1. THE
CO-­‐OPERATIVE
DEVELOPMENT
INITIATIVE
POLICY
BARRIERS
TO
PROGRAM
SUCCESS
PRESENTED
BY
MIRANDA
GOUCHIE
SUPPORTED
BY
DRS.
MURRAY
FULTON
AND
DIONNE
POHLER
38%
62%
Co-­‐opera<ve
development
is
typically
pursued
by
government
agencies,
co-­‐opera<ve
developers,
or
co-­‐opera<ves
themselves.
Canada’s
federal
government
became
involved
in
this
domain
through
the
Co-­‐opera;ve
Development
Ini;a;ve
(CDI),
a
short-­‐lived
program
in
effect
from
2003
to
2013.
Agriculture
and
Agri-­‐Food
Canada
delivered
this
program
in
collabora<on
with
the
Canadian
Co-­‐opera<ve
Associa<on
and
the
Conseil
canadien
de
la
coopéra<on
et
de
la
mutualité.
The
CDI
consisted
of
three
components:
The
CDI
aimed
to
enhance
co-­‐opera<ves,
encourage
co-­‐opera<on
between
the
federal,
provincial,
and
local
governments
and
co-­‐opera<ve
associa<ons,
and
produce
research
relevant
to
the
sector.
It
sought
to
make
co-­‐opera<ve
development
a
means
for
job
crea<on,
economic
development,
and
self
help,
especially
in
<mes
of
economic
uncertainty.
The
CDI
was
not
good
public
policy.
Its
problems
emerged
in
part
due
to:
Despite
its
perceived
success,
the
CDI
s;ll
failed,
in
part
because
certain
regions
were
able
to
beWer
use
ICP
grants.
The
grants
were
beWer
used
in
jurisdic<ons
that
already
had
a
suppor<ve
policy
environment
and
successful
co-­‐opera<ve
development
sectors
through
provincial
support
or
private
means.
38%
of
applica<ons
came
from
Manitoba,
Quebec,
and
Newfoundland
and
Labrador,
three
provinces
accoun<ng
for
28%
of
the
total
Canadian
popula<on
and
the
only
provinces
that
have
co-­‐opera<ve
development
policies
and
supports.
Most
provinces
con<nue
to
lack
sufficient
policy
supports
for
effec<ve
co-­‐opera<ve
development.
The
federal
government
should
not
aWempt
a
co-­‐opera<ve
development
program
similar
to
the
CDI
again
un<l
all
provinces
can
effec<vely
use
such
a
program.
Recommenda;ons
for
future
Canadian
co-­‐opera;ve
development
policies:
§ Delivery
through
Agriculture
and
Agri-­‐Food
Canada
despite
stated
priori<es
in
domains
such
as
healthcare,
Aboriginal
economic
development,
and
minority
and
immigrant
community
needs.
§ Limited
legal/policy
supports
and
provision
of
advisory
services
across
Canada.
§ Uneven
program
success
due
to
a
policy
environment
unsuppor<ve
of
co-­‐opera<ve
development.
§ Centraliza<on
and
poor
alloca<on
of
funding
to
different
provinces
and
to
a
diversity
of
projects.
§ Short-­‐sighted
goal
se^ng
rather
than
a
focus
on
the
long-­‐term
needs
of
the
co-­‐opera<ve
sector.
§ Insufficient
evalua<on
throughout
the
existence
of
the
program.
Innova<ve
Co-­‐opera<ve
Projects
grants
Research
and
knowledge
development
Advisory
services
Source:
hWp://www.istockphoto.com
Source:
Co-­‐opera<ve
Development
Ini<a<ve
Renewal
Proposal
2013
§ Federalism
is
an
important
obstacle
to
remember
in
Canadian
co-­‐opera<ve
development.
The
differen<al
policy
environments
in
each
province
make
it
difficult
to
implement
a
“blanket
approach.”
The
federal
and
provincial
governments
should
avoid
such
an
approach
because
it
benefits
certain
provinces
to
the
detriment
of
others.
§ Greater
inter-­‐jurisdic<onal
(federal,
provincial,
municipal)
and
inter-­‐departmental
(Agriculture
and
Agri-­‐Food,
Health,
Aboriginal
Affairs
and
Northern
Development)
collabora<on
must
occur
to
avoid
any
duplica<on
of
services
and
ensure
proper
service
delivery.
§ Co-­‐opera<ves
need
to
be
more
involved
and
engaged
in
the
crea<on
of
policies
that
directly
affect
them.
Co-­‐opera<ve
associa<ons
and
governments
should
also
consider
the
needs
of
marginalized
groups
in
co-­‐opera<ves
over
elite
concerns.
Adeler,
Monica
C.
“Enabling
Policy
Environments
for
Co-­‐opera<ve
Development:
A
Compara<ve
Experience.”
Canadian
Public
Policy
40,
supplement
no.
1
(2014):
S50-­‐S59.
Canadian
Social
Economy
Research
Partnerships.
“Public
Policy
Profile:
Co-­‐opera<ve
Development
Ini<a<ve.”
Canadian
Social
Economy
Hub.
May
2010.
Canadian
Co-­‐opera<ve
Associa<on.
“Co-­‐opera<ves:
Building
Blocks
for
an
Innova<ve
Economy.
Co-­‐opera<ve
Development
Ini<a<ve
Renew
Proposal
2013-­‐18.”
September
2011.
Cornforth,
Chris
and
Ajan
Thomas.
“Co-­‐opera<ve
Development:
Barriers,
Support
Structures
and
Cultural
Factors.”
Economic
and
Industrial
Economy
11
(1990):
451-­‐461.
DiMaggio,
Paul
J.
and
Walter
W.
Powell.
“The
Iron
Cage
Revisited:
Ins<tu<onal
Isomorphism
and
Collec<ve
Ra<onality
in
Organiza<onal
Fields.”
American
Sociological
Review
48,
no.
2
(1983):
147-­‐160.
Government
of
Canada.
“Evalua<on
of
Rural
and
Co-­‐opera<ve
Development.”
Office
of
Audit
and
Evalua?on
February
20,
2013.
Levesque,
Benoit.
“State
Interven<on
and
the
Development
of
Co-­‐opera<ves
(Old
and
New)
in
Quebec,
1968-­‐1988.”
Studies
in
Poli?cal
Economy
31,
no.
2
(1990):
107-­‐139.
Markell,
Lynne.
“Assessment
of
the
Co-­‐opera<ve
Development
Ini<a<ve
program
by
its
sponsors
and
partners.”
Canadian
Co-­‐opera<ve
Associa<on.
November
25,
2013.
Vaillancourt,
Yves.
“Social
Economy
in
the
Co-­‐Construc<on
of
Public
Policy.”
Canadian
Social
Economy
Hub.
June
2008.