Nithin Coca, Shareable: So what does the concept civic economy mean to you?

Eguchi Shintaro, co-author of “Civic Economy in Japan”: It is based on the real meaning of “economy.” If you look at the etymology of the Greek word, it represents a community that actually is sustainable and generates and regenerates what it has from its resources.

In the concept of civic economy, civilization or people is the focus of economy. This is the focus of my research. Civic economy is originally a concept in introduced in Europe, but there has been this idea in Japan for centuries too to heighten and advance civilization through the economy, and as a byproduct this can also be a sharing economy.

Civic economy is basically where individuals share what they have — skills, knowledge, services — to develop the economy of a certain area. The original meaning is basically a community of cooperation… a community that is sustainable, that generates its own resources.

Can you tell me about the history of sharing or civic economy in Japan? What is the underpinning of sharing in Japanese society?

In Edo era, there were ideas and functions that were held by small organizations that were early version of banks. This is where people in communities pitch in and pool money to invest, and have that money held in cases. For example, [if] someone had a fire and lost everything, they might loan that money for them to rebuilt their lives. Or sometimes, they would give that money. This is a system of mutual help, beginning of cooperativism in Japan. Because it is related to civil economy, I am recently getting more interested in cooperativism.

Then, the sense of commons was stronger than sharing. For instance in a village, there might be a well that a community uses together, or cooperative housing, or families taking care of each other’s children. Within that small community, it was complete. From our perspective, it is sharing, but at that time, the sense of personal ownership was not so strong. It was much stronger to have a sense of commons.

What happened to these systems?

After the Meiji Restoration, Japan went through modernization. This meant the sense of capitalism and individualism has gotten stronger, so there is a sense of having individual resources. That’s why individuals and family unit has gotten much stronger. The idea of capitalism meant companies promoted the sales of appliances, and meant household owned things, and that’s when the idea of personal ownership was introduced.

What about the growing attention on rural economies in Japan. Can sharing help revitalize those economies?

During Japan’s bubble economy era, the economy boomed, and major cities became bigger and bigger, and basically have extracted from rural areas, which have declined in population and their economies declined too.

Today, the population is still declining in rural areas, and that’s why there are very few businesses willing to move to rural areas, and in rural areas they don’t see any venture capital. Young people are leaving these areas to look for jobs in big cities, and then they make money and send some money back. Gradually, rural area is becoming more elderly, and there is more aging population.

There is a danger of small towns or small cities maybe disappearing entirely. As far as local governments go, they need to stabilize their economy. And so, within the community, they have few resources, which are getting fewer and fewer. In rural areas … local governments haven’t put many efforts in building more entrepreneurs in their areas, so the sharing economy is one way for rural governments to create and generate funds for their own communities.

What is behind the more recent resurgence in interest in sharing or civic economy in Japan?

The Great Kobe Earthquake, and other disasters in Japan were important milestones. When there is a huge natural or social disaster, people learned that it was impossible to sustain or survive all on their own. That’s when the idea of mutual help was reintroduced and got stronger. Along with that, the Japanese economy stagnated, so this is when the idea of cooperation re-emerged.

The Great East Japan Earthquake is also an important point when the idea of mutual help got stronger. In other countries, there is a strong interest in cooperativism, and in Japan, there is a need to review and look at cooperativism again. Of course the basis of that is because it is very democratic. It’s not from the point of view of the study of the economy, it is also from how you can democratically operate,so it’s important to study it.

Can you tell me about civic economy projects that are representative of the potential for sharing to revitalize the economy?

One example is a Toyo-oka, Kinosaki Onsen in Hyogo Prefecture. It is a hot springs (onsen) town. It’s a very famous town because there is a novel written by a famous Japanese author, about 100 years ago. They rely on tourism.

In the past few years, there is a movement to create some projects to keep culture and people in the city. The project is launched by the local government, with one project, Books in Onsen started by onsen inn owners who had a union already. It’s like an Artists in Residence program, they invite artists to stay in this area and create something. In exchange for free residence, artists are supposed to open their studios, when they are rehearsing or creating, to residents, so they can come and watch what they do. Or they have to provide workshops for children. Kids can also use these facilities to create their own pieces of art. … For local residents, they see in the books and stories names of places that are very familiar to them, so in that way, it’s promoting literature, creation, and it supports tourism, because of the fans who want to come and get these books. They have already sold 100,000 copies. And many Japanese media have picked up these stories too.

Another example is Hagiso, in the eastern part of Tokyo, an area which has a lot of old buildings. It’s a building which used to be an apartment and which is 60 years old that was renovated to have a cafe, gallery, and shop.

In this neighborhood, Hagiso is in the middle and functions as a front desk, and you might have lodging in an old Japanese farmhouse, where you can stay. For bath, they will give a ticket to another facility which is a hot spring bath. If they want to eat dinner, they will get a list of restaurants in the neighborhood for them to pick. They can rent a bike. Since this is an old neighborhood, we have facilities where they have cultural experiences like a tea ceremony. So this is a system that was created in the neighborhood, and economy itself it pulls and is shared by institutions in the neighborhood. Small businesses getting together to mutually generate business and help create and sustain the local economy.

What do you see as the future for sharing?

There have been a lot of efforts to increase start-up companies, or educate entrepreneurs in local areas, starting in the late 2000s. Amidst that, there are sharing businesses build on sharing economy concepts, particularly using IT. This is chance, to see how IT technology can be used to help society. But of course, that does not mean that IT literacy is increasing among older age bracket. There is a need for us to increase the IT use among this age bracket.

There is little understanding of sharing among local governments. Cities need to develop this vision. Citizens, private sector, and governments all have to come together, and work in the same direction, with the same goals. We don’t have that yet — they are divided, and working separately. The people have not really felt or understood the Sharing City vision.

One of the biggest things right now is to help these groups understand each other and face the same direction — need to create something that people and the local government that can make their own city attractive, and build civic pride together.

 Cross-posted from Shareable

Photo by thomwisdom

The post Civic sharing projects in Japan: Q&A with urban policy researcher Eguchi Shintaro appeared first on P2P Foundation.

The opportunity?

In the case of the Church of England alone, there are around 16,000 churches in its national network. With recent church reports suggesting that just over 25 percent of churches have as few as 20 parishioners, it’s been described by Guardian journalist Simon Jenkins as the “nation’s grandest unexploited social resource.”

In terms of the church, a combination of under-use, high maintenance costs, and a lack of income generation has created an “unaffordable architectural legacy” — according to the Arthur Rank Centre church buildings can “become a stifling burden and a drain on energy and resources.” But this vast swathes of church property, as Rachel Laurence of the New Economics Foundation acknowledges, has largely been neglected by those working in Community Economic Development (at least here in the U.K.).

Alongside this institutional decline has been the significant loss of local services and public utilities in many villages and market towns, where post offices, banks, and food shops have closed. According to the Commission for Rural Communities, “it is estimated that 70 percent of villages in the U.K. have no local shop.” And in terms of rural banking services, between 1989 and 2012, 7,500 banks closed in the U.K. – more than 40 percent of banks.

In response to this market failure, many communities have worked together to create new initiatives to save shops, halls, and pubs, as well as leisure centers and other vital local assets. There are now more than 350 Community Co-ops in the U.K., a model that is viable and effective, with the Plunkett Foundation’s research showing that “97 percent of the community owned village stores opened over the past 25 years are still open and trading today.”

But is there an institutional appetite within modern churches to uphold their social purpose, meet changing circumstances, and find new ways to engage their communities?

Image courtesy of the Churches Conservation Trust

New Purpose

Our research shows that churches are already showing a will to engage in new ways of repurposing buildings and land. Church Care, the property division of the Church of England, claim there are at least 35 sub-post office services being delivered from churches, chapels, halls and centers, ensuring communities are able to access local facilities. Where communities have been missed by the national broadband rollout, spires are being used to broadcast wifi, sometimes as co-ops, but often through private suppliers.

Churches have also become involved in providing local financial services. In response to Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby’s comments on the predatory lending strategies of Wonga, All Saints Church in Murston, Kent, hosted the first community bank to open inside a church. This is a model that could be replicated as a means of localising banking – offering space for regional and local banks – as well as creating new savers and lenders with local investment interests.

With the housing crisis affecting both rural and urban areas, community-led initiatives such as community land trusts have become increasingly relevant. These models often refer to parish territories in their activities, such as community consultations and neighbourhood plans, but without the express involvement of the church and its assets. By co-producing with church groups actively participating from the initial stages, this approach can be replicated through our efforts to unlock church assets for new and existing community initiatives.

There are many positive examples of repurposed churches, but how can CED inform this process so it’s actually based on community need and ensure local people are involved from the start?

Unlocking the Next Economy

Over the last few years we’ve been working with organisations in the creative sector, local authorities, schools, and community groups, exploring how cooperative models can secure local assets, create economic democracy, and ensure these initiatives are based on local needs.

An important part of this process is co-production – based on the work and toolkit of social enterprise Learn to lead – that involves stakeholders in the process from the start. Alongside this, our three pilot communities will be supported by external consultants who are able to encourage local communities, import new ideas, facilitate consensus in an often divisive process, and offer the co-operative model as an option in their CED.

Our process is primarily about unlocking physical assets to support communities to meet their own needs, not to conserve churches. The only way we’re going to save churches, as Simon Jenkins argues, is by giving them away. If churches survive – architecturally and even as places of worship – it will be because they have become a social resource.

Cross-posted from Shareable

The post What Does it Mean to Unlock the Next Economy? appeared first on P2P Foundation.

FOR MORE INFORMATION ON THIS EVENT, SEE THE ORIGINAL POST ON dezwijger.nl

This event takes place today, September 1, at 8PM in Amsterdam. The event is free-of-charge.

New Democracy 10: David Bollier and the City as a Commons

An evening on the rich history and promising future of the commons. How can we govern urban commons in co-creation?

In search of a new democracy we are exploring new governance structures based upon the concept of the commons. In ‘Think like a commoner’, David Bollier presents his version of “the rich history and promising future of the commons”. Tonight he shares with us his ideas on “an ageless paradigm of cooperation and fairness that is re-making our world.” Together with Christian Iaione (LabGov), David Hammerstein (Commons Network), Marleen Stikker (Waag Society) en Stan Majoor (HvA) we explore what it means to see the city as a commons. What are the urban resources we can identify as commons? How can we govern them? We invite City Makers, entrepreneurs, civil society, civil servants, politicians and scholars to join us in our quest for a co-creative model of governance for our city.

With the New Democracy series we investigate democratic change as a transition, looking for socio-economic trends on the one side, and practices of social innovators on the other, that simultaneously puts pressure on the existing system, forcing it into change. Tonight we will continue our research by identifying what resources in the city we can regard as urban commons and looking into the practicalities of governing them in a co-creative manner. Our main guest is David Bollier, internationally one of the leading specialists on the commons. Bollier is an author, activist, blogger and consultant who explores the commons as a new paradigm of economics, politics and culture.

Bollier will sketch the potential of a society that embraces the commons as a governance structure. He describes the revolution of pioneering in practical forms of self-governance and production controlled by people themselves. To him, the commons is an exploding field of DIY innovation ranging from Wikipedia and seed-sharing to community forests and collaborative consumption. This development challenges the standard narrative of market economics by showcasing how cooperation generates significant value and human fulfillment. Bollier provides us with a framework of law and social action that can help us to rebuild our society and reclaim our shared inheritance towards a co-governed city.

After Bollier’s story, Christian Iaione, David Hammerstein, Marleen Stikker and Stan Majoor will join us for a dialogue on the city as commons. We encourage you to participate, as this dialogue will be the starting point of building a co-creative model of governance for our city. During the evening we want to learn what it means to live in a culture of the commons. What can we see as commons in culture, in housing, in education, in care, in public space? By explaining the work he has done with the Laboratory for Governance of the Commons, Iaione will help us exploring the possibilities of starting to govern these commons in a co-creative way. Our ambition is to jointly develop a LabGov Amsterdam in the coming months and years.

The post New Democracy 10: David Bollier and the City as a Commons appeared first on P2P Foundation.

Collaborative consumption should be understood, above all and beyond increases in efficiency in consumption, as an element of cultural change, as the experience of a possible world… which, however, is being decided upon and built somewhere else.

To understand the relationship of abundance to marginal cost allows us to see “collaborative consumption” from a new angle.

Let’s take an example. You and a neighbor work in the same business. He has a car, so he offers to share it, to go back and forth to work together. One fine day, you discover that another workmate also lives in your building. The extra cost from taking him is negligible. For all intents and purposes, zero. Additionally, you could go from three to four, and even from four to five, without the increase in people who enjoy the service meaning an increase in total costs.

What’s happened? We started with a situation where only one person was going to work by car and changed to another where everyone has as much as they want of the product “go to work by car,” and the cost of doing so has been zero. We have had a glimpse of abundance and discovered a simple, everyday example in which the marginal costs are zero.

Limits

But if we think about it carefully, what we have is really little more than a mirage. If another co-worker moves into the neighborhood, providing him with the service would mean buying a new car. If we write out the marginal costs, we would find that they are zero between one and five people, and rise—by the price of a car—by going to six; then they return to zero from six to seven and will continue on at zero until the eleventh person we want to carry, at which point we would have to buy another new car. And so it would continue indefinitely—between each multiple of five and the following, we’ll have a pretty significant marginal cost.

That is, if we think about growing, about providing for a community or a network of certain size, we cannot think for one moment that we are living in a world of zero marginal costs. And above all, though the ideas is functional for a small community, we are putting the focus on the mere optimization of the use of what already exists and taking it off of what abundance truly means: the development of the capacity to transform our setting to the point of being able to satisfy everyone’s needs.

The moral of the story

This is why collaborative consumption should be understood, above all, beyond the increases in efficiency in consumption, as an element of cultural change, as the limited experience of a possible world which, however, is begin decided on and is built somewhere else.

To look at sharing from the point of view of marginal costs also illuminates some dark corners of the community phenomenon. We know that one of the keys of the capacity for resistance and resilience of the community experience throughout history has been sustained by the ability to enjoy those “glimpses of abundance” continuously. We also know that even though the Dunbar number puts a total limit of 148 members on the size of a real human community, really existing communities tend to have “thresholds” in their growth, the so-called sub-Dunbar numbers (6, 12, 20, 30, 60, 80). Might the sub-Dunbar numbers be related to similar thresholds in our example?

Translated by Steve Herrick from the original (in Spanish).

The post Sharing is a glimpse of abundance appeared first on P2P Foundation.