Search results

As communities grappled with a slew of concurrent disasters in 2020, grassroots mutual aid regained prominence, providing lessons for a more equitable approach to emergency management. Within emergency management, “mutual aid” has come to mean the specific legal mechanisms by which governments, non-governmental organizations, and private sector entities share resources. However, the term “mutual aid” has a much longer history of functioning outside of government and emergency management circles. With a recorded history in Black and Creole communities dating back to the mid-1700s, it has been widely used within communities of color for centuries. To see grassroots mutual aid in practice, the authors present a case study of Imagine Water Works’ Mutual Aid Response Network (MARN) in New Orleans, which was developed in 2019 and responded to the COVID-19 pandemic and a record-breaking Gulf Coast hurricane season in 2020. Utilizing Facebook as a platform, the MARN’s “Imagine Mutual Aid (New Orleans)” group saw its membership grow by 5,000 members from March 2020 to March 2021. Within the first week of Hurricane Laura’s landfall, the group welcomed evacuated individuals from Southwest Louisiana and quickly facilitated thousands of requests for support, providing food, housing, clothing, medical devices, emotional support, emergency cash, laundry services, and personalized care for those in non-congregate shelters, as well as locally informed flood and hurricane preparedness information for subsequent storms. Grassroots mutual aid sheds light on root causes and existing gaps within emergency management and provides a model for autonomous community care.

This paper traces how in Britain and Germany, for-profit and non-profit businesses coevolved with political-economic institutions. Starting in the late eighteenth century, Britain embraced the logic of liberal capitalism, although the path was not smooth. Over the same period, German states balanced both liberal and social-welfare ideals. Social-welfare ideals did not gain support in Britain until the start the twentieth century. The market logic embodied by for-profit businesses was more congruent with liberal capitalism than with social-welfare capitalism, so business corporations thrived more in Britain than in Germany. Yet in both countries, the growing number and power of for-profit businesses created problems for farmers, workers, and small producers. They sought to solve their problems by launching non-profit businesses – co-operatives, mutual-aid societies, and credit co-operatives – combining the ideals of community, enterprise, and self-help. British non-profits gained support from authorities by emphasizing their self-help and enterprise ideals, which were congruent with liberal capitalism, over the community idea, which was not. In contrast, German non-profits gained support by emphasizing all three ideals, as two were congruent with liberal capitalism and all three with social-welfare capitalism. Our analysis reveals how the success of different forms of business, embodying different institutional logics, depends on prevailing political-economic logics. It also shows how the existence and technical success of various organizational forms shapes elites’ perceptions and through them, societal-level logics of capitalism.

The paper published below was prepared by Taylor Ostrander for Frank Knight’s course, Economic Theory, Economics 301, during the Fall 1933 quarter.

According to Putnam, civic engagement fosters a cooperative structure and generalized trust. This leads to accumulation of social capital, in the form of inclusive, cooperative networks that are economically productive. The aim of this paper is to evaluate critically this thesis.

Drawing upon data from rural Denmark, this paper double tests Putnam's somewhat simplistic model of social capital leading to higher levels of economic performance.

In test one, which is based on statistical data, it is found that social capital measured as the density of voluntary associations does not in any way influence levels of economic performance. Test two, based on qualitative fieldwork, points at the socioeconomic power of social capital, implying many positive and negative outcomes other than the sheer economic.

Data are only from Denmark.

This paper reframes the social capital research agenda, displaying to policy makers that they should not overestimate the blessing of voluntary associations.

This paper contributes to the sociological critique of the one‐sided, positive picture of civic associations.

Much of the contemporary literature surrounding the barriers to community self‐help in the advanced economies has placed great emphasis on capital‐orientated barriers, such as a household's access to financial capital, time capital, human capital and social capital. Focusing explicitly on one‐to‐one mutual aid, and drawing on rich qualitative data from two urban communities in the UK, this paper aims to re‐visit the barriers to participation that prevent households from doing more for others in their community. In particular, the paper explores a range of entrenched social taboos that underpin the contested spaces of mutual aid. These include: “being aburden to others”, “false expectations/ inappropriate gestures”, “being taken advantage of” and “being unable to say no”. Furthermore, the paper also addresses the potentially problematic implications that the nature of work undertaken through mutual aid has for the social relationships that are involved. Despite finding previous UK‐based research findings focused on capital barriers to be highly appropriate when considering mutual aid, the paper argues that the current emphasis placed on these barriers in policy and practice is disproportionate. To address this imbalance, the paper concludes that a greater awareness of socially‐orientated barriers must be forthcoming if a more nuanced and accurate reading of mutual aid is to be achieved.

The research that is used to inform the findings of the paper is drawn from 100 in‐depth semi‐structured questionnaires conducted within households in the urban wards of West Knighton and Saffron in the city of Leicester, UK. The methods are designed to generate both quantitative and qualitative findings that engage explicitly with the informal work practices of households.

The paper explores a range of entrenched social taboos that underpin the contested spaces of mutual. These include: “being a burden to others”, “false expectations/inappropriate gestures”, “being taken advantage of” and “being unable to say no”. The main conclusions argue that both social barriers and capital‐based barriers to participation in mutual aid must be given more equal consideration in future academic and policy‐making discourse.

The qualitative nature of the research makes it difficult to meaningfully extrapolate the findings beyond the case studies used.

The research focused on the informal coping strategy of mutual aid offers a deeper insight into this coping strategy. In exploring the various capital and social barriers to participation, the findings offer ways for popular, academic and political communities to reflect on their own approaches to informal volunteerism, and if appropriate these can inform future approaches tasked with tackling these barriers and harnessing mutual aid in society.

In discussing the barriers to participation, the paper gives new insight into the contested geographies of mutual aid at the household and community level. To successfully overcome these barriers and further promote mutualism and community self‐help is seen to be both desirable and necessary particularly following the formal economic crisis that has raised serious questions for the economy and society in recent years.

The research not only adds robustness to previous emerging findings related to the resource‐based barriers to participation in mutual aid, but it also constructively asserts the relevance and centrality of social taboos. The paper argues that these social taboos must form a core point of analyses whenever barriers to greater levels of participation in mutual aid are discussed.

Using new empirical data from the UK focused on mutual aid and reciprocity, the purpose of this paper is to offer robust challenges to the logic and dominance of the commodification thesis. In finding mutual aid to be a significant coping strategy to get household tasks completed, in both affluent and deprived communities, the paper addresses the important question as to “why” mutual aid is so pervasive. Using qualitative insights as to “why” respondents engaged in mutual aid and reciprocity a considered response to this question, revolving around the instinctive and social nature of reciprocity, is made.

The research draws on previous Household Work Practice Studies, which have been influential in exploring the geographies of community self‐help. An in‐depth semi‐structured questionnaire, which adapts and develops previous successful approaches focused on mutual aid and volunteering, was employed across 100 households in two neighbouring wards in Leicester, UK.

The research found that the non‐commodified sphere of mutual aid was employed as a central coping strategy within the two communities investigated. The suggestion is that the extent of mutual aid in both deprived neighbourhoods and affluent neighbourhoods has been underestimated in previous research. However, the strength of the methodology resides with its understanding of the rationales being participation in mutual aid. This suggests that the natural and instinctive nature of reciprocity, and the social role that mutual aid plays within kin and non‐kin relations, helps explain its pervasiveness in the advanced economies.

The methodology and methods were designed to explicitly harness a deep qualitative understanding of the relationship and attitudes that households adopt toward their informal coping strategies, and mutual aid in particular. Thus though this approach has uncovered rich qualitative data to inform the key arguments, the quantitative findings must be treated as speculative rather than conclusive.

In undermining the commodification thesis, the paper concludes that alternate and better approaches toward harnessing “the economic” in society must be pursued by policy makers. Crucially economic policy which promotes co‐operation over competition within society should be seen as earning the qualification of “advanced” economic practice.

This is the first paper which explicitly looks at the pervasive nature of mutual aid within the advanced economies, using primary data from Leicester. The value is seen on three levels: first, the original arguments made which highlight the pervasiveness of this informal coping strategy; second, the manner with which these contemporary insights are then contextualised with reference to the wider literature; third, the way in which this research adds to the calls to fundamentally re‐think our dominant attitudes (and policies) toward the commodified and non‐commodified spheres of work in the advanced economies.

Post‐migration hardship often affects the integration processes of migrants from non‐English speaking countries and in particular of migrant women who often come as ‘dependents’ of male migrants. Institutional, social and cultural barriers make integration for migrant women slow and difficult to achieve. Involvement in community self‐help and mutual aid is an important strategy for disadvantaged groups in overcoming hardship and building social networks and capital. Community organisations are a bridge for migrants to access welfare rights and benefits, and to communicate with host local communities. This paper discusses the findings of a small‐scale study on the community activism of Turkish‐speaking women in London. Focus group meetings were conducted with self‐help/mutual aid groups run by Turkish‐speaking migrant women, using a typology of group political ideology and focus of change. Analysis showed that group participation was an empowering experience and a crucial strategy for integration in the host society. Depending on the type of the group, women acknowledged personal or social benefits from group participation. Implications for promoting service user empowerment and involvement of migrant communities through mutual aid activities are considered.

The purpose of this paper is to contribute for the special number Protest and Activism With(out) Organisation.

Elisée Reclus (1830-1905) wrote in 1851 that “anarchy is the highest expression of order”. This statement, clashing with the bourgeois commonplaces on anarchy as chaos, anticipated the theories, elaborated collectively by the anarchist geographers Reclus, Pëtr Kropotkin (1842-1921), and Léon Metchnikoff (1838-1888), on mutual aid and cooperation as the bases of a society more rationally organised than the State and capitalist one. If a (minority) part of the anarchist movement, in the following decades, assumed this sort of “natural order” to argue that there was no necessity of a political organisation, many militants stated on the contrary the necessity of a formal anarchist (or anarcho-syndicalist) organisation to prepare the revolution and to put in practice the principle of an horizontal and federalist society starting from daily life.

The author’s main argument is that the idea of a public and formalized anarchist organisation has been consistent with the claims of the anarchist geographers for the possibility of an ordered anarchist society and that it was a very geographical conception, as the spatial and territorial activity patterns of anarchist individuals, groups, and federations was a central issue among anarchist organisers.

Drawing on present literature on geography and anarchism and on the multidisciplinary transnational turn of anarchist studies, the author addresses, through primary sources, the contentions and openings of the organisational question in anarchism from Reclus, Kropotkin, and Metchnikoff to the anarchist federations of present day, and its links with the issue of constructive anarchism and with the problem of violence.