Critical Social Policy‘ΝΑΚ274... · · 2012-02-29neoliberalism* Roll-back neoliberalism:...

http://csp.sagepub.com/Critical Social Policy

http://csp.sagepub.com/content/31/2/308The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/0261018310396040

2011 31: 308 originally published online 9 February 2011Critical Social PolicySean Connelly, Sean Markey and Mark Roseland

transformation through local food initiativesBridging sustainability and the social economy: Achieving community

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

can be found at:Critical Social PolicyAdditional services and information for

http://csp.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://csp.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://csp.sagepub.com/content/31/2/308.refs.htmlCitations:

What is This?

- Feb 9, 2011 OnlineFirst Version of Record

- Apr 13, 2011Version of Record >>

at University of Crete on February 28, 2012csp.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://csp.sagepub.com/

http://csp.sagepub.com/content/31/2/308

http://www.sagepublications.com

http://csp.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

http://csp.sagepub.com/subscriptions

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

http://csp.sagepub.com/content/31/2/308.refs.html

http://csp.sagepub.com/content/31/2/308.full.pdf

http://csp.sagepub.com/content/early/2011/02/08/0261018310396040.full.pdf

http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtml


© The Author(s), 2011. Reprints and permissions: http://www.sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.navCritical Social Policy, 0261-0183 101; Vol. 31(2): 308–324; 396040 10.1177/0261018310396040http://csp.sagepub.com

S E A N C O N N E L L Y , S E A N M A R K E Y & M A R K R O S E L A N D

Simon Fraser University

Bridging sustainability and the social economy: Achieving community transformation through local food initiatives

AbstractSustainability and the social economy are two approaches that provide critiques of mainstream economic growth based on the failure to integrate environmental and social concerns. This article explores the potential for community transformation by bridging these two approaches – bringing more environmental considerations into the social economy and using the social economy to advance equity concerns within sustainability. We examine this potential through local food initiatives in two Canadian cities that are striving to create a synthesis of social and environmental objectives to achieve structural change in the way that food is produced, accessed and consumed. Both projects are founded on commitments to sustainable community development and social justice. While the initiatives illustrate the potential for community transformation by integrating sustainability and the social economy, they also illustrate the challenges associated with an incremental approach to change in the con-text of competition with mainstream economic activities that are heavily subsidized and do not account for negative social, economic and environ-mental externalities.

Key words: local food systems, social justice, sustainable community development

Introduction

Peak oil, global climate change, increasing social exclusion, rising inequality – the list of crises from local to global continues to grow.



C O N N E L LY E T A L . — L O C A L F O O D I N I T I A T I V E S 309

At the root of these and other challenges is the failure to integrate social and environmental concerns into economic decision-making at a variety of scales. Two approaches to development that have evolved in response to the narrow limitations of mainstream growth are sus-tainable community development (SCD) and the social economy. SCD offers one approach that has proven to be successful at integrating envi-ronmental and economic concerns at the local level (i.e. green jobs, eco-efficiency), yet has largely failed to adequately address social jus-tice issues (i.e. struggle for distributional and procedural equity and quality of life) (Agyeman and Evans, 2004; Jones, 2008). Likewise, the growth of the social economy has provided support to marginalized individuals and communities through such initiatives as job training enterprises and affordable housing, yet rarely incorporates environmen-tal considerations. The social economy is discussed in a range of ways from providing opportunities to catalyse social and economic change in communities or more simply as a new form of entrepreneurial welfare (Amin et al., 2002).

There exists considerable potential for bridging these two approaches – bringing environmental considerations into the social economy and using the social economy to advance equity concerns within sustainability. But, how do we explore this potential? What types of initiatives have potential to merge the transformative potential of sustainable community development and the social economy?

The purpose of this paper is to explore these questions – and to work towards a synthesis of the social with the environmental – through an exploration of local food initiatives in two Canadian cities that are focused on creating just and sustainable local foodsystems. In Edmonton, the Good Food Box programme has served as the focal point for addressing local food security at the city level, while in Vancouver, local food organizations have mobilized around the creation of a local food hub to establish the infrastructure required for transforming the food system. These case studies provide oppor-tunities to explore the potential, challenges and barriers of local food initiatives to serve as catalysts for creating communities that are more socially just and environmentally friendly. It is our hope that we may learn from these initiatives to offer conceptual insights and pragmatic policy-relevant information concerning the broader ques-tion of how to bridge and mutually inform SCD and social economy processes.



310 C R I T I C A L S O C I A L P O L I C Y 3 1 ( 2 )

Table 1 Strong and weak sustainable community development characteristics

Weak SCD Strong SCD

Worldview characteristics

Anthropocentric Biocentric/biotic rights

Rational individuals Collective actionRole of economy Economic growth Qualitative

developmentCentralized Community

basedSource of problem and solution

Supply problem Demand problem

Technocratic Social relationships

Use of Environmental Impact Assessments, cost/benefit analysis

Small-scale decentralization

Efficiency Self-sufficiency

Sustainable community development and the social economy: Strong vs. weak

Sustainable community development

Sustainable development is a concept that has achieved widespread rec-ognition, yet at the same time is interpreted in different and often com-peting ways (Mebratu, 1998). Williams and Millington (2004) have characterized the diversity of definitions along a spectrum from weak to strong sustainability based on underlying concepts and worldviews of the relationships between the environment, economy and society.

Sustainable community development (SCD) applies the concept of sustainable development to the local level. SCD is grounded in the understanding that mobilizing citizens and their governments through democratic processes serves to coordinate, balance and catalyse the val-ues, visions and activities of various community actors to create change (Roseland, 2005). As with sustainable development (see, e.g., Rees, 1995), SCD initiatives can be characterized as existing along a spec-trum from weak to strong, defined on the basis of the source of the problem and solutions (see Table 1).

At a conceptual level, weak SCD approaches recognize that eco-nomic growth needs to do a better job of accommodating environmental




issues, but fundamental changes to the concept of growth are unneces-sary. Weak SCD approaches can be characterized as taking a human-centred approach to human–environment relations that assumes that environmental (and social) problems will be resolved through techno-logical changes, more economically efficient use of resources, and sub-stituting manufactured capital for depleted natural capital.

In contrast, strong SCD approaches begin with an explicit recogni-tion of the finite nature of the Earth and the need to reduce demands placed on it. Substitutability of manufactured capital for natural capital is limited by environmental characteristics of uncertainty and irrevers-ibility. From a strong SCD perspective, well-being can be enhanced through development of different forms of community capital (social, human, cultural, physical, economic and natural) (Roseland, 2005) and not just through quantitative measures of growth, wealth and con-sumption. Collective action, finite limits to growth and social innova-tion are at the core of the strong sustainability perspective and solutions to local and global environmental problems are rooted in social rather than technological change (Rees, 1995).

SCD in practice tends to focus on weaker approaches to SCD. Emphasis is placed on efficiency of resource use as a means of envi-ronmental protection/conservation. It is an incremental approach to reorganizing society, economic and environmental relationships that does not challenge existing power structures and is able to accommodate market-based mechanisms to spur more environmen-tally conscious behaviour. However, sustainability without explicit attention to social justice has been criticized (Agyeman and Evans, 2004; Pearsall and Pierce, 2010). For critics, movement towards SCD requires addressing injustices of race, gender and poverty to allow all citizens to benefit from improvements to quality of life. Strong SCD approaches that place greater emphasis on social relations and on the transformative potential for SCD based on principles of equality and solidarity can shift the way that we value human–environment inter-actions.

Social economy

The social economy has emerged as a community response to negative impacts of social and economic restructuring. The social economy suf-fers from definitional confusion (see McMurtry, 2010), however, it has been loosely defined to include activities by democratically controlled




organizations that integrate a social and economic mission (Amin et al., 2002; Lionais and Johnstone, 2010; Neamtan, 2009).

Similar to SCD, conceptual debates about social economy activities represent a spectrum; from weak to strong, from high road to low road (see Lewis and Swinney, 2007), or from pragmatic to utopian (Fontan and Shragge, 2000). Weak social economy approaches are criticized for not addressing societal transformation, minimal attention to environ-mental concerns and often work to maintain existence on the margins of the larger capitalist system, and in fact embrace the mainstream sys-tem in its approach (Amin et al., 2002). Strong social economy initia-tives on the other hand are focused on community-based actions that incorporate the principles of equity, redistribution, solidarity, mutual-ity and meeting social needs rather than maximizing profit (Pearce, 2003). A critical point of differentiation is whether social economy/enterprise activities are able to generate their own capital, rather than relying on an ongoing subsidy from the derivatives of the mainstream economy and the politics of redistribution (see Table 2).

It is important to note that ‘weak’ is not meant in a pejorative manner as it is applied to both SCD and social economy processes and

Table 2 Strong and weak social economy characteristics

Weak social economy Strong social economy

Worldview characteristics

Marginalized orientation

Mainstream orientation

Roll-out neoliberalism*

Roll-back neoliberalism

Role of economy Corporate social responsibility

Core business practice

Charity, redistribution

Asset-generating, equality

Gap-filling Social and economic transformation

Source of problem and solution

Behavioural Structural

Capacity Competition

* We refer here to the neoliberal shift away from an equity focus in the provision of govern-ment services to a more managerial approach (Polèse, 1999) that claims to respond to calls for greater levels of bottom-up participation and control but is more directly motivated by government funding retrenchment. Weak social economy initiatives have emerged to fill the gap left by government retrenchment, while strong social economy initiatives can be charac-terized as organizing against retrenchment.




organizations. There are many organizations that are fulfilling impor-tant roles and meeting community needs via practices that may be conceptually defined here as ‘weak’. Our interest is in delineating the difference between organizations and methods that address the out-comes of structural inequality or environmental degradation (weak) versus those that confront root causes and ideologies (strong).

Local food initiatives: The Good Food Box and New City Market Local Food Hub

Much has been written recently that exposes some of the problems asso-ciated with our existing food system (see for example films such as Food Inc. in 2008 and popular books such as Michael Pollan’s In Defense of Food, also 2008). Local food initiatives have blossomed as a sector of activity with a specific focus on expanding alternatives and trans-forming the conventional approach to the way we produce and con-sume food. The explosion of public interest in food system initiatives is multi-faceted (ranging from interest in the 100-mile diet, peak oil and climate change, re-localization of economic activity, preservation of farm land and farm employment, organic food, health and equity).

A key similarity between strong sustainability and strong social economy approaches to social, environmental and economic problems is the ‘turn to the local’, with emphasis on place-based and community-based responses to local and global problems. Attempts to localize food systems in particular places are a key strategy behind the movement to create shorter value chains between consumers and producers (Good-man, 2003; Winter, 2003). The notion of embeddedness is a driving force behind the success of alternative food systems based on aspects of reciprocity, trust, transparency and accountability that are critical com-ponents to the notion of local food being more natural and healthier.

However, as Born and Purcell (2006) demonstrate, ‘localness’ of a food system should not be seen as having any inherent qualities – it is merely a strategy that can be applied by any group of actors to advance particular agendas. For this reason, local food initiatives benefit from explicit linkages to the value-based commitments of strong approaches to social economy and sustainable community development. Local food initiatives have the potential for broader transformation, but they need to be closely tied to the politics of alternative food systems (Guthman, 2008). Much of the focus of the localization of food systems is correctly




based on the need to pay the full costs of food, in terms of environmen-tal, social and economic costs, but to have relevance for food security and social justice requires that we are all able to pay (Guthman, forth-coming). Without attention to the underlying values of the local food system, the localization of consumption and production risks being limited to the fetishization of local food for the most well resourced consumers, based on principles that correspond more to weak sustain-ability and weak social economy approaches (as discussed above).

In the following section, we look at two case studies from different Canadian cities that seek to create more sustainable food systems. We will explore in greater depth the challenges and opportunities for local food initiatives to serve as a catalyst for linking multiple social, envi-ronmental and economic concerns with place to create more sustainable communities. These case studies and subsequent analysis are based on a comprehensive literature review, semi-structured interviews with key local food stakeholders in Edmonton and Vancouver in 2010, and a review of local secondary sources. One of the authors has also served on the steering committee of Local Food First in Vancouver since 2007.

The Good Food Box, Edmonton

Edmonton is a large northern prairie city (population ~1 million) that serves as the provincial capital. The Good Food Box (GFB) was set up as a social enterprise in 2009. It was designed to increase the avail-ability of locally produced food for all families in the Edmonton area beyond the availability of weekly farmers’ markets. The objectives of the project were to provide convenient access to affordable fresh pro-duce to Edmonton residents, to provide fair market value to produc-ers, to expand marketing and distribution for producers beyond the farmers’ markets, to be accessible to all and to create jobs for low-income residents. The pilot project ran for six continuous weeks of delivery in 2009, and was expanded to the entire growing season for 2010. The idea at proposal stage was to evolve into a fully indepen-dent cooperative.

The GFB emerged at a time when there was considerable local level organizing in opposition to redevelopment of agricultural land in the North-East part of the city. A broad-based citizens’ movement was suc-cessful at using opposition to North-East redevelopment to raise aware-ness of problems with the existing food system and to link food and land use policy for city planners, politicians and the broader public. The GFB was able to build on the emerging enthusiasm for local food




and to effectively link concerns over redevelopment with the local food system more generally.

The project was originally designed for 110 participants, but when they put out a call for interest, over 1000 people signed up. The project delivered a selection of fresh produce to 236 people per week, 31 of which were subsidized low-income clients of the Edmonton food bank. Customer surveys at the end of the year indicated that 88% of partici-pants were extremely or very satisfied with the quality of the produce and the price. When asked why they participated, the primary response was to support local farmers (63%) and the secondary response was to support local food security (53%).

The GFB was expanded for the 2010 season to include a pre-order purchasing site that connects consumers to all of the products that are available at the farmers’ market. While it is no longer being run explicitly as a social enterprise (the grant for subsidizing low-income access was not renewed), the local non-profit organization dedicated to supporting independent and local businesses in the Edmonton area that is currently managing the programme donates 1% of total sales to the Mennonite Central Committee. It is still committed to organic and sus-tainable production, but is no longer limited to locally sourced products, rather businesses that operate locally, in part a result of the difficulty of obtaining year-round access to a range of products in a northern climate. The programme has also expanded to cater more towards niche foodie and middle-class markets with prices that reflect those demographics. For example, consumers are able to purchase prepared meals, seafood, meats, seasonings, chocolates, breads and vegetables in addition to the standard range of products available during the growing season.

Moving to online pre-order sales and expanding product offerings for middle-class suburban consumers provides opportunities to scale-up connections between local producers and consumers and provides a critical mass that makes further investments in the local food infra-structure viable. For example, securing warehousing space with cold storage, additional delivery trucks and additional labour would not be feasible based on the numbers involved with the GFB project alone and without that critical infrastructure, it was impossible to expand the GFB to more participants and neighbourhoods.

New City Market Local Food Hub, Vancouver

Vancouver is a large (population ~600,000/~2 million metro) coastal city frequently cited as one of the world’s most liveable cities, yet is also




home to the highest concentrations of poverty in the country. In 2005, the Vancouver Coastal Health Authority released the Vancouver Food System Assessment that identified the need for investment in local food infrastructure as a key component to creating a local food system that was more just and more sustainable (FORC, 2005). Research on expe-riences in other jurisdictions indicated that social enterprises and sup-portive policies could drive this re-investment on a system-wide basis.

The report catalysed action by local food organizations in Vancou-ver to further explore the potential of social enterprises in facilitat-ing change across the local food system. One such organization that emerged was Local Food First (LFF), a multi-stakeholder, collaborative initiative whose mission is to build and strengthen a just and sustain-able local food system. Throughout 2007, LFF hosted and engaged in a range of interviews, workshops and community consultations with farmers, food-based businesses, development organizations, funders and government to identify the key leverage points for re-orienting our local food system along sustainability principles. These various activi-ties confirmed the need to re-build the local food system and redevelop local food value chains that provide farmers with more direct access to the growing local food market.

The recurring barrier to each proposed initiative was the lack of coordination across the local food value chain and the lack of physi-cal and social infrastructure to support increased food security across the region. A critical component of that missing infrastructure is the need for a new, permanent home for the Winter Farmers’ Market. As a result, in 2009 LFF has begun focusing its energies on re-building the local food infrastructure based on the New City Market Local Food Hub (NCM).

The NCM is envisioned as a physical space that can strengthen connections between consumers and producers, provide functions that model all aspects of a local food system and provide the missing infra-structure that can make local food more accessible for consumers and improve the viability of local farming in terms of fair wages and work-ing conditions. Key functions envisioned for the NCM include whole-sale and retail food sales, processing and food preparation facilities, cold storage and warehousing services and office space for local food organi-zations (LFF, 2010). The project is still in the pre-development phase, but negotiations are under way to identify potential sites, as well as exploration of different business and governance models and laying the groundwork for the capital campaign.




Local food as a catalyst for transformative community change?

Scaling-up – providing infrastructure for change

The case studies described above offer two approaches that are seeking to re-build the local food system based upon the principles of sustainability and social justice. First, they are not simply focused on expanding market access to existing locally oriented producers, but seek to provide the local food system with infrastructure (such as distribution, warehousing, cold storage, small-scale processing opportunities) that can enable the transi-tion of those producers engaged in export-oriented agriculture towards a more local and sustainable approach. However, the case studies also illus-trate some particular challenges associated with moving from visionary ideals of strong sustainability and strong social economy approaches to transforming local food systems to on-the-ground projects in competi-tion and in cooperation with existing global/industrial food systems.

The literature suggests that the focus of local food initiatives tends to be to de-globalize, de-industrialize and de-scale (DuPuis et al., 2006), and there are certainly numerous small-scale examples in both Edmonton and Vancouver (and elsewhere) where this is the case. How-ever, both the Edmonton and Vancouver cases are explicitly focused on scaling-up small-scale initiatives based on principles and values that are quite different from large-scale, global and industrial food systems. However, the commitment to the market, entrepreneurship and com-petition with the existing system pose significant challenges.

As one farmer from Edmonton described, without significant investment in local food infrastructure, scaling-up local production and consumption is crucial but difficult:

There are considerable risks and challenges associated with investing in scaling up local production, and I don’t think those risks can be placed entirely on the back of producers. I’m not willing to put my business on the line for speculative ventures that might work down the road, regard-less of their value. It is simply too risky. We want proven solutions that work. Values are important, but they are not something that will take over the business. (Local Farmer, Edmonton)

Securing investments (in terms of time, resources, commitment and trust) to scale-up local production and consumption results in efforts




that are, owing to risk management concerns, more incremental in nature and that pay less attention to politically contentious issues such as equity, redistribution and solidarity. The challenges, costs and risks of scaling-up reduce the potential for structural change as limited resources are directed to filling gaps and meeting the conditions for basic business viability.

Similarly in Vancouver, Local Food First members are told there is no need to ‘sell’ the idea of the Local Food Hub to the planning depart-ment with the city. City planners are supportive of the idea because it addresses core city objectives (for example, Vancouver’s Greenest City initiative). However, when discussing opportunities to work with city-owned land, there is a need to develop a business plan to demonstrate how the initiative is financially viable. On one hand, that is under-standable and a reasonable request from the city. However, social jus-tice does not fit well with business plans or development pro-formas. If we agree that we need to transform the local food system to make it both more sustainable and more just, we can not be limited to and bound by the economic constraints of the existing food system, which views food purely as a commodity and where the industrial food system is supported through subsidies at local to global scales. For example, preliminary business case planning for the Local Food Hub suggests that office space makes the most sense economically. Office space, while important for local food organizations, does not represent the most critical need in scaling-up local food system transformation. Resolving the tensions between what activities make the most sense from an eco-nomic standpoint and those activities that are required for structural changes to our approach to human–environment relations is clearly a difficult process that requires an integrated approach.

Shifting values – enabling action for change

A second dimension of the pursuit of both sustainability and social justice, as illustrated by the cases above concerns how the food systems address the behavioural dimensions of creating change. Understand-ing the long-range objectives of local food initiatives is critical for pragmatic and incremental responses to local food system transforma-tion. Issues of food security, food sovereignty, justice and sustainabil-ity are necessary components, yet are also extremely complex social and political issues that are dependent upon underlying community values (Feagan, 2008). In both Edmonton and Vancouver, local food




initiatives emerged out of a firm commitment to values-based transfor-mation that recognizes that existing food systems are not environmen-tally sustainable, are socially unjust and are not economically viable in a full-cost sense. However, in both cases, moving from conceptual planning to actual implementation resulted in shifting priorities as a pragmatic response to get projects through funding proposals and engaged with a broader cross-section of the population. For example, in response to why they got involved with the GFB, one participant identified the difficulty in broadening participation beyond values of food system change:

I think most of the people I know that have joined up with the GFB did it as much for the good food as for the political reasons because they didn’t want it to fail. Right now we are hoping to try and reach out to people who maybe aren’t that, who just want the convenience and I think you still have to be a little bit convinced that it’s good because you don’t get to choose your vegetables and choices are made for you. (GFB participant)

The GFB has since shifted to a model that merges the GFB with the ability to pick and choose, increasing convenience for consumers and increasing sales of food products outside the mainstream food system, primarily to suburban residents. There is increasing pressure to pri-oritize higher revenue boutique options to cover the increased infra-structure costs of scaling-up over functions and options that improve equitable access to local food. These tensions have resulted in some peo-ple running their own bulk buying clubs out of their kitchens because they did not feel that the GFB was paying enough attention to the politics of local food.

In Vancouver, the organizers for the Local Food Hub have been approached by real estate developers interested in exploring the poten-tial of the Local Food Hub to serve as the focal point for their develop-ments. A partnership with developers is appealing, as it would likely involve significant contributions towards the purchase of land and con-struction of the building. However, there are inevitable concerns and tensions that would emerge if this approach is formalized regarding the ultimate purpose of the building, its location in relation to exist-ing food system infrastructure, accessibility, etc. While not necessarily problematic, it could result in shifting power dynamics and changes to the values and objectives of the Local Food Hub.




Conclusion

The two local food initiatives profiled above are striving to create a synthesis of social and environmental objectives to achieve structural changes to the way that food is produced, accessed and consumed based on commitments to sustainable community development and social justice. They are pursuing organizational dynamics that are reflective of a strong sustainability and social economy approach. 1) They are seek-ing structural change via the establishment of community infrastruc-ture that will facilitate both sustainable and socially just food options; 2) they are structured with an intention to generate their own revenue; 3) each initiative offers an alternative to the traditional food system (and its social and environmental impacts); 4) the projects are depen-dent upon a behavioural shift from consumers; and 5) they are achiev-ing a decentralization of the food system that will foster increased local self-reliance.

Despite these commitments, the initiatives also illustrate the chal-lenges, difficulties and tensions that result from values-based commit-ment to structural change (strong) and incremental implementation (weak). While the social economy dynamic is clearly under pressure (via financial viability concerns, the challenge of engaging the mainstream, and keeping social justice services), the social economy approach clearly provides an important vehicle for facilitating and nurturing nascent transformative initiatives.

In both cases, investments in physical infrastructure for local food systems are required to scale-up the impact and reach of alternative food systems based on values and principles of social and environ-mental justice. However, those investments are insufficient on their own. Equal attention and investments in social infrastructure are also needed, investments that can only occur through critical engagement by citizens in discussion, reflection and action in support of local food systems that are socially just and environmentally sustainable. In short, the local food movement needs to scale-up in conjunction with added investments in food system infrastructure.

Local food systems, given their appeal to community, health, and quality of life provide a compelling gateway to realizing community transformation. As the cases illustrate, their true potential is realized through a synthesis of sustainability and social economy approaches and objectives. Such synthesis is dependent on effective linkages to other sectoral initiatives focused on community and societal change.




Working toward systemic change for local food systems will not occur through single issue topics, there is a need for broad-based discussion of societal values, structures and processes (Hanson, 2009). Systemic social changes are possible with investments in physical and social infrastructure that contribute to coalition building and partnership development that enable scaling-up.

Policy makers and practitioners must work, however, to ensure that initiatives are provided with the appropriate operational and reg-ulatory settings to realize their transformative influence. Measures for success of local food initiatives that incorporate multiple-bottom line outcomes1 need to incorporate the fact that these initiatives are com-peting with mainstream economic activities that are heavily subsidized and do not account for negative social, economic and environmental externalities.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the community partners who participated in and contributed to the research. This research is part of the research pro-gramme of the BC-Alberta Social Economy Research Alliance. Financial sup-port from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada is gratefully acknowledged.

Note

1. Multiple-bottom line (sometimes referred to as triple-bottom line) mea-sures attempt to account for social, environmental and economic impacts, addressing glaring weaknesses of traditional cost–benefit analysis that account only for economic impacts.

References

Agyeman, J. and Evans, B. (2004) ‘“Just Sustainability”: The Emerging Dis-course of Environmental Justice in Britain?’, Geographical Journal 170(2): 155–64.

Amin, A., Cameron, A. and Hudson, R. (2002) Placing the Social Economy. London: Routledge.




Born, B. and Purcell, M. (2006) ‘Avoiding the Local Trap: Scale and Food Systems in Planning Research’, Journal of Planning Education and Research 26(2): 195–207.

DuPuis, E. M., Goodman, D. and Harrison, J. (2006) ‘Just Values or Just Value? Remaking the Local in Agro-food Studies’, pp. 241–68 in T. Marsden and J. Murdoch (eds) Between the Local and the Global: Confronting Complexity in the Contemporary Agri-food Sector. Amsterdam: Elsevier JAI.

Feagan, R. (2008) ‘Direct Marketing: Towards Sustainable Local Food Sys-tems?’, Local Environment 13(3): 161–7.

Fontan, J.-M. and Shragge, E. (eds) (2000) Social Economy: International Perspec-tives and Debates. Montreal: Black Rose Books.

FORC (2005) ‘Vancouver Food System Assessment’ [http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/socialplanning/initiatives/foodpolicy/tools/pdf/vanfoodassess-rpt.pdf], accessed 20 June 2010.

Goodman, D. (2003) ‘The Quality “Turn” and Alternative Food Practices: Reflections and Agenda’, Journal of Rural Studies 19(1): 1–7.

Guthman, J. (2008) ‘Neoliberalism and the Making of Food Politics in Cali-fornia’, Geoforum 39(3): 1171–83.

Guthman, J. (forthcoming) ‘The Unbearable Whiteness of Alternative Food’, pp. 411–43 in A. H. Alton and J. Agyeman (eds) The Food Justice Reader: Cultivating a Just Sustainability. Boston: MIT Press.

Hanson, L. (2009) ‘Environmental Justice as a Politics in Place: An Analy-sis of Five Canadian Environmental Groups’ Approaches to Agro-Food Issues’, pp. 203–18 in J. Agyeman, P. Cole, R. Haluza-DeLay and P. O’Riley (eds) Speaking for Ourselves: Environmental Justice in Canada. Van-couver: UBC Press.

Jones, V. (2008) The Green Collar Economy: How One Solution Can Fix Our Two Biggest Problems. New York: Harper Collins.

Lewis, M. and Swinney, D. (2007) ‘Social Economy and Solidarity Economy’, Making Waves 18(4): 9–15.

Lionais, D. and Johnstone, H. (2010) ‘Building the Social Economy Using the Innovative Potential of Place’, pp. 105–28 in J. J. McMurtry (ed.) Liv-ing Economics: Canadian Perspectives on the Social Economy, Co-operatives, and Community Economic Development. Toronto: Emond Montgomery.

Local Food First (LFF) (2010) ‘New City Market: A Food Hub for Vancou-ver. Visioning Report’. [http://www.localfoodfirst.org/wp-content/lff/uploads/2010/07/New-City-Market-A-Food-Hub-for-Vancouver-Visioning-Workshop-Report.pdf], accessed 12 December 2010.

McMurtry, J. J. (ed.) (2010) Living Economics: Canadian Perspectives on the Social Economy, Co-operatives, and Community Economic Development. Toronto: Emond Montgomery.

Mebratu, D. (1998) ‘Sustainability and Sustainable Development: Histori-cal and Conceptual Review’, Environmental Impact Assessment Review 18(6): 493–520.




Neamtan, N. (2009) ‘Social Economy: Concepts and Challenges’, Universitas Forum 1(3): 1–5.

Pearce, J. (2003) Social Enterprise in Anytown. London: Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation.

Pearsall, H. and Pierce, J. (2010) ‘Urban Sustainability and Environmental Justice: Evaluating the Linkages in Public Planning/Policy Discourse’, Local Environment 15(6): 569–80.

Polèse, M. (1999) ‘From Regional Development to Local Development: On the Life, Death, and Rebirth(?) of Regional Science as a Policy Relevant Science’, Canadian Journal of Regional Science XXII(3): 299–314.

Rees, W. E. (1995) ‘Achieving Sustainability: Reform or Transformation?’, Journal of Planning Literature 9(4): 343–61.

Roseland, M. (2005) Toward Sustainable Communities: Resources for Citizens and their Governments, rev. edn. Gabriola Island, BC: New Society Publishers.

Williams, C. C. and Millington, A. C. (2004) ‘The Diverse and Contested Mean-ings of Sustainable Development’, Geographical Journal 170(2): 99–104.

Winter, M. (2003) ‘Embeddedness, the New Food Economy and Defensive Localism’, Journal of Rural Studies 19(1): 23–32.

Sean Connelly is a Post-Doctoral Fellow with the Centre for Sustainable

Community Development at Simon Fraser University and the BC-Alberta

Social Economy Research Alliance. Sean’s research interests include sustain-

ability planning, community development and local food systems. Sean has

recently co-authored ‘Black Holes or White Knights? Cities and the Environ-

ment’, in Canadian Cities in Transition (Oxford, 2010) and ‘Strategic Sustain-

ability and Community Infrastructure’, Canadian Journal of Urban Research –

Canadian Planning and Policy Supplement, 2009. Address: Centre for Sustainable

Community Development, Simon Fraser University, 8888 University Drive,

Burnaby, BC, Canada, V5A 1S6. email: [email protected]

Sean Markey is an Assistant Professor with the Centre for Sustainable Com-Sean Markey is an Assistant Professor with the Centre for Sustainable Com-

munity Development at Simon Fraser University. Sean’s research addresses

issues of local and regional economic development, community sustainability,

rural development, and sustainable infrastructure. He has published widely,

including recent publications as co-editor of The Next Rural Economies: Con-

structing Rural Place Global Economies (Cabi Press, 2010) and co-author of

‘“Back of the Envelope”: Pragmatic Planning for Sustainable Rural Commu-

nity Development’, Planning Practice and Research, 2010.




Mark Roseland is Director of the Centre for Sustainable Community

Development and Professor of Resource and Environmental Management at

Simon Fraser University. Dr. Roseland lectures internationally and advises

communities and governments on sustainable development policy and plan-

ning. His books include Toward Sustainable Communities: Resources for Citizens

and their Governments (New Society Publishers, 2005), and Eco-City Dimensions:

Healthy Communities, Healthy Planet (New Society Publishers, 1997).



Critical Social Policy‘ΝΑΚ274... · · 2012-02-29neoliberalism* Roll-back neoliberalism:...

Documents

Transcript of Critical Social Policy‘ΝΑΚ274... · · 2012-02-29neoliberalism* Roll-back neoliberalism:...