Yesterday I was having telephonic discussion with a close friend. Arguments shifted towards cooperatives survival and their real effectiveness. He confidently argued that cooperatives across the world are a failure story!
Well so is democracy! But should we do away with or try to see what makes cooperatives not achieve the real intended benefit to the member (farmer or primary producer). What makes them a "poor social collective business proposition".
Some statistics which people arguing 'for' cooperatives often quote
Critics might argue that these are exceptions. Yes they indeed are and the successful with failed ones constitute 750 million people around the world as member of cooperatives. We need to understand that Cooperative at the end of the day is a "business", business supposed to be run collectively by hundreds or thousands of 'primary producers/workers", owned by them and surplus to be shared according to the labor contributed and not on the basis of capital. We need to understand that Cooperative being a business of the poor, poor not just economically but socially as well; needs special attention. Cooperatives unlike private counterparts cannot be made success in a day. There is a huge transaction cost which comes into picture when we attempt to form a collective enterprise. This transaction cost includes mobilizing people, stictching the diverse interest in a common fabric and above all ensuring that 'business' atleast becomes 'business like' in local rural conditions. This is a like 'threshold energy' binding electron within the atom, once that is crossed, once "cooperators" ensure that members start taking 'ownership' of the cooperative, there is nothing else which can stop the cooperative from being a success. Most of the "Amitabh Bacchan's" of development film tend to take it too fast. It cannot happen this way.
We need to remember that PV=nRT exists only for understanding, in real life specially in social settings which are occupied with century old backwardness only practical form available is
When I argue so 'stubbornly' for cooperatives, its not a fanaticism for "cooperative" but for a belief that rural poor have the ability to circumvent vicious circle of poverty. Only thing hindering them is their limited resources which with little external 'catalytic' support can be enhanced by bringing them together as a collective business. I, in person don;t see any other development paradigm which can make them better off without compromising on issues of 'equity' and 'parity'. If we don't believe in their ability, we have perhaps gone too pessimistic in ascertaining the worth of God's most intelligent creation.
Well so is democracy! But should we do away with or try to see what makes cooperatives not achieve the real intended benefit to the member (farmer or primary producer). What makes them a "poor social collective business proposition".
Some statistics which people arguing 'for' cooperatives often quote
#Colombia's second-largest employer is a health-care co-operative.
#In Kuwait, 80 percent of retail sales are run by co-ops.
#In Bolivia a quarter of all savings are held by a single co-operative credit union. #Within India we find the "Amul" which recently touched 2 billion $ business.
#And perhaps we cannot forget Mondragon Cooperative Corporation, Spain's major business enterprise.
Critics might argue that these are exceptions. Yes they indeed are and the successful with failed ones constitute 750 million people around the world as member of cooperatives. We need to understand that Cooperative at the end of the day is a "business", business supposed to be run collectively by hundreds or thousands of 'primary producers/workers", owned by them and surplus to be shared according to the labor contributed and not on the basis of capital. We need to understand that Cooperative being a business of the poor, poor not just economically but socially as well; needs special attention. Cooperatives unlike private counterparts cannot be made success in a day. There is a huge transaction cost which comes into picture when we attempt to form a collective enterprise. This transaction cost includes mobilizing people, stictching the diverse interest in a common fabric and above all ensuring that 'business' atleast becomes 'business like' in local rural conditions. This is a like 'threshold energy' binding electron within the atom, once that is crossed, once "cooperators" ensure that members start taking 'ownership' of the cooperative, there is nothing else which can stop the cooperative from being a success. Most of the "Amitabh Bacchan's" of development film tend to take it too fast. It cannot happen this way.
We need to remember that PV=nRT exists only for understanding, in real life specially in social settings which are occupied with century old backwardness only practical form available is
When I argue so 'stubbornly' for cooperatives, its not a fanaticism for "cooperative" but for a belief that rural poor have the ability to circumvent vicious circle of poverty. Only thing hindering them is their limited resources which with little external 'catalytic' support can be enhanced by bringing them together as a collective business. I, in person don;t see any other development paradigm which can make them better off without compromising on issues of 'equity' and 'parity'. If we don't believe in their ability, we have perhaps gone too pessimistic in ascertaining the worth of God's most intelligent creation.
No comments:
Post a Comment