Slowly infecting capitalism with solidarity economy: exploring member’s
perceptions in a multiple case study in urban São Paulo
by Daniel A. Sarmento University of Amsterdam
Supervisor: dr. A.F.M. Zaal
July 15, 2020 Word Count: 28.028
Research MSc International Development Studies
Abstract
The coronavirus has exposed the economic, social, and ecological crisis reproduced by competitive capitalism and demonstrated the importance of cooperation values. One of the counter-movements that re-emerged in the Global South, as an alternative with
transformative potential, was the solidarity economy, of which the Brazilian case is
considered a ‘touchstone’. However, after 2015, the adverse political and economic scenario has significantly undermined the movement. This thesis was organized as a multiple-case-study design and draws on Paul Singer’s theoretical framework to investigate, based on the solidarity economy member’s perceptions, the current subjective experience of participating in solidarity economy organizations in urban São Paulo, the bedrock of the movement. The in-depth interviews revealed that organizations were founded to address different social and environmental causes and only incorporated solidarity principles later on. Members tended to have a pragmatic approach about the movement but they all engaged in some form of
democratic self-management. The conclusion points to the prefigurative potential of solidarity economy organizations to create new and more integrated ways of organizing economic activity underpinned by empathetic and cooperative behavior.
Acknowledgments
If there are any merits to this research, my own share is limited to being the sole recipient of immeasurable wisdom, kindness, support, and encouragement. It is impossible to acknowledge all of the contributions that I have attempted to channeled into this paper but, by mentioning a few of the more direct ones, I hope to extend my gratitude to each of them. First, I am indebted to my supervisor Fred Zaal, not only for his thoughtful and empathetic academic expertise and support, but also for having wisely guided me towards the topic I was truly passionate about. Many other professors were crucial both in terms of knowledge and inspiration: inexhaustible and unfailing Nicky Pouw, profound and receptive Rivke Jaffe, wise and kind Esther Miedema, captivating and instigating Pamela Prickett, understanding and prodigious Javier Bernardo, competent and practical Mirjam Ros-Tonen and Edith van Ewijk, and leading and experienced Courtney Vegelin. Throughout I have constantly counted with Eva van der Sleen’s prompted assistance, and also the invaluable support from Marjan Kuiper. My classmates, however, were undoubtedly my main masters. I owe to each one of those brilliant people an unbelievable personal and academic development. I have nothing but great admiration and affection for Roze, Max, Arthur, Tatjana, Veerle, Flier, Belle, Lotte, Daniela, Emma, Alyssa, Cemre, Lena, Hannah, Marijke, Evita, Matheus, and the most generous and wonderful Judith, whose friendship I was truly blessed with. On top of it all, I have counted with my family’s unyielding support. I have no words to express my absolute adoration and indebtedness to Bianca and Amanda. My sister will forever be my idol and my most profound connection and source of affinity. My father’s and Andrea’s unshakable love and devotion were always closely guiding my heart. And my mother. Always my second metta stage. The most wise and compassionate being. My utopic goal as a human being.
Lastly, my wife. My loving partner in life. Thank you for your fortitude, farsightedness, fearlessness. For your sacrifices, your patience, and continuous collaboration. For believing in me. This is for you.
List of Figures
Figure 1 - Number of publications on SSE. Source: Web of Science ... 23
Figure 2 - Treemap of SSE publications by country ... 24
Figure 3 - Publications on SSE in Brazil. Source: Scopus ... 25
Figure 4 - Adapted multi-case-study model (Yin, 2014, p.60) ... 36
Figure 5 - Study Case Perception Approach Analysis (Adapted from Kunwar, et al., 2013) .. 40
Figure 6 - Conceptual Scheme ... 42
Figure 7 - FBES Structure (Brazilian Forum of Solidarity Economy, 2006, p. 6) ... 50
Figure 8 - Solidarity Economy Organizations in São Paulo Map ... 65
List of Tables Table 1 - Solidarity Economy Organizations by activity and economic sector ... 67
Table 2 - Solidarity Economy Organizations legal status and composition ... 71
Table 3 - Solidarity Economy Organizations Remuneration ... 80
Table 4 - Solidarity Economy Organizations main cause ... 84
Acronyms
7Cs - Challenge, Context, Content, Cover, Crosscutting, Critic and Conclusion ADS – Solidarity Development Agency
CEB – Catholic Communities
CNBB - Brazilian National Bishop Conference
CUT – Worker’s Central Union
GDP – Gross Domestic Product
GSDR - Global Sustainable Development Report ILO - International Labour Organization
ISS – Institute of Social Studies
IPEA - Institute of Applied Economic Research
ITCP - Technological Incubator of Popular Cooperatives
ITCP/USP – University of São Paulo’s Technological Incubator of Popular Cooperatives MST – Landless Workers’ Movement
NESOL – Solidarity Economy Center NGO – Non-governmental Organization PACs – Alternative Community Projects PT – Worker’s Party
SEN - Solidarity Economy Network
SENAES - National Secretariat for Solidarity Economy SEO – Solidarity Economy Organization
SIES – Solidarity Economy Information System SSE – Social and Solidarity Economy
UNISOL - Union of Cooperatives and Solidarity Enterprises of the State of São Paulo USP – University of São Paulo
Table of Contents INTRODUCTION ... 9 RESEARCH QUESTIONS ... 13 MAIN QUESTION: ... 13 SUB-QUESTIONS: ... 13 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ... 14 PAUL SINGER ... 14
Utopian Socialism roots. ... 16
The Solidarity Economy Organization. ... 18
LITERATURE REVIEW (THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK)... 20
Scoping search. ... 20
Mapping the literature. ... 22
Social and solidarity economy research in Brazil. ... 24
Grey literature. ... 27
Relevance and knowledge gaps. ... 28
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ... 30
ONTOLOGY ... 31
EPISTEMOLOGY... 32
RESEARCH DESIGN –CASE STUDY ... 35
QUALITY CRITERIA ... 37
UNIT OF OBSERVATION /ANALYSIS ... 38
DATA COLLECTING DATA AND SAMPLING ... 38
DATA ANALYSIS ... 40 CONCEPTUAL SCHEME ... 41 ETHICS ... 42 POSITIONALITY ... 44 RESEARCH CONTEXT ... 45 ACCUMULATING FORCES ... 46
GROWTH ... 48
Cáritas. ... 52
The Union and UNISOL. ... 57
University of São Paulo’s Incubator (ITCP/USP). ... 57
SETBACKS ... 58
SOLIDARITY ECONOMY ORGANIZATIONS ... 64
ORGANIZATION’S PROFILE ... 65
COMPOSITION AND LEGAL STATUS ... 67
ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL RESULTS ... 71
REMUNERATION ... 77
SOLIDARITY ECONOMY MEMBER’S PERCEPTIONS ... 81
HISTORY, REASONS, AND VALUES... 81
THE LIVED EXPERIENCE OF SELF-MANAGEMENT ... 88
NETWORK AND FUTURE... 93
DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION ... 97
WHY DID MEMBERS JOIN A SOLIDARITY ECONOMY ORGANIZATION? ... 97
HOW IS THE HISTORY OF SOLIDARITY ECONOMY ORGANIZATIONS IN SÃO PAULO TOLD BY ITS MEMBERS?... 98
HOW DO MEMBERS PERCEIVE THE EXPERIENCE OF PARTICIPATING IN A SOLIDARITY ECONOMY ORGANIZATION? ... 99
HOW DO MEMBERS’ PERCEIVE THE FUTURE OF THE SOLIDARITY ECONOMY MOVEMENT? ... 101
HOW IS THE SOLIDARITY ECONOMY PERCEIVED BY ITS OWN MEMBERS IN URBAN SÃO PAULO? ... 102
A PREFIGURATIVE ALTERNATIVE ... 103
DEVELOPMENT IMPLICATIONS: PREFIGURATIVE SOLIDARITY ... 104
APPENDIX A ... 106
Introduction
On February 16, 2020, long-time environment activist P.h.D. Elizabeth Sawin tweeted a thought-provoking question: “if you look at climate change as a symptom rather than as the core problem, what changes in your strategy”? Twelve days earlier, Guy Ryder, Director-General of the International Labour Organization (ILO) was tweeting about another global challenge:
"Our collective social fabric is fraying at the seams. Without social dialogue between government, employers and workers, that fabric is in danger of tearing - putting at risk progress towards equity, justice and our shared ambition of decent work and inclusive growth. #GlobalDeal"
Indeed, as pointed out by the Global Sustainable Development Report (GSDR), there is a need to transform because our current strategy is not working. “Under current trends”, says the report, “the world’s social and natural biophysical systems cannot support the aspirations for universal human well-being embedded in the Sustainable Development Goals’” (United Nations, 2019, p. xx). But what is the core problem? Because of the coronavirus pandemic, Jäger & Klein (2020) argued that the fragilities of global capitalism were finally exposed. In a still pre-pandemic world, Barbosa (2020) made a now very befitting analogy when he wrote that addressing our socioeconomic problems “without tackling the way in which goods and services are produced is similar to treating pneumonia with anti-allergy medication” (p. 2).
On the bright side, it has been documented that, in times of crisis, social innovations emerge to provide alternative means for people to produce, distribute, and consume goods and services (Varvarousis & Kallis, 2017). In the past years, counter-movements to capitalism
have abounded, such as degrowth, transition towns, circular economy, sustainable development, green new deal, doughnut economics, and many others. However, how
effective, transformative, and historically appropriate are these discourses from the viewpoint of the Global South? Undoubtedly, the unsustainable and detached economic pattern is also being reproduced in the colonized corner of the capitalist system, albeit with less – but expanding - impact. So, what are the transformative responses to the so-called current “coronation” of global systemic crises that are coming from the South?
One of these responses emerged in São Paulo back in the 1980s. It is the Solidarity Economy. At first, the name might evoke philanthropy but the United Nations has avowed for the transformative protentional of this worldwide movement, to the point of creating in 2013 the UN Inter-Agency Task Force on Social and Solidarity Economy. According to Kwano (2018), “the solidarity economy offers pathways toward a transformation of our economy into one that serves people and planet, not blind growth and private profits” (p. 2). However, it is difficult to clearly define solidarity economy organizations. Paul Singer, the late leading voice in the Brazilian solidarity economy, characterizes them as organizations that take their democratic values to the ultimate consequences in the economic realm. In solidarity economy organizations, it is precisely because of the worker’s self-management and ownership of the means of production that they constitute a prefigurative alternative for integrating the social, economic, and environmental dimensions.
The Brazilian case is considered a “touchstone” for the social and solidarity movement (ILO, 2017), which started with spontaneous bottom-up experiences and was incorporated by the leftist government of President Lula as a development strategy for the country. As a consequence, the solidarity economy – as it is most commonly known – has undergone almost a decade of increasing institutionalization. However, the context in Brazil has completely changed in the last couple of years. In 2015, after a turbulent political process
that followed a downturn in the national economic growth trend, the leftist president Dilma Rousseff was impeached and a conservative president, Jair Bolsonaro, took power. He started a process of rolling back the public policies that were put in place by the former government, including the extinction of the National Secretariat for Solidarity Economy (SENAES).
The effects of the political and economic shifts in Brazil are still unknown at the grassroots level. Is the solidarity economy still a prefigurative alternative? The interruption of government support may certainly impose a setback in the movement’s agenda. However, the hostile environment may once again prove to be fertile ground for these organizations to flourish, especially since they operate under different values than the so-called traditional economy. This research attempts to shed light on this recent reality, by trying to investigate the “space of transformation” represented by the solidarity economy organizations (Souza, Cunha, & Dakuzaku, 2003, p. 308). Since social transformations are also micro-relations that comprise individuals themselves, the focus of the analysis was the members’ perceptions. By highlighting how subjective and collective understandings of past, present, and future are imbricated in each other, the member’s perceptions can be used to explain processes and bring into sharper focus their current situation (Kothari & Hulme, 2004, p. 32)
In this essentially qualitative research, there were 10 interviews that tried to cover different nodes of the solidarity economy in urban São Paulo - the bedrock of the movement in Brazil. The case studies included solidarity organizations in the organic commercializing business, productive recycling sector and garment industry, bike courier services, and a community bank. There was an explorative emphasis on understanding the current practice of the solidarity economy. As much as possible, the narratives of the participants were used to illustrate the arguments and illuminate the text, but also to ensure the validity and allow for other interpretations.
This research was done with a great deal of skepticism about the solidarity economy potential. However, just as Featherstone (2012) acknowledges in his book on Solidarity, this thesis was also “written out of an avowedly partisan position that solidarities can be a powerful force for reshaping worlds in more socially equitable and just ways” (p. 25). The structure, after this introduction, begins with the guiding research’s main and sub-questions. Then I present the theoretical framework based on Paul Singer’s ideas and a brief literature review. The subsequent chapter justifies the methodological decisions for a multiple-case-study design. Afterward, there are three chapters for presenting the data in different levels: the context chapter, with an overview of the movement and a focus on solidarity economy advisory and fostering organizations; a chapter with the findings of the interviewed organizations; and the chapter specifically about member’s perceptions. Finally, there is a discussion/conclusion chapter that re-engages the research questions and suggests
Research Questions
Main Question:
How is the solidarity economy perceived by its own members in urban São Paulo?
Sub-questions:
1. Why did members join a solidarity economy organization?
2. How is the history of solidarity economy organizations in São Paulo told by its members?
3. How do members perceive the experience of participating in a solidarity economy organization?
Theoretical Framework
There is no doubt that Karl Polanyi offers a relevant framework for the analysis of the
solidarity economy. Indeed, the Hungarian political thinker has provided the conceptual basis for several recent papers on the topic (Hillenkamp, Lapeyre, & Lemaître, 2013; Willians, 2014; Kousis & Paschou, 2017). The same applies to scholars studying the solidarity economy in Brazil (Gaiger, Ferrarini, & Veronese, 2020; Lemaître & Helmsing, 2011) As a counter-movement to capitalism, the solidarity economy shares much with the Polanyian understanding of a substantive economy (Hillenkamp, Lapeyre, & Lemaître, 2013, p. 4). Nevertheless, this research attempts to break a cycle of a ‘“North” producing theory and a “South” rich in social and political experiences but incapable of theorizing them” (PACO, 2020, p. 1). Therefore, here I have adopted a theoretical framework based on the academic and practical legacy of the most prominent figure on the topic of the solidarity economy in Brazil: Paul Singer (ILO, 2017). After presenting the author and elaborating on the relevant concepts about the solidarity economy, this chapter ends with a brief literature review.
Paul Singer
Just as this paper was written on a period of quarantine – because of the coronavirus crisis -, Paul Singer first put his ideas on paper about socialism during a required sanitary reclusion period before a conference in India, in 1978 (Singer, 1980). From a young age, he wished for more decent living conditions to all of humanity, which included rejecting all forms of segregation (Souza, Cunha, & Dakuzaku, 2003, p. 12). As Santos (2018) recounts, “with origins in a Jewish family from Austria, Singer and his relatives took refuge in Brazil in 1932, when the professor to be was 8 years old and the family was escaping from Hitler’s
fascist regime” (p. 41). After having completed high school in São Paulo, he had already embraced socialist ideas and wanted to experience the Kibbutz1 (Souza, Cunha, & Dakuzaku,
2003, p. 13). Singer graduated in Business and Economics and had a plurality of work and political experiences. “In 1953, at 21 years, he was one of the leaders of a strike that paralyzed São Paulo industry for over a month” (Souza, Cunha, & Dakuzaku, 2003, p. 14). He was one of the founders of the Workers Party (PT) in Brazil, of which he became the academic reference for the economic program (Santos, 2018, p. 41). When the worker’s party won the election for the São Paulo municipality in 1989 and, again in 2001, Singer was invited to coordinate the municipal secretary of planning (Souza, Cunha, & Dakuzaku, 2003, p. 16).
He was also the academic coordinator of the technological incubator of popular cooperatives (ITCP), an extension program of the University of São Paulo (USP) that provided him the opportunity to engage with students from diverse disciplines and where he was able to refine his theory about the solidarity economy. But he made his most important nationwide contribution to the solidarity economy movement when President Lula was elected in 2003 and created the National Secretariat for Solidarity Economy, which was headed by Paul Singer (ILO, 2017, p. 4). As Santos (2018) writes, “For Singer, solidarity economy was a clear materialization of a socialist proposal. For 25 years, he sowed self-management and cooperative ideas throughout Brazil and also throughout the world” (p.41).
One of Paul Singer students at the ITCP, and who was coincidently working at one of the solidarity economy organizations that I interviewed for this research, gave the following testimony about the Singer’s presence:
“It was a sunny and cold Saturday. We were all seated on the lawn introducing each other and explaining what we understood by the solidarity economy. We are all very
1 The Kibbutz is the Israeli model of an integral cooperative, based on socialist values and principles. It
young at the incubator, and Paul Singer, sitting on a chair, was listening carefully, one by one. At last, the moment we were all waiting for […], everyone sat up straighter at their places to hear his story. He begins by saying he would skip some parts, because it was a long story, and he talks a bit about his experience at the kibbutz and his journeys into social theorists… and, then, he gets to the 1970s, 1980s, telling us about his conflicts with what was going on in the socialist world. He told us about a trip to India to attend a conference, which he did not attend because he didn’t get vaccinated to enter the country. He was quarantined at a hospital, where he could only see the back of elephants, and, therefore, he had time to write “What is Socialism today?” […] (Souza, Cunha, & Dakuzaku, 2003, p. 11)
Utopian Socialism roots. The basis for Singer’s ideas about the solidarity economy is found in his book What is Socialism Today? Basically, he contends that the only valid
criterion for workers to fight for socialism is if the experience of it concretely provide
workers with better life and development conditions than capitalism. In his words, “the proof of the pudding is in its eating”. (Singer, 1980, p. 19). Therefore, Singer was interested in socialist practical experiences. Based on that perspective, he identifies the origins of the solidarity economy in Robert Owens’ textile complex in the beginning of the XIX century. For Owen, the cooperative would become the future model for society and, as many socialist of this time, he understood profit-seeking business as essentially parasitic. The cooperatives became the means by which workers competed for the market against capitalists and thus, cooperativism, from the outset, was an alternative model to capitalism (Singer, 1980). Therefore, just as Singer represented to the solidarity economy in Brazil, for the early cooperativism, “Owen was the perfect example of a thinker and a man of action that would inspire his successors” (Singer, 2002, p. 35).
For Singer, the social revolution is not an intellectual creation. Rather it is a slow and on-going process of worker’s struggles that has been following capitalism as it shadow for
approximately two centuries (Singer & Souza, 2000, p. 14). It started back in Great Britain with the introduction of “socialist implants within capitalism”, that is, “anti-capitalist institutions (universal suffrage, unions, labor law, social security systems, in addition to cooperatives)” (Souza, Cunha, & Dakuzaku, 2003, pp. 56-57). In Singer’s perspective, “the solidarity economy is a form of rethinking socialism and hence, a socialist economy, for it is fundamentally characterized by opposite principles to capitalism”. (p. 57).
What Singer criticized about the socialist movement was its emphasis on political revolution and on the central planning of the economy as “top-down” instruments. Instead, he advocated for a bottom-up construction, in which the cooperatives would play a key role. According to him, the challenge was to build socialism from within capitalism but
maintaining the already conquered individual liberties. (Souza, Cunha, & Dakuzaku, 2003, p. 57). That would imply “true cultural revolution in which the main role is played by workers who transformed themselves, on their own, from wage-earners into collective entrepreneurs”. (Souza, Cunha, & Dakuzaku, 2003, p. 117).
In Singer words,
I don’t believe in socialism that starts with conquering power, by political measures of political strength, trying to impose to workers and citizens a new way of relating to one another. The essence of the socialist idea demands spontaneity, demands voluntary adoption. And there is only voluntary adoption when one can undo it. Otherwise, it’s prison. […] Just as capitalism is able to coexist with social experiences within it, socialism must do the same! At least, it must be as liberal and robust as to endure competition with other modes of production. Rather than prohibiting them! […] What is important is that socialism cannot, under no circumstances, prohibit other modes of production, including capitalism, without losing its libertarian essence. These other modes of production, obviously, prevent slavery. (Souza, Cunha, & Dakuzaku, 2003, p. 108).
Therefore, the solidarity economy, as a concept, emerges in the context of this democratic, bottom-up socialism perspective and the cooperative is the model for the solidarity economy organization, which are characterized by democratic management, by direct participation or representation; distribution of net revenue among members, according to approved criteria, discussed and negotiated by all; allocation of the year surplus (Singer & Souza, 2000, p. 13). Recently, cooperativism has reemerged in response to unemployment and social exclusion, but according to Singer, many cooperatives succumbed to the capitalist competition, as was the case with consumption cooperatives and supermarkets. (Souza, Cunha, & Dakuzaku, 2003, p. 37). But the solidarity economy goes beyond cooperativism, because it incorporates other forms of economic organization under the same egalitarian and democratic guidelines. In other words, they constitute experiences based on collective, rather than individual values. (p. 38)
The Solidarity Economy Organization. There is an economic and political dimension that emerges from the consolidation process of cooperatives and other forms of solidarity economy organizations. First is the economic activities that provide members with a livelihood. Second is their collective aspect in which democratic, cooperative and self-managed practices prevail. “Even though only one of these dimensions tends to be emphasized, both are crucial for the solidarity economy’s realization”. (Souza, Cunha, & Dakuzaku, 2003, p. 47). Basically, what distinguishes a solidarity economy organization is that “all workers are owners and all owners work” (p. 272). Therefore, for Singer, self-management is the main criterion that defines it.
In a self-managed organization, “all relevant information is disclosed. Accounting and other control systems are designed for transparency to prevail, so that everyone is able to participate in the decisions” and the decision-making process is collective. (Singer & Souza,
2000, p. 20). The horizontally means workers learn the democratic process as a daily routine and they must develop the skill to “formulate and explain pros and cons to those with
authority, which in a solidarity organization, is the assembly, or the body representing it” (Singer & Souza, 2000, p. 21) In theory, the goals of the solidarity economy members are related to enjoying work, integrating with co-workers, balancing time according to non-authoritarian procedures and creating a new social life. But, since the capitalist administration models are nor suited, the self-management process is still based on a trial and error approach (Souza, Cunha, & Dakuzaku, 2003, p. 259).
For Singer, through self-management full cooperation is possible, because only then there is a “level playing field in terms of opinion, and action, as well as the fair distribution of the gains of the cooperative action, be it material or not, always to the benefit of a human conception of gains” (Souza, Cunha, & Dakuzaku, 2003, p. 292). But cooperation also demands that members develop high communication and dialogue skills. There must be respect for other’s actions, responsibility, and participation. And all that means taking into account personal desires, ambitions, fears, insecurities, weaknesses, strengths, etc. The challenge is to engage in cooperation carrying that subjective potential that is influenced by a “society underpinned by competition and verticalization of relations. That is why it is so hard to cooperate, even though we want to” (Souza, Cunha, & Dakuzaku, 2003, p. 289).
Singer does not neglect the value of competition. Notwithstanding, he believes that a society based on competition incentivizes an egocentric subjectivity - in which the other is deemed the enemy, always ready to endanger my well-being. Ultimately, that competition can lead to a perverse socioeconomic structure prone to violence - and social inequality is just one of its manifestations. A better perspective for Singer is a society that pivots around
cooperative values and criteria, and competition, albeit present, is more the exception than the rule (Souza, Cunha, & Dakuzaku, 2003, p. 292). This is where the solidarity term is
highlighted. That is the ethical-normative aspect qualifying the economic logic for solidarity economy organizations, making it distinct from the traditional economic logic. The
transformative potential of it lies in the fact that the solidarity economy is not realizable under the same logic that it seeks to overcome (Souza, Cunha, & Dakuzaku, 2003, p. 117). Moreover, from a more systemic perspective, the solidarity aspect is the “ethical foundation that guides the formation of networks, which implies social responsibility and conciliation of community interests by means of participation of actors and social organizations”. (Souza, Cunha, & Dakuzaku, 2003, p. 34). Therefore, solidarity does not constitute a
re-philanthropyzation of the social. Rather here it is emphasized as “a political concept, in which the idea of solidarity economy redeems, in a recreated form, the self-management tool and the cooperativism principles, originally established by European workers’ experiences in the XIX century”. (Souza, Cunha, & Dakuzaku, 2003, p. 47).
Literature Review (Theoretical Framework)
To understand what has already been researched and identify potential knowledge gaps, I have conducted a “systematic, explicit, and reproducible” literature review (Booth, Colomb, Williams, Bizup, & Fizgerald, 2016, p. 1). My strategy was to begin with a scoping search, and then use a search engine to map the literature, both at the international and national levels. Afterward, I searched for unpublished sources and grey literature.
Scoping search. The “scoping search” is the preliminary process of identifying literature reviews to provide a first approximation of the “existing quantity and quality of primary studies [that are] relevant” to the topic of solidarity economy (Booth, Papaioannou, & Sutton, 2012, p. 72). These papers are helpful to establish both the historical context and
the concepts. Even though there were not many scientific papers published with the specific aim of reviewing the literature on the topic of solidarity economy, some of them indicated that the terminology has changed in recent decades. As Moulaert & Ailenei’s (2005) state, the term social and solidarity economy, which is “narrowly linked to the reaction against neo-liberal principles and individualist ideology”, is a “re-emergence” of the historical term social economy (p. 2041). In reality, the composite “social and solidarity economy” is an attempt to agglutinate several related concepts (Borowiak, 2015).
In the European context and in North America, for example, “social economy” or “third sector” are still widely used terms to refer to “alternative economic practices”. In Latin America, on the other hand, “solidarity economy” or “plural economy” are used more often (Utting, van Dijk, & Matheï, 2014; North & Cato, 2017). Some authors, however, contend that the solidarity economy is more transformative, and that the “social economy is a partial or superficial form of embeddedness that diverges from the solidarity economy, despite their shared institutional response to meeting human needs” (Williams, 2014, p. 3). Particularly in France, there is a conceptual dispute. French advocates of the social economy concept reacted to the solidarity economy’s recent surge by trying to confine it to an emergency solution for low-income populations. By its turn, solidarity economy scholars emphasize the political dimension of the movement and criticize the social economy for drifting away from democratic principles in the name of technical skills and competitivity in the market, thus, dangerously becoming a “mere compensation to the social effects of the market economy” (Souza, Cunha, & Dakuzaku, 2003, p. 58). The exception to the rule is Laville, who has collaborated with many Brazilian scholars:
Contrary to what one might be led to believe, due to the usage of the word solidarity by promoters of certain charitable actions, the solidarity economy is not a symptom of the deregulation that aims at substituting public actions with charity, taken us back to over a century ago. It comes from collective actions that aim at bringing about local
and international regulations, complementing national ones, or closing its loopholes. […] The solidarity economy seeks to democratize the economy by articulating the dimensions of reciprocity and redistribution of solidarity with the social atomization, reinforced by monetarization and mercantilization of daily life. (Laville, 2001, pp. 47-48)
The social and solidarity economy concept has, therefore, no “single overarching definition” (Araújo, Rodrigues, Telles, Vaz, & Bittencourt, 2017, p. 2). The International Labor Organization (ILO) defines it as an “umbrella concept” that designates enterprises and organizations “which have the specific feature of producing goods, services, and knowledge while pursuing both economic and social aims and fostering solidarity” (ILO, 2009). These organizations include: “cooperatives, barter networks, ethical banking, community
currencies, time-sharing banks, alternative means of payment, etc.” (Castells, et al., 2017). Despite their plurality, according to Santos (2018), what is distinctive about them is their self-management, which is characterized by the lack of division between the conception and the execution of labor, the collectivization of the means of production and the constant
democratic learning process.
Mapping the literature. The development of the social and solidarity economy as an alternative for employment and to generate income was also reflected in academic research (Santos, 2018). In order to map out the scientific production on the topic, I have resorted to two different search engines: Web of Science and Scopus. The first reason for that was the fact that they are popular search engines among academic literature reviewers (Silva, 2017). Therefore, I would be able to compare my findings with those of other scholarly papers. Secondly, I ensure that the literature review is limited to peer-reviewed articles, which enhances the probability of internal and external validity of the papers that are selected.
Thirdly, both software provides several tools for filtering, which enables a quantitative analysis of the available research.
The exploratory search used simply the terms “social and solidarity economy” as the initial parameters. The result showed 600 records, with a notable spike in publications after 2014. That indicates the growing interest in the topic, but it also corroborates Dash’s (2014) argument that this is still a “science-in-the-making” (p. 5). When applied a filter by country, the United States stands out, even though the North-American solidarity movement was born only in 2007, after a “series of meetings about solidarity economies initiated by the Center for Popular Economics, resulted in the decision to launch the Solidarity Economy Network (SEN)” (Araújo, Rodrigues, Telles, Vaz, & Bittencourt, 2017, p. 3). SEN is coordinated by economist Emily Kwano, who has been a leading scholar in the field.
Figure 1 - Number of publications on SSE. Source: Web of Science
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 1976 1980 1984 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Figure 2 - Treemap of SSE publications by country
Internationally, the social and solidarity economy surge in academia has been linked to the effects of the 2008 financial crisis, especially in European countries that were most affected such as Greece, Italy, and Spain. The Open Journal of Sociopolitical Studies PArtecipazione e COnflitto has been an important academic outlet for Greek and Italian articles, while CIRIEC journal of public, social, and cooperative economy have played a similar role for publications in Spain. In all three countries, there has been an interesting scholarship linking social and solidarity economy initiatives and resilience, which is needed “to bounce back from and confront hard economic times that have existed before, but also since the new millennium with its rising inequalities and the impact of the global financial crisis of 2008” (Kousis & Paschou, 2017, p. 138).
Social and solidarity economy research in Brazil. As seen in Figure 2, after the United States and England, Brazil is the country with the most academic publications in the social and solidarity economy. With the multiplication of social and solidarity economy experiences across the Brazilian territory, there was growing interest in investigating the factors that explained their emergency, their distinctive characteristics, and the conditions of
their development (Ferrarini, Gaiger, & Schiochet, 2018, p. 159). And especially due to the institutionalization of the movement, “the case of Brazil is often held up in international circles as a touchstone for public policy for SSE (ILO, 2017, p. 6).
Figure 3 - Publications on SSE in Brazil. Source: Scopus
Based on figure 3, it is possible to affirm that academic research on social and
solidarity economy in Brazil has been irregular throughout the years. On the one hand, when compared to figure 2, it is interesting to notice that the upward trend in more recent years observed in the number of international publications has not been mirrored in the context of Brazil. Furthermore, there are no SSE articles discussing the recent Brazilian political and economic crisis. On the other hand, Brazilian publications have started much later. One of the first and most relevant authors to study the solidarity economy in Brazil was Paul Singer, “who coined the theory of the solidarity-based economy, understood as a way of organizing production, distribution, consumption, and finance, in which all of the economic units are owned collectively” (Reader, 2014, p. 36). Singer is the author of over 30 books and many
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 2002 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
articles (North & Cato, 2017, p. xii) and in this literature review, there were no articles in Brazil about the social and solidarity economy that did not cite Singer’s work.
For Singer is such an important scholar for the field of social and solidarity economy, I have used his articles to begin a pearl-growing search, as suggested by Booth et. al (2012). The pearl, which is a highly relevant article, is to be used as the basis for the more in-depth analysis of the topic. From Singer’s citations, I have identified Gaiger as another very important author. In fact, as also identified by Araújo et. al. (2017) “the most prolific author writing about the solidarity economy is Luiz Inácio Gaiger” (p. 19). One of Gaiger’s major contributions to the field was the national survey which he conducted in collaboration with several researchers spread all over the country (Marconatto, Ladeira, & Wegner, 2019). The effort created a database with socioeconomic information about 19.708 solidarity economy organizations in Brazil (IPEA, 2016).
In her impressive doctoral dissertation – which, despite unpublished, is very well cited - Lechat (2004) finds that Gaiger was the first researcher to ever use the term
empreendimentos econômicos solidários (solidarity economy ventures). Indeed, together with colleagues based on the University Unisinos – one of the largest Jesuit universities in the world – Gaiger has called attention to the lack of clear criteria to classify a unit as a solidarity economy venture. He argues that, currently, these ventures are defined based on a political evaluation, namely their alternative and transformative potential towards the traditional economy (Gaiger, Ferrarini, & Veronese, 2018).
In a recent article, Marconatto, Ladeira & Wegner (2019) have built on the work of Gaiger to empirically investigate the sustainability of solidarity economy organizations (SEOs). From Gaiger’s survey, they have selected a sample of 6,000 organizations to evaluate the effects of five factors in their sustainability. With a quantitative emphasis, they
and financial performance of the SEOs working towards the well-being of the poor communities served by them” (p. 1123). Their research has devised a coherent
operationalization of their concept with the aim of contributing to the knowledge gap of how these organizations “either promote or protect social and environmental goals while being financially self-sufficient” (p. 1123). Nevertheless, they admit that there were limitations to their analysis and they encourage other researchers to look into other variables such as the social/group cohesion and the background and competences of SEOs’ leaders and workers (p. 1128).
Grey literature. If this literature review has shown that there is still scarce academic research on the topic of social and solidarity economy, the same is not true in regard to non-academic sources. Albeit more numerous in this field, grey literature is not to be deemed less valuable. As James Georgalakis - Director of Communications and Impact of the Institute of Development Studies - have recently pointed out, International NGO’s can easily become the future of evidence in development studies (IDS, 2019).
In Brazil, for example, the quality of the research undertaken by the government Institute of Applied Economic Research (IPEA) is indicated by the number of citations that it receives in academic publications. The research published in working papers in the context of the Institute has helped to shed light in several aspects of the social and solidarity economy, such as the trajectory of the movement (Silva, 2018), specific economic groups (Silva, 2017), and evaluation of public policies (Silva & Nagem, 2011).
The religious organization CÁRITAS has also played an important role with an open-source repository of research. They have produced relevant material that includes books written in more accessible language to introduce the topic of solidarity economy to a larger
audience (CÁRITAS, 2010), publications that discuss the role of the solidarity economy in development (Silva, 2005) and documents with information on solidarity economy projects (CÁRITAS, 2012).
Lastly – but far from exhausting the list -, it is also crucial to consider the publications by the Brazilian Forum of Solidarity Economy (FBES). Created in 2003, this is the “national authority in charge of the organization, discussions, preparation of strategies and mobilization of the Solidarity Economy movement in Brazil” (FBES, 2006, p. 3). The forum tries to
“ensure the association of the three segments of the Solidarity Economy movement: solidarity economy enterprises, advisory and fostering organizations, and public managers” (p. 4). The FBES is also responsible for publishing the document with the main results and discussions from the periodical major national conferences that it organizes (Cunha, 2014).
Internationally, the number of organizations supporting research on social and solidarity economy is even more significant. However, it is evident that the International Labor Organization (ILO) has been particularly engaged with the topic, especially due to the potential of SSE to become “our common road towards decent work” (Reader, 2011). ILO publications have been providing an important contribution to the field by presenting and comparing the context of the social and solidarity economy in several different countries (ILO, 2017). In 2013, ILO was one of the “14 United Nations (UN) agencies and
programmes [that] came together to form the UN Inter-Agency Task Force on Social and Solidarity Economy” (Utting, 2014).
Relevance and knowledge gaps. The findings from this literature review suggest that the social and solidarity economy has been gaining momentum in recent years, not only in Brazil but also internationally. However, research on the topic is far from saturated. Even with limited publications, due to the multiplicity of terminologies used to refer to the topic in
different countries, there are only a few articles with a national scope that undertake a comprehensive literature review on the umbrella term “social and solidarity economy”. In Europe, many publications were found that are specifically devoted to the study of resilience in times of crisis, but in the Brazilian context, there are still no academic articles nor grey literature investigating the effects of the recent national crisis on SSE organizations. Some papers, however, conclude by posing questions such as “Can SSE policies survive a change of government? How vulnerable are the funding sources underpinning of SSE policy support to swings in economic circumstances? These are important questions, particularly for Brazil” (ILO, 2017, p. 36)
Research Methodology
This methodology chapter is not merely about describing and justifying this research’s methods and rationale. Instead, it tries to contribute to a decolonizing process of knowledge production by adopting the notion of a pluriversity, which Mbembe (2016) explains as “a process that does not necessarily abandon the notion of universal knowledge for humanity, but which embraces it via a horizontal strategy of openness to dialogue among different epistemic traditions (p. 36). Furthermore, adequate research on the Social and Solidarity Economy (SEE) movement requires “methodological and epistemical assumptions” that neither “‘naturalise’ capitalism” nor dispossesses “SEE from one of its main qualities: the capacity to prefigure alternative realities to the present ones” (Dinerstein, 2017, p. 68).
With that perspective, I begin this chapter by arguing that a constructionist ontology accommodates both my personal worldview and a broader SSE understanding of the human being. Accordingly, the second section sets forth an interpretivist epistemic approach that combines a methodological pragmatic stance with elements of the transformative paradigm. Then, the research design is presented as a multiple case study. After the research overview, I discuss the quality criteria and the unit of observations/analysis. In the collecting data and sampling section, a mix of qualitative methods is described. The following sections detail the analysis coding system and the conceptual scheme. Finally, there are two sections for ethical and positionally reflections.
Ontology
Despite the economic emphasis given away by the thesis’ topic, the transdisciplinary character of this development studies’ research situates it firmly on broader social sciences’ ontology grounds. To be fair, the field of economics was not always dominated by
neoclassical postulates, based on the individualistic and reductionist notion of the purported homo economicus, or, what Dash (2014) describes as the “anthropological monster” (p. 3). Actually, as argued by Leftwich (2005), most of the initial economy thinkers, including Adam Smith, would use multidisciplinary frameworks to study “the complex relations
between social, political and economic institutions, within and between societies” (p. 573). In a movement that stresses the “social” and “solidarity”, it makes sense to ontologically think of “a social human being: a person whose identity and functioning can only be fully
understood as emerging through their relationships with others” (McGregor & Pouw, 2017, p. 1125). Even Durkheim (2014), with his “in-ward ontological orientation” (Karakayali, 2015, p. 733), admits that “the study of solidarity lies within the domain of sociology” (p. 54). Therefore, by going beyond the one-size-fits-all economic models, I am also following here Leftwich’s recommendations to “rediscover the social sciences as development studies” (p. 574).
I have, however, incorporated Craib (1997)’s – ironic - criticisms on sociology’s imperialist tendency of excluding the individual’s internal realm all together from its analysis. As a matter of fact, this research is centered on individual’s perceptions about their social realities. The realm of the I, as explained by Sayer (1999), “is our capability to receive something from outside and make it our own, to make something of what we are constructed through - thus creating something different” (p. 3). Notwithstanding, from an individual experience perspective, my ontological position is that reality is entirely mediated through our minds. In principle, what ensues is that there are “as many realities as there are
participants”. (Robson & McCartan, 2016, p. 24). That does not entail, however, that there is not a reality apart from our minds. It just means, as Adorno argues, “that the ideas we have about the nature of social reality often involve an element of truth, but these are necessarily partial and historically contingent truths”. (Karakayali, 2015, p. 744).
Therefore, this research is based on a constructionist approach, since it adopts the position that social entities are not intrinsically existent. As the opposing pole of objectivism, constructionism is defined by Bryman (2012) as an ontological orientation that “asserts that social phenomena and their meanings are continually being accomplished by social actors” (p. 33). However, even if social reality is seen as essentially a continually changing process, due to limitations of our language (Elias, 1978), I do still resort in this text to fixed concepts, such as entities and organizations. Even so, the meaning of these concepts are only
constructed in relation to one another. Moreover, the movement, the organizations and lived experiences of individuals are treated here “as a social fact only in that it is consciously experienced as such by the actors composing it” (Emirbayer, 1997, p. 303). Accordingly, the main goal of this thesis is exactly what Bryman believes to be “the job of the social scientist”, which is, “to gain access to people's 'common-sense thinking’ and hence to interpret their actions and their social world from their point of view” (p. 30).
Epistemology
What follows from a constructionist ontology is that there is no direct epistemic stance to access reality. As noted by Robson & McCartan (2016), in this case, “the central aim or purpose of research is understanding” (p. 25). However, undoubtedly, no single person could perfectly understand another human being. Hence, the key issue at stake, as Morgan categorically states, is “how much shared understanding can be accomplished, and then, what kinds of shared lines of behavior are possible from those mutual understandings” (p. 67).
Therefore, it is only logical to opt for an approach on the Interpretivist pole of the epistemic spectrum. On the opposite side of positivism, Interpretivism is a very open approach with no prescribed methods for collecting data. Bryman (2012) defines it as the epistemic stance that puts less emphasis on the “explanation of human behavior” and more emphasis on the empathetic “understanding of human behavior” (p. 28). Indeed, this research requires epistemic tools that are able to capture not only the “economic” dimension but also the “social and solidarity” aspect of the movement. More specifically, this research has to be opened to the logical possibility of finding “empirical evidence of economic practices based on “different rationalities”, “relational capital”, as well as “cooperative logic” for the
creation of “psychic income”, “social profit” and “ecological well-being” (Dash, 2014, p. 6). It is important to note, however, that the relational premise on which this research is based is not limited only to research participants. The researcher’s own values and actions are also incorporated and, therefore, the axiological strategy is to address “subjectivity as an integral part of the research” (Robson & McCartan, 2016, p. 25). These blurred participant-observer boundaries were seriously taken into consideration and will later be discussed in the sections about reflexivity and positionality. For now, it is relevant to indicate that a
“conscious partiality” approach – to use the feminist terminology (Bryman, 2012, p. 40) - has led me to a pragmatist epistemology. Pragmatism is a middle-ground and plural approach that values the “physical world as well as the emergent social and psychological world”, with a strong emphasis on “practical empiricism” and on “theories that inform effective practice” (Robson & McCartan, 2016, p. 29). Furthermore, pragmatists have settled, as Weinberg explains, that the production of knowledge “should be freed from the misconceived dream of transcending the human condition. Epistemic standards should instead reflect our much more realistic concerns to merely improve the human condition” (Turner, 2009, p. 290; Robson & McCartan, 2016).
Thus, I not only include first-person impressions, interpretations, and associations onto the analyses, but I am also explicitly engaged with the social and solidarity economy objectives of bringing about a better society. This engagement aspect of the research is informed by the transformative framework, which can be applied to address
issues of social justice and consequent methodological decisions. The role of the researcher in this context is reframed as one who recognizes inequalities and injustices in society and strives to challenge the status quo, who is a bit of a provocateur with overtones of humility, and who possesses a shared sense of responsibility. (Mertens, 2007, p. 212).
The transformative framework adds to the pragmatic epistemology stance - and to the relevance of this research - by not only enhancing the production of knowledge about reality but by actively trying to improve it. Nonetheless, again there is the question of bias. Here, it is important to remember that “no understanding of the world is disinterested or divorced from practical action” (Turner, 2009, p. 290). Therefore, by rigorously questioning my sympathies, experiences, and worldviews and not only incorporating them into the inquiry process but actually building upon them (Biddle & Schafft, 2015; Morgan, 2007), I am mitigating their influence and safeguarding the quality of the research (Sayer, 1999; Turner, 2009). Furthermore, it would be entirely incompatible with social and solidarity economy principles to carry out an exploitative type of research, which Bryman (2012) characterizes as “extract[ing] information from the people being studied and giv[ing] little, or more usually, nothing in return” (p. 40). Conversely, the transformative framework leads to a “cyclical model of research that includes the establishment of partnerships between researchers and community members, including the recognition of power differences and building trust through the use of culturally competent practices” (Mertens, 2007, p. 218).
Research Design – Case Study
This research was designed as a multiple-case study. According to Yin (2014), the case study design can “excel in accomodating” an interpretivist epistemological orientation, since it allows for “multiple realities having multiple meanings, with findings that are observer-dependent” (p. 17). Nevertheless, even though the urban area of São Paulo was set as the geographical research limits, the emphasis is not upon the usual “intensive examination of the setting” (Bryman, 2012, p. 67). Rather, both the city and the organizations were
selected because this study aims at probing “a contemporary phenomenon (the “case”)”, namely the Social and Solidarity Economy, “in its real-world context” and, additionally, “the boundaries between phenomenon and context” are not “clearly evident” (Yin, 2014, p. 2).
Another reason for choosing the case study design was the nature of the questions that are guiding the research. Indeed, since I am asking “how” and “why” questions, Yin (2014) argues that the case study “would be the preferred method, compared to the others” (Yin, 2014, p. 2). Furthermore, the study case offers an array of techniques (history, direct observation, interviews) and deals with a “variety of evidence – documents, artifacts, interviews, and observations” (p. 12) – which supports this research’s opened-ended aspect and its exploratory ambitions to also come across unexpected and meaningful scientific insights. (Bryman, 2012).
Figure 4 - Adapted multi-case-study model (Yin, 2014, p.60)
The visual model presented here for the multi-case-study design builds on Yin (2014, p. 60)’s proposal, yet emphasizing a much more iterative research process. Due to time and resource constraints, the flow follows a sequential strategy that starts with a preliminary theory to set the groundwork and define the selection criteria for the cases. Before conducting each individual case study, there is a preparatory data collecting phase to establish the study case’s profile. Each case, then, informs the selection of the next case, within the pre-establish criteria. After the collecting is done, the cases are documented and theory is revised. Finally, the conclusion segment starts with a cross-case analysis, which serves as input for developing both theoretical and practical implications.
Therefore, in terms of connecting theory and data, this research multi-case study design rejects the induction-deduction dichotomy and adheres to Morgan (2007)’s abduction approach, which is the pragmatic alternative of moving “back and forth” between induction and deduction” (p. 71).
Quality Criteria
The issue of scientific quality has gained renewed importance due to the current social sciences’ distrust crisis and is especially relevant in case studies, which has “classically been considered a “soft” form of research” (Yin, 2014, p. 2). In order to push back against critics’ disdain for the method, Yin proposes specific strategies. One of these strategies is to adopt multiple case studies to “identify and address rival explanations” (p. 36). Coincidently, the example of being open to contrary evidence, cited by Yin, is fully applicable to this research. He suggests that those “studying “non-profit” organizations may be surprised to find that many organizations have entrepreneurial and capitalist motives (even though the
organizations don’t formally make profits)” (p. 76). Another strategy for ensuring the quality of the case study research regards the data collection process. Here, Yin stipulates that a useful – and expected - indicator of having asked good questions during fieldwork is that the researcher will “be mentally and emotionally exhausted at the end of each day” (Yin, 2014, pp. 73-74). In this research, both strategies were followed through!
Apart from these strategies, several quality criteria were used as guidelines. Here, I chose to go beyond Lincoln & Guba (1985)’s framework, and used, instead, Tracy (2010)’s set of eight criteria, not only for it’s more comprehensive approach but because it “does not return to a single standard of positivist criteria” (p. 839). The first criterion, “worthy topic”, was addressed at the introduction of this paper. For the second criterion, “rich rigor”, I have presented the multiple-case-study design, which appropriately satisfies the variety requisite to understand the complex social phenomena at hand. The “sincerity” criterion is approached by explicit, ongoing self-reflexivity and also by transparency, not only about the methods and challenges but also about the data itself, which is presented as raw as possible. By showing, rather than telling, I address the “credibility” criterion as well, which is further accomplished by triangulation with different sources of data. For the fifth criterion, “resonance”, I have
attempted to provide an evocative representation by resorting to the ethnographic tradition of presenting stories and dialogues. Moreover, the resonance’s transferability requirement is achieved with “analytic rather than statistical generalizations (Yin, 2014, p. 26)”. There is also a specific section that deals with the “ethic” criterion. And the last two criteria, “significant contribution” and “meaningful coherence”, are at the mercy of the reader.
Unit of observation / Analysis
Perhaps some may find this section somewhat “variable-centered” (Emirbayer, 1997, p. 286), and hence, inconsistent with the ontological and epistemic approaches that were argued thus far. They would not be wrong. Nonetheless, as Tracy (2010) laments, positivist rationale still dominates what is “equated with scientific validity” (p. 838). Therefore, this section (and the operationalizing table in Appendix A) tries to bridge the “two camps” and communicate with proponents of other paradigms - in a pragmatic fashion (Morgan, 2007, p. 62).
This research focuses on drawing conclusions about the social and solidarity economy movement in São Paulo, hence, the unit of analysis. The unit of observation, however, is less straightforward. Given the multiple-case-study design, there are manifold and multilayered units. Each study case represents a node on the social and solidarity economy network which is comprised of organizations, groups, and individuals.
Data collecting data and sampling
This research was essentially based on a qualitative strand with two data collecting moments for each study case. In the first phase, direct-observation and desk research were applied to collect online and physical documents about the organizations, academic papers written by members, and social media information (Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter). The
evidence, then, informed the second data collection moment in which in-depth interviews were conducted. In total, there were 10 interviews - half individual, half with groups of people. Except for one remote interview, all other participants were met on-site, and except for two cases, where fieldnotes were taken, the interviews were audio-recorded. Because of the preparatory phase and the recording, I was able to conduct long unstructured interviews, centered on participant’s narratives, with minimum interventions, enhancing the chances of uninhibited and spontaneous data to emerge (Kothari & Hulme, 2004).
Due to the diversity of initiatives within the social and solidarity economy, the selection strategy was to have as varied a sample as possible. Therefore, participants were purposefully chosen (Bryman, 2012, p. 418) for representing a different segment of the social and solidarity economy movement, namely, waste pickers, community currency, organics, garment, church, mental health, and NGOs. Moreover, the first interview facilitated entrance to other organizations in a “combination of an opportunistic sampling and snowball
sampling”. (Bryman, 2016, p. 415). But, to be precise, the sampling logic does not apply to a multiple-case-study design (Yin, 2014). Thus, the number of “replications” was based on “discretionary judgement” and feasibility (p. 61).
It is important to acknowledge, however, that this is a rather sanitized account of the data collection process, which, in a case study research, is not “routinized”. (Yin, 2014, p. 72). And even Bryman (2012) admits that there is a “messiness” component to the practice of research (p. 15). That component seems to be heightened in a context where
“To interview key persons, you must cater to the interviewees’ schedules and availability, not your own. The nature of the interview is much more open-ended, and an interviewee may not necessarily cooperate in sticking to your line of questions. (Yin, 2014, p. 88).
Data Analysis
As a whole, the analysis was influenced by Kothari & Hulme (2004)’s emphasis on the scientific value of narratives. They contend that “similar narrative styles and experiences repeatedly described by different people allow the identification of common themes, patterns, and processes” (p. 33). This identification was accomplished by coding the translated
transcriptions of the interviews in three levels of on-going analysis: within each case study, cross-cases, and between the data and the theory.
The emerging common themes, patterns, and processes were then categorized based on Kunwar, et al. (2013)’s “7Cs (Challenge, Context, Content, Cover, Crosscutting, Critic and
Conclusion) module” (p. 16), which was used to analyze social and solidarity economy
enterprises in Nepal. Despite having different objectives, their module provides a systematic interpretation protocol for cases that are evolving under certain challenges.
Figure 5 - Study Case Perception Approach Analysis (Adapted from Kunwar, et al., 2013)
The adapted model’s innovation is basically the clustering of analyzed data into past, present, and future perceptions. As Kothari & Hulme (2004) argues,
Indeed personalised narratives can provide evidence to explain trajectories and processes which have led to more recent events and even provide information which alludes to future aspirations and strategies. Crucially then, understanding the past
constitutes an important method for interpreting the present. (Kothari & Hulme, 2004, p. 9)
Conceptual Scheme
The research’s conceptual scheme is centered on São Paulo Social and Solidarity Economy member’s perceptions. Members have their perceptions about their individual experience of working in a social and solidarity economy organization and also perceptions on the collective aspect of the movement itself. Combined, these perceptions are narrated about the past, present, and future. Considering the past, the perceptions are influenced by member’s knowledge of the Social and Solidarity Economy legacy, which is composed of the stories about the members themselves, their organizations, the movement, and the theoretical foundations of the SSE. The SSE theory, in turn, was influenced by the previous context of capitalism. The present capitalist system also informs member’s perceptions about the present, as do their individual experience and the social and solidarity economy collective aspect. Finally, perceptions are shaped by the member’s reflections about the SEE’s future potential, which are based on their vision of the future mainstream mode of production. By understanding all of these relations, the research questions are answered.
Figure 6 - Conceptual Scheme
Ethics
As in “any social activity, research challenges us to define our individual ethical principles and then to make choices that honor or violate them” (Booth, Colomb, Williams, Bizup, & Fizgerald, 2016, p. 271). But ethics take on a critical role in this research, especially considering that the very essence of the social and solidarity economy movement is to
advance more ethical relationships in society. Furthermore, considering the transformative approach, there was a practical epistemological requirement of building trust and interacting with disenfranchised groups – due to gender, race, sexual orientation, and disability - who frequently felt invisible (Mertens, 2007). As one participant said,
[1:39:06 – 1:39:33] Participant A: Right! So you get it? For those of us who are involved in the movement, how does it look like? I think today there is this ingredient of trying to make the solidarity economy model invisible. Because people also associate this model with a particular way of political thinking, they associate it with
PAST PRESENT FUTURE
member’s perceptions CAPITALISM SEE Legacy SEE Potencial members organizations movement theory SEE Movement individual experience
people that are trying to fight for rights and want to claim it regularly. These are people trying to regain lost rights… (Cáritas, 2020)
But it is not only the collective aspect of the movement that is “invisibilized”. Individually, some solidarity economy participants have been excluded from society long before the movement even started. Here a participant narrates the difficulties of starting a transgender solidarity collective of seamstresses:
[17:11 – 21:49] Participant B: […] And it was difficult because they [trans workers] wouldn’t even have their picture taken. They thought it was not permitted. Now, it’s changed. But back then they thought it would harm us to appear in a photo together with them [silence]. In our first fashion show, only one student showed up. Because they thought they did not have the right to be there. (Trans Sol, 2019)
Therefore, besides the required “sensitivity” to “engage people in a respectful way” (Mertens, 2007, p. 220), I have also used oral narratives as a form of “democratizing histories” (Kothari & Hulme, 2004, p. 7). As Kothari & Hulme sustain, “telling personal histories has the potential for empowering the narrators as for many it may represent the first time that an interest has been shown in their lives and any value placed on their views and perceptions” (pp. 7,8). Democracy, as well as other social and solidarity principles such as transparency, cooperation, and horizontality, was combined with the three transformative paradigm’s axiological principles - namely, respect, beneficence, and justice (Mertens, 2007, p. 215) - as the ethical guidelines for this research. In practice, there was full disclosure of the nature and objectives of the research as well as my personal background. There was also high regards for personal privacy - hence anonymising - and for what Bryman (2012) calls
“netiquette” (p. 679). Moreover, informed consent was required not only for interviewing but for recording, which was stopped whenever participants required so.
Positionality
As mentioned before, there was no attempt to pursue a purported researcher neutrality and objectivity, leaving my “humanity behind” (Robson & McCartan, 2016, p. 16).
Nonetheless, the research was undertaken with a scientific attitude, i.e., research was carried out not only ethically, but skeptically and systematically, with the intention of seeking the “truth” (Robson & McCartan, 2016, pp. 15,16). To that end, by incorporating my values and worldviews into the research, as well as the awareness of “issues of power” (Mertens, 2007, p. 214), I am putting together more pieces of the constructed reality puzzle.
In that perspective, there were beneficial and harmful aspects to my position as a researcher. On the one hand, as a Brazilian citizen, I was able to better navigate the context, and more easily make connections, meeting participants in their local language. On the other hand, it was obvious that my position as a master’s student at the University of Amsterdam influenced participant’s behavior, as the following quote clearly reveals:
[1:03:49 - 1:11:18] Participant C: What we can do is, since you are leaving for Amsterdam…. There are NGOs there, even churches, that donate for other countries. [Soft voice] It’s an exchange… and… you could… contact them… as if you knew our entity and was our interlocutor. And then we have a trade! I don’t believe this would be hard for you. […] and that’s why it’s important for you to take the pamphlets […] the one with our account number. (Banco Sampaio, 2020)
Undoubtedly, helping a non-profit social and solidarity organization to raise funds is far from unethical, but characterizing the interview as their part of the bargain do raise validity flags about the content as a whole. Therefore, there was always an effort to
triangulate interviews with other data sources. But then again, it is important to reflect, as did Venkatesh (2002), that the craft of research is “yet another ‘hustle’” (p. 103). In other words,
