Guyana and the cooperative movement

Keith Scott

A cursory examination of global statistics pertaining to the international cooperative movement reveals an interesting picture regarding the popularity of cooperatives, the involvement of people therein and the impact of cooperatives on the global economy. Facts and figures provided by 122-year old International Cooperative Alliance (ICA) indicate that “one in every six people are cooperators of any of the 3 million cooperatives on earth.” The ICA further states that “co-operatives employ 10% of the employed   population and generate 2.1 trillion USD in turnover while providing the services and infrastructure society needs to thrive.” No less significant are the assortment of noble motives which the ICA ascribes to the cooperative including their role as “enterprises based on ethics, values and principles that put the needs and aspirations of their members above the simple goal of maximizing profit” as well as utilizing the tools of “self-help and empowerment……and concern for the well-being of people” to nurture “a long-term vision for sustainable economic growth, social development and environmental responsibility.”

 The ICA says, further, that “as member-owned, member-run and member-serving businesses, cooperatives empower people to collectively realize their economic aspirations, while strengthening their social and human capital and developing their communities.” There is more. “Cooperatives,” the ICA further says, contribute to sustainable economic growth and stable, quality employment, employing 280 million people across the globe, in other words 10% of the world’s employed population.

  According to the ICA’s statistics, “more than 1.2 billion cooperative members (amounting to around one in every six people on the planet) are part of any of the three million co-operatives in the world!” Nor are these, the ICA says, micro ‘hustles’ comprising handfuls of people simply pursuing subsistence-driven economic option. Apart from being “strong and healthy,” “the Top 300 cooperatives and mutuals report a total turnover of 2,1 trillion USD, according to the World Co-operative Monitor (2017).” The ICA itself is one of the largest non-governmental organizations in the world, directly representing, it says, 700 million individuals in 105 countries.

 All of this provides an impressive image-enhancing story for the global cooperative movement though information provided by the ICA itself underlines the adage that all that glitters is decidedly not gold. It is not without significance, for example, that the countries with the largest number of members represented by the Alliance – the United States, Japan, India, Iran, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Germany, and Canada – are, for the most part, countries with middle income or advanced economies. What this means, in effect, is that successful cooperatives are customarily associated with developed or at least middle income countries which are e more likely than poorer  countries to have access to the human resources and (increasingly, these days) the technological tools that can contribute to the creation and growth of successful cooperatives.

 It is, for example, hardly accidental that numbered highest on the list of the Top 300 co-operatives in the world in 2017 are the French banking group Crédit Agricole and Kaiser Permanente and State Farm, two  highly successful US- based insurance businesses. No less interesting is the fact that the world’s top 300 cooperatives operate in some of the world’s most lucrative business sectors ( sectors in which they possess a considerable competitive advantage) including insurance (41%), agriculture (30%), wholesale and retail (19%), and banking and finance (6%). Again, the point should be made that these sectors have all met with significant success in developed countries. 

 All of this is simply to make the point regarding the ‘two different worlds’ phenomenon that characterizes the global cooperative movement. On the one hand there is the cooperative movement characterized by highly developed enterprises managed along the lines of orthodox business models, concerned with the maximization of returns and located, mostly in developed, high-skill countries; on the other there are those cooperatives that have their origins in groups of poorer or lower middle class countries who development have their origins in the needs of their mostly less than well-off members and who, in many instances, lack both the management and specific technical skills and organizational tools that are critical to the development of entrepreneurial ventures, whether those be conventional business enterprises or cooperatives.

Here in Guyana not even the state-run oversight machinery can honestly deny that, for the most part, cooperatives have been synonymous with  competence deficits and consequential mismanagement and corrupt practices,  which, one suspects, is precisely the reason why the Ministry of Social Protection, the state agency responsible for overseeing cooperatives is yet to make public a progress report (or any reliable information, for that matter) on the state of the cooperative movement in Guyana that includes individual performance updates on cooperatives. Nor, for that matter, has there been anything further placed in the public domain on the issue following last year’s undertaking by the inister responsible for Cooperatives Keith Scott regarding a $12 million government investment in four “model cooperative societies” in Buxton, Itacha, BV-Triumph and Mocha-Arcadia and targeted to create 160 jobs. Some of the questions that arise here include whether a state-funded initiative can be considered a cooperative in the truest sense of the concept and whether such a ‘cooperative’ is not likely to be overseen/run by the subject Ministry rather than by the cooperators, whomsoever those might be. The other question that arises has to do with whether the state over-bureaucratization of the cooperative movement does not cause it to appear as though, rather than derive from the will of ‘the people’ it is government that is pushing many of these cooperati9ve ventures.

Public undertakings are frequently not attended by corresponding action. It has been much the same, with the cooperative movement. Several months ago the Minister (Scott) was quoted as saying that “the Cooperative Movement is destined to be a beacon of hope for economic development of our nation,” a pronouncement which, so out of touch with reality.  It was the same with the pronouncement in the Minister’s year-end review to the effect that last year marked something of a resurgence for the cooperative movement. Little if any concrete evidence attended the assertion. The Ministry of Social Protection has not released the 2017 Report of the Ministerial Task Force titled Revitalization of the Cooperative Movement which, we are told, seeks to probe the problem of non-functioning cooperatives. We are not being told the reason why.

 Arguably, one indication of a likely decline in the local appetite for the cooperative reposes in the emergence of a surfeit of conventional business ventures in sectors such as agro – processing, food vending, small and medium-scale farming and transport services. The sectors once considered to be ideally suited to the cooperative model. The apprehension —— the cooperative as a ‘business model’ derives not only from the disappointing outcomes that have manifested themselves but also from the failure of the cooperative movement as a whole to significantly correct its failings and move on. 

Around the Web

Comments