LETS Connect at Home | Contents Listing | Previous Page | Next Page
South Bank University Local Economy Policy Unit
Suppose someone did some research on credit unions and visited a group of people who said they were a credit union. This is what they do: everyone puts in one hundred pounds and after a while people can borrow money from the pot. And then, the researcher is told, the last person to die gets all the money. Unfortunately this credit union is not doing very well at attracting new members.So far, so good. But what does the researcher do next? Write a report concluding that credit unions don't work? To those who know about credit unions, that conclusion would seem ridiculous. Imagine not knowing the difference between a tontine and a credit union!
But analogous conclusions are being drawn about LETS and presented in public at events like the LEPU seminar we attended recently.
The following expresses some of our experiences at a seminar on LETS and Credit Unions organised by the Local Economic Policy Unit of the University of the South Bank in London. (And also in the pub afterwards). The observations prompt an analysis of some of the activities in the UK which are peripheral to LETSystem development but nevertheless are presented as authoritative.
Those of us working at the core of development found the day generally misrepresentative regarding LETS. The individual instances could have been allowed to pass without comment. But collectively they are potentially damaging to our work and therefore raise all sorts of questions. Since we were also criticised at the seminar for our publicity (or lack of it), we welcome the chance to publicise our comments following the seminar.
In particular I am using this as an opportunity to find out who is doing what and to whom. I invite you, dear reader, to help with this clarification. (Send in your comments - please.)
Many of the delegates at the conference were from local authorities who were keen to find out more about LETS. In spite of a strong opening presentation from Nigel Leach of LETS Solutions, misrepresentations multiplied as the day progressed. Many of Nigel's points were ignored during the day - plenty of talk about schemes - and I found this irritating. On reflection, much of my irritation was due to to a sense that we were being patronised.
Those of us in the LETSystem development community accept many of the criticisms about existing attempts to implement LETS. Yes, we recognise the problems and have done for some time. But many of these problems were predicted at an early stage. We have specifically advised the people responsible for creating those problems that their actions were inappropriate.
It is therefore highly frustrating to be held responsible for the actions of others who do not follow our advice. And that is what happened at LEPU. The programme had little room for us to speak to set the record straight.
An unwitting delegate at the seminar would leave with little knowledge of the bulk of LETSystem development work which is now in progress. The spotlight remains on those who are on the periphery rather than on those who are centrally involved.
Why?
Research presented was interesting, but gave the general impression that the development community is totally disorganised and doesn't know what it's doing. Delegates were generally unaware that there were representatives of at least five LETS organisations present (and I mean organisations, not local committees).
Why?
It could be interpreted that because LETS is disorganised, it should be left in the safe hands of the professionals, who are uniquely qualified for the job because someone (e.g. the taxpayer) is prepared to pay them a salary. Is this the intention?
I do know that I am coming under increasing pressure, from within the LETSystem development community, not to co-operate with researchers - because of instances where get knocked down in public without having an opportunity to defend ourselves. (Oh-oh, back to our previous research debate, the living dead walk abroad again etc etc.)
Enough about research.
The nadir (pardon my french) was reached during a presentation given by Perry Walker of the New Economics foundation. In the midst of a reasoned appraisal of the use of language, Perry suddenly blamed Michael Linton for the use of the term quote personal money unquote in a publicity document which I know Michael had done his umost to discourage and was published against the wishes of the LETSgo team. We were not given the opportunity to challenge this in public. (I set Perry straight afterwards).
Unfortunately, this was a blatant piece of misinformation. Of course, it was insignificant in itself, but it reinforced the tendency in some quarters to blame us for everything that goes wrong and credit others for the limited successes achieved so far.
Michael had barely been mentioned all day and to present him in a negative light without acknowledging his considerable contribution to the process gives rise to all sorts of questions about agendas.
And where did all the LEPU money go? None of it went to Michael. Yet without his initial work there would have been no LETS seminar. And that goes for a lot of other people's work too.
The overall implication is this: even if we know what we're doing we can't do it properly. It could be interpreted that the originators are to blame for everything that goes wrong with LETS and are therefore not fit to be involved. Is this the intention?
Enuf about NEF.
Detailed observation of the day (including the more informal get together afterwards) revealed that several delegates were labouring under misconceptions about LETS.
There is a view that LETS is like the early christian church and that schisms and sects are inevitable.
Wrong. LETS is not a belief system. There is no equivalent of the speculation over virgin birth, the essence of the holy trinity etc ect.
LETS is published fact. Either it's LETS, or it's not. No interpretation, no priestly class, no morality. Is it is or is it ain't.
End of story.
Next, there is a view that LETS is a political process with political agendas.
Wrong. We have one agenda - the development of LETS as coherent, practical, decentralised local currency systems. I don't care what your politics are, just as I don't care what your religion is. All I care about is whether you want to use LETS or not.
We cannot quarantee that LETS will live up to other agendas, so please don't criticise us for failing to meet them. If you are a political animal and you think that LETS is failing to live up to expectations as, say, an anti-poverty measure, you may feel that it is justifiable to disempower those currently working on development. But is LETS about disempowerment? Do we really want to empower people by disempowering others? What game are we playing?
In conclusion, it would be easy to read conspiracy into the day, but there was definitely a series of cock-ups.
The LEPU seminar: hardly a great leap forward, more like jumping around in the dark.
Angus Soutar
LETSgo@Manchester"The primary false notion of human nature is the illusion that people are the same."
M.S.P.
LETS Connect at Home | Contents Listing | Previous Page | Next Page