I wrestled with how to approach this review. On the one hand, The Alternative brings together an appealing range of ways people across the west are imaginatively and determinedly contesting the givens in today’s capitalism. There is an ache for better — for more just ways of organizing the way we work and adding more meaning to our lives.
You can’t help but applaud Nick Romeo for showing the workable alternatives to capitalism and the moral driver behind them — everything from the way companies are incorporated to how employees are hired, paid and enabled to share in the value they create. There is no need for ordinary workers to be pawns in a system that makes humanity and ethics secondary to the unbending logic of the marketplace and blind, selfish capital.
On the other hand, is it all worth more than a can of beans? How are a collection of disparate, often small scale, if great, initiatives going to grow into a systemic challenge to the way things are currently organized?
The Mondragon co-operative movement that Romeo applauds fascinated me as a teenager for all the reasons he sets out. The hope was the virtues he cites — essentially treating workers fairly, decently and with respect — would unleash such increased engagement, productivity and purpose that the good would drive out the bad of its own accord. A more moral economy, retaining the pluralism of capitalism but less of its innate exploitativeness, was there for the having.
Well, more than 50 years later Mondragon has grown into one of the top 10 companies in Spain — but has too few emulators even in its own country. This admirable, readable book tries to offer hope. But for all Romeo’s enthusiasm, the question is left hanging. Why so little progress when the case against how so much of the way work and welfare is organized is so strong — and the alternatives so viable?
Romeo is right to assail economics for its obsession with advocating market solutions based on the assumption that selfishness drives individual decision-making.
JOB GUARANTEE
For example, in his tour of different possibilities he takes us to the Marienthal job guarantee program in Austria. For those who don’t know, Marienthal was the scene of a social science investigation in the 1930s into the desperate social, psychological and collective depressive consequences of mass unemployment. Today the town is piloting the impact of a universal jobs guarantee for all of its out-of-work citizens. Essentially there is a job for anyone unemployed for more than 12 months — you can even have a hand in designing what it is you will do with your time when you work — and you get paid up to £2,000 (US$2,543) a month.
People opt to work rather than receive welfare benefit, and there is ample evidence it raises their self-worth while delivering a service — care to the elderly or tidier parks — that was not there before. Better still, it costs the state virtually nothing because unemployment benefit is simply transferred to the now employed worker’s pay packet.
Britain did something similar after the financial crisis with the Future Jobs Fund — a grant to employers who offered the long-term unemployed paid work — and with similar success. Britain’s welfare benefits are more paltry than Austria’s so the scope to offer a decent wage that is self-financing is much less, but even so the evaluations were positive. Worthwhile jobs were wished into being, goods and services produced by redeploying welfare benefit as wages. However, it was ideologically scrapped by the coalition government as a classic example of New Labor waste: state initiative was a priori bad; only the private sector should be in the economic driving seat. Tax credits would be given for providing work, rather as Rishi Sunak attempted with the Kickstart program in the wake of the pandemic. But take-up was abysmal and the various Tory schemes collapsed.
The lesson is that a public authority has to lead, to be the paymaster and organize the furnishing of work itself. Yet even in Austria the success of Marienthal has not been copied, and it is unclear whether it will be extended beyond this year.
INSPIRING EXAMPLES
So as Romeo takes his reader from one inspiring example to another — from the Purpose economy program in the US, in which firms are dedicated to delivering greater purpose in perpetuity, to examples of companies paying genuine living wages to their employees to encourage commitment — you are left thinking that while they are all worthwhile, why do these examples not scale into something more?
The author is right to assail economics for its obsession with advocating market solutions based on the assumption that selfishness drives individual decision-making and, as such, is value-free. There is a battle in academia, he writes, citing the successful efforts by UCL’s Wendy Carlin to recast economics recognizing the complexities of human motivation, the muddiness of most market behavior and our concerns over ethics. Core, the program developed by Carlin, whom Romeo rightly lionizes, is now part of the curriculum of nearly 400 universities around the world. The economics edifice is shaking, even if it has not yet fallen.
There is less progress over purpose as a driver of business. Around 7,000 B Corps, which commit in their founding constitution to put social goals before profit, now trade in more than 90 countries — there were effectively none 25 years ago — another important gain. But their collective turnover represents no more than 0.1 percent of global national income.
The Alternative is an expression of hope. But until these ideas are framed by a new economics, a viable political philosophy, a critical mass of thought leaders and of political, economic and social actors, they will remain in the foothills. Romeo has done a service in marshalling our knowledge of the varying contrarian forces abroad — but there is more heavy lifting to make any of this the new normal.
April 28 to May 4 During the Japanese colonial era, a city’s “first” high school typically served Japanese students, while Taiwanese attended the “second” high school. Only in Taichung was this reversed. That’s because when Taichung First High School opened its doors on May 1, 1915 to serve Taiwanese students who were previously barred from secondary education, it was the only high school in town. Former principal Hideo Azukisawa threatened to quit when the government in 1922 attempted to transfer the “first” designation to a new local high school for Japanese students, leading to this unusual situation. Prior to the Taichung First
When the South Vietnamese capital of Saigon fell to the North Vietnamese forces 50 years ago this week, it prompted a mass exodus of some 2 million people — hundreds of thousands fleeing perilously on small boats across open water to escape the communist regime. Many ultimately settled in Southern California’s Orange County in an area now known as “Little Saigon,” not far from Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton, where the first refugees were airlifted upon reaching the US. The diaspora now also has significant populations in Virginia, Texas and Washington state, as well as in countries including France and Australia.
On April 17, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) launched a bold campaign to revive and revitalize the KMT base by calling for an impromptu rally at the Taipei prosecutor’s offices to protest recent arrests of KMT recall campaigners over allegations of forgery and fraud involving signatures of dead voters. The protest had no time to apply for permits and was illegal, but that played into the sense of opposition grievance at alleged weaponization of the judiciary by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) to “annihilate” the opposition parties. Blamed for faltering recall campaigns and faced with a KMT chair
Article 2 of the Additional Articles of the Constitution of the Republic of China (中華民國憲法增修條文) stipulates that upon a vote of no confidence in the premier, the president can dissolve the legislature within 10 days. If the legislature is dissolved, a new legislative election must be held within 60 days, and the legislators’ terms will then be reckoned from that election. Two weeks ago Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an (蔣萬安) of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) proposed that the legislature hold a vote of no confidence in the premier and dare the president to dissolve the legislature. The legislature is currently controlled
RSS