Dutch Grassroot Initiatives and Social Principles
Barriers and Opportunities for a Degrowth Transition
Tess Bijlsma
11061847
Tessbijlsma@home.nl
Master Human Geography -
Environmental track
Dhr. dr. ir. Crelis Rammelt
Mw. prof. dr. Joyeeta Gupta
23 – 06 – 2020
Word count: 15.678
Information page
Title: Dutch Grassroot initiatives and Social Principles
Sub-title: Barriers and Opportunities for a Degrowth transition First reader: Dhr. dr. ir. Crelis Rammelt
Second reader: Mw. prof. dr. Joyeeta Gupta Name researcher: Tess Bijlsma
Student number: 11061847 E-mail: Tessbijlsma@home.nl
Master: Human Geography – University of Amsterdam Specialisation: Environmental Geography
Preface
In front of you lies the master’s thesis ‘Grassroot initiatives in the Netherlands, social principles and the Degrowth transition’. This study has examined the way in which Dutch sustainable grassroots, align with social principles from the degrowth narrative. I chose this topic, because I believe the climate change problems need to be addressed now. I think a systemic change needs to occur and business as usual is no longer okay. The Degrowth narrative proposes that a change on multiple levels is required. Although I do believe change on the policy level is of great importance, I have always been interested in what change on a local level can bring about. I believe a change in peoples’ mindset on a low scale level can, to some extent, contribute to collective action. From this, my interest in the potential of grassroots grew. This, and the fact that climate change is an issue close to my heart, caused me to select this topic for my master’s thesis.
This thesis is written in completion of the master Human Geography within the specialisation track Environmental Geography at the University of Amsterdam. The thesis fits within the overarching topic of Degrowth. This research was conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic, which caused some tribulation during the writing process of this thesis.
I hereby would like to thank my supervisor Crelis Rammelt, for the pleasant supervision. Especially during these strange times, his constructive feedback and flexibility have ensured that many difficulties were overcome. This pleasant way of operating, has ensured that this thesis has been successfully completed. I would also like to thank all the respondent who have taken the time to contributed to this research. Without them, this research would not have been possible.
Furthermore, I would like to thank my dear parents, partner, friends, fellow students and family for the moral support they have provide during this period. The motivating effect of their support made the completion of this research possible.
I hope you enjoy reading it. Tess Bijlsma
Abstract
This research has examined in which ways degrowth-related social principles emerge with regard to Dutch grassroot initiatives in the field of reproduction and distribution. The central question in this research is ‘how Dutch grassroot initiatives align with social principles of the Degrowth narrative’. The grassroots that are included in this research are the LETS-initiative and the Repair Café. The social principles that are addressed in this research are sharing, decommodification and social equity. These are three of the nine principles that capture the Degrowth vision according to Kallis (2018). These are further conceptualised with the help of other academic literature. Furthermore, the perceived barriers and opportunities of the grassroots have been identified, with the aim to assess the extent to which they can contribute to a Degrowth transition. The data is gathered through qualitative research methods. In total, 12 interviews with participants of the initiatives are conducted, after which the social principles are analysed separately.
The main finding is that all three social principles were evident within the initiatives. They emerged either as a practice, or as embedded within the initiatives’ objectives. It, hence, can be concluded that the initiatives align strongly with the social principles of the Degrowth narrative. Besides this, a strong relation between the three principles became apparent; as sharing contributed to decommodification, which in its place contributed to a context with more social equity. Certain social equity practices also facilitated sharing practices. Due to this interconnectedness and embeddedness, it can be concluded that even though the individuals have different personal objectives, they do contribute to some extent to a degrowth transition, by participating in the initiative. Furthermore, the extent to which the initiatives contribute to a Degrowth transition, is also determined by the way the initiatives cope with the encountered barriers; having a well-established umbrella organisation that operates on a higher scale level plays a significant role in this. Further research could emphasize the initiatives aims and objectives in relation to the extent they currently contribute to implementing change.
Keywords: Degrowth transition, grassroots initiatives, sharing, decommodification, social equity, LETS, Repair Café, capitalism, barriers and opportunities, qualitative research.
Index
Information page ... 2
Preface ... 3
Abstract ... 4
1. Introduction ... 7
1.2 Research aim and research questions ... 8
2. Theoretical framework ... 9
2.1 Degrowth ... 9
2.2 Grassroot initiatives ... 10
LETS ... 10
Repair Café ... 11
Reproduction and distribution ... 11
2.3 Sharing ... 11
2.4 Decommodification ... 12
2.5 From inequality to social equity ... 13
Social exclusion ... 13
2.6 Barriers and opportunities for a Degrowth transition ... 14
3. Methods ... 15
3.1 Research design ... 15
3.2 Research strategy and data collection ... 15
3.3 Data analysis and operationalisation ... 16
3.4 Limitations and COVID-19 reflection ... 18
4. Context of the case ... 19
4.1 Dutch context ... 19
4.2 The initiatives ... 19
4.3 Structure of the results ... 20
5. Organisational structure and activities ... 21
LETS ... 21
REPAIR CAFÉ ... 22
Main findings ... 22
6. Grassroot and the social principles of Degrowth: Sharing ... 23
Knowledge sharing ... 23
Product sharing ... 24
Main findings ... 24
7. Grassroot and the social principles of Degrowth: Decommodification ... 25
Main findings ... 26
8. Grassroot and the social principles of Degrowth: Social equity ... 27
Embedded social equity ... 27
Social equity within the initiative ... 28
Main findings ... 29
9. Opportunities and barriers for a Degrowth transition ... 30
Aging participants ... 30
Competing with the existing systems ... 30
Main findings ... 31
10. Discussion ... 33
Interconnectedness of the principles ... 34
Context dependency of the grassroots ... 34
Barriers, opportunities and the potential for a degrowth transition ... 35
11. Conclusion ... 36 Future research ... 36 Recommendations ... 36 LETS ... 36 Repair Café ... 37 References ... 38 Appendices ... 42
Appendix 1: Topic list ... 42
Appendix 2: Website of the initiatives ... 44
Appendix 3: Information respondents ... 45
Appendix 4: Response from RC ... 46
1. Introduction
Nowadays, everyone has heard the term ‘consumer society’ at least once before (O’Shaughnessy & O’Shaughnessy, 2002). One has probably heard it so many times before, that saying it now, does not make the impact it did before. However, when we look at the percentages of the total revenue of the retail branch in the Netherlands, the extent of this problem becomes more apparent. In 2019, the retail branch increased their profits with 3,4% compared to 2018 (Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek, 2020). The online profits of 2019, were no less than 16,6% higher than in 2018 (Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek, 2020). In 2018, Dutch consumers spent €23.7 billion on online products and services (Welie, 2019). These numbers indicate that that there is a large, increasing amount of consumption in Dutch society. Furthermore, it shows that these consuming practices are made easier by new technologies. Falasca-Zamponi (2012, p.8) states that ‘consumption and capitalism reinforce each other in the process of their own individual development’. In this way, consumption is ingrained in the capitalistic system and vice versa. However, consumption is not the only feature of capitalism that is important in this narrative. The overproduction of goods, through mass production further maintains this system. For the last decennia, the way of manufacturing has been developing through the implementation of new technologies (Florida & Kenney, 1993). On top of this, marketing and advertising practises drive society to consume (Latouche, 2009).
These forces, make that the capitalistic system is dominant in most nations. Many people don’t realize that it plays a big part in their everyday lives. These circumstances make it easy to forget that everyday practices have negative consequences for the environmental state of the earth. In most nations in the developed Global North, this has resulted in emission rates that are already surpassing the maximum capacity of the earth (Rockström, 2009). This makes them ‘overshoot nations’. The consequences of these high emission rates are already noticeable as climate change, but what will happen if the emission rates of nations in the Global South also increases as they develop further? (Hubacek et al., 2017). Even if these developing nations adopt efficient and sustainable development models, the global ecological footprint would exceed the earths capacity (Hickel, 2019). These statements show that a change needs to occur now in order to minimalize the disastrous consequences of climate change (United Nations, 2018). The above stated facts lead many academics to believe that ‘degrowth’ of the overshoot nations is a necessary.
The Degrowth narrative puts the emphasize on achieving a just and sustainable future for all. A systemic change is necessary to achieve this; the departure from the current economic system (Degrowth Declaration, 2010). Patel & Moore (2017) state that big historical transitions occur when the ‘business as usual’ does not work anymore. The degrowth narrative claims that a transition needs to occur, since the business as usual involves environmental degradation and inequalities (Agyeman, 2013; Degrowth Declaration, 2010). Kallis (2018) puts forth 9 principles that capture the essence of such a ‘Degrowth-society’. Furthermore, this degrowth transition emphasizes the implementation of change on multiple levels (Degrowth Declaration, 2010). Within the current research, the focus will be on the way citizen initiatives on the local scale level can contribute to such change (see 1.2).
The environmental issues, which are one of the problems the degrowth narrative addresses, affects everyone. Climate change and its related consequence will have a negative impact on everyone’s lives (United Nations, 2020). This is the first reason this research is socially relevant. Furthermore, this research includes grassroot initiatives, or citizen initiatives (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2020). This means the emphasize is put on the particular role citizens can have within this Degrowth transition. In addition to this, certain barriers and opportunities the initiatives encounter, will be outlined. This makes is socially relevant for these initiatives.
The fact that these bottom up initiatives are addressed in the academic literature as potential ways to achieve a just and sustainable future for all, shows the academic relevance of this study. Furthermore, little has been written within the degrowth about how this potential emerges in practice literature. This way, the current research adds to a body of literature addressing a potential Degrowth transition by it providing a new perspective on the ways the social principles can emerge.
1.2 Research aim and research questions
This paper will outline the ways in which the social degrowth principles emerge within the grassroot initiatives LETS and Repair Café. The overarching aim is to understand how grassroot in the Netherlands can contribute to a Degrowth transition. To do so, this paper aims to outline in what ways these sustainable grassroot initiatives align with three social principle of Degrowth. The principles that are included in the current research are; sharing, decommodification and social equity (see Chapter 2). Furthermore, the aim is to understand the barriers and opportunities these initiatives encounter, in order to further determine their potential to implement change. The main research question that is formulated is:
In what ways do the Dutch Sustainable Grassroot Initiatives align with the social principles of Degrowth in practice?
In this question ‘in practice’ is in reference to the ways the social principles emerge ‘in real life’. This means the question does not address what the initiatives represent, but the emphasize is on the way the social principles emerge ‘in the field’. To properly answer this main question, several sub-questions are also formulated. These are:
What are the organisational structures and activities of the sustainable grassroot initiatives? In what way do the sustainable grassroot initiatives practice the sharing Principles?
In what way does the decommodification principle emerge within these grassroot initiatives? In what way does the social equity principle emerge within the sustainable grassroot initiatives?
What are the perceived barriers and opportunities these sustainable grassroot initiatives encounter?
The first sub-question will provide insight in the way these principles might occur within the grassroots, as the activities and organisational structures will be outlined. Sub-question 2, 3 and 4 will provide insight in the several ways the specific social principle emerges. The last sub-question will provide further insight in the ways in which the initiatives have potential to contribute to a degrowth transition. The data will be collected through qualitative research methods, as underlying patterns and structures need to be exposed in order to properly answer these research questions.
The next chapter will further address the main topics from these research questions, as it provides a theoretical structure on which this research is based. After that, the research methods that were used to provide the answers to these questions, will be addressed. Furthermore, separate chapters will provide an in-depth analysis and present the main findings of each sub-question. After this, the main findings, as well as the conclusions in reference to the theorical framework, will be presented in the Discussion chapter. Concluding remarks and a short recommendation for the grassroot initiatives will be provided within the last chapter.
2. Theoretical framework
This chapter presents the theoretical underpinnings of this research. Firstly, the Degrowth narrative, which forms the overarching theme of this research, will be outlined. Then, a section is dedicated to the general explanation of grassroot initiatives. This is followed by a section in which the two initiatives included in this study, and the field in which they operate are introduced. Next, the three social degrowth principles that are addressed in this research, are covered.
2.1 Degrowth
Within this first section, the emphasize will be mainly on the ecological and economic aspects of degrowth. In later sections of this framework the social aspects of this narrative, which are relevant to this study, are further outlined (see 2.3 to 2.5).
The dominant economic and social system can be defined as a the capitalistic System. Magdoff & Foster (2011) define capitalism as “an economic and social system in which the owners of capital (or capitalists) appropriate the surplus products generated by the direct producers (or workers), leading to the accumulation of capital by the owners”. Within this system, there exists an addiction to economic growth, resulting in “growth for the sake of growth” (Latouche, 2009). This constant quest to accumulate and to increase capital in order to achieve economic growth leads to a society that is solely focussed on consuming. O’Shaughnessy & O’Shaughnessy (2002) refer to this as a ‘consumer society’. This desire to consume is met by one of the characteristics of the capitalistic system; the overproduction of goods (Latouche, 2009). The motives for producers to participate in the overproduction of goods is fuelled by the need to be competitive with other producers in their pursuit of profit. In other words, competitiveness is deemed necessary to achieve economic success in the current system (Cammack, 2006). This is competitiveness is often achieved through forms of mass-production, which contribute to overproduction of goods (Sabel & Zeitlin, 1985). Adding to this the element of advertising, which is a prominent practice wihtin capitalism, the desire to consume is further reinforced (Latouche, 2009). Hence, in most nations this consumer society has become the norm; most people do not realize that capitalism plays such a significant part in their day to day lives (Magdoff & Foster, 2011).
The degrowth narrative opposes this capitalistic economic system and society, as it critiques the never-ending pursuit of economic growth measured in GDP. Degrowth, however does not mean negative GDP growth (Latouche, 2009), as it proposes an alternative to economic growth that is not environmentally and socially unsustainable (D’ Alisa et al., 2015). This rapid environmental degradation, that is a consequence of the pursuit of economic growth, is a prominent reason the current system is opposed by degrowth thinkers. The current system is fuelled by the overexploitation of unsustainable, finite, natural resources which negatively impacts the earth’s environment. As Rockström (2009) makes evident, several planetary boundaries are currently being surpassed. The global ecological footprint that we as the human race leave behind, is far too large (Latouche, 2009). Currently, the total global amount of CO2-emissions exceeds the maximum rate the earth can tolerate without environmental degradation. In some nations these emission rates are far above the threshold, making them “overshoot nations” (Azevedo et al., 2018). This consuming behaviour, and the related problems, are already showing disastrous consequences for the earth’s environment. Fletcher and Rammelt (2016) provide evidence that it is not possible to decouple economic growth from environmental impact. This is one reason why the degrowth narrative argues that society needs to depart form the capitalistic system and should pursue a system in which fewer natural resources are utilized in order to decrease the environmental pressure (Latouche, 2009 & Hickel, 2019).
The departure from the current system, however, is difficult to realize, since capitalism is deeply intertwined in society. One could say that societies are ‘stuck’ in the capitalistic system (Patel & Moore,
2017). This embeddedness makes implementing a systemic-shift difficult. When adding to this that capitalism can partly be defined as a social system, it could be stated that a societal and cultural change is necessary to make this departure happen (Degrowth Declaration, 2010).
2.2 Grassroot initiatives
As becomes evident in the section above, the desired systemic shift has yet to be realized. The degrowth narrative contains the believe that alliances on different scale levels are necessary to achieve such change (D’Alisa et al., 2015). This section outlines theories that address these different scale levels and it provides a theoretical introduction to the included initiatives.
There are academics that believe a top down approach is the proper way to implement a Degrowth transition; Latouche (2009) describes Degrowth as a political project and Kallis (2018) makes a similar statement by mentioning several public policies that could contribute to achieving degrowth in the overshoot nations. Another approach that is portrayed as promising within the degrowth literature, is the bottom up approach.
One form of a bottom up approach is participatory development (Mohan, 2002). This term emerged after development projects in struggling nations yielded limited positive results. These development attempts proved to be unsuccessful due to, amongst other factors, the top-down approach that was implemented. With this approach the local people were not involved in the projects. Participatory development, hence, focusses on the grassroot level, as this provides opportunities for communities be involved during the implementation change (Mohan, 2002). The focus on the grassroot level is also present within the degrowth narrative. Kallis (2018) for instance, states that grassroot initiatives can be interesting forms of social innovation that can help with implementing changes regarding degrowth and downscaling. Grassroot initiatives, hence, are examples of bottom up approaches for initiating change. The grassroot initiative and the people in the community that act in this bottom up fashion, can change their own behaviour and try to influence the people around them. In this sense, a certain form of agency at the local and individual level is apparent within the citizen initiatives (MacGinty, 2014). Bullard (1993) refers to this this by stating that groups can challenge the business-as-usual from the bottom up. Through this process, the social structures that exist can be reshaped (Bullard, 1993). To function, such grassroot initiatives often rely on people with limited resources, limited power and a limited ability to influence others. Grassroot initiatives often work with volunteers from the community who give their time and knowledge (Middlemiss & Parrish, 2010). Grassroots who work in the field of sustainability are often reliant on the capacity of the leader(s) of the initiative, as well as the nature and capacity of the community in which it exists, this makes their success context dependent (Middlemiss & Parrish, 2010).
In the current study, two grassroot initiatives are included. This section briefly introduces them, and outlines in which field they are active.
LETS
LETS is an acronym that stands for Local Exchange Trading System. A LETS-group is therefore a local trading system, which consists of a group of citizens who trade in goods and services by the means of special points. Each local LETS group has its own type of ‘point’ or ‘coin’. These points are a local and digital means of payment. This point-system is arranged with the help of Cyclos; a program that provides alternative banking and payment systems. Participants can earn these points by selling goods, or by providing services for other participants. The items that are offered within these groups vary widely and are based on the ability of the individual. The points can only be exchanged with people
Repair Café
Repair Café is an initiative which puts the emphasizes on repairing broken products together. Participants (or visitors) can come the ‘Repair Days’ with their broken products and together with ‘experts’ these products are repaired. There is no intuition fee and the experts work there on voluntary basis. It is a misconception that is about recycling, while in fact the initiative ensures the extending of the life span of products (Repair Café, 2018).
Reproduction and distribution
These two sustainable initiatives are selected for this research, as they both operate in the fields of reproduction and distribution. Reproduction, in this case, is in reference to reproductive labour, which entail the unrecognized contribution of care- and domestic labour to the capitalistic system (D’Alisa, et al., 2015). LETS and Repair Cafés both operate within this field due to the fact that the participants perform practices in the domestic spheres. Distribution is in reference to the supplying and division of products which, in the dominant capitalistic system, happens on the regular market (see 2.1). These two initiatives both operate within the field of distribution, as LETS is an alternative distribution system and Repair Café represents an extra stage in the distribution chain. LETS and Repair Café both operate within these dimensions on a local level.
This section outlined the economic and ecological motives for, and potential ways of realizing a departure of the current system. As stated above, the social aspects of the current system are also a part of the degrowth narrative. In the next sections the social principles that are included in this research will be outlined. Kallis (2018) provides nine principles that capture the degrowth vision. From these, the three most relevant principles are selected for the current research. This relevance is based on the relation to the above-mentioned initiatives and the fields in which they operate.
2.3 Sharing
The characteristics of the capitalistic system (see 2.1), include consumption, overproduction and the accumulation of goods and profit (Magdoff & Foster, 2011; Robbins & Dowty, 2008). The degrowth narrative proposes alternative consuming- and production behaviour. Sharing is proposed as one of the practices involving this alternative behaviour. It is one of the principles that Kallis (2018) provides and is mostly addresses on a lower scale level. As section 2.2 outlines, the degrowth narrative includes the forging of alliances on multiple scale levels.
Kallis, (2018) states that degrowth-related bottom up initiatives are not focussed on making profit, but more on sharing as they try to depart from the capitalistic trajectory. Furthermore, sharing could be implemented in many different fields; for example, the sharing of work, expertise, living space, public space and resources. A sharing-structure would require certain rights, rules and duties.
The sharing-principle goes hand in hand with the degrowth-perception of reclaiming the commons. ‘Commons’ is an umbrella term that covers three elements: Common pool resources, which are the shared human, natural or intellectual resources; communities, which entails the people that create and govern the ‘pools’ together; and commoning, which is the institutionalized process of sharing and governing the common pool resources (Kallis, 2018). It also entails making privatized goods public again by ‘reclaiming the commons’. Such communing practices can for instance entail the establishment of more local, community-based food production systems (Kallis, 2018 & Agyeman, 2013).
Furthermore, commoning can be seen as a way to oppose the current system (Caffentzis & Federici, 2014). This departure would be trough the realization of new forms of social relations. These can be established by putting more emphasize on sharing with, and within a community.
Lastly, this way of using resources opposes the neoliberal, capitalistic way of thinking, because it is not about creating capital, but about a new way of production without one person taking the surplus (see 2.1). Harvey (2011) supports this by stating that the point is to change the system and to find creative ways to use the powers of collective labour for the common good. It is not the point to accumulate for accumulation’s sake on the part of the class that appropriates the common wealth from the class that produces it. Privatization and individualization of property is not the way commons should be managed; because the current system is about collective labour there need to be collective property rights (Harvey, 2011). This non-capitalistic way of managing commons could, be realized with the help of Ostrom’s ‘rich mix of instruments’ for organizing commons (Ostrom, 2010).
This section provided a theoretical overview the sharing principle. Besides the fields, and the ways in which sharing can be implemented, the relation to the capitalistic system is outlined.
2.4 Decommodification
Commodification is the process in which a good or a service is treated or considered as a commodity (Cambridge Dictionary, 2020). Its value is often expressed in monetary terms. This process is a typical characteristic of the capitalistic system, in which creating value is a key incentive (Holden, 2003). Within this system non marketed areas are modified into commercial areas. Furthermore, the capitalistic system contributed to commodification by treating labour as if it were a commodity. Labour is viewed as if it is produced to be exchanged on the market (Holden, 2003). The same goes for ecosystem services. The commodification of ecosystem services refers to the inclusion of new ecosystem functions into pricing systems and market relations (Gómez & Perez, 2011). Furthermore, Fletcher & Rammelt (2016) argue that it is not possible decouple environmental degradation from the pursuit of economic growth. Hence, Gerber & Gerber (2017) argue that decommodification is the best way to achieve a post-growth transition. Decommodification can be transcribed ‘as the degree of immunization from market dependency’ (Gerber & Gerber, 2017). Decommodification is a difficult process, considering the capitalistic system and the ingrained addiction to economic growth, which are still dominant in most nations (see 2.1). Decommodification can be seen as the direct opposition of the current capitalistic trend, implementing change can thus be difficult. This is further underlined by the fact that some societies are ‘stuck’ in the current system (see 2.1).
According to Holden (2003) decommodification can be conceptualised in terms of the state intervening to remove workers from total dependence of the market through the implementation of policies and taxation. Such state intervention is considered a top-down approach to decommodification. The current research, however, focusses more on the grassroot- and bottom-up approach to decommodification.
There already exist economic grassroots that put the emphasize on the departing from the dominant economy (Miller, 2010). These initiatives vary from alternative currencies to community gardens and community supported agriculture (CSA) programs. At first glance, it doesn't seem as if these initiatives are operating in the same field. However, in the core they share a similar set of values that are in contradiction with the values that are associated with the current economic system. These initiatives, in contrast with the current economy, put the emphasize on the fostering of relationships, as well as shared responsibilities and the strengthening of local communities (Miller, 2010). Such values are also characteristics of the solidarity economy. In the current research, decommodification is deemed a
social principle, as the focus does not lie with the economic- or market forces behind it, but rather with the role the citizen initiatives play in it.
This section briefly outlined the role of commodification within the capitalistic system. Besides this, the reasoning behind decommodification and possible implementation strategies are addressed.
2.5 From inequality to social equity
Firstly, it is important to address the terminology that will be utilized in the current research. The terms equity and equality are often used interchangeably. However, there is a small distinction between the two terms. Equality refers to a ‘mathematical’ term, regarding two identical, equal parts in number or size. Equity on the other hand, is in reference to a more flexible measure which is not about exact sameness, but allows equivalency (Guy & McCandless, 2012). In reference to social equity, the emphasize of the term lies on fairness, rights and justice for all individuals in society (Nalbandian, 1989).
On all scale levels there exist economic, social and environmental inequalities. It is argued that these inequalities are unavoidably related to the pursuit of economic growth within the current system (see 2.1). In the Netherlands, the capitalistic system is the dominant system. The fact that this system functions on inequality (see 2.1), generates friction with the democratic constitutional system and the welfare state, which both aspire equality. These contradicting incentives create a context in which it is difficult to achieve equity within a society (Guy & McCandless, 2012).
The degrowth narrative, hence, proposes a future in which equity is an important part of the society. As stated before, Kallis (2018) puts forth nine principles that capture the degrowth vision. The first of these nine principles is ‘the end to exploitation’, which refers to creating a classless degrowth society. This classlessness refers not only to economic equality, but also to gender- and social equality (Kallis, 2018).
Muraca (2012) makes a statement that is in line with this vision, as she argues that it is not true that economic growth is necessary to achieve justice and equality. However, economic growth is often the objective of political leaders, as they claim that a ‘trickle-down’ effect will make sure everyone benefits from GDP-growth. In practice, the opposite seems to be true; the exponential economic growth has only led to more inequality in the past 25 years (Muraca, 2012). Criticism against measuring well-being through GDP is in line with the degrowth narrative. Besides this, it opens the doors to alternative models for post-growth societies in which redistribution can contribute to social justice (Muraca, 2012). Latouche (2009) & Degrowth declaration (2010) make statements that support this, as they underline the necessity of the redistribution of wealth and income on a global and local level, in order to create a more just society through a degrowth transition.
Social exclusion
Social exclusion is something that could be considered the opposite of achieving social equity, as it is often the result of sharp inequalities. Sen (2000, p. 5) refers to this term as “the exclusion of the poor from participation in, and access to opportunities and activities”. The Social Exclusion Unit of Britain (2001, p. 10) however, defines it as “a shorthand term for what can happen when people or areas suffer from a combination of linked problems such as unemployment, poor skills, low incomes, poor housing, high crime, bad health and family breakdown”. In theory, anyone can be socially excluded, but evidence shows that people that belong to certain social groups, are more at risk. Factors such as a having a low income; family conflict; being in care; school problems; being an ex-prisoner; being from an ethnic minority; living in a deprived neighbourhood in urban and rural areas; mental health problems, age and having a disability can enhance the risk of being socially excluded (Social Exclusion
Unit, 2001). These problems are often linked and mutually reinforce each other, which can lead to a difficult vicious cycle. This is in line with Sen (2000) who states that social exclusion can be a cause, as well as a consequence of poverty. In a society with inequality and social exclusion, accessibility to services and goods is not the same for everyone. Inequality of access is important to take into account, as it is likely to reinforce inequality in opportunities for economic mobility and social participation (DiMaggio et al., 2004). To oppose social exclusion, the terms on which individuals and groups take part in society needs to be improved; social inclusion practices are needed (Hayes, Gray & Edwards, 2008). Such practices involve improving the, dignity, ability, and opportunity of those disadvantaged on the basis of their identity (Worldbank, 2020).
This section, amongst other things, addressed the relation between the capitalistic system and inequality in society. Furthermore, the current inequality-problems and the vision of the degrowth narrative regarding this issue are outlined.
2.6 Barriers and opportunities for a Degrowth transition
The above outlined concepts and principles are all matters that could potentially contribute to a Degrowth transition (Buch-Hansen, 2014). As stated by Kallis (2018) and within the Degrowth Declaration (2010), the elements of this transition will have to be realized on multiple scale levels. Within this potential transition, there can exist certain barriers and opportunities. Barriers entail certain physical, institutional, social, or human factors that could prevent something from happening (Bhave et al., 2016). Opportunities, hence entail these same factors but in circumstances that contribute to the implementation of something. Bhave et al. (2016). These barriers and opportunities are often context-specific. The potential barriers and opportunities are in this research in reference to the initiatives’ ability to implement change, and hence contribute to a degrowth transition.
This research will mainly focus on the local scale level through the examination of the grassroot initiatives. The next chapter will outline which methods are used to do so.
3. Methods
3.1 Research design
This research is conducted within the borders of the Netherlands (see Chapter 4). The focus within this research is on two types of grassroot initiatives within the field of reproduction and distribution (see Chapter 2 & 4). Because the focus is on these two initiatives and since there is no predetermined outcome, the research design of can be considered an exploratory case study (Yin, 2018). This design is appropriate for the current research, as the complex social principles from Chapter 2 are to be analysed in depth.
3.2 Research strategy and data collection
Within the current research, a qualitative research strategy has been used. This strategy is suitable for the selected research design, and to answer the formulated research questions (see Chapter 1). As the research attempts to comprehend the underlying social processes and motives that take place within these initiatives, qualitative research is the appropriate strategy to utilize (Bryman, 2012). The way in which these processes take place and how these motives come to the fore, are the concepts that will be measured with this strategy. In order to properly do so, empirical data is collected during fieldwork. This was done in the form of semi-structured in-depth interviews (Bryman, 2012). The nature of these interviews is semi structured, due to the fact that every interview started with the same introductory phrases and the same topic list was utilized (see Appendix 1). There was, however, space to ask the interviewees follow-up questions when a relevant topic was mentioned. In this way, the topic list contributed to the structure, but was not binding during the interviews.
In total, 12 interviews have been conducted, of which nine respondents were participants of the LETS initiatives and three participants of the Repair café. The unequal division between these respondents was most likely COVID-19 related (see 3.3). The sampling method that was used for the other respondents is partly random-sampling and partly snowball-sampling. At first, random initiatives were selected from the websites of the initiatives (See Appendix 2). During this random selection it was the attempt to make an equal division between the provinces of the Netherlands. After the first few interviews, respondents began to make recommendations on potentially interesting cases. Based on this several other initiatives were contacted, leading to sampling through a snowball-effect. The cities in which the respondents’ initiatives are located, are mapped out in figure 1. The blue pins indicate the location of the initiatives that were included in the Current research.
In Leeuwarden and Utrecht, two respondents were interviewed. The umbrella organisation of the Repair Café is based in Amsterdam and the contact for ‘Letscontact’ (the ‘umbrella organisation’ for the LETS-initiative) is based in Arnhem.
For both the initiatives, one member of the umbrella-organisation was interviewed. The rest of the respondents were people on the board or in the volunteer-based organisation of the initiatives. Many of the respondents were the founders of the initiatives and the all have been a participant for at least five years (see Appendix 3). The length of the interview varied from 56 minutes to 80 minutes, with an
average of 71 minutes. The interviews were conducted through digital programs such as Skype or Zoom, or by telephone. All the interviews have been recorded with consent, in order to be able to listen to them again and to select the appropriate quotes. Besides this, detailed interview-notes were taken during the interviews (see 3.3). Furthermore, all respondents were Dutch-speaking, so all interviews are conducted in Dutch.
3.3 Data analysis and operationalisation
After having gathered the empirical data, the interview notes were expanded with other relevant issues that were retrieved from the interview-recordings. These comprehensive notes were then divided in categories based on the topics of the sub-questions (see Chapter 1). This method of analysing data is appropriate for the current research, as it structures large sections of texts and reveals the significance thereof. More categories we formulated as the underlying connections and patterns became apparent. Based on this analysis, decisions were made about structure of the results (see 4.3). Furthermore, during this coding-process, particular attention was paid to the concepts that were operationalized for this research. Table 1 on the next page contains the operationalisation as it was done for this research. Lastly, all the interviews, as well as the interview notes that were taken were in Dutch (see 3.2). The quotes that are used in the results chapters are the as literally as possible translated phrases that were said by respondents (see Chapter 5 to 9). During the analysis, it was not the intention to compare the two initiatives. Section 4.3 will further outline in which cases, and for what reasons an exception was made.
Concepts Dimensions Variables
Sharing Knowledge - Providing answers to questions
- Sharing information - Sharing experiences - Providing lectures - Sharing skills
Products - Sharing goods / products
- Exchanging goods / products - Borrowing goods / products
Decommodification Not reliant on the markt for services - Using services outside of the regular market
- Being self-reliant or relying on others - No monetary value to services
Not reliant on the markt for products - Using products outside of the regular market
- Being self-reliant or relying on others - No monetary value to services
Social equity Economic fairness & rights - No / low participation fee
- Participation fee based on individual - Equivalency regarding economic well being
- Economic equivalency within the initiative and with participation conditions
Social fairness & rights - No discrimination based on gender / race / class / personal issues and
other social variables.
- Social equivalency regarding the initiative and with participation conditions
Social inclusion - Equal opportunities to participate for everyone (no matter economic /
social status)
- Feeling part of a community - Having social relations
- Based on gender
- Based on race
- Individual history / (mental) health
Objectives / Motives
to participate Economic / financial - - Less costly option Saving money
Social - Meeting people
- Feeling of community
- Building social relations - Hobby / free time
Learning something
Ecological - Recycling
- Less transport / more local - Less plastic
- More green
- Less waste
Convenience - Close by
- Short waiting time
- Easy
Degrowth transition Barriers to implement change - Physical restrictions for development of the initiative
- Institutional restrictions for development of the initiative - Social restrictions for development of the initiative - Human restrictions for development of the initiative
Opportunities to implement change - Physical contribution to development of the initiative
- Institutional contribution to development of the initiative - Social contribution to development of the initiative - Human contribution to development of the initiative Table 1. Operationalisation of the main concepts.
This table provides a visualisation of the operationalization of the main concepts that are addressed in this research. This operationalization simplified the coding process, as the dimensions and variables posed as key point to be aware of. These concepts also formed the main topics in the topic list (see Appendix 1).
3.4 Limitations and COVID-19 reflection
There are certain common limitations that are also present in this research. Firstly, an ingrained disadvantage of qualitative research is the researcher bias. For instance, the researcher can influence the respondents during the interviews. This makes the research difficult to replicate. Lastly, the data in qualitative research is textual, which leaves room for personal interpretation. In this case, the researcher also plays a significant role.
There are also limitations to this research that could be attributed to the unusual circumstances in which this research is conducted. Due to the COVID-19 measures that were implemented nationally, the initiatives were closed, or partly shut-down. In the early stages of the research, these measures made it necessary to modify the research design. The original idea was to execute a mixed-method research in which semi structured interviews, participatory observations and a GIS-analysis were combined. Due to the inability to do visit the initiatives and approach citizen participants, this was not possible and alterations to the design had to be made. Furthermore, it would have been a case study in which the research would take place within the Randstad with the focus on one particular initiatve. After the corona-lockdown was announced the decision was made to expand the research area, in order to increase the chance of responses. Due to these circumstances, the sub-questions had to be altered and some had to be scrapped. This, hence, meant alterations in de theoretical framework as well.
Besides the above-mentioned changes before the start of the research, flexibility was also required during the executing of the research. For in instance, the interviews were all conducted digitally (see 3.2). This, in my own opinion, makes it more difficult to read and respond to body language, and to have a ‘smooth’ conversation.
Furthermore, the COVID-19 measures caused direct limitations to this research. The main problem, was that the Repair Cafes were temporarily inactive and hence did not reply to the e-mails that were send out. In total there were 15 LETS initiatives approached, from which 8 were interviewed, two responded with the message that they were not interested in participation and five initiatives did not respond. In total, there were 20 Repair Cafés-contacts approached, from which three were interviewed, two responded not to be interested in participation and 14 initiatives did not respond.
One Repair Café responded on the 17th of June (one week before the thesis deadline). This message
made evident that because they are closed, the inbox is not checked. This email can be found in the Appendix 4. This is the reason that the Repair Cafés are underrepresented within this initiative. Due to the valuable information the three respondents did provide, the decision was made to incorporate them in the research after all. LETS initiatives were still active in a modified manner, which is why the responses amongst these initiatives were significantly higher.
Lastly, on a personal note, the COVID-19 pandemic has also had a negative impact on my personal writing process. Of course, there was the unpleasant feeling of insecurity and fear for the situation we all had to deal with. In addition to this, I personally found it difficult deliver good work under the circumstances, as I did not have access to a proper workspace. Despite these unusual circumstances, I have wholeheartedly tried to make the best of it.
4. Context of the case
This chapter briefly outlines the context in which this research is conducted and it briefly reintroduces the initiatives that are included in this study. Furthermore, it provides an explanation of the structure of the following result chapters.
4.1 Dutch context
As mentioned in before, grassroot initiatives are significantly present in the sustainability landscape of the Netherlands. In 2016, there were more than 511 grassroot initiatives that engage in sustainable practices submitted to participate in the election of ‘best sustainable initiative’ (De Groene Stad, 2016). This high amount is not surprising, considering the current global environmental situation we are in. In order to, for instance, achieve the 2°C limit from the Paris Agreement (European Union, 2019) and reducing the exhaustion of resources (Conserve Energy Future, 2016) a transformation is needed. For this reason, it is pleasant to see that citizens take initiative through grassroots in attempt to implement change on lower scale levels (see Chapter 1 & 2). There are Dutch municipalities that support and subsidize citizen- and grassroot initiatives within the field of sustainability (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2020 & Gemeente Den Haag, 2020). This is a reinforcing factor that contributes to the high number of bottom up initiatives in the Netherlands.
There is a wide variety in nature of these grassroots. Although they all operate within the field of sustainability; these sustainable grassroots can be further categorized in different subfields. This is fitting for the wider degrowth narrative that is applied in this research since, the forging of alliances with various initiatives with similar ambitions is deemed important within this narrative. This common ambition is ‘contributing to a transformative change toward a more just, sustainable and resilient society’ (Kunze, 2016). As Chapter 2 also outlines, according to the degrowth narrative, this transformative change should be implemented on different scale levels (Degrowth Conference Leipzig, 2014).
4.2 The initiatives
Within the large variety of sustainable initiatives in The Netherlands, this research focusses on two well-established initiatives that are involved in the reproduction and distribution practices. These are particular fields within the field of sustainability, which are relevant to the degrowth narrative (see Chapter 2). The first initiative is LETS (Local Exchange Trading System), which started in Canada in the ’90 of the twentieth century. It started during an economic crisis in which many individuals experienced economic hardship. The initiative is currently is present in more than 85 cities within the Netherlands. Most of the LETS-groups have the official legal form of an association. Through the possibility of participation that comes with this legal form, the members are able to contribute to the organisation of the LETS trading circle. According to Dutch law, official association are obliged to hold a “general member meeting” in which all members of the association a free express their opinions, concerns and questions about the state of affairs (Wet&Recht, 2014). An individual can become a member of a LETS-group by registering online or at the office and by paying the intuition fee (in euro’s). The second initiative is the Repair Café, which is an initiative that started in Amsterdam and has currently spread to countries all over the world. The initiative is founded by Martine Postma in 2009 in Amsterdam-West. Since then, the initiative had become a world-wide movement that focusses on the preservation of repair-knowledge. There are more than 2086 Repair Café globally and more than 505 of these are based in The Netherlands (see Chapter 2). It has the legal form of an as a foundation.
4.3 Structure of the results
The results of this research are outlined in next 4 chapters (see Chapter 5 to 9). The data in these chapters is divided according to the sub-questions (see Chapter 1). The chapters are further organised in several sections in which the main topics of these sub-questions are addressed. At the end of each sub-chapter, the main findings that emerged during the data analysis, are outlined. These sections provide an answer to the addressed sub-questions. Within these main findings, several small analytical connections between the principles and the other main topics, will be made. Furthermore, it is important to clarify that in most sections the data of both initiatives is combined in order to answer the sub-questions. In the case of some topics, however, a distinction is made between the LETS-initiative and the Repair Cafés. This distinction is made due to the difference in the LETS-initiatives’ structures, which influenced the results, or in order to better underline the exact ways in which certain principles emerged (see 3.4). During analysation of these social principles, it became evident that there exist many overlaps between them. The structure of the results is hence based upon the underlying connections and patterns that were discovered during the analysis of the empirical data (see 3.3).
5. Organisational structure and activities
In this chapter the data regarding the grassroots’ organisational structure and activities are outlined. A distinction between the two different initiatives is made due to the difference in structure. This chapter will provide an answer to the following sub-question: What are the organisational structures and activities of the sustainable grassroot initiatives? It is important to understand the ways in which the participants interpret the organisational structure and activities, in order to understand how the social principles come to the fore within the initiatives.
LETS
The data from the current research shows that the obliged ‘general member meetings’ are often attended by few people. In some cases, the board, which in LETS-groups is often referred to as a “the core-group”, is appointed during these meetings. It became apparent that the people in this group take the largest portion of the organisational responsibilities upon them, or delegate them to other members. This group often exists of three to five people who, amongst other tasks, maintain the website, do the financial- and membership administration and work on public relations and promotion. It became evident that the people in this group are often ‘paid’ in point, only in few cases it is on voluntary basis.
“A LETS-group can be compared to a small nation in which the core-group functions somewhat as a government.”
Data shows that the opinions about the way a LETS-group should be managed, and on the way the core-group should act, are divided. A large part of the respondents, for instance, mentioned that a strong board is necessary to make tough decision and to give proper structure to the initiative. In their opinion, providing a strong organisational structure and achieving a lively, active LETS-system is the core-group’s responsibility. This was due to the fact that the core-group can implement certain guidelines and rules to achieve this. An example of this is, a maximum and minimum amount of points one can possess. Measures like this can stimulate trade and hence were seen as part of the core-groups’ job.
On the other hand, it became evident that the general believe is that it is not solely the core-group’s responsibility to assure that people are actively trading. Respondents mentioned that part of this responsibility lies with the members’ willingness to participate on the trading market. It also became evident that a LETS-group can have a large number of members, but a relatively inactive exchange market.
“Some participants are ‘sleeping-members’; they are a part of the initiative, but they hardly trade.”
Furthermore, a few respondents stated that a LETS-group works best with a less hierarchical organisation. Respondents mentioned that a strict, or an overly controlling board does not fit well within the general philosophy of a LETS-group, in which all should feel included and equally important. This difference in opinion about the proper way to structure the organisations is underlined by an example within one particular LETS-group. Interviews with two members of the same LETS-group provided this insight. The LETS-groups is currently in transition from the above explained board-led structure, to a structure that is more in line with a sociocracy. This entails that several ‘work-groups’ with one chosen foreman will be composed in order to create a more horizontal organisational structure. Participation and having a voice in the decision-making process should be improve due to this structure shift. The first respondent agreed with this shift, as she believed that the LETS-group
functions better when its organisation is not too hierarchical. The nature of the core-group, however, also influenced her opinion (see Chapter 9).
“The board should not be too controlling. I think the new structure will create a feeling of autonomy and more connectedness, which many members will appreciate.”
The second respondent mentioned to be sceptic about such change, since having too many people around the table could reduce the functionality of the group.
“I know from experience that, even with the board, it is already hard to get things done. (…) With a small group, it might be easier to make tough decisions, so I am still a bit sceptic as to how this new will work in practice.”
Although opinions about the structure differ, it became evident that participation and having a voice was important for all respondents within this initiative.
Interviews also made evident that there is little, to no contact between the different LETS-groups. Although plans were made about creating a national trading network, there was not enough enthusiasm amongst the local initiatives (see Chapter 9). This is the reason it was never truly established.
REPAIR CAFÉ
All the RC’s in the current research have the official legal form of a foundation. One argument given for this was that this legal form comes with less responsibilities regarding the participants; one does not have to be a ‘member’ of an RC in order to participate. A group of volunteers has the responsibility of making sure the organisation functions well. The respondents mentioned that meetings only occur a few times a year, as the organisational tasks are not very extensive.
“We are practically a group of friends who like to come together every two weeks to do some
technical chores, so making [organisational] decisions is not difficult.”
There can be more than one RC in a city, unlike a LETS-group, but interviews made clear that the local RC’s hardly have contact with each other. Respondents did mention that it would be nice if this were to improve. There is however, a well-established umbrella organisation. An interview with one of the staff members from this organisation (Repair Café International) gave insight of their duties. They provide starter kits that can help with the establishing and promotion of a local RC. The rest of the responsibilities, regarding the functionality of the initiative, lie with at local level.
“It is our task to facilitate a network, we don’t have a supervising role”
These facilitating practices will be further outlined in the next chapter, as it involves the sharing of knowledge on a higher scale level (see Chapter 5).
Main findings
This chapter analysed the organisational structures of the grassroot initiatives. It became apparent that the initiatives have different organisational structures. Furthermore, it became evident that there can be different opinions about the proper organisational structure within a particular initiative. Also striking, is the difference in the functionality of the umbrella organisations (see Chapter 9). Within both initiatives, there exists a desire to have more contact between local initiatives.
6. Grassroot and the social principles of Degrowth: Sharing
This chapter outlines in what ways the social degrowth principle ‘sharing’ comes to the fore within the grassroot initiatives that were included the current research. It is examined how the sharing philosophies are integrated and practiced in the activities of the grassroots initiatives. This chapter will answer the sub-question ‘In what way do the sustainable grassroot initiatives practice the sharing Principles?
During the analysis, it became clear that a distinction could be made between the sharing of knowledge and the sharing of products.
“LETS is very much about the exchange of services, goods and knowledge.”
Knowledge sharing
First of all, interviews show that within these grassroot initiatives the sharing of knowledge is a common practice on the local level. The RC’s are, to some extent, structured around the sharing of knowledge. This can, for instance, be seen in the terminology that is used within this grassroot, as the people that attend the repair days are called participants and not clients. Interviews made clear that this was based upon the fact that the volunteers work together with the participants to repair the broken products. Through this process, knowledge about reparations and the product in question is shared. Furthermore, respondents stated that raising awareness about waste accumulation, consuming behaviour and the need to repair, also plays an important role in the initiative’s objectives. These practices also revolve around the sharing of knowledge.
LETS-circles are also partly based on knowledge-sharing practices, as a big part of the LETS-practices evolve around the exchange of services. Interviews made clear that one has the possibility to do make use of someone’s capabilities. This can be done, for instance, when someone is not able to execute a specific action, or when one lacks the knowledge, or skill in this field. In this sense, this exchange of services can be seen as ‘the sharing of skills’. This can be interpreted as a specific form of sharing knowledge.
“It is great; when I don’t know how to do something, I can find someone in LETS who can!”
“Someone painted my fence; they have chopped wood for me (…) I often do accounting-related jobs”
The respondents also stated that besides the practicality of sharing skills, another positive result of sharing knowledge this way, was learning from each other through working together. This statement further underlined the presence of knowledge sharing practices within these initiatives. This, for instance, entailed the simple act of answering questions during social contact. This latter can be seen as the ‘casual sharing of knowledge’, which is mainly based upon the social interactions that take place between the participants of the these grassroot initiatives (see Chapter 8). Beside the casual manner of sharing knowledge, the grassroots initiatives organise events on a local level such as workshops or lectures. Through the organisation of informative activities, knowledge is shared in an arranged setting.
Interviews also made apparent that knowledge is not only shared on a local level, but also on a national and even international level. As outlined before (see Chapter 5), the RC has a well-established umbrella organisation, that transgresses the national boarders of the Netherlands. Through the structure this international organisation provides, it becomes possible for the local RC’s to share documentation, information and knowledge that contributes to the reparability of products. Through this online
database, knowledge is combined and made accessible for all volunteers on the local scale level. In other words, this way of facilitating knowledge sharing from a higher scale level, provides a structure that enhances knowledge sharing on a lower scale level. Interviews made evident that this RepairMonitor is established by the umbrella organisation with the motive to enhance their contribution to the circular economy.
“The database with necessary documentation for repairing products is a tool the local initiatives can use to exchange knowledge between each other.”
Data shows that LETS-groups are less interconnected (see Chapter 5). Due to this fact, the sharing of knowledge hardly happens on higher scale than the local level. The annual LETS-day is a moment when local LETS-groups can share knowledge and experiences with other groups on a national level. This day, interviews made evident, was more interpreted as an ‘interesting and fun’ day to socialize and meet more people (see Chapter 8). Exchanging knowledge on a higher scale levels was not the main purpose of these LETS-day. However, it became evident that there exists a desire for better interconnectedness on a higher scale level in order to enhance the functionality of the initiatives (see Chapters 5 & 9).
Product sharing
Secondly, the sharing of knowledge is not the only way the grassroot initiatives practice sharing principles. The sharing of products plays smaller, yet significant role within the initiatives. This varied from the ‘easy’ sharing of tools during reparation days and the collectively purchasing of a common tool chest, to more in depth-sharing practices. The latter entail the sharing of vehicles and even accommodation through exchanging deals. Respondents made evident that this ‘physical’ form of sharing is practiced in order to refrain from purchasing certain products as an individual. The sharing of a car, for instance, was the result of a local exchange after one individual needed occasional access to a vehicle.
“I don’t own a car, nor do I usually need one. However, the time I did need a car, it was perfectly appropriate to arrange this through the initiative. (…) I could make use of the car in exchange for another service”.
The sharing of products was only practiced on the local level. In the case of the RC’s, respondents stated that there was no need for product-sharing on a higher level, as this would not contribute to the practicality of the initiative. In case of the LETS-groups, opinions about product-sharing on a higher level were divided. Some respondent reported that having the possibility to trade between cities it wold be useful. Others stated that ‘the L of LETS doesn’t mean local for nothing.
Main findings
The section above outlines, that sharing practices come to the fore in several ways. The most common way of sharing is ‘the sharing of knowledge’. This practice happens mostly on the local level, but due to the umbrella organisation of the RC’s, knowledge sharing on a higher scale level is facilitated. This was less the case with the LETS-groups, due to the fact that their umbrella structure is less established. Furthermore, ‘the sharing of products’ was the second form in which sharing practices occurred in these initiatives. In this case it the local level was also the dominant scale in which this was practiced. Lastly, it became evident that these sharing practices take certain services and products off the market. This last point addresses a relation between sharing and decommodification. The way this connection comes to the fore, is analysed in-depth in the next chapter (see Chapter 7).
