Emerging Ownership Revolution: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
Line 22: | Line 22: | ||
"In part 1, I trace how extractive design in one industry, the mortgage | "In part 1, I trace how extractive design in one industry, the mortgage | ||
industry, drove toward | industry, drove toward financial overshoot and collapse. I start with the | ||
foreclosed house that a friend of mine was trying to buy, for which he | foreclosed house that a friend of mine was trying to buy, for which he | ||
couldn’t | couldn’t find any owner to whom he could make an offer. I follow this | ||
thread to the New York Stock Exchange, and into other worlds of | thread to the New York Stock Exchange, and into other worlds of financial | ||
engineering, to trace what went wrong in the social architecture of ownership. | engineering, to trace what went wrong in the social architecture of ownership. | ||
Ultimately, I set out to | Ultimately, I set out to find the couple that the house once belonged | ||
to, to see how the subprime mortgage collapse impacted the life of one | to, to see how the subprime mortgage collapse impacted the life of one | ||
family. | family. | ||
Line 35: | Line 35: | ||
Maine lobster industry, community forests, community wind, a cohousing | Maine lobster industry, community forests, community wind, a cohousing | ||
community, and others. Embodied in these ownership models are values | community, and others. Embodied in these ownership models are values | ||
of sustainability, community, and | of sustainability, community, and sufficiency (the idea that after the pursuit | ||
of “more” comes the recognition of “enough”). These may be the values | of “more” comes the recognition of “enough”). These may be the values | ||
that one day replace the pursuit of limitless | that one day replace the pursuit of limitless financial wealth, the focus | ||
on individualism, and the insistence on maximum growth, which remain | on individualism, and the insistence on maximum growth, which remain | ||
embedded in today’s ownership designs. | embedded in today’s ownership designs. | ||
Line 53: | Line 53: | ||
with production based in Kalundborg, home to a famed example | with production based in Kalundborg, home to a famed example | ||
of “industrial symbiosis,” where this company’s waste becomes food for | of “industrial symbiosis,” where this company’s waste becomes food for | ||
the ecosystem. Among other expeditions, I revisit | the ecosystem. Among other expeditions, I revisit finance, talking with a | ||
couple of investing advisers to see how I can use my own small investment | couple of investing advisers to see how I can use my own small investment | ||
portfolio to help in the transformation." | portfolio to help in the transformation." | ||
Line 92: | Line 92: | ||
is in fact a process of transferring control over the basic resources essential | is in fact a process of transferring control over the basic resources essential | ||
to daily life from the people who depend on them to foreign corporations, | to daily life from the people who depend on them to foreign corporations, | ||
whose primary interest is | whose primary interest is financial gain. Ownership of corporations is, in | ||
large part, in the hands of the wealthiest 10 percent. | large part, in the hands of the wealthiest 10 percent. | ||
Line 101: | Line 101: | ||
architecture of ownership is key. | architecture of ownership is key. | ||
The | The defining debates of the 20th century were crudely framed as a | ||
choice between two simplistically | choice between two simplistically defined economic models: private | ||
ownership (capitalism) and public ownership (socialism/communism). | ownership (capitalism) and public ownership (socialism/communism). | ||
Neither capitalism nor socialism ever achieved its ideal, but each came | Neither capitalism nor socialism ever achieved its ideal, but each came sufficiently close to reveal that both failed. Both support a concentration of | ||
the power of ownership in the hands of an oligarchy. | the power of ownership in the hands of an oligarchy. | ||
In Owning Our Future, Marjorie shows that a new model of ownership | In Owning Our Future, Marjorie shows that a new model of ownership | ||
Line 112: | Line 111: | ||
It’s most often private ownership, but with a purpose of serving the common | It’s most often private ownership, but with a purpose of serving the common | ||
good. Generative ownership models include cooperatives, employeeowned | good. Generative ownership models include cooperatives, employeeowned | ||
firms, community land trusts, community banks, credit unions, | |||
foundation-owned companies, and many other models that root control | foundation-owned companies, and many other models that root control | ||
in the hands of people who have a natural interest in the health of their | in the hands of people who have a natural interest in the health of their | ||
Line 120: | Line 119: | ||
two different models of ownership work. Extractive ownership features | two different models of ownership work. Extractive ownership features | ||
Absentee Membership and the rapid speculative trading of Casino | Absentee Membership and the rapid speculative trading of Casino | ||
Finance, built around the purpose of maximizing the extraction of | Finance, built around the purpose of maximizing the extraction of financial | ||
wealth. This creates a disconnect between the common good and the | wealth. This creates a disconnect between the common good and the | ||
global banks, corporations, and | global banks, corporations, and financial markets that control the means | ||
of living. Extractive ownership is at the root of most of the social and ecological | of living. Extractive ownership is at the root of most of the social and ecological | ||
ills we face today. | ills we face today. | ||
In Marjorie’s prophetic words: “Ownership is the gravitational | In Marjorie’s prophetic words: “Ownership is the gravitational field | ||
that holds our economy in its orbit, locking us all into behaviors that lead | that holds our economy in its orbit, locking us all into behaviors that lead | ||
to | to financial excess and ecological overshoot.” | ||
Generative ownership, by contrast, has the purpose of creating the | Generative ownership, by contrast, has the purpose of creating the | ||
Line 134: | Line 133: | ||
the living hands of employees, families, communities, and others connected | the living hands of employees, families, communities, and others connected | ||
to the real economy of jobs and homes and human life. It features | to the real economy of jobs and homes and human life. It features | ||
Mission-Controlled Governance that keeps | Mission-Controlled Governance that keeps firms focused on social mission, | ||
Stakeholder Finance that allows capital to be a friend, and Ethical | Stakeholder Finance that allows capital to be a friend, and Ethical | ||
Networks that provide collective support for social and ecological | Networks that provide collective support for social and ecological | ||
norms. Most of these enterprises are | norms. Most of these enterprises are profit making, but they’re not profit | ||
maximizing. | maximizing. | ||
Line 144: | Line 143: | ||
issue of ownership, and in Owning Our Future, she shares the story of her | issue of ownership, and in Owning Our Future, she shares the story of her | ||
personal journey of discovery. The book is written as a travelogue, with | personal journey of discovery. The book is written as a travelogue, with | ||
detailed accounts of her visits to each of the major initiatives she | detailed accounts of her visits to each of the major initiatives she profiles. | ||
Marjorie combines the perspective of a tenacious reporter, the writing | Marjorie combines the perspective of a tenacious reporter, the writing | ||
skills of an accomplished novelist, and the open and inquiring mind of | skills of an accomplished novelist, and the open and inquiring mind of | ||
a thoughtful and critical economic theorist. Her central theme is that the | a thoughtful and critical economic theorist. Her central theme is that the | ||
architecture of ownership | architecture of ownership defines the business purpose of the enterprise | ||
and largely determines whether it will operate in a generative or extractive | and largely determines whether it will operate in a generative or extractive | ||
mode. It is the design of ownership that creates the essential framework for | mode. It is the design of ownership that creates the essential framework for | ||
Line 164: | Line 163: | ||
us rarely notice, ownership is the underlying architecture of our economy. | us rarely notice, ownership is the underlying architecture of our economy. | ||
It’s the foundation of our world. How ownership is framed is more basic | It’s the foundation of our world. How ownership is framed is more basic | ||
to our daily lives than the shape of democracy. Economic relations | to our daily lives than the shape of democracy. Economic relations define | ||
the tenor of our days: where we work for 40 hours (or more) each week | the tenor of our days: where we work for 40 hours (or more) each week | ||
or whether we work at all. How owners wield their power over companies | or whether we work at all. How owners wield their power over companies | ||
Line 190: | Line 189: | ||
the industrial-age model of ownership is beginning to make less sense. | the industrial-age model of ownership is beginning to make less sense. | ||
Getting our arms around this large issue can seem | Getting our arms around this large issue can seem difficult. Unable to even | ||
approach it, politicians instead | approach it, politicians instead fixate on how to jumpstart the economy and | ||
get growth moving again. But it’s time to move beyond growth, to recognize | get growth moving again. But it’s time to move beyond growth, to recognize | ||
that the economy as we once knew it will never return. Nor should it. | that the economy as we once knew it will never return. Nor should it. | ||
Line 225: | Line 224: | ||
interest in social enterprises, which serve a primary social mission while they | interest in social enterprises, which serve a primary social mission while they | ||
function as businesses—like Greyston Bakery in Yonkers, New York, an $8 | function as businesses—like Greyston Bakery in Yonkers, New York, an $8 | ||
million | million profit-making business started by Zen monks with an aim of creating | ||
jobs for the homeless.10 Community development | jobs for the homeless.10 Community development financial institutions | ||
(CDFIs)—which in the United States provide | (CDFIs)—which in the United States provide financial services to under | ||
served low-wealth communities—are growing by leaps and bounds. In | served low-wealth communities—are growing by leaps and bounds. In | ||
little over a decade, assets have climbed from $5 billion to $42 billion, with | little over a decade, assets have climbed from $5 billion to $42 billion, with | ||
Line 233: | Line 232: | ||
Emerging experiments with catch shares, ownership rights in marine | Emerging experiments with catch shares, ownership rights in marine | ||
fisheries, have been found to halt or reverse catastrophic declines in fish | |||
stocks.12 Conservation easements now cover tens of millions of acres, | stocks.12 Conservation easements now cover tens of millions of acres, | ||
allowing land to be used and farmed even as it’s protected from development, | allowing land to be used and farmed even as it’s protected from development, | ||
preserving it for future generations both human and wild. | preserving it for future generations both human and wild. | ||
There’s a growing movement to protect the commons, honoring areas | There’s a growing movement to protect the commons, honoring areas | ||
of our common life that need shielding from market forces. And there’s | of our common life that need shielding from market forces. And there’s | ||
Line 243: | Line 243: | ||
Revolutionary lawyers are busy crafting new models through law—like | Revolutionary lawyers are busy crafting new models through law—like | ||
the community interest corporation, created in UK law.14 And the low- | the community interest corporation, created in UK law.14 And the low-profit, | ||
limited liability company (L3C) in the United States, intended to facilitate | limited liability company (L3C) in the United States, intended to facilitate | ||
more social investments by foundations. In the space of only a few years, | more social investments by foundations. In the space of only a few years, | ||
this model has been enacted or come under consideration by nearly 20 | this model has been enacted or come under consideration by nearly 20 | ||
states. | states. And there’s the notable success of the Bank of North Dakota, the | ||
only state-owned bank in the United States, which in the initial | only state-owned bank in the United States, which in the initial financial | ||
crisis enjoyed record | crisis enjoyed record profits even as private-sector banks lost billions. Its | ||
unexpected resilience has led some 14 states to begin considering legislation | unexpected resilience has led some 14 states to begin considering legislation | ||
to create their own banks. | to create their own banks. (State banks are not privately owned, | ||
but they do represent alternative ownership focused on the common good | but they do represent alternative ownership focused on the common good | ||
rather than on maximizing profits.) | rather than on maximizing profits.) | ||
In Quebec and Latin America, among other places, there’s a growing | In Quebec and Latin America, among other places, there’s a growing | ||
movement for the solidarity economy—consisting of cooperatives and | movement for the solidarity economy—consisting of cooperatives and nonprofits — which in Quebec has gained formal recognition and government | ||
funding as a distinct sector of the economy.17 And a surprising number of | funding as a distinct sector of the economy.17 And a surprising number of | ||
large corporations have adopted mission-controlled designs. Among these | large corporations have adopted mission-controlled designs. Among these | ||
Line 270: | Line 269: | ||
social business in which village women in Bangladesh sell yogurt through | social business in which village women in Bangladesh sell yogurt through | ||
a joint venture between multinational yogurt maker Groupe Danone and | a joint venture between multinational yogurt maker Groupe Danone and | ||
Grameen Bank, the | Grameen Bank, the first microfinance lender. The enterprise is designed to | ||
improve the nutrition of the poor as it aims to pay investors a modest, 1 | improve the nutrition of the poor as it aims to pay investors a modest, 1 | ||
percent dividend. | percent dividend. | ||
Line 279: | Line 278: | ||
who studies economic governance of the commons. She and her colleagues | who studies economic governance of the commons. She and her colleagues | ||
have found communities all over the world that have spontaneously devised | have found communities all over the world that have spontaneously devised | ||
effective ways to govern | effective ways to govern fish stocks, pastures, forests, lakes, and groundwater | ||
basins in ways that preserve rather than harm those ecosystems. | basins in ways that preserve rather than harm those ecosystems. | ||
Line 310: | Line 309: | ||
==The Patterns of Life== | ==The Patterns of Life== | ||
"Extractive ownership has a Financial Purpose: maximizing | "Extractive ownership has a Financial Purpose: maximizing profits. | ||
Generative ownership has a Living Purpose: creating the conditions for | Generative ownership has a Living Purpose: creating the conditions for | ||
life. While corporations today have Absentee Membership, with owners | life. While corporations today have Absentee Membership, with owners | ||
Line 332: | Line 332: | ||
democracy. In the decade since it was published, the ownership | democracy. In the decade since it was published, the ownership | ||
structures of our economy—the intertwined institutions of corporations | structures of our economy—the intertwined institutions of corporations | ||
and capital markets, and the perpetual growth and rising | and capital markets, and the perpetual growth and rising profits they | ||
require—have contributed to unprecedented new crises, such as climate | require—have contributed to unprecedented new crises, such as climate | ||
change. It no longer seems | change. It no longer seems sufficient to speak of economic democracy as | ||
the solution. | the solution. | ||
Revision as of 10:30, 30 June 2012
* Book: Majorie Kelly. Owning Our Future: The Emerging Ownership Revolution. Journeys to a Generative Economy. Berrett-Koehler Publishers, 2012
URL = http://www.OwningOurFuture.com
"ownership design is the most foundational" (David Korten)
Description
"As long as businesses are set up to focus exclusively on maximizing financial income for the few, our economy will be locked into endless growth and widening inequality. But now people across the world are experimenting with new forms of ownership, which Kelly calls generative: aimed at creating the conditions for all of life to thrive for many generations to come. These designs may hold the key to the deep transformation our civilization needs.
To understand these emerging alternatives, Kelly reports from across the globe, visiting a community-owned wind facility in Massachusetts, a lobster cooperative in Maine, a multibillion-dollar employee-owned department-store chain in London, a foundation-owned pharmaceutical in Denmark, a farmer-owned dairy in Wisconsin, and other places where a hopeful new economy is being built. Along the way, she finds the five essential patterns of ownership design that make these models work.
As financial and ecological crises multiply and linger in our time, many people remain grim adherents of the TINA school of thought: There Is No Alternative to capitalism as we know it. Yet emerging alternative designs show that there is a real and workable alternative, which goes beyond the dusty 19th century categories of capitalism vs. socialism. It’s “yet to be recognized as a single phenomenon because it has yet to have a single name,” Kelly writes. “We might try calling this a family of generative ownership designs. Together they form the foundation for a generative economy” – an economy whose fundamental architecture tends to create beneficial rather than harmful outcomes. A living economy that has a built-in tendency to be socially fair and ecologically sustainable.
Kelly writes: “This is a book about deep change. It’s about hope. It’s about the real possibility that a fundamentally new kind of economy can be built, that this work is further along than we suppose, and that it does deeper than we would dare to dream. It’s about economic change that is fundamental and enduring: not greenwash or all the other false hopes flung in our faces for too long. The experiments I’m talking about are not silver bullets that will solve all our problems. They have flaws and limitations. But they nonetheless represent change that is fundamental and enduring because it involves ownership. That is to say, what’s at work is not the legislative or presidential whims of a particular hour, but a permanent shift in the underlying architecture of economic power.” (http://www.marjoriekelly.com/wordpress/?page_id=712)
Contents
Majorie Kelly:
"In part 1, I trace how extractive design in one industry, the mortgage industry, drove toward financial overshoot and collapse. I start with the foreclosed house that a friend of mine was trying to buy, for which he couldn’t find any owner to whom he could make an offer. I follow this thread to the New York Stock Exchange, and into other worlds of financial engineering, to trace what went wrong in the social architecture of ownership. Ultimately, I set out to find the couple that the house once belonged to, to see how the subprime mortgage collapse impacted the life of one family.
In part 2, I look for the seeds of a new value system that might give rise to a new economy. I visit experiments in ownership of the commons: the Maine lobster industry, community forests, community wind, a cohousing community, and others. Embodied in these ownership models are values of sustainability, community, and sufficiency (the idea that after the pursuit of “more” comes the recognition of “enough”). These may be the values that one day replace the pursuit of limitless financial wealth, the focus on individualism, and the insistence on maximum growth, which remain embedded in today’s ownership designs.
If part 1 is about the breakdown of ownership, and part 2 is about the ground of its evolution, part 3 looks at design patterns that are bringing generative ownership to life on a broad scale. Each chapter takes up one key pattern of generative design, looking at how these combine to keep social mission alive over time. I’ve seen many companies that once were generative lose their social mission when they grow large or when the founder departs. In part 3, I search for successful, substantial companies that have solved the “legacy problem”—keeping social legacy alive long after the founder is gone. I tour the employee-owned John Lewis Partnership in London. I visit foundation-owned Novo Nordisk in Denmark, a pharmaceutical with production based in Kalundborg, home to a famed example of “industrial symbiosis,” where this company’s waste becomes food for the ecosystem. Among other expeditions, I revisit finance, talking with a couple of investing advisers to see how I can use my own small investment portfolio to help in the transformation."
Excerpts
Read a 30-page excerpt of the book, including the Foreword by David Korten, Prologue, and first chapter, via http://www.bkconnection.com/static/Owning_Our_Future_EXCERPT.pdf
Foreword
David Korten:
"Of all the important elements lacking from much progressive thought and action, the issue of ownership design is perhaps the most foundational. Marjorie Kelly illuminates this crucial topic in a way that can drive it home to everyone. Owning Our Future offers the most thorough and properly nuanced treatment of the subject I’ve seen anywhere.
Most of the great political struggles of the past 5,000 years can be reduced to a simple question: who will own land, water, and the other essentials of living—and to what end? In the earliest human societies, ownership of the essentials of living was held in common by members of a tribe and included responsibilities of sacred stewardship. We might describe this as a form of shared ownership that confers shared responsibility. As societies transitioned to centralized power structures, ownership of land, water, and other essential means of production was monopolized by the few. Even with the movement toward democracy, ownership of wealth has remained largely in the hands of an elite. Today, debilitating debt, bankruptcies, and foreclosures are a reminder of how little has changed and how many among us—including young people burdened by student loans—live under the power of those who control the issuance of credit.
Behind the workings of our economy lies an invisible issue that few of us focus on—the issue of ownership. During my years working in Africa, Asia, and Latin America, I came to realize that what we call “development” is in fact a process of transferring control over the basic resources essential to daily life from the people who depend on them to foreign corporations, whose primary interest is financial gain. Ownership of corporations is, in large part, in the hands of the wealthiest 10 percent.
Our well-being, indeed our future as a species, depends on restoring our relationships to one another and with the land, the water, the sky, and the other generative resources of nature that indigenous people tradition ally considered it their obligation to hold and manage in sacred trust. The architecture of ownership is key.
The defining debates of the 20th century were crudely framed as a choice between two simplistically defined economic models: private ownership (capitalism) and public ownership (socialism/communism). Neither capitalism nor socialism ever achieved its ideal, but each came sufficiently close to reveal that both failed. Both support a concentration of the power of ownership in the hands of an oligarchy. In Owning Our Future, Marjorie shows that a new model of ownership is arising and spreading in our time, which she calls generative ownership.
It’s most often private ownership, but with a purpose of serving the common good. Generative ownership models include cooperatives, employeeowned firms, community land trusts, community banks, credit unions, foundation-owned companies, and many other models that root control in the hands of people who have a natural interest in the health of their communities and local ecosystems. These are in contrast to the dominant ownership models of capitalism, which Marjorie calls extractive. She offers a simple pattern language to describe what makes these two different models of ownership work. Extractive ownership features Absentee Membership and the rapid speculative trading of Casino Finance, built around the purpose of maximizing the extraction of financial wealth. This creates a disconnect between the common good and the global banks, corporations, and financial markets that control the means of living. Extractive ownership is at the root of most of the social and ecological ills we face today.
In Marjorie’s prophetic words: “Ownership is the gravitational field that holds our economy in its orbit, locking us all into behaviors that lead to financial excess and ecological overshoot.”
Generative ownership, by contrast, has the purpose of creating the conditions for the fl ourishing of life. It features Rooted Membership, in the living hands of employees, families, communities, and others connected to the real economy of jobs and homes and human life. It features Mission-Controlled Governance that keeps firms focused on social mission, Stakeholder Finance that allows capital to be a friend, and Ethical Networks that provide collective support for social and ecological norms. Most of these enterprises are profit making, but they’re not profit maximizing.
Since her groundbreaking book The Divine Right of Capital, Marjorie has focused her attention as a writer on how to resolve the foundational issue of ownership, and in Owning Our Future, she shares the story of her personal journey of discovery. The book is written as a travelogue, with detailed accounts of her visits to each of the major initiatives she profiles. Marjorie combines the perspective of a tenacious reporter, the writing skills of an accomplished novelist, and the open and inquiring mind of a thoughtful and critical economic theorist. Her central theme is that the architecture of ownership defines the business purpose of the enterprise and largely determines whether it will operate in a generative or extractive mode. It is the design of ownership that creates the essential framework for the capitalist economy that is beginning to break down—and for a potentially new generative economy we can bring into being.
This is one of the most important books of our time. I found it so informative and inspiring that reading it literally brought tears of joy to my eyes. It gets my very highest recommendation."
Prologue
"In a way that many of us rarely notice, ownership is the underlying architecture of our economy. It’s the foundation of our world. How ownership is framed is more basic to our daily lives than the shape of democracy. Economic relations define the tenor of our days: where we work for 40 hours (or more) each week or whether we work at all. How owners wield their power over companies determines whether we’re empowered or belittled by our work, how much anxiety we suffer over our debts, whether we’re able to own a home or be secure in retirement. Questions about who owns the wealth-producing infrastructure of an economy, who controls it, whose interests it serves, are among the largest issues any society can face. Issues of who owns the sky in terms of carbon emission rights, who owns water, who owns development rights, are planetary in scope.
The multiplying crises we face today are entwined at their root with the particular form of ownership that dominates our world—the publicly traded corporation, in which ownership shares trade in public stock markets. The revenue of the largest 1,000 of these corporations represents roughly 80 percent of global industrial output.6 Stripped of regulatory overlay, the design of these corporations is the bare design of capitalism.
As a way of organizing an economy, this model made a certain amount of sense when the industrial age was unfolding. The modern age might not have come to be, without the emergence of corporations and capital markets. But as we make the painful turn into a new era—characterized by climate change, water shortages, species extinction, vast unemployment, stagnant wages, staggering differentials in wealth, and bloated debt loads— the industrial-age model of ownership is beginning to make less sense.
Getting our arms around this large issue can seem difficult. Unable to even approach it, politicians instead fixate on how to jumpstart the economy and get growth moving again. But it’s time to move beyond growth, to recognize that the economy as we once knew it will never return. Nor should it.
As the dominant form of ownership continues to spin off crisis after crisis in our time, alternative forms are at the same time emerging in largely unsung, disconnected experiments all over the world. We’re at the beginning of an unseen ownership revolution. In this book, I visit places where this hopeful future is welling up like cold springs. It’s a journey into the territory of the possible, a kind of advance scouting expedition for the collective journey of our global culture.
It’s a book about deep change. It’s about hope. It’s about the real possibility that a fundamentally new kind of economy can be built, that this work is further along than we suppose, and that it goes deeper than we would dare to dream. It’s about economic change that is fundamental and enduring: not greenwash or all the other false hopes fl ung in our faces for too long. The experiments I’m talking about are not silver bullets that will solve all our problems. They have fl aws and limitations. But they nonetheless represent change that is fundamental and enduring because it involves ownership. That is to say, what’s at work is not the legislative or presidential whims of a particular hour, but a permanent shift in the underlying architecture of economic power.
...
New models are emerging today, not from the head of some new Adam Smith or Karl Marx but from the longing in many hearts, the genius of many minds, the effort of many hands to build what we know instinctively that we need.
In both the United States and the United Kingdom, there’s burgeoning interest in social enterprises, which serve a primary social mission while they function as businesses—like Greyston Bakery in Yonkers, New York, an $8 million profit-making business started by Zen monks with an aim of creating jobs for the homeless.10 Community development financial institutions (CDFIs)—which in the United States provide financial services to under served low-wealth communities—are growing by leaps and bounds. In little over a decade, assets have climbed from $5 billion to $42 billion, with new funds coming from depositors, investors, and government grants.
Emerging experiments with catch shares, ownership rights in marine fisheries, have been found to halt or reverse catastrophic declines in fish stocks.12 Conservation easements now cover tens of millions of acres, allowing land to be used and farmed even as it’s protected from development, preserving it for future generations both human and wild.
There’s a growing movement to protect the commons, honoring areas of our common life that need shielding from market forces. And there’s the viral world of entities like Wikipedia, owned by no one and run collectively.
Revolutionary lawyers are busy crafting new models through law—like the community interest corporation, created in UK law.14 And the low-profit, limited liability company (L3C) in the United States, intended to facilitate more social investments by foundations. In the space of only a few years, this model has been enacted or come under consideration by nearly 20 states. And there’s the notable success of the Bank of North Dakota, the only state-owned bank in the United States, which in the initial financial crisis enjoyed record profits even as private-sector banks lost billions. Its unexpected resilience has led some 14 states to begin considering legislation to create their own banks. (State banks are not privately owned, but they do represent alternative ownership focused on the common good rather than on maximizing profits.)
In Quebec and Latin America, among other places, there’s a growing movement for the solidarity economy—consisting of cooperatives and nonprofits — which in Quebec has gained formal recognition and government funding as a distinct sector of the economy.17 And a surprising number of large corporations have adopted mission-controlled designs. Among these are the foundation-owned corporations common throughout northern Europe, such as Novo Nordisk, a Danish pharmaceutical company with $11 billion in revenue, as well as Ikea, Bertelsmann, and other large companies. Also included in mission-controlled designs are family-controlled companies with a strong social mission, such as S. C. Johnson and the New York Times.
More exotic designs are also popping up, like Grameen Danone, a social business in which village women in Bangladesh sell yogurt through a joint venture between multinational yogurt maker Groupe Danone and Grameen Bank, the first microfinance lender. The enterprise is designed to improve the nutrition of the poor as it aims to pay investors a modest, 1 percent dividend.
Two pioneers in the field of emerging economic architectures have received Nobel prizes—Muhammad Yunus, who founded Grameen Bank and helped create Grameen Danone, and Elinor Ostrom of Indiana University, who studies economic governance of the commons. She and her colleagues have found communities all over the world that have spontaneously devised effective ways to govern fish stocks, pastures, forests, lakes, and groundwater basins in ways that preserve rather than harm those ecosystems.
Emerging ownership models are new members of an older family of designs that include cooperatives, employee-owned firms, and government- sponsored enterprises. In the UK, these include the John Lewis Partnership—the largest department store chain in the country—which is 100 percent owned by its employees and has an employee house of representatives in addition to a traditional board of directors.
As a class, these alternatives represent an emerging family of design. If industrial-age ownership is based on a monoculture model, emerging designs are as rich in biodiversity as a rainforest. Through studying these, grafting pieces of them together to create still more models, we just might create the greenhouse of design experimentation where the future of our economy could be grown.
These social architectures are harbingers of something profoundly new. They aren’t yet fully formed, not yet ready to serve as the framework of a new social order. But their growing profusion is a signal. It tells us that we’re entering one of the most creative periods of economic innovation since the Industrial Revolution. For what’s at work isn’t economic innovation as it’s usually meant, which is about better and better ways to make more and more money. This innovation is almost unimaginably more profound. It is a reinvention at the level of organizational purpose and structure. It is about creating economic architectures that are self-organized around serving the needs of life."
The Patterns of Life
"Extractive ownership has a Financial Purpose: maximizing profits.
Generative ownership has a Living Purpose: creating the conditions for life. While corporations today have Absentee Membership, with owners disconnected from the life of enterprise, generative ownership has Rooted Membership, with ownership held in human hands. While extractive ownership involves Governance by Markets, with control by capital markets on autopilot, generative designs have Mission-Controlled Governance, with control by those focused on social mission. While extractive investments involve Casino Finance, alternative approaches involve Stakeholder Finance, where capital becomes a friend rather than a master. Instead of Commodity Networks, where goods are traded based solely on price, generative economic relations are supported by Ethical Networks, which offer collective support for social and ecological norms. Not every ownership model has every one of these design patterns. But the more generative patterns are employed, the more effective the design.
In key ways, this book is a continuation of my previous one, The Divine Right of Capital. That book looked at the myths upholding the rights of capital, particularly the myth that wealth holders have needs that come before everyone else’s needs. It also explored principles of economic democracy. In the decade since it was published, the ownership structures of our economy—the intertwined institutions of corporations and capital markets, and the perpetual growth and rising profits they require—have contributed to unprecedented new crises, such as climate change. It no longer seems sufficient to speak of economic democracy as the solution.
A more appropriate frame of reference may be the living system of the planet. The ultimate patterns that all systems must employ are living patterns— the patterns of organization that nature has evolved to support life. Systems thinking, which arose in physics and is spreading to other disciplines, offers a robust language for speaking about living patterns and processes. It’s a language that applies equally to biological systems and social systems. Through systems thinking, we can see that the task of redesigning ownership is part of the larger task of bringing human civilization into harmony with the earth.
We know the next economy will require things like wind turbines, limits on carbon emissions, and sustainably managed forests. The questions that remain largely unanswered are about who will own these, who will control them, and who will fl ourish in the world they create. We need innovation not only in physical technologies but also in social architectures. 30 If physical technologies are about the what of the economy, social architectures are about the who: who will make economic decisions, and how, using what kinds of organizing structures? Social architectures are the blueprints of human relations, how we organize ourselves to do things. Will we continue to rely on economic architectures organized around growth and maximum income for the few? Or can we shift to new architectures organized around keeping this planet and all its inhabitants thriving? This book is a quest for answers.
Generative vs. Extractive Ownership
"These models embody a coherent school of design a common form of organization that brings the living concerns of the human and ecologi cal communities into the world of property rights and economic power. It’s an emerging archetype yet to be recognized as a single phenomenon because it has yet to have a single name. Hannah Arendt observed that a stray dog has a better chance of surviving if it’s given a name. We might try calling this a family of generative ownership designs. Together they form the foundation for a generative economy.
In their animating intent and living impact, these ownership designs are aimed at generating the conditions where all life can thrive. From the Greek ge, generative uses the same root form found in the term for Earth, Gaia, and in the words genesis and genetics. It connotes life. Generative means the carrying on of life, and generative design is about the insti tutional framework for doing so. The generative economy is one whose fundamental architecture tends to create beneficial rather than harmful outcomes. It’s a living economy that has a builtin tendency to be socially fair and ecologically sustainable.
Generative ownership designs are about generating and preserving real wealth, living wealth, rather than phantom wealth than can evaporate in the next quarter. They’re about helping families to enjoy secure homes. Creating jobs. Preserving a forest. Generating nourishment out of waste. Generating broad wellbeing.
These designs are in contrast to the dominant ownership design of today. To make the distinction clear, that design also needs a name. We might call it extractive, for its focus is maximum physical and financial extraction. Our industrialage civilization has been powered by twin processes of extraction: extracting fossil fuels from the earth and extracting financial wealth from the economy. But these two processes are not paral lel, for finance is the master force. Biophysical damage may often be the effect of the system’s action, yet extracting financial wealth is its aim. As we begin to build what economist E. F. Schumacher called an “economy of permanence” on our fragile planet, maximum financial growth will be illsuited as a guiding purpose. In generative design, we see in practical detail how a different goal can be at the core of economic activity. Generative design shows us that a transformative shift has already begun and suggests how it might be amplified."
More Information
- Majorie Kelly's earlier landmark book: The Divine Right of Capital [1]