Interview with historian Tehila Sasson on the solidarity economy and its relationship to neoliberalism.
Headlines
- The solidarity economy aimed to make capitalism more ethical by connecting values like solidarity and mutual aid with economic transactions
- NGOs like Oxfam implemented solidarity economy ideas through fair trade and microfinance programs in the Global South
- These programs had mixed results and unintended consequences, often maintaining control/profits with Western NGOs rather than producers
- Solidarity economy ideas like entrepreneurship and anti-statism overlapped with neoliberalism, providing it some left-wing legitimacy
- The promise of ethical consumerism solving global issues was largely false, neglecting need for structural solutions
Topics
Origins and Intellectual Foundations of the Solidarity Economy
- Emerged in 1950s British socialism as alternative to communism and pure capitalism
- Key thinkers: Michael Young, E.F. Schumacher
- Critiqued focus on GDP growth, sought community-centered development
- Drew inspiration from Gandhi and Eastern economic philosophies
- Aimed for “people-centered development” and British version of ethical capitalism
Implementation by NGOs
- NGOs like Oxfam adopted solidarity economy ideas in 1960s-70s
- Created “Bridge Program” to connect Global South producers with UK consumers
- Focused on handicrafts, marketed as authentic cultural products
- Aimed to create “solidarity markets” transcending global inequalities
- Oxfam kept much of the profits for broader aid programs rather than directly benefiting producers
- Shifted to microfinance in 1980s as response to debt crises and structural adjustment
Relationship to Neoliberalism
- Solidarity economy shared some ideological traits with neoliberalism:
- Anti-statism
- Focus on individualism and entrepreneurship
- Skepticism of top-down state solutions
- Provided left-wing legitimacy to some neoliberal ideas
- Continued emphasis on ethical consumerism and corporate social responsibility supports ongoing neoliberal framework
Critiques and False Promises
- Lack of regulation in NGO-run programs led to exploitation
- False promise that individual consumer choices can solve systemic issues
- Neglected need for structural/state-led solutions to economic problems
- Financialization through microfinance had mixed results
