Socrates Schouten: More and more opinion leaders are mistaking a few big corporate platforms for the collaborative economy. We need a pro-active policy framework that bends the collaborative economy towards the public good.

Today the sharing, or collaborative, economy in which ordinary citizens swap products and co-create ideas and services, enjoys widespread attention. This enthusiasm not only comes from the citizens themselves, but also from businesses and governments. From these circles springs a dazzling stream of traditional policy reports and advice papers seeking to get a grip (quite literally) on the activities in the collaborative economy. As firms and governments have great influence on economic life, the angle they take on the sharing economy determines its future direction. That turns out to be ill-fated: the old economy is mapped onto, and smothers, the true potential of the collaborative economy.

By discussing two examples from the European policy context, I will explain why collaborative economy is misinterpreted on many levels. Let’s start with ‘An economic review of the collaborative economy’, a policy brief by the influential Brussels-based think tank Bruegel. In the text, three aspects stand out. First, the basic viewpoint of the Bruegel report is that collaborative economy initiatives fulfil market functions. Collaborative platforms, we read, ‘broker supply and demand’ and ‘increase economic efficiency’. The fast-growing collaborative platforms help meet ‘consumer preferences’ and ‘increase competition’. This free-market language is all over the report, while social ideas and incentives are hardly touched upon.

Secondly, Bruegel’s discussion of collaborative initiatives is heavily tilted towards the big corporate players. When demonstrating that Europe is ‘far behind’ on the collaborative economy compared to other continents, for example, Bruegel cites a number of a meagre 27 platforms – but with a combined worth of nearly two hundred billion dollars and boasting over 100,000 employees! Given the average value of $ 7 billion per platform, this must be the collaborative economy’s ‘1 percent’: the handful of top players owning nearly the whole ‘collaborative’ market. The other 99 percent are not in their view.

Thirdly, the report recurrently refers to the collaborative platforms as ‘intermediaries’. That is striking, because one of the intended merits of the sharing and collaboration movement was that of taking out the middle man (‘disintermediation’, in jargon). Of course, we know that the new mega-platforms are quite happy with their central, intermediate position. But it’s surprising how much they find allies in economic policy circles.

Collaborative? Or economy?

In fact, I wonder what’s collaborative about all of this. Bruegel’s collaborative economy amounts to a highly capitalist industry, a far cry from the “happy sharing, friends making” narrative so often heard in sharing economy circles. What we see here is a plain case of what Tomáš Sedláček calls ‘subject-object reversal’ in economics. We start with a genuine, heartfelt aim: an economy with ‘a sense of community, collective accountability and mutual benefit’ (I’m still citing the Bruegel paper here, actually). To get there, large digital platforms could be instrumental. However, the former is a messy target from a regulatory perspective, while the platforms are quite solid and good to analyse and administer.

So, next moment we find the platforms have become the collaborative economy. The corporations are what economists and policy makers bend their minds on and what are encouraged to thrive. Consequentially, the collaborative economy’s bigger social potential for economic life – the deep value brought to citizens and communities – is neglected and wasted.

Public good

The second document, the European Commission’s agenda for the Collaborative Economy, suffers from similar shortcomings. The Commission formally puts the attention where it ought to be: on the public interest, a.k.a the common good. The document maintains the official policy mantra that regulation should not impose more restrictions than is necessary to safeguard the public interest. That sounds beautiful, but results in a rather defensive strategy. When a new player, technology or disruptor enters the scene, regulators wait and see. Early ‘weak’ signals of dissatisfied citizens do not warrant a defence of the public interest. Only when negative impacts grow to unambiguous heights and the poo hits the fan, regulators spring to life. But having arrived at that point, their scope stops at rearguard action: patching up, limiting the harm done, frolicking for ‘case-by-case’ solutions. As a result, the public good is always one (big) step behind.

Collaborative economy policies have been staring too much at what’s coming out of the glass towers, and in the process forgot about the larger social sphere, where the magic actually happens.

So what do we need? We should develop a pro-active policy framework that bends the collaborative economy towards the public good. A framework that starts from the citizen, and allows civil servants to look for common benefit and make political value judgments. I’d like to kick off by suggesting two framework components:

1. What you give attention to, will grow. So let’s focus on the adjective in ‘collaborative economy’, instead of the noun. We have done enough of helping big companies make more profits. Now it’s time to shift gears. Invest in digital social innovation: the bottom-up generation of connective ideas and practices that generate sustainable value for all, instead of eroding the basis and enriching the few.
2. Let’s shake off the public’s cheerless self-image of being just the total number of residents in any corporation’s blast range. Today, ‘public’ is a rest category, an incoherent policy checklist. All too often the public interest is interpreted as merely consumers’ interest. But it’s the bread and butter of society, and a moving target at that. We should constantly make effort to redefine the public interest and let it determine, instead of receiving the blows of, technological developments. I therefore suggest the Commission, next to the ‘Digital Single Market’, launch the ‘Digital Single Public’: a forum and agenda to reinvent social values in the digitizing world. This Public will be ‘single’ in its connectedness and sympathy to the European spirit; but diverse and dynamic in its people, solutions and ideas.

At Waag Society, we are constantly looking for tools and interventions to widen the view on the collaborative economy, like our friends from FairBnB, who want to bring the community into the local tourism platforms, and keep the value there.

I hope you will join our mission to make the European public ‘great again’.

Images: cc Waag Society 2017

The post How to see the people in the collaborative economy appeared first on P2P Foundation.

Guido Smorto:

“Platform cooperativism” has become the most successful term used in the ongoing debate on shared governance and shared ownership in the platform economy. It attempts to define the new organizational structures and entire ecosystem that can offer a true alternative to the large-scale, for-profit corporations that are exploiting online cooperation among “peers”. However, in this lively debate the issue of market regulation has so far received little attention, especially with regard to the context of the European Union. This short article aims to show that the many solutions to the challenges of platform cooperativism cannot simply be reduced to the platforms’ capacity for self-government and to new organizational tools. Against the backdrop of the creation of a European regulatory framework, it is important to recognise the key role of competitive legal strategies from the perspective of both justice and efficiency. Only thus can co-operative models be sustainable and competitive in the platform economy.

Make the Rules or Your Rivals Will is the title of one of the most acclaimed books on competitive legal strategies, offering economic actors a clear choice: either play by your competitors’ rules or subject them to your own.[1] Needless to say, the second solution promises a better chance of success, especially in the early days of yet unexplored economic models. From Henry Ford’s victory over the Selden patent to the forty-year litigation faced by Thomas Edison and the complex strategies adopted by Bill Gates on standard licensing terms for software contracts and software copyright protection, an analysis of key economic sectors clearly shows that working under congenial rules from the outset of an economic model is the most crucial ingredient for success.

This assumption may seem quite obvious. After all, legal regulations create markets, define their boundaries and influence choices and behaviour. However, the weight of competitive legal strategies is often underrated, perhaps due to a natural aversion to litigation and lawyers, or because we tend to believe that the “state should not be picking the winner” but instead create a “level playing field” that puts the competitors on equal terms.

This general underestimation of legal strategies also applies to “platform cooperativism” – a term that refers to experimentation around shared ownership and shared governance in the online economy, with the aim of devising organizational models and a new ecosystem in opposition to the large-scale for-profit corporations that are exploiting online cooperation among peers.[2]

At first, this conclusion may seem overly harsh. After all, the ongoing debate is being enriched almost every day by initiatives seeking to develop new theoretical and practical instruments that aim to contribute to creating new kinds of collaborative platforms that are a true expression of a social and solidarity economy.

Loomio is an online tool for group decision-makin | Loomio

Research and analysis is more dynamic than ever in the fields of organizational models, decision-making tools and funding schemes. Software is being developed to facilitate collaborative decision-making (Loomio, Enspiral) and new legal solutions for tax and labour law (FreedomCoop). New instruments are being conceived to foster self-government and the creation of online communities (Fairshares), and innovative tools are coming up with new ways to coordinate capital and labour (Mastly, Timefounder). Original instruments based on blockchain are being engineered to create decentralized organizations (Backfeed, Comakery) and local currencies in accordance with social economy values (Colu). These experiments also are also investing in funding schemes that emerge as an alternative to venture capital (Purpose Capital, The working world, Transform Finance, Community Shares) as well as payment systems (Fairpay). And thought-provoking solutions (copyleft, copyfair) are being developed in the field of intellectual property and privacy as alternatives to traditional copyright law and the intrusive arrogance of capitalistic platforms.

The overall picture is extremely vibrant but also unstable and unbalanced. If we go deeper and try to confirm the actual consolidation of many of the proposals in question, we find that most of them are in a very early testing stage or facing severe financial problems. Furthermore, in the absence of established models many of these experiments face enormous difficulties in conceiving utterly new solutions capable of negotiating risks, ownership, control and profits.

But above all, what is really lacking is a full and engaged debate on market regulation and on the effects of legal regulations on competitiveness. According to the widely recognised distinction drawn by Lawrence Lessig – who came up with the formula “code is law” – the current discussion around platform cooperativism focuses mainly on the architecture (“code”) but largely overlooks legal regulations. [3]

Yet the two aspects should go hand in hand, given that legal regulations play a fundamental role in the ability to successfully design and implement viable alternatives for cooperative platforms: beyond technical difficulties, it will only be possible to establish effective tools that incorporate the values of cooperativism if those models remain competitive in the market. Because what is the point of devising more equitable systems if the market punishes those who make the effort?

Perhaps due to its North American origins, the absence of a thorough debate on legal frameworks for platform cooperativism is even more striking in Europe, where reflection on these issues generally fails to take into account the economic, cultural and legal peculiarities of the European Union.

Nonetheless, appropriate reflection and debate would be highly desirable, especially given that EU rules are being shaped right now: in June 2016 the European Commission published a Communication on the collaborative economy[4] and another on online platforms dates back to 2015.[5] The Uber case, now pending a hearing before the European Court of Justice, will be decided in 2017[6] and the European Parliament and other EU institutions are also taking a stance on these issues.[7]

Fairpay is a payment card to use in physical stores. It is loaded with Faircoin | Faircoop

Moving on to the content, what should be the focus of the debate on European rules for platform cooperativism? The first and most direct answer is to examine the distribution effects of these new economic environments, in order to understand who wins and who loses.[8] This involves studying their impact on different social groups and geographical areas, and looking at how they effect gender equality and the relationship between labour and capital. [9] Secondly, it requires a deeper analysis on how the digital economy affects the principles and values that our societies are based on[10], from the “commodification” of new goods and services[11] to the economic and political consequences of big data. [12]

But it is not just a question of justice and fairness. The current debate often points out the potential and actual injustices of this new economy, but fails to carry out a more technical analysis of market failures, precisely when EC Services Directive (2006/123/EC), e-Commerce Directive (2000/31/EC) and the acquis communautaire on consumer protection are being called into question.[13] Due to this oversight, the debates on platform cooperativism too often ignore the in-depth revision of the game rules that is currently taking place, particularly in regards to the role and the limits of self-regulation, thus fuelling the risk that these changes may result in massive deregulation. [14]

In the search for solutions to the many challenges facing cooperative platforms, simply relying on self-government capacities is clearly not enough. The development of a regulatory framework that is in tune with cooperative values is essential for the creation of public policies and for the development of solutions designed around the principles of co-creation and co-management. It is only when these rules are in place that social enterprises will be able to compete on equal terms in emerging online markets.

A few months ago, a proposal to buy Twitter was launched from The Guardian by one of the promoters of platform cooperativism. In the face of persistent rumours of a severe financial crisis and related concerns of a possible purchase by a well-known online giant, the #BuyTwitter campaign raised the idea of a purchase bid by its users and its subsequent transformation into a cooperative. The initiative garnered media attention and raised some hopes, but it stalled for practical reasons. Above all, the price was too high to be feasible. And it showed how difficult it is to channel individual enthusiasm into collective success, without the backing of considerable financial strength and appropriate organizational structures.

When real life does not go as we wish, sometimes we rebel and sometimes we turn to fantasy. We can throw stones at the Google bus – a symbol of gentrification and surge prices – as in the Douglas Rushkoff book that takes its cue from an episode that occurred in San Francisco in 2014.[15] Or we can imagine a future in which all companies are “social” and people can be punished for “anti-social investment”[16]; a future where Twitter really becomes a prosperous cooperative, where new cooperative social networks are successfully founded, and Facebook has no choice but to “democratize” its structure by including users in its board of directors. [17]

But if we’d rather deal with reality, we need to put competitive legal strategies at the very centre of the debate on platform cooperativism, thus channelling the discussion towards the context of the European Union at a time when the regulatory framework is being decided. It is crucial to act now, because failing to do so it will make it increasingly difficult to envision the success of cooperative models.

The post The Rules of the Game of Platform Cooperativism appeared first on P2P Foundation.

Developing a Co-op commons alliance towards a Collaborative Equitable and Participatory Economy: Cooperative digital platforms Lines of research

This in-depth summary was compiled by our colleague Nicole Alix and originally published in Commons Transition.

Digital platforms are at the heart of the so-called “collaborative” economy. They are powerful tools for networking, sharing and cooperation. Through digital technology and the Internet, civil society is now able to self-organize and create value without intermediaries. This collaborative economy based on peer-to-peer operation takes two main forms, according to Michel Bauwens, co-founder of the P2P Foundation:

• Peer-to-peer “in common”, which brings people together around a common object (free software, shared design…), shared, maintained and defended by a community. There are three basic elements: the resource, the community that manages this resource and an active governance that establishes rules;
• Distributed market relations where people create, through a platform, market relations by replacing the usual intermediaries with a privatized platform. This “netarchic capitalism” allows the creation of a market by direct extraction of the value resulting from human cooperation and the production of common peers, without going through the remuneration of labour.

The problem doesn’t necessarily come from digitalisation or automation, but from the redistribution of created value. Furthermore, there are not always benefits from automation, so not always value to redistribute, according to Susana Martin Belmonte.

It is relevant to do more than complain about the way giant digital firms concentrate the market and capture the value, and about the lack of regulations towards these corporations acting above the law and social justice. The 5 December Conference in the EESC in Brussels “Towards a Collaborative Equitable and Participatory Economy: the role and place of cooperative platforms” aimed at shedding light on the future and showing diversified models of more collective, “common” solutions, for public decision makers. These often take the form of collective organizations of the social and solidarity economy: cooperatives, associations, mutual societies.

 Throughout Europe and around the world, citizens, entrepreneurs and communities invent new forms of sharing and cooperation to create, preserve, or access goods and services in “common”. They aim at equity and redistribution for the people. This is fundamentally different from digital platforms that capture the value created by their contributors and users. Using the cooperative model digital platforms ensures fair reward and representation of workers in the collaborative economy. Each user can be one holder of the platform and therefore be part of the constitution of the rules of the platform, i.e of its democratic governance. Each user can benefit from an equitable redistribution of the created value.

The “Platform Cooperativism” movement was launched in New-York at the end of 2015 with this perspective  to promote co-operative platforms governed by their users and redistributing value in the communities they animate. It has echoed the movements in Europe which call for a digital economy of justice and sharing. The cooperative model is praised for building equitable and solidarity-based digital platforms; the latter can also enable the social and solidarity-based economy to reinvent its decentralized governance model. Cooperatives Europe carried out a study, “Cooperative Platforms in a European Landscape: An Exploratory Study” presented by Louis Cousin, showing that the European cooperative movement is aware of the collaborative economy opportunity, in particular for its potential to generate innovative economic and governing models.

The diversity of forms of entrepreneurship is consubstantial with the European social model, as much as social dialogue, recalls Luca Jahier, President of Group III of the European Economic and Social Committee. Encouraging diversified dynamics, avoiding the one-size-fits-all model and polarization implying impoverishment, caring for those who are excluded from transitions, inventing new winning models; these are issues that are part of a preservation of the commons. The most fragile of these “commons”  could obviously be that of the construction of social links. The creation of models with a cooperative and mutual prevalence, carried by stakeholders of a different nature, is likely to nurture the European model of social dialogue and to reinsert the concept of social innovation into processes carried by the actors.

The EESC thus enabled 6 organizations close to the social and solidarity economy and the commons ^[1]to bring together, on the initiative of La Coop des Communs, on 5 December^[2], nearly 200 people at the EESC. The conference “Towards a Collaborative Equitable and Participatory Economy: Cooperative Digital Platforms” has been an opportunity to: 

1. Discover  innovative experiences of cooperative platforms:

SCIC 1DLab, the first equitable streaming platform, has built an ecosystem to find a collective response to several needs: the reinforcement of cultural diversity and the economic strengthening of those who carry the value (creators, producers, public distributors, public and private members). The “common” shared by all stakeholders is 1Dtouch, the first fair streaming platform where people can access the library through a library card. A mobile application is in preparation. It will allow users to discover the diversity of cities, in a different way from Airbnb and will offer an alternative to the oligopoly of the three majors (such as Vivendi Universal which concentrates 50% of the creative matter in the world).

Beescoop (Brussels Ecological, Economical Supermarket), a cooperative supermarket, aims at making sustainable food accessible to all. Each customer participates 3 hours per month. Dynamocoop, a real estate cooperative for collective creative spaces, serves the creators.

These forms of sharing can also be mobilized between companies. In France Barter, TPEs and SMEs trade together using a common currency, the Barter. Some enterprises can use assets underused by others (rooms, staff, unsold). Adjustments require a dialogue between the needs and the responses, in order to find a balance between the emissions and the consumption of Barters. Hence the importance of tools for consultation and decision-making remotely, like Loomio, a software created by Enspiral. It can create a community, test the level of commitment or the degree of support for proposals. It complements the actual dialogue without replacing it, and allows a very useful asynchronous dialogue when it comes to talking between time zones.

All these models carry confidence, according to two axes, not mutually exclusive:

1. one considers the platform as a cooperative, a common good, owned by the stakeholders who manage them. They are developing all over the world, involving workers, including poor and manual workers, and their unions. This is particularly evidenced by the Platform cooperativism movement;
2. the other aims (e.g. through multi-member cooperatives) at the creation and preservation of common goods. Beyond the sole interests of workers and users, they seek for a new sharing of value. Knowledge (like Enspiral), in-kind contributions (1DLab) is reinjected, creates localized jobs (i.e. Terre de Liens, which allows organic farmers to develop, build buildings; utilities for designers like Dynamocoop). This is reflected in the movement in favor of “Open cooperativism”.

Participatory governance issues are central to both kinds of experiences, using new techniques such as sociocracy and / or tools like Loomio.

2 – Exchange on regulatory issues:

Market regulation is a decisive element for cooperative platforms to compete in peer-to-peer market. However, such an element is usually overlooked in the current debate, explains Guido Smorto, professor of comparative law in Palermo. In order to attain the European Union’s objectives of “highly competitive market economy”, “solidarity and smart development” and “social cohesion”, we must not underestimate the legal aspects that affect:

• fairness and valued orientation: which are the distributive consequences of these economic activities, what do platforms do with the surplus generated, how do they serve the community in the strict sense – users and producers – and the society as a whole? And which (non-distributive) values do these economic practices foster? What about compliance with the principles of pricing mechanism and metadata?
• efficiency: it is generally assumed that platforms are better positioned than traditional firms to address market failures and that self-regulation should have a greater role in regulating the sharing economy. But this is true only in part: there is still much asymmetric information that platforms cannot correct or have no interest to correct. And market failures different from asymmetric information may persist despite the self-governing mechanisms created by platforms, namely externalities and monopolies. Platforms usually argue that they cannot be considered as suppliers, but just a “marketplace”, so that the rules applicable to service providers would not be applicable to them. Further, it is important to define who is a “peer” and who is a “professional”. This is why they claim that no external regulation is necessary.

Cooperative platforms may better respond to market failures by empowering consumers and protecting workers. Rules must promote a democratic governance, but in order to obtain this result platforms cooperatives need a more favorable environment: at the present time, those platforms that try to protect workers or users in a more effective way are in a position of weakness. On the contrary, we need a “level playing field” in which social economy can compete effectively and fairly, without regulatory discrimination”. In this sense, argues Guido Smorto, self-regulation and external regulation do not oppose but complement each other, and self-regulation is only possible if regulation gives it a chance to exist.

As a matter of fact, the current legal environment necessarily leads to situations of monopoly, explains Bruno Carballa, doctoral student in economics at the University Paris XIII, for at least 4 reasons:

• A network effect: the more users of the platform, the more it is supposed to be easy to use,
• Feedback from users: the more returns, the more efficient the algorithms are and the quality of the service improves; the costs of moving from one platform to another (learning, insurance and especially the cost of losing the accumulated reputation) lead to reluctance to change,
• Data collection, which represents a significant investment, hence a barrier to market entry,
• Large quantities of data, which become an essential service and block access to the market. 

Hence the central question of ownership of data. At present, the law makes the data collector the owner. It is necessary to go towards a public basis of data ownership. The collector may be the depository, but that all those who feed also own them. In this model, access to the common base is possible whenever this common base is fed; a non-cooperative platform can use the common base without reciprocity, but it has to pay. In this way, data will be accessible to research and governments. A system of adapted licenses serves the system. An exportable passport allows to switch from one platform to another.

There remains the huge question of products which no longer find merchant outlets. We still need to produce them, either through the state or through communities. Susana Martín Belmonte, a monetary economist at the Institute of Social Currencies in Madrid, suggests seeking “sustainable prosperity” via a new monetary and financial system in which money is a common one. In order to finance the infrastructure necessary to access the goods and services that exist in abundance, citizens can create money. This money has to be accepted (which implies trust and ease of use). Hence proposals (and experiences!) of social currencies which, with a guarantee of buy-back and convertibility on the part of local authorities, make it possible to finance common infrastructures by the citizens. If the system does not finally take place, it only means that the local authority will ultimately finance the infrastructure. If it works, the social currency is used as a means of payment, which is a new way to manage credit and reputation risk.

And, of course, the question of social rights and the remuneration of workers is central. It is the increase in the number of self-entrepreneurs that has reduced the unemployment rate in the United Kingdom, explains Pat Conaty, associate researcher at Co-operatives UK. Their income has decreased from €16,000 to €10,000 per year since 2008. The unions, through “Union Coops”, help them to set up cooperatives by providing advice on contract drafting, insurance and training. The support of “Business and Employment Co-operatives” and organisations like SMart promises these Union Coops to a great future.

3 – Point out their expectations vis-à-vis the European Union, States and local authorities

The European Union, explains Carole Ulmer, Director of Studies at Confrontations Europe, makes no distinction between the different forms of sharing economy. Multiple directions of the European Commission are at work: DG Connect, DG Grow, DG Internal Market, DG Social Affairs, DG Energy, DG Research and Innovation, DG Budget. The European Parliament, the EESC, the Committee of the Regions, are also producing reports. The Court of Justice, in a pending lawsuit on Uber, has to determine if Uber is a transport undertaking or a digital enterprise. Member States are either “pro-digital” in favor of “digital liberalism” (Estonia, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom being the spearhead), while Spain, France, Germany, are on a social market economy line. They are encouraged by the EU to avoid unnecessary rules. Four major themes emerge:

• Data: personal data, free flow of data, etc.,
• Financing: European budget, structural funds, entrepreneurship, Juncker plan, crowdfunding, e-money, e-commerce,
• Social protection: market and labor law, social innovation initiative, plus soft law and  sharing of experiences between Member States,
• Regulation of the market: Digital Single Market, taxation, insurance, liability, consumer protection, intellectual property.

They gave rise to some key texts:

• The Communication from the Commission on digital platforms.
• The Communication on Collaborative Economics. The prevailing idea is that there is no need for a new text. Those which already exist can be slightly adapted. The platforms are supposed to be beneficial and actors of the collaborative economy expected to agree on self-regulation.
• Copyright: recognition software is expected to verify that there is no problem.

In conclusion, according to Carole Ulmer, the Commission produces a large number of texts. Civil society is expected to express its expectations. Examples can feed  the debate. The European Union does not want to legislate at its level, concludes Marguerite Grandjean, Head of studies at Ouishare, and leaves the Member States to do so.

Neil Kay, Head of unit E3 “digitization of the internal market” at DG Grow, explains that, beyond the legal analysis that has already been done, his unit is working on economic analysis of this “market” of collaborative economics, the definition of which could be: a global set of sales of services that are delivered at the local level. This would be the third pillar of the digital economy. Its development depends on three factors: the state of digital development in the country, a critical market size, and a favorable macroeconomic climate for sharing.

The Commission can also afford technological solutions to serve regulatory objectives and new, more sustainable models. Indeed, the technology is not neutral, explains Fabrizio Sestini, expert “New generation Internet” in the DG Networks and communications. It has social and political implications, ranging from power to people to Big Brother, centralized / decentralized models. The economy of the commons is not yet integrated into these arguments, but calls for projects have already been used by cities such as Barcelona. The new call for proposals ICT-1162017 aims to promote innovative models for sustainable lifestyles. 

4 – Promote possible partnerships between cooperative worlds, commons, cities 

The best-performing platforms are those with investment capabilities, says Sandrino Graceffa, Managing Director of SMart. The funds can come from users, from the State (to fund services of general interest) or large companies of the Social and Solidarity Economy –SSE- (co-operative banks, mutual societies). Alliances are needed to foster experimentation, solutions for transgression and transition. For example, Smart promotes alternative solutions to Uber which transforms subordinate workers into self-employed workers at the price of their social protection. Taxing work for social protection is necessary. Consumers should not be their associates.

Great expectations are expressed in relation to the cooperative world, which, explains Bruno Roelants, Secretary General of CECOP, is accustomed to offer diversified solutions in all ILO member states, where they are recognized. These solutions, which have been proven for decades, are based on members’ needs. These have to be precisely expressed. In addition, the 7th cooperative principle adopted in 1995 advocates the involvement of cooperatives in their communities. Bruno Roelants encourages the world of the commons to identify and express their needs in order to find the cooperative model or models that suits them. If certain forms of co-operatives do not correspond to the needs identified by the world of the commons, for instance the evoked needs of “changing the rules of the market”, he suggests that the people concerned continue to seek an exact definition of their needs. It is indeed on this basis that the world of commons can develop its own system.

In this sense, he points out that there is no “closed” cooperative model that would oppose an “open” cooperative model. Cooperatives are open to all who are eligible, i.e. those who have the needs to which the cooperative is supposed to respond. Hence the importance of proper identification of needs. The “Commons” seem to him to be a subset of what is called a community in the 7th cooperative principle. Lastly, he stressed the importance of inter-cooperation, groups and co-operative cooperatives, which could give rise to investment funds.

With regard to governance issues, control of common ownership becomes almost more important than the very issue of ownership. Co-operative platforms should specify who makes the decisions and who controls. Democratic control does not only depend on the principle of “one person, one vote” (the “agora” component of democracy), but also through checks and balances between different bodies of the cooperative (“republican” Democracy, characterized by the balance between different powers).

Concerning the 3rd cooperative principle (financial participation of members), it should be emphasized that the partial redistribution of surplus to members in the form of rebates is a fundamentally different financial instrument from dividends distributed to shareholders. It is based not on the share of capital invested by each member, but on the latter’s transactions with the cooperative (buying, selling or remuneration transactions). It must therefore be considered as a system for adjusting prices transactions.

Louis Cousin stresses that the cooperative model, the commons and the collaborative economy are three wide – but still distinct – concepts, encompassing many different organizational forms and specificities. A conceptual reflection aiming to confront those 3 models would be interesting, but it seems that practitioners are now calling for practical experimentations and approaches. In this respect, we should focus on specific best practices demonstrating the possibility and relevance of merging these 3 concepts into one same project and organization. In addition,advocacy work is needed and currently performed at all levels (local, regional, national and European): there is a need to coordinate the variety of stakeholders around one common vision for the collaborative economy.

Benjamin Coriat, professor of economics, co-director of the research program “Encommuns” and vice-president of La Coop des Commons, addresses the questions from the needs of the commons. The commons essentially develop outside the world of wage-earning and the link of subordination, which authorizes the employer to uptake the surplus value and creates a series of rights for the employee, such as social protection. Commoners are self-employed associates, even if commons work on the market. Producing the commons is too important to be considered hobbies. Hence, the immense interest of formulas such as the cooperatives of activity and employment in France: it  preserves independence while at the same time enjoying the benefits of wage-earning as revenue is generated through business. The contract of employment shall not be regarded as a service contract.

Cooperatives are surely inspiring models. Are they sufficient, particularly for commons that do not create market value? Should new legal instruments be created to meet these needs? The example of 1DLab uses the French model of SCIC (cooperative society for collective interest), to associate diverse stakeholders, including local communities (essential in areas such as energy). Do we need a new status for the freelancers, for the self-employed? Can we go deeper in research for social drawing rights as suggested by Alain Supiot, which would give rights of social protection for those who contribute to social welfare activities?

Bruno Roelants explains that the member statutes are not uniform in all countries: sometimes salaried, sometimes self-employed (South America), sometimes both (Spain). The only country where there is a third typology is Italy. It is necessary to take the different categories of labor law in different countries into consideration. In all cases, the cooperative worker has to get access to the broadest possible social protection. Another range of solution, for the production of commons that have no market value, can be searched through social cooperatives. Local authorities may be members. They exist in Quebec, Spain, France, Portugal and Italy. One necessary condition, says Benjamin Coriat, is that a new private economic and social accounting can account for the value created. If one takes into account the positive externalities created, a whole series of activities carried out by the commoners can become profitable.

The open debate with the participants shows that the work between cooperatives and the world of commons must continue to find the most adapted tools according to the scenarios.

To questions raised by Stacco Troncoso, from the P2P Foundation,

• Cooperatives democratize ownership and governance, but do they question what they actually produce?
• Cooperatives are market entities while the commons largely exists outside of, or in the periphery of, markets. How can cooperatives create new commons?
• Can multi-stakeholder cooperatives enfranchise all the participants in the economic value chain? This means going beyond single decision-makers to work with entire communities.

Pat Conaty replied that every time the cooperative movement is mobilized, it means that we are in a crisis situation. It is true that, beyond the question of the sale of products on the market, the cooperative movement should deal with the question of land and rent. Multi-stakeholder cooperatives make it possible to approach redistribution solutions, with horizontal democracy. If one creates commons, one must guarantee that they will remain common, and are not “privatizable”. It is the role of the community that controls the cooperative platform. Benjamin Coriat calls for a “common of the commons”, a “common of the cooperatives” which provides guarantee against private appropriation; In this sense, it has something to do with the “Republic” in the strong sense.

Mayo Fuster Morell, from Procomuns in Barcelona, ​​finds two ranges of dimension: the common as a self-managed, collaborative community, which makes it look like a cooperative; and the common as a possibility of access to the common resource, raising the question of whether cooperatives produce public goods.

Barcelona is currently trying to rethink public services by mobilizing citizens: should they re-municipalize or “commonify”? It is a matter of power. In a cooperative, decisions are made according to the democratic principle “one person, one vote”, but the commons are not necessarily democratic: only those who participate decide. If 90% do not contribute, power is assured by the 10% who contribute. She considers that the open source sector  is not so equal and inclusive, specially for women. It is not necessarily a model for the commons.

Benjamin Coriat argues that public services have often become privatized public goods. Declaring water, air, etc. as common goods implies forms of governance that exclude private ownership through the control of management structure. The real power doesn’t belong to the management, but to the community.

There is also the question of the integration of the precarious. How do existing cooperatives choose to defend or not certain categories of workers? In response to Michel Bauwens’ question, Sandrino Graceffa explains that SMart is setting up an ethics committee. The workers who turn to SMart (e.g. Airbnb caretakers or delivery drivers) are welcome, but not a platform which comes to seek a solution of regularization of work.

5 – Agree on follow-up:

Partners such as REVES, cities like Barcelona, ​​the ILO, the European Trade Union Confederation are interested in the follow-up, with the organizers.

REVES, the European Network of Cities for the Social Economy, is interested in contributing to the exchange with its members. There is a need to raise the awareness of public authorities on the topic – on the different forms of this new economy that is emerging, on the potential of cooperative platforms as a general-interest-oriented alternative to purely profit-making interests, on already existing practices and on initiatives to be developed.  All of us should also try and spread a new VISION to make this kind of economy and platform accessible to all. Erdmuthe Klaer, Deputy Secretary General, states that she can also build bridges with the Committee of the Regions, the Social Economy Intergroup in the European Parliament and see how to mobilize the Structural Funds.

Mayo Fuster Morell explains that municipal policy on collaborative economics must be collaborative. This is why the Commissioner in charge of SSE in the city of Barcelona is also in charge of digital. Procomuns represents 120 recommendations on collaborative economics in Barcelona. Four criteria have been chosen to select projects within the framework of the CAPS project: non-profit making, choice of open technology, existence of social objectives, and inclusiveness and parity. She considers it very important for the EESC to support cooperative platforms.

Thibaut Weber, ETUC Confederal Secretary, argues that the digital economy is an opportunity for the EU. But the EU is not interested in social issues. We must fight the false self-employment, as the unions do in Germany with IG Metall, the cooperatives in Italy and in the Nordic countries. To do this, cooperatives and SSE in general and unions should stop being strangers. Cooperatives represent forms of solidarity, although labor law can not be limited to cooperatives alone.

This, of course, coincides with the ILO’s work on the future of work ahead of its centenary in 2019, explains Simel Esim, Programme manager. Cooperatives do not replace public services. They can involve diverse stakeholders and create jobs. We need to work on evidence of the effectiveness of cooperatives.

The organizers of the conference therefore decided to maintain a network between them and the main participants, ESS networks, municipalities, cities, partners in the world of work, and cooperatives, on three axes:

• To invite one another to the next conferences and work on cooperative platforms
• To list sites and forums which identify and document experiences
• To deepen the questions  with researchers working on those asked by the practitioners.

In summary, there are some avenues to be explored:

• Define the needs to determine the appropriate types of cooperatives or other forms of organization, considering two questions:
  • Ownership and right of platforms, right of workers, property, and
  • Integration of the common interest in the platforms
• With a sub-question on the management of public services. 

And considering the different national legal frameworks:

• Deepen the governance issues (cooperatives and common democratic functioning)
• Advocate for a fair environment for experimentation and development of cooperative platforms.

Footnotes

^[1] La Coop des Communs, Confrontations Europe, P2P Foundation, SMart, Ouishare, Cecop       

^[2] See the records and presentations on http://confrontations.org/reports/towards-a-fair-sharing-economy-the-role-and-place-of-cooperative-platforms?lang=en

Lead image by Darwin Bell. Event images by Stacco Troncoso and Lieza Dessein.

The post Developing a Coop-Commons alliance for a Collaborative Equitable and Participatory Economy appeared first on P2P Foundation.

Neal Gorenflo: Last year, LabGov, a think tank and action platform focused on the urban commons that’s based in Rome, Italy, asked us to provide feedback on the draft of an opinion report on how to regulate the collaborative economy. The effort was spearheaded by Benedetta Brighenti — vice mayor of Castelnuovo Rangone — for the European Committee of the Regions. It was clear from the start that the report would have a strong public-interest bent due to the inclusive process LabGov designed to draft it.

Last month, the final report was presented to the EU and made public. It’s largely a response to the EU’s call to provide “guidance aimed at supporting consumers, businesses and public authorities to engage confidently in the collaborative economy.” Here are key takeaways from the report:

• Avoid regulatory fragmentation across the EU, but do so for the benefit of the public rather than just to spur economic growth
• Form a collaborative economy forum for cities to help exchange knowledge
• Conduct a rigorous local impact assessment as the collaborative economy is based in and spans localities
• Tackle cross-cutting issues within the Urban Agenda for the EU, particularly that which relates to the digital transition
• Take a holistic approach that considers the economic, social, and environmental assets of systems for sharing goods and services
• Make sure that the collaborative economy doesn’t worsen the digital divide
• Create an environment in which local services have a chance to thrive in local and world markets in context of a market often dominated by U.S. businesses

Also notable is recognition of the collaborative economy’s potential positive environmental and social impact, its social and experiential quality, and the importance of shaping it according to European values.

The report covers much more in its 10 pages. While far from a complete treatment of how to regulate the collaborative economy, it provides a model that other jurisdictions can take inspiration from, especially in considering human values, embracing a broad definition of the collaborative economy, and involving local authorities in crafting regulation that works at multiple levels of government.

Collaborative Economy and Online Platforms a Shared View of Cities and Regions by P2P Foundation on Scribd

Header image of Benedetta Brighenti by the European Committee of the Regions. 

The post EU Committee Releases Report on Regulating the Collaborative Economy appeared first on P2P Foundation.

In this second newsletter from procomuns.net we want to refer to the new European Collaborative Economy agenda, which establishes guidelines for Member States on how they should regulate and what should be the Collaborative Economy policy of Members States. Is also an invitation to rethink those guidelines with a focus on the Procomuns declaration and its recommendations for Commons oriented policies, as well as with the perspective of platform cooperativism from Trebor Scholz. Also, Thursday 9th June at 18:30h (Barcelona local time), we have organized the first Procomuns meet up with the debate “From the corporate sharing economy to platform cooperativism” with Scholz, taking place at CCCB (Barcelona) and online here http://dimmons.net/cooperativismo-de-plataforma/streaming-cccb (among other events taking place the coming weeks).

European collaborative economy agenda

The European Commission just made public on June 2nd its agenda for the Collaborative Economy:http://ec.europa.eu/growth/single-market/strategy/collaborative-economy/index_en.htm From Procomuns.net – space for the promotion of commons collaborative economy – we would like to initiate a debate. Procomuns started as an event that brought together 400 people linked to experiences of commons collaborative economy in March 2016, in Barcelona, with the aim of defining public policies for commons collaborative economy. The European agenda does not refer to the commons collaborative economy model. It mainly adopts the “unicorn” model as a reference of large corporations like Uber and Airbnb, without distinguishing models and without considering other kind like small businesses, free/libre technology and / or licenses that encourage open knowledge, like the digital commons model or platform cooperativism. They are different economic models for their formats and their impacts, and they require a different regulatory approach.

Moreover, the agenda does not pay enough attention to the dilemmas and the needs for protecting citizens producers and workers. It is positive that the Commission emphasizes the qualities of collaborative economy on environmental impacts; but is not considering that, apart from the impact on the natural environment, the collaborative economy mainly takes place on the Internet, so we must also keep in mind the impact of different models on the internet sustainabilit. . Models based on open protocols, open data and open source are more beneficials to Internet preservation itself, and facilitate the impact assessment and collaborative economy management by citizens and administrations.

Finally, since important impacts are taking place nowadays -especially in cities- but many effects of the collaborative economy are still unknown, we believe that the European Commission should aim at the role of governments to preserve the general interest, enhancing models that could better give answer to social challenges, with open information processes and consulting citizens.

Here you can find more initial reactions to the Agenda by members of BarCola (node on collaborative economy and commons production in Barcelona): Mayo Fuster from Dimmons.net (in Catalan) http://dimmons.net/agenda-europea-economia-collaborativa/ and Albert Cañigueral from OuiShare (in Spanish) http://www.consumocolaborativo.com/2016/06/06/3-destacados-y-5-olvidos-de-las-nuevas-directrices-de-la-cee-sobre-la-economia-colaborativa/

1st Procomuns meet up: Platform Cooperativism with Trebor Scholz

We would also like to invite you to the Procomuns firts meet up event that will take place on Thursday 9th June at 18:30h in Barcelona (CCCB) and through streaming under the title “From the corporate sharing economy to platform cooperativism”, with the participation of Trebor Scholz presenting and discussing platform cooperativism and Mayo Fuster about the Collaborative Economy public policies resulting from Procomuns (http://procomuns.net/en/policy/).

“From the corporate sharing economy to ”
Thursday, 9th June at 18:30 (CET) – 20:30 followed by a networking meet up.
C/ Montalegre, 5, 08001 Barcelona (Sala Mirador)
Video streaming: http://dimmons.net/cooperativismo-de-plataforma/streaming-cccb
(Simultaneous translation from English to Spanish will be available).

For more information about the event and for signing up: http://www.meetup.com/Barcelona-procomuns-meetup/events/231045332/

This procomuns meet up is organized with Dimmons and CCCB support, in collaboration of Barcelona Activa, IGOPnet.cc and P2Pvalue project.

Barcelona OSCEdays and other local activities

This visit from Trebor Scholz is also connected to OSCEdays 2016, which will also take place in Barcelona:https://oscedays.org/barcelona-2016/ OSCEdays is a global event to develop a sustainable Circular Economy through Open Source collaboration

There, on Saturday 11th at Fabra i Coats (Carrer de Sant Adrià , 20) we will organise several sessions among the many that have been proposed: a discussion about business models for open projects of circular economy; a collective interview with Trebor Scholz; the presentation of non-profit open source exchange platforms; a debate on licenses for the Commons and another one about the European economy collaborative agenda in the light of the Procomuns’ recommendations of public policies.

And there’s still other important local events in the agenda!

On 17th June Netcommons, a European research project on open, neutral and free networks, organises a workshop about network infrastructure community :
http://netcommons.eu/?q=content/workshop-community-networking-infrastructures

On 18th and 19th June there will be the next edition SAX (Salut, Amor i Xarxa), the yearly community gathering of the guifi·net community: https://sax2016.guifi.net/index.php/Inici

On 6th July in Barcelona Activa the European project Digital DIY is organising workshops and talks about low cost prototyping and manufacturing of physical artefacts from digital specifications: https://didiyproject.hackpad.com/6-July-DiDIYBarcelona-Community-Day-NR8YFuKTxf9

Ah, and save the dates for OuiShare Fest Barcelona the 25th-27th October… http://bcn.ouisharefest.com/

Salut,

Facilitated by BarCola (node on collaborative economy and commons production in Barcelona) and the Dimmons.net research group at IN3-UOC, with support from the P2Pvalue project (IGOPnet.cc at the local level)

Photo by rosalux-stiftung

The post Reflections on the European Commission agenda on the Collaborative Economy and discussion about Platform Cooperativism with Trebor Scholz appeared first on P2P Foundation.