replace the overemphasis on competition with that of cooperation and to involve the
population in the process of what economies should deliver on and how.
The movement is strongest in Austria, northern Italy and Germany. Felber’s
2011 book The Economy for the Common Good has been translated into Spanish,
Italian, Finnish and French and the website is also available in Polish but not in
Finnish. This rapidly growing movement is a brilliant example of how different
pioneer activities align behind a clearly formulated repurposing of their small
systems with a plan to drive the transformation of the overarching regime systems.
Of course this does not mean everyone involved will and can find the same
incremental steps to become Common Good supporters. While the strongest criticism from the mainstream predicts that the focus on re-localization and regionalization will lead to a collapse in productivity and wealth creation, the more nuanced
observers point to the creativity with which the old and unchanged business practice
might now be branded differently. Some measures that would be unavoidable
anyhow, like providing training for employees to, for example, catch up with
newest IT trends, can now be declared common good measures. Using the common
good narrative as an image campaign might then lead to better sales and therefore
more profane profit—while not much else changes (Exner 2011). As mentioned
above, I think it is important to check such practices by flagging them and assessing
if further incremental steps are to follow. I do not think that a movement and vision
should be dismissed unless such practices become the norm. Exner lists two
businesses out of the group of 1811 and his judgment is based on the public
statements of the managers rather than proper investigation.
The vision as formulated by the movement itself is to be an open, adaptive
learning community with potentially global reach. It seeks to create self-reliance
and more independence for each of the regions but also changes in the overarching
regime structures so that the normal or hegemonic way of thinking and doing
business is transformed. Here the participants point to three hegemonic assumptions: that humans (should) only pursue their self-interest, that without the intention
of gain there is no entrepreneurial engagement and that competition is always the
most efficient way of organizing production and consumption processes.
4.2 Pioneering Civil Society: Transition Towns
for Resilient Local Solutions
Originally emerging in the United Kingdom, the Transition Towns movement has
spread across Europe and beyond. While the Common Good network already had a
strong focus on the local embeddedness of its members, the Transition Town
movement makes ‘reflexive relocalization’ its core stance. The term ‘reflexive’ is
important because it highlights the way that the process is driven by communities. It
is done with a clear system view that envisions improved resilience of a town and
126
4 Mapping an Emerging New Economic Paradigm in Practice
population in the process of what economies should deliver on and how.
The movement is strongest in Austria, northern Italy and Germany. Felber’s
2011 book The Economy for the Common Good has been translated into Spanish,
Italian, Finnish and French and the website is also available in Polish but not in
Finnish. This rapidly growing movement is a brilliant example of how different
pioneer activities align behind a clearly formulated repurposing of their small
systems with a plan to drive the transformation of the overarching regime systems.
Of course this does not mean everyone involved will and can find the same
incremental steps to become Common Good supporters. While the strongest criticism from the mainstream predicts that the focus on re-localization and regionalization will lead to a collapse in productivity and wealth creation, the more nuanced
observers point to the creativity with which the old and unchanged business practice
might now be branded differently. Some measures that would be unavoidable
anyhow, like providing training for employees to, for example, catch up with
newest IT trends, can now be declared common good measures. Using the common
good narrative as an image campaign might then lead to better sales and therefore
more profane profit—while not much else changes (Exner 2011). As mentioned
above, I think it is important to check such practices by flagging them and assessing
if further incremental steps are to follow. I do not think that a movement and vision
should be dismissed unless such practices become the norm. Exner lists two
businesses out of the group of 1811 and his judgment is based on the public
statements of the managers rather than proper investigation.
The vision as formulated by the movement itself is to be an open, adaptive
learning community with potentially global reach. It seeks to create self-reliance
and more independence for each of the regions but also changes in the overarching
regime structures so that the normal or hegemonic way of thinking and doing
business is transformed. Here the participants point to three hegemonic assumptions: that humans (should) only pursue their self-interest, that without the intention
of gain there is no entrepreneurial engagement and that competition is always the
most efficient way of organizing production and consumption processes.
4.2 Pioneering Civil Society: Transition Towns
for Resilient Local Solutions
Originally emerging in the United Kingdom, the Transition Towns movement has
spread across Europe and beyond. While the Common Good network already had a
strong focus on the local embeddedness of its members, the Transition Town
movement makes ‘reflexive relocalization’ its core stance. The term ‘reflexive’ is
important because it highlights the way that the process is driven by communities. It
is done with a clear system view that envisions improved resilience of a town and
126
4 Mapping an Emerging New Economic Paradigm in Practice