Deploying time banking for human scaled economic development - marc stephanie preston
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Like this? Share it with your network

Share

Deploying time banking for human scaled economic development - marc stephanie preston

on

  • 772 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
772
Views on SlideShare
772
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
2
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Deploying time banking for human scaled economic development - marc stephanie preston Document Transcript

  • 1. Deploying Time Banking for Human-scaled Economic Development Marc Brakken, Stephanie Rearick, and Preston AustinProblematic stuffOur economies appear to be in trouble. Over the past decades we have witnessed substantialeconomic gains throughout many social sectors. Much of this gain was derived by exploiting aseries of market bubbles that facilitated our ability to build infrastructures. The dot com bubbleof the 1990s included rapid development and increased accessibility of significant computationalpower. The infrastructures of the housing bubble do not require explanation. During the stockbubble that ran parallel to housing, investment firms put significantly increased resourcestowards the activities that were most rapidly profitable. Investors worked with highly leveragedportfolios focused on derivative trades. The gains that allowed for these expansions appeardiminished at the moment while the structures built by them persist. We are forced either to payfor their upkeep or allow them to decay. We tend not to let the latter happen, so for the momentwe are bridled by the former.It is not uncommon for systems in the midst of rapid expansion to allocate resources to thestructures that allow for that expansion. (Schneider & Kay 1994; Ulanowicz et al 2006.) Thecompetitive advantage during expansion is on resource capture, so optimizations will tendtowards that end. The reluctance to cull structures, however, causes significant problems. Thosewho produce currency in the normal marketplace, banks, retrenched as markets collapsed,holding instead of lending their currencies in order to shelter themselves from anticipated shocks.Economic processes reliant on bank currency became unable to perform as a result. All socialand economic processes that relied on business trade suffered a similar shock from proximalcurrency evaporation.Government lending to financial institutions was intended to free up that currency so it couldresume its flow through the economy. Although directed in this manner to address the problemof bank seizure, it provides an example of a common, and flawed, response in times of apparentcrisis. The assumption is that banks are actually the creators and dispersers of resource. They arecentral institutions which spread outward the capital generated by them. Banks, however, createcurrency by lending against other forms of value. The bank may signify that value since it iswilling to make a bet on it, but the bank does not generate the value. Other social forces andcommunity interactions generate the value.The error, stated more generally, is that structures like banks, houses, and hardware are thethings that generate value in the world rather than the processes and behaviors that contributed toour development of stuff. The solution to poor economic circumstances is, from this viewpoint,to put more money into stuff. This is akin to cash-strapped cities and administrators deciding tobuild convention centers and redevelop downtowns, or other forms of stuff, in an effort to attractvisitors with money.There may be times when this is not entirely inappropriate. If there is a lot of currency movingaround, a signal of an active economy, structures that provide further means of capturing anddirecting currency make sense. When currency is scarce, however, they are a problem. 1
  • 2. Scarce dollars are allocated to places that appear to be able to generate quick return in a mannereasily recognizable to the agency dispensing the money. The source of money declares what isvaluable: tourists with dollars, infrastructure, and so forth. If communities or individuals cannotdemonstrate their ability to return recognizable value, the source excludes them. Yet as EdgarCahn (2000) and time banking emphatically argue, all communities and people possess valueregardless of how easily recognizable it is. One of our fundamental difficulties is that governanceand financial institutions which possess the ability to disperse capital investment are often unableto recognize the types of value available in economically marginalized communities. Thepersistently unemployed face similar problems as they search for work. Prospective employersview a lack of a job as a signal for a lack of value. The excluded remain excluded becausewithout liquidity, they make no detectable ripples in the flow of money.These marginal people and communities are not simply valuable, though. Stuff is generated bypeople doing things. Different types of activity generate different types of structures. Structuresare a form of wealth or capital. People come together to make productive capital that allowsthem to do new things, and they do so because they have a need for it. This is like a communitythat comes together to build a barn. They had been doing things that created a need for a barn, sothey build a barn. Along with it, they create a new set of possible activities.When people are empowered and do things they are likely to encounter problems. Givenresources and enough need, they will find solutions. Marginalized communities’ people do thingsjust as anyone else does. They encounter problems just as anyone else does. Given the means tosolve those problems they will do so. Those solutions could be significantly valuable. Yetinstitutions are only able to recognize the valuable they have previously encountered or that isclosely similar. Novelty is a different matter altogether. It is only recognizable by the economy ifit impacts system-recognized values directly, or via direct human observation. In everyinteraction runs the potential to develop novel solutions to unaddressed problems. Empoweringthe margins empowers future solutions. We cannot predict where on the margin solutions mightarise, so we need a way of ensuring all of it can be so. Concentrated investment cannot see thisjob, so therefore cannot do this job.Powering upAlternate, complementary currencies offer us ways to address this problem. Currencies facilitateour denotation and tracking of exchange, among other purposes. We can view differentcurrencies as problem-solving tools. In a direct barter economy, transaction can become blockedif one side of an exchange cannot offer something the other side immediately wants or needs. Acurrency tradable in the future allows us to work around this.A currency is only valuable if someone else is willing to accept it on the premise that they canspend it. If we develop a local currency to solve the problem of barter in our town, our currencyis correspondingly less tradable with someone in a neighboring town. If they do not have easymeans of transferring it for other goods it is worth less to them. With minimal trade betweentowns we might decide this is not a problem, but otherwise we need to find a solution to distanttrade. 2
  • 3. A regional currency offers such a solution. If both towns accept the same money and at similarrates of exchange, inter-town trade becomes easy. We probably discover that the increased easeof trade across distance is useful. We could substitute the regional currency for the towncurrency to increase the value of the money. If we can do more things with it, it contains morevalue. Because the town currency is stickier, much like direct barter was sticky, it becomes lessvaluable in turn. We cannot do as much with it.Therein lies a problem, and one that those of us interested in complementary economics aredistinctly aware of: the regional currency is optimized for regional trade. It flows easily betweentowns. This means money will circulate as readily through the region as within the town. Thecurrency serves a different scale of exchange. Bank or federal currencies have the same problem.The money a bank issues is really good at servicing the needs of banks and the types of activitiesthat bankers determine to be valuable. It is far less good at servicing the needs of communities.During local down-cycles it simply flows away. We do not need to intend for it to behave assuch.Because different types of currencies are optimized for dealing with the problem for which theywere particularly derived, we assert that complementary currencies empower each other byallowing each to focus on its specialized niche. Moreover, well-functioning currencies, and well-functioning communities, can create the contexts that attract other currencies while mitigatingthe downsides of doing so. A highly functional and vibrant community is likely to attract theattention of capital investors, and we believe at lower cost in both monetary and social terms. Avibrant community has both lower risk and substitute means, so it commands a better position inthe marketplace when it shops for investment; it can walk away from predatory offerings.Time banking currencies are designed to directly signify marginal activities and value capturedby exchanges that other currencies are simply unable to capture. Many of the activities involvedwith time dollar exchanges are activities that typically occur within communities, or those thatmany involved believe should and could be better represented, but lack economic recognitionand credibility. By capturing and recording those exchanges through a formalized mutual creditsystem, we are better able to demonstrate the vital role that marginal transactions, andcorrespondingly marginalized people, play in our communities. Moreover, by forming a moreformalized economy around these exchanges we create the capacity for people to build varioustypes of capital that they can leverage for larger endeavors.The people and activities involved in time-based transactions, though marginalized by formallyestablished economic practice, are more than mere margins. We hold that, from a certain level ofanalysis, the exchanges embodied in time banking are the very type that allow for other forms ofeconomy. The intimate exchanges within a community to which time banking is particularly ableto draw attention are those that create vital communities best able to generate and attract othermodes of economy specifically because their core vitality makes other modes necessary andvaluable to them. We draw analogy here to trophic food chains of ecosystem ecology. (Lindeman1942) We envision time banking like the primary production system of an ecosystem. It allowsfor the initial capture of potential energies and can transform them to more refined types. As anexample, time banking allows for people to be healthy, to have emotional needs met, to create 3
  • 4. child care sharing systems, to get to and from sites of work, and there to learn and refine skillswhile developing reference networks that together can establish readiness and credibility forother forms of jobs and investment.We do not intend to develop fully this model within this document. Nevertheless, we hold thateconomically disenfranchised communities, those that have been abandoned by formal marketeconomies, can use time banking as a bootstrapping technology and an empowering vehicle innegotiations. Economic deprivation is not a lack of capability; it is a lack of organization that canbe significantly enhanced by a currency medium optimized for the implementation of thecapability embodied in a community and the individuals who compose it. We intend to develop amodel of time banking that empowers individuals and communities to regrow economiccapability and power up into other forms of production and exchange.Blocked PathsTime banking projects do not yet appear to be at a point where they can demonstrate or wieldthis bootstrapping capability. Some reasons for this are obvious. Time banking is an exchangesystem that exists in the margins of many of the communities that have implemented it.Elsewhere it is simply absent. In periods of general economic stability and early phases ofrecession, the push towards economic experiments is absent. Institutional memory directs effortsto redevelop economies along standard paths. (Leitaer 2003) Even where time banking projectsare in effect, they remain only loosely affiliated with the broader economy. They exist as narrowniches, mostly attracting participants on ideological bases. (Collum 2007) We contend thatmarginal implementations remain significant, however. Time banking can exist as a latentcommunity capability to be more broadly activated when the need arises. The challenge becomesone of scaling in the appropriate moments.In periods of general economic failure, mutual credit systems like time banking can be used toactivate community potential in absence of other forms of currency. Indeed, its basis on time-normalized value and coproduction makes it ideal for this purpose. If it is to be rendered asproductive as possible, though, we need to understand the forces which impose limits upon it,particularly before economic conditions reach low ebb. To achieve scale in times of need, timebanks need to be operational in advance. Their learned adaptations to predictable roadblocksbecome vital in those moments.In order to achieve this end, we are analyzing dimensions of success and abandonment of currentand past time banking experiments. This paper offers a nascent assessment of these findings. Wedraw upon two sources of information. Our primary interest is with the perspectives of time bankproject coordinators and organizers. We are interested in their bank-wide perspective onoperations. To this end, the Time For the World project released an initial online survey fororganizers. We asked about the current state of the time banking and complementary currencymovements in respondents’ regions; the understood goals and desires of participants; hopes andplans of dissemination and project sustainability; and primary obstacles and opportunities. Thesurvey was distributed to a selected list of known project coordinators. We also posted a link tothe survey on the Time For the World project website: <http://blog.timeftw.org/>. The survey 4
  • 5. remains open, and participants are able to view other responses after they have submitted theirown. Responses will be publicly available under a Creative Commons licensing agreement.Additionally, we have conducted a survey of available papers that address time banking, inparticular those that involve studies of individual sites. We have focused on the organizationalperspective more than the participant perspective initially, although the latter is used to providecontext as well as community support. We paid particular attention to stated limitations andgoals of projects.To date, we have received six replies to our survey. As a result, any interpretation should beviewed as significantly preliminary. We intend to pursue further the inclusion of morerespondents.We assigned responses to seven categories: need for funding; technology including software forfacilitating the finding and recording of exchanges; community awareness of the time bank;behavior of time bank participants, particularly in regards to likelihood of exchange; servicesoffered; internal organizational issues; and persistence of social norms which prioritize top-downor state-sponsored solutions to community issues, which we have labeled ‘structuraldisempowerment.’ For the literature survey we included an eighth category, institutionalunderstanding, which refers to the tenuous relationship between time banking and national socialservices in the United Kingdom. In the UK, there is a recorded regular risk of time bankparticipants losing disability and other benefits on the basis of participation, as well as pressureon participants to look for ‘real work.’ Boston Dane Cty (London) Lewisham NE Ohio San Francisco TurkeyFunding X X X XTechnology X X X XAwareness XBehavior/Implementation XOffered Services X XInternal Organization XStructural XDisempowermentAcross both survey respondents and the current literature, the issue of reliable funding waspronounced. Four of six survey respondents highlighted the issue. A fifth, a time bank from northeastern Ohio, was described as significantly marginal with minimal activity. It could be that theyhave not developed to the point of hiring a coordinator. The literature contained significantemphasis on the need for secure funding, with some (North 2003) drawing a distinction between 5
  • 6. the robustness of non-coordinated LETS systems versus the fragility of time banks reliant onpaid staff. Callison 2002 Collum 2007 Ozanne 2010 Seyfang 2002 Seyfang 2003 Seyfang 2004a Seyfang 2004b Seyfang 2006a Seyfang 2006b Van Kiosk 2009Funding X X X X X X X XTechnologyAwareness X XBehavior/Implementation X X X X XOffered Services X X X XInternal Organization X X XStructural X XDisempowermentInstitutional X X X X X XUnderstandingSurvey respondents had a parallel emphasis on technological needs, in contrast to the literaturewhere it received hardly any mention. This distinction could be attributed both to the age ofsome of much of the literature and the relative recency of digital transitions in time banking aswell as distinctions between time banks in the United States and the United Kingdom. The issuesof funding and technology are linked, however. Online and user-directed organization helpreduce staff time and costs, a significant issue when faced with funding uncertainties. However,many who participate in time banking, particularly those who do so for economic reasons, maylack ready access to the internet, resulting in difficulty in gaining access.One of the persistent difficulties expressed in the literature, but only by one survey respondent, isparticipants’ willingness to offer their time, but reluctance in requesting the help of others.Obviously, this one-way emphasis significantly interferes with the ability to generate a vibrantco-production system as well as the empowerment of the economically marginalized. This willbe returned to in the following discussion.The other persistent issue across both groups is the problem of services offered. Certain servicescentral to many peoples’ livelihoods – home repair, auto repair, etc. – are not well representedwithin time banks. These absences make difficult the legitimization of time banking as aneconomic system. While a partial solution is increased outreach to individuals able to provideneeded yet absent services, we believe that there is more to be done. 6
  • 7. Performing PowerTime banking has been developed and implemented as a means of reconnecting and empoweringmarginalized members of society. (Cahn 2000) It is based primarily on notions of social good. Itcontains an obvious economic aspect, but time banking as economy plays a distant second. Webelieve this is a problem.Many of the barriers listed above can be viewed as derived from time banking’s lack of principaleconomic focus. Many time bank participants regularly express a willingness to contribute timeto others while maintaining reluctance to ask for assistance. It becomes a volunteer system withmarginal reward instead of a currency. Earned credits stagnate instead of encourage andempower further production. The social and individual needs the currency is intended expressand address fail to be so, and economic development is inhibited.There are probably many reasons for this. An appropriate focus on the social justice dimensionof time banking strongly aligns it with other forms of civic volunteering. This leaves peoplewilling to expend acute effort not motivated by expectation of reciprocal flow within the timebank, but from excess stock gained outside it. This generosity should not be discouraged, but thetime bank structure must address it appropriately. In the case of United Kingdom time banks,participants are explicitly referred to as volunteers, furthering this association. There are strategicreasons for using the term – it is aimed to shelter participants receiving other forms of state-sponsored social benefits from losing them – but costs of nomenclature need acknowledgementand accommodation.Time banking is an alternate economy designed to provide compensation for and facilitate valuecreation in meaningful activities that the regular monetary economy persistently overlooks.Without mutual exchanges, value cannot be created. In this regard, willingness to go into debtand allow another to gain credit is as significant as the activity performed for the credit. The ideaof ramping-up, that you cannot spend what you do not have, persists throughout our economy,often because people do not understand the nature of debt money creation. This is particularlytrue in periods of scarcity. Debt, however, when assumed for value-creating enterprise, is not anegative. One’s debt is an expression of another’s belief in one’s value. When economic activityis scarce for reasons other than excessive indebtedness, it should be encouraged, not shunned.Debt can however become excessive, and people are often strongly conditioned to fearindebtedness. This must be addressed. Demurrage, where a currency loses value over time, isincorporated in monetary systems in order to encourage the regular flow and exchange ofcurrency. It dissuades people from storing money under the bed by making it worth less. Wesuspect that implementation of demurrage could be considered in time banks. What is more, andperhaps counter intuitively, any demurrage should be equally applied to both sides of the ledger:credit and debt. This is more than a simple accounting device to keep the overall sum zero as isappropriate in mutual credit systems. It should be done because both people in the exchange aredoing the same thing. One is offering skills while the other is offering the opportunity to useskills. Debt in typical national currencies is not of equivalent character to debt in mutual credit,and particularly not in time banks. The more people ask for assistance, the more people allowtheir neighbors to develop and grow skills, the richer the community is. There may be a limit, 7
  • 8. past which point this becomes problematic. However, we suspect that national currencies comeinto play before this is reached.Time bank projects are threatened by a greater issue than the economization of the currency.Across the board, the need for operational funding remains a critical issue. The presence of apaid coordinator holds critical significance on a time bank’s ability to be successful. Full timecoordinators are able to teach members about the workings of the bank, help with the discoveryof personal skill potentials, offer advice on how exchange, and play a general role of mediatorand counsel. Due to necessities of economic circumstance, thus far they need to be paid at leastpartially in market currency.There is a certain irony that the tool for generating wealth without currency requires currency.Currency acquired from central sites does not come without cost. Issuers of resource are theultimate judge of quality of outcome. The outcomes on which they focus, as evidenced by thecontinued disenfranchisement of valuable communities, are not those of our communities. Whatis more, given that time banking can be at its most meaningful in periods of stark economicdeprivation, when no other currency is available, a time bank that relies on the scarce currencywill be constrained in its ability to facilitate the creation of value that the community needs.When the need is greatest, we risk being at our weakest.Time banks need to look elsewhere for sustenance. They need to aggressively cultivate theircommunities’ resources. Collum (2007) provides evidence of time bank participants’ willingnessto help support the organization they find valuable. There is the necessary question of capabilitygiven the economic limitations of many involved, but this once again draws attention to thenecessity of economization. It should be the goal of the time bank to empower members to levelup, so to speak, and become able to generate other forms of wealth. Time banks should not beviewed as replacements to the regular market economy but as a means for enabling a morebalanced relationship with that economy.Multiple studies of time banking programs have offered similar analyses of projects: timebanking facilitates the reconnection of communities, particularly those most likely to bemarginalized by broader social processes, but it fails to facilitate the reentry of these people intothe established economy. (Collum 2005, 2007) It exists as an auxiliary phenomenon within thecommunity, not critical. It is fully able to create connections and achieve social integration goals.Its performance on economic goals still has room for improvement. Addressing these not-yet-achieved goals is linked to the solution to the funding problem. Participants have limited abilityto pay into the time bank because they remain economically marginalized. They do so becausethe economic priority, that of the exchange of value, is itself marginalized. Yes, we want to holdto the core principles of time banking, including reconnection. Those connections, however, needto be used for mutual benefit. Time banks must take seriously the economic value theirparticipants are willing and able to contribute, and in fact need it to function.Part of this means re-teaching participants about economy. From personal conversations, we canassert that time banking is not immediately intuitive to many people. We have stronglyentrenched concepts of money, value, and exchange that are not easily disrupted. This isevidenced in part by the aforementioned reluctance to ask for services or assume debt. 8
  • 9. Gregory (2009a) offers evidence that time banking projects without an initial focus oncoproduction are able to develop that capacity through implementation alone. It would appearthat the act of exchange alone is able to teach. This appears in correspondence with theory fromother fields, like Butler’s performativity (1990) which draws attention to the coherence ofidentity through the reiteration of practice. The theory of coproduction is profound, but itbecomes profound through practice. Strong training and facilitation of time exchanges and theexpansion of an exchange network that can provides referential context may be all that is neededfor the formation of new ideas of economy.Making Time For the WorldThe movement needs the development and dissemination of a strong and flexible implementationstrategy. We need powerful, accessible, mobile, and context-responsive tools that allow us toaddress better the particular needs and capabilities of individual communities. Time bankingalready has taken root in 34 countries to date and has demonstrated a resiliency and demographicinclusiveness not commonly seen in complementary currencies. Moreover, time banking valuesas core economic functions many activities, such as caregiving, civic engagement and creativity,that are undervalued when commodified in the market economy, including in market-basedcomplementary currencies. By providing an appropriately abundant and fungible means ofexchanging these core economic functions, time banking increases the economy’s ability toappropriately allocate resources. Economic tools that fail to value these functions, or treat themas market-based commodities, will frequently replicate many of the social problems our currentmonetary system generates.However, appropriately scaled and locally contextualized approaches for publishing anddistributing information, training and supporting organizers and participants, and methods ofassessing and evaluating effectiveness have not yet been developed, causing time banks toexperiment somewhat blindly.Time For the World (TFTW), a new international time banking dissemination project, aims toremedy this problem through analysis of current and past time bank and LETS programs. Withcomparative studies and a focus on types and degrees of variation we intend to construct ageneral time bank implementation model that can be localized for novel efforts.We wish to see time banking develop as a tool for empowering communities as a whole. Weview it as an intervention in traditional economic thought that draws focus away from the top-down behavior of governments and other centralized institutions and towards the bottom uppotential embedded in our communities. We also believe that time banking is the type of activitycritical to any effort to redevelop local economies in a more just and inclusive fashion.It is our thesis that time banking unlocks the primary production capacities of social communitiesand will enhance the sustainability and ease with which other complementary currencies,particularly price-based mutual credit systems, can take hold. This allows local economies with atime bank-supported core to bootstrap internal markets that need, value, and can utilize locallabor. TFTW intends to test and analyze the technique of using time banks as experiential 9
  • 10. learning tools and resource bases to design and build additional local economic tools such asmarket-oriented mutual credit systems.As part of this project we are proposing two complementary scaled strategies to help developproject vitality. One, CC Labs, is a program to create, recruit and support communities willing totest implementation models and factors that lead to greater success of complementary currencysystems, with time banking at its core. CC Labs focuses on developing focal projects able to poolresources across a community in order to construct something that solves direct needs within thecommunity. In this model the project itself becomes a holder of debt, which helps smoothbarriers to adoption.We are developing a menu of project kits for experiential learning designed to produce resultsthat bring the community together and offer early tangible successes. Examples of the types ofscaled projects we envision are community gardens, neighborhood weatherization, a youth court,a prison reentry program, LETS system development, meal programs, education and literacyprojects, and so forth. Like the novel currency uses proposed by Batchelor (2003), the goal is tofurther facilitate exchange of credits while also transforming community potential. Actualprojects should be determined by the community implementing the Lab so that it can mostdirectly serve local need while involving and empowering a broad segment of the population.We intend to provide detailed instructions on how to use time banking to catalyze the project,including access to training and support.Parallel to this large scale and focused project, we propose that communities incorporate street-or block-level coordinators in parallel with the general community coordinator. Theseindividuals would be paid in time currency through the community bank and be tasked withgenerating their neighbors’ involvement in the bank. We believe this is useful for severalreasons. Neighborly assistance and favors are the significant types of activities to which timebanking intends to draw attention. These marginal interactions are not ancillary to healthy, justeconomies; they are core to just economies. By incorporating neighborly interaction in the timebank system, greater attention can be drawn to its significance. At the same time, strong person-to-person interactions can help members realize more they are able to offer in exchange. A statedlimitation of some participants is that they are unsure what they have to offer. Often this can besolved through direct conversation.Neighbor-level interactions can also engender greater trust in the time bank. Feedback betweenparticipants can occur more quickly, and pressure to follow through is more pronounced. If thesetransactions are arranged through the online interface used by the time bank, it could also helpfoster reliability and trust in those systems. While reconnection is the primary directive behindtime banking projects, necessary reliance on online scheduling risks reincorporating socialelements that many find alienating. Networked relations do not need to be viewed as more or lessalienating as other forms, but unfamiliarity and lack of direct feedback runs that risk.Finally, we see a need to bridge time credits with other systems like LETS. Long term viabilityof any project is contingent on our ability to become self-sustaining. An active local economy orindustry able to recognize the value in time banking and community empowerment can become avehicle for self-sustenance. By drawing correspondence between time banking and LETS 10
  • 11. systems, we hope to foster the mutual support of our social and economic communities. Werecognize, like Gregory (2009b), the need to maintain certain separation between currency types.Different currencies serve different purposes. Bank currencies do not do a good job ofempowering communities. Time currencies can. We do not want different systems to becompletely isolated from each other; that risks interfering with people’s ability to leveragethemselves into greater capacity, but we do not think they should be cleanly frictionlesslytransferable. To do so risks devaluing both. Addressing the problem of currency interaction iscritical to the goal of community empowerment, though, so will be central to the project.We are at a point where we can no longer rely on old models of economic recovery and valuecreation. Like all models, those that focused on center-out or top-down distribution of moneywere false. They were merely falsities we could get away with for a period of time. Thosesources have dried up or moved away. We now need to redevelop our capacity to build capitaland value on our own, without dollars or Euros, from our communities. We need to regenerateour ability to produce and create. A time bank focused not on community networks but on theempowerment of those networks through mutual exchange. The exchanges are what make thenetwork, and the community, powerful.Works CitedBatchelor, J. (2003) ‘More than tea and biscuits; the role of time banks and LETS in local economic development’. Local Economy. Vol 18(3), pp. 253-6.Butler, J. (1990) Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity, (New York: Routledge)Cahn, E. (2000) No More Throw Away People, (Washington, D.C.: Essential Books)Callison, S. (2002) ‘“All you need is love”? Assessing time banks as a tool for sustainable economic development’. Local Economy Vol 18(3), pp. 264-7.Collum, E. (2005) ‘Community currency in the United States: the social environments in which it emerges and survives’. Environment and Planning A Vol 37, pp. 1565-87.Collum, E. (2007) ‘The motivations, engagement, satisfaction, outcomes, and demographics of time bank participants: survey findings from a U.S. system’. International Jounral of Community Currency Research Vol 11, pp. 36-83.Gregory, L. (2009a) ‘Change takes time: exploring structural and development issue of time banking’. International Journal of Community Currency Research Vol 13, pp. 19-32.Gregory, L. (2009b) ‘Spending time locally: the benefit of time banks for local economies’. Local Economy Vol 24(4), pp. 323-33. 11
  • 12. Leitaer, B. (2004) ‘Complementary currencies in Japan today: history, originality and relevance’. International Journal of Community Currency Research Vol 8, pp. 1-23.Lindeman, R.L. (1942) ‘The trophic dynamic aspect of ecology’. Ecology Vol 23, pp. 399-418.North, P. (2003) ‘Time banks – learning the lessons from LETS?’, Local Economy Vol 18(3), pp. 267-70.Ozanne, L.K. (2010) ‘Learning to exchange time: benefits and obstacles to time banking’. International Journal of Community Currency Research Vol 14, pp. A1-16.Schneider, E.D. and J.J. Kay (1994) ‘Life as a manifestation of the second law of thermodynamics’. Mathematical and Computer Modelling Vol 19(6-8), pp. 25-48.Seyfang, G. (2002) ‘Tackling social exclusion with community currencies: learning from LETS to time banks’. International Journal of Community Currency Research Vol 6, art. 3.Seyfang, G. (2003) ‘“With a little help from my friends.” Evaluating time banks as a tool for community self-help’. Local Economy Vol 18(3) pp. 257-64.Seyfang, G. (2004a) ‘Time banks: rewarding community self-help in the inner city?’. Community Development Journal Vol 39(1), pp. 62-71.Seyfang, G. (2004b) ‘Working outside the box: community currencies, time banks, and social inclusion’. International Jounrnal of Social Policy Vol 33(1), pp. 49-71.Seyfang, G. (2006a) ‘Harnessing the potential of the social economy? Time banks and UK public policy’. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy Vol 26(9-10), pp. 430-43.Seyfang, G. (2006b) ‘Sustainable consumption, the new economics and community currencies: developing new institutions for environmental governance’. Regional Studies Vol 40(7), pp. 781-91.Ulanowicz, R.E, S.E. Jørgensen and B.D. Fath (2006) ‘Exergy, information, and aggradation: an ecosystems reconciliation’. Ecological Modelling Vol 198, pp. 520-24.Van Kuik, M. (2009) ‘Time for each other: working towards a complementary currency model to serve the anti-poverty policies of the municipality of Landgraaf, the Netherlands’. International Journal of Community Currency Research Vol 13, pp. 3-18.Source: http://conferences.ish-lyon.cnrs.fr/index.php/cc-conf/2011/schedConf/presentations 12