SOLIDARITY ECONOMY FROM THE PERSPECTIVE
OF WOMEN HOMEBASED WORKERS IN SOUTHEAST ASIA:
THE ALTERNATIVE TO THE ECONOMICS OF EMPIRE?
By HOMENET SEA
SOLIDARITY ECONOMY is a quilt, a woven patchwork of many diverse
economies that are centered on life-values instead of profit-values.
SOLIDARITY ECONOMICS is the process of identifying, connecting,
strengthening and creating grassroots, life-centered alternatives to capitalist
globalization, or the Economics of Empire (Ethan Miller, 2008)
Overlapping Crises as Context
The Economics of Empire, or what is generally described in activist circles as neoliberal
globalization, has failed miserably in addressing the goals of people-centered
development in the last few decades. Instead, there is now a convergence of crises, the
global financial crisis just the latest phenomenon aggravating a long-existing poverty and
employment crisis, food crisis, as well as environmental crisis in this part of the world.
Informalization and the Crisis in Employment. Due to the impact of
globalization, informal work already comprised 156 million or 63.7 percent of total
employment in ASEAN in 2006, according to the ILO. (ILO, 2007:3). Although the
percentages vary from some 80 percent in Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam, more than 70
percent in the Philippines and Indonesia, more than 50 percent in Thailand, and 8.8
percent in Singapore, the average is still quite high. This rise in informal sector
employment is accompanied by an alarming decrease in the ranks of formal workers.
This change has led to a redefinition of the concept “worker” away from very narrow
notions associated with formality, regularity, and clear employer-employee relations
which now only refer to a shrinking male minority. All who live by working to earn an
income are now considered workers, and therefore can form part of labor movements.
They include women and men who do unprotected and unregulated work as homebased
workers, vendors, small transport operators, non-corporate construction workers, waste
recyclers, domestic and other service workers, and in some countries like the
Philippines, even small farmers and fisherfolk.
________
* Professor, Department of Women and Development Studies, College of Social Work
and Community Development, University of the Philippines
1
It was not too long ago when four ASEAN countries – Malaysia, Thailand, Indonesia,
and the Philippines – were hit by the 1997 -98 Asian financial crisis which, according to
the ILO, resulted in the loss of 24 million jobs in East Asia alone. This crisis was itself a
consequence of the liberalization and deregulation of financial markets culminating in the
successive domino-like devaluation of Asian currencies Affected countries used different
strategies in addressing the crisis, with Malaysia and Thailand faring better because they
fully or partly took their own course. Indonesia and the Philippines, which followed
IMF and World Bank prescriptions, did not do as well and still remain highly indebted
The current global financial crisis is expected to lead to an increase of 24-52 million
people unemployed in 2009, 10 to 22 million of whom would be women. (ILO, 2009).
Informality and poverty. There are 500 million working poor in the world, and
many of them are found in the informal economy. This is expected to rise to 1.4 billion or
45 percent of all total employed in 2009, with a higher proportion in the developing
countries (already 58.7 percent in 2004). By working poor is meant those who are
working but cannot work their way out of poverty because of very low earnings and very
high risks. The figures below show that in ASEAN, at least one out of ten workers live in
extreme poverty, subsisting at less than one dollar a day. (In the Philippines, one out of
five; and in Laos and Cambodia, one out of three). Of the more than 262 million
workers in ASEAN, 148 million or 56.5 percent - at least five out of ten -- are living in
poverty, subsisting at less than the two dollars a day poverty line. In terms of country
breakdown, 80 percent of workers in Cambodia and Laos, 70 percent in Indonesia, and
60 percent in the Philippines do not have enough income to get themselves out of
poverty. ((ILO, 2007:4, 18).
US$1 a day working poor
Millions
US$2 a day working poor
Share in total
employment (%)
Millions
Share in total
employment (%)
1996
2006
1996
2006
1996
2006
1996
2006
ASEAN
36.7
28.5
16.9
10.8
140.1
148.7
64.5
56.5
East Asia
145.0
95.0
20.3
12.1
442.9
347.2
61.9
44.2
South
Asia
250.8
196.9
51.9
33.0
427.1
500.2
88.4
83.7
The ILO predicts that due to the current global crisis, 200 million workers in developing
countries will be pushed to extreme poverty (living on $1.25 a day) in 2009. This,
presumably, will be in addition to the 1.4 billion people (1 in 4) already classified as
extremely poor in 2008. (World Bank, 2008).
2
Why this Crisis has a Woman’s Face. Women are particularly involved in
informal employment (averaging 65 percent of all women in non-agricultural
employment in Asia ) , and when agriculture is factored in, women’s share of informal
employment increases tremendously, since women tend to be very much engaged in
agricultural work. This perhaps helps explain why two-thirds of the working poor in
Asia are women. (ILO, 2006:25-26). The informal economy is highly gendered, serving
as a catch basin of women who have been among the first to be displaced from formal
work, especially in the garments industry, as globalization progressed. But women have
also been the mainstay of the informal economy even before the onslaughts of
globalization since informal work (e.g., homebasd work) is compatible with their
reproductive work (child care, domestic chores), and since their status as secondary or
supplemental earners often deprive them of opportunities to find formal employment. In
their particular case, class, gender, ethnicity, and other issues often intersect.
DIFFERENT SEGMENTS,
DIFFERENT CONSEQUENCES
Poverty Risk
Low
Average Earnings
Segmentation by Sex
High
Employers
Predominantly Men
Informal Wage
Workers: “Regular”
Own Account Operators
Men and Women
Informal Wage Workers: Casual
Industrial Outworkers/Homeworkers
Predominantly
Women
High
Low
Unpaid Family Workers
Source: Martha Chen, WIEGO (2008)
As the pyramid above suggests, women are concentrated in the lower strata of unpaid
family workers and industrial homeworkers where earnings are meager and where
poverty-inducing risks such as illness and job insecurity are high. On the other hand, men
are concentrated in the higher rungs as employers and as fairly “regular” informal
workers with bigger remuneration and lower risk.
In the current context of unbridled globalization, women informal workers exhibit
strengths as well as weaknesses, and face opportunities as well as threats. Many of them
have the capacity, the resilience, and the adaptability to enter many forms of employment
during times of crises .because they need to seize every opportunity to earn in order to
3
ensure family survival. However, these very same forms of employment in the informal
economy are also subject to the vagaries of the global and local markets, and can be
threatened by competition, instability, and lack of support. Under such circumstances,
women’s overburdened state becomes a vicious cycle of having to shoulder various
means of making a living while tending to domestic as well as community
responsibilities. As with other informal workers, women workers have little access to
education, credit, healthcare and other resources needed to meet basic needs. Informal
workers generally suffer from substandard wages, poor working conditions, exposure to
occupational health and safety hazards, and lack of social security.
The current global financial crisis has a woman’s face (Jayaseelan ,2009) since “it will
affect women and men differently and unequally.” (Dejardin, 2009). In summary,
“Women’s lower employment rates, weaker control over property and resources,
concentration in informal and vulnerable forms of employment with lower earnings, and
less social protection, all place women in a weaker position than men to weather crises,”
says ILO Bureau for Gender Equality Director Jane Hodges, adding that “Women may
cope by engaging in working longer hours or by taking multiple low-income jobs but still
have to maintain unpaid care commitments.” (ILO, 2009).
Food and Environmental Crises. According to the FAO, food prices have risen
by 75 percent since 2005. In just one year alone (2007), more than 40 million people
became undernourished due to higher food prices. There have been rice queues and
shortages in the Philippines, where one out of six families have been reported hungry in
recent months. The situation has been more volatile in other countries where food riots
have caused political turmoil.
The food crisis has been aggravated by unfair trade practices and the deterioration of the
environment. In insular Southeast Asia, vegetable raisers find their markets contracting
with the influx of cheap and often smuggled vegetable items from abroad. Poultry and
hog producers are disadvantaged by imported chicken parts and pork dumped at
unbelievably low prices in the local markets. The prevalence of chemical-based
agriculture and animal husbandry, which is propagated by transnational suppliers of farm
inputs and feeds, also does irreparable harm to the environment as well as to the health of
consumers.
Climate change due to global warming is also a crucial factor in recent disasters –
tsunamis in Indonesia and Thailand, frequent and stronger typhoons in the Philippines,
flooding in Laos, etc.
Informal Workers Push for Fair Trade and Solidarity Economy
In the face of all these challenges, informal workers through the national homenets,
Homenet Southeast Asia, and other networks, have attempted to be involved in both the
macro and micro levels. They have issued position papers and joined demonstrations on
4
trade-related issues. They have been active in various forms of fair trade advocacy in
collaboration with trade unions, business groups, and civil society organizations.
Through this exposure and their own discussions, informal worker leaders in several
Southeast Asian countries have evolved their own conception of fair trade – taking it to
mean changes in macro-economic policies (including tariff reform, stopping smuggling
and dumping of cheap foreign products) to give an even chance to local producers to
have their rightful share of the domestic market; enhancing sustainability of production
by making use of locally available resources, catering to basic community needs, and
safeguarding the environment; ensuring workers’ rights to just remuneration, job
security, social protection, and safe working conditions; and promoting gender equity
through recognition of women’s work, greater equality in the division of labor, and
stronger participation of women in decision-making. They have tried to put these fair
trade principles to work at the micro-level by forming their own social enterprises and
marketing networks.
In the Philippines, PATAMABA blends microfinance with damayan or mutual aid . It
also builds women-led cooperatives and group enterprises focusing on organic food
production . In Indonesia, the Setara cooperative in Jogjakarta helped earthquake
survivors rise from disaster In Thailand, savings groups with welfare funds also promote
and practice occupational safety and health In Laos, village banks provide capital to
women in poverty In Cambodia, fair trade groups provide social marketing assistance to
disadvantaged producers.
These initiatives, in order to take root in local economies, need continuous support from
governments, business groups, international development agencies, civil society and
community-based organizations in terms of patronage and access to capital, technology,
and marketing facilities, including e-commerce.
Social enterprises and other forms of livelihood cannot be sustained without the
accompanying provisions for social protection, services, and assistance in the event of
sudden loss of jobs or markets, death or illness in the family, natural disasters and other
catastrophic events related to a fast deteriorating environment. The working conditions
in such enterprises cannot be improved without paying close attention to occupational
safety and health which has emerged as a major problem area in informal work. For
women workers in particular, reproductive health services as well as facilities to address
domestic and other forms of gender-based violence are essential.
In relation to larger trade advocacy groups, informal workers have asked to be assured
representation and participation in decision-making and implementing bodies. They have
suggested that a strong gender perspective be infused in information, education, and
communication materials and campaigns, considering that women’s productive labor
yields the most in terms of dollar earnings (mainly through the export of domestic
workers and entertainers, electronics products assembled locally, garments, home décor,
and other handicraft items) and it is their unpaid reproductive labor at home which keep
families alive and functioning.
5
In addition, they have suggested that value chain as well as gender analysis be
employed in researches on various industries, in order to better understand the roles,
issues, and problems of producers and workers at every level of the chain based on their
gender and resource status, and to devise realistic strategies that could best serve the
interests of various stakeholders in the chain. They have also asserted that the interests
not only of industry survival but also those of workers in terms of ensuring just
remuneration, social protection, decent working conditions, occupational health and
safety, gender equity, etc., be emphasized in fair trade advocacy. They have done a lot
of community work and advocacy on fair and sustainable trade, employing theater and
other popular forms of education involving women workers and youth groups. They have
heeded the call of “tangkilikan” and other mutual support movements in which fair
trade groups are motivated and mobilized to patronize each other’s products.
In the light of ongoing efforts by social movements and civil society groups to recast
international trade policies to defend the interests and promote the welfare of the most
vulnerable and marginalized, organizations of homebased workers and other women
workers in the informal economy also now feel the need to focus on global advocacy for
better terms of trade.
It is in this context that in the WTO meetings in Hongkong, Homenet Southeast Asia
supported the positions of alliances of developing countries to get better terms and
concessions from the developed market economies regarding the Agreement on
Agriculture (AoA), Non-Agricultural Market Access (NAMA), General Agreement on
Trade and Services (GATS), and Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights Agreement
(TRIPS). In the face of the increasingly exclusionary and undemocratic processes under
which trade deals are forged, it called for openness and transparency in negotiations
within the WTO so that all stakeholders are properly informed of what is going on and
can ventilate their reactions and agenda through their representatives. It declared that the
interests of women and working people, especially those in the informal economy, need
to be articulated, recognized, and carried forward in trade policies, programs, and
mechanisms locally, nationally, regionally, and globally.
Given the context of overlapping crises in the region, Homenet Southeast Asia conducted
a seven -country subregional workshop on solidarity economy in Vientiane Lao PDR, 911 December 2009, which aimed principally to share country experiences on village
banks, social and group enterprise, cooperatives, microfinance, trade facilitation, etc. in
order to learn from them.
Solidarity Economy: Whys and Wherefores
. The editorial of the latest issue of the Homenet Southeast Asia Newsmagazine
(Vol. 7. No1, February 2009) entitled “Building Alternative Approaches from LocallyRooted Ways” reads thus:
6
A new wave of grassroots economic organizing known today as ‘solidarity
economy’ has developed into a global movement. Many initiatives around the world
are seeking to reform the way the economy is organized and run.
The idea and practice of ‘solidarity economy’ emerged in Latin America in the
mid-1980s and flourished in the late 90s, as a convergence of three social trends.
First, the economic exclusion experienced by growing segments of society,
generated by worsening debt and the ensuing structural adjustment policies forced
many communities to develop and strengthen creative, autonomous and locallyrooted ways of meeting essential needs. Second, growing discontent with the
prevailing market economy ushered in new ways of generating livelihoods and
providing services, characterized by cooperation, autonomy from dominant powers,
and participatory self-management. A third trend worked to link the two grassroots
upsurges of economic solidarity to the larger socioeconomic milieu, identifying
community-based economic projects as key elements of alternative social
organization. (Ethan Miller, GEO Collective in www..geo.coop)
Other sources refer to earlier moorings of solidarity economy, harking back to the earthfriendly communalism of indigenous peoples still practised today, or at least to the
emergence of cooperativism in most countries 200 years ago. (Allard and
Matthaei,2008:5). It is true, however, that it got the strongest push in Latin America for
all the reasons cited above, and its rationale is best put by one of its most prominent
proponents, Marcos Arruda of Brazil:
Solidarity Economy recognizes humankind, both the individual and social
being, not only as creators and producers of economic wealth but also as coowners of material wealth, co-users of natural resources, and co-responsible
for the conservation of Nature. The dominant system leads to the
concentration of wealth among the few and the disenfranchisement of the
many. Solidarity Economy strives towards producing and sharing enough
material wealth among all in order to generate sustainable conditions for
self-managed development of each and every member of societies, the
peoples and the planet. (Arruda, inAllard and Matthaei, 2008:6).
The global movement for solidarity economy converged with the World Social Forum
movement for two reasons: 1) “They both desire to synthesize the experiences, values,
and visions of progressive social movements while at the same time respecting their
diversity;” and 2) “They both search for a plurality of answers to neoliberal globalization
through participatory learning and reflection on our organizing and goals.” (Allard and
Matthaei,2008:4). Furthermore, the World Social Forums, held in Brazil, Mumbai, and
elsewhere in the South, were manifestations of “the flowering of a new form of
consciousness”:
It is a consciousness which stands in solidarity with all struggles for equality,
democracy, sustainability, freedom, and justice, and seeks to inject these
values into every aspect of our lives, in our economic lives.
It is a
consciousness which is locally rooted, but globally connected, involving what
7
the WSF Charter calls “planetary citizenship.” It is a consciousness, a set of
values, which has the power to transform our economy and society from the
bottom up. This new consciousness is the heart and soul of the solidarity
economy. (Allard and Matthaei, 2008:4).
The solidarity economy movement grew not only in Latin America but also elsewhere in
the Global South. In this region, the first Asian Forum for Solidarity Economy was held
in Quezon City in October, 2007.
Definitions of solidarity economy. But what exactly is “solidarity economy”?
The literature reveals a number of definitions, each having its own usefulness:
Solidarity economy is a socio-economic order and new way of life that
deliberately chooses serving the needs of people and ecological sustainability
as the goal of economic activity rather than maximization of profits under the
unfettered rule of the market. It places economic and technological
development at the service of social and human development rather than the
pursuit of narrow, individual self-interest. (Quinones, 2008, 1).
Solidarity economy designates all production, distribution and consumption
activities that contribute to the democratization of the economy based on
citizen commitments both at a local and global level. It is carried out in
various forms, in all continents. It covers different forms of organization that
the population uses to create its own means of work or to have access to
qualitative goods and services, in a dynamics of reciprocity and solidarity
which links individual interests to the collective interest. In this sense,
solidarity economy is not a sector of the economy, but an overall approach
that includes initiatives in most sectors of the economy. (Allard and Matthaei,
2008:8).
ECONOMY
+
SOLIDARITY
The many different
The process of taking active
ways in which we
responsibility for our
human beings
relationships in ways that foster
collectively generate
diversity, autonomy,
livelihoods in relation cooperation, communication,
to each other and to
and shared power (direct
the rest of the Earth.
democracy ).
= SOLIDARITY ECONOMY
Interconnected and diverse ways of
generating our livelihoods that
encourage and embody practices
of solidarity
An “economy of economies” that
resists the colonizing power of the
individualistic, competitive, and
exploitative Economy of Empire
Miller, “Solidarity Economics”
Miller suggests that beneath the surface of what we call “The Economic System”, there
are many forms of “micro-economies” or “people’s economies” that are “alive and
well,” serving to sustain ”the ongoing reproduction of healthy and mutually supportive
8
human communities.” Among these are household economies, barter economies,
collective economies, gift economies, worker-controlled economies, and subsistencemarket economies. Within these economies are “spaces” in which elements of solidarity
economy may be found, e.g.: workers and farmers cooperatives, community currencies,
rotating credit associations (ROSCAs), self-help groups using microfinance, housing
cooperatives, credit unions, consumer cooperatives, mutual aid collectives, seed-saving
and exchange, food banks, work barter, volunteer fire companies, self-employment,
hunting and gathering, gardening, open source programming, doing favors, parenting,
shared meals, carpooling, lending/borrowing from neighbors and friends.
Mapping solidarity economy initiatives. Miller has a more organized way of
mapping solidarity economy initiatives around “each of the interconnected phases of
economic life”: creation, production, exchange, consumption, surplus allocation, and
waste disposal. Under creation (“Where do the basic “raw materials” come from?”),
she lists the earth processes of “ecological creation”, and the commons as well as
collective forms of land ownership categorized as “cultural creations.” Under
production (“How are goods and services produced?”), all kinds of producer
cooperatives, family-based production, and self-employment are listed. Under
exchange/transfer (How do goods and services move from production to use?” are
gifts, community currencies, solidarity markets, barter clubs, fair trade, and sliding-scale
pricing. Consumer cooperatives, housing cooperatives, collective houses, selfprovisioning, and ethical purchasing come under consumption/use (How is the
consumption and use of goods and services organized?). Under surplus allocation
(How is surplus, generated in the economic cycle, used? How does surplus re-enter
and reinvigorate the cycle?), Miller has three sub-categories: 1) financing (which
includes community financing, cooperative loan funds, credit unions, community
development credit unions, ROSCAs, cooperative banks, self-financing, and communityreinvestment struggles; 2) recycling and compost (free stores, free boxes and swap
shops, community compost projects; and 3)savings/storage (community-based
insurance, and cooperative food storage. Miller, at the end, problematizes waste (e.g.,
toxic chemicals) that cannot be recycled or re-invested, pointing out that here,
environmental justice struggles are crucial.
Five distinguishing principles of solidarity economy. How does one know if an
activity out there is a living example of “solidarity economy”?
Quinones enumerates five distinguishing principles:
(1) the objective is to serve its members or the community, instead of simply striving
for financial profit;
(2) The economic enterprise is autonomous of the State;
(3) in its statute and code of conduct, a democratic decision-making process is
established that implies the necessary participation of users and workers;
(4) it gives priority to people and work over capital in the distribution of revenue and
surplus; and
9
(5) its activities are based on principles of participation, empowerment, and
individual and collective responsibility. (Quinones, 2008).
Solidarity Economy Initiatives in Southeast Asia
Thai Perspective and Practice. Homenet Thailand clearly sees solidarity
economy as an alternative paradigm to address the issues of globalization and attendant
“liberalized market mechanisms.” Under such mechanisms, “Informal workers may have
some access to work opportunities but they do not have the power to bargain for fair
wages and improved working conditions to enhance their quality of life…. a worker’s
dignity is not respected at all, and so are her/ his economic and social
rights.”(Duangngern, 2009).
‘Solidarity economy’, to them, “is based on mutual help. Its primary goal is not
profitability but to serve the producer, consumer and community. It strives to strengthen
and increase the bargaining power of vulnerable groups through democratic means, and
by allowing the participation of stakeholders.” (Ibid).
Homenet Thailand’s way of creating a solidarity economy is “through the strengthening
and networking of HBWs at various levels and collaboration with other networks” in
order “to empower and increase the bargaining power of HBWs and other informal
workers in Thailand.” (Ibid).
At the community level, Homenet Thailand organized production groups where “the
emphasis was not on profit alone but on self-reliance and mutual help among the
members as well. Members contribute capital for raw materials, are provided
transportation money to pick up these materials and deliver the finished products to an
agreed upon place, and are encouraged to have monthly savings to cover social protection
needs such as death, disability, loss of job or income, maternity, etc.
All community groups are linked to five regional networks, each of which has four
representatives to the board of the national informal workers’ network. The national
network leads advocacy campaigns specifically for laws and policies on social protection
(notably the successful campaign for universal health insurance ) and for legal protection
of labor rights.
Fair Trade in the Cambodian Context. The Artisans Association of Cambodia,
sees itself as part of the solidarity economy since it focuses on “people working together
in a way that will directly help those who are more vulnerable and disadvantaged. “
(Men, 2009). For AAC, this includes landmine victims, the disabled, and the rural and
urban poor, with a majority of them being poor women working to help support their
families. AAC also “goes beyond achieving purely social aims: it aims to put right an
injustice by expressing solidarity.’
AAC promotes solidarity principles in “1) production, in forming a group which
provides employment opportunities, capacity building, health and safety, good treatment,
10
fair wages, transparency and ensuring no discrimination among genders, as well as a
friendly and democratic environment;… and 2). marketing, in a way that promotes the
development of the socio-economic integration of the most vulnerable groups,…
cohesiveness, confidentiality, trustworthiness and profit that is well-distributed to all
levels of people involved in the community. “ (Ibid).
AAC is a fair trade network of 41 member organizations to whom it provides the
following livelihood and welfare-related services: Product Development/ Techniques;
Organizational Development; Design; Quality Improvement; Organizational Reform;
Loan Information; Shop Management; Conflict Intervention; Exposure Tours; Providing
Donor Information/Fund Raising, etc.
Village Banks in Lao PDR and PATAMABA Integrated Microfinance in the Philippines . For
Homenet Laos, solidarity economy means empowering whole communities, especially the
working poor, the women first of all. One of the most effective ways of doing this is through the
village banks, whereby people not only establish savings groups among themselves but also learn
together, help each other, strengthen their cultural ties, preserve the natural environment, and
develop the skills to manage and lead. (Phamuang, 2009). Village banks first began as pilot
projects of the Lao Women’s Union in the late nineties. After establishing and refining the village
bank system, it has spread to five provinces and 11 districts.
Given the overall political context in Lao PDR, the village bank system takes its general direction
and guidance from the Socio-economic Development Plan of the Lao Government (2005-2010).
However, there is space at ground level for people to make their own rules, and formulate their
plans in a democratic way based on local conditions. Village banks are managed by elected
committee members (who are mostly women) and are guided by community advisers. Each
village has a representative in the zone committee, which in turn has representatives at the district
level. The multi-level structure of the village banks enables the system to access more resources,
mobilize funds and grants, have greater capacity for financial management, provide more
training, benefits and services , and capacitate more leaders, especially women who have become
more visible in the pubic sphere at community level. (Boupha, 2009).
The integrated approach to microfinance of PATAMABA Region VI, Philippines
provides similar as well as contrasting features to those of the village banks in Lao PDR.
PATAMABA’s microfinance system evolved from the ground up. PATAMABA is a
people’s organization run and managed by women homebased and other informal worker
leaders. Its presence in Region VI (Western Visayas) began in 1992 with a small chapter
in Sta. Barbara, Iloilo. Its membership has spread to 41 village chapters in 12
municipalities and four provinces in the region with its strong networking with local
government units, various government and international development agencies, private
foundations, academe, informal workers’. women’s and other civil society organizations.
Over the years, regional leaders have evolved a lending and collection scheme system
based on regular monthly visits to every chapter. After learning from past mistakes,
11
PATAMABA client borrowers have shown exemplary credit discipline and can now
absorb higher loans .The programs and services of PATAMABA Region 6 , which
concretely manifest an integrated approach to microfinance, now include livelihood
loans, savings mobilization/capital build-up, skills training, awareness-raising (on gender
issues and reproductive health), community organizing, entrepreneurship development,
marketing assistance and emergency assistance (through DAMAYAN—helping one
another in times of crisis). The regional leadership of Iloilo has built on the tradition of
mutual aid in case of death. The campaign for DAMAYAN membership is continuing
among micro-finance groups (particularly in Antique) who are entering new lending
cycles where social protection through burial assistance would already be integrated.
Aside from the indigenous DAMAYAN scheme to assist the bereaved, PATAMABA
Region 6 also embarked on a serious campaign to enroll members in formal social
protection schemes under the Social Security System (SSS), Philhealth and Red Cross.
PATAMABA Region VI now has a total capital fund of Php 1.4 million (as of October
2008). The fund came from the Foundation for Sustainable Society Incorporated or FSSI
and PATAMABA Region VI savings. The revolving fund from FSSI and the savings
from micro-finance program amounting to Php1.4 million pesos were lent out to 480
beneficiaries with 2 percent interest per month. Beneficiaries are into food processing,
sari-sari stores, handicrafts, candle making and making give-aways or novelty items.
The Chapter’s success in relation to Solidarity Economy can be attributed to several
factors: 1) Strong networking, lobbying and advocacy; 2) Good relationship established
among partners and stakeholders; 3) Good credit record; 4) Membership and
representation in Local Special Bodies; 5) Accreditation with government agencies; 6)
Good implemention and effective monitoring and evaluation ; 7) Dedicated and
committed leaders and members; and 8) Presence of PATAMABA Regional office in
the Sta. Barbara, Iloilo municipal hall. (Nebla, 2009).
Cooperatives for Sustainable Development, Disaster Management, and
Women’s Empowerment: Philippine and Indonesian Experiences. The Ilaw ng
Tahanan Multi-Purpose Cooperative in Dumarais, Tarlac shows the convergence of
traditional values (bayanihan) with more current notions of food security, sustainable
development, and women’s empowerment. It was founded in 1992 by 20 rural women
homebased workers (including a few widows) belonging to PATAMABA . Although
they also engaged in doormat, slipper and rug making, their efforts were concentrated in
food production and processing – duck-raising, salted eggs, taho making meat processing
and peanut butter production since Dumarais is an agricultural area. The high degree of
discipline and cooperation exhibited by the members, as manifested in the cooperative’s
100 percent repayment rate, brought it recognition as a model center from the
Cooperative Bank Tarlac Province. The INTMPC is accredited as part of the Tarlac
Confederation of Cooperatives and its women leaders sit in the Cooperative Board. The
high quality of its peanut butter products, earned it awards from the Department of
Agriculture and the Department of Agrarian Reform. San Miguel Corporation also
awarded INTMPC for promoting organic food and practicing fair trade. INTMPC’s
involvement in Homenet Philippines as well as in the Pambansang Koalisyon ng
12
Kababaihan sa Kanayunan (PKKK) also strengthened its members’ awareness of the
rights of informal workers, the need for reproductive and occupational health services,
and the issues of rural women as regards environmental and food security. (Silvestre,
2009).
The Setara Women’s Cooperative in Yogyakarta and Klaten, Central Java, almost
collapsed when a strong earthquake rocked the area in May 2006, affecting almost half
its members (541) who consequently could not pay their outstanding loans. Recovering
from this disaster required the cooperation of the lending bank (which wrote off the
laons), the government (which led the rehabilitation and reconstruction efforts) and
Homenet Indonesia (whose leaders and members were involved in the Setara Women’s
Cooperative which undertook trauma=healing, capacity building, reproductive health,
micro-credit, business, gender and empowerment programs after the earthquake).
Research and mapping activities were also undertaken through the help of other NGOs as
basis for advocating policies for disaster risk reduction. The results were so impressive a
lot more women decided to join the cooperative, pushing the membership ranks to more
than 1,500 today. Setara is now on the path to self-reliance. (Harjanti, 2009).
Reflections and Conclusions
Aside from the grossly unequal and unsustainable world created by the Economics of
Empire, other worlds are possible and they are being created now, as has been shown
by examples from Southeast Asia briefly described above. Pronouncements such as this
from the various World Social Forums reverberate in many countries in the region, given
the context of overlapping crises.
In a region of increasing joblessness, workers have to create jobs through selfemployment, social enterprises, and cooperatives. And the word “worker” needs to have
a more encompassing meaning, including everyone who works to earn an income, or put
even more fundamentally, to sustain life.
In countries where most working people live in extreme poverty, such as Laos and
Cambodia, the most vulnerable groups (women, urban and rural poor, the differently
abled, survivors of AIDS and trafficking) need to be assisted and empowered
economically by providing access to resources (principally credit) and services (through
social marketing and fair trade).
For women in poverty, microfinance can be the entry point for empowerment but this
needs to be supplemented by capacity building, awareness-raising, social protection,
participatory mechanisms, and extensive networking with state and non-state networking
to provide optimum results.
In areas stricken by disaster and threatened by environmental degradation, sustainable
agriculture and disaster risk reduction initiatives need to be nurtured within a solidarity
economy context.
13
And in all cases, there is need to consider that women and men experience the
overlapping crises differently, and therefore, responses need to be gender-responsive.
In all areas, countries, and regions, there is need to “see with new eyes,” and to trace the
dots in the ever expanding solidarity economy map of multi-layered and increasingly
complex networks “that could provide popular economic education to organizers and
community groups, catalog grassroots initiatives, connect solidarity-based groups
together across the state, facilitate long-term vision and strategy building, and make links
with other social movements at regional, national and international levels. “(Miller, 2008)
The economic spaces wherein the new solidarity consciousness is being planted and sown
everyday just have to be seen, named, mapped, and assessed. Then these solidarity
economy practices need to be connected from creation to production, to
exchange/transfer, to consumption/use, to surplus allocation and back again.
What are examples of such connections?
 Concrete connections of support ad interrelation between different
sectors of the solidarity economy – organized consumers connecting with
organized producers; currency networks connecting with goodsmanufacturing sectors; growth and creation of cross-sector loan funds
and granting institutions to support further creation of solidarity
initiatives, and more;
 Collective power and organization with which to implement “nonreformist” reform that reduce the power of the Market and State in our
lives. One example might be state-level “Cooperative Economic
Development Acts” that would mandate state funding (re-directed from
current corporate subsidies, perhaps?) for locally controlled “community
cooperative development groups” that could focus on building co-ops
and other solidarity-based initiatives to meet local needs locally and
democratically.
 Networks of “Community Trade Organizations”, alternatives to the
World Trade Organization (WTO) that could build direct, solidaritybased “fair trade” relationships between communities in different
regions
and
countries.
(Miller
2008).
Solidarity economy is a new, exciting, inclusive, and democratic alternative that can
serve as the fulcrum of community development as a discipline, profession, and social
practice. It deserves more curricular attention and field implementation if community
development as a field is to renew committed service to social transformation based on
economic and environmental justice.
14
REFERENCES
Allard, Henna and Julie Matthaei (2008): Solidarity Economy - Building Alternatives
for People and Planet. Papers and Reports from the US. Social Forum 2007.
Introduction. Chiacago: Chang Maker Publishing (www.Lulu.com/changemaker).
Boupha, Sirikit (2009): “Empowering Women through Community Savings Groups,”
in Homenet Southeast Asia Newsmagazine, Vol. 7, No. 1, February 2009.
Chen, Martha (2008): Lecture on “Informality, Poverty and Gender: Advocacy and
Organizing,” delivered during the Roundtable Discussion organized by the
College of Social Work and Community Development, University of the
Philippines, March 27.
Dejardin, Amelita King and Jessica Owen (2008): “Asia in the Global Economic Crisis:
Impacts and Responses from a Gender Perspective.” Technical Paper for the ILO
Conference on Decent Work in Asia and the Pacific, Manila, 18-20 February
2009.
Duangngern, Somkid (2009): “Solidarity Economy in the Context of Homenet Thailand,
in Homenet Southeast Asia Newsmagazine, Vol. 7, No. 1, February 2009.
Harjanti, Sri (2009): “Setara Women’s Cooperative: Assisting Women Earthquake
Survivors,” in Homenet Southeast Asia Newsmagazine, Vol. 7, No. 1, February
2009.
Homenet Southeast Asia (2006): Social Protection for Homebased Workers in
Thailand and the Philippines. Quezon City, published under the auspices of
the Ford Foundation
International Labour Organisation (2007): Labour and Social Trends in ASEAN 2007 –
Integration, Challenges, and Opportunities. Geneva.
International Labour Organisation (2006): Realizing Decent Work in Asia - Report of
the Director general – 14th Asian Regional Meeting, Busan, Republic of Korea,
August to September, 2006.
International Labour Organisation (2009): “ILO warns economic crisis could generate up
to 2q2 million more unemployed women in 2009, jeopardize equality gains at
work and at home, press release issued 5 March.
Jayaseelan Lucia Victor, (2009) “This Crisis has a Woman’s Face.” International
Women’s Day statement of the Committee for Asian Women
15
Men, Sinouen (2009): “Solidarity Economy: Working Together to Help the Vulnerable
and the Disadvantaged,” in Homenet Southeast Asia Newsmagazine, Vol. 7,
No. 1, February 2009.
Miller, Ethan. Solidarity Economics - Strategies for Building New Economies From the
Bottom-UP and Inside=Out. . Grassroots Economic Organizing (GEO) Collective.
www.geo.coop.
Miller, Ethan. Elements of a Solidarity Economy.
Nebla, Maria (2008): “Infusing New Ways into Time-Tested Practices: An Integrated
Approach to Microfinance – the PATAMABA Region VI Experience,” in
Homenet Southeast Asia Newsmagazine, Vol. 7, No. 1, February 2009.
Phamuang, Khanthone (2009): “The Village Bank System in Lao PDR and the
Importance of Networks,” in Homenet Southeast Asia Newsmagazine, Vol. 7,
No. 1, February 2009.
Pineda Ofreneo, Rosalinda (2008): "Towards Fair Trade and Sustainable Livelihood for
Women Informal Workers in a Globalizing ASEAN”, paper presented during the
2nd Asia Pacific Congress of Cooperatives held at the University of the
Philippines School of Labor and Industrial Relations, May 15-16, 2008 on the
theme Towards Building a Solidarity Economy - Revisioning Globalization from
the Perspective of Cooperatives, Trade Unions, and People's Economies.
Pineda Ofreneo, Rosalinda (2008): "Bridging the Gender and Formal/Informal Divide in
Labor Movements within a Globalizing ASEAN", paper presented during the 8th
ASEAN Inter-University Conference on Social Development, held on May 28 to
31, 2008 at the Century Park Hotel in Manila, Philippines; a revised version of
this paper was also presented during the Second Conference of the Kartini Asia
Network, Bali, Indonesia, November 2-5, 2008.
Quinones, Benjamin Jr. (2008): Bayanihan for Solidarity Economy, paper presented
during the 2nd Asia Pacific Congress of Cooperatives held at the University of the
Philippines School of Labor and Industrial Relations, May 15-16, 2008 on the
theme Towards Building a Solidarity Economy - Revisioning Globalization from
the Perspective of Cooperatives, Trade Unions, and People's Economies.
Silvestre, Marcelina G. (2009): “The Ilaw ng Tahanan Multi-Purpose Cooperative and
Bayanihan Economy, “Homenet Southeast Asia Newsmagazine, Vol. 7, No. 1,
February 2009.
16