Considering a Solidarity Economy as a Framework for Justice

Considering a Solidarity Economy as a Framework for Justice Rebecca Todd Peters INTRODUCTION Bill Curtis cut cloth for thirty years for Broyhill Industries in North Carolina, the heart of the US furniture market.1 Furniture making, which is centered in the Piedmont area of North Carolina, has been a major employer in the state since the early 1900s, providing as many as ninety thousand jobs at the peak of manufacturing in 1990.2 However, cheap wages overseas and limited environmental regulation have contributed to a major outsourcing of jobs, including Curtis’ job, which was outsourced to China in 2005.3 With jobs in the furniture industry drying up, Curtis decided to retool his employment skills and began studying information technology at Caldwell Community College. When Google announced they were opening a data center in Lenoir, Curtis was hopeful his new skills might land him a job in the information economy that was replacing the blue-collar work he had always known. In October 2007, Curtis completed his three-year training program and was ready for his interview with Google.4 Unfortunately, at 55, he was competing with many younger, more techsavvy applicants who had grown up with computers. After several months of searching for an IT job, Curtis took a part-time job as a corrections officer where 1 Frank Langfitt, “Laid-Off Furniture Workers Try to Leap to Google,” All Things Considered, National Public Radio, December 16, 2009, http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?story Id=121516133&ps=rs. 2 North Carolina in the Global Economy, “Furniture,” http://www.soc.duke.edu/NC_GlobalEconomy/ furniture/overview.shtml. 3 Frank Langfitt, “High-Tech Dreams Dissipate for Furniture Workers,” All Things Considered, National Public Radio, December 17, 2009, http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?story Id=121567306&ps=rs. 4 Ibid. 127 128 PART II: FOUNDATIONAL ISSUES OF ECONOMIC JUSTICE he earned $26,000 annually, which was not enough to pay his bills. After his wife, Janet, lost her furniture job in the recession, he picked up a second parttime job at Walmart for $9 an hour.5 THE LOSS OF LIVING WAGES AND BENEFITS Furniture represents just one of many industries that offered the kind of midrange factory work that built the working class in the United States. Much of the work in textiles, furniture, steel, automobile, and other manufacturing sectors was not only repetitive but backbreaking, exhausting work. However, for most people, it paid the bills. Blue-collar manufacturing jobs that paid workers a reasonable wage, offered health-care benefits, and provided pension plans were a significant part of what built a healthy and wealthy US economy in the twentieth century. Even before the 2008 economic crisis, adherents of the current form of economic globalization, known as neoliberalism, argued that the current restructuring and retooling of the US economy is simply the market at work. From a neoliberal perspective, the unionized jobs in auto, textile, and other industries that once offered living wages and decent benefits are now inefficient relics of an old world order. Businesses simply don’t have to pay what they used to in wages, not in a globalized economy—not when they can outsource parts manufacturing or even open assembly plants in developing countries where wages are far lower. Why pay a US furniture worker like Bill Curtis $14 an hour when they can pay a Chinese worker less than a dollar?6 The logic of the system is impeccable—when production costs are lowered, profits are raised. The changes that accompany increased global economic integration, however, raise deep moral concerns. The massive outsourcing of jobs in the last thirty years has brought increasing economic divides within and between first-world countries. Census data shows that income inequality in the United States has risen consistently in the last forty years, with increasing numbers of affluent and poor and a shrinking middle class.7 In 2008, there were 39.8 million people living in poverty in the United States, roughly 13.2 percent of the population.8 5 Ibid. In 2004, furniture workers in the United States earned $14.24 per hour; their Chinese counterparts, meanwhile, made just $.69 an hour. North Carolina in the Global Economy, “Furniture,” http://www.soc.duke.edu/NC_GlobalEconomy/furniture/overview.shtml. 7 Sean F. Reardon and Kendra Bischoff, “Growth in the Residential Segregation of Families by Income, 1970–2009,” Stanford University, November 2011, http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/ national/RussellSageIncomeSegregationreport.pdf. 8 Carmen DeNavas-Walt, Bernadette D. Proctor, Jessica C. Smith, “Income, Poverty and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2008,” US Census Bureau, September 2009. 6 Chapter 3: Considering a Solidarity Economy as a Framework for Justice According to US Census Bureau data, 57 percent of those living in poverty were working full- or part-time. It is difficult, if not impossible, for people working in low-wage service jobs (often the only jobs available to low-skilled workers) to pull themselves above the poverty line. Increasingly, middle- and upper-middleclass families struggling with job loss are also finding it difficult to feed their families.9 The number of people struggling to put food on their tables (a situation known as “food insecurity”) rose from 11 percent of the population in 2007 to 14.5 percent in 2010.10 But not only are increasing numbers of US families facing basic challenges in the globalized economy, the Earth’s delicate ecosystems are also struggling for survival. NEOLIBERAL ECONOMICS AND ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY From an environmental perspective, the industrial global economy and the consumer lifestyles that support it are not sustainable. Environmentalist Mathis Wackernagel calculates the ecological footprint11 of the human species outstretched the carrying capacity of Earth in the late 1970s and by 2003, exceeded it by 25 percent.12 Environmentalists claim that it is possible to exceed Earth’s carrying capacity for a limited time before human behavior depletes Earth’s reservoir of natural resources like water, oil, coal, fish, wildlife, soil, and its capacity to assimilate chlorinated chemicals and carbon dioxide. More important, since Wackernagel’s calculations are based on actual use of these resources, these numbers will rise as more countries develop their industrial capacity and increase their consumption levels. Projections warn that it would take 5.3 more planets to sustain the entire world living at current levels of US consumption.13 9 Pam G. Dempsey, “Food Insecurity Grows in East Central Illinois,” CU-Citizen Access, May 14, 2011, http://cu-citizenaccess.org/content/hunger-heartland-local-residents-struggle-eat. 10 US Department of Agriculture, “Food Security in the United States: Key Statistics and Graphics,” updated September 7, 2011, http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/FoodSecurity/stats_graphs. htm#very_low. 11 Wackernagel developed the concept of the ecological footprint to measure the amount of land area necessary to support a particular lifestyle. His calculations are based on Earth’s annual productivity and regenerative capacity. State of the World 2004 (New York: W.W. Norton and Co., 2004), 291–2. 12 Living Planet Report 2006 (Gland, Switzerland: World Wildlife Fund, 2006), 2. 13 Projections are from the Global Footprint Network, which specializes in measuring the ecological footprint of various societies. Chinadependence: The Second UK Interdependence Report (London: New Economics Foundation), 21, http://www.neweconomics.org/gen/uploads/fmq2gmn5w2dn2qemwoor0m 4505102007192709.pdf. 129 130 PART II: FOUNDATIONAL ISSUES OF ECONOMIC JUSTICE The hyper-consumerism of twenty-first-century capitalism is, to some extent, a product of economic globalization and the ability of first-world consumers to stretch their dollars further by purchasing cheaper goods made in countries where wages are lower. Although the human community could manage economic globalization in many ways, since the early 1980s the dominant model for creating a single, integrated global economy has been neoliberalism. Also referred to as supply-side economics, the Washington consensus, trickle-down economics, or laissez-faire economics, neoliberalism argues for deregulation, privatization, and increased international trade in setting economic policy. In general, neoliberals dislike government involvement in the marketplace and argue that free-enterprise solutions are superior to government solutions. The other school of thought that holds weight in the United States is that of social-equity liberals or welfare liberals who argue that government often has an important role to play in stimulating the economy (particularly during economic downturns) and in regulating the economy. Social-equity liberals have supported environmental regulations that check the power of industries to pollute and labor regulations that have created better working conditions in the United States than in the developing world. Both neoliberalism and social-equity liberalism are rooted in an economic theory known as neoclassical economics.14 The creation of a single, integrated global economy—the goal of neoliberalism—requires increased consumer appetites for goods produced in foreign markets. While consumption in many parts of the world is certainly rising, US citizens, who comprise 5.2 percent of the world’s population, account for 31.5 percent of the world’s consumer spending,15 consume one-third of the world’s paper products,16 and one-quarter of the world’s coal, oil, and natural gas.17 In the changing cultural context of an increasingly integrated global 14 For a more nuanced analysis of neoliberalism and social-equity liberalism as well as two alternative theories of globalization, see Rebecca Todd Peters, In Search of the Good Life: The Ethics of Globalization (New York: Continuum, 2004). 15 State of the World 2004 (New York: W.W. Norton and Co., 2004), 6. 16 Ibid., 9. 17 Ibid., 11. Chapter 3: Considering a Solidarity Economy as a Framework for Justice economy, much attention is placed on the economic consequences of neoliberal policies; however, it is also important to ask deep questions about the moral consequences of a neoliberal approach to globalization, production, and the world’s social and environmental health and well-being. While neoclassical economic theory claims to be value-free, its emphasis on increasing profits and maximizing efficiency often come at the expense of the health of people and the environment. Considering the moral consequences of neoliberal economic globalization can begin by examining the long-term consequences for the health of the US economy and thinking about considerations that go beyond economic consequences. Manufacturing jobs have decreased by 20 percent since the implementation of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) in 1994, and these jobs have largely been replaced by lowwage service jobs without benefits.18 Government projections point to the greatest US growth in jobs related to computers, food preparation and service, customer service, security, medical assistance, and personal and home care—all jobs that often offer neither a living wage nor benefits.19 While labor market shifts are nothing new, enthusiasm for shifts that threaten the stability of a nation’s workforce ought to be met with caution. From a moral perspective, it is also important to consider the kinds of jobs that are available in an economy and what kind of life these jobs allow people to create. Economists, social scientists, and politicians urge US citizens to prepare for an ongoing shift from an industrial to a postindustrial information economy. This shift is the direct result of neoliberal economic policies and attitudes regarding consumption, an approach that drives companies to seek the cheapest labor available. As people consider their support for such policies, they need to consider what these shifts mean for the quality of jobs available in the United States and the kinds of lives people can build when working these jobs. One of the moral considerations in constructing the global economy should be whether people are able to engage in meaningful work and provide for their families. People should also consider the environmental effects of the increase in transportation needed to ship goods made in one country and sold in another— not to mention the effects of the lax environmental laws that govern too many manufacturing facilities in developing countries. With the increasing integration of cultures and societies that accompanies globalization, people must seek long-term solutions for the deep social problems shaping the world. Traditional indicators of economic health and progress, such as rising GDP and stock market values, do not necessarily translate into 18 Public Citizen, “Debunking USTR Claims in Defense of NAFTA: The Real NAFTA Score 2008, http://www.citizen.org/documents/NAFTA_USTR_Debunk_web.pdf. 19 Public Citizen, “The Ten Year Track Record of the North American Free Trade Agreement: U.S. Workers’ Jobs, Wages and Economic Security,” NAFTA at Ten Series, http://www.citizen.org/ documents/NAFTA_10_jobs.pdf. 131 132 PART II: FOUNDATIONAL ISSUES OF ECONOMIC JUSTICE solutions for poverty, disease, obesity, illiteracy, unemployment, infant mortality, starvation, violence, and many other ills of the world. These social problems raise moral questions about how humans could organize economic structures in ways that contribute to the common good. These problems require long-term solutions that can only come when all sectors of the world (political, social, and economic) work together to make a difference. The moral challenge that neoliberal globalization poses for Christians in the first world is how to act faithfully without expectation of gratitude, recognition, or commendation (Mt 6:1–4). The challenge of following Christ is to act without regard for personal recognition and with the knowledge that redressing injustice is what God calls Christians to do. If people want a different form of globalization and a world order marked by social justice and sustainability, then it is necessary to look for new ways of being in the world and new economic models that offer a path to achieve that goal. This chapter explores the ways a solidarity economy might offer such a pathway. CONSIDERING A SOLIDARITY ECONOMY The reality of neoliberal globalization is that people in the developed world are able to buy clothing, food, electronics, home goods, toys, and countless other products at shamefully low prices because they are made by people in the developing world who work for extraordinarily low wages. In a world where the structures of globalization privilege people in the developed world at the expense of their brothers and sisters in the developing world, solidarity is a way for first-world Christians to define their obligation to the distant other, to their global neighbor whom they do not know but to whom they are connected through the interdependence of God’s created order. In this context, solidarity can be defined as a relationship between people or groups of people who are different from one another but who share mutual respect and a willingness to work together to address issues of social injustice. Solidarity describes a new vision of society built on shared bonds between people that call for loyalty, compassion, and companionship; bonds rooted in the agape (self-sacrificing) love of the Christian tradition. Learning how to live in solidarity with others is an expression of the call to “love your neighbor as yourself ” (Mt 22:39). Observers of human nature note that it is far easier to practice this teaching when we know or like or feel kin to our neighbor in some way. However, Jesus teaches in the parable of the Good Samaritan that he expects people to see their neighbor even in those they do not know and might not like (Lk 10:25– 37). Embracing solidarity as a moral norm means people must evaluate their individual and collective actions in terms of how they affect their neighbors— those next door and those across the globe. Chapter 3: Considering a Solidarity Economy as a Framework for Justice First-world Christians, many of whom struggle with theological questions of privilege, blessings, and justice amid global poverty and inequality, need to develop a theology that helps them change both their own behavior and the unjust structures of the world around them. A theology of solidarity offers a new foundation upon which to build an ethic that calls Christians into covenant relationship and partnership with their brothers and sisters from the developing world. A theology of solidarity offers hope and the promise that sustainability is a more faithful and fulfilling life for Christians than consumption and the accumulation of wealth. Solidarity in the Christian Tradition The starting point for a theology of solidarity is the life and work of Jesus Christ. As the son of a carpenter raised in humble circumstances, Jesus sought commoners from his culture as partners in his ministry. He taught in accessible public spaces and was sought after by people who were on the margins of his society. He associated with and ministered to prostitutes, tax collectors, lepers, people with mental and physical infirmities and disease, adulterers, soldiers, fishermen, foreigners, children, widows, rich and poor alike. Jesus walked a path of solidarity with the people of his society. He preached a message of radical social transformation in which the blind would see, the lame would walk, lepers would be healed, the deaf would hear, the dead would live again, and the poor would have good news (Mt 11:4–5, 15:30–31; Lk 7:21–22). In this promise of a reversal of the social order of his day, Jesus offered a message of hope and good news to those who were oppressed and marginalized by the social, economic, and religious structures of his day. In proclaiming the meek would inherit the earth (Mt 5:5) and woe to the rich, the satisfied, and the happy (Lk 6:24–25), Jesus challenged the justice of the present social order and questioned the validity of the most powerful leaders of his day. He came with a vision for a new world order and practiced what he preached, living a life of deep solidarity with many who were “other” in his society. His commitment to an alternative worldview and uncompromising attitude toward seeing God’s will done on earth as it is heaven was a radical witness to a life of solidarity, a witness that can serve as a model for solidarity as a contemporary Christian ethic. To the extent that solidarity denotes a deep relationship of affection and mutuality between individuals or groups of people, it reflects the guiding normative value of love that has shaped Christian theology and practice from its earliest days. In both its agape (selfless love) and philia (love of friends and family) form, love is a dominant theme in the New Testament and the early Christian Church. The idea of solidarity in the social and political sense in which it is used by philosophers, social scientists, and politicians began to emerge in Christian thought in the late nineteenth century as both the Protestant and 133 134 PART II: FOUNDATIONAL ISSUES OF ECONOMIC JUSTICE Catholic churches struggled alongside their secular counterparts to discern appropriate responses to the changing social and political world wrought by the Industrial Revolution. Within Protestant churches in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, the Social Gospel movement in the United States and the Christian Socialist movement in Europe raised concerns about the growing tensions between the rising individualism in capitalist society and the reality of human interdependence even in the modern world. The exploitation and suffering of workers and people living in poverty prompted Protestant ministers, leaders, and laypeople to develop a theology of justice and compassion that supported the needs and interests of exploited workers by advocating public policy reforms including the minimum wage, worker safety standards, reasonable work weeks, and the end of child labor. In 1908 the Federal Council of Churches endorsed the Social Creed of the Churches, which detailed a social agenda for Protestants based on their faith commitments to justice and equality. While the Social Gospelers did not articulate solidarity as a foundation for their theology or movement, their work in partnership with marginalized and oppressed workers to improve their social situation and increase justice in society nonetheless reflects solidarity at heart. The shift from the Middle Ages to the world of the Enlightenment also caused the Roman Catholic Church to rethink its role and position in society, particularly in the political realm. While papal authority and the magisterium had a long history of collusion regarding the political power and governance in Europe, the emerging democracies of the nineteenth century required Roman Catholics to rethink the relationship between politics and religion. In 1891 with the publication of Rerum novarum (The Condition of Labor), Pope Leo XIII signaled a new approach to the modern world that put to rest the ancient alliances between throne and altar.20 Rerum novarum established the papacy’s commitment to a just social order by declaring allegiance to the poor and needy in society and by reminding Roman Catholics of their Christian obligation to charity. Leo XIII did not leave responsibility for the poor solely to charity, however. He called for social reforms that would redress growing inequalities in society. Much like the Social Gospelers, without using the term solidarity, Roman Catholics called Christians to develop ministries and acts of social justice that would build social solidarity. Rerum novarum marked the beginning of what is now known as modern Catholic social teaching, or “the application of the word of God to people’s lives and the life of society.”21 20 Steinar Stjernø, Solidarity in Europe: The History of an Idea (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 64. 21 John Paul II, Sollicitudo rei socialis (On Social Concern), 1987, as quoted in Robert Ellsberg, “Introduction,” in The Logic of Solidarity: Commentaries on Pope John II’s Encyclical “On Social Concern,” eds. Gregory Baum and Robert Ellsberg (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1989), ix. Chapter 3: Considering a Solidarity Economy as a Framework for Justice This commitment to charity and social justice continued throughout the twentieth century. In 1961 Pope John XXIII introduced the idea of solidarity into papal discourse as he called for government assistance for people in need and government action to reduce economic inequality in societies and the world at large.22 Philosopher Steinar Stjernø argues that the Roman Catholic concept of solidarity is rooted in compassion, in collective action to help the poor and underprivileged, and in recognition of the need to move beyond individual charity to fully address the inequality that threatens the world.23 Solidarity finally becomes a central theme of Roman Catholic social teaching with the contributions of Pope John Paul II, who links the idea of solidarity with other key principles of Catholic social thought including the common good, love, justice, and subsidiarity. John Paul II focuses on solidarity as a concept that defines human relationships as bonds of family and friendship that then form the basis for the development of societies that actually care for their citizens—especially those who are the most marginalized and in need of assistance. Solidarity in Economic Justice for All The US bishop’s pastoral on the economy, Economic Justice for All (EJA), offered a critique of the excesses of capitalism and argued for a stronger moral foundation for US economic policy and practice.24 One of the foundational values that undergirded the bishops’ critique and their vision of a more just future was that of solidarity, a term used thirty-five times in EJA. The pastoral advocates developing a “ ‘New American Experiment’—to implement economic rights, to broaden the sharing of economic power, and to make economic decisions more accountable to the common good” (no. 21). The term solidarity is used in several different ways in the document, each of which merits further examination. This examination reveals direct descriptions of what constitutes solidarity as well as implied definitions discernible through the rejection of that which is not representative of solidarity.25 Most references to the term in the pastoral are fairly vague and assume a common understanding of what is meant by solidarity. However, ten times—almost one-third of the 22 Stjernø, Solidarity in Europe, 68. Ibid. 24 United States Catholic Bishops, Economic Justice for All: Pastoral Letter on Catholic Social Teaching and the U.S. Economy (Washington, DC: United States Catholic Conference, 1986). 25 In his definition of solidarity in the New Dictionary of Catholic Social Thought, Matthew Lamb points out that Catholic social teaching on solidarity has largely been pastoral and there are “few systematic analyses of the scientific, philosophical, and theological implications” of solidarity. Lamb’s observation appropriately describes the use of the term in EJA where solidarity is frequently used to describe the aspirations of human communities and behaviors but is never systematically defined. Lamb, “Solidarity,” in New Dictionary of Catholic Social Thought, ed. Judith A. Dwyer (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1994), 910. 23 135 136 PART II: FOUNDATIONAL ISSUES OF ECONOMIC JUSTICE references—the phrase “social solidarity” is used instead of merely “solidarity,” although there does not appear to be anything particularly distinct that separates social solidarity from the simple use of the term solidarity. Nevertheless, despite the vague way in which the term is used, it is possible to discern four distinct ways in which the bishops use the term solidarity: (1) sixteen times it is used as a description of human community (nos. 33, 66, 67, 74, 105, 116, 185, 196, 248, 251, 252, 258, 322, 328, 342, 365); (2) eight times, as an action or practice (pastoral message, no. 24, EJA nos. 5, 73, 88, 102, 119 [twice], 250); (3) five times, as a principle or value (nos. 2, 13, 80, 83, 187); and (4) four times, as a relationship (nos. 28, 64, 79, 80). Furthermore, with regard to the first two uses of solidarity, there are a few places in which the bishops offer some substantive content, which begins to flesh out what they mean when they use the term.26 The first and most prominent way solidarity is used (43 percent of the time) is as a noun describing a particular type or quality of human community. Examples of what communities look like that possess solidarity include references to “social friendship and civic commitment that make human moral and economic life possible” (no. 66), “community . . . that recognize[s] the moral bonds among all people” (no. 258), and several references that imply a connection between the experience of solidarity and human dignity (nos. 196, 252, 322, 328, 342). Additionally, there is one explicit reference that links increasing employment opportunities to solidarity (no. 196). As referenced earlier, something can also be learned about what solidarity is by juxtaposing it against those things that can disrupt, destroy, or make solidarity difficult to achieve, namely, sin (nos. 33, 67), inequality (nos. 74, 185), violations of the freedom to associate (no. 105), individualism and greed (no. 248), and attachment to material things (no. 328). Almost one-fourth of the uses of the term refer to solidarity in ways that suggest action, such as making a commitment (nos. 24, 55), confronting attitudes and behaviors that institutionalize justice (no. 55), a “drive for solidarity” (no. 73), or an action with the power to heal the suffering of poverty (no. 88). Some of these uses also highlight particular actions that people take that express solidarity, like affirmative action programs in education and employment (no. 73), industriousness (no. 102), volunteering to work for justice (for those people who are not poor), and working to build up communities (for those people who are poor) (no. 119). Each of these uses implies that solidarity is not intrinsic to human identity but a historical possibility that must be sought out and cultivated, requiring action on the part of human beings. One bold statement claims that people acting in solidarity will experience the power and presence of Christ (no. 55). Based on the ways the term solidarity is used in EJA, the following three uses of solidarity could contribute to ethical discourse: (1) as a virtue that individuals should possess and express in their interactions with others (particularly 26 It is worth noting that two of the thirty-five references appear in titles or subtitles and so it is impossible to classify how they are being used. Chapter 3: Considering a Solidarity Economy as a Framework for Justice the poor), (2) as a principle that should guide not only individual behavior but the development of public policy, and (3) as an ideal vision for how the human community can work together toward the common good. The latter two uses of solidarity offer important foundations for the development of a solidarity economy. If the principle of solidarity was central to the development of public policy (including economic policy), it could contribute to the development of an alternative vision of economic life rooted in the common good. CONTRIBUTIONS OF SOLIDARITY TO A MORE JUST ECONOMY We live in a world of stark disparities between wealth and poverty. In 2010, 12.5 million households were millionaires.27 Their combined wealth was US $121.8 trillion, more than eight times the US GDP.28 On the other end of the spectrum, according to World Bank calculations, in 2008 nearly 1.4 billion people lived in “extreme poverty,” living on less than $1.25 a day, with another 1.1 billion living on less than $2.00 a day.29 In 2009, it was reported that approximately 17,000 children were dying from hunger and preventable hunger-related diseases every day.30 An ethic of solidarity offers a moral foundation for building a new set of economic, political, and social relations that respond to the very real needs of a planet in crisis and a human community in which half of the population lives in poverty. When solidarity is understood as the voluntary action of individuals and groups working together and reaching across lines of difference toward a common good, it represents a different paradigm for human behavior and relationships than either individualism or collectivism, the moral foundations of capitalism and communism. A moral norm of solidarity as the basis for economic policy and trade would include two key theological principles as its starting point: the sacredness of life and the interdependence between human community and the natural world. If economic policy were to begin from this starting point, it would be much more difficult to craft policies that exploit or harm people and the environment. Furthermore, these theological principles would translate into economic policies that hold a different set of assumptions about the nature of economics and markets than those now guiding free market capitalism. One 27 Boston Consulting Group, “Shaping a New Tomorrow: How to Capitalize on the Momentum of Change,” May 31, 2011, http://www.bcg.com/media/PressReleaseDetails.aspx?id=tcm:12-77753. 28 Ibid. In 2010, US GDP was $14.6 billion, according to World Bank data, http://data.worldbank. org/country/united-states. 29 “2008 World Development Indicators: Poverty Data, a Supplement to World Development Indicators 2008 (Washington, DC: World Bank, 2008), 10. 30 CNN, “U.N. Chief: Hunger Kills 17,000 Kids Daily,” November 17, 2009, http://edition.cnn. com/2009/WORLD/europe/11/17/italy.food.summit/. 137 138 PART II: FOUNDATIONAL ISSUES OF ECONOMIC JUSTICE assumption that needs to shift is to begin to think about economics and markets as public tools that can be used to shape society in particular ways. Economies and markets are social tools that facilitate human exchange within and across cultures. When these tools are organized solely by private interests for private gain, it is usually workers and the environment that suffer. This need not be the case. Public-private partnerships, worker-owned businesses, and increased attention to the social well-being of people and the health of the planet could help to reshape how people understand the purpose of markets in society. Recognizing that economic and social policies are integrally related and that policies must balance attention to individuals and to the common good would also help shift attitudes toward the purpose of markets. It would also more accurately reflect the intimate connection between economics and social life. Finally, a shift from the assumption that the primary purpose of the economy is to grow and produce profits, toward an understanding that the economy is intended to increase the general well-being of humanity and the earth, would mark another significant step toward the development of a solidarity economy.31 The idea of a solidarity economy represents a radically new foundation for political, economic, and social arrangements. Ultimately, a solidarity economy would stem from a different social narrative than the cultural myths of rugged individualism and self-sufficiency that shape the contemporary US political economy, which lays the responsibility for success solely on individuals. This does not mean a norm of solidarity absolves individuals from being responsible, but it recognizes that the human condition of interdependence requires the development of structures in society within which people are able to function responsibly. Creating stable social networks that provide for the development of thriving communities is an achievable goal. A solidarity economy must stand on a social narrative of community and compassion and a radical mutuality that recognizes and affirms the interdependence of human life and the natural world. An ethic of solidarity offers new avenues for thinking about creative ways of shaping economic behavior, avenues that are based on the goal of a human community rooted in the Christian ethical principles of social justice and sustainability. SOCIAL JUSTICE AS THE PROPHET PRINCIPLE The acceptance of the profit motive as an adequate guiding force behind economic exchange and business development lends itself to the creation of an economy that thrives on greed, graft, unlimited growth, duplicity, and exploitation. 31 This is informed by Paul Hawken’s idea that “the promise of business is to increase the general well-being of humankind through service, a creative invention and ethical philosophy.” The Ecology of Commerce (New York: Harper Business, 1993), 1. Chapter 3: Considering a Solidarity Economy as a Framework for Justice Ironically, each of these problems has been cited in recent years as a condition that has prevented the free market from functioning properly. But each of these problems is a symptom of a deeper flaw at the core of neoclassical economics and the capitalist market system it generates. The Hobbesian view of human nature at the heart of neoclassical economics—that humans are self-interested wealth maximizers—is one of individualism, selfishness, and ultimately cruelty. While the economic system based on this worldview allows a fabulously good life for the world’s elite, it leaves most of the world’s population living in poverty and offers inadequate financial tools and structures that are now in a state of collapse. In recent years as social ethicists and theologians have argued for a broader set of social goals and goods to be achieved through economic activity, neoclassical economists have responded that it is not the job of an economy to pursue social goals. When economists claim the primary task of business and markets is to make a profit and generate wealth, this claim is built on a particular theoretical construct about the role and purpose of the economy. Economic structures are also moral structures that reflect particular understandings of what it means to be human and to live a good life. If economies and markets are tools created by humans to help organize society, then it is possible to construct economies in many ways with many goals. The prophetic tradition that exists within the Jewish, Christian, and Muslim belief systems offers wisdom for imagining an alternate vision of how to shape the moral foundations of the economy. The prophetic tradition is marked by a commitment to structuring society in ways that reflect God’s concern for the well-being of all people and the created order. This commitment, also referred to as social justice, is the foundation of the Exodus, in which Moses, Miriam, and Aaron led God’s people out of slavery. It is the heart of the message of the prophets, who constantly remind the people that God wants them to care for the marginalized in their midst, most often represented by poor people, widows, orphans, and foreigners. Social justice is also the foundation of the ministry of Jesus, who calls out for the rearrangement of the social order in which he is to bring good news to poor people, release to captives, sight for the blind, and freedom to the oppressed (Lk 4:18). From Isaiah and Micah to Dorothy Day, Martin Luther King, Jr., and César Chávez, prophets call people to accountability before God and help them imagine what a new world might be like. Prophets are often figures who stand in solidarity with the poor and oppressed and who work to establish just social systems. Religious prophets challenge human communities to create social networks and economic systems that establish justice in the world, which is the foundation of the prophet principle: human communities should seek to create social networks and economic systems that establish justice in the world. Rather than profit and wealth accumulation, the prophet principle offers social justice as the ideal toward which people should strive in creating and shaping human communities and political economies. 139 140 PART II: FOUNDATIONAL ISSUES OF ECONOMIC JUSTICE SUSTAINABILITY AS THE CARETAKING PRINCIPLE A wide range of environmentalists, theologians, and other cultural critics have questioned the sustainability of neoliberal globalization and the free market approach. The issue of the sustainability of the current global economic system is perhaps easiest to see with regard to the relationship between agriculture and Earth. The green revolution that began in the 1950s and lasted into the early 1980s, for example, increased world grain production by 250 percent but only at significant ecological cost.32 The industrial models of agriculture first promoted by the green revolution remain dominant in the growing and profitable agribusiness sector. Industrial agriculture, also known as monocropping, focuses on maximizing output by increasing yield. This was largely achieved by harnessing the power of fossil fuels through “synthetic nitrogen fertilizers, petroleum based agrochemicals, diesel powered machinery, refrigeration, irrigation and an oil dependent distribution system.”33 Monocropping also contributes to soil degradation, which in turn leads to an increased reliance on fertilizers and irrigation. All this furthers the unsustainable agricultural practices that currently dominate the global economic order. In addition to considering the current economic relationship between agriculture and the Earth and the environmental exploitation of the current global economic system, it is also necessary to consider ways the entire economic system is currently oriented toward profit rather than sustainability. From a theological perspective, orienting economic relations around the value of sustainability, rather than profit or exploitation, is consonant with a Christian understanding of stewardship and promoting the flourishing of creation. Virtually every faith tradition has a creation story that shapes its understanding of origins, humanity, and often relationships. In the Christian tradition, the creation story found in Genesis is a beautiful, lyrical tale of the care and concern that God put into shaping the world and all that is in it. A deep and abiding tradition in this story is the idea that God designated humankind to watch over and care for creation. From this reading of the story, the idea of stewardship is not one of domination, but of caretaking. Basing economic relationships on the principle of caretaking and developing sustainable businesses offers an alternative to greed, exploitation, and the obsession with maximizing profits that characterize capitalist markets. It’s not that profits are bad per se. But when profits eclipse sustainability as the primary engine driving economic policy and practices, then economic relationships are driven by greed rather than 32 Dale Allen Pfeiffer, “Eating Fossil Fuels,” http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/100303_ eating_oil.html. 33 Jay Tomczak, “Implications of Fossil Fuel Dependence for the Food System,” Energy Bulletin, http://www.energybulletin.net/17036.html. Chapter 3: Considering a Solidarity Economy as a Framework for Justice a fundamental concern for the sustainability of Earth and humanity’s responsibility as stewards of God’s creation. If justice and sustainability become basic market principles, certain other assumptions of economic theory will also have to change: 1. Private property and individual rights will need to be balanced and mediated by recognition of the importance of healthy and sustainable communities. 2. Recognition that unfettered markets are a theoretical abstraction will encourage refocussing of public policy debates on how government can best facilitate justice, care, and sustainability. 3. The definition of efficiency will need to be expanded to include care of people and the planet, as well as profit. EXAMPLES OF A SOLIDARITY ECONOMY The neoliberal vision of a global free market economy is currently the dominant paradigm for economic policy and globalization.34 Within this context it is difficult to imagine what an alternative economy might look like. Nevertheless, even amid the dominance of neoliberalism, there are vibrant examples of businesses, communities, and workers who organize their economic life in ways that embrace sustainability and social justice and challenge dominant assumptions of neoliberalism and free market capitalism. From fair trade to worker co-ops, from community-supported agriculture to local currencies, people in the United States and around the world are struggling to set up alternative economic structures (e.g., businesses, currencies, and markets) that embody the values of a solidarity economy and many of the alternative assumptions identified in this chapter. While people often associate the idea of economic systems with monetary economies, the reality is, economic systems are human ways to order the exchange of goods and services. Not all economic systems require money. For instance, in extended networks of families and friends, people are engaged in a gift economy, meaning they do things for one another without expecting anything in return. When friends invite one another over for dinner or offer to watch one another’s children, these activities are a form of exchange of goods and services exercised within a framework of friendship and family, a form of exchange that reflects deep moral bonds of love, compassion, and a genuine concern for one another’s wellbeing. This form of exchange mitigates the expectation of quid pro quo in which people track one another’s actions and expect a corresponding deed in return. This type of reciprocity models an altruistic behavior rooted in what economist Nancy Folbre terms “the invisible heart.” Folbre coined this term in opposition to Adam Smith’s term “the invisible hand,” which has been used in neoclassical economics 34 For further discussion of ethical paradigms alternative to neoliberal globalization, see Peters, In Search of the Good Life. 141 142 PART II: FOUNDATIONAL ISSUES OF ECONOMIC JUSTICE to describe the aggregate effect on the marketplace of individuals acting primarily out of individual self-interest.35 Folbre’s term is intended to highlight that many daily actions and transactions between people are motivated by care and compassion, rather than self-interest as modern economists claim. Religious communities in which individuals and families donate money in tithes and offerings toward the collective goal of running a church and contributing to the well-being of a community are another example of an alternative economy. When people pool their resources, they can hire pastors, musicians, secretaries, janitors, day care workers, and other personnel to work with a congregation toward achieving the common goals of their mission and ministry. Churches, synagogues, mosques, and other centers of religious communities provide many services including fellowship, spiritual guidance, counseling, child care, youth activities, opportunities for community activism and volunteerism, worship, prayer, and countless other tangible and intangible benefits. No one, however, is charged for these services. Even more significantly, people are not asked how much they contribute when they walk in the door of a religious institution; the services provided are expected to be shared freely with all interested members of the community. In these communities, tithing is voluntary and anonymous. Such faith communities and the ways they organize themselves socially and economically represent collective economics in which a group of people organize their relationships and economic affairs in a way that stresses the common good over individual needs and desires. In barter economies, goods and services are exchanged without any money needing to change hands. A new social movement known as “time banking” is a contemporary barter economy model in which people trade goods or services with others in their community. For instance, if someone provides an hour of English tutoring, they might later redeem an hour of babysitting from someone else in the network. Time banks make a number of socially valuable contributions to local economies and communities. They promote community building by encouraging citizens to get to know their neighbors in new ways through reciprocal relationships of trust, which form around the exchange of child care, running errands, household projects, tutoring, and so on. Time banks can also increase community respect and individual self-worth by encouraging community members to identify their assets and talents and valuing these as meaningful contributions to society. When previously devalued tasks or activities such as tutoring, chauffeuring, or grocery shopping are recognized as valuable contributions to the functioning of a local community, it can help people reconsider ideas regarding the value and definition of work and the meaning of community. More than eighty-five time banks in the United States are registered with TimeBanks USA, a nonprofit dedicated to supporting and promoting the time-banking movement.36 35 36 Nancy Folbre, The Invisible Heart: Economics and Family Values (New York: New Press, 2001). Information taken from the member directory, http://www.timebanks.org/directory.htm. Chapter 3: Considering a Solidarity Economy as a Framework for Justice In addition to these examples of nonmonetary economies, solidarity economies also have room for monetary exchanges, and profits are still an essential aspect to be considered. However, within a solidarity economic framework, maximizing profits is not the only consideration. Workers, the environment, and the local community are all recognized as stakeholders that contribute to the health and vitality of any business enterprise, and none of these are created in pursuit of wealth. Creativity, ingenuity, and entrepreneurial instincts are central to imagining alternative economic strategies that uphold the values of a solidarity economy. One strategy is to emphasize worker democracy by establishing a cooperative business in which all workers have a say in how to allocate profits. In some cases the profits (or a portion of them) are reinvested in the business to help with routine maintenance, grow capacity, increase publicity, or for other strategic investments that would ensure the health and vitality of the business. In other cases a portion of the profits might be set aside as a social capital fund that workers can use to improve the quality of their lives. This is a common practice with the organization Fair Trade USA, which runs an intensive fair trade certification program. To receive the Fair Trade certification label, participating businesses must set aside 12 percent of retail sales in a fund governed by a workers’ committee to be used for the social development of workers and their families. In Ecuador, flower farmers have used these “social premium” funds for computer training classes for workers and their children, for small loans to help workers build homes, to hire a company dentist, to start an English language program for children, and to start a hot water program for the community.37 Each of these programs not only provides significant material improvement in the lives of the workers but also stems from a larger business philosophy in which workers are treated with dignity and respect and paid wages and benefits that significantly improve the quality of their lives. Worker cooperatives provide more than 100 million jobs internationally, a figure 20 percent higher than that for multinational corporations.38 These cooperatives exist in developed countries as well, with the Mondragon in the Basque region of Spain as the most highly touted example. Over the past fifty years, the Mondragon community has built a network of more than 250 cooperative businesses that employ more than 80,000 workers.39 With profits of €1.78 million, Mondragon is the eleventh largest business in Spain.40 Worker co-ops, however, are not the only possibility for organizing business enterprises in a solidarity economy. Economist David Korten notes the deep 37 For details, see Jon Tevlin, “To Ecuador, with Love,” Utne Reader, July–August 2008. Emily Kawano, “Crisis and Opportunity: The Emerging Solidarity Economy Movement,” in Solidarity Economy I: Building Alternatives for People and Planet, ed. Emily Kawano, Thomas Neal Masterson, and Jonathan Teller-Elsberg (Amherst, MA: Center for Popular Economics, 2010), 17. 39 Corporate Profile 2010, http://www.mondragon-corporation.com/mcc_dotnetnuke/Portals/0/documentos/ eng/Corporative-Profile/Corporative-Profile.html. 40 Ibid. Gross earnings found at http://www.mondragon-corporation.com/language/en-US/ENG/ Economic-Data/Most-relevant-data.aspx. 38 143 144 PART II: FOUNDATIONAL ISSUES OF ECONOMIC JUSTICE changes needed in our economic system cannot come from individual businesses acting responsibly: “[T]hey require building a new economy comprised of responsible, locally-rooted businesses that function within a framework of community values and accountability.”41 The Business Alliance for Local Living Economies (BALLE) is a network of locally owned, socially responsible businesses that work together to support one another and build vibrant local communities. BALLE is composed of more than eighty community networks in the United States and Canada, representing more than twenty-two thousand small, local businesses.42 The principles that guide their work include sharing prosperity, which they accomplish by seeking to “provide meaningful living wage jobs, create opportunities for broad-based business ownership, engage in fair trade, and expect living returns from our capital.”43 CONCLUSION The global economic crisis that began in 2008 represents a failure of society to recognize that the reigning economic model is a system laden with values placing profit and economic gain over sustainability and economic justice. Economic activity and the theory that undergirds it are a human creation intended to serve the needs of human societies. Economic activity is a basic human behavior and as such is also an expression of moral behavior. Economic systems are human constructions; they can be built in ways that reflect and respect the values of human communities. A new economic model—one that self-consciously understands how values are embedded in the political economy—is needed. Such an economic model would not focus on growth and trade as primary indicators of success, but on the health and well-being of workers and the environment, reducing infant mortality, starvation relief, health-care delivery, feeding the most impoverished people, and controlling HIV/AIDS for all people, rich and poor. This new economic model need not eschew profit or growth or efficiency, but it should put these goals in perspective. It must balance these goals with other moral considerations, such as sustainability, justice, and the social well-being of people and communities. From an ethical perspective that seeks to promote justice and human well-being, the human community can no longer afford to follow a model of economic theory that lacks these values. Constructing a solidarity economy based on the principles of justice and sustainability is possible. 41 From remarks made by David Korten at the 2007 US Social Forum and transcribed in “Beyond Reform vs. Revolution: Economic Transformation in the U.S.,” in Solidarity Economy: Building Alternatives for People and Planet, ed. Jenna Allard, Carl Davidson, and Julie Matthaei (Chicago: ChangeMaker Publications, 2008), 103. Korten serves on the board of BALLE. 42 BALLE, http://www.livingeconomies.org/aboutus. 43 BALLE, http://www.livingeconomies.org/aboutus/mission-and-principles. Chapter 3: Considering a Solidarity Economy as a Framework for Justice Such a market system would mediate against the exploitation of workers and harm to the environment. Furthermore, the engines of a solidarity economy could function to develop new economic structures and delivery systems that promote economic stability and health in vulnerable communities and populations domestically and internationally. FOCUS QUESTIONS 1. What are some of the moral challenges that neoliberal globalization poses to Christian ethical demands for social justice? 2. What are new and different ways you can imagine organizing the economy so that all people’s needs are met (workers, consumers, and producers)? 3. How do you and your family engage in noncapitalistic economic behavior or economic systems? 4. In what ways might an ethic of solidarity help address problems in the global economic order? 145