Social Economy in China and the World

Ngai Pun, Ben Hok-bun Ku, Hairong Yan, Anita Koo

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2015
• eBook ISBN: 9781317512523
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Ethnic Studies
• Index: Social Sciences

Thirty-years of economic transformation has turned China into one of the major players in the global capitalist economy. However, its economic growth has generated rising problems in inequality, alienation, and sustainability with the agrarian crises of the 1990s giving rise to real social outcry to the extent that they became the object of central government policy reformulations.

Contributing to a paradigm-shift in the theory and practices of economic development, this book examines the concept of social economy in China and around the world. It offers to rethink space, economy and community in a trans-border context which moves us beyond both planned and market economies. The chapters address theoretical issues, critical reflections and case studies on the practice of social economy in the context of globalization and its attempt to create an alternative modernity. Through this, the book builds a platform for further cross-disciplinary and cross-boundary dialogue on the future of social economy in China and the world.

With examples from Asia, North America, Latin America and Europe this book will not only appeal to students and scholars of Chinese and Asian social policy and development, but also those of social economy from an international perspective.

Part I Rethinking economy

1 Social economics and economic anthropology Challenging conventional economic thinking and practice

John Clammer

DOI: 10.4324/9781315718286-1

This chapter represents a preliminary attempt to outline the conditions, not for solidarity economies (of which many examples exist in the form of numerous experiments worldwide), but for something that should underpin them, notably a solidarity economics. Whereas an inductive economic theory may, to an extent, be derived from existing solidarity or social economies, this chapter argues that it is also necessary to attempt the construction of an alternative (to conventional, classical, or neoliberal economics) foundational theory, one that builds new and holistic socio-economic theory, not from the assumptions (many of them philosophical and psychological) or existing practices of market economies, but from the aims and principles of the creation of a solidarity economy. A solidarity economy is understood here to be one that is life enhancing in the fundamental sense that economics is simply a tool for the creation of other and largely non-economic ends – human conviviality and equality (including, importantly, gender equality), ecological sustainability, creativity, happiness, health, security, trust, cooperation, and community. Methodological individualism, profit maximization, and the consumerism of mainstream capitalist economics are consequently subordinated to a considerably broader and holistic conception of human needs, people’s relationship to nature, and the organization of society. This last point is vital because the notion of a solidarity economy is meaningless unless contextualized in a total environment of solidarity politics, psychology, culture, social organization, and a fundamentally ecological worldview. Solidarity economics consequently implies a broad movement of social transformation that cannot be confined to “economics” in a narrow sense. In light of these thoughts, where might we start our search for such a theory of solidarity economics?

I have argued at length elsewhere (Clammer 2012) that attempts to define and move toward actually creating solidarity economics (a body of theories) and a real solidarity economy (a set of practices and institutions embodying and expressing solidarity economics) would substantially benefit from drawing on the structure and experience of both historical and existing alternatives (i.e., neoliberal capitalism and socialist systems that share its materialistic, productionist, and industrial characteristics), economic systems, and the social, cultural, and ecological bases on which they have sustained themselves, often over long periods. Such a body of knowledge exists, although it is rarely if ever drawn on in either theoretical debates regarding solidarity economics or in practical attempts to embody such economics in social practice. This body of knowledge is economic anthropology.

Economic anthropology is the comparative study of economic systems, often but not always on a small scale, existing largely outside of the paradigm of classical Western and neoliberal economics, although, since the onset of colonialism and globalization, spatially and temporally coexisting with economies based on such neoliberal principles. Economies range over numerous types, including shifting agriculture, subsistence farming, hunting, gathering, and fishing, mixed economies where more than one mode of production exists simultaneously, and transitional economies where money-based and quasi-capitalist elements are beginning to enter traditional and non-monetized economies. This latter situation is typical in colonialism, “development,” and with the spread of modern forms of globalization. In addition, certain economic anthropologists and numerous sociologists have studied communes, cooperatives, and other forms of intentional communities (e.g., Veysey 1973; Hall 1978) and forms of social movements that embody widespread socially transformative intentions (e.g., Melucci 1996) and alternative forms of production, distribution, and exchange that they embody; for example, community currencies, farmers’ markets, barter, and other forms that fall outside of or exist parallel to the mainstream market economy (Bakshi 2009).

Such studies are potentially of great significance for solidarity economics because they reveal the range of actually or historically existing real “alternative” economies by showing that non-capitalist economic systems are entirely possible, and, rather than allowing such economics to float in an abstract theoretical vacuum, they root it by embedding it in the social, cultural, and ecological milieu in which they exist, and out of which we have been considerably torn in the context of the capitalist, industrial, and consumerist systems in which most of us now lead our lives. They also show that it is possible to create economic systems that are ecologically sustainable and that nurture rather than destroy the solidarity-based and equitable social relationships on which many of these systems are based (Plattner 1994; Narotzky 1997).

Economic anthropology provides the basis for deriving a contemporary solidarity economics. It does so in a number of crucial ways, including (1) showing the theoretical parochialism of neoliberal economics by demonstrating empirically that resources exist for rethinking economic life along radically non-capitalist lines; (2) showing that economies with trade and exchange exist without the “market,” as that term is currently conventionally understood; and (3) showing that an essential key to any solidarity economics, and a key entirely missing from conventional neoliberal economics, is the articulation of economic factors with ecological factors, cultures, values, and social practices. It does so by showing that actual and historically tested alternatives to both capitalism and industrial socialism exist, although many of these alternative systems are small in scale, and the issue of scaling up their lessons to meet the needs of large and complex societies must be addressed. If effectively exploited, economic anthropology can become a vital fertilizing element in stimulating fresh thinking of any viable form of alternative or future economy, based as it is on the study of actually or recently existing systems, rather than on utopian or futuristic systems, and how they have managed their relationships with the increasingly hegemonic capitalist system. Even when they have failed to sustain themselves, much can be learned from the survival of solidarity economies on how economies interact and how some have successfully defended themselves against the intrusion of alien values.

The huge range of economic systems that have existed prior to or outside of capitalism (see Forde (1963) for one of the classic surveys) illustrate several factors that any successful solidarity economy must consider. The first of these is that economic life is embedded in social practices, ontologies, institutions (which may be religious or otherwise apparently “non-economic”), and cosmologies. Economic life separated from these factors rapidly becomes destructive of community, values, and cultural practices, creates new patterns of inequality, and is ecologically unsustainable, as we see clearly from the hugely negative impact in all of these spheres of contemporary globalized capitalism and its immediate predecessors such as slave and plantation economies. Conversely, the subject matter of economic anthropology shows that it is possible to have a highly adequate economic life and level of subsistence while respecting cultural values, avoiding the stress that the neoliberal model places on both ecology and people, and placing the fulfillment of genuine and non-spurious human needs and the preservation of nature at the center of life. For example, a major theme in a substantial proportion of current alternative economic thinking is that of localization (McKibben 2007; Shuman 2000) or even of subsistence (Bennholdt-Thomsen and Miess 1999). In the economies studied in economic anthropology, almost inevitably, such economies are already local, drawing on easily accessible regional resources, engaging in trade only when necessary, rarely requiring the transport of resources over long distances, eating locally and seasonally, cultivating local crafts and skills, and consequently achieving high levels of self-sufficiency.

Economic anthropology and the economics of happiness

Conventional economics is in many ways a “virtual science” that creates what it purports to describe rather than actually discovering it in the real world, and which defines for itself and in its own solipsistic terms (rather than identifying what people actually mean by them) essential terms such as “happiness,” “satisfaction,” “needs,” or “progress,” and even “poverty,” and has self-servingly promoted economic growth in GNP terms as a proxy for human progress and happiness (Carrier and Miller 1998). However, empirical studies conducted from outside of this closed framework reveal a different reality. GNP, for example, is currently well known to be a poor indicator of anything but itself (Naess 1993, 111–116). Studies by sociologists and anthropologists have shown that, in relation to poverty, whereas the reduction of extreme poverty is an urgent and essential goal, once any given country has achieved a moderate per capita income, further increases generate a negligible increase in perceived well-being. Recent studies on what is currently being termed the “economics of happiness” convincingly show that once basic material needs are met, a key factor contributing to happiness and emotional health is the desire for strong communities. In one such study (Diener and Seligman 2004), whereas the super-rich unsurprisingly scored highly on a life satisfaction scale of 0–7 (scoring an average of 5.8), the other highest groups with almost identical scores were the Inuit people of northern Greenland (5.99), the Pennsylvania Amish (5.8), and the semi-nomadic Maasai of Kenya and Tanzania (5.7). The lowest scoring group were Calcutta pavement dwellers (2.9), scoring lower than slum dwellers who, although certainly living in extremely poor physical conditions, had a sense of community, and even of solidarity with one another. In the United States, whereas GDP per capita has trebled over the second half of the twentieth century, satisfaction levels have remained flat, and crime, anxiety, depression, and evidence of psychological and emotional dysfunctions have increased substantially, as has depression (including among children), by more than 10-fold.

Solidarity economics and economic theory

It is established that the basis for most abuses directed at the Earth and its human and biotic communities is the deeply distorted and distorting economy that has been allowed to grow, and which, rather than being our servant, has become our master, successively colonizing almost every level of life and consciousness. Whatever adjustments or protests we might make at other levels of our existence (political, cultural, or spiritual), these will not fundamentally affect our rapidly deteriorating ecological or social justice situation, unless we address in basic and unequivocal ways the nature, operation, and effects of that economic system, and propose workable alternatives to it. “Solidarity economics” has emerged to achieve this goal: an economics devoted not to the expansion of private profit, regardless of ecological and human cost, but to the promotion of human solidarity, the achievement of social, economic, and ecological justice, care for the Earth as our only home, and the creation of a sustainable, humane, and culturally rich future for all the inhabitants of our planet. However, to achieve this, whereas individual examples of “social entrepreneurship” and the many solidarity-promoting social and economic experiments that are occurring worldwide are critical, they will not survive the onslaught of globalized monopoly capitalism, unless they can coalesce into a viable alternative system, which is unlikely, given the diverse, scattered, and democratic nature of the movement toward a solidarity economy. What we also require, and currently mostly lack, is an economic theory capable of undermining and providing a viable and powerful alternative to the classical economics on which neoliberal capitalism is based. Economic anthropology, by showing that economic systems can be approached on a comparative basis, demonstrates that different assumptions and value systems underpin those “alternative” systems that are completely at variance with conventional economic thinking.

Alfonso Cotera Fretel (2009, 88–89) suggested much the same:

The vast scale of these solidarity economy practices shows the enormous potential they could have to reorient economic and political processes. . . . Unfortunately however they are dispersed and isolated, many not even recognising themselves as expressions of new economic relations and quite unable to project their capacity to confront sub-national, national and regional processes. Eff...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Half Title Page
• Series Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• List of figures
• List of tables
• Notes on contributors
• Preface
• PART I Rethinking economy
• PART II Social economy in the world
• PART III Social economy in Chinese societies
• Index