Worker Ownership, Democratic Management and Developmental Freedom in British Worker Co-operatives Robin Mark Jervis PhD University of York Politics, Economics and Philosophy January 2016 Abstract This thesis examines whether worker co-operatives are able to construct institutions of work which improve the control and security of individuals in an otherwise insecure liberal capitalist environment, drawing together literature on the viability of co- operatives, work within co-operatives and the 'developmental freedom' approach. This would be manifest in an increase in members' control over working life, an increase in economic security for individuals, and more meaningful work. The thesis extends upon the established theoretical foundations of the 'developmental freedom' understanding of work, which values control over work and control over time, by applying it to the worker co-operative. The thesis engages in a review of the theoretical and empirical literature on such organisations from economic and political perspectives, and original qualitative empirical evidence is provided by interviews at four case study co-operatives from the UK. The thesis concludes firstly that co-operatives offer an experience of work governed by social bonds of reciprocity and solidarity; secondly that they are beneficial for control over time for individuals in both the short and long term; and finally such firms are able to survive and develop in liberal capitalist economies, in part due to the embedded relationships of control within them, but under strain due to the constraints of such a system which in turn inhibit control. 2 Table of Contents Abstract 2 Table of Contents 3 List of Tables 7 Acknowledgements 8 Author's Declaration 11 1: Introduction 12 1.1 Defining Worker Co-operatives 13 1.2 The Existing Literature 16 1.3 Synopsis of Chapters 18 2: Work and Control 21 2.1 Work in Capitalism 23 2.2 Motivation, Security and Control Over Time 32 2.3 Conclusion 37 3: Theoretical Perspectives on Co-operatives in Capitalism 39 3.1 Ownership and Control 40 3.2 Political and Economic Cases for Worker Control 44 3.3 Property Rights and Different Capitalisms 48 3.4 The Case Against Co-operatives 53 3.4.1 Management of Co-operatives 54 3.4.2 Finance in Co-operatives 55 3.4.3 Degeneration of Co-operatives 61 3.5 Questions and Hypotheses for Research 66 3.6 Conclusion 68 4: Review of Empirical Studies of Co-operatives 70 4.1 Co-operatives in the UK in the 1970s and 1980s 71 3 4.1.1 Typologies of Co-operatives from this Literature 72 4.1.2 Findings from the 1970s and 1980s 73 4.2 Rescue Co-operatives 80 4.2.1 Worker-Owned Factories in the Argentinian Crisis 83 4.2.2 Conclusions on Rescue Co-operatives 86 4.3 US Co-operatives 87 4.3.1 Plywood Co-operatives 89 4.4 Large Wholefoods Co-operatives 91 4.5 The Mondragón Federation 94 4.6 Conclusions, Hypotheses and Questions for Research 96 4.6.1 Hypotheses and Questions 99 5: Methods 101 5.1 Research Design 102 5.1.1 Case Study Approach 105 5.1.2 Generalisability 107 5.2 Sampling 108 5.2.1 Sampling Co-operatives 109 5.2.2 Sampling Participants 111 5.3 Data Collection 111 5.4 Data Analysis 114 5.5 Ethical Considerations 115 5.6 Conclusion 117 6: Wholefoods A: A successful firm run as a co-operative (Case Study 1) 118 6.1 Introduction 118 6.1.1 About the Dataset 118 6.2 History of the Co-operative 119 6.3 Organisation of Work: Flexibility and Control 120 6.4 Membership and Democracy 124 6.5 Finance 126 6.6 Conclusion 128 4 7: The Printing Co-op: Survival in a declining sector (Case Study 2) 130 7.1 Introduction 130 7.1.1 About the Dataset 130 7.2 History of the Co-operative 131 7.3 Organisation of Work: Flexibility and Control 131 7.4 Membership and Democracy 133 7.5 Finance 136 7.6 Conclusion 139 8: The Bakery Co-op: A small start-up co-operative (Case Study 3) 140 8.1 Introduction 140 8.1.1 About the Dataset 140 8.2 History of the Co-operative 140 8.3 Organisation of Work: Flexibility and Control 142 8.4 Membership and Democracy 143 8.5 Finance 144 8.6 Conclusion 146 9: Wholefoods B: A large worker co-operative (Case Study 4) 148 9.1 Introduction 148 9.1.1 About the Dataset 148 9.2 History of the Co-operative 148 9.3 Organisation of Work: Flexibility and Control 149 9.4 Membership and Democracy 154 9.5 Finance 160 9.6 Conclusion 162 10: Analysis of Cases 164 10.1 Common Findings Between Studies 165 10.1.1 Co-operative Structures of Control 165 10.1.2 Social Function of Co-operatives 168 10.1.3 The UK Environment 169 10.2 Control Over Work 170 10.3 Control Over Time 174 5 10.4 Security, Stability and Survival 176 10.5 The Co-operative Literature: Support and Dissent 184 10.6 Conclusion 190 11: Conclusions 193 11.1 Answering the Research Questions 195 11.2 Evaluation of the Empirical Study 199 11.3 Avenues of Further Research 202 11.4 Concluding Remarks 203 Appendix 1: Interview Forms for Participants 207 Participant Information Sheet 207 Consent for Use of Interview Data 209 List of Abbreviations 211 Bibliography 212 6 List of Tables Table 1: “A preliminary typology of worker co-operatives” from Cornforth et al. 72 (1988:9, Table 1.1), adapted to include case studies. Table 2: Location of cases with respect to three variables 110 7 Acknowledgements This thesis could not have been written without the contributions and support of a huge number of people, and I am grateful for the chance to recognise some of them here. First thanks must go to the research participants, who gave up time during their work day to speak candidly about their experiences, and to the co-operatives' memberships for allowing me into their businesses. At every co-operative I was given a wonderful welcome and given everything I needed. The time spent discussing your workplaces was invaluable for the research but also fascinating and eye-opening on a personal level. Particular thanks go to those who organised the visits at each co-operative and put forward the idea of my research at your meetings. Thanks also to those members of other co-operatives who contributed their time and efforts to the project. I have had the privilege of working with my supervisor, Dr. Louise Haagh, since my MA in 2010. At every point in my work she has been able to offer advice which has been timely, insightful and vital for this project. Without her patience, encouragement and critique this project would not have been possible. I would like to thank Dr. Haagh and the secondary supervisors I have worked with – Professor Matt Matravers, for his insights, advice and friendship; Dr. Chris Rogers, in particular for his support during data collection and his expertise in mutual organisations; and Dr. Liam Clegg, who offered support as a friend and colleague throughout, and helped to guide me towards the completion of the thesis. I believe the entire supervision team went far beyond what could have been expected and for this I cannot thank them enough. The Department of Politics and the School of PEP were both sources of resources and funding throughout the project, as well as excellent employers (as was, on the third point, the York Management School). I would like to thank the administrative and management teams of both departments for their support, particularly Liz O'Brien for keeping track of everything and keeping our spirits up, Lisa Webster for organising my work in the department, and Andi Carte for both her administrative support and her friendship. I would also like to thank the academic staff in Politics and PEP (past and present) for making me feel welcome and valued, and for their words of advice with 8 particular mention to Dr. Rob Aitken, Professor Werner Bonefeld, Dr. Jim Buller, Professor Neil Carter, Dr. Jacob Eriksson, Professor Matthew Festenstein, Professor Tony Heron, Dr. Dan Keith, Dr. Audra Mitchell, Dr. Martin O'Neill, Dr. Simon Parker, Professor Mozaffar Qizilbash, Dr. Carole Spary, and the late Professor Adrian Leftwich. Various groups and individuals within academia have offered advice and encouragement throughout, and although there are too many to name every one, I would like to recognise the support of the members of the PSA Politics of Property Specialist Group, for valuable feedback on conference papers and lively discussion; the White Rose Centre for Employee Ownership for offering valuable and interesting conferences, and in particular the advice of Professor Andrew Robinson and support of Professor Andrew Pendleton; some timely and valuable advice about fieldwork from Professor Andrew Hindmoor; advice on working with co-operatives and use of a library of rare books on the topic from Professor Neil Carter, advice on writing a PhD from Dr. John Issitt, all those who have offered feedback and critique on my papers at conferences, Steve Roskams for his excellent supervision during the 'Preparing Future Academics' programme, and finally members of the Anarchist Studies Network, members of the executive of the UCU York Branch, and members of the PSA Marxism group for their interest and encouragement. I am glad that I was able to share the burdens of PhD writing and enjoy the company of so many comrades over the years – John Mellors, Matthew Evans, Paul Tobin, William Vittery, Adam Fusco, Soner Çubukçu, Juliana Bidadanure, Mehmet Erol, John Baxter, James Hodgson, Nihan Toprakkiran, Alex Lewis, Luis Rodrigues, Dominic Spengler, David Cole, Beth Kahn, Peg Murray-Evans, Katie Bishop, Carlos Solar, Elena Gergen, Sohaib Jamali, Wonseop Song, Michael Bennett, Taehoek Lee, Donqing Yang, Farhad Sefat, Elisabeth Thorson, Jean-Paul Skeete, Ben Chwistek and many others (with apologies to any missed out!).