217
for local exchanges, the nasoni and cavalotti (Lietaer and Kennedy 2008 ). In making a parallel to industrial ecology concepts, having different types of currencies
working together in a complementary manner tends towards ecosystem diversity.
Our national and supra-national currencies, by contrast, are similar to monoculture
farming; a weak euro impacts the entire euro-zone along with international trade,
with no other currencies in place to provide a stabilizing effect. The argument for
complementary currencies rests on the need for system diversity in our monetary
systems.
Beyond national currencies, other forms of monetary units exist and are widely
exchanged as complementary currencies, such as airline mileage (The Economist
2005 ) and Bitcoins (McMillan 2014 ). One defi nition of complementary currencies
is that they exist at the nexus of unsatisfi ed needs and under-utilized resources
(Lietaer and Kennedy 2008 ). In 2010, an estimated one million people worldwide
engaged in complementary currency systems in over 4,000 associations in over
forty countries (Blanc 2010 ); no doubt this number has increased since then.
Currencies can have aims other than facilitating exchange, creating wealth, promoting brand loyalty or allowing for the redistribution of wealth through taxation. This
is where the notion of community currencies comes in, as a subset of complementary currencies, and tied to the guiding principles of the social and solidarity economy (SSE). Community currencies are often designed towards social or
environmental aims, are generated in and spent in a given region and not tied to
national currencies, thus sheltered from the whims of international fi nancial markets. The advocates of community currencies point to the need to diversify the local
economic system and harness the potential of regional wealth creation and related
expenditures. For Blanc ( 2010 ), one of the main objectives of such currencies is to
‘resist globalization’ and encourage the use of local income for local production and
consumption; a second objective is to benefi t local populations through a fairer
distribution of wealth, rather than wealth accumulation among an elite; third, such
currencies should aim at transforming the nature of trade and solidifying social relations based on trust, proximity between producer and consumer and the notion of
producer as consumer (or ‘prosumer’). Handbooks designed to guide those interested in stimulating regional economies are available (Lietaer and Kennedy 2008 ).
Examples of community currencies have fl ourished in the past two decades and
around the world through what are called Systèmes d’échanges locaux ( SEL) or
Local Exchange Trading Systems (LETS). The fi rst LETS in the UK was created in
Norwich in 1985, growing by 2001 to include 300 trading schemes, involving
22,000 people and an annual turnover equivalent of £1.4 million (Williams et al.
2001 in Seyfang 2007 ). The local exchange systems can involve the trading of different products and services, but also time as a resource. This relates to time banking, a form of exchange based on the egalitarian notion that each member’s time is
equivalent to another’s. Services such as baby-sitting or painting can be exchanged
for computer programming or legal advice, with no distinction between the type of
service offered; it is an hour of time that is being exchanged. Time banks are increasingly the subject of academic research: in the recent edited volume, Sustainable
lifestyle and the quest for plenitude (Schor and Thompson 2014 ), the up- and down10 The Social and Solidarity Economy: Why Is It Relevant to Industrial Ecology?
for local exchanges, the nasoni and cavalotti (Lietaer and Kennedy 2008 ). In making a parallel to industrial ecology concepts, having different types of currencies
working together in a complementary manner tends towards ecosystem diversity.
Our national and supra-national currencies, by contrast, are similar to monoculture
farming; a weak euro impacts the entire euro-zone along with international trade,
with no other currencies in place to provide a stabilizing effect. The argument for
complementary currencies rests on the need for system diversity in our monetary
systems.
Beyond national currencies, other forms of monetary units exist and are widely
exchanged as complementary currencies, such as airline mileage (The Economist
2005 ) and Bitcoins (McMillan 2014 ). One defi nition of complementary currencies
is that they exist at the nexus of unsatisfi ed needs and under-utilized resources
(Lietaer and Kennedy 2008 ). In 2010, an estimated one million people worldwide
engaged in complementary currency systems in over 4,000 associations in over
forty countries (Blanc 2010 ); no doubt this number has increased since then.
Currencies can have aims other than facilitating exchange, creating wealth, promoting brand loyalty or allowing for the redistribution of wealth through taxation. This
is where the notion of community currencies comes in, as a subset of complementary currencies, and tied to the guiding principles of the social and solidarity economy (SSE). Community currencies are often designed towards social or
environmental aims, are generated in and spent in a given region and not tied to
national currencies, thus sheltered from the whims of international fi nancial markets. The advocates of community currencies point to the need to diversify the local
economic system and harness the potential of regional wealth creation and related
expenditures. For Blanc ( 2010 ), one of the main objectives of such currencies is to
‘resist globalization’ and encourage the use of local income for local production and
consumption; a second objective is to benefi t local populations through a fairer
distribution of wealth, rather than wealth accumulation among an elite; third, such
currencies should aim at transforming the nature of trade and solidifying social relations based on trust, proximity between producer and consumer and the notion of
producer as consumer (or ‘prosumer’). Handbooks designed to guide those interested in stimulating regional economies are available (Lietaer and Kennedy 2008 ).
Examples of community currencies have fl ourished in the past two decades and
around the world through what are called Systèmes d’échanges locaux ( SEL) or
Local Exchange Trading Systems (LETS). The fi rst LETS in the UK was created in
Norwich in 1985, growing by 2001 to include 300 trading schemes, involving
22,000 people and an annual turnover equivalent of £1.4 million (Williams et al.
2001 in Seyfang 2007 ). The local exchange systems can involve the trading of different products and services, but also time as a resource. This relates to time banking, a form of exchange based on the egalitarian notion that each member’s time is
equivalent to another’s. Services such as baby-sitting or painting can be exchanged
for computer programming or legal advice, with no distinction between the type of
service offered; it is an hour of time that is being exchanged. Time banks are increasingly the subject of academic research: in the recent edited volume, Sustainable
lifestyle and the quest for plenitude (Schor and Thompson 2014 ), the up- and down10 The Social and Solidarity Economy: Why Is It Relevant to Industrial Ecology?