Content uploaded by Morris Altman
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Morris Altman on Dec 17, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
International Encyclopedia of Civil Society
Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010
10.1007/978-0-387-93996-4_102
Helmut K. Anheier and Stefan Toepler
Cooperatives, History and Theories of
Morris Altman1
(1) School of Economics and Finance, Victoria University of Wellington, Wellington, New!Zealand
Morris Altman
Email: morris.altman@usask.ca
Without Abstract
Introduction
Cooperatives have evolved significantly over the last 200 years and are of increasing importance to
economies and societies throughout the world irrespective of their level of socioeconomic
development. Yet, cooperatives, generally speaking, are peripheral to contemporary scholarly
analyses. Moreover, they are treated as inefficient and relatively ineffective organizational types
whose presence is typically transient and of some importance in times of crises and to marginal
socioeconomic participants. Even those with a sympathetic eye consider cooperatives to be of
marginal importance. It is therefore of some consequence to discuss the significance of cooperatives
over historical time and the extent to which they are actually both efficient and effective
economically and socially.
Contemporary economic theory has played an effective role in the cooperative (Hill, 2000; Kalmi,
2007). Nevertheless, alternative theoretical lenses provide insight into the cooperative advantage in
different economic sectors and why this advantage is not always realized or exploited. In fact, the
evidence is overwhelming that cooperatives can be potentially much more economically efficient
than their noncooperative counterparts and can represent important dynamic components of
contemporary competitive market economies (Altman, 2006; Bonin et al., 1993; Dow, 2003;
Doucouliagos, 1995).
Definition
In general, a cooperative comprises a voluntary network of individuals who own or control a
business that distributes benefits on the basis of use or ownership where ownership is largely
weighted equally across individual members. Benefits are generated by, for example, a share of
surplus or profits, improved working conditions and benefits, lower prices, higher quality of product,
product type and variety that better serve members’ preferences, and better access to credit. Members
control the cooperative on the basis of one member, one vote, with a guaranteed platform to exercise
voice. Members invest in the cooperative and thus have a financial stake in the organization. Unlike
the typical private business, in the cooperative financial risk is more narrowly distributed amongst
users or workers, whereas in the private business, ownership and financial risk need not fall on the
shoulders of users or workers. In some jurisdictions, the risks to cooperative owners are restricted by
limited liability protection afforded by the law.
There are various types of cooperatives which dominate, least important of which, quantitatively at
least, is the workers’ cooperative (see Cropp, 2005; Emelianoff, 1948). It is only in the workers’
cooperative, however, that the overall position of the worker is definitively different from what exists
in the traditional private sector firm. However, in the emerging multi-stakeholder cooperative it is
possible for the nonworkers’ cooperative to incorporate significant components of the substance of
the workers’ cooperatives into their corpus (see below).
Workers’ cooperative
Such a cooperative is owned and controlled by the workers through the standard one member, one
vote platform. Many such cooperatives are run, on a day-to-day basis, by managers and a board of
directors. But worker-owners have the ultimate say as to how the firm is managed over the long term
and are characterized by a much less hierarchical system of management than the standard narrowly
owned firm. Workers’ cooperatives are configured to meet the interest of workers first, as opposed to
maximizing profits or share values in the short run. Maintaining and growing employment is often a
binding constraint of a workers’ cooperative. Profits or surplus can be disbursed across members,
based on memberships or hours worked, or invested in to grow the firm or to make it more
competitive. Like traditional firms, workers’ cooperatives must be concerned with their production
costs if they are to survive and flourish in the marketplace. Workers’ cooperatives are found largely
in the processing and service sectors, albeit manufacturing is not unimportant.
Consumer cooperative
This is the most important type of cooperative in terms of membership. Consumer cooperatives are
sometimes referred to as retail cooperatives. Such cooperatives are quite important in the retailing of
food and clothing. Members own the cooperatives and control them through the one member, one
vote platform. However, day–day management can and often does take place as it would in
traditional firms, and management can be quite hierarchical in structure, especially when the
cooperative is large. In addition, management–labor relations are often similar to those in the
traditional firm. In theory, a key distinguishing feature of consumer cooperatives is that they should
be configured to best meet the preferences of their member-owners in terms of product type, quality,
and price. Moreover, the objective of the cooperative is not to maximize the difference between unit
cost and price, but rather to charge the lowest price possible, given quality and the investment
requirements of the cooperative. But consumer cooperatives typically charge the market price for
their product. However, any surplus accrued is supposed to be directed toward investment purposes,
disbursed amongst members, or invested in socially beneficial projects as decided upon by members
(typically by management). It is important to reiterate that a key difference between a traditional
retailer and the cooperative is the overriding importance of the member-owner and the fact that in a
cooperative ownership is weighted on the basis of the individual. Thus, no one individual can have a
greater ownership or membership share than another. Additionally, consumer cooperatives,
especially the smaller ones, have been established in localities and product lines where private
retailers have deemed it too risky and unprofitable. When consumer cooperatives have better
information on preferences and markets, given asymmetric information, they can survive and even
prosper in domains where the traditional retailer cannot.
Credit union
A credit union is a type of consumer cooperative that specializes in the money market and it is, along
with the food and clothing retail cooperative, among the largest in terms of membership. A credit
union is owned and controlled on the base of one person, one vote, and is typically locally owned.
But the credit union is managed on a day-to-day basis by an elected board and professional
managers. In additional, management–labor relation can and often maps that of the traditional
financial institution. Credit unions initially developed to provide financial resources to individuals
and firms that found it difficult to secure these in the traditional financial sector. Credit unions have
evolved into financial institutions that cater the needs of individuals across all income levels and
firms of different sizes. This allows credit unions to spread the risk of their financial portfolios. In
addition, contemporary local credit unions are often part of regional and national credit unions
networks, allowing them and their members to take advantage of economies of scale and scope as
can traditional financial institutions. A key distinguishing feature of a credit union is the capacity of
members to determine the direction of its local credit union. Profits or surplus income can be
disbursed to members, invested in the firm, or in social projects. Moreover, the credit union has the
capacity to exploit local knowledge (asymmetric information) so as to serve individuals and firms
and their particular needs which traditional financial institutions find too risky. But just like
traditional financial institutions, credit unions must be carefully managed otherwise a sufficient
number of bad loans can force a credit union into bankruptcy.
Supply and purchasing cooperative
This type of cooperative is quite important in agriculture where farmers establish a cooperative to
obtain goods and services required for their business or for personal use at lower prices than would
be possible if they were to go it alone. Thus farmers can take advantage of economies of scale and
scope that are afforded to larger corporate farms. But the management of such a cooperative can
mimic that of the traditional firm.
Marketing cooperative
This type of cooperative aligns the interests of producers with regard to marketing output to retailers
or wholesalers. A marketing cooperative can also store, process, and package output prior sale. This
allows farmers, for example, to take advantage of economies of scale and scope in storage and
production, increasing their net income over what it might otherwise be. It also serves to increase the
bargaining and marketing power of farmers. In addition, a marketing cooperative can help stabilize
farmers’ income through its inventory capacity, providing farmers with a relatively stable income as
marketing prices fluctuate. As with other cooperatives, a marketing cooperative must pay attention to
efficiency considerations as well as maintaining the flexibility to vary the prices paid and surplus
(and loses) disbursed to member farmers as markets restructure over time. Otherwise, it risks
bankruptcy.
New generation cooperative
This type of cooperative is also referred to as a value-added or new wave cooperative, although
cooperatives of old typically added value to their output. The express purpose of this cooperative is
to transform raw material inputs into processed output, such as cranberries into juice or wheat into
flour. Typically found in agriculture, farmers are owner-members who supply the raw material for
processing, hoping to reap additional net income from value-added activities. Like traditional
cooperatives, the new generation cooperative, is owner-member-controlled. But unlike most
traditional cooperatives, the new wave cooperative’s membership is restricted to those with the
means and the willingness to provide substantial equity capital. This provides the cooperative with
the necessary finances to build a competitive value-added enterprise and provide those with an equity
stake in the cooperative with shares (typically) in proportion to the equity supplied. The farmer is
obliged and has the right to supply the cooperative on the basis of share value. And shares can be
sold at market value, which can be greater or less than the purchase or equity price, when the farmer
or other supplier wishes to dissociate himself or herself from the cooperative.
Multi-stakeholder cooperative
This cooperative has two or more groups of members that may include workers, consumers,
producers, investors, community, and/or government. Such a cooperative has the potential of
aggregating the interests of different individuals and groups of individuals within one cooperative
thereby making them all stakeholders of a particular cooperative. For example, a consumer
cooperative, by provided a membership and ownership stake to workers, transforms a traditional
consumer cooperative to one where workers’ interests gain significant representation. The consumer
cooperative develops characteristics of a workers’ cooperative. This can have significant efficiency
benefits to the cooperative. Any cooperative that brings in government, community, or private sector
representation strengthens the stakeholder and knowledge base of the cooperative as well as
spreading risks without the core cooperative members losing control.
Social cooperative
This is a particular type of multi-stakeholder cooperative that brings together providers and users of
social services such as day care, health services, housing, and job training. It provides services that
private sector firms will not or cannot provide. Such cooperatives often survive on the basis of
subsidies, donations, and voluntary labor. But very often, noncooperative providers of these services
survive on the basis of government support as well.
Historical Background
The Rochdale Principles
The cooperative movement is strictly defined and relates very closely to democratic forms of
governance with regard to members. The cooperative is not simply a group of individuals who
cooperate in particular economic activities. For cooperation of this type can take place under
coercive forms of governance, ranging from serfdom to slavery to the state-sponsored collectives of
Communist China, the Soviet Union, and Cuba. Wage labor in a democratic society also requires
cooperation amongst the economic actors. But a cooperative requires much more than mere
cooperation, even when the latter is relatively freely undertaken.
The modern cooperative movement aspires to a set of principles first clearly and coherently
articulated by members of the Rochdale consumer cooperative, founded by 28 weavers in Rochdale,
England, at a time when worker and consumer rights were relatively limited. Consumer cooperatives
received legal sanction in England only in 1852. The original Rochdale Principles defining
cooperative organizations are (Birchall, 1997; International Co-operative Alliance, 2008;
MacPherson, 1996: Thompson, 1994):
1. Democratic control (one member, one vote)
2. Open membership
3. Limited interest on capital
4. Distribution of surplus in proportion to a member’s contribution to the society
5. Cash trading only (no use of credit)
6. Providing for the education of members in cooperative principles
7. Political and religious neutrality
For the International Co-operative Alliance (ICA), the official governing body of cooperatives, the
following four of the Rochdale principles are central to the governance of member organizations:
1. Open membership
2. Democratic control (one member, one vote)
3. Distribution of the surplus to the members in proportion to their transactions
4. Limited interest on capital
The following three principles are deemed important and necessary to membership in the ICA:
1. Political and religious neutrality
2. Cash trading only
3. Promotion of education
The fact of the matter is that many cooperatives have very clear political and religious agendas. Most
use credit as a means of sale. The latter is critical in contemporary market economies and is often the
preferred means of payment. Also, a plethora of cooperatives invest little in the domain of education.
Kibbutzim and Mondragon Cooperatives
Two important examples of national cooperative movements are the Kibbutzim of Israel (first
established in 1910) and the Mondragon Cooperative Association founded in the Basque country of
Spain in the 1950s. The Kibbutz Movement of Israel is the largest cooperative grouping in the world.
By the end of the twentieth century there were 270 of these collective settlements with a population
of 120,000. These settlements are community owned and run and represent a mélange of worker,
consumer, producer, and financial cooperatives. Initially, largely agricultural in orientation,
manufacturing, and tourism now plays a significant role in the Kibbutz economy as Kibbutzim adjust
to increasing competitive pressures. Most cooperative settlements are small (they vary from about 50
to over 2,000), but there is significant cooperation amongst these (Communal Studies Association,
2008; Avrahami, 2002).
The Modragon Cooperative Association of Spain is comprised of over 160 companies operating in
manufacturing, distribution, and finance. Member companies employed almost 80,000 people and
the Modragon group of companies was the seventh largest in Spain in 2006. But at least 20% of
Modragon’s employees are nonmembers (Mondragon Corporacion Cooperativa, 2006; Whyte,
1991). The Kibbutz movement also now employs a large number of nonmembers. For the
Kibbutzim, this has been to a large extent fueled by severe labor shortages – the inability to attract an
adequate supply of labor to meet ongoing demand. Both of these long-standing cooperative
movements thus employ many individuals to whom the principles of the cooperative movement do
not necessarily apply. Both these movements have had to adjust to ever-changing and increasing
market pressure, meeting with much success.
Key Issues
Economics and Cooperatives
Contemporary economic theory pays little heed to the cooperative, especially worker and consumer
cooperatives. Whereas, supply and marketing cooperatives are treated as contributors to
monopolistic pricing, therefore contributing to economic inefficiency (allocative inefficiency) and the
misallocation of resources. At best, cooperatives as an organizational type are looked upon as a
possible solution to economic dilemmas faced by the economically marginalized members of society.
The cooperative is not regarded as a source of economic efficiency and possible contributor to
material welfare (Bonin et al., 1993; Dow, 2003; Hill, 2000; Kalmi, 2007). This is a product of the
behavioral assumptions embedded in the theory.
Although cooperatives are not dominant, their quantitative importance in most countries in both
marginal and mainstream sectors, and their profitability and relatively high levels of productivity
compared to their privately owned counterparts suggest that cooperative economic organizations
must be doing something right to have maintained a significant presence in an increasingly
competitive global economy. On the other hand, it is important to understand why cooperatives are
not dominant if they are economically efficient.
Theory and Workers’ Cooperatives
How does one explain the economic success of workers’ cooperatives? Conventional theory assumes
that no such success is possible given that cooperatives are not obliged to invest profits (focusing on
employment and workers’ income) and are too egalitarian to generate economically efficient
incentives and to engage the employment of superior management. But there exists a cooperative
advantage in the workers’ cooperative that lies in its capacity to increase the quantity and quality of
effort inputs into the “production process,” thereby producing higher levels of output and a superior
quality of output (Altman, 2002, 2006; McCain, 2008). This can also be referred to as the x-
efficiency effect (Altman, 2001; Leibenstein, 1966) of cooperative organization. In the cooperative,
worker-owners and owner managers have the incentive to work harder and smarter – a possibility
assumed in the traditional modeling of the firm. Conventional theory assumes that the manner in
which a firm is organized does not impact the extent of x-efficiency. Moreover, where workers’
cooperatives focus on improving benefits and working conditions whilst maintaining and even
growing employment they are incentivized into adopting and developing technologies that make
them competitive. Workers’ cooperatives can, therefore, be more costly to operate than traditional
firms, especially low-wage traditional firms, but they can also be much more productive, such that
their unit costs and profits can be the same as that of the traditional firm.
The cooperative productivity advantage countervails the increased costs of operating the cooperative.
Thus in the worker’s cooperatives workers would be much better of without their benefits causing
their firm to become uncompetitive. Workers’ cooperatives can yield competitive outcomes without
driving out of the market noncooperative traditional firms. Such workers’ cooperative can function
and prosper in mainstream economic sectors, even in highly competitive environments. Moreover,
when workers are also owners, there is much less incentive for workers to quit. Reducing quit rates
and thus turnover rates increases labor productivity and reduces production costs by maintaining the
most productive workers and reducing average training costs. Overall, workers’ cooperatives can
generate higher levels of material welfare than the traditional firm.
This argument is illustrated in Fig. 1 (based on Altman, 2001, 2002, 2006). As traditional analysis
would have it, workers’ cooperatives incur higher costs (such as higher levels of labor benefits) and
this yields higher unit or average production costs. This is given by line segment am which relates
increasing cooperative-related costs to average production costs. In the traditional model, increasing
labor benefits, for example, has no impact on labor productivity. More realistically, in a more
democratic firm wherein labor benefits also increase, labor productivity increases, illustrated by ahi.
Therefore, in the cooperative firm, the level of x-efficiency increases as incentives improve. The
cooperative firm induces firm members into becoming more productive. To the extent that such
productivity increases offsets the increased cooperative-associated costs, average or unit production
costs need not change as labor costs increase, illustrated by line segment ag. Eventually, the level of
x-efficiency cannot be sufficiently increased to offset increasing labor costs, at points b and h,
yielding increased average costs. This induces technological change, illustrated by a shift in the cost
curve from agc to agd, which serves to further offset cooperative-related costs when x-efficiency is at
a maximum. Lower wage and higher turnover traditional firms need not be more competitive than
cooperative firms and the more productive cooperative firms need not have the capacity to drive out
the less productive traditional firms. Given the superior incentive system of the workers’ cooperative
there is no good theoretical reason to presume that workers’ cooperatives cannot be both competitive
on the margin and prosperous. On the other hand, this does not imply that workers’ cooperatives can
be expected to dominate the economy.
Cooperatives, History and Theories of. Fig. 1 Unit production costs and x-efficiency.
The workers’ cooperative represents only one “extreme” alternative to hierarchical organizational
types. Privately owned participatory firms (which allows for some workers’ ownership of firm assets
and effective voice) represent another alternative; one where workers need not risk their capital nor
bear the risks entailed in ownership (Altman, 2002; Gordon, 1998). Also, they need not invest the
time and effort that might be required at the management and corporate decision-making levels in a
workers’ cooperative. This firm type overlaps with the multi-stakeholder cooperative. Given the
possibility and option of a privately owned participatory firm, many workers might choose the latter.
Moreover, workers might choose traditional hierarchical firms given the risks and effort required to
establish and maintain a workers’ cooperative. Also, establishing workers’ cooperatives can be
problematic if financing is difficult to come by given that financiers have limited say on corporate
governance in traditional cooperatives. This constraint can be obviated in multi-stakeholder
cooperatives. In addition, establishing workers’ cooperatives suffers from coordination problems – it
is difficult and costly to coordinate the efforts of individuals to establish a cooperative. This issue is
somewhat mitigated by regional and national cooperative federations. Finally, misinformation about
the design and operation of workers’ cooperatives can negatively affect preferences for cooperatives.
For these reasons, workers’ cooperatives are often established in the wake of crises wherein the
traditional firm is on the verge of closure. In the absence of a workers’ cooperative unemployment,
the breakdown of social networks and less preferred jobs becomes the default. Such cooperatives can
succeed if the new incentive environment increases productivity and encourages technological
change wherein the traditional firm was economically inefficient and resistant to improved
technology. Cooperatives can also survive on the basis of low wages, where worker-owners willingly
sacrifice material benefits so as to remain competitive and thereby secure their employment.
Competing on this basis in the short run provides such a cooperative with the capacity to search for
efficiencies in production that will allow it to compete on the basis of higher wages and improved
working conditions in the longer term. Such a capacity does not typically exist in the traditional
hierarchical firm given mistrust, asymmetric information, and different preferences between workers,
owners, and managers.
Consumer Cooperatives
Establishing consumer cooperatives and other types of nonworkers’ cooperatives face some of the
same constraints as do workers’ cooperatives, but not those related to the risks and time that workers
must absorb to establish and operate a workers’ cooperative. However, consumer cooperatives have
met with considerable success. But they need not be organized in terms of nonhierarchical forms of
management and can remain competitive on the basis of low wages and poor working conditions,
matching the immediate labor costs of their noncooperative counterparts. In this case consumer
cooperatives need not generate superior material welfare outcomes for its workforce, although they
should generate material welfare gains to coop members in terms of price and quality and product
type. However, through multi-stakeholder organizational setups, consumer cooperatives can overlap
with more democratic and less hierarchical working environments, yielding both pecuniary and
nonpecuniary benefits to their workforce.
The cooperative advantage of consumer cooperatives lies in its capacity to better meet the
preferences of their members than privately owned concerns, thus enhancing members’ welfare. For
example, the cooperative might be better able to supply member consumers with the right product
mix and quality and, in relatively noncompetitive markets where consumers have little bargaining
power; provide preferred bundles of goods and services at lower prices; it might be able to overcome
information asymmetries in the credit market providing loans to individuals unable secure such loans
from private banks; and it might be able to secure higher prices for members of marketing
cooperatives by improving their bargaining power relative to purchasing conglomerates with well-
established bargaining power.
Even when consumer cooperatives can do no better than privately owned concerns in terms of
commodity supply and price, they can enhance members’ welfare if the cooperative generates a sense
of belonging or community (social cohesion) amongst members (Fairbairn, 2003). However, such
social cohesion and sense of identity with the coop provides the cooperative with the “protection”
from market forces allowing it to charge higher prices and supply lower quality products. Member-
owners might be willing to pay higher prices, up to a point, simply because a product is sold by their
cooperative. But such behavior would undermine the economic and social viability of the
cooperative. Nevertheless, there is nothing intrinsic in the cooperative organizational type that
implies that this must be the case. Cooperatives can produce and supply quality goods and services at
competitive prices. Also, the extent of social cohesion can diminish when consumer cooperatives
increase in membership. Each member has less power and voice and more difficulty in having an
affect on the decision-making process and outcomes. Less social cohesion and related sense of
belonging can undermine the membership base of the cooperative. And the cooperatives success then
becomes a function of its capacity to compete with traditional producers and suppliers.
International Perspectives
There exist no precise estimates on the importance of cooperatives in the new millennium
(International Co-operative Alliance, 2008; Kalmi, 2007; Global300.coop, 2007; United Nations
2005, 2008a, b). But the United Nations guesstimates that the “cooperative movement” had over 800
million members at the beginning of the new millennium and provided for about 100 million jobs. In
addition, over the last 150 years cooperatives have spread to over 100 countries. Cooperatives are of
importance in both developed and less developed economies. Moreover, cooperatives are of
significance in both the more free market-oriented economies, such as Canada, the United Kingdom,
and the United States, and the more statist market economies of Continental Europe.
About half of the world’s agricultural output is marketed by cooperatives, which speaks to the
significance of marketing cooperatives. Overall, it is in the agricultural sector that cooperatives of
various types remain dominant. In the financial sector, credit unions encompass about 120 million
members in 87 countries. Especially in poor countries, cooperatives provide important micro-credit
services. Consumer cooperatives continue to play an important role worldwide, with its importance
varying across countries. Health care cooperatives service about 100 million people in over 50
countries. Electricity provisioning cooperatives have become important. For example, in the United
States, such cooperatives service over 30 million people. Least important in terms of quantitative
significance are workers’ cooperatives. Only a small percentage of the 100 million individuals
employed by cooperatives are controlled by the workers themselves. Thus, consumer, producer, or
financial cooperatives need not be managed in a manner that benefits employees where the latter’s
(nonmembers’) interest conflicts with that of cooperative member-owners.
The International Co-operative Alliance (ICA), the formal governing body of cooperatives, referring
to the United Nations, also maintains that cooperatives made secure the livelihood of approximately
three billion people across the globe or about half of the world’s population. But this reference is
quite nebulous in meaning, but suggests indirect economic importance of cooperatives through its
multiple linkages. Survey evidence strongly supports the view that cooperatives serve to reduce
poverty amongst cooperative members as well as amongst nonmembers and the same can be said
with regard to reducing gender inequality. The evidence also suggests that cooperatives can provide a
means of generating income and wealth well above any particular measures of poverty.
Future Directions
Overall, the cooperative solution can produce higher socioeconomic welfare levels to members
whilst also overcoming significant market failures. In other words, cooperatives and cooperative type
organizations can have large positive effects on the economy while at the same time generating
significant improvements to the social and spiritual well-being of members. The nonmaterial and
economic benefits are dialectically and positively related. This reality is marginalized in much of the
conventional literature. To some extent, whether cooperative solutions are adopted depends upon the
preferences of individuals given that cooperatives can be competitive even in extremely competitive
environments. Not all workers prefer pure cooperatives. Not all consumers choose consumer
cooperatives. Nevertheless, preferences for cooperatives need not be met as a consequence of the
dearth of financial resources and organizational capacity. These constraints can be overcome through
cooperative networks, credit unions, multi-stakeholder cooperatives, and facilitating legal
environments. Market forces, no matter how powerful, do not require and cannot force
noncooperative solutions to socioeconomic problems. Competitive markets and cooperative
organizational forms are all quite compatible. Ceteris paribus, the case can be made that a world
without cooperatives is, at a minimum, one that is poorer.
Cooperatives have been forced to engage in dramatic changes in terms of organization, production,
and markets over historical time. Much success has been achieved as is exemplified by the overall
global importance of this democratic organizational type. New forms of cooperatives have been
developed where the core value is democratic governance by member-owners; where ownership still
adheres to the one person, one vote protocol. But cooperative values as articulated in the Rochdale
Principles can become less salient as the cooperative grows and the voice of each individual member
becomes less effective. Local control becomes critical to maintaining effective voice and social
cohesion within the cooperative. Also, democratic governance excludes employees in most
cooperatives. A significant iteration of the cooperative is the democratic privately owned firm.
Another is the multi-stakeholder cooperative, which strengthens any particular type of cooperative by
providing effective voice to individuals and groups who contribute or who can potentially contribute
substantively to the cooperative viability and prosperity. One vital lesson gleaned from the history of
cooperatives is that democratic governance within the firm can contribute significantly to
socioeconomic well-being.
Cross-References
Associative Democracy
Civic Agency
Civic Culture
Civic Participation
Civil Society and Democracy
Civil society, Definitions of and Approaches
Community Development
Cooperatives and Employee Ownership
Credit Unions
Freedom of Association
Governance, Organizational
Grameen Bank
International Cooperative Alliance (ICA)
Proudhon, Pierre
Reciprocity
Rochdale Society of Equitable Pioneers
Social Accounting for Social Economy Organizations
Social Cohesion
Social Economy
Social Entrepreneurship
Social Investment
Theories of Nonprofit Organization, Economic
References/Further Readings
Altman, M. (2001). Worker satisfaction and economic performance. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
Altman, M. (2002). Economic theory, public policy and the challenge of innovative work practices. Economic &
Industrial Democracy: An International Journal, 23, 271–290.
Altman, M. (2005). Reconciling altruistic, moralistic, and ethical behavior with the rational economic agent and
competitive markets. Journal of Economic Psychology, 26, 732–757.
Altman, M. (2006). Workers cooperatives as an alternative competitive organizational form. Advances in the
Economic Analysis of Participatory & Labor-Managed Firms, 9, 213–235.
Avrahami, E. (2002). The changing kibbutz, from http://www.kibbutz.org.il/eng/; 08/05/2008.
Birchall, J. (1997). The international co-operative movement. Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press.
Ben-Nur, A., & Jones, D. (1995). Employee participation, ownership, and productivity: A theoretical framework.
Industrial Relations, 34, 532–554.
Bonin, J.!P., Jones, D.!C., & Putterman, L. (1993). Theoretical and empirical studies of producer cooperatives:
Will ever the twain meet? Journal of Economic Literature, 31, 1290–1320.
Communal Studies Association (2008). The kibbutz movement, From http://www.ic.org/icsa/kibbutz.html;
08/05/2008.
Cropp, R. (2005). A glossary for cooperatives. Bulletin no. 10. University of Wisconsin, Centre for the Study of
Cooperatives, from www.wisc.edu/uwcc; 08/05/2008.
Doucouliagos, C. (1995). Worker participation and productivity in labor-managed and participatory capitalist
firms: A meta-analysis. Industrial & Labor Relations Review, 49, 58–77.
Dow, G. (2003). Governing the firm: Workers’ control in theory and practice. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Ellerman, D. (2005). Helping people help themselves: From the world bank to an alternative philosophy of
development assistance. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Emelianoff, I. V. (1948). Economic theory of cooperation: Economic structure of cooperative organizations.
Reprinted by the Center for Cooperatives, University of California, 1995, from
http://www.cooperatives.ucdavis.edu/reports/index.htm; 08/05/2008.
Fairbairn, B. (2003). Three strategic concepts for the guidance of co-operatives linkage, transparency, and
cognition. Saskatoon, Canada: Centre for the Study of Co-operatives, University of Saskatchewan.
Freeman, R.!B., & Rogers, J. (1999). What workers want. Ithaca, NY/London: Cornell University Press/ILR
Press.
Global300.coop (2007). International co-operative alliance, global 300 list, from http://www.global300.coop/en.
Gordon, D.!M. (1998). Conflict and cooperation: An empirical glimpse of the imperatives of efficiency and
redistribution. In E.!O. Wright (Ed.), Recasting egalitarianism: New rules for communities, states and markets
(pp. 181–207). London/New York: Verso.
Gulati, G.!M., Isaac, T.!M., & Klein, W.!A. (2002). When a workers’ cooperative works: The case of Kerala Dinesh
Beedi. UCLA Law Review, 49, 1417–1454.
Hill, R. (2000). The case of missing organizations: Co-operatives and the textbooks. Journal of Economic
Education, 31, 281–295.
International Co-operative Alliance (2008). What is a co-operative? from
http://www.ica.coop/coop/index.html#difference; 08/05/2008.
Kalmi, P. (2007). The disappearance of cooperatives from economics textbooks. Cambridge Journal of
Economics, 31, 625–647.
Leibenstein, H. (1966). Allocative efficiency vs. “x-efficiency.” American Economic Review, 56, 392–415.
MacPherson, I. (1996). Co-operative principles for the 21st century. Geneva: International Cooperative Alliance.
McCain, R. A. (2008). Cooperative games and cooperative organizations. Journal of Socio-Economics,
doi:10.1016/j.socec.2008.02.010.
Mondragon Corporacion Cooperativa (2006). The history of an experience, from
http://www.mcc.es/ing/quienessomos/historia.html; 08/05/2008.
Prychitko, D.!L., & Vanek, J. (Eds.) (1996). Producer cooperatives and labor-managed systems (Vols. 1 & 2).
Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
Rural Cooperatives Center, University of California, Davis (2008). What is a co-op?, from
http://www.cooperatives.ucdavis.edu/whatis/index.htm; 08/05/2008.
Spear, R. (2000). The co-operative advantage. Annals of Co-operative & Public Economics, 71, 501–523.
Thompson, D. (1994). Co-operative principles then and now. Co-operative Grocer, 53, from
http://www.cooperativegrocer.coop/articles/index.php?id = 158; 08/05/2008.
Tomer, J.!F. (2001). Understanding high-performance work systems: The joint contribution of economics and
human resource management. Journal of Socio-Economics, 30, 63–73.
United Nations (2005). Cooperatives in social development: Report of the Secretary-General, from
http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/social/cooperatives/coop_docs.html; 08/05/2008.
United Nations (2008a). Cooperatives and social development, from
http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/social/cooperatives/; 08/05/2008.
United Nations (2008b). Cooperatives at work, from
http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/social/cooperatives/coop_docs.html; 08/05/2008.
Ward, B. (1958). The firm in Illyria: Market syndicalism. American Economic Review, 48, 566–589.
Whyte, W. (1991). Making mondragon: The growth and dynamics of the worker cooperative complex. Ithaca,
NY: Cornell University Press.
Zeuli, K. (2004). The evolution of the cooperative model. In C.!D. Merritt!& N. Walzer (Eds.), Cooperatives and
local development: Theory and applications for the 21st century (pp. 52–69). Armonk, NY/London/England: M.
E. Sharpe.
