1. Social Economy Theory of the Social Capital

2. Anthropology of human societies Side by side with family housekeeping, there have been three principles of production and distribution:  Reciprocity  Redistribution  Market Prior to the market revolution, humanity’s economic relations were subordinate to the social. Now economic relations are now generally superior to social ones.

3. Root of social economy in workers’ movements Various traditions--socialist, Christian, liberal (Owen, Saint-Simon, Fourier, Proudhon). Context was industrialisation, proletarianisation and pauperisation Multifunctional associations aiming to create a micro- social space of solidarity and to step in as actors in the area of economic organisation, both at the level of production and at the level of distribution. Made some use of traditional types of solidarity (families, corporations), but grounded in principles of liberty and equality between members. (Nyssens, 1997: 178-9).

4. Social economy as the ‘third way’ ‘In the conflict between capitalism and socialism which characterized twentieth century Europe, the social economy became a "third" way.’ (Westlund, 2003: 1193). State involvement in social services ended the multifunctionality of the third sector.  mutual benefit societies specialized in social protection  cooperatives confined their activities to consumption  trade unions turned to the ‘workers’ struggle’. Dissociation between the economic (the sphere of the market) and the social (the sphere of the state). (Nyssens, 1997: 179).

5. Nyssens’ definition Essentially seeing the social economy as filling gaps left by the private and public sectors Generates three poles of economic activity

7. Evolution of social economy in three stages 1. Network-based associations with various functions arising to solve specific problems, with both an economic and a political identity. 2. Integration into a modernisation project that favoured the market-state synergy: marginalization. 3. A revitalization following the crisis of the market-state relationship

8. Westlund’s definition Revolves around the nature of relationships ‘Reciprocity can be described in terms of give-and-take in a relationship between actors who, to a certain extent are equals... Mutuality is often used as a synonym for reciprocity... Reciprocity of social relations creates mutuality of economic relations, but mutuality in economic transactions is no guarantee of reciprocity in social relations.’

9. Like the family economy the social economy is based on reciprocity; unlike the family economy kinship is not involved; The market economy and public sector are based on monetary exchange; the social economy is not; The public sector is based on official legislation, whereas the social economy is based on commonality of interests and values; The market economy and public sector are based primarily on material capital whereas the social economy is based primarily on social capital.

10. Pearce’s definition Complex and based on 'systems‘ It attempts to include all the different types of organization that exist in a modern economy, which is a strength as well as a weakness Inclusion of the level, from local to global, is useful It does not deal adequately with coops

11. References Nyssens, M. (1997), ‘Popular economy in the South, third sector in the North: Are they signs of a germinating economy of solidarity?’, Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, 68/2: 171-200. Westlund, H. (2003), ‘Form or contents? On the concept of social economy’, International Journal of Social Economics, 30/11: 1192- 1206.

13. An economy of solidarity? The projects of an economy of solidarity have a tendency to reunite that which has long been separated and to question some presuppositions of the market-state synergy: the separation between the economic and the social, the sharp dividing line between paid work and leisure, the state’s monopoly on solidarity, the market-state dichotomy, and so on.

14. Characteristics Bottom-up—what we might have called mutualism Anti-capitalist? At least anti- globalisation Importance of the local—level of control Reduction of consumption and respect for the planet—a partially new concern

15. Social capital Relationships matter Social networks are a valuable asset Interaction enables people to Build communities Commit to each other Build the social fabric

16. Robert Putnam 'Whereas physical capital refers to physical objects and human capital refers to the properties of individuals, social capital refers to connections among individuals – social networks and the norms of reciprocity and trustworthiness that arise from them. In that sense social capital is closely related to what some have called “civic virtue.” The difference is that “social capital” calls attention to the fact that civic virtue is most powerful when embedded in a sense network of reciprocal social relations. A society of many virtuous but isolated individuals is not necessarily rich in social capital' Putnam 2000: 19).

17. World bank and social capital 'Social capital refers to the institutions, relationships, and norms that shape the quality and quantity of a society's social interactions... Social capital is not just the sum of the institutions which underpin a society – it is the glue that holds them together' (The World Bank (1999) 'What is Social Capital?', PovertyNet http://www.worldbank.org/poverty/scapital/whatsc.htm) World bank and social capital

18. Putnam – why social capital is important Allows citizens to resolve problems more easily Enables communities to advance smoothly Widening awareness of how our fates are interconnected Bowling alone 2000

19. Negative aspects of social capital The attempt by groups to bind together to exclude outsiders, as in nationalism Distinction between ‘bonding social capital’ and ‘bridging social capital’ In some cases social capital can often be seen a barrier to economic growth at the macro level Bonding social capital tends to entail generalised distrust and lack of co-operation between groups Bonding social capital can be seen as superglue which ‘stiffens society and ultimately makes it a fragmented society’