The commons and solidarity economy

- How can we use the concepts of common and solidarity economy to analyze collective action in the management of goods and services? - The necessary convergence between the notions of plural economy; Political action and... [ view full abstract ]

- How can we use the concepts of common and solidarity economy to analyze collective action in the management of goods and services?

- The necessary convergence between the notions of plural economy; Political action and public space and common.

A) The emergence of collective action initiatives for governance of goods and services represent a plurality of economic and organizational forms that resemble neither the State nor the Market and therefore cannot be understood within the framework of the formalist notion of economics.

From Mauss to Polanyi we deduce that the reality of the economy is plural (Laville, 2001), between market forms; redistribution; Householding and reciprocity. With them we try to recognize the institutional diversity of forms for the generation and distribution of work and wealth.

Thus, it seems to us that the hybridization of these different enclaves and / or socioeconomic logics are privileged structures for the manifestation / emergence of commons for governance of goods and services.

First warning: To understand the plural economy as a conceptual support of the collective institutions that govern common.

B) Collective action for governance of common created in society (goods and services) depends on the political action of associated players in a territory - the political act of goods and services in common.

The nature of this type of political action refers to collective actions that project logical solidarity over a public space or results in the constitution of democratic public spaces for co-construction of proximity services (Laville, 2016).

This notion seeks to move away from the idea of seeking the condition of common

in its own resources (goods and services) as if it were possible to find an essential and / or extra-quotidian feature.

It seeks to approach the notions that understand the commons goods as a result of the effort of understanding and associative political action of the subjects in a territory (Dardot and Laval, 2015).

Second warning: Understanding common as a result of a collective political act that puts goods and services in a territory.

C) After all, it is necessary to understand that the political action of the common occurs under certain conditions that can result in success or failure in the process of collective governance of resources.

In this way, it is necessary to understand how this type of political action is configured, what can contribute to its development and what can harm his actions.

Specially, it seeks to analyze the aspects related to communication and interaction between the players in a territory; The development of shared norms and patterns of reciprocity; The construction of institutional agreements; Monitoring systems and sanctions; Spaces for conflict resolution; Integration strategies; And institutional recognition of initiatives (Ostrom, 1999).

Third warning: In addition to responding to what can be a common good, it is necessary to respond under what conditions the players govern these institutions, as well as how to institutionalize them.

Conclusion

About what we can learn:

- Carrying out an archeology work of collective action organizations can help understand the longevity of organizations and the evolution of institutional arrangements;

- The process of adaptation to the socioeconomic environment and the institutional isomorphism in the relationship with the state and with the market makes it possible to understand how the institutionalization of these practices occurs;

- Economic viability cannot be the only way of explaining the viability of these organizations, since, in general, they elaborate a complex arrangement of hybridization of mercantile and non-market resources.

Thank you for your attention.