Happiness theory and worker cooperatives: A critique of the alignment thesis

Work may provide subsistence, but for most people it is a necessary evil. For communities, businesses lie at the heart of our economic system, but often come with negative externalities. This article considers whether worker cooperatives will tend to have more positive impacts on the happiness of their workers and of the community than do traditional businesses. Worker cooperatives are businesses, but they are rooted in the community. Based on the work of 19th-century political economist William Thompson, I examine what I call the alignment thesis, which suggests that the democratic and ownership structure of cooperatives will align the interests of the enterprise with that of the workers and the community beyond. I explore this question both analytically and by reviewing the existing empirical literature. I find that the impact on workers is generally positive, mostly because of the establishment of democratic control, better working conditions and job security, but it is limited where social inequalities that disadvantage women and people of color are replicated in the cooperative. The larger community impacts, however, are less certain, because worker cooperatives do not necessarily alter the logic of capitalist production for exchange. I conclude with thoughts for further research

Property, ownership and employee ownership: employee control in ESOPs

Purpose Most people associate ownership with the ability to control something. In the USA, employee share (or stock) ownership plans (ESOPs) are one of the principal forms of employee ownership. However, most ESOPs give employees very limited rights of control over the company they own. This paper explore this conflict by examining theories of property and ownership to determine whether the right to participate in decision-making is inherent in the idea of ownership as it is generally understood. Ultimately, the author argues that the law governing ESOPs should be revised to give employees a larger role in the governance of their companies. Design/methodology/approach This paper considers the concept of ownership both historically and analytically. The author examines the roots of property theory in the work of John Locke and contemporary theorists, as well as contemporary theorizing about ownership. Findings There are two kinds of ownership: legal ownership and psychological ownership. In legal ownership, the right to participation is inherent but alienable, so one can legally be an owner of something but have no right of participation. Psychological ownership primarily arises from a sense of control. Legal ownership confers some part of the bundle of rights associated with property. Psychological ownership conveys a feeling of efficacy, responsibility and control, but no formal rights. The author argues that, for employee ownership to be more than mere property-holding, it must include meaningful participation in decision-making, including governance. Research limitations/implications This paper is only concerned with ESOPs in the USA. Although the findings may be applicable, it does not address other forms of employee ownership or employee ownership outside of the USA. Practical implications People associate ownership with the ability to control something, so when workers are told they own their company but then find they have few control rights, it may undermine their sense of ownership. This then has negative implications for the company\u27s success. To ensure meaningful levels of governance rights, policy-makers should revise the laws governing ESOPs to require greater involvement by employees. Social implications Clarifying ambiguities around ownership will help support arguments for affording employee-owners greater control rights in their companies, which will have various spill-over effects. Originality/value Practitioners and scholars alike deploy the term, “ownership” but ascribe different meanings to it. The distinction between legal and psychological ownership is largely lacking in the ESOP literature. Clarifying this distinction will help to move the discussion forward regarding employee participation in ESOPs. In addition, the paper provides an original analysis of property that demonstrates the importance of the right to control, showing that the traditional ESOP structure may violate important aspects of that right

An Equality of Security. Bentham, Thompson, and the Principles Subsidiary to Utility

In the “Principles of the Civil Code,” Jeremy Bentham identifies four “principles subsidiary to utility”: subsistence, abundance, equality, and security. Whereas these subsidiary principles form part of the bedrock of classical liberalism, in this essay I show that in the hands of his friend and disciple William Thompson, they are transformed into the foundations for socialism. Where Bentham prioritizes security over equality, and security of property takes a preeminent role, Thompson shows that the system of individual competition and private property—his way of describing capitalism—is best characterized by the “inequality of security.” Based on the labor theory of property, Thompson argues that the system that assigns ownership to the providers of capital violates the workers’ security—the right to have the full produce of their labor secured to them. Thompson then reconciles security and equality, understanding them as mutually constitutive instead of in conflict. From his work I identify a modified set of subsidiary principles that place security and equality at the same level, and then adds additional subsidiary principles as necessary conditions to enable full equality of security: voluntarism, democracy, and united effort/common property. With this as his basis, Thompson offers the outlines for important elements of socialist theory, including the theory of surplus value; a call for the abolition of private property; and full equal social, civil, and legal rights for women, establishing a firm grounding for socialism in utilitarian philosophy. Because Thompson also was a major influence on the early cooperative movement, which also adopted these principles, this has significant implications for how we view the cooperative movement, which today may justifiably claim to be the world’s largest democratic social movement

Cooperatives and the Question of Democracy

Democracy is generally considered to be a core element of cooperatives. However, other than elected boards of directors, it appears to play little part in either the governance or operations of most cooperatives. Two challenges to democracy are identified. One is the idea that cooperatives will tend to lose their democratic character over time. The other is that many cooperatives are founded primarily for economic reasons, and democracy is a second-order concern. The paper explores the question of how important democracy is to cooperatives, identifying warning signs and encouraging cooperatives to take a more active approach to promote participation. Democracy cannot be taken for granted, or it may fade away entirely. - Obwohl Demokratie im allgemeinen als Kernelement von Genossenschaften angesehen wird, scheint sie – außer bei gewählten Verwaltungsräten – weder in der Leitung noch in der Geschäftstätigkeit der meisten Genossenschaften eine wichtige Rolle zu spielen. Das ist mit zwei Problemen verbunden. Eines ist die Vorstellung, dass Genossenschaften dazu neigen, ihren demokratischen Charakter zu verlieren. Das zweite ist, dass viele Genossenschaften aus primär wirtschaftlichen Gründen gegründet werden; Demokratie ist zweitrangig. Dieser Essay geht der Frage nach, wie wichtig Demokratie für Genossenschaften ist, identifiziert Warnsignale und ermutigt Genossenschaften, Partizipation aktiv zu fördern. Demokratie ist nicht selbstverständlich; sie kann ganz verschwinden