Introduction

The social economy (SE) is alternately conceptualized as a third sector in contrast to government and private enterprise; by a typology of the organizations involved; or by the values driving such activities. As a third sector, the SE is understood as an intermediary between the private sector (private enterprises) and the public sector (government) that seeks to meet social needs that are overlooked or worsened by market or government activities (Defourny 2014; Bridge et al. 2014). The typology approach to definition characterizes the SE by the organizations it encompasses, such as cooperatives, non-profit organizations, and social enterprises (Quarter et al. 2017; Amin 2009). The SE is further understood in terms of its normative dimensions, oriented by values that revolve around mutual benefit; the use of profit for a social purpose; democratic decision-making; and the primacy of social inclusion over profit (Defourney and Nyssens 2010; Mendell 2009; McMurtry 2010).

These three treatments of SE overlook an important consideration, namely that the SE emerges with different forms and emphases depending on geographic, historical, and cultural location. The academic literature has been predisposed to explore the SE in the context of the global North, while the history, role, and conceptualization of the SE in the global South were under-documented. As a result, our understanding of the SE has been primarily based on experiences and ideas specific to Europe and North America, particularly when it comes to defining the sector and examining its role, impacts, and the actors involved.

Recent projects such as the International Comparative Social Enterprise Models (ICSEM) Project (2013–2019) are beginning to rectify this situation by convening research from across the world to ‘compare social enterprise models and their respective institutionalization processes’ on a global scale (ICSEM 2013). With participation by over 200 researchers, the project is compiling an overview of the SE from 35 countries. Latin America is one of the regions included in the project, with research contributions from Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Ecuador, Mexico, and Peru.

It is appropriate that Latin America is emerging as a significant contributor to the global conceptualization of the SE, for two key reasons. First, the region has played a central role in developing international and national networks to promote the SE, such as the Intercontinental Network for the Promotion of the Social Solidarity Economy (RIPESS) established in Lima, Peru, in 1997. RIPESS members in Latin America include networks of SE organizations in Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Columbia, Mexico, Argentina, Cuba, Ecuador, Venezuela, Uruguay, and Peru (RIPESS 2016). Second, several governments in the region have recognized the importance of the SE in providing employment and/or alternative economic development models. Indeed, the SE is recognized in the constitutions of Bolivia and Ecuador and in government policy in Bolivia, Ecuador, Venezuela, Argentina, and Brazil (Coraggio 2013).

Bolivia is a particularly interesting and relevant context in which to explore understandings of the SE, given its central place in the country’s public discourse since their 2009 constitution recognized the role of the social and community economy:

The Bolivian economic model is plural and is oriented to improving the quality of life and well-being of all Bolivians. The plural economy is made up of Community, State, private and social cooperative forms of economic organization. The Community and Social Economies complement individual interests with those of collective well-being (Constitution of the Plurinational State of Bolivia 2009, Article 306, author translation).

This article analyses the perspectives of various Bolivian actors from government and civil society about the meaning and role of the SE. The views of Bolivian actors are contrasted with the conceptualization of the SE in the English-language and the Bolivian academic literature to determine how the Bolivian understanding(s) are specific to their historical and contemporary context.

Understanding the Social Economy

Approaches to Definition

The literature reveals that a single, agreed-upon definition of the term social economy remains contested. Some of the challenges have to do with the array of types of organizations and enterprises involved—from charities to advocacy organizations to enterprises—while other debates have to do with the role of the SE in creating a more equitable and inclusive economy. Reviewing the literature from Europe, Canada, and the USA, three main approaches to understand the role and nature of the SE are revealed.

First, the SE is understood as a third sector that bridges gaps between the private and public sectors—a means to meet social needs that are unmet through the logic of the market or the provision of social services (Defourny 2014; Mendell 2009; Pearce 2009). McMurtry (2010) criticizes this approach as a negative conception that provides ‘no clear idea of what this activity consists of except that it is neither state nor market’ (pp. 6–7).

A second approach characterizes the SE through the types of organizations it encompasses, identifying cooperatives, associations, non-profit organizations, and social enterprises as manifestations of the SE (Quarter et al. 2017; Gibson 2009). Within this framework, any entity that engages in economic activities but with a social purpose is part of the SE, whether for-profit or not-for-profit. A critique of this treatment is that these organizations and enterprises do not necessarily share common values and objectives (McMurtry 2010).

The third approach, which attempts to address these concerns, emphasizes the normative dimensions of the SE. McMurtry (2010) argues that it is critical to explore the values, ethics, and objectives involved in an organization or enterprise, not just its legal structure. Pearce (2009) agrees, stating that society needs a way to identify if a social enterprise is bona fide and that ethical principles are the best way to do so. From this perspective, an organization or enterprise is part of the SE if profit is not the primary motivation but is rather a means to a social end; social empathy is a core value such that benefits are shared/mutual; and decisions are participatory and democratic (Ferguson 2015).

Emergence in Different Contexts

In general, SE organizations appear in times of economic or social crises (Defourny and Develtere 1999), in particular among populations that are excluded or marginalized for ethnic, geographic, or historical reasons. A key characteristic is that these activities are generated from the ‘bottom-up,’ by groups of people seeking a solution to economic exclusion or to meet a social need that is unmet by the state or market (Borzaga et al. 2016). Similarly, Hillenkamp and Wanderley (2015) propose that the SE in Bolivia relates to labor precariousness and consists of people generating self-employment. As such, SE initiatives in Bolivia encompass individual, family-run, and associative activities that provide products or services, and are often informal or unregistered, and provide an income source for people who would otherwise lack employment (ibid).

Although the SE emerges for similar reasons in different contexts, its form and trajectory is differentiated depending on geographic, historical, and cultural context. In English-speaking contexts of the global North (i.e., North America and the UK), the term ‘social economy’ has only been introduced very recently. ‘Voluntary sector’ and ‘non-profit sector’ were used for many years to describe non-profit organizations, charities, and associations, but there was no conceptual link made between these kinds of non-profit activities and cooperatives or guilds. By contrast, ‘[the rest of] Europe has described cooperatives as part of the social economy or third sector for more than a century’ (Moulaert and Ailenei 2005, p. 2043). Over the last decade, as academics and practitioners from across the world have come together in international conferences and research projects, the English-language literature has recognized market-oriented social enterprises and cooperatives as part of the SE, alongside non-profits (McMurtry 2010; Quarter et al. 2017).

In the USA, the conceptualization of the SE tends to be narrower than in other countries. There, the SE is often conflated with ‘social enterprises’—for-profit businesses with a social purpose (Tremblay 2009; Restakis 2006) or not-for-profit organizations ‘engaged in enterprising activities to benefit their stakeholders’ (Thiru 2015). As such, the USA approach to definition fits with its individualistic, capitalist-oriented context. Indeed, in this context, the social enterprise is commonly understood to be developed by an individual—the ‘social entrepreneur’ (Defourney and Nyssens 2010). The idea of the social entrepreneur is similar to the idealized American business entrepreneur but is motivated by social purposes over profit.

In the context of Quebec, the SE has been well articulated and organized (McMurtry 2010; Mendell 2009; Lewis 2006). Indeed, some argue that the SE in Quebec has achieved the level of a true alternative to the mainstream economy in size and scope (Mendell 2009). About 7000 social economy initiatives account for about 8–9% of the province’s GDP and include tourism, agricultural cooperatives, housing and social services, food security initiatives that employ more than 215,000 people (Walljasper 2017). It is important to note that in francophone contexts such as Quebec, the term ‘Économie Solidaire’ (solidarity economy) is often used instead of ‘Économie Sociale’ (social economy). ‘Solidarity economy’ specifically refers to economic activities based on reciprocity, mutualism, and cooperation (Gardin 2014). In Quebec, therefore, the SE is understood as a collective effort, with strong collaboration between the state (the provincial government) and civil society (labor unions, cooperatives, community organizations) (Bouchard et al. 2015; Mendell 2009). In contrast to the USA, the term ‘social enterprise’ is hardly used in Quebec; instead, the common term is ‘social economy enterprises’ (Bouchard et al. 2015).

In Latin America, the literature reveals that the term ‘Economía Solidaria’ (solidarity economy) is more widely used than the term ‘Economía Social’ (social economy) (Defourney and Nyssens 2010; Coraggio 2013). In practice, ‘solidarity economy’ is also more commonly used in Latin America. For example, the Andean Parliament—a regional governing body made up of representatives from the five Andean countries—uses the term ‘solidarity economy’ in their documents (Comunidad Andina 2011). The Ecuadorian constitution recognizes the popular and solidarity economy (Constituyente de Ecuador 2008). The Brazilian government established a national secretariat for the solidarity economy which has worked with civil society to create coordinating bodies to strengthen SE enterprises (Castelão Caruana and Srnec 2013).

Nonetheless, there are some Latin American countries that primarily use the term social economy in government policies and laws such as Argentina—and, interestingly—Bolivia (Coraggio 2013). The 2009 Bolivian constitution and subsequent national policies commit the government to supporting the social and community economy, identifying them as economic forms that support collective, rather than individual, well-being (constitution of the Plurinational State of Bolivia 2009). Subsequently, multiple pieces of legislation related to the SE have been enacted at the national scale, including the following:

  • The law of community agricultural reform (2011) seeks to support campesinos (small-scale producers) with policies, technical support, and financing to increase food security and channels for processing and commercialization. The law recognizes a form of socioeconomic organization called Community Economic Organizations (OECOM in Spanish) and posits that indigenous/campesino/aboriginal/Afro-Bolivian communities can operate as an OECOM.

  • The law of OECAs and OECOMS (2013) officially recognizes Aboriginal, Indigenous, Campesino Economic Organizations (OECAs in Spanish) and distinguishes between OECAs and OECOMs. OECOMs are defined as being organized by and for communities and may or may not be legally constituted. They are considered as part of the community economy and may produce to satisfy basic needs of families. OECAs, on the other hand, are framed as legally registered entities made up of groups of small producers who operate collectively as commercial enterprises for the mutual benefit of members.

Further laws, such as the Decentralization and Autonomies Law (2010) and the law of mother earth and integrated development for well-being (2012), are complementary with their emphasis on the rights of indigenous/campesino communities to manage their own affairs according to their traditional values and forms of organization. Together, these laws create a strong framework for supporting the strengthening and expansion of the SE in within the unique Bolivian context.

New laws have been approved in this period [since 2009] to support the Constitution principle of a plural economy. These laws express the political commitment of the government with social movements in relation to strengthening the diverse forms of socio-economic organizations in the Bolivian territory, in harmony with nature and with the collective values of the original [indigenous] peoples (Wanderley 2016, p. 7).

Notably, the SE is portrayed in these laws as:

  • Linked to indigenous identity and cosmologies

  • Based on traditional forms of communal/economic organization that have existed in Bolivia since pre-colonial times

  • Emphasizing small-scale, rural economic productive activities that are both commercial and non-commercial

The Bolivian legal framework therefore connects the strengthening of the SE with larger political goals of overcoming the neoliberal and colonial models that characterized Bolivia’s institutions until the election of Evo Morales in 2006:

In the first decade of this century, Bolivia has experienced a process of social and political mobilization against the neoliberal model, which had been hegemonic during the 1980s and 1990s. Since [the 2006 election] Bolivia has been experiencing a historic moment of legal and policy innovations in the economic field, which implied the recognition of the plural economy in the Constitution and of solidarity as a principle for regulating economic practices (Hillenkamp and Wanderley 2015 p. 5).

The Bolivian literature on the SE nonetheless highlights contradictions between the national policy framework, with its emphasis on communal, rural activities, and the understanding of the solidarity economy as articulated by other actors in Bolivia, which includes Fair Trade enterprises and a broad array of solidarity-based economic initiatives (Hillenkamp and Wanderley 2015; Coraggio 2013). On the one hand, the national government policies have focused on indigenous identity recovery and recognition of attempts to regenerate traditional forms of economic organization based on reciprocity and collective well-being (Wanderley 2016). Meanwhile, national civil society organizations have advocated for recognition and support for a larger array of solidarity-based, commercially oriented enterprises and networks (Hillenkamp and Wanderley 2015). These contradictions continue to manifest in Bolivian public and political spaces.

Summary and Research Question

The literature thus demonstrates a rich array of conceptualizations about the nature of the SE around the world. Attempts at arriving on a common definition have included sectorally based, typology, and normative approaches. However, it is evident that the understanding of what constitutes the SE differs between countries and cultures; from the UK and English-speaking Canada’s emphasis on a third sector, to the USA focus on social enterprises, to the Quebec and European incorporation of cooperatives and mutual benefit, to the Latin American perspective on the importance of including rural producer associations and small informal enterprises.

Bolivia presents an interesting context in which to explore understandings of the SE, given its current importance in public discourse and its unique positioning as linked to decolonization and indigenous identity. At the same time, there is evidence that some aspects of the Bolivian understanding of the SE are linked to wider ideation processes in other parts of Latin America and beyond. This research therefore seeks to understand how various Bolivian actors from government and civil society understand the SE, and how their conceptualization compares to the available literature. As such, it will be possible to see what dimensions of the Bolivian understanding(s) are specific to their historical and contemporary context, and what dimensions are common to broader, global ideas about the nature of the SE.

Methodology

The research for this article was part of a larger study that took place over a period of 3 years on the conceptualization, practice, and governance of the social and community economy in rural, campesino, indigenous communities in the Bolivian highlands. The research approach was qualitative, involving multiple research methods such as participant observation, in-depth interviews, and focus groups to collect a broad range of data and triangulate results. First-hand data were complemented by a collection and review of relevant policy documents and reports from governmental and non-governmental actors at the national and local levels, as well as theoretical articles and books by Bolivian academics and researchers.

This article focuses on the results of eighteen in-depth interviews conducted with Bolivian actors engaged in advocacy or development of laws and programs to implement Article 306 of the 2009 Bolivian constitution. Since the constitution had been recently adopted, it was relevant to know how people engaged in governance understood the meaning of the social and community economy. Governance was defined broadly, to include a wide web of institutions and organizations involved in creating and implementing laws, norms, policies, and programs within society, not only official government entities. Such an understanding of governance is highly suited to the Bolivian context, in which civil society actors have engaged alongside government in proposing articles for the constitution, in the assembly that debated and approved the new constitution, and may work with government ministries on preparing policies and laws to implement the constitution.

In the case of the social and community economy, key actors from civil society and government involved in these processes, at the time of the research, included:

  • the Ministry of Productive Development and the plural economy—responsible for supporting the expansion and strengthening of the SE in Bolivia;

  • the United Confederation of Rural Workers of Bolivia (CSUTCB)—a national indigenous campesino organization with more than 2 million members involved in developing laws for the implementation of the SE;

  • the Bolivian Coordinating Platform of Economic Peasant Organizations (CIOEC)—a national organization to promote and advocate for the inclusion and interests of rural cooperatives, rural producer associations, and other collective economic enterprises;

  • Other national indigenous and campesino organizations such as the National Council of Ayllus and Markas of Qullasuyu (CONAMAQ), the National Confederation of Indigenous Campesino Women of Bolivia ‘Bartolina Sisa’ (CNMCIOB-BS); and

  • The movement for solidarity economy and fair trade (MESyCJ)—a national network of enterprises and organizations engaged in SE activities.

At the local level, municipal governments and leaders of the local branches of the national indigenous campesino organizations (CSUTCB and CONAMAQ) were also mandated to support the social and community economy in their local areas through strategic allocation of municipal budgets and related resources.

The field research was framed by a broad literature review of books and journal articles on the SE available in the English language using the key words ‘social economy,’ ‘solidarity economy,’ ‘social entrepreneurship,’ ‘social and solidarity economy USA,’ ‘social economy international,’ ‘social and solidarity economy Latin America,’ ‘social and solidarity economy Canada,’ ‘social and solidarity economy Bolivia,’ ‘community economy,’ and ‘community economy Bolivia.’ Analyzing the literature revealed three main ways that the SE was understood or defined, which were used to create a framework of themes to compare to the themes that would emerge through the research in Bolivia (see Table 1).

Table 1 Comparison: social economy conceptualization
Full size table

In Bolivia, I approached several universities to determine the key departments and people engaged in research on the SE in Bolivia. CIDES (Ciencias del Desarrollo) at the Universidad Mayor de San Andres stood out for its engaged research and graduate programs on the social and solidarity economy, with several faculty members collaborating with European researchers and institutions on these topics. Through these contacts, I gained copies of relevant books and journals published by Bolivian academics in Spanish. A review of the Bolivian literature revealed further themes about how the social economy was being theorized and defined in that context, which was used to add to the framework of comparative themes (see Table 1).

The selection of interviewees in Bolivia occurred through an iterative process. Local contacts helped to develop an initial list of relevant actors who were engaged in policy and practice related to the social and community economy. Interviews were conducted with people who were willing and available to participate rather than an exhaustive list of all relevant actors; interviewees also suggested further contacts to interview. As such, the sample does not represent all the relevant actors; however, it provides a sample of local and national level actors from government and civil society.

At the national level, I interviewed nine people about how they understood the social and community economy:

  • Three from the Ministry of Productive Development and the Plural Economy (DPEP), a part of the national government which was working on laws to implement the social and community economy (a vice-minister, a program director, and a staff member)

  • Two from the United Confederation of Rural Workers of Bolivia (the CSUTCB), which was working with the ministry of laws and funding mechanisms related to the social and community economy (a board member and a staff member)

  • Two from the movement for solidarity economy and fair trade (MESyCJ), which had worked closely with the government on SE-related policies previously, but recently was more engaged in fair trade development within Bolivia and internationally (a board member and a staff member)

  • One from the National Confederation of Indigenous Campesino Women of Bolivia ‘Bartolina Sisa’ (CNMCIOB-BS), which is the women’s arm of the CSUTCB (a former board member)

  • One from the Qullasuyu Movement of Indigenous Women, an organization with a feminist perspective that was highly critical of the more established national organizations such as the CSUTCB and CNMCIOB-BS (the president of the organization)

At the local level, I interviewed nine people in three municipalities about their understanding of the social and community economy, including five indigenous campesino leaders of local branches of the CSUTCB, one mayor and three municipal staff engaged in economic development.

After completing the interviews, NVivo was employed as a software that supports organizing and analyzing qualitative data. By entering in the transcribed interviews, the program allows for organizing text by themes and categories. This process provided insight into the key themes that emerged across the interviews. The themes were then entered a table to compare to the themes from the English-language and Bolivian literature (see Table 1). From this thematic analysis, it was possible to discern particularities in the Bolivian conceptualization of the SE.

Interview Findings

The in-depth interviews conducted for this study revealed several interesting facets of the conceptualization of the social economy in the Bolivian context. Table 1 shows how the Bolivian conceptualization compares to the English-language literature, as well as how the interview results compare to the Bolivian literature.

While different actors emphasize varying dimensions or positioning of the SE, sufficient commonalities emerged to show that the Bolivian understanding of the SE has important distinguishing characteristics. First, the SE in Bolivia is seen to include collective economic activities and does not include the third sector or voluntary sector. Second, the SE does not include non-profit organizations or social enterprises; rather, it is made up of associations of small-scale producers, cooperatives, and communities. Third, there is an emphasis on the idea of solidarity as an organizing principle and normative value. Fourth, the SE is commonly understood as an alternative to neoliberal capitalism. And fifth, the SE is closely linked to indigenous identity and ancestral forms of economic organization.

Theme 1: Sector-Based Definition

In terms of a sector-based definition, it became evident through the interviews that the SE, as understood by these Bolivian actors, does not include what is often referred to as the ‘voluntary sector’ or ‘third sector’ in the English-speaking world. When asked ‘what is the social economy?’ the vice-minister of DPEP replied:

It is about producing and selling through association….it is ayllus (communities) and sindicatos (associations of small-scale producers) [in rural areas] and microenterprises organized street by street in the city.

Staff from a Bolivian non-profit organization were specifically asked if their organization and similar organizations were part of the SE, and the response was a resounding ‘no’:

We are part of the Private Sector. We are autonomous from the State [Public Sector].

The emphasis here is on ‘autonomy’—that is, their separation from and ability to act without direction from the state. Such an understanding is distinct from the view portrayed in the English-language literature that defines sectors according their financial structure: non-profits are about volunteerism and are therefore a third sector, and the private sector only includes profit-driven entities.

Theme 2: Typology-Based Definition

The interviewees did engage with a typology approach to defining the SE in Bolivia. However, the kinds of organizations or enterprises that they considered to be part of the SE were distinct. First, as discussed above, non-profit organizations are not included in the understanding of the SE. Moreover, ‘social enterprises’ and ‘social entrepreneurship’ were likewise not incorporated. Indeed, the idea of an individual social entrepreneur setting up a social enterprise to address a social or environmental issue was an idea treated with something akin to suspicion when mentioned to various interviewees, and the idea of a non-profit organization establishing a social purpose enterprise seemed incomprehensible. There seemed to be a general distrust of the idea that an individual or social organization could serve a collective good with a for-profit enterprise.

Instead, the interviews indicated a common perception is that the SE includes associative type entities in which people group together to develop an economic activity for their collective benefit. For example, a former board member of the CSUTCB said that the SE is:

…campesinos and indigenous peoples in the rural areas, in their associations, working to produce, sell and export agricultural products.

The interview results mirror the Bolivian literature. Wanderley (2013) notes that the Bolivian legislative framework reflects an understanding that alongside the private capitalist businesses and a socialist model of state-owned enterprises, a diverse array of associations, cooperatives, indigenous and campesino communities, and family operations exist in Bolivia. Hillenkamp and Wanderley (2015) note that the term ‘social enterprises’ should more fittingly be ‘solidarity economy organizations’ in Bolivia as they emerge in a context of people working together under conditions of labor precariousness.

Theme 3: Normative Dimensions

Prior to the conducting interviews, it appeared that Bolivia might be utilizing the term social economy rather than solidarity economy, given the wording in the 2009 constitution. This approach was of interest, since most Latin American countries were more commonly using solidarity economy. Interviews therefore began by asking people, ‘What is the social economy?’ It soon became evident that the value of solidarity was fundamental to their understanding of the social economy. Indeed, the national actors interviewed for this study were more familiar with the term ‘solidarity economy’ than ‘social economy.’ One example came from a staff person at DPEP stated that:

The Solidarity Economy is the ‘associative economy’ made up of small producers or microenterprises forming organizations or mutual activities.

He further stated that he is responsible for promoting the ‘solidarity economy,’ with no mention of the social economy. Economic development staff in two municipalities spoke of producer associations engaged in collective processing or marketing of agricultural products when asked about the social economy. Likewise, the president of an indigenous women’s organization referred to their goal to:

…promote the Solidarity Economy which is women in associations managing their economic activities together. As their capital grows, it is distributed equitably among the group members.

MESyCJ used the term ‘solidarity economy’ in their core strategic document:

The Solidarity Economy is a new current and model of the economy that strives to recover the ethnical and human dimension in economic relations, establishing new principles and alternative economic models, to contribute to recognizing the quality of life of small producers that are in a position of socio-economic disadvantage” (MESyCJ 2008).

These results indicate that solidarity is integral to the Bolivian understanding of the SE, with an emphasis on reciprocity and associative activities. Although the terms social economy and solidarity economy are somewhat interlinking concepts, the solidarity focus is on mutual support between small producers/self-employed people, and generally encompasses the informal or popular sector in which a large part of the population of these countries make a living. Such an approach aligns with the literature that indicates that Latin America more commonly uses the term solidarity economy.

Theme 4: Alternative to Neoliberal Capitalism

The interviews highlighted a conceptual linkage between the SE and opposition to neoliberal capitalism—as part of a larger movement of rejecting development models imposed by external actors. A mayor of a rural municipality said that:

The Community Economy must be strengthened to keep communities alive in the face of the global capitalism ….. that makes it difficult for small farmers to compete….

He further said that policies implemented by former governments had threatened to destroy rural communities, referring to structural adjustment policies implemented in the 1990s that involved neoliberal strategies such as eliminations of barriers to foreign investment and imports in Bolivia, among others.

A board member of a cooperative called El Ceibo, which exports Fair Trade chocolate to North America and Europe, made the following statement at a conference on the solidarity economy in Bolivia:

The Solidarity Economy is comprised of initiatives that provide an alternative to capitalism. [It is] cooperatives and associations that come together to seek economic, social and cultural alternatives.

Similarly, a staff member of MESyCJ stated that:

The Solidarity Economy is a new approach and model of the economy that …… establishes new principles and alternative economic models.

The Bolivian emphasis on the SE as an alternative to neoliberal capitalism is echoed in many other parts of Latin America. For example, the founding charter of the Latin American branch of RIPESS clearly declares the SE as a new way of organizing society in economic, political, and social terms:

The Solidarity Economy incorporates cooperation, sharing and collective action, putting the human being at the centre of social and economic development. Solidarity in the economy involves economic, political and social change, which brings about a new way of doing politics and constructs human relations based on consensus and citizen action (Lima Declaration 1997).

Theme 5: Indigeneity

A particularity of the Bolivian context is the conceptual link between the SE and recovery or reaffirmation of indigenous ancestral practices and organization. Previous national policy recognized only the private and public sector as part of the economy. The 2009 constitution officially recognized social/community forms of economic organization and affirms that the community economy is a traditional indigenous practice based on principles of solidarity, equity, and reciprocity with goal of collective well-being.

Collectively, the interviews indicated that the SE in Bolivia includes the ‘community economy,’ a term which refers to traditional economic practices in indigenous contexts. Across the interviews, there appeared to be a shared understanding of the community economy. The vice-minister from DPEP described the community economy in this way:

For me, it [the Community Economy] is how we organized historically and to not break with these forms– trueque, ayni, and working together–this is the Community Economy.

Similarly, a staff member from DPEP stated that:

The Community Economy is based on ancestral knowledge of indigenous/original peoples and is based in what they did in the past.

The president of the national indigenous women’s organization explained that the community economy includes trueque and ayni.

These quotes reveal that the community economy relates to recovering ancestral values and economic practices of Bolivia’s indigenous people—specifically ayni and trueque. Both are non-monetary forms of economic exchange practiced by Aymara and Quechua people in pre-colonial times. Ayni is reciprocity, referring to practices of helping others based on the knowledge that they will help you when you in return. Trueque is a non-monetary exchange of goods, often between lowland and highland peoples, such as trading fruit for potatoes.

In the Bolivian conceptualization, then, the social economy is linked to processes of revaluing of indigeneity and pre-colonial practices. However, there were diverging opinions on the continuing importance of the community economy practices. The vice-minister believed that the strategies for development should be based on what people are currently doing in each place, and not on trying to recover something from the past:

In Chuquisaca, they use trueque and the cocaleros (coca farmers) in Coroico still practice ayni, but they not do so any more in Yanacahi, for example, where only nuclear families work together or contract people for money when they need help. We are not going to force the people in Yanacahi to go back to ayni.

By contrast, the president of the indigenous women’s organization thought that:

It is very important to recover and strengthen the ancestral economic practices, as a basis for empowerment and decolonization of indigenous women.

Another view, held by a government staff in the DPEP, is that the community economy is limited as to what it can accomplish:

…..its small scale and scope supports only a subsistence level way of life. However, the Community Economy…. can be a base for the Solidarity Economy.

In other words, the fact that these kinds of values and practices exist in Bolivia creates a kind of culture for solidarity-based economic activities, but in a modernized way. The director of economic development for a municipality agrees:

Practices of reciprocity and collective orientation have played a strong role in facilitating the emergence of the multitude of producer associations that exist across the country. At the same time, economic growth is not a traditional Aymara goal and this creates an ongoing tension to resolve.

Likewise, Hillenkamp and Wanderley (2015) argue that:

Communities… cannot be regarded as guided only by reciprocity and redistribution…when the penetration of market logic actually dates back to the colonial period and when property rights and uses generally balance individual and collective interests.

The intersection between the past and present realities of Bolivia’s indigenous peoples continues to be an important theme, as they seek to find ways to decolonize and reclaim ancestral practices while thriving in contemporary systems.

Conclusion

The conceptualizations of the SE in Bolivia are deeply knitted into its historical, cultural, and institutional fabric. In many ways, it is representative of larger ideation processes occurring in Latin America and other places about the nature and role of the SE. In other ways, it is entirely distinct.

The interviews conducted for this study highlighted mutual benefit and associative dimensions of the SE in Bolivia. These results highlight forms of organizing that have evolved through mutual support between small-scale producers and people engaged in the informal or popular sector as a survival strategy (Ruiz Rivera and Lemaître 2017; Castelão Caruana and Srnec 2013; Tremblay 2009; Angulo 2008). The Bolivian SE is reflective of the highly inequitable society in which a large portion of the population has not benefitted from the formal economy and has sought to develop means of survival by banding together.

It is notable that non-profits and social enterprises are not included in the Bolivian understanding of the SE. This is quite distinct from North American and UK contexts in which social enterprises and social entrepreneurship are promulgated as solutions to social inequities and unemployment. In Bolivia, the focus is on cooperatives, associations, and small-scale producers coming together in solidarity to create employment and address social inequality. This collective orientation to the SE is evident across Latin America as well as in Quebec and some parts of Europe.

The idea of the SE as an alternative to neoliberal capitalism is also significant in the Bolivian context and can be understood to emerge from two principal factors. First, this approach emerges as a push back against the economic and political domination of colonial powers such as the USA and Europe, expressed as opposition to neoliberalism. As such, it is part of the Morales government’s attempts to decouple from the influence and domination of Western countries, and to critically respond to the severe SAPs that were obligated for Bolivia by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) in previous decades. Secondly, this understanding of the SE as an alternative is connected to the government’s neo-marxist and socialist discourse and is part of a search for alternative, socialist economic models by the Morales’ administration. Such views are distinct from the Anglophone tendency to view the SE as a means to correct the gaps left by the private or public sector within a capitalist system.

Notions of indigeneity and a reclaiming or revaluing of traditional community forms of economy are part of the Bolivian conceptualization of the SE, although there are contradictions within this view. The inclusion of the community economy emerged from social movements seeking to strengthen indigenous identity and rights in Bolivia, by articulating the importance of recovering ancestral knowledge and values. While the national government tended to conflate the SE with traditional, indigenous, rural forms of economy, other actors sought to broaden the recognition of the SE to include a larger scope of solidarity-based enterprises and initiatives in the country. Nonetheless, Bolivia is unique in this regard, since the community economy is not explicitly mentioned in any other Latin American country in connection to the SE.

This research has demonstrated that the SE has significant variation in its history, motivations, and conceptual emphases between places. In the case of Bolivia, the articulation of the SE is connected to the pro-socialist, pro-indigenous, and pro-decolonization discourse of the national government. At the same time, the SE in Bolivia is informed by the history of associative activities of producers in the informal and popular sectors, and an understanding that solidarity is a means to create mutual benefit in a context of instability and insecurity in employment. The particularities in the Bolivian conceptualization point to importance of place in our understanding of the nature and role of the SE. There is no single model or definition of the SE, nor does there need to be a singular approach. As stated by Gibson-Grahman (2005), economies and forms of economic organization are varied and depend on place and who is involved. Exploring the nature of the SE interactively, in terms of its position in and relationship to larger social and economic structures, provides a much richer and more nuanced understanding than seeking simplistic, one-size-fits-all definitions.