PDA

View Full Version : Sustainable, Locally Controlled


wlm4 at cornell.edu (Will
01-02-1995, 11:15 AM
p to this point, we have all been through creation of our institutions in a
vacuum. There have been no road maps for CDFIs. This should be changing
because of increased publicity. Each institution will be improved because
of our contact with other CDFIs. But this is also a time when standards
are being set, at which we begin to agree what is effective and appropriate.
When we start to measure, I want to be sure we are measuring the right things.

There are many smaller institutions that have done work, invented products,
which could make our institutions better. The learning path is not solely
from larger to smaller institutions. We learn by allowing other models a
place in our mind.

I would like to add two principles to the evaluation criteria for CDFIs:
SUSTAINABLE
LOCALLY CONTROLLED

Low income communities suffer from lack of control as well as lack of
investment. Reinvesting in communities provides only capital: it does not
address control of social assets. Communities can be sustainably self
supporting only when they are internally controlled. A self supporting
community can be profitably served by an interested business. A community
without self control is barely a community and can only be taken advantage of.

You can only serve one master. Direct, immediate, intimate contact with our
members allows us to participate in the implementation of members vision.
This contact is a feedback mechanism. Profit and ownership are the measurement.

An institution may concentrate on funders other that the members be it a
foundation, a government, or outside stockholders. That institution is
serving the funders, not the local community.

The size of the institution is limited by the necessity of a constituency
that self identifies. Otherwise we are acting to create CDFIs that are
independent of community: we are creating social service agencies and not
community development institutions. Acting on the assumption that bigger
is better does mean more resources, larger projects, more services.
Somewhere along this path, local involvement is lost and community
institutions become outside institutions or government agencies with their
own agendas.

Being local and earning our living from our community means that we have
only one constituency. That allows us to be free to speak out. We don't
have to be primarily concerned about funding proposals, legislation, banks,
publicity. We have been asked to ally with other institutions to form both
a regional institution and a national institution. While we have across the
board offered assistance to these organizations in setting up their own
local CDFIs, we have also resisted the lure of out-growing our community.
We call it the fresh bread issue. We can deliver fresh bread in Ithaca, but
the same product delivered anywhere else loses something, it is not fresh
bread. Other towns need their own bakeries to meet their own tastes and
needs. Again, it is not just financial nourishment that we offer. We offer
freshness, local control.

Here are two of the underlying size assumptions I don't buy into:
a) Loan product delivery is our only useful service. This reductionist
outlook ignores the empowerment element of community development. Many of
the smallest CDFIs deliver a multitude of services that build empowerment:
Board training, Committee work, check cashing, a physical sense of
ownership, an advocacy role. These can not be delivered through a regional
development bank. Loan product is not nearly enough.
b) Face to face contact and peer counseling are not necessary. The CDFI
telling lobby (and services) are a focus of community identity and
networking. CDFI lobbies are busier than many of the larger banks downtown.
I often can't easily get out of our office for lunch because members
buttonhole me. We have to listen to our members and continue to be exposed
to them.

************************************************** **********
William Myers
Alternatives Federal Credit Union
301 West State Street, Ithaca, NY 14850-5431
Voice (607) 273-3582 ext 817 FAX 277-6391
E-Mail Alternatives-Myers@Cornell.edu
************************************************** **********



This post transferred from the cdb-l mailing list

ITHACAHOUR at aol.com
01-03-1995, 09:23 AM
I agree, local ownership of capital, rather than just reinvestment, shapes
the direction of the community. Land and housing ownership, fuel supply and
transportation are ceiling and floor through which our dreams can't pass
unless we own them. Land trusts, insulation, solar and wind electric,
district heating, transit, bikes and decentralization of services to reduce
car dependence are another important kind of community banking. That's why I
think It'd be great to have specialty RLFs at credit unions, controlled by
peers in agriculture, etc. --Paul


This post transferred from the cdb-l mailing list

manuel at gandalf.Berkele
01-05-1995, 02:09 PM
In reply to Tom Abeles comments that developing countries have had
difficulty in preventing net outflows of their currency,
I suggest that he is ignoring the reality of imperialism
and that local control is the correct solution.

Most areas with massive debt problems had balanced economies
before they were coerced into replacing local production by
expensive imports. Countries that have escaped from neocolonial
poverty have done so mainly by gaining enough autonomy to be able
to massively substitute imports with local products.

In most countries neocolonialism is continued by foreign policies,
such as World Bank projects designed to use expensive foreign
contractors rather than designed to use local abilities.
In the worst cases local production is suppressed by oppressive
elites using imported weaponry.

This situation also hurts the imperialist countries. Massive
military expenditures financed by compound interest have
bankrupted the United States. Short of local economic control
in North America, there isn't a solution to this hemorrhaging.


larens imanyuel
University for the Earth
manuel@stat.berkeley.edu



This post transferred from the cdb-l mailing list

dhenwood at PANIX.COM
01-06-1995, 08:51 AM
While it's true that "countries that have escaped from neocolonial
poverty" have done so by restricting imports - I'm thinking particularly
of South Korea - the other side of the coin is that they still relied
heavily on exports to the rich countries, rather than autonomous
reliance on the internal market. By contrast, Latin countries
that relied on import substitution were very vulnerable in the
1980s when the debt crisis was used as leverage to open their
markets; their producers weren't able to compete with first
world MNCs. In this sense, Korea used exports as a discipline
for its own domestic producers, who were forced to meet world
market standards - a contrast with conventional World
Bank/Ricardian theory, which holds that imports should provide
the necessary competitive discipline (but which makes it very
difficult to develop local production at all).

Additionally complicating Larry Manuel's argument is the fact that US
military spending provided Korea with important balance of payments
support during the 1950s and 1960s, and also gave Korean contractors
important early experience in constructing and supplying US military
installations.

Doug

Doug Henwood [dhenwood@panix.com]
Left Business Observer
212-874-4020 (voice)
212-874-3137 (fax)


On Thu, 5 Jan 1995, Larry Manuel wrote:

> In reply to Tom Abeles comments that developing countries have had
> difficulty in preventing net outflows of their currency,
> I suggest that he is ignoring the reality of imperialism
> and that local control is the correct solution.
>
> Most areas with massive debt problems had balanced economies
> before they were coerced into replacing local production by
> expensive imports. Countries that have escaped from neocolonial
> poverty have done so mainly by gaining enough autonomy to be able
> to massively substitute imports with local products.
>
> In most countries neocolonialism is continued by foreign policies,
> such as World Bank projects designed to use expensive foreign
> contractors rather than designed to use local abilities.
> In the worst cases local production is suppressed by oppressive
> elites using imported weaponry.
>
> This situation also hurts the imperialist countries. Massive
> military expenditures financed by compound interest have
> bankrupted the United States. Short of local economic control
> in North America, there isn't a solution to this hemorrhaging.
>
>
> larens imanyuel
> University for the Earth
> manuel@stat.berkeley.edu
>
>
>


This post transferred from the cdb-l mailing list

wlm4 at cornell.edu (Will
01-07-1995, 06:11 PM
Rejected message: sent to COMMUNITYDEVELOPMENTBANKING-L@cornell.edu by
chaos02@tmn.com follows.
Reason for rejection: message sent to the errors folder, reposted by List
Manager
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Larry Manuel's points regarding developing countries is well taken. When I
hear the governor of the state of xxxx talking about the wonderful assets
of the state and the willing workers etc, it is sometimes difficult to
tell that person from the governor of Jamaica or the President of Mexico,
etc. If we draw a boundary around a commlunity, one dependent on a large
miltary base for example or even a major business, we can readily see some
of the same dynamics of that of a developing country dependent on foreign
capital.

If we draw a boundary around any community and mesure the goods and
capital flows across that boundary we begin to see the dependence on
resources which are external to the community. And, we start to understand
just how sustainable that community might be on its own local currency and
how much it is reliant on "earning" hard currency for energy, materials,
etc. Given that knowledge one can ascertain how successful that commlunity
can be in balancing its ability to meet its own needs and how dependent it
is either on subsidies from the government(foreign aid) or import/export
activities.

In the past, that has been part of the role of government, to assist in
the balance of economic stress between the have and have not regions, some
of which are overlapping- rural vs urban-California vs Mississippi or Texas
and Minnesota.

The very elements which Larry point out with regards to developing
countries impacts significantly on sub units within the United States.

tom abeles
tabeles@tmn.com

Incidentally, I rember the great competition here in Minnesota for General
Motors' new Saturn plant which went to TN and we have seen one county
fight another for a pickle factory even though the counties were adjoining





This post transferred from the cdb-l mailing list