovsky Ujezd, 14 th April 2007 Nadia Johanisova (Nad ěžda Johanisová) 2 Czech scientific thinking remains heavily influenced by the German school and its emphasis on precise scientific terminology. However, I am an adherent of the Anglo- Saxon approach, and I try to use a language which enables even the ordinary person to understand what I am talking about. Thus, while my colleagues will speak of Rip as a concave elevation, I don´t have a problem with using the word “hill”. Science must have a heart, or it will lead us to no good. – Vaclav Cilek, Czech geologist and essayist The great struggle of the twenty–first century will be between those who believe in cheap goods and those who believe in place. This is a struggle that defies easy ideological definition. Advocates of cheap goods now dominate the major political parties, and run nearly every City Hall…But across the political spectrum are dissidents who worry about the costs to nature, to families, and to communities. They are asking whether the future of civilization and humanity must be defined by an unlimited need to consume. – Michael Shuman, American community economist 3 ANNOTATIONS This dissertation is focused on the phenomenon of rural social enterprise in Britain and the Czech Republic, its possible environmental dimension and its wider historical, social, and economic context and implications. It is based on a field study in both countries in 2002-2003 involving 71 social enterprises (46 in Britain and 25 in the Czech Republic). The motivations of the respondents, the structure and governance of the organisations, their survival strategies and problems identified by respondents are presented. The theoretical background includes sections on the “rural”, on social enterprise as a possible factor in economic power diffusion, on historical and current thinking about alternative economic approaches and on social enterprise definitions with an excursion into Czechoslovakian rural co-operative history. In the discussion, I look at the differences and similarities encountered in both countries and try to put the survival strategies encountered into a broader perspective. Annotations and contact details of all the projects interviewed are in the Appendix. Tato diserta ční práce ( Venkovské etické podnikání v Británii a České republice) se zabývá fenoménem venkovského etického podnikání (social enterprise) v Británii a České republice, jeho možnou environmentální dimenzí a jeho širším kontextem historickým, sociálním a ekonomickým. Základ tvo ří výsledky terénního výzkumu v obou zemích v letech 2002-2003, který zahrnul 71 organizací (46 v Británii a 25 v České republice). Výsledková část shrnuje motivace respondent ů, organiza ční strukturu jejich organizací, jejich strategie p řežití a bariéry dalšího rozvoje. Teoretický úvod se zabývá významem a souvislostmi pojmu “venkov”, vztahem etického podnikání a ekonomické moci, alternativními ekonomickými p řístupy v sou časnosti a minulosti, a definicemi etického podnikání, v četn ě exkurse do historie československého zem ědělského družstevnictví. V diskusi se zabývám zjišt ěnými rozdíly a podobnostmi v obou zemích a snažím se vysledované strategie p řežití zahrnout do širších souvislostí, nazna čených v teoretické části. V p říloze jsou anotace a kontakty všech zkoumaných organizací. 4 HISTORY AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS A substantial part of this thesis first saw life as an unpublished report of the new economics foundation, London, in August 2004 (Capitalism with a human face? A comparison of rural social enterprises in Britain and the Czech Republic). In March 2005 the report was jointly published by Feasta, Dublin and the new economics foundation, London, as a book (Living in the cracks: A look at rural social enterprises in Britain and the Czech Republic). Many people and several institutions helped at its inception and maturation. I was based at the Centre for Human Ecology (CHE), then in Edinburgh, for the duration of my research in Britain, and was fortunate to be able to use its material resources and, crucially, to be a part of the supportive network of teachers and students of this unusual, independent and inspiring institution of higher learning. Thanks to CHE I was also able to visit the remote Isle of Eigg (project no. 17 in Appendix 1). The new economics foundation (nef) provided technical support and helped with advice, contacts and introductions during my work in Britain. I am particularly grateful to nef senior associate Pat Conaty, my supervisor for the duration of the nef project, for his ongoing support, practical and theoretical advice, clear and original thinking and in-depth discussions which helped me formulate my ideas and plans and gave me a perspective on the wider aspects of social enterprise. Pat was also instrumental in setting up my nef project steering group comprising himself and Johnston Birchall (University of Stirling), Richard Douthwaite (Feasta) and Steve Bendle (then Envolve, Bath) and these colleagues also generously gave of their time and expertise. In addition, Pat read through an early draft of the nef report and his comments and encouragement were very much appreciated. I remain deeeply influenced by his thinking. My understanding of British farming and rural issues was enhanced by interviews with Amanda Daniels (Soil Association), Kari Ward (Countryside Agency), Sue Fowler (University of Aberystwyth), Jules Pretty (University of Essex) and with farmers Tina and Phil Heathcote (Buxton, Derbyshire), John and Hilary Hoskin (Dorchester, Dorset), Peter and Mary Thorne (Byworth, Sussex), Theresa Toomey (Brecon, South Wales) and Ruth Watkins (Hereford). Although their farms and projects were for various reasons not included in the research, I drew on the answers of Hilary Hoskin and Theresa Toomey in section 2.1.2. Of my interviewees, I have remained in touch with several. I am especially grateful to Tim Crabtree for interesting and inspiring discussions and for his unpublished materials I have been able to draw on. My thanks must also go to Belgian economist Christophe Guene for interesting discussions on the issue of ethical finance in a European context. In the Czech Republic my student Tomas Fort did three of the interviews (see Appendix 1), Ludmila Nemcova discussed Czech co-ops and provided valuable literature, Pavel Seliga explained about the Romney marketing co-op, Eva Medkova and Zdenek Kucera discussed rural issues, Lukas Hampl provided valuable information about Czech credit union issues. My research in Britain was supported by an EU Socrates grant and by funding from the RH Southern Trust and the Polden Puckham Charitable Foundation. I would further like to thank my Ph.D. supervisor Jan Keller for his encouragement and belief in my work and for suggesting some pertinent literature. I am also grateful to Hana Librova for her interest, support and ideas, and last but not least to Jirka Nedoma for crucial technical help with the graphics and text editing. 5 CONTENTS 1.INTRODUCTION …………………………………………………………… 7 1.1 Pre-analytic vision and research questions ………………………………… 7 1.2 Theoretical background …………………………………………………..… 15 1.2.1 The “rural”: definitions, projections and realities ……………………… 15 1.2.2 Economic democracy, economic freedom and resistance against commodification ……………………………………………………..… 27 1.2.3 New visions for old: Swadeshi, localisation, short circuits and non- commodified capital …………………………………….……...……… 38 1.2.4 Embedding the concept of social enterprise ………………………….… 72 1.3 Methodology ………………………………………………………………… 88 2 FINDINGS …………………………………………………………………… 94 2.1 Results ……………………………………………………………….……… 94 2.1.1 Classification and activities of the social enterprises studied ..………… 94 2.1.2 Personal motivations of the respondents ……………………….……… 109 2.1.3 A look on the inside: structure and governance ……………..………… 114 2.1.4 Finding the muscle: financial and other survival strategies of social enterprises ……………………………………………………………… 128 2.1.5 A threat to the small? The perceived challenges …..…………………… 144 2.2 Discussion …………………………………………………………………… 153 2.2.1 Differences: learning from each other ………………..………………… 153 2.2.2 Common themes ………………………………………………...……… 169 2.2.3 Reclaiming the vision: social enterprise and radical reformism ………. 173 3 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ………………………………...……… 192 NOTES ………………………………………………………………………..… 201 LIST OF TABLES, FIGURES AND BOXES ………………...……………… 228 REFERENCES ………………………………………………………………… 229 APPENDICES ………………………………………………………..………… 249 Appendix 1 Brief descriptions and contact details of projects ………..……… 249 Appendix 2 Rural fragments ……………………………………………….… 268 Appendix 3 Co-operative principles …………………………………….…… 271 NAME INDEX …………………………………………………….…………… 273 6 1.INTRODUCTION 1.1 Pre-analytic vision and research questions Herman Daly in his book Beyond Growth (1996:6) makes use of the term „preanalytic vision“, first coined by the economist Joseph Schumpeter. Essentially, these are the basic assumptions, concerns and values which colour the choice of topic, questions and methods of the researcher. 1 Paradoxically, it is crucial to formulate and acknowledge one´s own pre-analytic vision if one is to be truly objective.