WCA Webinar 4


Published on

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Moses Coady famously said: “They will use what they have to secure what they have not” At minimum people have an associational base of social networks and informal ways of organizing to secure a livelihood. The Antigonish Movement linked this capacity to relatively recent provisions in legislation for formal cooperatives and credit unions so that local capacity could be translated into social and economic transformation.
  • Henry Mintzberg
  • WCA Webinar 4

    1. 1. INNOVATIVE TYPES OF MEMBER-BASED ORGANIZATIONS: WHAT DIFFERENCE DO THEY MAKE FOR WOMEN? Lessons and questions from Indian cases Alison Mathie and Yogesh Ghore Coady International Institute
    2. 2. The Coady International Institute, Antigonish, Nova Scotia, Canada <ul><li>Roots: The Antigonish Movement of the 1930s </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Promotion of member-based organizations: cooperatives and credit unions </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Accompanied by adult education </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Since 1959: Education for Leadership and Action for development professionals from all over the world </li></ul>Coady Institute, January 2012
    3. 3. Innovative types of member-based organizations: What difference do they make for women? <ul><li>Coady Institute ’s study of innovative types of MBOs </li></ul><ul><li>Relevance to Oxfam GB ’s work on women’s collectives </li></ul><ul><li>General observations from MBO study </li></ul><ul><li>Case examples from India: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Producer Companies </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>RUDI Multi-trading </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>SHG-Bank Linkage model </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Innovation AND social inclusion? The role of intermediaries </li></ul>Coady Institute, January 2012
    4. 4. Background trends <ul><li>Shrinking of public sector and expansion of private sector influence </li></ul><ul><li>Privatizing previous responsibilities of the State </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Shift to “private sector” for-profit service enterprises </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Shift to non-profit sector </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Shift to unpaid and voluntary sectors </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Social innovation in the “hybrid” areas of overlap between state, private and civil society sectors </li></ul>
    5. 5. Trends Hybrid Organizations e.g., producer company Then Now
    6. 6. MBO study questions (as they apply to women ’s collectives) <ul><li>What innovative linkages are there between MBOs and private sector? And between informal and formal sectors? </li></ul><ul><li>Why are these new relationships or hybrid organisations emerging? </li></ul><ul><li>So what? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Are women in communities taking more control over their livelihoods? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Are these new entities or linkages more effective as a vehicle for women ’s access to resources? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Are these social innovations inclusive or are intermediaries required to guarantee inclusion? </li></ul></ul>Coady Institute, January 2012
    7. 7. Oxfam GB ’s Conceptual Framework
    8. 8. What we are seeing… <ul><li>Innovative hybrids: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>MBO + private sector: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Producer companies, India </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>SHG-Bank Linkage, India </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>RUDI Multi-trading company </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Informal-formal </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>SHG-Bank linkages </li></ul></ul></ul>Coady Institute, January 2012
    9. 9. Case Study 1: Masuta Producer Company, India. Hybrid: A Unique Ownership Structure (MBO+ Private company) <ul><li>Owned by over 3000 women yarn producers </li></ul><ul><li>Operations spread across 120 villages in three states (Jharkhand, Bihar, Chhatisgarh) </li></ul><ul><li>Turnover of $ 2.12 million and profit of $ 71,000 in 2009-10* </li></ul><ul><li>Largest Tasar yarn producers organization in India and a major player in the market </li></ul><ul><li>New Act provides legal framework and still maintains the unique spirit of cooperatives </li></ul>Coady Institute, January 2012 * Beyond Profit, 2010
    10. 10. Producer Company: Hybrid Structures evolve with changing objectives and functions Coady Institute, January 2012 Structure Function Joint Venture Company Private Limited Co Value addition and marketing Producer Company (National Collective) Aggregation, Marketing and bulk purchase of inputs for the MBTs Mutual Benefit Trust (MBT): First tier Producer Organization (20-30 primary producers) Production, Quality control and sales Self-help Groups (Informal affinity groups) Saving and Credit
    11. 11. Producer Company Model <ul><li>Why the innovation? </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Opportunities offered by economic growth/liberalization </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Weaknesses in the cooperative model </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Need for combination of different institutional models </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>So What? </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Increased incomes for the producers (mostly indigenous women ) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Creation of an integrated process leveraging complementarities among the SHGs, MBTs and producer Co </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Creation of a system that is accountable and inclusive </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Success factors </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Focus on local livelihoods opportunities </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Time and investments in technology development, productivity enhancement and community mobilization </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Integration of different structures and larger role for women in management and decision making </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Affordable and timely services, efficiency, transparency, honesty, and integrity in day to day functioning of the organization </li></ul></ul></ul>Coady Institute, January 2012
    12. 12. Any Question for Clarification? Coady Institute, January 201
    13. 13. Case-Study 2 Rudi Multi Trading Company <ul><li>What is the innovation </li></ul><ul><ul><li>A distribution network that links small producers to consumers, utilizing existing SEWA network (SHG and SEWA Institutions such as for microfinance and insurance, training, and communication facilities like SEWA radio station) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Complex mix of different institutions: SEWA as an MBO; district level associations; private sector partners, SEWA Gram Mahila Haat (SGMH), an apex marketing organization; Government funded programs etc. </li></ul></ul>Coady Institute, January 2012 Outreach: 2,65,000 small and marginal farmers Workers: 1500 RUDIbens (Rural procurement and sales managers) Turnover: $1.5 M Source: Changemakers.com
    14. 14. Rudi Multi Trading Company: The Model Source: One world foundation
    15. 15. Rudi Multi Trading Company <ul><li>Why the innovation? </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>65% of SEWA members work in the agriculture sector and many do not have adequate bargaining power, market access, and storage/processing capacities and are subjected to exploitation by intermediaries </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>SEWA ’s response using Gandhian principles of a self sustaining local economy by linking producers to consumers </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>A space for the for-profit entity to function within the MBO (SEWA) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>So What? </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Direct market access to small and marginal farmers thereby increasing their incomes </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Multiple employment opportunities for women members </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Access to high quality daily consumer products at affordable prices to rural consumers </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Capital rotates within the region thereby strengthening the local economy </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Success factors </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Grassroots foundations and internal cohesiveness </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Service provision and external linkages </li></ul></ul></ul>Coady Institute, January 2012
    16. 16. Any Question for Clarification? Coady Institute, January 201
    17. 17. CASE-STUDY 3 SHG-Bank Linkage model Coady Institute, January 2012 What is the innovation? Informal collectives (Self Help Groups – mostly women, mostly rural) in India are now able borrow money from formal banks to on-lend to their members. No formal registration is required. No bank approval of individual loans is required. SHGs access loans on the basis of credit worthiness.
    18. 18. SHG-Bank Linkage model <ul><li>Why the innovation? </li></ul><ul><li>Women ’s access to commercial savings and credit services was highly restrictive. Women in SHGs resisted the government interference that formal registration would entail. Confidence in SHG monitoring systems to demonstrate credit-worthiness + lowered transaction costs of group loans persuaded change in India’s Central Bank policy nation-wide. </li></ul><ul><li>So what? </li></ul><ul><li>Increases women ’s collective access to (and distribution of) credit </li></ul><ul><li>opportunities for self-paced increase in loan amounts for a diversified livelihood strategy for individual members: Investments in land, agricultural inputs, business investments, education </li></ul>Coady Institute, January 2012
    19. 19. Any Question for Clarification? Coady Institute, January 201
    20. 20. Inclusive innovation? <ul><li>Intensive and long term capacity building is required – legal and regulatory changes are not enough. </li></ul><ul><li>Role of the intermediary organization needs to be underscored </li></ul><ul><ul><li>PRADAN: Producer Co </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>SEWA: RUDI </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>MYRADA: SHG </li></ul></ul>Coady Institute, January 2012
    21. 21. Oxfam GB ’s Conceptual Framework
    22. 22. Comments and Questions? <ul><li>Thank you </li></ul>Coady Institute, January 201