From: mccainra@dunx1.ocs.drexel.edu (Roger A. McCain)
Subject: Re: "On Cooperation" and more
**************************************************************************

Let me put in a few random thoughts about the Pacifica situation as you have described it. 

Q. Could a radio network be organized practically as a listener cooperative? 

A. There seems no strong reason why not. This would be a kind of consumercooperative, and consumer cooperatives have been very successful over 150 years in many parts of the world. The fact that the service provided is a "public good" in economists' terms complicates the identification of the group eligible for membership, though. In a grocery coop, the cash register strips do this.

Consumer coops historically have one very major problem: the problem of political participation. Since the coop's products are a fairly small partof a member's economic welfare, there is a tendency to concentrate on other things. This has contributed to the success of coops in some stages -- when participation might have limited growth and flexibility -- but in the long run seems to set the stage for bureaucratic degeneration. Many coops have remained effective for many years, nonetheless.

On the other side, consumer coops are not, generically, committed organizations. That is, they aim to advance the economic well-being of the consumers they serve, not a cause defined by a political program as such.

In practice, that has made little difference -- seventies coops often were quite committed to crunchy granola -- which I'm allergic to -- couldn't participate -- and other related causes.

Suppose the group were organized as a membership group, a club as it were. Dues, or a minimum contribution, or a "give what you can" contribution,would be a condition of voting on a board of directors (or whatever) and so influencing policy. A contribution of voluntary labor might also (or alternatively) be expected. This could actually mitigate the "public good" problem, since contributors get something for their contribution.

Membership open to anyone who pays could create some possibility of a take-over -- can't ignore that possibility in a world we share with the Christian Coalition, but, realistically, it doesn't seem a great risk. Requiring a contribution of labor could probably also help keep the group committed.

If the listeners were committed enough to worker participation, perhaps worker-consumer codetermination (each elects half the board of directors) would be tried. It has been discussed, but, I think, never tried. The problem of political participation would probably leave most of the power in the hands of the employees, though.

Q. What about a worker-cooperative as the organizational form?

A. In principle, there could be some advantages, depending. Like a consumer cooperative, a worker cooperative is not generically a committed organization -- but is no less committed than the people in the work group. (How uniformly committed are they likely to be?) However, contributors might be reluctant to give to an organization committed by its charter only to the economic welfare of its employees. (See the current Journal of Economic Literature June 1996, survey by Susan Rose-Ackerman on nonprofit corporations -- for some material that might be useful to you).

Q. Chto dyelat'? (what is to be done?)

A. One thought -- no more than that and you have probably already discussed it -- is a contributors' strike after the pattern of a rent strike (not a labor strike). That is, discontented listeners would be encouraged to send their contributions to a trust fund that would be turned over to the management if and when the strike were settled. That would not only enhance the bargaining power of the protestors, but might provide resources for alternative means of meeting the listeners' particular needs for radio programming. 

Roger A. McCain
Professor, Economics
Drexel University
Philadelphia, PA, 19104

Office voice 215-895-2176
e-mail mccainra@dunx1.ocs.drexel.edu
World-Wide Web http://william-king.www.drexel.edu/