Showing posts with label sharing economy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label sharing economy. Show all posts

Matching neighborhood skills

by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

20139988_1539078376130193_5453055660688507791_nThere was a time when everyone knew their neighbors and that not only in a village and they all knew who did what for a trade or who was good in this or that and, even more important, everyone was prepared to help one another.

Today, however, we barely acknowledge our neighbors let alone know them or know who in our community – what community? – we can go to for help in this or that matter.

There was a time when everyone knew that “Uncle” Erik just down the road was a barber, though he may be working in some other job now, and would be prepared, at his place or at your home, to cut the hair of the family. Or there was Old Bill (no, not the police) who did all manner of woodworking, or James, the mechanic, who would be prepared to fix this or that, including a car, on the weekend.

The community that government so often speaks of no longer exists and in many cases the very destruction of it, such as in the working class areas and the villages, was aided and abetted by the very government that keeps harping on about it and, more often than not, throws every conceivable spanner in the works when people want to bring community back into their areas. Obviously people that do things for themselves are a threat to the powers-that-be (but should not be, the powers I mean) on a local as much as on a central level.

If we, the people, want really and truly resurrect the community in our areas where we live then it is up to us to do it. Government is not going to do it. It will more than likely do its damnedest to prevent it, although in a clandestine and subtle manner.

Get to know your neighbors. Most of them are not going to bite. Start by acknowledging their existence. Smile, say “good morning”, “good day”, or whatever. Some may blank you initially but do persist. The day will come when they don't just reply but may actually engage in conversation. And then the ball starts rolling.

There is no community and can be no community if and when we do not know our neighbors and engage and interact with them.

When I was a youngster we had real community in our villages and even in especially the working class districts in the towns and cities. The drawback of that was though that when you got home of an evening your parents already knew what you had been up to during the day, good or bad. Everyone popped in and out of each others' homes, even if only for a natter, a cup of tea, to borrow some sugar, or whatever and everyone looked out for everyone else's children as if they were their very own.

You knew who had this tool or that you could borrow, who could fix your bicycle if you could not do it yourself, or who had a long ladder. You knew which skills everyone had in the community and also how prepared they were to help out, either for a fee or on a barter trade basis. People swapped garden produce and seeds, books, you name it and all the children called the adults uncle or aunt.

In the working class areas of the towns and cities it was, as already mentioned, equally the same and they were like little villages in that respect. Then again, those districts arose from villages and many still had that feel, to a degree, and definitely as far as community was concerned. That many of the men (and later also the women) working in the same factories and workshops probably also helped to cement this community and community spirit. And then, in Britain and elsewhere, came the redevelopments to improve the areas which was, more often than not in fact, social cleansing, and in London it is really in full swing more today than ever. Communities have been and are being broken up and people dispersed far and wide, as nuclear families and not as a whole community.

But it is up to us to build and rebuild our communities into real living and thriving ones, whether or not the powers-that-be like it or not. Attempts of this building and rebuilding of community are growing in many places, such as via the Transition (Town) Movement or their German equivalent, the Kietzwandler. But those are but a few of many. This aside from those that create alternative communities and even entire towns and villages on a new model, or new models.

As far as Transition Towns in the UK are concerned, aside from its small town of Totnes in Devon, where the movement sort of, started, it would appear that the greatest successes are had, for some strange reason, in the more urban areas, including and especially in inner London, such as Transition Town Brixton. In the more affluent areas, such as rural and semi-rural Surrey, etc., this ideas, and others of this nature) seem to be getting nowhere and are falling on deaf ears.

So what do I mean by matching neighborhood skills and why it is a good idea?

It means matching the skills, trades and what-have-you to the needs, so to speak, that members of the community may have. Need a plumber? Joe at No.10 is a professional plumber, so give him the job instead of calling in an outsider. Thus the money stays in the community. Need you PC fixed? Call on young Richard just a round the corner who knows how to do it and who builds his own systems. And this goes for every job – well, almost – that someone in the neighborhood may need doing and even the almost is with a great caveat for there may be more skilled people out there in our neighborhood, or people with skills, than we may be able to guess until we actually find out.

If we all use local skilled people to do the jobs that we may need doing the money stays in our community or it may even be done on a barter trade and thus does not go into the pockets of some boss somewhere. It is the same if you get your vegetables, eggs, etc. from local farms rather than the supermarkets or purchase other things from local makers.

Not only do those who perform the tasks benefit but we may actually get the job done cheaper and better that if we would go to an “outside” firm and at the same time we get to know those in our neighborhood and create some form of community cohesion (which can serve as the foundation for a real community).

One of the biggest problems today is that people have become very insular and shut themselves off from those around them. We hardly, if at all, know our neighbors and often do not even acknowledge them when we see them, out an about. But we can all change that in that we act differently. A smile, a “good day”, and such cost you nothing and if the other person does not reply still keep doing it. There will come the day when – suddenly – they will respond and the first steps to getting to know one another and to building some neighborliness and community are taken. That is the first step to Community Building. But, as said, it is just the first step. The rest really follows on from that. A blueprint for building community to give I do not think to be possible but a Community skills database for the purpose of sharing and caring but also allowing people to make some income is a great step in this direction also.

Such a database would match skills with needs and vice versa and can go a long way to bringing people together through mutual beneficial actions and thus can lead – and we should surely hope so – to real community where we go to our neighbors, close or not so close, to get things done or to learn skills rather than calling in outsiders.

But, in order to set up such a database and to match neighborhood skills with possible neighborhood needs requires that we get to know our neighbors first of all, at least the organizer(s) of such a database and matching service. So, let's go and do some matching and through this build communities in our neighborhoods.

© 2017

Why going to the library is one of the best things I do for my kids and the planet

childrens section libraryMy two kids and I head to the library every week and it's one of my favorite things. I love getting a huge bag of books and feeling the excitement to get home and read them and see where they take us. It's a strong memory I have from my own childhood and I cherish getting to repeat it with them, but the more time I spend at the library with my family, the more I realize its benefits go beyond just a bag of new books to read.

The resources libraries provide and the values they reinforce are making my kids into better human beings and helping the planet along the way.

The original sharing economy

Libraries were participating in a sharing economy long before Netflix or Airbnb. There is a major environmental advantage to sharing copies of books, DVDs and other media over all of us purchasing new copies, but more than that it's how libraries foster a commitment to sharing that is so beneficial and can carry over into the rest of our lives.

Read more: http://www.treehugger.com/green-home/why-going-library-one-best-things-i-do-my-kids-and-planet.html

‘Smart Cities’ Should Mean ‘Sharing Cities’

These days every city claims to be a “smart” city, or is becoming one, with heavy investments in modern information and computing technology to attract businesses and make the city competitive.

But when mayors and developers focus on technology rather than people, smart quickly becomes stupid, threatening to exacerbate inequality and undermine the social cooperation essential to successful cities. After researching leading cities around the world, we’ve concluded that truly smart cities will be those that deploy modern technology in building a new urban commons to support communal sharing.

In India, Dholera is one of 24 new smart cities planned in order to accommodate the country’s rapidly expanding population. The planned city has cleared most approvals, but is stalled with the coastal zone regulatory commission, probably because of the predicted engineering challenges and expenses of a site on salt flats with a high risk of flooding. Moreover, villagers and small-scale subsistence farmers, who inhabit the proposed site and fear eviction from their land and livelihoods, have been staging peaceful protests with support from a grassroots land rights movement.

In London too, smart-city thinking is socially dumb. Here the problem is epitomized by Tech City in the Shoreditch district. Intended as a hub for tech innovation, it has turned into an annex of the London financial complex, dominated by Google, Cisco, McKinsey, and Intel. The artists, designers, and startups that began the process of regeneration in Shoreditch have been displaced by “commercial gentrification.” Just up the road in Tottenham, the rebranding of warehouses as ‘artistic quarters’ has displaced low-rent communities in favor of bankers and financial speculation.

Read more: http://postgrowth.org/smart-cities-should-mean-sharing-cities/

Let’s put the collaborative economy at the service of territories!

Capture d’écran 2014-10-16 à 10.16.46This post aims to explore the opportunities that may arise with the spread of the collaborative economy on a given territory. It is based on the work of Benjamin Tincq and Diana Filippova - Ouishare Connectors – about collaborative territories in France. As part of the research conducted in partnership with the CG92 - Hauts de Seine “département”- they wrote an essay (in French) published in Les Entretiens Albert Kahn, and they co-organized a workshop with policy makers on October 8th with Samuel Roumeau from Sharitories. Their contribution is an important input to the Sharitories program and the prospective Collaborative Territories Toolkit, especially since it is extremely well documented and conceived as a call for concrete action at local level.

Ouishare defines the collaborative economy as the wide range of practices and economic models based on horizontal structures and communities’ contribution. A collaborative territory is defined as a territory that hosts and nurtures practices, projects, spaces and tools from the collaborative economy to the benefits of an open, horizontal and abundant territory. Put simply, the central question behind this definition can be asked as follows: on which kind of territory do we want to live collectively? Ouishare created a typology to explain the contours of this notion of collaborative territory. It articulates around three components: shared territories, productive territories, and territories as commons.

A typology for collaborative territories

Shared territories envision the territory as a platform. They host the fast growing collaborative consumption, whose development has been facilitated by the multiplication of (hyper) local systems and global platforms. Systems such as ridesharing, bikesharing, coworking, local food consumption and production, or p2p home rentals have emerged quickly in the mid 2000s. While these are the most frequently implemented collaborative services on territories, they sometimes create tensions and controversies, especially in the hotel and taxi sectors. These sharing systems promote usage rather than possession of material goods, and favour horizontal organization and reduced roles of intermediaries. As these systems need a very local critical mass, the local territory is a very good entry point to supporting their development. The explosion of collaborative consumption on territories concerns several sectors. First, mobility is probably the most dynamic sector with the development of long distance ridesharing (Blablacar), instant ridesharing (Lyft), p2p car rentals (Drivy), or even shared cars and bikes (Autolib’ and Velib’ in Paris). Second, the food sector puts emphasis on local production, distribution and consumption (the most famous initiative is La Ruche Qui Dit Oui). Third, the tourism sector is also boiling with various initiatives such as p2p house rentals (AirBnb), Couchsurfing, sharing food at one’s place (Cookening), or p2p travel experiences (Vayable).

Read more: http://www.sharitories.net/lets-put-the-collaborative-economy-at-the-service-of-territories-2/

Towards Amsterdam Sharing City – Interview with Pieter van de Glind and Harmen van Sprang

shareNL _ Pieter van de Glind en Harmen van Sprang _ april 2014 _ (c) Merlijn DoomernikPieter van de Glind and Harmen van Sprang are the co-founders of ShareNL, a Dutch knowledge and networking platform that connects and informs initiatives from the sharing economy: consumers, businesses, organisations, governments, research institutions and media. Founded at the idea stage in 2012, in 2013 Pieter and Harmen set up the actual shareNL platform and started building on it. The team has now grown to include four more team members helping them in their work.

One important initiative started by shareNL is Amsterdam Sharing City. They work together with the city’s Economic Board, among a broad range of other local stakeholders, to make Amsterdam the first official “Sharing City” in Europe, following international examples like Seoul in South Korea and San Francisco in the US (BayShare).

In this interview, we asked Pieter and Harmen to share some of their experiences with this still relatively young project.

Stina:  Sharitories – what does this neologism evoke to you?

P&H: It evokes the transition from closed to open. From ownership to access.

Can you please tell us more about your work with shareNL? How did you end up doing it?

P&H: A couple of sharing economy entrepreneurs discovered the need for an overarching platform in the Netherlands. We stepped into making this platform happen while we were still studying and working on other things. Pieter at the time was doing research on the consumer potential of collaborative consumption. Co-founder Harmen van Sprang stepped in while he was working as a freelance innovation manager within the field of creatieve industries in Amsterdam. However, the main reason we ended up doing this is because we have a lot of passion for it.

Read more: http://www.sharitories.net/towards-amsterdam-sharing-city-pieter-van-de-glind-and-harmen-van-sprang/

Finding Takers for Lonely Leftovers in a Culinary Nook of the Sharing Economy

BERLIN — Fresh from a bracing workout at the gym, Anton Kaiser gazed hungrily into a refrigerator, considering arugula, pineapple jam, salted butter and two bags of green grapes before reaching for a white bread roll, baked that morning. “I haven’t eaten all day,” he said, “so it’s great.”

Perhaps best of all, it was free, available in the middle of a graffitied courtyard in the Kreuzberg district of Berlin. Like the rest of the offerings in this so-called food sharing refrigerator, Mr. Kaiser’s bread roll would, under normal circumstances, have gone straight into the trash.

But in Germany, where concern about wasted food has mounted in recent years, such refrigerators — stocked with leftovers from private parties and restaurants, and open to the public — are just one of several initiatives aimed at keeping edibles out of the garbage.

There are roughly 100 of these food sharing sites in Germany. About 50 have refrigerators, and the rest are just shelves. They are a small, offline branch of Foodsharing.de, a two-year-old Internet platform that gives members a chance to connect with other food sharers online, should they find themselves in possession of an extra cabbage or, as one Foodsharing post put it, “too many delicious organic potatoes for one person to eat.”

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/27/world/europe/german-matchmakers-pair-lonely-leftovers-and-rumbling-bellies.html

3 Lessons on Financial Inclusion and the Sharing Economy

2014-10-24-kiva.pngWhy is it that despite new technologies and widespread innovation, today's financial sector provides such ill-fitting products and services to so many people and leaves so many more entirely unserved? We are missing a huge opportunity for business, policy and society alike - a missed opportunity with lasting negative effects.

For an economy to thrive, we must have appropriate, affordable financial services available to a majority of people and organizations operating in it. In other words, we need financial inclusion. Historically, however, many financial services have been available only to wealthy and better-off individuals, leaving many disadvantaged and low-income people "unbanked."

Setting the economic stage: from microfinance to macro effects

Since the late 1990s, microfinance has become a major tool for financial inclusion. Microfinance is the provision of small (micro) loans and savings products for people living at the base of the economic pyramid (BOP). It has historical links to rotating savings and credit associations (or ROSCAs) that operate like community lending circles. Microfinance clients are often called microentrepreneurs; classic microfinance is focused on the provision of working capital loans - funding to build and grow small enterprises.

Modern microfinance is typically traced back to the 1970s when Mohammed Yunus began experimenting with making small loans to groups of poor women in Bangladesh. Today microfinance is credited with lifting hundreds of millions of people out of poverty around the world. Collectively, microentrepreneurs represent a formidable force in the global economy.

Yunus' original work was primarily grant-driven: it did not involve commercial capital. However, as the concept caught on - and especially, as repayment rates remained close to 100% over time - investors began to take notice, with mostly great and sometimes negative effects.

Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/april-rinne/three-lessons-on-financia_b_6044312.html

Global Economic Sharing: The Most Important Debate of Our Time?

Almost everywhere we look, there is an emerging debate on the importance of sharing in relation to the grave challenges of our time. This conversation is most apparent in the sharing economy movement that has now taken the United States and Western Europe by storm, opening up a new set of questions about how sharing – that most simple human value and ethic – can really serve the needs of all people and the planet. For many, the practice of sharing represents a global cultural shift towards empathy, trust and generosity, and holds the greatest source of hope for economic and social transformation. For others, the idea of integrating the principle of sharing into economic relations is vitally important and invigorating, but toothless as a strategy for resolving the world’s crises if it remains beholden to corporate interests and the growth imperative.

What’s seldom recognised, however, is how the global conversation on sharing is often conducted implicitly and unknowingly by campaigners, activists and progressive analysts. For example, in the now mainstream discussion on how to reform the systems and structures that lead to inequality, there is the implicit question of how to share resources more equally among society as a whole. While the best-selling economist Thomas Piketty has recently forewarned the prospect of an increasingly unequal future, the authors of The Spirit Level have already demonstrated that the most prosperous, happy and healthy nations all distribute their wealth in a more egalitarian fashion. In this way, relating the principle of sharing with economic and social policy is clearly important for debates on eradicating poverty and reversing extreme inequality, as it directly points to the need for distributive justice and long-term structural solutions that cut to the heart of how we organise societies.

Similarly, in the international discussions on sustainable development there is an implicit focus on the need for greater economic sharing, which frames the basic challenge of how to ensure that everyone can consume a fair share of resources within the Earth’s limits. Even for peace campaigners and anti-war activists, the principle of sharing is central to the problem of interstate conflict over land, fossil fuel reserves and other key industrial materials. But this imperative question is often left unspoken: how can governments find ways of sharing the environmental commons more equitably, and thus finally change trajectory from our current path towards intensified resource competition, accelerating climate change, and the eventual possibility of a third world war?

Read more: http://www.filmsforaction.org/articles/global-economic-sharing-the-most-important-debate-of-our-time/