The renowned Austrian economists the monarch von Hayek, who won the 1974 Nobel Prize in Economics, contended in the early 1940s in the London School of Economics Journal Economica that items, cash, and even food could only be described in terms of the beliefs that economic agents had about them rather than their physical characteristics (Boettke, 2018, p. 38). This is not an unusual viewpoint; rather, it is the prevalent understanding among traditional economists. In essence, the traditional study of economics ignores any potential relationships that might exist between the production and consuming activities that form the basis of any given economic system and the ecological system. Moreover, the structure of regulations pertaining to the environment is not taken into consideration by the standard economy. Rather it concerned with concentrating solely on economic flows and variables that may be found in any fundamental economics textbooks (Keller and Keller, 2019, p. 185). Money moves in a closed loop between households (consumers) and businesses (producers) under economic model that further put out by Borrello et al. (2020, p. 2), permitting only the transfer of exchange value

The system of economies has no bounds according to this viewpoint, which researchers refer to as the ‘principles of solidarity economy’. It is all-powerful and has the ability to stand alone with having no growth opportunity costs. To put it another way, neither exchanges nor degradation result from increased economic activity that requires the destruction of resources for the purposes of extraction or the disposal of garbage that the process of economic growth necessarily produces. If conventional economics addresses environmental damage at all, it does so by seeing it as a reality that exists outside of the economic system—that is, as a failure of the market. Because external influences can be internalised into the price system with the right techniques, it is thought that this can correct market failure.

Alfred North Whitehead in his book published in 1944 under the title of “The Function of Reason” mathematician and philosopher made some observations that are worth remembering here. He stated that the higher forms of life actively alter their surroundings. The most notable aspect of humanity’s existence is its on-going attack on the environment (Stiegler, 2021, p. 41). Three phases make up such an attack including living (ensuring our survival, which is an obligation for all living things), living well (creating the best environment possible because no one survives in his own litter) and living better (achieving new heights in life quality, a phenomenon that is cultural; developing, growing, and prospering). So, consider the main argument it is clear that the purpose of ecology economy is to motivate the human being to live in a way that improve our surroundings which also helps to reduce and control the direct the attack on the environment (Odum and Barrett, 1971, p. 15). In other words, it is inevitable that the environment will be attacked. A living being cannot exist without a bid for it. The question is how to do it with intelligence, rationality, and the intention of improving one’s life in mind. Admitting that one wants to interact with physical objects—artifacts that mix matter and energy—without taking the environmental effects of those objects into account is impossible.

Ecologic vision of the Economy

According to a review of commonly used textbooks, the environment is never discussed in mainstream economics (Gowdy and O’Hara, 2020, p. 22). Nonetheless, there are instances in the model where discussing the surroundings is crucial. The ecosystem in this instance ends up with the essence of a storehouse or dispensary, and could even be considered a bauble. An adjustment is therefore made considering the environment as an adjunct of economic activity, which is nevertheless perceived as the dominant whole. This area of research is called environmental economics; it might also be referred to as the economics of the environment. Typically, the field of environmental economics is seen as a subfield of microeconomics. In that case the finding the right prices for the best distribution of resources is its main goal (situations of maximum benefit, minimal cost). As a result, it is used and taught where the need is evident with the primary goal of internalising environmental costs to increase the full representation of opportunity costs in prices.

One might state that, in contrast to microeconomics, which is the fundamental definition of environmental economics, economic theory lacks an environmental macroeconomics chapter. The circular flow of wealth, which is a popular representation of the economic system, portrays the economy as an isolated entity. Thus, there is no concern for the environment, its natural resources, pollution, or depletion. A system that is isolated lacks both an environment and any connections that could limit it. Besides that, admitting the financial sector is not a separate entity with no external linkages is certain to cause a shift in viewpoint, viewing the macro economy as an open subsystem of the environment, which is a naturally finite ecosystem. This entails giving up on the isolated, circular flow of abstract exchange value that is unconstrained by the mass, entropy, and finitude balances. Environmental macroeconomics’ subject matter is the physical exchanges crossing the boundary between the total ecological system and the economic subsystem as Gowdy and O’Hara emphasises. It determines the volume of exchange that can fit within the framework of the nature-economy linkages becomes crucial when these physical exchanges are included in the economic model.

The major question arises here is that what portion of nature can be restored through the economic process, and how much can be extracted? Stated differently, to what extent is the economy’s size consistent with its natural foundation? It is useful to use the example of a boat here, whose load should respect the water (Plimsoll) line since it is optimally distributed inside it (a microeconomic problem solution). The boat is full and has attained its safe capacity load (optimal scale) when the water level reaches this line. When it comes to markets, environmental economists are more interested in the proper fit of the boat’s load than they are in the optimal load problem (Tietenberg and Lewis, 2018, p. 52). Therefore, it can be evident through this example that using the laws of mechanics and biology as a guide, ecological economics believe that cargo size is crucial. Thus, carrying capacity becomes crucial in the development of a potential environmental macroeconomics. It is the one that will restrict the application of sustainable development. It is also what will cause us to reject the idea of endless expansion, which is also referred to as sustainable growth in an entirely incorrect manner. This kind of unrelenting advancement, which is entirely feasible both in the traditional economic and environmental visions, defines the Brazilian government’s 2010 priorities, which were combined into President Lula da Silva’s Growth Acceleration Programme (PAC) (Cavalcanti, 2010, p. 54). Similarly, this is the pattern of global economic development from China to the US and from Angola to India.

Basic Worldview and Goals

The first point of environmental economics is that the human economy is a part of the greater ecological life support system. It acknowledges that, rather than existing outside of this greater natural system, humans are a part of it. Since the beginning of time, human have affected and altered the ecosystems that support them, sometimes in a sustainable way and other times not. When considering the entirety of the supporting ecosystem, the economic subsystem—the human presence—was comparatively tiny in magnitude in the past. Therefore, the use of oil and gas has contributed significantly to the expansion of the human subsystem over the past century, making it a significant part of the system as a whole. In contrast to most of human history, we currently inhabit a rather full environment in which everything is altered by this (Daly, 2014, p. 30). The objective of the economic subsystem in a globalised society can no longer be limited to its own growth and expansion at the expense of the other subsystems. In that situation, the structure as an entire universe has to be considered, and sustainable development must replace economic growth as the primary objective.

Development denotes quality progress without necessarily enlarging in size, whereas growth involves rising in number or size (Shahzad et al., 2022, p. 43). To build a sustainable and desirable future, the focus must change from creating more to creating better in the context of the entire planet. This change in the main objectives and future direction has significant ramifications for analysis and policy in all fields of study and human endeavours. For instance, one cannot rely on the consumer sovereignty notion, which is the foundation of most conventional economic solutions, if one’s aims include ecological sustainability. Instead, one must make room for co-evolving ecosystems, technologies, and preferences. Focusing on the ultimate relationships between ecological sustainability, social sustainability, and economic sustainability is, therefore, one of the fundamental organising principles of ecological economics.

There is a great deal of ambiguity involved in this entire concept because of the complexity of the numerous interconnected systems that comprise the biosphere `(Costanza et al., 2023, p. 256). In fact, uncertainty is a basic feature of all complex systems containing irreversible processes, and issues related to uncertainty are of particular interest to ecological economics. It focuses more specifically on the challenge of ensuring sustainability in the face of unpredictability. Rather than forcing us down development paths that might eventually result in ecological collapse, ecological economics aims to preserve the resilience of the intricately linked socioecological system through the balanced conservation and investment in natural and social capital assets alongside human and built capital.

Transdisciplinarity of Ecological Economics

It is imperative to acknowledge the indisputable proof that an ecological system is necessary for society (or the economy) to exist, but that society (and the economy) cannot survive without the environment. Someone is not endorsing a new orthodoxy when they suggest a paradigm shift. Conventional ecology investigates all species but the human, while ecological economics focuses only on the human species (Spash, 2020, p. 2). The two scenarios highlight a limited viewpoint that hinders a comprehensive understanding of the ecological-economic issue. Conversely, EE is an attempt to combine both economics and ecology, without disciplinary dependence on either. Then, its worldview would have to be transdisciplinary, concentrating on the relationships, as broadly defined as feasible, between ecosystems and economic systems. According to Bibri, (2021, p. 3), ecological economics is considered transdisciplinary as it attempts to integrate and synthesise several disciplinary views, surpassing the conventional ideas of scientific fields.

It is presumptuous to say that when it comes to terms of achieving sustainability, one field is intellectually superior to another at this point. This holds true for economics as well as physics, biology, and ecology. Discipline fragmentation is an agreement in academia, yet the issues we are interested in are outside the purview of disciplines A or B. Academic fields are one-dimensional, while real-world problems are multifaceted and concrete (e.g., socioenvironmental challenges). In that scenario, intellectual borders between both disciplines are artificial creations. So, the goal of EE’s development is to address this convention. Nothing could be a different from this in terms of the conclusion i.e., EE is not a branch of ecology or economics. It could also be referred to as economic ecology or eco-economics. According to Daly and Farley (2011, p.16) proposal, socio-environmental economics should be used instead of EE. Many errors arise from the adoption of the phrase ecological economics, which is readily confused with the idea of environmental economics. Imagine a scale that goes from the ecological to the economic to help better understand the subject.

Besides that, finance and environment can be positioned on opposing sides of the spectrum. As it also the case in other social sciences, the first is solely concerned with the natural world and disregards human reality, whereas the second examines human reality exclusively and views the environment as an externality. Towards the centre of the scale, ecological economy is more closely aligned with ecology. This arrangement lacks any notion of normative standards. More commonly, environmentalism uses neoclassical economics’ methods to address ecological issues. Although it considers the environment, its main objective is to incorporate it into the economic calculations. Put differently, to place a monetary value on it by offering prices that have the ability to represent estimated costs for the goods and services provided by nature.

Implications of the Integrated Vision of Ecological Economics

Life is a never-ending series of decisions that stand in opposition to opposing values. Therefore, when Kish and Farley (2021. p, 4) inquired about the main objective of economic research as being an ecological economist. He agreed with the fact that the ecological economics tend to the discipline’s role that helps to understand how scarcity shapes human behaviour. This occurs because there are not enough resources available, particularly time. As a result, the lack of means limits the achievement of human goals. An economist’s fundamental idea of opportunity cost is based on the fact that if one end is desired, others must be sacrificed. Probably the most well-known definitions of economics emphasises that it is the science that studies human behaviour as a relationship between ends and scarce means which have alternative uses (De Bruijn and Antonides, 2022, p. 8).

Economic theory specifically refers to people who are driven to change and advancement. According to his definition, Economics is the study of the aspect of society and individual behavior that is most directly related to obtaining and making use of the material necessities of well-being (Durán-Sandoval and Uleri, 2023, p. 7). He compares economics to political economy. According to this perspective, economics is a discipline that studies choices, such as how consumers behave when faced with limitless wants and scarce resources. This perspective implies that acting in an economical manner entail making one’s actions and organisation efficient, as opposed to wasteful (Skidelsky, 2020, p. 92). Put otherwise, it refers to selecting the course of action that will maximise advantages while incurring the fewest expenses. One clear consequence of the financial-ecological perspective is that the expansion of the economic system results in positive opportunity costs for the environment (the environment is scarce). The truth is that greater economy equates to less environment, even if these costs were first so negligible as to be overlooked. Above is where we come to discover that the dominant worldview, which places an extraordinary emphasis on economic growth as the answer to every problem and as the top priority over all other goals, ends up allowing this priority to take on the characteristics of an idol, an obsession, a faith, or a doctrine. It is undeniable that there is potential for misunderstanding between development—which refers to evolution, change, or the promotion of the art of growth and life.

The socioeconomic system has no environmental opportunity costs, according to the ecologic vision of the economy. However, other economists have gone so far as to assert—using Shapiro et al. (2018, pp.1-2) example as support—that the world, in effect, can continue its business without natural resources. As is well known, the calculus (concept) of optimality—maximum efficiency in the distribution of limited resources—predominates in microeconomics. This is the guideline for halting the firm’s scale expansion. Meanwhile, macroeconomics is still dominated by the pursuit of infinite growth. There is nothing appealing about optimal growth or when growth should cease. According to the concept of EE by the economic system can only expand to a certain sustainable extent in relation to the ecosystem (Melgar-Melgar and Hall, 2020, p. 2). Similar to a firm’s equilibrium, that scale will be established by comparing the marginal environmental costs and economic advantages. In actuality, natural capital—or the depreciation of natural assets—is a significant factor driving the economy and cannot be disregarded. In other words, there is opportunity costs related to ecology. Sacrificing resources like forests, land, water, air, biodiversity, climate stability, and so on is a necessary part of increasing economic productivity. Understanding this issue highlights the necessity for an Ecologic vision of the Economy.

The major task of EE involves determining the ideal size of the macroeconomic system to enable differentiation between two types of growth: (i) genuinely economic growth, which occurs when the marginal gains from an expansion of the economy exceed the marginal environmental costs of the process; and (ii) noneconomic growth, which occurs when the marginal gains from an expansion of the economy fall short of the corresponding marginal costs (Daly, 2022, p. 14). Naturally, one assumes that marginal costs and benefits will eventually equalise. The natural economic system is internalised by the EE cosmovision.

The trouble is in the way environmental issues are consistently subordinated to economic ones. Natural resources that have a market, like petroleum, are subject to prices, which mean that these values are almost always underestimated. All natural resources are implicitly assigned a value of zero in traditional national accounting, making them free goods. However, whatever values might be used to these computations? It is hard to answer, particularly when it comes to things that unquestionably have an endless value, like life in general or life as a biological species in danger of extinction, in particular. Nonetheless, the need for some kind of assessment is imposed by reality. In addition, the risk of putting a huge amount on ecological goods and services stems from the idea that they are worth what these calculations indicate as well as the idea that natural resources can be added to man-made resources (which are both referred to the same money basis) to make them interchangeable. But at its core, ecological sustainability needs to be understood as the preservation of natural capital’s physical stocks rather than its corresponding financial values. This leads to the idea of strong sustainability. This is where the need for a green macroeconomic vision—which is not the same as environmental economics—appears. One goal of ecologically grounded economic analysis is to further the modelling of the ecological relationships that define the boundaries between natural and economic (or productive) systems.

Economic-Ecological Thinking

Concerning environmental economics, identifying the range of prevailing viewpoints in this field of study is necessary in order to properly credit its practitioners. In actuality, EE cannot be classified as a science. The idea of treating it as an emerging field of transdisciplinary study (Milanović, 2022, p. 15) with the goal of filling places not addressed by established scientific disciplines. According to Petrović (2022, p. 35), it would be an “orchestration of sciences,” encompassing different points of view of different economist as well as the environmentalists those who are well known in the field.

According to Maerhofer (2023, p. 90), there are three primary streams within environmentalism. The “cult of the wilderness,” which upholds the sacredness of nature, deep ecology, and a biocentric viewpoint, is one ecological movement. The “gospel of eco-efficiency” (Maerhofer, 2023, p. 90), refers to a different trend that emphasises results-oriented environmentalism and considers the consequences of economic expansion. The third and final current is the “environmentalism of the poor”, which has a material interest in the natural environment’s provision of environmental resources and services necessary for human survival. These streams share certain common aspects that set them apart from anti ecologists, who view the environment as a barrier of development. Nevertheless, ant ecologists reject, disregard, or disparage these streams.

One school of thought underlying environmentalism of the poor holds that the struggle between the economy and nature cannot be resolved by internalising externalities, advancing ecological modernity, or boosting eco-efficiency. Skidelsky (2020, p. 93) raise the issue of the uneven incidence of environmental damages that are not only impact the other species but also reflect the consequences on future generations of humans. The idea of the incommensurability of values lies at the heart of the ecologism. In this case, in addition to distributive conflicts and uncertainties that have no solution, the duty of EE is to examine various decision-making processes within the framework of week values (Cavalcanti, 2010, p. 57).

The most significant aspect in money valuations is how relevant a natural service is to the market. Natural services can refer to a variety of things, though. For instance, a mangrove is significant from an ecological, cultural, religious, and landscape perspective, in addition to its economic significance. This produces a variety of values that call for an integrated understanding of the ecosystem’s social, cultural, physical, and spiritual components. Wilkerson (2020, p. 182) highlights that the requirement for persons of colour to ride in the backseat of cars in the United States could not be made up for with a less expensive ticket, considering human decency. Herman Daly, who aims to integrate aspects from the three currents of environmentalism, is the most well-known EE in the world today. He studied under Georgescu-Roegen and has expanded on the thermodynamic theory of the economic process.

When it comes to ecological economics, there may be two opposing groups: those who support strong sustainability (as in the case of Herman Daly) and hold that natural and artificial capital are not interchangeable, and the other group are those who support weak sustainability (as in the theory that the two forms of capital are perfect substitutes, as proposed by conventional economics). The Swede Karl-Göran Mahler’s name is one that appears in this second category. However, in general, Georgescu-Roegen’s theories serve as the cornerstone of ecological economics. He says that the environment (low-entropy matter and energy, the basic resources the planet has) is used by the economic system, which then inevitably produces waste (high-entropy matter and energy) that is recycled back into the natural system (Kara et al., 2022, p. 519-520). In addition, it gives the people who comprise society a flow of happiness or psychological well-being, which validates the community’s existence. Beyond doubt, the ability to attain the material aspect of happiness is what the production of economic goods and services is all about. This is the purpose of the economy, which is a structured system for transforming energy and materials with low entropy into trash and heat energy with high entropy. According to Gershon (2024, p. 12), it is our responsibility as people to choose how the economy would make life simpler.

The principles of Solidarity Economy

Mutualism or Mutuality

The manner in which our economy is interwoven with the communities in which we live, and work are typically ignored by standard financial systems. In truth, the great majority of our economy is based on establishing, preserving, and enhancing the social and physical settings in which the majority of people live. A large portion of economic activity is based on locally served industries (Bartik, 2020, p. 112). The majority of work cannot be completed without workplaces, even if some people work from home, and ultimately our economy cannot function without the ecosystems that support it. However, the majority of traditional economic models ignore the connections we have to our surroundings, the earth, and one another.

However, the reciprocal nature of one individual (or group) may differ from another. According to critical race theorist John Powell, in order to decide who can be included in our circle of solidarity, our existing system has created and maintained in- and out-groups, frequently based on race and geography. This establishes boundaries for who should be given social support and employment security and who should be left to fend for themselves, as well as for determining whether areas will be growing, gentrifying, or dying. The problem is that everyone is in danger when wolves are allowed to roam free; as a result, it is truly in everyone’s best interest to confront systemic racism and widen the circle of belonging in our economy. This prepares us towards the following central thesis, which is that cultivating a mutuality-based culture can, in fact, result in more prosperity. Heimberger (2020, p. 2961), makes this argument in her research by acknowledging that this directly contradicts the conventional economic viewpoint, which holds that inequality—the so-called equity–efficiency trade-off—is required to encourage and support a robust economy. More generally, there is growing proof showing that the state of affairs individual finds themselves in right now—one marked by institutional racism, economic disparity, and environmental destruction—is not ideal for almost any of us. On the other hand, acknowledging and promoting mutuality may be advantageous in a variety of contexts. We would boost investments and direct innovations towards the common good if we encouraged the cooperative aspects that are essential for innovation to thrive and lessened the unequal private appropriation of the commons.

Recognising cooperative efforts to grow the economy with a social wage would contribute to lessening the enormous financial burden of homelessness, ill health, and poverty. We could avoid being overtaken by the financial burden of environmental pollution and calamities brought on by climate change, and we could enjoy a healthier environment if we extended our sense of mutuality to the earth and future generations. This brings us to our final foundation: active organising aimed at rebalancing power is the only way we can achieve that better world. While mutuality and collaboration are desirable outcomes, achieving them will necessitate navigating the antagonistic friction of identifying the political beneficiaries of current arrangements and devising strategies to reduce their power in order to advance the interests of the many. It is a challenging balancing act to embrace mutuality as a goal and movements as a technique, but it is necessary if change is to occur.

But this poses still another challenge to received wisdom: the science of economics frequently advances under the impression that empirical research identifying issues and providing answers is sufficient to persuade decision-makers to choose a more inclusive course of action. However, this viewpoint—believing that issues like financial inequality, racial inequities, and environmental degradation need to be addressed—is out of date. These “problems” are characteristics of an unfair dominance structure, not flaws in the system, that can only be overcome by social movements striving to actualize widespread solidarity. This focus on actions is closely related to the notion of a frame, which we introduced at the beginning of this section. The relevance of using narrative understanding to establish a common identity is discussed in the most recent theories of social movements. Yes, we need a bundle of economic policies, but we also need a narrative. The concept put forth by those who support n is compelling; it revolves around markets, freedom, and individuals (even if the end result is disadvantage and inequality). We need a story that speaks to us, that taps into the universal human feeling that, when we work together, we can overcome almost anything, and that, once told, becomes a type of mental default, providing a fresh perspective on mutuality and movements in response to each economic inquiry on a social crisis.

A Focus on Social and Solidarity Commons

Within the context of this study, interpersonal and collaboration ordinary (SSC) refer to all relational commons—that is, to all relational activities such as cooperative, equitable, social, and collaborative practices—that support the development and renewal of social and human critical capital, among other things. Since social interactions are rarely initially balanced—the ex-ante environment is typically marked by several individual inequalities that could encourage various forms of exploitation based on free riding—solidarity is emphasised. In these situations, solidarity—while having inherent value—may also help prevent predatory relationships and establish mutually beneficial, long-lasting cooperative relationships.

Collaborative relationships then have the potential to uphold group interests. It is important to choose whether fair cooperative practices should continue to be accessible to everybody or whether they should be held jointly, publicly, or privately after they have been institutionalised and recognised as valuable assets during the co-development process. It is challenging to entitle an ownership unit with clearly defined property rights on SSC due to their immaterial and scarcely quantifiable nature, which puts the latter at risk of being seen as non-owned (i.e. open access) (Ugwumba, 2020. p, 5). Because of this, a person who is not aware of the binding social norms in a society may feel free to follow the interests of the group regardless of whether doing so would ultimately lead them to adopt non-cooperative options when engaging with other agents.

The supposed liberty of option, nevertheless, could be in odds with written or social norms that bar narrow individualism from socially acceptable motives. Hence, decisions made out of self-interest regarding the development of commons may result in a form of tragedy, but this is actually an unintended (and unexpected) consequence because the word common comes from both of the resources held in common and the laws prohibiting self-serving forms of exploitation that could cause the common resource to run out. The entities of the Social Security Administration that operate across multiple geographic scales and activity fields may legitimately be entitled to their communal ownership, and they may charge for violating community-owned rights over third-party activities that may limit or harm the communally owned SSC in order to restore a fair and productive fruition of the SSC.

As opposed to common-pool materials, SSC are potentially readily excludable but barely sub tractable in terms of consumption, and in that they are similar to club commodities, communal ownership of SSC may be enforced by acting on excludability (Ugwumba, 2020. p, 5). Actually, excludability can be attained by cultivating a mutualistic mind set and selfless behaviour that are exclusive to the participants in cooperative and communing activities. Nonetheless, SSC are inherently linked to an open and shared mutualism, i.e., to the growth of altruistic conduct and a mutualistic mindset towards a broader audience. When governing the Social Sustainability Centre (SSC) in accordance with economic and social sustainability requirements, the degree of extended mutualism and altruism may be a crucial factor in situations involving both excessive exploitation and inadequate utilisation of shared social resources. In particular, the focus may shift to “narrow altruism and mutualism” (i.e., on altruism and mutualism directed only or mostly towards participants) and vice versa when the motivations at the core of communing and collaborative practices are diluted. Limitations or rewards concerning engagement in social activities might be enforced based on the factors that contribute to the failure, such as traffic jams or low involvement. As a result, SSC may develop towards common-pool resources or towards communitarian goods.

Many SSCs have non-negligible instrumental value in addition to their inherent qualities. In fact, the category of financially useful SSC that falls within the purview of this study could be viewed as a share of social capital, and the field of economics has long acknowledged the contribution that social capital makes to both long-term economic growth and social advancement (Hidalgo et al., 2024, p. 187). Financially speaking, it is important to note that by ignoring the chance to ascribe a collective ownership to SSC, their significance as an economic asset—that is, as social capital—has been underestimated. This is because their dynamic and intangible qualities preclude an owner-ship unit from being entitled to clearly defined public or private property rights. However, their alleged lack of economic significance has occasionally been made up for by an exaggerated assessment of their total worth, which has fuelled a clash of ideas between proponents of property rights and believers in commons (Salustri, 2021, p. 25). However, the conflict is ideological based because private, public, shared ownership, and open accessibility coexist historically and geographically, and all property regimes—with different modalities—play a part in the functioning of institutions, i.e., they create the basis of the secular patterns that define human history.

The Limitations to Economics of Mutuality

In that sense, the collaboration among a business, Mars Incorporated, and a university, Oxford University, has been crucial. In addition to guaranteeing that unbiased, independent evaluations of the enterprises are conducted, it has made information on the underlying operations and performance of those firms accessible that would not have been otherwise. In addition, it has made knowledge and skills accessible that otherwise would not have been possible for the creation of new knowledge, its application in the workplace, its instruction in business schools, and its dissemination through books, scholarly journals, and discussion boards. Collaborations like this invariably carry dangers and issues, such as the possibility of academic capture by private interests. But one of the lessons learned from the Oxford-Mars programme has been how to run these kinds of business-academia collaborations so as to retain independence while also generating insights. While the book does not purport to offer conclusive answers regarding the virtues or shortcomings of this specific business model, it does make the case that it warrants careful thought as well as in-depth examination by others. First, mutuality is a source rather than a solution to the issue, despite how it is traditionally viewed in some circles (Mayer and Roche, 2021, p. 19).

Together advantageous trades that involve voluntary contributions from both sides cannot be separated from the power imbalances and concentrations of control that often underlie them, to the extent that they are related with free exchange. It is undoubtedly uninspiring and could even worsen inequality and wealth disparities to arrive at a win-win solution that favours the wealthy and powerful almost exclusively while helping the situation of the underprivileged only somewhat. She is crucial to realise how the meaning of mutuality in this context encompasses more than just the traditional idea of transaction; rather, it also refers to the idea of fostering substantial and beneficial outcomes for both the self and others. Problem solving is the source of both economic performance and social well-being when purpose is prioritised and appropriately focused towards resolving issues. Another drawback is that Economics of Mutuality is a business-specific management innovation in its current state.

It fails to tackle the larger financial and policy formulation issues that will be needed to guarantee that the role of business (which lacks democratic legitimacy), civil society, and government are not confused and to shape the forthcoming grassroots movement for the Economics of Mutuality. In that regard, the subject of the politics of mutuality is distinct from its economics but of the utmost significance. Politics, like business, will need to change the paradigm and tilt it in two directions: first, by strengthening the core of purpose and drawing attention inward, and second, by embracing the power of participation and encouraging engagement from the outside and cultivating leadership skills to bring inner purpose and outer engagement together. The final drawback is that the field of economics of Mutuality is not currently intended for use as an investment model in finance because it is a business model innovation that works for businesses. However, our next step is to transform Economics of Mutuality from a business model tested in the quickly evolving consumer goods industry into a financial investment model. One may argue that Economics of Mutuality would not be a revolutionary movement until it tackles the financial industry, given its immense influence over the actual economy.

One significant shortcoming of the Economics of Mutuality approach is that it cannot be viewed as a magic bullet for enterprises that fail to meet their social or environmental obligations or as a way to guarantee better performance. The impact that business innovation may have on firms, as well as the societies and environments in which they operate, is not without its perils and advantages. This book aims to provide a fair and impartial analysis of these benefits and drawbacks. By achieving this, the investigation organisations have highlighted the significance of understanding the two components of purposeful business, which are “not to profit from producing problems for people and planet” and “to produce profitable solutions to the problems of people and planet.” The latter is crucial for preventing the negative effects that doing well by doing good can have. In other words, expanding the company’s horizons beyond its legal and property rights may increase the likelihood of both good and harmful outcomes.

There is more flexibility in “employment” than there was in the past because to the “gig economy” and the sharing of assets rather than ownership for the provision of taxi, delivery, property leasing, and other services globally. But they also run the risk of taking advantage of weaker segments of society who have little or no other options, and they do not have the stability, insurance, or security that come with traditional work. It’s still quite debatable whether the gig economy fosters exploitation or facilitates it. Additionally, businesses that produce, distribute, and supply goods and services that have negative associated effects—such as addictive products like alcohol, drugs, fast food, and tobacco—may improve human and social capital by creating jobs in regions of the world where they are scarce. In both situations, businesses can seem to be making money—making jobs—while promoting negative outcomes—addiction and insecurity. Because of this, the gains are fictitious and do not meet the requirement of not creating new problems while resolving old ones.

The argument that businesses ought to conduct their operations in a more enlightened and creative manner raises concerns regarding whether or not businesses are capable of making moral and welfare decisions. According to Porter (2021, p. 122), the conventional wisdom on business holds that governments should define the rules of the game that businesses must play by, and businesses should play them in a way that seeks to maximise profit. Combining and conflating the two runs the risk of giving welfare decisions to people who aren’t legally authorised to make them. As a consequence, it undermines the foundations of democracy by giving corporate executives and owners excessive power over the general public. Thus, governments and regulators continue to play a crucial role in establishing and enforcing the standards by which businesses must operate, for instance, with regard to the terms and conditions under which employees are employed. Nonetheless, a lot of the responsibilities placed on businesses will consider both formal regulatory frameworks and socially accepted standards, such as those outlined in the Sustainable Development Goals of the United Nations.

Governance, in particularly, is crucial for both establishing the standards that businesses must follow and coordinating corporate goals with public goals in entities that carry out public tasks and offer public products and services. This especially pertains to utilities—telecommunications, electricity, transportation, water, and infrastructure providers—as well as businesses with substantial market power and those involved in PPPs and private financing projects. Companies in each of these situations carry out both private and public commercial operations, and they must match their corporate goals with their public ones.

Reciprocity

The mutually beneficial size of collaboration is demonstrated by the mobilisation of diverse actors in a wide range of civic initiatives, wherein representatives of public authorities and other capital providers join forces with users, employees, and volunteers to address particular unmet needs or interests. When reciprocity is expressed, it fosters voluntary relationships between different groups or individuals by giving, receiving, and giving again, strengthening existing ties of solidarity (Whitham, 2021, p. 510). In order to combat environmental degradation, gender inequality, fiscal constraints on welfare spending, neoliberal deregulation and financial crisis, SSE offers an alternative model for economic production and consumption (Lee, 2020, p. 65). In light of worries about social security, recognition, and a meaningful life, it achieves this by introducing new actors to the workforce, class dynamics, and civic engagement (World Health Organization, 2021, p. 4). A wide range of citizen-based initiatives are included in the term “social and solidarity economy,” including fair trade, renewable energy, microfinance, social currencies, and third-sector groups that offer social assistance, health care, and job integration (Lee, 2020, p. 65).

Relationships between people and the reciprocity resulting from social interactions are cited by both scholars as the basis for the state and the market, with associations serving as society’s initial stage of defence and security prior to the establishment of contemporary states that enable the connection between the public and private domains (Strachan and Harris, 2020,p. 9). Constitutional law that permits political involvement and provides a means of lawful emancipatory social action is how modern democratic constitutions allow the expression of solidarity. As a result, via public discussion and deliberation, citizens and their organisations can influence political discourse and advance the democratic process (Jacquet and van der Does, 2021, p. 13). This ties government redistributing mechanisms implemented through representative democracy to the domain of reciprocity, which is home to free and equal citizens, since both are devoted to advancing social rights and equality. According to Williams (2020 p. 128), democratic solidarity is demonstrated by organisations that prioritise serving their constituents’ needs over their own interests, are self-managed, and value internal consensus building. These organisations are a part of institutional regulatory frameworks that safeguard ideals of social equality and participation from the market, such as public redistribution and exchanges between public authorities and civil society (Christoforou, 2022, p. 188).

By using a reciprocity approach, we can view the social economy as a collection of organisations like nonprofit associations, social enterprises, cooperatives, and mutual organisations, and the solidarity economy as a viewpoint emphasising the connections between these organisations and modern democracy in terms of both internal and external governance (Nyssens and Benjamin, 2020 p. 128). Utilising empirical data gathered from the EU H2020-funded SOLIDUS project—which investigates manifestations of acts of solidarity in Europe—the research contrasts projects situated in various policy contexts. Although stainless steel has been emphasised as being important by policymakers throughout Europe. The three study nations—Denmark, Hungary, and Scotland—reflect this (see also the section on empirical material and analytical framework). Drawing inspiration from Gardin’s research on reciprocity types, as stated in Chen et al. (2022, p. 121), we aim to comprehend the national and local political contexts in which our citizens who advocate for equality, social inclusion, and environmentally sustainable lifestyles are situated.

Multi-Dimensional Approach to SSE

In contrast to the vector method, the multi-dimensional approach to SSE does not categorise the organisations involved as functioning in a more or less economic manner. On the other hand, it highlights the significance of governance alongside the customary economic and social aspects (Brondízio et al., 2021, p. 481). Based on the research of academics like McKinley et al. (2020, p. 82), scientists have developed a multifaceted understanding of SSE that includes social, economic, and political aspects. Because of its emphasis on citizen participation, civil society as a foundation and the encouragement of self-organized action, the SSE is closely linked to participatory governance. Accordingly, the element of society aims to improve life quality by fostering social justice, individual autonomy, and acknowledgment (Laruffa, 2020, p. 12). In order to assist disadvantaged individuals, consumers, and self-help groups in becoming producers or co-producers and owners, the economic component integrates self-organized activity with a variety of revenue streams (Yegorov, 2023, p. 203). This social and solidarity economy framework transforms the social component into economic leverage or particular productive strength by combining common good deeds with multiple economic understandings of citizen initiatives and the third sector (Keen, 2022, p. 99).

According to Panizza and Stavrakakis, (2020, p. 20) the element of politics posits that political discourse can be influenced by the solidarity of individuals, which is driven by their specially life worlds. This solidarity can then influence public deliberations. It is significant to remember that internal governance of SSE organisations is typically shared by a number of stakeholders, including professionals and volunteers, who may sit on the board of directors alongside public authorities or users. In order to further the common interest, members must find a compromise between divergent viewpoints and interests through formats like general assemblies, although they are not limited to these. The interaction with the SSE and state institutions—which may offer funds by checking services, applicable legal structures, or even a seat on the Board—is referred to as external governance (Akuffo and Akuffo, 2020, p. 275). Consequently, this links to broader discussions on the functions of civic society, civic participation, and active citizenship.

The reciprocal theory, which is central to Polanyi’s pluralist view of the economy, is a fundamental idea in SSE research. One system involves the free exchange of goods for the purpose of making money; another entails redistribution through acts of charity or taxation; and a third system involves reciprocity and the creation of use value in order to meet the needs of the family and the community (Zachorowska-Mazurkiewicz, 2020, p. 180). The reciprocity dimension of solidarity is demonstrated by the mobilisation of diverse actors in a wide range of civic initiatives, wherein representatives of public authorities and other capital providers join forces with users, employees, and volunteers to address particular unmet needs or interests. In expressing cooperation, different groups or individuals form voluntary relationships by giving, receiving, and giving again, so forging new ties of solidarity (Frega, 2021, p. 179). In accordance with political aims and interests in redistributing value and re-allocating resources as well as addressing some of the more ambiguous effects of social change, collective actors are frequently backed by public redistribution principles (Klein, 2022, p. 23). By doing this, the market ceases to be completely autonomous and to rule both the political and private domains, and instead becomes culturally and politically integrated (Burelli, 2022, p. 627).

The possibly improving impacts of allowing people to participate in self-managed economic life are highlighted by SSE research (Vieta and Heras, 2023, p. 161). Here is where scholars work on systems, life worlds, and the public sphere serves as an inspiration for the literature on solidarity and social economy. It combines political and economic perspectives to produce a thorough understanding of citizen initiatives (Hitziger et al., 2021, p. 11). The conceptualises public communication as a valid source of power for political decision-making and views civil society as an emancipatory force—as long as it is allowed access to the public sphere. While representational democracy is used to implement its principles under solidarity-based public redistribution, reciprocity [may] unfold on the basis of voluntary commitments, in the public space, of free and equal citizens (Eynaud and Carvalho de França Filho, 2023, p. 91). Two movements result from Polanyi’s hybrid conceptualization of the economy: first, the invention of modern solidarity in the form of constitutional law, which permits political participation and provides a resource for lawful emancipatory social action; second, the prioritisation of market exchange in the institutionalist process of the economy (Eynaud and Laville, 2023, p. 13).

In opposition to the authority of wealth and management, Habermas refers to this as the socially integrating force of solidarity. Thus, a democratic society and legal provisions ensure personal autonomy. Citizens can use their legal rights to determine social interaction rules because they are mutually constitutive. The prerequisite for what refers to as democratic solidarity is this combination of redistribution, which reinforces social cohesion and redresses inequality, and an understanding of reciprocity as enhancing voluntary social relations between free and equal citizens To reestablish a community’s capacity for self-organization, this blends redistributive solidarity combined with a more performance-based and reciprocal form of the latter. Democratic solidarity seeks a reciprocator to avoid a position of perpetual inferiority.

Typology of reciprocity

Reciprocity is generally categorised by the researchers into three categories which includes negative reciprocity, balanced reciprocity, and generalized reciprocity. The main distinction, according to Gaiger (2022, p. 15) is that throughout the process, the beneficiary group is given consideration and able to dictate its terms. The first two categories deal with reciprocity in its vertical and horizontal versions. A number of different problems are addressed by Whitham, M.M., (2021, p. 529) in typology of reciprocity that is observed in Europe, or more accurately, by understanding solidarity activities within their respective political contexts. He separates reciprocity into three categories first are those who are spearheading the initiative—volunteers, professionals, or public authorities—differs significantly from the users or customers of a service or good, this is known as unequal reciprocity. This does not mean that later on, through participatory forms of government, more horizontal forms of reciprocity cannot be achieved. According to Gaiger (2022, p. 12) there are various elements or components of the process that can be examined in order to understand the norm of reciprocity. These elements include interest, which refers to the motivation of the dyad partner in making the exchange, such as self-interest, mutual interest, and other interest, and equivalence, which is the degree to which the amount of return is roughly equivalent to what was received. Additionally, urgency refers to the time period between the time one receives an exchange and when repayment is due. When combined, these reciprocity-related components are thought to offer the mechanisms that keep social systems stable.

Filippi et al. (2023, p. 12) stated differently, the reciprocal effect generated by the SSE is economically and politically ingrained in a framework that is predicated on market trade logic, political interests, and public redistribution. These elements might serve as assets for the SSE, but they can also obstruct the creation of the common good. Combining several methods of resource allocation is possible since SSE organisations may profit from volunteer labour and experience, sell goods and services on the open market, receive funding from the government or private sector, and more (Filippi et al., 2023, p. 7). Each of the three instances that follow employs various resource combinations, which is influenced in part by the political systems in each of the three countries. Similar to social businesses, SSE organisations can take on ambiguous roles when they are directly associated with a neoliberal policy objective. They aim to integrate resources, expertise, and organizational frameworks from the profit-driven market sector with charitable endeavours in underprivileged areas.

According to Filippi et al. (2023, p. 9), shifting civil society’s character from half movement, half government to half charity, half business logic. This is completely at odds with theory of democratic solidarity based on reciprocity and can occasionally lead to a type of political neutering. Researchers point out that, despite their mostly local operations, political institutions need to acknowledge the SSE more broadly, maybe by changing how they interact with welfare state institutions (Filippi et al., 2023, p. 4). He also refer to SSE’s goods and services since it is fundamentally socially beneficial and serves democratic governments as such. He also explains that the partisanship, cutbacks, or prevailing public logics might weaken or even eliminate public support. This highlights the issue of how to obtain resources and the kind of reciprocity that social players interested in reciprocal solidarity want to practise, not lessening the significance of those social actors.

The Solidarity Dimension of Reciprocity

Each of the below three scenarios don’t follow Gardin’s typology Moscati, (2020, p. 2) because they use components from each of the three reciprocity kinds in different ways. In first scenario the users of Theatre Nemo are encouraged to be horizontally united while exhibiting vertical reciprocity. However, in the second case “The Food Bag” organisation began with a strong vertical reciprocity strategy and has since shifted to more widely distributed horizontal reciprocity elements. This is mostly because producers, users, and middlemen have similar socioeconomic backgrounds. Lastly, Skovsgård hotel are the prime example of multilateral reciprocity; it combines earned income with governmental redistribution to foster as much civic autonomy as feasible for a variety of stakeholders (Bučaitė-Vilkė, 2021, p. 152). We go into further detail on all of these aspects below. Since reciprocity is defined as the mutual exchange of assistance and support, Theatre Nemo does not exhibit equal or horizontal reciprocity. The goal of Theatre Nemo and the vulnerability of the intended users—who are primarily, but not solely, on the receiving end of relationships with other Theatre Nemo members—are the sources of solidarity in this case study. However, as mentioned by the interviewees, end users formed a kind of solidarity link.

Participating in Playhouse the fish’s events undoubtedly helps end users get over the isolation that is frequently connected to mental health concerns, even though these benefits might not be long-lasting. This is further motivated by the organization’s long volunteerism legacy in Scotland and its tight collaboration with public mental health facilities, both of which give legitimacy to Theatre Nemo’s operations. Volunteering can help people overcome their feelings of isolation; even though this benefit is fleeting and can only last temporarily. It also encourages people to participate in activities outside of the organisation, such taking classes to better their knowledge.

When the Food in a Box Bag the company first started out, it showed signs of vertical reciprocity because the people running the programme (volunteers, professionals, and government officials) were not the same people who would utilise or purchase a service or good. But as more participatory forms of government have been introduced, and as constituencies have changed, it has evolved into more of a horizontal reciprocity framework. With the help of the Food Bags product screening process, which fosters consumer trust and involvement in the Food Bag association, the organisation supports local farmers who provide food to an increasingly health-conscious urban population.

In the Skovsgård hotel case, a grocery store provides an illustration of the many ways in which solidarity can be institutionalised. It stands in a village that, until a few years ago, was home to Rega and Gimbut, (2022, p. 430) small companies, the last of which was about to close. Together with the locals of R&D the villager group managed the store using a mix of special needs workers, professional merchants, and volunteer staff. This is in line with the holistic approach of the model, which highlights the need of living and working in the same community to provide an individual a “whole” life. In addition to personal dedication, R&D was able to launch operations in Bonderup thanks to assistance from the Danish Social Capital fund. Similar to this, the hotel was discussed with the neighbourhood at the founder’s initiative, and locals were convinced to jointly own the property. About half of the Skovsgård Hotel’s 2009 revenue comes from its core business activities, with the remaining half coming from services it provides to the municipality in the form of protected jobs. About 25% of R&D income comes from economic activity; the remainder comes from social budget money (Celli et al., 2021, p. 260). All resort staff members, including individuals with disabilities or other social challenges, are shareholders, which provides them a unique sense of equality and ownership. The comparison of the situations points to connections between the political climate, the different income streams, and the internal governance status, all of which affect the reciprocity components of solidarity. Initiatives must rely more on earned income in an environment where the issue being treated has less legitimacy, is less well-known, and negatively impacts the perception of civil society. This results in more managerial rather than participatory governance and a more homogeneous beneficiary group (Food Bag).

Mutual Trust

The mutual trust concept, which formed the basis of the political (and even moral) foundations of mutual recognition, and national sovereignty or national identity are two extremely delicate topics that are brought up by the criminal justice system. Mutual confidence facilitated criminal judicial cooperation with little to no modifications to national legal systems, therefore Member States avoided harmonisation Ladenburger, (2020, p. 381) and maintained substantial decision-making powers in criminal cases. Collaboration on delicate matters between national authorities is made possible by mutual confidence. It permits Member States to apply common understandings on issues that are especially cutting edge when it comes to fundamental rights, where they cannot agree, and those that have symbolic connections to the affective underpinnings of national identity (Sandrin, 2021, p. 220). It is unsurprising, given this that the CJEU declared that the fundamental significance of EU law lies in the idea of mutual trust among Member States (Ladenburger, 2020, p. 374). The importance of mutual trust made it necessary to go deeper into what mutual trust really means. Regarding this, some have questioned if we should discuss confidence rather than trust.

In contrast, confidence arises when we depend solely on our expectations and ignore other options. Whereas expectations include not even considering the necessity of making such a choice, trust requires taking a chance and deciding (Sullivan, 2020, p. 20). However, trust and confidence are linked, and trust gradually erodes as confidence declines (Macready et al., 2020, p. 2). One clear example of the connection between confidence and trust in the AFSJ is the rule of law. Nations thought that the rule of law would be respected across the EU; nonetheless, as it eroded, faith in important judicial components eventually suffered, which in turn led to scepticism in judicial cooperation (Ladenburger, 2020, p. 375). This relationship between confidence and trust may be seen in Ute Frevert’s research, which holds that confidence is focused on the future and trust is rooted in the past. Although society’s recognised and shared expectations form the basis of trust, trust is also an emotion since it is connected to our aspirations and hopes (Cominelli et al., 2021, p. 1). Therefore, confidence must be conditional, voluntary, and reciprocal in order for there to be trust.

It is predicated on our faith in an individual, a system, or a procedure; yet trust goes beyond this and prompts people to make intentionally dangerous choices. As it expresses a shared sense of vulnerability and mutual dependence and promises justice and empathy, trust actually carries a strong sentimental component. Since the latter part of the 20th century, these ideals have become increasingly important, guiding interactions amongst individuals outside of our immediate family, neighbourhood, or city. It is important to keep in mind that the European Union has formal organisations that provide dependable services and make predictable claims. This allows citizens to take risks while still being protected by the law.

To put it succinctly, universal structures have turned strangers into fellows with similar standards of behaviour. Establishing institutionalised values facilitates the extension of trust beyond one’s immediate social circle. The foundation for trust has been created by the shared experiences, needs, and structure that have developed over time. a trust that enables the EU to take bold new actions even in areas where reaching an agreement was improbable. It’s actually important to remember that the UK law, the primary tool of mutual trust, was created out of necessity as describe by Johansson and Sandahl, (2024, p. 69), when national governments believed that a united, forceful response was necessary to the prospect of a terrorist strike.

At that exact time, there was an especially strong need to prevent and prosecute exceptionally horrific crimes beyond national borders, which led to the Framework Decision on the European Arrest Warrant. To put it succinctly, Member States perceived a shared vulnerability that could only be addressed by strengthening the coordination between their legal and law enforcement institutions. However, as it was an especially delicate area, Member States had to rely on one another. During the pandemic, this sense of vulnerability that we all shared was very apparent. At first, the epidemic mostly affected Italy and Spain, but in later waves, it quickly extended across the entire European Union.

Locking up nations and halting national economies was the answer; this was a difficult task that called for bold, coordinated, and unified strategies. In actuality, the pandemic has been described as a complicated international issue that calls for hitherto unheard-of levels of government coordination while also making the required cooperation exceptionally challenging to accomplish (Almutairi et al., 2022, p. 3440). This was demonstrated to be the case not only at the national level—the emergence of improved coordination and harmonisation in a number of federal and regional states serving as a notable example—but also at the EU level. If the EU wished to maintain its legitimacy within its borders and its standing in politics and the economy outside of them, it was obvious that it would have to go beyond the conventional legal and economic methods.

In addition, people displayed a great deal of empathy for those who were most negatively impacted by the crisis. Accordingly, the pandemic proved a potent catalyst to revive trust among Member States, since intense emotional crises establish relationships within a community Alteri et al., (2021, p. 23) and trust is fostered by a shared feeling of vulnerability. If the events led to an increase in criminal cooperation, the pandemic cleared the way for an extraordinary economic initiative. Before the epidemic, such a programme was unthinkable; it was a daring political manoeuvre as well as an example of clever legal engineering.

It is going to be financed by the issue of EU debt and provides grants and loans to encourage investments and reforms in the Member States. The plan combines burden sharing with joint debt issuance, or debt mutualization with some restrictions. To put it simply, the NGEU represents a significant historical turning point. As of now, the NGEU does not signify a significant departure from the EU’s economically focused goals. In actuality, the NGEU serves as a platform to promote a structural reform of the national economies rather than only a reaction to the economic slowdown brought on by the pandemic.

Nonetheless, founded on cooperation, the NGEU has the potential to mark a turning point in the social solidarity of the EU. As the CJEU has demonstrated in decisions, mutual trust is not the same as blind faith, nor is it selfless. It is, in reality, voluntary, conditional, and reciprocal—as was previously mentioned. Characteristics present in the NGEU. The NGEU has a conditionality component because the grants and loans given out must be used to finance actions, investments, and reforms that advance the goals set forth in the Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF). The EU evaluated and ex ante validated twenty-five objectives.

Moreover, the foundation of the NGEU, the RRF, is intricately linked to the EU’s economic governance framework. The European Union has recommended that national authorities adhere to its guidelines and carry out the recommendations covered under the European Semester (Buti and Fabbrini, 2023, p. 676). Furthermore, should a state fail to fulfil its responsibilities under the macroeconomic process and the Stability and Growth Pact (SGP), the funds’ flow may be suspended. Therefore, conditionality still has some validity, but it no longer has the same meaning as the rigorous conditionality that served as the impetus for the Euro Crisis laws. The ethical risk that made up for the loss of trust—or even confidence—among the Member States that suffered the most during the crisis was a major factor in the variety of crisis management strategies employed during the Euro Crisis. Stated differently, the distrust among Member States was reflected in the stringent conditions imposed on the financial aid provided by the Euro Crisis procedures. But a distinct paradigm was used to address the pandemic. Not only did the epidemic eventually impact every Member State, but assigning culpability to the Member States with a higher death rate from the coronavirus would have been unethical.

As an outcome, the concept of moral hazard was deemed irrelevant (Nelson, 2022, p. 998). The COVID-19 epidemic undoubtedly sparked a great deal of empathy for the Member States where it was most severe, but the EU was also prepared for a paradigm shift. Even before the epidemic struck, the Union was considering the EMU critically. There was discussion about the SGP, the EU fiscal code, and legislative measures pertaining to new budgetary. Thus, the epidemic turned out to be a trigger for a novel idea. The European Union (EU) faced a number of serious crises in the ten years before the pandemic, including the Brexit, migration, and sovereign crises, but the COVID-19 pandemic quickly eclipsed them all. Because the health crisis affected every single policy and politics, the EU was especially vulnerable (Barbier-Gauchard et al., 2021, p. 329). The EU has to take bold, creative risks while looking to the future and relying on the past in order to meet an unprecedented challenge.

Social Solidarity in Line With the EU

The national socioeconomic goals and interests are taken into consideration in the EU’s pandemic response, known as the NGEU. But they also have to be in line with the objectives and interests of the EU. This suggests that the concept of social solidarity as understood at the EU level must be consistent with and compatible with domestic solidarity. An economic integration process entwined with social solidarity that aims to boost global competitiveness, especially through digital transformation, while addressing climate change and the growing demand for alternative energy sources. In summary, social solidarity could be strengthened if it is in line with the primary objectives of the EU.

This concept of communal camaraderie inside the EU framework has been labelled as ” spirited competition,” as it suffers from the pressure of unparalleled worldwide competition. The goal of achieving citizen equality is to equalise resource endowments among market players, especially by supporting people’s capacity to adjust to shifting market conditions. Seeking social cohesiveness requires an appreciation of fair opportunity, which places a focus on skill development and job facilitation. Social investment brings efficiency and equity together. With measures like instruction, reachable lifelong learning, affordable and high-quality universities, active labour market programmes, individualised assistance, paid parental leave, promotion of flexible work schedules, and public employment, such a social investment could increase employment while also lowering poverty (Okolie et al., 2020, p. 223). In addition, social investment necessitates a universal safety net with a minimum income since ageing societies require both social protection and economic stabilisation as “buffers.”

The NGEU is infused with this economic solidarity, which prioritises public sector efficiency and social investment over redistributive and protective solidarity. In actuality, Member States had a lot of leeway when creating their National Recovery Plans, but they nevertheless needed to give special consideration to the suggestions made to them within the context of the European Semester. Due to the social indicators’ consistent strong ties to the CSR’s objective of promoting competitiveness in its market, the inclusion of social goals in the Country Specific Recommendations (CSR) implied a subordination of social objectives to the goals of financial stability and economic convergence (Hacker, 2022, p. 15). Given the importance of financial stability, it is questionable if the European Semester will end up serving as a vehicle for the defence of social rights.

To begin with, a fundamental transformation must result from the investments. Second, recurring costs may only be funded if the Member State in question can show that the expenditure will have long-term benefits, that funding for them will be sustainably provided beyond the NRP, and that any short-term negative effects on the government’s balance will be minimal. Ultimately, investments that were not certain to be implemented within the Facility’s timeframe had to be shunned. National Recovery Plans promoted social investment as a result. These actions include, for example, investments and reforms to increase the efficacy of active labour market policies, to increase access to high-quality education and training, and to strengthen digital education, which includes reskilling and upskilling working-age adults.

sixty-two in fact, the Spanish National Rehabilitation Plan Lugo-Agudelo et al., (2021, p. 7) included a number of goals for modernising and connecting vocational training and the entire educational system to the labour market Gumenyuk et al., (2021, p. 7); additionally, it included goals for modernising and digitising education, which included a thorough overhaul of the university system (Alharbi, 2023, p. 924). In addition, it comprises training programmes related to the green and digital transition, the modernization of labour market laws, and the assistance and reskilling of workers in transition (Juaristi, 2022, p. 18). Moreover, one of the primary achievements of the Spanish NRP is the comprehensive modernization of the minimum vital income, which was implemented in May 2020 by Royal Decree Law 20/202064.

Consequently, in keeping with the growing relevance of a minimum income protection to combat poverty, the different organisations has played a significant role in encouraging the development of a national minimum vital income plan in Spain (Lopez, 2020, p. 579). In addition, to conform to the Spanish NRP, changes have been made to the labour market (Royal Decree Law 32/2021) and retirement system (Royal Decree Law 2/2023). The Spanish government has succeeded in reforming the core elements of the Welfare State and approving new social benefits within the scope of the NGEU. Moreover, it is evident that social investment has gained traction in Spain. Given how complicated any reform in a welfare state is these adjustments should not be taken lightly. It isn’t for nothing that the contemporary welfare states are sometimes referred to as “elephants on the move,” given how hard it is to veer from their path, not even in the event of a national emergency (Koch, 2022, p. 449).

These improvements were made possible by the NGEU, which gave Member States a rare chance to address an unforeseen and serious crisis by approving various proposals and reforms across Europe. This kind of adaptability makes sense given the multiplicity of social programmes across Europe. Thus, the NGEU has resulted in the successful approval of reforms that the EU has repeatedly recommended, as well as a new understanding of the fundamental forces behind the Social State and the modernization of social services in Spain through digitalization (Bańkowski et al., 2022, p. 4). In actuality, Member States were urged to modernise their Welfare States by implementing reforms during the Euro Crisis. Nonetheless, the widespread consensus was that economic instruments, not social principles, guided those proposals (Stockhammer et al., 2020, p. 14). In numerous instances, the NGEU insists on the same ideas, including funding, giving Member States more discretion, and enclosing those actions in social aims. a tactic that has shown to be far more effective.

Mutual Trust and a Transformative Principle

Despite preserving common values and interests, principles offer the legal framework for communities that are always changing. Demands, hopes and ideas are reflected in principles, but so are fresh concepts, aspirations, and demands. This is especially true if we view them as transformative principles, which suggest both a likely course of development and a particular meaning or content (Rodríguez Aboytes and Barth, 2020, p. 999). This kind of understanding is especially important in the EU because it allows for imaginative interpretations. As a fundamentally important principle in the EU, mutual trust could serve as a helpful legal foundation for a strengthening of citizen solidarity. A foundation of confidence built on a mutual sense of vulnerability and reliance. A restricted, conditional, and flexible trust, but a trust none the less, that aims to fulfil solidarity as an EU goal and provides national social policies with more leeway. Because it encourages social solidarity and a reorientation of national social policies towards social investment in order to receive EU funding, the NGEU serves as a barometer for the relationship between trust and solidarity. A particular view of the EU as a means for member states to enhance their problem-solving capacities in an era of globalisation, while indemnifying each other against the risks and losses implicit in integration is implied by this idea of solidarity combined with mutual trust.

A shared sense of purpose and passions, as well as a sense of community, are necessary for solidarity. A sense of community that necessitates the faith helps in times of need. Within the EU, this belonging is no longer confined to national borders (Isakjee et al., 2020, p. 1758). Furthermore, Member States now depend on the EU to respond to their populations’ urgent demands, including dealing with a pandemic or a war fought on European land. Any EU strategy in this area, however, must allow for variation because of the EU’s limited authority in social policy. Being adaptable is crucial (Goniewicz et al., 2020, p. 7). Furthermore, a broad, accountable, democratic, and legitimate approach is needed to strike a balance between the market and the social side. Flexibility and an inclusive, democratic process are only possible when national unique requirements, expectations, and democratic decision-making procedures are given the proper consideration, in addition to the shared interests of the EU and its member states. Such a dilemma can be resolved by reciprocal, conditional, and voluntary mutual trust, which allows Member States the flexibility to choose whether, how, and when to pursue common social objectives while also encouraging coordinated work and investment.

Therefore, just as reciprocal confidence has been a catalyst for cooperation in criminal cases, it also appears to be a suitable principle to initiate social solidarity. Member states were expected to accomplish important objectives that were closely related to their national identities in both domains (such as social cohesion and public security). But as merger progressed, the national response could no longer keep up; if not outright contradict the EU integration process. Furthermore, when faced with their common and inherent weaknesses, the EU and the Member States were forced to make difficult choices in both situations. In order to do this, talks were needed to establish fundamental guidelines as well as boundaries: trust cannot be betrayed, interests and goals must coincide, a large margin of manoeuvre must be maintained, and progress necessitates negotiation.

Cooperation

As noted in Kawano (2020, p. 295) the success of collaborative companies has led to the development of the “solidarity economy model,” which is thought to be a far better model for human flourishing than the disparities brought about by free market capitalism. The SSE, which is sometimes referred to as the leftover component of the private and public economies, is expected to satisfy social demands and needs that the public sector is unable to satisfy due to insufficient funding and low profitability in the private sector (Choi, et al., 2020, p. 498). Theoretically, Calcara and Simon (2021, p. 869) place the SSE in between the dominance of the market and the state’s centrality, taking use of the weaknesses in the two opposing viewpoints. SDS is the primary organising principle for cooperative research and has its roots in the labour and cooperative movements of the 19th and 20th centuries. It describes market exchanges and economic interactions that are driven by the values and norms of democracy, self-management, solidarity, and cooperation, and that prioritise social and long-term environmental goals over profit reasons. According to Salustri (2021, p. 18), the term is now more frequently used to describe businesses and institutions that produce goods and services devoid of government interference and in compliance with policies and norms that promote social progress, collaboration, and solidarity.

Capitalist and social organisations offer a dynamic, multifaceted framework that sets them apart from organisations in the public and private sectors. These distinctive characteristics include the voluntary participation of members, the simultaneous pursuit of social and economic goals, democratic administration, restrictions on the distribution of profits, and member participation in decision-making (Ricciardelli, 2023, p. 5979). In contrast to economics, SSEs operate on similar ideas of redistribution, exchange, and reciprocity. These practices are frequently a blend of market, community, and state practices (Gaiger, 2022, p. 16). Adoption of SSE will increase the likelihood of ending poverty, advance employment opportunities and food security, advance gender equality and access to healthcare, and promote sustainable development, all of which will aid in efforts to realign economies towards more inclusive and sustainable patterns.

It provides options to the dominant neoliberal economic worldview, which is motivated by competition and profit (Bogert, 2022, p. 15). SSE has developed in recent years into a field of study and research that focuses economic activity that takes social and environmental factors into account. Because of this, it is usually conducted in accordance with values and tenets that put the welfare of society first, such as solidarity, collaboration, and openness. Chaves-Avila and Gallego-Bono, (2020, p. 4) claimed that by highlighting the diversity of production, consumption, and distribution patterns, SSE expands the conversation beyond a one-dimensional, market-cantered view of the economy. Nevertheless, SSE is evident all over the world, often with amazing outcomes in terms of environmental protection, empowerment, community development, and the creation of well-paying jobs. It is possible to integrate the essential analytical components of SSE as a strategy to oppose capitalism, encourage local development, advance social inclusion, and challenge established economic models (Gaiger, 2022, p. 12).

Good working environment, policies and Good HRM practices have been a major source of sustainable employment when it comes to the problem of underemployment and unemployment worldwide (Aust et al., 2020, p. 5). The majority of workers in sub-Saharan Africa, both members and non-members of cooperatives, receive direct support from the cooperative movement in addition to livelihood and employment creation (Kalogiannidis, 2020, p. 452). Agricultural cooperatives, for instance, provide jobs in the food production, marketing, lending, insurance, and transportation sectors (Osabohien et al., 2020, p. 6). In rural areas, cooperatives frequently provide marginalised groups—such as women, young people, and ethnic minorities—with more access to high-quality employment opportunities. In a comparable manner, which made the case that cooperatives alleviate poverty by emphasising job security for members and their families, paying competitive wages, encouraging extra income through profit-sharing, and paying dividends, has confirmed that fostering partnerships is the first step towards social inclusion, especially for those who are marginalised in the traditional labour market? Since the SSE was first formed, the social economy organisations’ primary duty has been to integrate the “vulnerable” individuals into society by giving them better jobs and social services.

Collaborative Effort Principle

Meyer and Mncayi (2021, p. 4), which holds that the main goal of establishing cooperatives is to help individuals in order to achieve their sheered goals. When a group of people are likely to gain from coordinated actions, but the cost makes it difficult or impossible for any one person to take these actions alone, cooperation to achieve shared advantage is the apparent solution. But rules and normative and cognitive frameworks need to govern and promote this kind of cooperation (Horne and Mollborn, 2020, p. 467). He further illustrate how camaraderie is viewed as a means of fostering economic growth and social cohesiveness as well as challenging the capitalist system of competition. When people with comparable interests organise cooperatives, the principle is applicable. The idea is that members of cooperatives can share resources to do beneficial tasks or gain access to certain resources. Mutual recognition of interests results in the creation of a common good. Morgan and Pulignano, (2020, p. 114) for example, noted that organisations at work that have the common goal of protecting their rights as employees are based on collective action. By this context, the criteria that are necessary to fight poverty, enhance income distribution, and distribute economic activity profits are the common goals of work groups. But the theory’s focus on an individual’s rationality raises concerns about the issue of free riding and reluctance to collaborate. This seeming conflict between the interests of the group as a whole and those of its individual members is addressed by the social capital hypothesis.

The concept of social capital is the term used to characterise the customs and networks that enable people to collaborate. In light of this, social ties may aid in a person’s personal development and ability to build wealth. It is believed that in order to foster social cohesiveness, societies and organisations employ social capital as a resource. Al-Omoush et al., (2022, p. 2) states that the main tenet of social capital theory is that recurring actions generate values when collectives provide mutually agreed-upon norms, practices, and guidelines for interaction patterns. Stortenbeker et al., (2022, p. 6) states that although social capital refers to resources found in social ties rather than in an individual, access to and use of such resources are engrained in each actor in the group.

The value of social capital within a group is demonstrated by large social networks, high levels of trust, and involvement in group activities like volunteer labour, philanthropic contributions, or association membership. In a similar Soskis, (2020, p. 28) claims that members can obtain resources from membership to a group and association since connection, networking, reciprocity, and trust are deeply embedded in the organization’s operation techniques. Positive feedback loops between these elements strengthen one another; for example, trust increases involvement, which in turn increases trust (Lee et al., 2021, p. 2). Social capital is a means of bridging sociological and economic perspectives and may provide more comprehensive and insightful explanations of economic development by illuminating the ways in which social interactions between communities and institutions affect economic performance.

The significance of relationships in society and the ability of cooperative groups to achieve common goals are related to the synthesis of social capital to SSE among cooperatives (Filippi et al., 2023, p. 7). The vital importance of social networks and the resulting impulses for people to support one another are also taken into consideration. Regarding this Kimiagari and Malafe, (2021, p. 4), affirmed the earlier assertion and underlined that the guidelines for socioeconomic interactions include respect for behavioural intention, adherence to subjective norms, trust, and among the individuals. In a nutshell while the collaborative action concept clarifies how people combine resources and efforts as cooperatives to achieve the goal of providing a public good, the social capital theory shows how members of social groups interact with one another founded on the ideas of connectivity, networking, reciprocity, and trust, which create charitable values for the members.

Role of Economic Cooperation in Foreign Policy

As previously stated, if regimes constantly view international collaboration as a crucial component of their foreign policies, then we must consider the new circumstances in which state-to-state relations are occurring in order to comprehend the changes that occur in cooperation. As a result, the formation of new ideas associated with states like China, India, Malaysia and Brazil—is intimately tied to the changes that have occurred in the global environment and, in particular, to the ongoing processes of globalisation and integration (Adebayo et al., 2022, p. 2). In this way, the idea of economic cooperation serves as a response to the new difficulties arising from the processes of globalisation and commercial integration, which make the idea of cooperation a crucial factor.

Not just in terms of the political bonds that bind states together, but also in terms of the commercial relationships that have been established on a worldwide scale. From a historical vantage point, one may argue that nations have always maintained trade and investment links in addition to relationships of exchange and reliance (Ahmed et al., 2022, p. 13). Furthermore, as a percentage of GDP and the socioeconomic advancement of nations, foreign commerce grew in significance during the second half of the 20th century. In particular, since the 1950s, foreign commerce has increased faster than GDP. Thus, we may contend that the current status of the world markets is only the result of a more advanced phase of the internationalisation process of the different economies, which began with the rise of industrial capitalism in the 19th century. However, the characteristics of any event become more precisely defined as the processes become more evident in society’s daily activities, as is typically the case with long- and medium-term historical processes. Furthermore, they don’t always progress in the manner that was first anticipated.

This is to say, the identical forces that sparked the globalisation of economies have also sparked the emergence of a new reality that not only represents a more advanced stage of integration but also a totally distinct state. The Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean, or ECLAC, McNeely and Cole, (2022, p. 5), created a distinction that reflects the current qualitative position of the integration process. The “deep integration phase” and the so-called “superficial integration phase” are distinguished by ECLAC. The period of superficial integration was dominated by trade, mostly with goods. As a result, the objectives pursued by the various nations were largely distinct from one another. The “code of conduct of the business” must contribute to a progressive and gradual liberalisation of trade in a way that prevents a subsequent invalidation by administrative measures, that was the only other condition on the international arena. The market was meant to be free to operate in a way that maximised the benefits for the participating countries after the rules of the game were set and guaranteed. The complexity of trade flows between nations, including trade in capital goods, services, and technology, is what ECLAC refers to as the “deep integration” phase. Additionally, the importance of capital flows—both venture and financial—increases.

The increase in complexity may be seen in the qualitative shifts that the trade process undergoes as well as the new role that cooperation starts to play on the global stage. Market globalisation, then, is a notion that encompasses more than only characteristics related to commerce. It also entails a rising degree of production internationalisation (Eduardsen and Marinova, 2020, p. 23). Rapid technological knowledge distribution and aggressive international finance flows are necessary for this process. It tends to significantly boost competition and gradually narrow the production gaps between nations. This has led to a considerable decline in competitiveness in a number of industrialised countries’ industries, which has raised unemployment rates and had a big impact on those nations’ economies.

The subjective changes which the trading system goes through and the new function that cooperation begins to play on the international scene are two indicators of the growth in complexity. Therefore, the term “market globalisation” refers to more than just features associated with trade. It also means that the level of internationalisation of industry is increasing. This process requires aggressive international financing flows and the rapid dissemination of technological knowledge. It tends to sharply increase competitiveness and progressively close the output differences between countries (Vîrjan et al., 2023, p. 6). Due to this, several industries in industrialised countries have seen a significant drop in competitiveness, which has increased unemployment rates and had a significant effect on those countries’ economies.

Due to the realisation that this type of trade is by its very nature more complex than simple exchange of commodities and is aimed at considerably more specialised and segmented markets, gaining a market share necessitates a greater effort both quantitatively and qualitatively. As a result, participants in international trade have started to put in a lot of effort to increase their understanding of the various global contexts as well as the unique characteristics of the parties engaged in the increasingly complicated markets. As a result, collaboration is now crucial to the execution of technological innovations or joint ventures in manufacturing meant to ease entry into previously untapped markets.

Lastly, administrations’ roles also frequently alter. In the superficial integration phase, governments primarily function to ensure that the market operates according to internationally agreed-upon rules (Martinez, 2020, p. 12). However, in the deep integration phase, governments actively promote their respective economies in the international arena through a variety of means, with cooperation playing a crucial role. The task of defining and conceptualising economic cooperation—as a means of making its contents explicit and hence operational—remains unfinished as this is the framework within which the notion functions.

Cooperation as an integral part of the SSE

Similar from the French awakening, equitable treatment has become a system-forming value in modern reality, an imperative that not only determines a planetary civilization’s existence but also its future course. Sustainable development is becoming a precondition for human rights, transparency, and democratic engagement, as stated by the United Nations as a basic international norm (Androniceanu, 2021, p. 149). The conventional theories of economic growth, which have been used with some degree of effectiveness throughout the last 20 years, require substantial revisions. Initial and foremost, in terms of identifying practical ways to address global issues, such as the eradication of poverty and suffering, which, in light of rising inequality, may jeopardise socio-political stability and result in chaotic societies (Hadžić, 2021, p. 2).

The social and solidarity economy (SSE) is a crucial tool for making sure that the development process takes the welfare of the most vulnerable populations into account and that social justice principles are upheld. While the personal charitable the industry which is primarily made up of associations and foundations, is referred to as the “third sector” in English-language literature, the term is also used as a synonym for social and solidarity economies in continental Europe and other parts of the world (Guttmann, 2021, p. 36). One of the first people to refer to the non-profit sector as the “three sectors” was the American researcher, Bartosova and Podhorska, (2021, p. 3). A few years later, the same term was used in Europe to refer to the area that is between the state and capitalist, which is far more in line with the idea of social economy.

The incorporation of such a type of socio-economic organisation into an economy is one of its fundamental features (Tram and Ngoc Huy, 2021, p. 1240). In the 1800s, the first businesses of this kind were established in England. They are now present everywhere in the world in a variety of industries, including trade, housing and utilities, credit, insurance, and agriculture. They are all based on the idea that redistribution of revenue is prohibited; that is, their purpose is to serve the needs of their members, who are also their owners. Currently, almost 750 million cooperative company members across five continents are united by the International Cooperative Alliance. Features of the social (solidarity businesses) have been revealed via the research of foreign literature. As defined by academics, both of these comprise the following: Villalba-Eguiluz et al., (2020, p. 4) having the status of private enterprises; Shelenko et al., (2021, p. 500) having independent decision-making, which entails the power to select and remove their governing bodies as well as to manage and plan their operations; acknowledging the autonomy of the membership procedure; Postero and Tockman, (2020, p. 13) allocating profits or surpluses among user members, if any, in proportion to their transactions or activities with the organisation rather than the capital or shares contributed by members; and Moshtari, and Vanpoucke, (2021, p. 104) carrying out independent economic activities meant to satisfy the needs of individuals, households, or families.

Because of this, its socially responsible economy organisations are referred to as organisations of people rather than organisations of capital De Bakker et al., (2020, p. 1295) implementing the “one person, one vote” concept in decision-making, irrespective of the capital or shares provided by members; and also democratically guided. The democratic criterion is regarded as a prerequisite for a business to be classified as a part of the social economy, since the social utility of these businesses is typically determined by their objectives and the democratic ideals that inform their operations rather than by their economic activity. There are now four organisations that comprise organisations that represent the social economy in Europe: The cooperative family comprises the following organisations: 1) Cooperatives Europe (GEBC), Mutual Aid Societies Community (AIM, AMICE), Community of Social Associations (CEDAG, EFC), Social Enterprise Platforms (CEFEC).

Self-determination

Self-determination and the viewpoint of classical social anarchist

The initial advocates of classical social anarchist economic philosophy understood that the battle for the right to self-actualization and self-determination in a world ruled by capitalists had to start in the economic sphere. According to Milanovic, (2020, p. 10), because economic factors are given such a prominent place in the modernity project, the battle for achieving the freedom of self-determination for all time begins with the drastic changes made to the economic structures of society. The campaign for socioeconomic freedom of choice and the quest for emancipation from the capitalist-state machinery were combined by social anarchists in the 19th century, who are credited with being the first socialist intellectuals to explain the notion of autogestion most clearly, if not coining the phrase themselves. Like the utopian socialists who came before them, they also believed that economic freedom would stem from a cooperative organisation, typically run jointly by the direct producers themselves (Kalogiannidis, 2020, p. 454). For them, alternative economic arrangements were inextricably linked to a new political reality; cooperative societies were to serve as the cornerstone from which the capitalist nation-state would be replaced by a larger federation of producer cooperatives and communes. Furthermore, recalled members from worker’ and people’s councils were to oversee these cooperatives and federations, resulting in infinitely less hierarchical organisational structures. Workers were to have direct and democratic authority over decision-making on shop floors and in the fields. Councils of labourers, tenants, and peasants were to oversee production, distribution, and political activity in the larger community at political entities including communes, villages, and townships (Meyer-Clement, 2020, p. 2). For example, Proudhon found inspiration for such a social structure in his own proletarian upbringing and in the initiative of working people, including artisans, industrial workers, and peasants. Using such events as a paradigm, he developed mutualism and its recommendations for worker/producer cooperatives, popular banks, private property ownership over personal property, and equitable systems of exchange (Murtazashvili and Weiss, 2022, p. 697). In several aspects, Proudhon’s mutualism resembled Owenite labour exchanges, in which labour time—represented by labour notes—would serve as the medium of trade and be controlled by people’s banks. According to Heiland, (2020, p. 49), these were to be Proudhon’s keys to a more economically just society.

Happy supported community organisations like the producer cooperative, which later anarchist writers would refer to as a “syndicate,” “collective,” “producers’ commune,” or an “association of producers,” despite the fact that he saw large associations like nationalisation schemes, trading blocs, state apparatuses, or other hierarchical forms of economic institutions as impediments to individual liberties and the free society (Davies, 2020, p. 259). These were essentially the beginnings of what we would now refer to as worker cooperatives, which were beginning to take shape in France during Proudhon’s most productive years as an intellectual (Centuriao, 2023, p. 4429621). In the conclusion, he planned to describe his economic system as an “agro-industrial complex” in which the state’s political duties would be limited to making industrial and economic decisions (Daroshka et al., 2021, p. 2). Singh and Chen, (2020, p. 12) mutualism may have finally proved unfeasible in practice because of his seemingly incongruous suggestions for the centralization of all economic organisation into a smaller sovereign unit and his pursuit of individual autonomy. More precisely, Proudhon’s ideas are replete with unresolved conflicts between community/personal duty and individual freedom/competition.

Syropoulos et al. (2023, p. 14) perception for the community of the future is not in agreement with other ideas, such as whether a continued state entity, however reduced and federated, could be limited to making only economic decisions, how centralised this system had to be, or most importantly, whether the political and economic can ever be separated. Héritier and Schoeller, (2020, p. 25) ideas for non-capitalist organisational structures were among the first in modern socialism to both criticise capitalism and the coordinating market and state mechanisms that supported it, as well as to offer worker-led alternatives to it (Jervis, 2022, p. 49). This is despite the fact that Proudhon’s politics disapproved of overt revolutionary violence and preferred gradual change. Proudhon’s theories could surely play a major role in motivating the fight for workers’ self-management moving forward. His ideas about a different kind of economics based on autogestion are powerful early expressions of a world where people are free from exploitation and where economics is once again a part of society. Furthermore, Proudhon undoubtedly had a more humane and economically just reality for working people in mind. Bakunin, who took his cue from Proudhon, believed that achieving a really free society depended on oppressed groups such as workers, peasants, the impoverished, and the dispossessed winning their fight for autonomy.

In his subversive dreams of an improved world, he saw the complete development of all human beings and their capacities for self-organization and cooperative action as essential. Cooperative work, equality for all, and economic justice do, in fact, align with his vision of freedom in the post-revolutionary society. According to Santoni de Sio et al., (2021, p. 670), Somebody essentially is actually free within just similarly free men. Like Shaturaev, (2022, p. 14), he believed that liberty entailed “the full development of our potential”. Ultimately, although “cooperative societies” were vulnerable to being appropriated by the capitalist-state system, Bakunin, like Marx at that same point, also believed that “cooperation in all its forms” was “undeniably a rational and just mode of future production”. He felt that “people,” using the creative and technological capacities at their disposal, “can… free themselves from the yoke of external nature through collective labour,” foreshadowing the idea of the post-scarcity society that would be proposed a century later by Ivan Illich, Herbert Marcuse, Murray Bookchin, and others. Cooperatives were crucial locations for Bakunin to learn how to set up the emancipated society, foreshadowing a further idea that Kropotkin would later adopt.

As the wide educational institutions, both in theory and in practice, at which the labourer (sic) learns the mathematics of the production and dispersion of wealth, where he studies… by personally experiencing solely, the laws of industrial organisation, Marginson, (2022, p. 492) was in line with (Guttmann, 2021, p. 36) hopes for cooperatives in this regard. This is how Proudhon and Bakunin anticipated the ideas of “canalising” social change through industrial action Flaherty, (2022, p. 168), which were later adopted by anarcho-syndicalists like Rocker, guild socialists like G.D.H. Cole, and council communists like Mattick and Pannekoek. These ideas even preceded the early cooperative movement’s adoption of the fifth Rochdale principle, Schooling, classroom instruction, and awareness (Beaudri et al., 2021, p. 67). However, their political goals were more reformists. Additionally, he anticipated our current perception of workplaces, especially worker coops, as places where workers can develop a sense of solidarity with one another and engage in rich and cooperative informal learning experiences. In turn, Kropotkin saw communes, cooperatives, in village community institution, and other commune-like structures that contains professional guilds and early workers’ combinations including labour unions Thomas, (2020, p. 235), friendly societies and social clubs Buffel et al., (2020. p, 104), and other federated human associations Zhou et al., (2022, p. 3934) as extensions of the evolutionary nature of people’s innate need for cooperation. He believed that “shared aid”—as opposed to rivalry and the capitalist distortions of labour divisions—were fundamental human behaviours that had existed throughout prehistoric and human history. According to Kropotkin, people prefer collaboration over rivalry since it comes naturally to them. When people were allowed to self-organize their own affairs, the opportunities for cooperation typically gave way to the essentially shared aid personality.

This persona served as a catalyst for all of his cooperation efforts. According to Kropotkin, the worker-managed factories of the Paris Commune of 1871 and the pioneering Rochdale cooperatives were two excellent examples of how people’s self-help instinct drove them to form cooperative relationships. In fact, Kropotkin saw the truly free contemporary society—communism—as foreshadowed by the human trait of mutual aid (Siméon, 2020, p. 62). The ultimate manifestation of uniqueness is how Kropotkin would phrase his ideas for a federated and decentralised communism. Therefore, achieving true human freedom in the alternative society required some sort of cooperative arrangement of the means of production and economic activity, through widely defined workers’ syndicates, according to traditional social anarchists like Proudhon, Bakunin, and Kropotkin. They happened to be the initial individuals to start explaining the theoretical and practical ramifications of an autogestion that was strongly inspired by and imbued with workers’ autonomy. Cooperatives and cooperative activities, according to traditional social anarchists, may be the path towards a “communist” society—a new social structure based mostly on less dominant ways of allocating labour and producing goods.

Autogestión and Workers’ Power

The ideas and methods of autogestión, which were initially introduced by the classical social anarchists, would eventually come to be associated with worker cooperatives, organised labour, and democratic workplaces by the latter part of the 19th century, and they would become increasingly significant for imagining the post-capitalist society (Gkagkelis, 2021, p. 109). For instance, the First International’s support of producer cooperatives was evidence of this. First proposed by the traditional social anarchists, the concepts, and practices of autogestión would eventually become linked to worker cooperatives, organised labour, and democratic workplaces by the late 1800s. They would also play a bigger role in the imagination of the post-capitalist society. One example of this is the First International’s endorsement of producer cooperatives. Representing “the resentment of the craft unions against certain encroachments of power by capitalists,” the more reformist British shop steward’s movement of the early 20th century would similarly focus social transformation on the self-managed shop floor (Saunders, 2023, p. 89).

Absolutely the primary focus of resistance and the first step towards changing society, the organisation of workers into labour associations at the site of production was considered by all of these early movements and proposals for workers’ control as essential to raise working-class consciousness. A wide European movement of bottom-up shop floor organisations, including industrial committees and workers’ councils, briefly flourished in the years immediately following World War I, spreading to nations including Italy, Russia, Hungary, Poland, Germany, and Bulgaria. They typically began as workers’ and their leaders’ direct responses to the appalling post-war socioeconomic conditions (Berger, 2020, p. 233). The tasks of the employees and the freshly formed organisations they founded in Germany, Hungary, Italy, and other countries would later grow into larger political groups, occasionally working with Left-leaning parties. For example, official accounts of the Soviet Union’s growth tend to downplay the 1917 Russian Revolution’s origins, while brief, in directly democratic workers’ committees (Swain, 2022, p. 228). In Germany, for example, general strikes in January–February 1918 were followed by factory seizures and the establishment of workers’ councils. Similarly, during the Biennio Rosso (1919–1920), workers in Northern Italy seized control of industry following a general strike that involved up to 200,000 workers, many of whom also occupied and collectively ran their factories (Amini, 2021, p. 52).

Furthermore, in significant portions of revolutionary, workers’ and people’s committees—strongly impacted by social anarchist theory—self-managed the entire economy (Saunders, 2023, p. 87). Although the Bolshevik left at the time encouraged it as well, bureaucratic trade unions and leftist political parties generally failed to respond to or support these movements, creating political and leadership vacuums and situations of dual power that would eventually see the working-class act independently of hierarchical organisations or state institutions in places like Italy. The term aggressive encroachment approach to workers’ control refers to these connected historical instances of worker-led and workplace-cantered collective activities, which were supported by anarcho-syndicalists, communist anarchists, and council communists equally.

Researchers, like Suhartini and Jones (2023, p. 39) and Rosaldo (2024, p. 50), explicitly promoted workers’ control as a bottom-up political movement capable of establishing the revolutionary self-organization of the working class. Against the centralist, vanguardist, and etatist proposals of the Bolsheviks, who took control of the soviets of workers, peasants, and soldiers by early 1918, anarcho-syndicalists and councilists held that the working class itself could prepare and self-direct the ultimate transformation of society through workers’ councils. A “fresh working together” for the twenty-first century: autogestión and the current wave of self-determination? Current Theories of Autogestión Modern interpretations of autogestión tend to emphasise the implications for changing the economic sphere and, more specifically, its productive entities as a first step towards potential longer-term and broader social change, while maintaining the call for more widespread societal transformation advanced by Rosanvallon and Arvon post-1968. Theorists of Basque social economy, such as Vieta (2019, p. 289), contend that autogestión is a dynamic concept that has its roots in the classical social anarchist stream of self-determination as well as libertarian and anarchist strands of workers’ self-activity.

Autogestión is positioned on two distinct levels by Errasti and Mendizábal (2020, p. 110), who consider cooperative production at the firm level and participative and social democracy at the geographical level. Processes that look for the change of relations in production and a process which articulates the different workers’ collectives to be coordinated and realised within productive structures of cooperation and solidarity have been central to historical experiences of autogestión in the economic sphere.

In general, autogestión proposed by Errasti and Mendizábal (2020, p. 110), is defined by them as follows: (1) the organisational structure of productive entities as socialised property; (2) workers’ and, ideally, all affected parties’ collective and directly democratic participation in the coordination of this productive activity in what they refer to as “common solidarity”; (3) respect for the unique characteristics and autonomy of each productive entity and its employees; and (4) the socialised organisation of such a system by some kind of federated political organ that, through a recallable delegate model, democratically configures the social terms of production. Mendizábal or Errasti’s framework for autogestión, like that of Anton and Rosanvallon, finds resonance with anarcho-syndicalist and council communist proposals, as well as theoretical roots in forms of collective and cooperative production that were practiced in 1936 in some parts of revolutionary Spain (Vieta, M., 2014, 2014, p. 788). We also start to see how the idea has been adopted in Latin America in the 1990s and early 2000s with Mendizábal and Errasti. According to modern Latin American autogestión theorists, the phrase most immediately conjures up images of the democratisation of the economic sphere at the microlevel of the productive enterprise, such as worker-owned cooperatives and collectives, worker-recuperated enterprises, rural producer collectives, family-run microenterprises, and neighbourhood collectives (Vieta, M., 2014, 2014, p. 788).

It is believed that the authorities may be persuaded to support these microeconomic experiments, which are frequently loosely federated territorially, and that as a result, it will become more receptive to the demands of worker-led businesses and local community development. This strategy has been used in Brazil in recent years, as evidenced by the interactions between the government (through the National Secretary of the Solidarity Economy), a large number of the nation’s unions, and rural and urban cooperative movements that arose following the initial anti neoliberal experiments with autogestión in the 1980s and 1990s, including the worker and landless peasant movements (Vieta and Heras, 2019, p. 299). It is believed that a people-cantered solidarity or popular economy based on economic fairness and participatory democracy may eventually spread further as a result of this bottom-up strategy. In his four-pronged definition of the term, Brazilian sociologist Liedke Filho,. (2006, p. 27), one of Latin America’s most famous theorists of autogestión, proposes a more steady encroachment method to social reform.

Vieta and Heras further defines autogestión as having the characteristics as follows: (1) a social character, in which members of all social strata work together to create a new social order based on participation and self-determination; (II) an economic character, in which worker cooperatives and other social implications of production are taken into consideration; (III) a political character, in which, similar to participatory budgeting practices in Porto Alegre, all affected parties would have a voice in decision-making and jointly construct some form of popular power; and (IV) a technical character, which suggests the (re) design and (re) deployment of non-exploitative and re-rationalized divisions of labour and production processes. While by focusing on the firm and the economic sphere when defining autogestión, Peixoto de Albuquerque and other contemporary theorists like Guttmann, (2021, p. 36), reverse this theorization by operating from within the numerous bottom-up experiments of the social and solidarity economies throughout the region that have been responding to and transcending neoliberal enclosures in recent years.

Innovative media assignments, collective farms and intentional communities, housing coops, barter groups, community cash systems, DIY movements, landless peasant and worker movements in Brazil, cooperative solidaire (solidarity cooperatives) in Quebec, guerilla gardening initiatives, neighbourhood assemblies, community dining halls and free health clinics, and alternative media projects are just a few of the promising forms of autogestión that are currently gaining traction worldwide (Vieta, 2014, p, 798). As a response to the harshest consequences of neoliberal enclosures as well as a prefigurative experiment beyond them, this worldwide community-focused movement in autogestión from below was born. The achievement of gain and their own interests is not the primary focus in these spaces; instead, democratic control over the labour process, surplus sharing, inter-cooperative networks of solidarity, and a growing concern for the needs and desires of individuals and surrounding communities—as well as the firm’s daily business—as well as mutual aid values and practices are. To put it briefly, they are alternative solidarity economy islands in the midst of a capitalist sea of crises that gradually erode and expose the flaws in the current socioeconomic system from the inside out. Today, autogestión holds the greatest promise for the quest for socio-economic self-determination when it challenges the logics of neoliberal markets and starts to transcend them, while also promoting its own spread locally.

Self-Management

Rearticulating the economic with other domains of social action is the goal of the Solidarity Economy. According to de Nazaré Moraes Soares et al. (2020, p. 1221), the SE is more than just a reaction to the inconsistencies of capitalism or a closed-door response to the job crisis; otherwise, it would merely be a supplement to the capitalist system. Lee (2020, p. 69) contends that the SE is more than just a means of lessening the social exclusion brought on by the dominant economy, despite the fact that it manifests itself in situations of structural unemployment and inequality. According to the de Nazaré Moraes Soares et al. (2020, p. 1221), this approach could serve as an alternative in that it would increase chances for social and human growth by combining production with local social life organisation. People who value cooperation over competition and obtain income in this way also obtain social and economic justice, the freedom to engage in productive activities without being subject to authority, and a multiform movement for income generation and local development with self-management as an organisational paradigm. From the beginning of the twentieth century, models of participatory management have been created in response to the evolving needs of traditional organisations concerning personnel management. Self-management, on the other hand, is a type of participatory model that has been used within the frameworks of associative and cooperativism since the mid-19th century. It should be distinguished from these ideologies, though, as self-management is distinct from the actual content of the actions that are purportedly classified as self-management (Bouchard and Salathé-Beaulieu, 2021, p. 843).

Self-organization, which is seen as a management paradigm that businesses should adopt in order to challenge the hierarchical hetero-management models that are prevalent in the market system and the economy, has been one of the pillars of the Solidarity Economy (de Nazaré Moraes Soares et al., 2020, p. 1228). Although self-management encompasses broader issues as part of a political science project, as Chaves-Avila and Gallego-Bono (2020, p. 24) indicates, it is particularly concerned with the dynamics of control and management of the work process and organisation. This was the subject of this subsection’s discussion of self-management in the context of the SE. Given the context of the female habits, autonomous, participative, and emancipatory administrative dynamics at the internal level of the organisation are articulated by Gaiger (2022, p. 12) perspective on self-management. These dynamics represent particular organisational processes. According to the author, group discipline, information availability, and collective responsibility are essential components of decision-making processes that are at the core of self-management.

As noted by the writer, self-administration is not only an enterprise management technique but also a “political form” in which relations of production expand to all other spheres of social life, where the “associated producers” themselves direct their activity and the product derived from it. This means that, regardless of orientation, self-management leads to the experience of managing one’s own life, which is, in some ways, a process of human emancipation in the political sphere. According to the author, self-management “is impelled by the material conditions of our time and not as a maturation of previous forms of the same thing”. As a result, the setting determines the type and intensity of interaction that will emerge in businesses and is crucial for the growth of self-management. The information that is created and shared on a regular basis in the Solidarity Economy is essential for bolstering the movement and reflects cultivated ideals of solidarity (Chaves-Avila and Gallego-Bono, 2020, p.21). As the knowledge and actions compose the dynamics experienced in the various stages of the movement and given the movement’s diversity, incorporate various life stories and cultures, demonstrating the repertory shared by the community.

These acts impart knowledge, humanise, and help to construct a fundamentally communal way of life. Everyone must participate in self-management; practitioners get knowledge by being a part of the community, and this sense of belonging inspires accountability and reciprocal involvement. The inconsistencies faced by the women who comprise the SE are similar to those faced by many others in society, but they are unique in that they pertain to women’s basic existence. Since breaking through the “glass ceiling” is a challenge that exists outside of their reality, women in the SE are not concerned about it. They question more fundamental requirements for earning a living and ensuring their survival. Furthermore, the (post)colonial feminist criticism challenges the narrow understanding of these women’s cultural, socio-political, and historical context in light of this peripheral state that impacts them; in doing so, it frequently uses a reductionist vocabulary that presumes unduly technical contours.

That woman’s marginalised status is a result of the historical economic colonialism that non-centrist nations have experienced. Studies on post-colonial economics aid in comprehending how this situation leads to generalist assessments of the living circumstances of people occupying peripheral places and has a significant impact on women’s conditions (de Oliveira Lussi et al., 2023, p. 113). The dilemma of the peripherally, subordinate, coloniser is entwined with this discussion on coloniality, and it takes many forms given the variety and multiplicity of settings (Amelina and Schäfer, 2023, p. 3). According to Staffa et al. (2022, p. 50), various women’s bodies are where economic colonialism manifests itself. Feminist theories that homogenise women’s conditions thus fail to take this into account; women’s experiences can differ depending on the environment in which they are embedded, whether in the fight against the consequences of an exclusive production and consumption model or in the structuring of their own methods of resource production, distribution, and gathering.

It is crucial to consider the various struggles that subaltern women confront in order to avoid conducting skewed assessments that do not accurately depict their social dynamics. According to Espinel and Betancourt (2022, p. 169), feminist economics research is susceptible to a homogenising interpretation of women’s economic activities, which can reinforce preconceptions and use the ideology of centralism to reduce subaltern women to a simplistic form. Participating in communities, discussions, enterprise decision-making meetings, and other events requires participants to have a thorough understanding of the business they organise, including production and marketing management methods. Since they foster a sense of citizenship and a development of perception, such behaviours have a high educational component (Fotaki and Pullen, 2024, p. 597). In the SE, a great deal of knowledge is created implicitly and is retrievable through communal memories, despite the fact that it is frequently not systematised.

Essential training occurs throughout the self-management of the work or development project. This learning should involve all parties and encompass a variety of knowledge and skill sets, emancipating individuals involved by encouraging them to view themselves as subjects of the process. According to Chaves-Avila and Gallego-Bono (2020, 20), the Solidarity Economy is a teaching act in and of itself because it introduces a new social practice and a new conceptualization of this practice. The ability to build a solidarity economy is one that requires practice. According to Witz and Savage (1991), women in the SE assign qualities that characterise the movement by acknowledging the unequal conditions between men and women in the economy and breaking with the conventional management dynamics of fundamentally bureaucratic organisations.

Techniques for self-management used by feminists and substantive organisations’ methods of learning in her discussion of remedies for current economic crises, Witz and Savage further notes that in order for the Solidarity Economy to emerge as a substitute and remedy for the crises that capitalism has been experiencing, it must consider the problem of women in the economy. This is because, according to the author, gender equity is crucial for changes in the economy. Another problem that has to be addressed, according to the Witz and Savage, is the care economy—the area of work that takes place when there is no financial flow and is thus hidden from the mainstream economy. The second problem that has to be addressed is that gender justice will be contingent on equal engagement by men and women in the labour market as long as social participation and power relations are closely related to work and income.

The final thing to consider is that unpaid care labour affects career and economic prospects, which are something that men and women should have equal access to. This is according to Chaves-Avila and Gallego-Bono, (2020, p. 7), the fourth and last point is that, in order to counter the widespread belief that care work is becoming more feminine, ideas about reproductive labour and the care chain must shift. The author presents a criticism of the SE in that it presents a challenge to the movement to reject the dominant logic of abusing women’s reproductive and productive labour, a problem that may be resolved by adopting a feminist perspective on the economy.

This writer raises some points that are relevant to the agenda of feminist economics and that can be implemented within the framework of the Solidarity Economy to improve the use of cooperative and self-management techniques. Thus, through feminist self-management practices, a feminist Solidarity Economy promotes the required changes in the pursuit of gender equity (Villalba-Eguiluz et al., 2020, p. 12). It must be pointed out that the terms “woman” and “gender” are conceptually regarded differently because the latter refers to a biological distinction and the former is associated with social construction. The notion of woman will also be based on an enlarged approach, incorporating social constructions and settings.

Through the perspective that belongs to the female category, we know that the woman category includes the expectations, duties, attitudes, behaviours, skills, and even the nature that women have been compelled to possess due to their biological femininity. Thus, in this study, woman is a social role that is also derived from a social construction, particularly in the insight that the sexual division of labour and the dichotomy of public and private relations are products of social construction rather than biological distinction (Green and Kahn, 2020, p. 23). A few of the main transmission vectors for implementing gender justice—which Brulé (2020, p. 1) defined as striking a balance between women’s representation, recognition, and redistribution in public and private spaces—is the demands for a substantive rationality in organisations and in organisational dynamics. Given its instrumental and functionalist orientation, it is assumed that the bureaucratic organisation manipulates and denies disputes, particularly those pertaining to gender, by direct and indirect control techniques. The three-dimensional approach to gender justice aims to create an environment where women’s participation is valued equally in reproductive and productive domains; hence, the pursuit of organisational resignification is a necessary step towards achieving gender justice.

The feminist organisational framework put out by Espinel and Betancourt (2022, 160) is the one that most closely reflects SE values in the field of organisational studies. This approach chooses feminist management styles, which include asking questions about women’s issues; applying feminist practical reasoning; encouraging greater awareness; cultivating community and cooperative ties; advocating for democracy, participation, and subordinate empowerment (a view of power as an obligation); appreciating reciprocal concern and care; and aiming for transformative results. The significance and intent of labour are displaced in the context of women’s self-management activities in solidarity companies, and such practices encompass more than just the labour factor. Herbst (2012, p. 29) claim that the SE context exemplifies a cooperative social form of production that is distinct from the conventional hierarchical social relations of production typical of organisations that are predominately bureaucratic.

Under the framework created by the Feminist Cooperative Economics Network, self-management techniques not only have an impact on work relationships but also cultivate a variety of relationships and modes of production that support community and cooperation, as well as collective, free, and shared knowledge (Herbst, 2012, p. 29). As previously mentioned, self-management is consequently necessary for these businesses to succeed and is more than just a political choice—rather, it is a practical necessity for women to fulfil their responsibilities. In light of this, the women see this as a springboard for developing the SE project and establishing it as a self-managed, related economic activity that will contribute to the creation of a new, democratic, cooperative, and sustainable development model.

The autonomous structure of women working in the SE should be based on the search for a substantive organisation where rationality is shaped in substantive terms, under a community orientation Soares et al, (2023, p. 512), in a context where practices are collectivist and not individual, considering the theoretical constructions developed thus far in the research. In order to implement gender justice that effects mechanisms of redistribution, recognition, and representation for women, such actions materialised in organisational words, actions, and goals have the purpose of transforming organisations into spaces of human emancipation and utilising feminist management practices.

The setting whereby female self-management practices evolve was observed in order to locate and systematise them in the SE, specifically in the RESF firms. The businesses operate in a marginalised environment that is characterised by racial and class distinctions in addition to gender. As noted in Soares et al., (2023, p. 523) isonomy enclave, this historically subaltern environment disputes (post)colonial feminist ideas, articulates alternative logics of survival and of living well in everyday ways of doing, and is focused on community development.

As a result, SE businesses exist in an is onomous space, generating significant organisations that aim to emancipate the individuals involved in addition to producing and commercialising goods and services. According to Herbst (2012, p. 29), the search for a balance between the needs of the individual and the organisation, as well as beliefs, values, and group action, are what drive meaningful organisations. Strong and deep interpersonal bonds exist among members who want to reflect on the day-to-day operations of the company and share similar values.

Local procedures for making decisions rely on the free exchange of information, more flexible and less bureaucratic structures are in place, and work performance is evaluated collectively through regular meetings, with members receiving compensation according with their level of dedication to their jobs. Therefore, a substantive rationality—where the means and ends are determined by the group’s shared values—guides the activities of substantive organisations. In principle, such a strategy aligns with the feminist management practices examined by Fotaki and Pullen (2024, p. 609) because administrative dynamics within feminist organisations bring a political vision of the organisation through inquiries about women’s issues, the promotion of increased awareness and community ties, democracy and participation, the value of mutual concern and care, and the pursuit of transformative outcomes.

According to Mavri et al. (2021, p. 8), the primary dimensions—joint venture, mutual engagement, and shared repertoire—are the ways in which practice influences the union of the community. According to the author, this is not a rapid development but rather one that happens gradually, fostering in the community a sense of the value that is provided via the union of individuals. According to the author, one of the characteristics of a community is the members’ mutual participation and their shared practice of bargaining. Although none of them all have the same aims or perspectives, this negotiation process is ongoing due to the diversity. The purpose of the negotiation is to reach a minimal degree of reciprocity and cohesion that will allow the community to continue. It is conceivable to systematise what might be considered feminist self-management practices based on these considerations and theoretical linkages about the substantive rationality that permeates the tele-affective structure of the actions conducted in the RESF.

Theoretically, the feminist leadership model can be used to analyse the inherent connections that substantive organisations and their collectivist practices have. Thus, as a theoretical advancement, Fotaki and Pullen (2024, p. 598) feminist management practices help to systematise feminist self-management activities. In addition to generating income, the focus on substantivity in the collective methods of self-managed businesses by women aims to emancipate women in their communities. In regard to female democracy, acceptance, and displacement in community dynamics, these actions must aim to truly accomplish gender justice. The author’s suggestions for feminist management practices mesh well with the methodologies employed so far in this research and are in harmony with the particular framework of the RESF and the Solidarity Economy. Feminist self-management practices were examined since doing so made it feasible to use the author’s suggested practices as well as find new ones while conducting field research; as a result, these practices will form the foundation of the study.

Degrowth Economics or Economics of Degrowth

Degrowth Economics

Deregulation proponents make a distinction between economic and material growth. Economic growth is the increasing measured value (in exchange) of economic activity; it is commonly expressed as a percentage change in GDP per year (for individual countries, but also as published regional and global statistics from the World Bank, IMF, etc.). Material growth is the increasing use of matter and energy by societies. Adverse climatic and ecological effects are caused by the type, scale, and intensity of material activity; ongoing material expansion strains planetary boundaries and exacerbates cumulative effects. Consequently, the most effective approach to climate and ecological issues is to stop and reverse material growth (Eliasson and Gronlund, 2021, p. 12). A real economy, however, is not an immaterial collection of trade values; rather, it is a collection of material activities carried out to produce things and deliver services, even though economic growth can be distinguished from material growth. The fact that measuring material processes is not a prerequisite for economic analysis is one of the key problems with mainstream economics.

On the contrary, “environmental economics” is based on the idea that an economy is a material process that incorporates waste generation, thermodynamic implications, entropy, and fundamental biophysical alteration of the environment. It is focused on concepts like “metabolic flow” and “throughput.” Therefore, proponents of degrowth typically adopt an ecological economics stance, though it is important to acknowledge that this field includes a variety of viewpoints. Degrowth proponents are not exclusively ecological economists, though those who are typically represent the more activist end of the field and their viewpoint extends beyond economics. Because of this, decay and community ecological economics have some similar (albeit distinct) issues (Eliasson and Gronlund, 2021, p. 2). Additionally, there are several terms that are used interchangeably, such as postgrowth. Degrowth proponents emphasise that although material and economic growth differ conceptually, they are actually tightly related.

Larger uses of both energy and material are found in economies larger than those measured by trade value. Therefore, proponents of degrowth contend that the data does not support the dematerialization or the decoupling while certain measures may lead to a relative decrease in matter and energy use per $GDP, overall economic growth tends to increase matter and energy use and increase carbon emissions (Eliasson and Gronlund, 2021, p. 1). Furthermore, as economies expand, so do the related challenges that need to be addressed through innovation and technology. Although a more “circular economy” is preferred, a truly circular economy is not practicable due to thermodynamics (similar to a perpetual motion machine) and cannot support the observable, unabated expansion of land, water, and resource use on a marketplace is a component that functions inside fundamental earth system dynamics, but it also has the potential to negatively affect them. Degrowth proponents contend that the amount and level of material activity related to economies must be lowered to sustainable levels because they are already too high for the earth. It is obvious that this raises concerns about where and what needs to be reduced in a world where there is inequality both within and between nations (referred to as “uneven development”); we shall address these below. For the sake of clarity, it is important to note that proponents of degrowth place a strong focus on “growthism,” or the generalised commitment to growth, as the primary issue facing modern socioeconomic systems (Kallis et al., p, 176).

For instance, the Warlenius (2023, p. 8) present the startling and straightforward finding in The Case for Degrowth that an economy based on constant economic (and thus material) growth aims to grow by a certain percentage each year, and that although the public may not find this increase particularly noteworthy, the compounding effect is substantial: it is, as industrialised consumption economies extend and change, this expansionary urge is not limited to any one nation but rather spreads to all of them.

Principles and Features of the Circular Economy

The idea that we can operate underneath finite materials by broadening the product-life of products in order to reduce resource depletion and, consequently, waste is not new. Mhatre et al. (2021, p. 189), has brought circularity concepts back to life by examining circular economy business models throughout the European Union. The goal of this investigation is to find success stories, identify success factors, gain insight into which industries and products have the greatest potential for circularity, and look into the wider economic effects of an industrial model based on circularity.

Earlier said, the foundation of a circular market is the restoration and regeneration of industrial goods as a means of reducing material leakage and disposal, hence altering the linear “take, make, and dispose” model (Goel, 2021, p. 67). It is founded on the fundamental idea of “designing out waste,” which calls for products to be made with multiple life cycles of assembly and disassembly and to be powered by renewable energy sources. This reduces the use of non-renewable resources and increases resistance to outside shocks like oil shortages. Since a lot of labour and energy are wasted in the present recycling and disposal processes, designing out waste is different. Because of the fundamental characteristics of the circular industrial process, ownership will need to be reconsidered. Under this model, manufacturers lease products to consumers, who then recycle and reprocess the raw materials at the end of each lifecycle. Rethinking ownership is another matter brought up by SSE and degrowth.

Principles and Features Degrowth

In general, “an equitably scaling back of manufacturing and consumer behaviour that enhances ecological conditions at the local and global level, in the short and long term” is what is meant to be understood by sustainable degrowth (Eliasson and Gronlund, 2021, p. 2). Sustainable degrowth does not explicitly aim to lower GDP because its main goals are well-being, ecological sustainability, and social equity. However, GDP will decline as a result of a decrease in large-scale, resource-intensive economic activities, which currently account for a significant portion of GDP (Eliasson and Gronlund, 2021, p. 1). In a rising economic growth, unprepared degrowth (or recession) is not the same as sustainable degrowth, which is defined as a voluntary, orderly, and fair shift to a lower level of production and consumption.

Its essential qualities are spontaneous and democratic; it cannot be imposed as a requirement from the outside. Nonetheless, the likelihood that individuals may be compelled to adopt a degrowth lifestyle is steadily rising as a result of impending ecological constraints, such as the investment behaviour, cultural mind set, return and risk ratio managing by investors (Ahmed et al., 2022, p. 14). A successful and seamless transition can only occur within a limited “sustainability window,” which will be widened by policies that support seven low rates of economic growth and more investments in renewable energy sources. Scientists representing a variety of philosophic perspectives and intellectual sources make up the varied degrowth community (Eliasson and Gronlund, 2021, p. 1). When it comes to the essential steps for a transition, proponents of degrowth agree on at least some level. This agreement goes beyond simple concepts and translates into recommendations for policies, albeit frequently rudimentary and incomplete ones. The materials and records from the first and second international degrowth conferences attest to this; some of these will be covered in more detail.

Proposed policies

Reducing the number of hours, you work and working weeks to prioritise leisure and other activities is one of the main policies. More part-time employment options will make it possible to split up the work chances more evenly among the workforces. According to Eliasson and Gronlund (2021, p. 9), giving every citizen a basic income (BI) is seen as a way to lessen social inequality while accelerating the degrowth process. It is a factor in degrowth for two reasons. First off, giving every citizen a BI removes the workers must work, and in order to finance it, higher taxes on other sources of income are necessary, which reduces the profit earned from labor—a desirable and beneficial outcome in the context of degrowth (Eliasson and Gronlund, 2021, p. 9).

With the goal to promote reuse and prevent resource depletion, products should be designed with a cradle-to-cradle (rather than cradle-to-grave) lifecycle. Additionally, items should be handled and disposed of as locally as possible to reduce waste production. The industrial model is essentially what a cradle-to-cradle method advocates. Goel, (2021, p. 45) suggested with the concept of circular economy, a circular strategy can therefore be integrated into and compatible with a degrowth economy. Measuring accomplishments towards sustainable degrowth is necessary. The Proceedings paper from the First International Degrowth Conference includes a contribution on circular economy, even though it isn’t mentioned specifically in the workshop outcomes of the conference. There are three suggested structural markers. The indicators are determined by the correlations between the following and are based on a country lying on the planet having certain point at time. It is from the perspective of sustainable development.

Economic and social
Environmental and Social
Environmental and Economic

In terms of transition and governance, degrowth academics are sometimes more inclined to favour socialist alternatives to capitalism as a workable system for a degrowth or zero-growth economy Eliasson and Gronlund (2021, p. 2) highlights the reason due to which an economic steady-state regime will differ from one of growth and whether or not a zero-growth economy may operate within a capitalist society. Steady state discourse is more accepting of this idea. Whether or not it leads to capitalism is irrelevant. Lawn offers a thorough analysis and justification, arguing that steady-state capitalism is not only viable but also the most effective way to achieve true sustainability.

Considerations and observations

All the perpetual growth and the reduction in growth schools of thought recognise and emphasise how complementary the discourses of the two movements are becoming to one another. The term “sustainable” in “sustainable degrowth” does not mean that degrowth should continue endlessly (which would be absurd), but rather that the transition process and the final state should be sustainable in the sense that they will benefit society and the environment. This is stated by (Eliasson and Gronlund, 2021, p. 4). In addition, it can also proposed by the author that a steady state economy by reducing throughput and eventually stabilising it. Deregulation advocates are increasingly envisioning a steady state after an initial phase of degrowth. “Once rightsizing has been achieved through the process of degrowth, the aim should be to maintain a fix state economy that relatively stable, mildly fluctuating level of consumption. Right-sizing is defined as staying within the Earth’s ecological limits. By combining socioeconomic modelling, the degrowth conference moved one step further and proposed a deeper working relationship between the steady state and degrowth schools of thought.

Arguments in favour and against of degrowth economy

The growth analysis primarily focuses on the economies that currently exist, which means that the focus is primarily on what is commonly known as the capitalist economy. To be clear, the degrowth critique does not presuppose that a command economy is better than a market one if continuous growth is the foundation of that system, nor does it preclude discussion of subtleties pertaining to “varieties of capitalism,” the “developmental state,” etc. The main problem is that a growth system inevitably encounters actual constraints placed on it by the outside environment (a fact verified by earth system scientists, climatologists, and other experts). The primary subject matter here will be the capitalist market economic performance, since this is the most common, but proponents of degrowth also contend that a growth system is historically aberrational, a risky or reckless exception to how we have historically lived (and some still live today). This exception has been successfully naturalised. Degrowth proponents highlight that the concept of growth has evolved into a worldview or socialised sense that serves to mask the negative effects of aiming for unending growth (Eliasson and Gronlund, 2021, p. 4). Theoretically, growth is equated with progress and is seen as the catalyst for innovation, technological advancement, better living standards, and increased choice, even though none of these things necessitate constant material expansion, particularly when considering the planet as a whole. Moreover, proponents of degrowth frequently contend that a “steady state” is not intended for real economies that predominate, where there is no economic growth. When there is no economic growth, there is recession, depression, and crisis rather than stability. Degrowth proponents so point out that our economies are based on growth as stability, which is a very unstable dynamic.

Based on a reduction in growth viewpoints, a number of factors have combined to reproduce growthism as “common sense”: corporations competing (even though they might be suppressing competition as they expand), populations encouraged to consume for identity purposes, governments focusing on GDP metrics, and a whole range of disciplines and practices that produce information, persuasion, and knowledge and that valorise the system as it is and implicitly or explicitly associate continuous growth and progress. These practices naturalise the exceptional or unnatural and obscure the fundamental issue of limits. Within this framework, mainstream economics is a major source of ideas and theories, as well as policy and instruction. On the other hand, proponents of degrowth typically support a more social and conditional conception of an economy based on “provisioning,” in addition to accepting ecological economics—albeit with reservations. This viewpoint is summed well by Rommel and Kasperan (2022, p. 61) who discusses it in a context unrelated to degrowth: Economics is about provisioning, which is essentially something we need to relearn that has been forgotten in modern mainstream economics. As feminist economists and anthropologists have pointed out, it is all about how communities give themselves the means to survive. Producing products, such as food and shelter, clothing, and newspapers, as well as services, like teaching, giving counsel and information, and taking care of others, is necessary for provisioning. Interactions among individuals as producers, customers, proprietors, lenders, borrowers, and so on are parts of almost all provisioning. The organisation of provisioning is based on these relationships. Certain types of provisioning happen through markets, whereas others don’t. Unpaid labour [contributes] to the economy; the market/nonmarket divide does not determine its boundaries (Schmelzer, 2024, p. 31). This view of the goal of an economy is broader because it avoids the quick cuts that are linked to labour wages, markets, material economic growth, and advancement. An approach to an economy based on needs, human happiness, and skills is more in line with a provisioning perspective.

In opposition to the reversal that support the modern economy, which views the economy as an objective entity whose needs must be met even at the cost of sacrifice, it opens up a more conditional and qualitative set of questions or inquiries about how and what we provide. To use an analogy, this is like being on a treadmill where, for example, it becomes patriotic to go out and spend and consume for no other reason than that the kinds of economies we have created require this. It is not a degrowth stance to emphasise provisioning, of course, any more than ecological economics and degrowth are, but that is not the point. Deregulation has an argumentative aspect called provisioning. Though degrowth is becoming more and more of a research topic, it’s vital to keep in mind that its roots are more political, stemming from social movement criticism of capitalism and the abuses of capitalist development strategies. Thus, as noted by Eliasson and Gronlund (2021, p. 6), the term “degrowth” has a past degrowth movement sprang to life in Europe and spread further afield in the context of heightened debate and widespread dismay, they write. The word “décroissance,” which was eventually rendered as “degrowth” in English, originated as an aggressive catchphrase employed by activists in the early 2000s.

Charles Ariès, a French scholar of editor and politics, has dubbed degrowth a “missile word,” a deliberate attempt to undermine the consensus that “growth is good and more growth better,” which seemed to unite all countries economically. Going beyond growth is defined as diminishing or decreasing in exact translations of the word “décroissance.” While advocates emphasise minimising environmental usage and abuse, degrowth is simultaneously a qualitative and quantitative concept (Schmelzer, 2024, p. 26). Phrases like “inexpensive numerous amounts,” which link “conviviality”—enjoying each other’s company and acting in solidarity—with appreciating the richness of simplicity, as in “small is beautiful,” reflect the qualitative dimension. Beyond major misconceptions that have surfaced from the outside, the activist movement advocating for degrowth has given it several different interpretations and nuances. The term “degrowth” has caused confusion above all else, primarily because of its prefix and correlation with terms like “decline” and “diminish,” which imply austerity, puritanism, and even poverty. Such suspicions seem to be supported by the degrowth concept of minimalist simple existence.

Deregulation looks worrisome, especially after the global financial crisis occurred during 2007–2008 and has had lingering effects. On the other hand, proponents of degrowth theory and activism view degrowth as creating safe and secure living environments, meeting everyone’s needs through group efforts, and being joyous and gregarious. Global and environmental issues are addressed by the degrowth principle, which advocates living within Earth’s regenerative boundaries in ways that are socially just and collaboratively helpful (Schmelzer, 2024, p. 22). Therefore, even if proponents of degrowth often criticise the objectification of an economy and the naturalisation of growth as if there were no other options, they also draw attention to the structural issues that allow for exploitation under the guise of progress. Gerber, for instance, claims that the philosophy of expansion, or growthism, is the foundation of capitalism.

In terms of politics, growthism keeps capitalists afloat by allowing for the avoidance of redistribution by creating the illusion that everyone will always profit from it. Growthism soothes class conflict while defending the current inequalities in society. Growth played a key role in the West in disseminating labour movement demands, in the East in rationalising the absence of democracy and worker control, and in the South in defending extractivism and dispossession. GDP growth is still the primary stabilising factor in capitalist economies today (Eliasson and Gronlund, 2021, p. 1110). Thirteen additionally, proponents of degrowth highlight that, in a neoliberal setting, “growthism” depoliticizes important concerns Morgan (2020, p. 119). Modern neo-liberal capitalism is characterized by a post-political environment that forbids the political and keeps certain concerns from becoming politicized. In this light, depopulation is an effort to reframe the discussion of the urgently required socioecological revolution by expressing disagreement with the way the world is currently portrayed and looking for different ones. In this sense, degrowth is an opposition to the prevailing hegemony of development. This focus on a systemic critique of the growth ideology stands in stark contrast to conventional wisdom in economics. The anodyne story of growth told by mainstream economics is dynamic efficiency attained through markets, with the “market” being defined as an ahistorical notion. The argument is supported by a number of theories and notions, including total factor productivity growth models and its offspring, comparative advantage in trade, and—possibly most importantly—the well-known story of mutually beneficial “globalisation.”

Deregulation proponents take a completely different stance on this. If one looks past some basic and frequently deceptive measurements, “development” has generally been detrimental to the environment and a large portion of the population on a state-by-state basis. A lot of this is categorised as “extractivism,” and it includes everything from the extraction of natural resources to the flow of debt servicing. The historical market and historical globalisation have relied on the exploitation of peoples and places (including slavery, imperialism, and empire in addition to contemporary corporate practices). Furthermore, striving to maintain continuous expansion in the modern era has come at a huge cost to the environment and to people (plastics in the ocean, financialized debt dependence, the acknowledged post-financial crisis vulnerabilities exposed by the Covid-19 pandemic, etc.). Thus, degrowth is not the most recent (although well-meaning) demand from the worldwide North that the global South make sacrifices in order to protect the environment and, conveniently, preserve the higher living standards of the global North (Eliasson and Gronlund, 2021, p. 14).

The Case for degrowth

The argument for deconstruction centres on changing socio-economies in favour of inclusive and creative development of lives that are enjoyable, healthy, rewarding, and sustainable for more people and more places—rather than about masochistic self-denial or restricting human potential (Morgan, 2020, p. 121). The authors emphasize that none of us can explore options without contradicting current lifestyles meant to promote growth, short of giving up everything and moving into a cave. They also stress the significance of avoiding hypocritical accusations of hypocrisy from self-righteous climate purists, as this could inadvertently result in reactionary reinforcement of the status quo.

The first step toward developing society’s adoption of necessary institutional and policy reforms is individual action (Morgan, 2020, p. 124). But even though some options might not be readily available at first, small-scale initiatives can lead to larger-scale changes through either local organic adoption or cumulative change. This puts pressure on authorities to adjust regulations, plans, finances, and resource priorities in response. Thus, local community cooperative projects have an impact on attitudes and land usage (e.g., growing food gardens, distributing locally, setting up access and localised transportation choices, such bikeways.

These programmes are able to evolve together as a more coordinated collection of gratifying adjustments (a degrowth conducive community environment). Examples include the establishment of credit unions and the usage of regional currencies that may be used to exchange products and services locally. These developments can increase the number of small-scale job opportunities that are tailored to meet particular needs in the community. This allows for a greater concentration of overall activity on small scale provisioning, which actualizes a greater range of issues that are important to people, such as community and care. It’s obvious that none of this is very novel. A large portion of it is recognisable from anarcho-syndicalism and related community-based initiatives. However, persuasiveness and believability are the goals here, not uniqueness. Degrowth proponents see quick, practical, and thus achievable solutions that begin to tip the scales from profit-driven, private property activity to “commons” activity that prioritises the well-being and support of the group. Cooperatives are neither by definition degrowth, as the word does not imply, nor are they always clearly focused on activities that benefit the environment and the climate. However, as Eliasson and Gronlund (2021, p. 14) contend, while cooperatives, commons, and other related activities may not be specifically focused on degrowth, they are undoubtedly significantly more supportive of its goals. Many programmes are slower by design, localised, and centred on quality of life, which reduces their negative socio-ecological implications (lower material and energy usage, etc.).

Furthermore, even while this kind of activity differs greatly from the fundamental principles of the capitalist market economy and might not exist everywhere, it is not entirely novel. While proponents contend that the goal is to establish self-sustaining community ecosystems through cross-fertilizing cumulative impacts, the kinds of initiatives and activities taken part in don’t have to be created from scratch each time. As evidence that how people live do not and need not always match the archetype of the capitalist individuated consumer poised to engage in a growing system, there are actual examples that are already in operation somewhere in the world (Schmelzer, 2024, p. 14). It also covers Latin American agroecology organisations, traditional community activities, and the opportunities presented by new technology, such as Farmhack, Wikihouse, OpenBionics, RepRep, and others. The paper is meant to be illustrative rather than comprehensive, noting examples rather than delving deeply into anyone; one can refer to a plethora of other global contexts, practices, issues, and discussions on degrowth.

The researchers make it quite evident that they do not anticipate that these localised community adjustments will be able to address every issue (Morgan, 2020, p. 117). The idea is to start noticing shifts in which communities, become participants in building conditions in which they want to live, rather than addressing grievances to distant powerholders.” This works in tandem with political pressure, not in place of it on a larger scale. Private, group, and—traditionally—macro-political (advocating and promoting reforms at all scales) activity are also possible. Five “policy packages” that when combined enable path-breaking reform. Supporters of degrowth point out that Green New Deal (GND) programmes need to drop GDP growth as their main objective, make sure GNDs are in line with material activity measures (a “less with less” strategy), and emphasise decent wages and working conditions because these are some ways to achieve a more widespread possibility of, decreased time spent at work per employee: an objective that acknowledges that longer working hours in supposedly wealthy countries are caused by stagnating wages, diminished collective rights, persistent precarious conditions, and sporadic austerity and crisis (Morgan, 2020, p. 113).

This reduces the potential for populations to work less and differently; additionally, a large portion of current work is not needs-based in the sense of social provisioning, but rather is administration for the sake of administration, planned obsolescence, and overproduction for unnecessary consumption. Additionally, there’s room for the positive integration of automation, artificial intelligence, and other related technologies if their socioeconomic context does not result in worker displacement due to competition but rather in job liberation (De Stefano, 2020, p. 31). Thus, there may be room for and a certain amount of reliance on the advancement of making the commons the priority of government policy: rather than (only) supporting traditional market-oriented trade and business, the government should do more to support community ecosystems. This includes the previously suggested scope for changes to government regulations, planning, finance, and resource priorities, including contracts, subsidies, tax breaks, resource transfers, and seed capital. This in turn may be made possible by: Fifth, public finance reform centred on equalising and greening budgetary priorities and financing mechanisms.

It ought to become clear that each of these five is meant to complement one another. The idea is to move the emphasis to livelihoods and living standards. Given that the fundamental questions of what money “is,” how it “creates,” and what it is “for” or “does” are what separate economics as a field from theory and reality, public finance may be the crucial lever. The authors do not go into depth here; however, it is important to note that proponents of Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) and other forms of “post Keynesian” finance are in favour of the radical GND recommendations. They disagree with the prevalent loanable fund’s theory of finance and money (Morgan, 2020, p. 124). Policy that restructures the agricultural sector to minimise waste, move away from diets high in meat, and support community-supported agriculture and agroecology are also essential. Of course, the authors also make a number of complementary assertions about what they hope to achieve through policy. Most significantly, they support only transition approaches that pair with a moratorium on new fossil fuel development, a ban on fossil fuel advertising, and a phase-out of fossil fuel production (Morgan, 2020, p. 124).

References

Adebayo, T.S., Onifade, S.T., Alola, A.A. and Muoneke, O.B., 2022. Does it take international integration of natural resources to ascend the ladder of environmental quality in the newly industrialized countries? Resources Policy, 76, p.10.

Ahmed, S.U., Ahmed, S.P., Abdullah, M. and Karmaker, U., 2022. Do socio-political factors affect investment performance? Cogent Economics & Finance, 10(1), p.22.

Akuffo, J.A. and Akuffo, J.A., 2020. The Inside Scoop—What Stakeholders’ Think of Corporate Governance in Financial Institutions. Corporate Governance and Accountability of Financial Institutions: The Power and Illusion of Quality Corporate Disclosure, pp.279-314.

Alharbi, A.M., 2023. Implementation of Education 5.0 in developed and developing countries: A comparative study. Creative Education, 14(5), pp.914-942.

Almutairi, H.S., Hamali, A.G., Alqthami, A.M., Al Shammary, M.A., Albarqi, N.M., Badroon, G.G., Alanizi, R.K. and Alwedehi, A.M., 2022. COVID-19 pandemic: challenges faced healthcare providers. Chelonian Research Foundation, 17(2), pp.3440-3453.

Al-Omoush, K.S., Ribeiro-Navarrete, S., Lassala, C. and Skare, M., 2022. Networking and knowledge creation: Social capital and collaborative innovation in responding to the COVID-19 crisis. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, 7(2), p.1-11.

Alteri, L., Parks, L.R., Raffini, L. and Vitale, T., 2021. Covid-19 and the structural crisis of liberal democracies. determinants and consequences of the governance of pandemic. Partecipazione e conflitto, 2021(14/1), pp.1-37.

Amelina, A. and Schäfer, J., 2023. Re‐centring class‐making across borders at various durées: Translocational optic, coloniality of class theory and multi‐scalar capitalist dynamics. Global Networks, p.1-15.

Amini, B., 2021. “Council democratic” movements in the First World War era: a comparative-historical study of the German and Italian cases (Doctoral dissertation, London School of Economics and Political Science), p. 1-293

Androniceanu, A., 2021. Transparency in public administration as a challenge for a good democratic governance. Revista» Administratie si Management Public «(RAMP), (36), pp.149-164.

Aust, I., Matthews, B. and Muller-Camen, M., 2020. Common good HRM: a paradigm shift in sustainable HRM?. Human Resource Management Review, 30(3), p.1-11.

Bańkowski, K., Bouabdallah, O., Semeano, J.D., Dorrucci, E., Freier, M., Jacquinot, P., Modery, W., Rodríguez Vives, M., Valenta, V. and Zorell, N., 2022. The economic impact of Next Generation EU: a euro area perspective. ECB Occasional Paper, (2022/291), p. 1-59

Barbier-Gauchard, A., Dai, M., Mainguy, C., Saadaoui, J., Sidiropoulos, M., Terraz, I. and Trabelsi, J., 2021. Towards a more resilient European Union after the COVID-19 crisis. Eurasian Economic Review, 11(2), pp.321-348.

Bartik, T.J., 2020. Using place-based jobs policies to help distressed communities. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 34(3), pp.99-127.

Bartosova, V. and Podhorska, I., 2021. The importance of non-profit organization in globalized world: International comparison of American and European continent. In SHS Web of Conferences (Vol. 92, p. 1-7). EDP Sciences.

Beaudrie, S., Amezcua, A. and Loza, S., 2021. Critical language awareness in the heritage language classroom: Design, implementation, and evaluation of a curricular intervention. International Multilingual Research Journal, 15(1), pp.61-81.

Berger, S., 2020. The Impact of the First World War on the (Re-) Shaping of National Histories on Europe. In The First World War and the Nationality Question in Europe (pp. 223-244). Brill.

Bibri, S.E., 2021. The core academic and scientific disciplines underlying data-driven smart sustainable urbanism: an interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary framework. Computational Urban Science, 1, pp.1-32.

Boettke, P.J., 2018. FA Hayek: Economics, political economy and social philosophy. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Bogert, J.M., Ellers, J., Lewandowsky, S., Balgopal, M.M. and Harvey, J.A., 2022. Reviewing the relationship between neoliberal societies and nature: implications of the industrialized dominant social paradigm for a sustainable future. Ecology and society: a journal of integrative science for resilience and sustainability, p. 1-23

Borrello, M., Pascucci, S., Caracciolo, F., Lombardi, A. and Cembalo, L., 2020. Consumers are willing to participate in circular business models: A practice theory perspective to food provisioning. Journal of Cleaner Production, 259, p.1-14.

Bouchard, M.J. and Salathé-Beaulieu, G., 2021. Producing Statistics on Social and Solidarity Economy. The State of the Art. UN Inter-Agency Task Force on Social and Solidarity Economy, 843.

Brondízio, E.S., Aumeeruddy-Thomas, Y., Bates, P., Carino, J., Fernández-Llamazares, Á., Ferrari, M.F., Galvin, K., Reyes-García, V., McElwee, P., Molnár, Z. and Samakov, A., 2021. Locally based, regionally manifested, and globally relevant: Indigenous and local knowledge, values, and practices for nature. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 46, pp.481-509.

Brulé, R.E., 2020. Reform, representation, and resistance: The politics of property rights’ enforcement. The Journal of Politics, 82(4), pp.1-16.

Bučaitė-Vilkė, J., 2021. Participation of Interest Groups at Local Level: Any Space for Democracy in Inter-Municipal Cooperation? In Local Government in Europe (pp. 141-160). Bristol University Press.

Buffel, T., Rémillard-Boilard, S., Walsh, K., McDonald, B., Smetcoren, A.S. and De Donder, L., 2020. Age-friendly approaches and old-age exclusion: A cross-city analysis. International Journal of Ageing and Later Life, 14(2), pp.1-200.

Burelli, C., 2022. Political normativity and the functional autonomy of politics. European Journal of Political Theory, 21(4), pp.627-649.

Buti, M. and Fabbrini, S., 2023. Next generation EU and the future of economic governance: towards a paradigm change or just a big one-off?. Journal of European Public Policy, 30(4), pp.676-695.

Calcara, A. and Simon, L., 2021. Market size and the political economy of European defense. Security Studies, 30(5), pp.860-892.

Cavalcanti, C., 2010. Conceptions of ecological economics: Its relationship with mainstream and environmental economics. Estudos avançados, 24(68), pp.53-67.

Celli, V., Cerqua, A. and Pellegrini, G., 2021. Does R&D expenditure boost economic growth in lagging regions?. Social Indicators Research, pp. 249–268.

Centuriao, L., 2023. An economic advisor manqué finds a follower: Léon Walras and Étienne Antonelli. Available at SSRN 4429621.

Chaves-Avila, R. and Gallego-Bono, J.R., 2020. Transformative policies for the social and solidarity economy: The new generation of public policies fostering the social economy in order to achieve sustainable development goals. The European and Spanish cases. Sustainability, 12(10), p.1-29.

Chen, T., Ramon Gil-Garcia, J. and Gasco-Hernandez, M., 2022. Understanding social sustainability for smart cities: The importance of inclusion, equity, and citizen participation as both inputs and long-term outcomes. Journal of Smart Cities and Society, 1(2), pp.135-148.

Choi, D., Berry, F.S. and Ghadimi, A., 2020. Policy design and achieving social outcomes: A comparative analysis of social enterprise policy. Public Administration Review, 80(3), pp. 494-505.

Christoforou, A., 2022. Social capital and public policy: the role of civil society in transforming the state. In A Modern Guide to Post-Keynesian Institutional Economics (pp. 173-193). Edward Elgar Publishing.

Cominelli, L., Feri, F., Garofalo, R., Giannetti, C., Meléndez-Jiménez, M.A., Greco, A., Nardelli, M., Scilingo, E.P. and Kirchkamp, O., 2021. Promises and trust in human–robot interaction. Scientific reports, 11(1), p.1-14.

Costanza, R., d’Arge, R., De Groot, R., Farber, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., Limburg, K., Naeem, S., O’neill, R.V., Paruelo, J. and Raskin, R.G., 1997. The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. nature, 387(6630), pp.253-260.

Daly, H., 2022. Ecological economics in four parables. Beyond Growth? Alternative Models for Economic Development, p.14.

Daly, H.E. and Farley, J., 2011. Ecological economics: principles and applications. Island press.

Daly, H.E., 2014. Beyond growth: the economics of sustainable development. Beacon Press.

Daroshka, V., Aleksandrov, I., Chekhovskikh, I., Ol, E., Trushkin, V. and Petrov, M., 2021, December. The influence of the cooperation between the military-Industrial complex and agro-industrial on the environment in the Russian Federation. In IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science (Vol. 937, No. 2, p. 1-7). IOP Publishing.

Davies, M.L., 2020. The Relations Between Co-operation and Socialistic Aspirations (Manchester: Co-op Union, 1890), 12–13. In Contemporary Thought on Nineteenth Century Socialism (pp. 259-265). Routledge.

De Bakker, F.G., Matten, D., Spence, L.J. and Wickert, C., 2020. The elephant in the room: The nascent research agenda on corporations, social responsibility, and capitalism. Business & Society, 59(7), pp.1295-1302.

De Bruijn, E.J. and Antonides, G., 2022. Poverty and economic decision making: a review of scarcity theory. Theory and Decision, 92(1), pp.5-37.

de Nazaré Moraes Soares, M., Dias Pedro Rebouças, S.M. and Lazaro, J.C., 2020. The substantive rationality of self-management practices: an analysis of the organizational dynamics of women in solidarity economy from the perspective of oral history. Brazilian Journal of Management/Revista de Administração da UFSM, 13, p. 1216- 1234

de Oliveira Lussi, I.A., de Carvalho, F.S. and de Carvalho, J.G., 2023. Solidarity Economy and Self-Management: Theoretical Notes and Practical Experiences of Participatory Democracy and Popular Governance. In Principles for Governance: Strategies for Reducing Inequality and Promoting Human Development (pp. 109-118). Cham: Springer International Publishing, pp 109–118

Durán-Sandoval, D. and Uleri, F., 2023. Definition of Economics in Retrospective: Two Epistemological Tensions That Explain the Change of the Study Object in Economics. Philosophies, 9(1), p.1-17.

Eduardsen, J. and Marinova, S., 2020. Internationalisation and risk: Literature review, integrative framework and research agenda. International Business Review, 29(3), p.1-35.

Eleftheriadis, P., 2024. The Primacy of EU Law: Interpretive, not Structural. European Papers-A Journal on Law and Integration, 2023(3), pp.1255-1291.

Eliasson, A. and Gronlund, E., 2021. Degrowth-Characteristic elements and strategies. In 27th International Sustainable Development Research Society conference (pp. 1108-1124).

Errasti, A., and Mendizábal, J., 2020. Cooperatives and Autogestión: A Comparative Study of Worker-Owned Firms and Their Role in Local Democracy. Journal of Cooperative Economics, 62(4), 105-120.

Espinel, C.O. and Betancourt, R.G., 2022. A history of the institutionalization of feminist economics through its tensions and founders. History of Political Economy, 54(S1), pp.159-192.

Eynaud, P. and Carvalho de França Filho, G., 2023. (Re) Solidarizing Organizations. In Solidarity and Organization: Toward New Avenues for Management (pp. 91-168). Cham: Springer International Publishing

Eynaud, P. and Laville, J.L., 2023. A shared epistemological framework for the solidarity economy and the commons. In Solidarity Economy (pp. 13-27). Routledge.

Filippi, M., Bidet, E. and Richez-Battesti, N., 2023. Building a Better World: The Contribution of Cooperatives and SSE Organizations to Decent Work and Sustainable Development. Sustainability, 15(6), p.1-17.

Flaherty, S., 2022. Aldous Huxley: social anarchist. Journal of Political Ideologies, 27(2), pp.168-187.

Fotaki, M. and Pullen, A., 2024. Feminist theories and activist practices in organization studies. Organization Studies, 45(4), pp.593-616.

Frega, R., 2021. Solidarity as social involvement. Moral Philosophy and Politics, 8(2), pp.179-208.

Gaiger, L.I., 2022. Reciprocity: A way to understand the role of the social and solidarity economy in the past and in the future. In Congreso International del CIRIEC (pp. 1-18).

Gershon, I., 2024. Down and out in the new economy: How people find (or don’t find) work today. University of Chicago Press. p. 1- 18

Gkagkelis, V., 2021. A critical analysis of anarchist critiques of the Field of” Solidarity and Cooperative Economy” in Greece. Social Change Review, 19(Winter), pp.81-119.

Goniewicz, K., Khorram-Manesh, A., Hertelendy, A.J., Goniewicz, M., Naylor, K. and Burkle Jr, F.M., 2020. Current response and management decisions of the European Union to the COVID-19 outbreak: a review. Sustainability, 12(9), p.1-12.

Gowdy, J. and O’Hara, S., 2020. Economic theory for environmentalists. CRC Press. p, 208

Greene, G. and Kahn, C., 2020. Feminist scholarship and the social construction of woman. In Making a Difference (pp. 1-36). Routledge.

Gumenyuk, T., Kushnarov, V., Bondar, I., Haludzina-Horobets, V. and Horban, Y., 2021. Transformation of professional training of students in the context of education modernization. Studies of Applied Economics, p.1-10

Guttmann, A., 2021. Commons and cooperatives: A new governance of collective action. Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, 92(1), pp.33-53.

Hacker, B., 2022. National Recovery and Resilience Plan: Germany. Italian Labour Law E-Journal, 15(1S).

Hadžić, F., 2021. Critical security approach to climate change with an emphasis on marginalized global inequalities. Current Studies in Educational Disciplines, p.2-323.

Heiland, H., 2020. Workers’ voice in platform labour: an overview.Lloveras, J., Warnaby, G. and Quinn, L., 2020. Mutualism as market practice: An examination of market performativity in the context of anarchism and its implications for post-capitalist politics. Marketing Theory, 20(3), pp.3-57.

Heimberger, P., 2020. Does economic globalisation affect income inequality? A meta‐analysis. The World Economy, 43(11), pp.2960-2982.

Herbst, P.G., 2012. Alternatives to hierarchies (Vol. 1). Springer Science & Business Media. P, 16-108

Héritier, A. and Schoeller, M.G., 2020. Governing finance in Europe: a centralisation of rule-making?. In Governing Finance in Europe (pp. 1-30). Edward Elgar Publishing.

Hidalgo, G., Monticelli, J.M. and Vargas Bortolaso, I., 2024. Social capital as a driver of social entrepreneurship. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 15(1), pp.182-205.

Hitziger, M., Berezowski, J., Dürr, S., Falzon, L.C., Léchenne, M., Lushasi, K., Markosyan, T., Mbilo, C., Momanyi, K.N., Özçelik, R. and Prejit, N., 2021. System thinking and citizen participation is still missing in one health initiatives–lessons from fifteen evaluations. Frontiers in public health, 9, p.1-15.

Horne, C. and Mollborn, S., 2020. Norms: An integrated framework. Annual Review of Sociology, 46, pp.467-487.

Hue, T.H.H. and Tung-Wen Sun, M., 2022. Democratic governance: Examining the Influence of citizen participation on local government performance in Vietnam. International Journal of Public Administration, 45(1), pp.4-22.

Isakjee, A., Davies, T., Obradović‐Wochnik, J. and Augustová, K., 2020. Liberal violence and the racial borders of the European Union. Antipode, 52(6), pp.1751-1773.

Jacquet, V. and van der Does, R., 2021. Deliberation and policy-making: Three ways to think about minipublics’ consequences. Administration & Society, 53(3), pp.1-20.

Jervis, R., 2022. Co-operatives and socialism: The promises and contradictions of a system of worker ownership. Thinking Beyond Neoliberalism: Alternative Societies, Transition, and Resistance, pp.49-74.

Johansson, P. and Sandahl, J., 2024. Should government agencies be trusted? Developing students’ civic narrative competence through social science education. The Journal of Social Studies Research, 48(1), pp.64-79.

Juaristi, J.A., 2022, September. Artificial Intelligence Solutions and Challenges in Modernising the Content and Structures of Vocational Education and Training. In The Relevance of Artificial Intelligence in the Digital and Green Transformation of Regional and Local Labour Markets Across Europe (pp. 13-26). Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG.

Kallis, G., Kerschner, C. and Martinez-Alier, J., 2012. The economics of degrowth. Ecological economics, 84, pp.172-180.

Kalogiannidis, S., 2020. Economic cooperative models: agricultural cooperatives in Greece and the need to modernize their operation for the sustainable development of local societies. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 10(11), pp.452-468.

Kara, S., Hauschild, M., Sutherland, J. and McAloone, T., 2022. Closed-loop systems to circular economy: A pathway to environmental sustainability?. CIRP Annals, 71(2), pp.505-528.

Kawano, E., 2020. Solidarity economy: Building an economy for people and planet. In The New Systems Reader (pp. 285-302). Routledge.

Keller, D.R. and Keller, D.R., 2019. Political Economy of Ecology. Ecology and Justice—Citizenship in Biotic Communities, pp.183-210.

Kimiagari, S. and Malafe, N.S.A., 2021. The role of cognitive and affective responses in the relationship between internal and external stimuli on online impulse buying behavior. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 61, p.1-18.

Kish, K. and Farley, J., 2021. A research agenda for the future of ecological economics by emerging scholars. Sustainability, 13(3), p.1-17.

Klein, S., 2022. Democracy requires organized collective power. Journal of Political Philosophy, 30(1), pp.26-47.

Koch, M., 2022. Social policy without growth: Moving towards sustainable welfare states. Social Policy and Society, 21(3), pp.447-459.

Kravchenko, V., 2020. THE CONCEPT OF UNITED EUROPE IN ITS IDEOLOGICAL VERBALIZATION IN THE EUROPEAN INTEGRATION POLITICAL DISCOURSE. Філологічні науки, (33), pp.70-74.

Ladenburger, C., 2020. The principle of mutual trust between member states in the area of freedom, security and justice. ZEuS Zeitschrift für Europarechtliche Studien, 23(3), pp.373-408.

Laruffa, F., 2020. What is a capability-enhancing social policy? Individual autonomy, democratic citizenship and the insufficiency of the employment-focused paradigm. Journal of Human Development and Capabilities, 21(1), pp.1-16.

Lee, S., 2020. Role of social and solidarity economy in localizing the sustainable development goals. International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology, 27(1), pp.65-71.

Lee, W.R., Choi, S.B. and Kang, S.W., 2021. How leaders’ positive feedback influences employees’ innovative behavior: The mediating role of voice behavior and job autonomy. Sustainability, 13(4), p.1-13.

Liedke Filho, E.D., 2006. Brazilian Sociology: contemporary epistemological-theoretical and institutional trends. Sociologias, 1(SE), pp.1-27.

Lopez, B., 2020. Connecting business and sustainable development goals in Spain. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 38(5), pp.573-585.

Lugo-Agudelo, L.H., Sarmiento, K.M.C., Brunal, M.A.S., Correa, J.C.V., Borrero, A.M.P., Franco, L.F.M., Ianini, R.D.D.C., Lis, P.A.R.P., Vélez, C.M., Lugo, D.F.P. and Gutenbrunner, C., 2021. Adaptations to rehabilitation services during the COVID-19 pandemic proposed by scientific and professional rehabilitation organizations. Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, 53(9), p. 1-10

Macready, A.L., Hieke, S., Klimczuk-Kochańska, M., Szumiał, S., Vranken, L. and Grunert, K.G., 2020. Consumer trust in the food value chain and its impact on consumer confidence: A model for assessing consumer trust and evidence from a 5-country study in Europe. Food Policy, 92, p.1-15.

Maerhofer, J., 2023. Mushroom Dialectics: Green Capital, Nature, and the Politics of Eco-Militancy. Journal for the Study of Radicalism, 17(2), pp.83-109.

Mangoro, A. 2020. Conceptualisations of Complexity, Uncertainty, Ambiguity and Contestedness in Education for Sustainable Development Literature and Discourses. p.1-29

Marginson, S., 2022. What is global higher education?. Oxford Review of Education, 48(4), pp.492-517.

Martinez, J., 2020. International Dispute System Design: Shoals and Shifting Goals. J. Disp. Resol., p.1-18.

Mavri, A., Ioannou, A. and Loizides, F., 2021. Value creation and identity in cross-organizational communities of practice: A learner’s perspective. The Internet and Higher Education, 51, p.1-77.

Mayer, C. and Roche, B., 2021. Putting purpose into practice: The economics of mutuality (p. 432). Oxford University Press. P. 3-404

McKinley, E., Acott, T. and Yates, K.L., 2020. Marine social sciences: Looking towards a sustainable future. Environmental Science & Policy, 108, pp.85-92.

McNeely, P. and Cole, Z., 2022. An Analysis of the History of Latin American and Caribbean Regionalism. Perpetua: The UAH Journal of Undergraduate Research, 6(1), p.1-73.

Melgar-Melgar, R.E. and Hall, C.A., 2020. Why ecological economics needs to return to its roots: The biophysical foundation of socio-economic systems. Ecological Economics, 169, p.1-14.

Meyer, D.F. and Mncayi, P., 2021. An analysis of underemployment among young graduates: The case of a higher education institution in South Africa. Economies, 9(4), p.1-16.

Milanović, A., 2022. The Impact of Social Changes on the Methodological Development of Transdisciplinary Body Studies. AM Časopis za studije umetnosti i medija, (27), pp.13-23.

Milanovic, B., 2020. The clash of capitalisms: The real fight for the global economy’s future. Foreign Aff., 99, p.10.

Morgan, G. and Pulignano, V., 2020. Solidarity at work: Concepts, levels and challenges. Work, Employment and Society, 34(1), pp.18-34.

Morgan, J., 2020. Degrowth: necessary, urgent and good for you. Real-World Economics Review, (93), pp.113-131.

Moscati, P., 2020. LOGIC AND COMPUTING: A HISTORICAL BACKGROUND. Archeologia e Calcolatori, (2). P. 121

Moshtari, M. and Vanpoucke, E., 2021. Building successful NGO–business relationships: A social capital perspective. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 57(3), pp.104-129.

Murtazashvili, I. and Weiss, M., 2022. Economic perspectives on the governance of blockchains. In Handbook on Blockchain (pp. 695-713). Cham: Springer International Publishing.

Nelson, R.H., 2022. Workplace Harasser Liability: Assailing Moral Hazards and Rehabilitating the Individualist Approach. Tennessee Law Review, 89(4), p.958-1020.

Nyssens, M. and Benjamin, H., 2020. Social enterprises and their ecosystems in Europe. Country report BELGIUM. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. p, 1-385

Odum, E.P. and Barrett, G.W., 1971. Fundamentals of ecology (Vol. 3, p. 5). Philadelphia: Saunders.

Okolie, U.C., Nwajiuba, C.A., Binuomote, M.O., Ehiobuche, C., Igu, N.C.N. and Ajoke, O.S., 2020. Career training with mentoring programs in higher education: facilitating career development and employability of graduates. Education+ Training, 62(3), pp.214-234.

Osabohien, R., Adeleye, N. and De Alwis, T., 2020. Agro-financing and food production in Nigeria. Heliyon, 6(5). P. 1-8

Panizza, F. and Stavrakakis, Y., 2020. Populism, hegemony, and the political construction of “the people”: A discursive approach. In Populism in Global Perspective (pp. 21-46). Routledge.

Petrović, N., 2022. Why do environmental and ecological economics diverge?: comparison of the ideological, institutional and scientific backgrounds of the main actors. Science & Technology Studies, 35(1), pp.35-57.

Porter, M.E., 2021. The changing role of business in society. Harvard Business School: Boston, MA, USA. p. 1-132

Postero, N. and Tockman, J., 2020. Self-governance in Bolivia’s first indigenous autonomy: Charagua. Latin American Research Review, 55(1), pp.1-15.

Rega, A.P. and Gimbut, M., 2022. “First—Mind Rich, Second—Pocket Rich”: Art as a Means to Revitalize Declining Community; The Case Study of Gejia Village. Visual Anthropology, 35(4-5), pp.420-447.

Ricciardelli, A., 2023. Governance, local communities, and citizens participation. In Global Encyclopedia of Public Administration, Public Policy, and Governance (pp. 5977-5990). Cham: Springer International Publishing.

Rodríguez Aboytes, J.G. and Barth, M., 2020. Transformative learning in the field of sustainability: a systematic literature review (1999-2019). International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 21(5), pp.993-1013.

Rosaldo, M., 2024. Top-Down and Bottom-Up Formalization: Waste Pickers’ Struggles for Labor Rights in São Paulo and Bogotá. ILR Review, 77(1), pp.32-61.

Salustri, A., 2021. Social and solidarity economy and social and solidarity commons: Towards the (re) discovery of an ethic of the common good?. Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, 92(1), pp.13-32.

Sandrin, P., 2021. Symptomatic enjoyment: a postcolonial and psychoanalytic interpretation of Turkey’s relations with the European Union. Journal of international relations and development, 24(1), pp.226-250.

Santoni de Sio, F., Almeida, T. and Van Den Hoven, J., 2021. The future of work: freedom, justice and capital in the age of artificial intelligence. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, pp.659-683.

Saunders, G., 2023. Understanding the Practical and Theoretical Significance of Autonomous Learning Spaces. In Prefiguring the Idea of the University for a Post-Capitalist Society (pp. 65-102). Cham: Springer International Publishing.

Scherrer, C., Garcia, A. and Wullweber, J., 2023. Introduction to the Handbook on Critical Political Economy and Public Policy. In Handbook on Critical Political Economy and Public Policy (pp. 1-18). Edward Elgar Publishing.

Schmelzer, M., 2024. 1 ‘Without Growth, Everything is Nothing’: On the Origins of Growthism. De Gruyter Handbook of Degrowth, p. 25-40.

Shahzad, U., Madaleno, M., Dagar, V., Ghosh, S. and Doğan, B., 2022. Exploring the role of export product quality and economic complexity for economic progress of developed economies: Does institutional quality matter?. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 62, pp.40-51.

Shapiro, D., Hobdari, B. and Oh, C.H., 2018. Natural resources, multinational enterprises and sustainable development. Journal of World Business, 53(1), pp.1-14.

Shaturaev, J., 2022. Bad Management Hypotheses Are Demolishing Management Practices. Архив научных исследований, 2(1). P, 9-20

Shelenko, D., Balaniuk, I., Sas, L., Malik, M., Matkovskyi, P., Levandivskyi, O. and Humeniuk, M., 2021. Forecasting of net profit and the area of land of private enterprises. Management Theory and Studies for Rural Business and Infrastructure Development, 43(4), pp.500-516.

Siméon, O. ed., 2020. Contemporary Thought on Nineteenth Century Socialism. Routledge, p 21-71

Singh, J.N. and Chen, G.C., 2020. State-owned enterprises and the political economy of state–state relations in the developing world. In Developmental States beyond East Asia (pp. 1-21). Routledge.

Skidelsky, R., 2020. What’s wrong with economics?. Yale University Press.

Soares, M.D.N.M., Rebouças, S.M.D.P. and Lázaro, J.C., 2023. Collective and Networked Learning Developed in Enterprises Formed by Women in the Solidarity Economy: A Post-Colonialist Analysis of a Feminist Self-Management Practice. Organizações & Sociedade, 30, pp.496-523.

Soskis, B., 2020. A history of associational life and the nonprofit sector in the United States. The nonprofit sector: A research handbook, pp.23-80.

Spash, C.L., 2020. A tale of three paradigms: Realising the revolutionary potential of ecological economics. Ecological Economics, 169, p.1-14.

Staffa, R.K., Riechers, M. and Martin-Lopez, B., 2022. A feminist ethos for caring knowledge production in transdisciplinary sustainability science. Sustainability Science, 17(1), pp.45-63.

Stockhammer, E., Constantine, C. and Reissl, S., 2020. Explaining the Euro crisis: current account imbalances, credit booms and economic policy in different economic paradigms. Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, 43(2), pp.1-47.

Stortenbeker, I., Salm, L., Olde Hartman, T., Stommel, W., Das, E. and van Dulmen, S., 2022. Coding linguistic elements in clinical interactions: a step-by-step guide for analyzing communication form. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 22(1), p.1-12.

Strachan, H. and Harris, R., 2020. The Utility of Military Force and Public Understanding in Today’s Britain. Cambridge: Rand, p.1-34

Suhartini, N. and Jones, P., 2023. Key Concepts in Understanding Self-organization and the Self-organized City. In Beyond the Informal: Understanding Self-Organized Kampungs in Indonesia (pp. 37-55). Cham: Springer International Publishing.

Sullivan, L.S., 2020. Trust, risk, and race in American medicine. Hastings Center Report, 50(1), pp.18-26.

Swain, G., 2022. A short history of the Russian revolution. A Short History of the Russian Revolution, pp.1-248.

Syropoulos, S., Law, K.F. and Young, L., 2023. Caring for present and future generations alike: Longtermism and moral regard across temporal and social distance. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, p.1-26.

Thomas, A., 2020. Cross-border labour markets and the role of trade unions in representing migrant workers’ interests. Journal of Industrial Relations, 62(2), pp.235-255.

Tietenberg, T. and Lewis, L., 2018. Environmental and natural resource economics. Routledge.

Tram, P.N. and Ngoc Huy, D.T., 2021. Educational, Political and Socio-Economic Development of Vietnam Based on Ho Chi Minh’s Ideology. Ilkogretim Online, 20(1). P. 1238-1246

Ugwumba, S.W., 2020. Examining the role and limits of copyright law and policy in facilitating access to education in Nigeria: a development inquiry. P. 1-365

Vieta, M. and Heras, A.I., 2023. Social and solidarity economy and self-management. In Handbook of Research on the Global Political Economy of Work (pp. 161-171). Edward Elgar Publishing.

Vieta, M., 2014. The stream of self-determination and autogestión: Prefiguring alternative economic realities. ephemera: theory and politics in organization, 14(4), pp.781-809.

Vieta, M., 2019. A Genealogy of Autogestión. In Workers’ Self-Management in Argentina (pp. 298-347). Brill.

Villalba-Eguiluz, U., Egia-Olaizola, A. and Pérez de Mendiguren, J.C., 2020. Convergences between the social and solidarity economy and sustainable development goals: Case study in the Basque country. Sustainability, 12(13), p.1-19.

Vîrjan, D., Manole, A.M., Stanef-Puică, M.R., Chenic, A.S., Papuc, C.M., Huru, D. and Bănacu, C.S., 2023. Competitiveness—the engine that boosts economic growth and revives the economy. Frontiers in Environmental Science, 11, p.1-14.

Whitham, M.M., 2021. Generalized generosity: How the norm of generalized reciprocity bridges collective forms of social exchange. American Sociological Review, 86(3), pp.503-531.

Wilkerson, I., 2020. Caste: The origins of our discontents. Random House. pp, 180-183

Wilkinson, R.G., 2022. Poverty and progress: an ecological model of economic development. Routledge, p. 1-254

Williams, L., 2020. The democracy problem. Theory in Action, 13(1), pp.115-136.

Witz, A. and Savage, M., 1991. The gender of organizations. The Sociological Review, 39(1_suppl), pp.3-62.

World Health Organization, 2021. Voice, agency, empowerment–handbook on social participation for universal health coverage. p. 1-252

Yang, Y. and Cai, Z., 2020. Ecological security assessment of the Guanzhong Plain urban agglomeration based on an adapted ecological footprint model. Journal of Cleaner Production, 260, p.1-11.

Yegorov, Y., 2023. Two self-organizing principles in economics and a conflict between them. Evolutionary and Institutional Economics Review, 20(2), pp.213-233.

Zachorowska-Mazurkiewicz, A., 2020. Principles of exchange and reciprocity in the context of providing care. In The Gift in the Economy and Society (pp. 189-202). Routledge.

Zhou, X., Liang, W., Ma, J., Yan, Z., Kevin, I. and Wang, K., 2022. 2D federated learning for personalized human activity recognition in cyber-physical-social systems. IEEE Transactions on Network Science and Engineering, 9(6), pp.3934-3944.

LITERATURE REVIEW

The Relationship Between Ecology and Economy