Purpose

This research article addresses the role of processes of normative regulation, driven by distinct approaches to collective action and underlying narratives of social change, in the construction of “solidarity economy” initiatives as parallel spatialities to that of the mainstream economy.

Design/methodology/approach

This article is based on a comparative case study analysis, informed by aspects of the Grounded Theory and Extended Case Study methods, of an ecovillage, an alternative commercialization network and an “integral cooperative”. The analysis is illustrated with fieldwork data on food production, commercialization and consumption, given its centrality in the construction of human livelihoods and lifeworld.

Findings

The resulting conceptual framework identifies three methodologies of normative regulation: Prefigurative social technologies and capitalizing upon power and reputation to exert influence over other economic actors; being part of a wider class-based emancipatory political project; mobilizing online peer-to-peer platforms and community currencies to construct an alternative institutionality.

Research limitations/implications

This article constitutes an exploratory analysis. Further research, based on the application of mixed methodologies to larger samples, will further expand the setup and applicability of these concepts.

Practical implications

This analysis will allow scholars and practitioners alike to gain a deeper understanding of how different approaches to collective action, based on distinct structural standpoints and narratives of change, constitute alternative economic spatialities to those of the mainstream economy.

Social implications

The comparative approach used in this article, as well as the resulting concepts, have the potential of contributing to the convergence of “solidarity economy” strategies between initiatives and movements with different approaches to collective action, therefore contributing to improve their capacity to exercise influence upon incumbent institutional regimes, as well as promote socio-economic change.

Originality/value

This article aims to bridge a significant gap in the understanding of how “solidarity economy”-based parallel spatialities emerge and coexist with the mainstream economy: It analyses how processes of normative regulation result from narratives of change with distinct approaches to collective action, based on the standpoint of actors located differently within structural power relations.

中文翻译：

---

“团结经济”空间中的规范监管过程：比较案例分析

目的

这篇研究文章探讨了规范性监管过程的作用，这些过程由不同的集体行动方法和社会变革的基本叙述驱动，在构建“团结经济”倡议中作为与主流经济平行的空间。

设计/方法/方法

本文基于比较案例研究分析，结合扎根理论和扩展案例研究方法的各个方面，涉及生态村、替代商业化网络和“整体合作社”。鉴于粮食生产、商业化和消费在构建人类生计和生活世界中的核心地位，该分析通过有关粮食生产、商业化和消费的实地调查数据进行说明。

发现

由此产生的概念框架确定了规范监管的三种方法： 预示性社会技术和利用权力和声誉对其他经济参与者施加影响；成为更广泛的基于阶级的解放政治项目的一部分；动员在线点对点平台和社区货币来构建替代制度。

研究限制/影响

本文构成一个探索性分析。基于将混合方法应用于更大样本的进一步研究将进一步扩展这些概念的设置和适用性。

实际影响

这种分析将使学者和从业者等更深入地了解基于不同结构观点和变化叙述的不同集体行动方法如何构成主流经济的替代经济空间。

社会影响

本文中使用的比较方法，以及由此产生的概念，有可能有助于采取不同的集体行动方法的倡议和运动之间的“团结经济”战略趋同，从而有助于提高他们对社会施加影响的能力。现行体制制度，以及促进社会经济变革。

原创性/价值

本文旨在弥合对基于“团结经济”的平行空间如何出现并与主流经济共存的理解上的重大差距：它分析了规范性监管过程如何从具有不同集体行动方法的变革叙述中产生，基于结构性权力关系中行为者的立场不同。