Studi Buku Mandiri

THE OWNERSHIP SOLUTION

Toward A Shared Capitalism For The Twenty-First Century

Jeff Gates

Nama Mahasiswa / NPM :

Mas Wigrantoro Roes Setiyadi / 8605210299

Program Doktor Strategic Management

Program Studi Ilmu Manajemen

Program Pascasarjana Fakultas Ilmu Ekonomi

Universitas Indonesia

Oktober 2006

Chapter 1: DISCONNECTED CAPITALISM

Untuk pertama kali dalam sejarah manusia, sistem ekonomi tunggal melingkari bola

bumi. Kapitalisme global ini merupakan berita gembira dan berita buruk. Berita

gembiranya adalah bahwa lebih dari yang pernah ada sebelumnya, kapitalisme telah

membuktikan kapasitasnya untuk menghasilkan kekayaan tak terhitung. Berita buruknya

adalah bahwa banyak orang-orang kini dijadikan korban dengan kekerasan yang

nampaknya di luar kendali mereka, mencakup suatu globalisasi keuangan yang

berkelanjutan yang bermanfaat hanya bagi sebagian kecil orang. Kekuatan yang sama itu

bisa dimanfaatkan untuk keuntungan semua orang, tetapi ini akan berakibat hanya jika,

ketika lebih banyak dari kita menjadi terhubung ke kapitalisme- sebagai kapitalis.

Sebagai pasar perekonomian yang terbesar di dunia, Amerika Serikat menyediakan

sebuah contoh yang dramatis mengenai bagaimana kapitalisme modern dengan cepat

menjadi “terputus” dari mereka yang hidup di tengah-tengahnya. Fidelity Management

dan Research Company mengatur lebih dari enam ratus milyar dollar dalam asset

(modal); Boston’s State Street Bank mangatur tiga ratus milyar dollar. Manajemen

keuangan yang terfokus pada memaksimalkan pengembalian keuangan bukanlah hal

yang baru. Yang baru adalah skala luas dan pertumbuhan yang meroket dari jaman

“terputusnya” modal. Yang juga baru adalah diberi penghormatan yang sangat besar,

informasi tercermin dalam pengembalian keuangan, khususnya ketika seseorang

menganggap bagaimana dramatisnya hidup manusia dipengaruhi oleh keputusan-

keputusan berdasar angka-angka tersebut. Itu meliputi struktur sosial bangsa, termasuk

luasnya jarak antara kaya dan miskin; lingkungan; dan angka pertumbuhan rumah tangga

yang tetap, menghilangkan proses akumulasi kekayaan seluruhnya yang pada gilirannya

menjadi tanggung jawab pada dukungan pemerintah. Terputusnya modal merupakan

perolehan daya gerak di seluruh dunia sebagai pemerintahan yang menjalankan rencana

pensiun dan meningkatkan dorongan untuk tabungan pensiun.

Pertumbuhan global dalam perbedaan ekonomi dan terputusnya modal menciptakan

barisan tantangan terhadap kesehatan seluruh bangsa dan tentu saja pada kapitalisme

global. Luasnya jarak antara miskin dan kaya ini dikenal dengan implikasi sosial dan

politik. Dua tingkat sosial dan dua tingkat pasar bukanlah lahan subur dimana demokrasi

secara sempurna berakar. Sejarawan memiliki dokumentasi panjang yang berisi sikap

ancaman untuk membuka sistem dengan perbedaan yang ekstrim pada kekayaan, seperti

pemilikan kekayaan yang besar dengan memberikan sedikit kekuatan mereka, yang mana

mereka mungkin tergoda untuk digunakan mencapai kesejahteraan umum.

Kekurangan “sistemik” yang utama pada kapitalisme saat ini adalah salahnya “umpan

balik” sistem. Sistem tidak terhubungan secara otomatis, jika menginginkan untuk

mendahului dan merespon keinginan dari populasi di dalamnya. Melainkan

mencerminkan modal keuangan yang ganjil. Hal ini bermanfaat untuk memanggil

kembali konsep bahwa perusahaan bebas (free enterprise) merupakan sebuah pikiran

umpan balik pada dua abad yang lalu ketika Adam Smith, mengeluarkan “The Wealth of

Nations” dengan cerita perumpamaannya mengenai bagaimana pasar “invisible hand”

dari pertukaran sukarela dan secara bebas menentukan kepastian harga bagi pesertanya.

Chapter 2: RECONSTRUCTING CAPITALISM

The Ownership Solution tidaklah diharapkan sebagai kritik kapitalisme. Hal tersebut

sangat berlawanan. Seperti peringatan presiden Czech, Vaclav Havel: “Manusia saat ini

mengetahui bahwa mereka hanya dapat terselamatkan oleh sebuah tipe baru dari

tanggung jawab global. Hanya satu penjelasan kecil yang menghilang: bahwa tanggung

jawab harus ditanggung dengan ikhlas.” Di lain hal, sebagian besar manusia tidak dapat

tinggal di bagian luar kesatuan perusahaan, terhubung hanya sebagai pelanggan dan

pemegang kerja, dan mengharapkan untuk ikut menanggung tanggung jawab atas

tindakannya. Hal itu memaksa arsitek perusahaan bebas (free enterprise), seperti

pemimpin bisnis, pembuat kebijakan, menanggung tanggung jawab untuk memastikan

bahwa penyelarasan, lokalisir, kepemilikan yang “up-close” menjadi kenyataan

keseharian dalam hidup. Benar bahwa penyertaan kepemilikan merupakan “pembayaran

masuk” yang diperlukan sebelum orang pantas menanggung tanggung jawab mereka.

Havel menyerukan sebuah tipe baru dari tanggung jawab global yang hanya dapat

muncul dari kumpulan tenaga dari banyak individu yang dikuasakan menjadi tanggung

jawab setempat (locally responsible). Pemikiran tersebut tercermin dalam prinsip

“percabangan” yang secara sederhana menyatakan bahwa masalah tersebut harus

terpecahkan tidak lebih dari tingkatan lokal yang memungkinkan. Selengkapnya dalam

prinsip tersebut adalah sebuah paradoks: negara harus menciptakan sebuah lingkungan

dimana tanggung jawab personal dapat diterima dengan benar.

Oleh karena jangkauan pasar uang yang global, kita berada di tengah-tengah penjualan

yang sangat besar dari aset milik negara. Itu menjadi tanda penyakit bagi mereka yang

percaya bahwa kapitalisme secara mati-matian menjadi lebih luas terpopulasi dengan

kapitalis. Hal itu dikarenakan dalam ekonomi pasar, yang kaya semakin kaya, sejak

investasi berdasaarkan uang. Itu akan menjadi sejarah yang ironis. Jalur menuju format

usaha bebas (free-enterprise), demokrasi yang sempurna dan bertahan lama berada dalam

perancangan strategi kepemilikan yang sangat partisipatif dan mampu beradaptasi

melintasi suatu jangkauan luas lingkungan ekonomi dan politik.

Vaclav Havel menangkap dengan baik waktu-waktu unik dimana kita hidup: “Saat ini,

lebih dari yang pernah ada sebelumnya dalam sejarah umat manusia, semua hal saling

berkaitan. Oleh karena itu, nilai-nilai dan prospek-prospek dari peradaban di jaman ini

dimana-mana diuji dengan baik.” Uji yang paling dalam saat ini – secara moral, secara

ekonomi, secara sosial – apakah kapitalisme global dapat dibujuk untuk menciptakan

orang kaya lebih banyak and sedikit orang miskin. Bahwasanya, pada gilirannya,

menentukan nasib demokrasi – yang mana tidak akan pernah menyadari potensi yang

sepenuhnya sampai didasarkan pada sebuah fondasi ekonomi dimana unsurnya adalah

sepenuhnya peserta, tidak hanya pemberi gaji dan pemberi suara.

Chapter 3: WHY DOES CAPITALISM CREATE SO FEW CAPITALISTS?

Kapitalisme telah lama terkenal sebagai pencipta yang buruk dari kapitalis. Apakah kita

memperhatikan negara-negara kapitalis yang berkedudukan kuat atau usaha mereka

untuk lepas dari sosialis masa lampau, fakta menunjukkan bahwa: kapitalisme tidak

dirancang untuk menciptakan kapitalis lebih; namun dirancang untuk lebih membiayai

modal untuk kapitalis yang ada. Ini karena pembiayaan terpenuhi di dalam sebuah

“sistem tertutup.”

Sebuah perusahaan hanya memiliki dua sumber dana, yaitu: menghasilkan secara internal

dan kenaikan secara eksternal. Dana secara internal dihasilkan dari dua komponen. Yang

pertama, diinvestasikan kembali dalam pendapatan dan laba – dana suatu perusahaan

berfungsi untuk mempertahankan pertumbuhan bisnis tersebut. Yang kedua adalah

cadangan penyusutan – dana itu untuk menggantikan aset fisik yang digunakan atau telah

usang. Sumber dana yang ketiga dan keempat adalah pertumbuhan uang diluar

perusahaan. Mengapa sebagian besar kepemilikan tertutup bagi orang diluar perusahaan?

Hal tersebut dikarenakan: pertama, laba dan pendapatan yang dihasilkan oleh suatu

perusahaan milik mereka yang pada saat ini memiliki perusahaan itu; kedua, aset yang

memenuhi syarat untuk penyusutan hanya setelah pemilik meletakkan aset untuk

digunakan, karena hanya mereka yang memiliki akses pada jaminan dan arus kas yang

diwajibkan untuk mengamankan dan melayani hutang.

Alfred D. Chandler Jr, sejarawan bisnis secara formal dari Harvard Business School,

menyimpulkan bahwa komponen dari tabungan yang benar-benar dihitung untuk

pertumbuhan ekonomi bukanlah tabungan pribadi sebanyak seperti tabungan usaha –

yang membiayai kebangkitan perusahaan secara internal. Hal ini merupakan sebuah

kritikan nyata karena tabungan usaha “muncul” dalam ekonomi kepunyaan pemilik saat

ini, sepenuhnya kepemilikan – memusat pada keuangan sistem tertutup. Sebagai

penggantian aset, aset tersebut menghasilkan pendapatan lebih dan penyusutan lebih yang

menciptakan tabungan usaha lebih – dan seterusnya dalam sebuah proses yang lebih

lanjut cukup untuk menjadi terobosan peristiwa ini.

Dengan tanpa melihat apakah pembiayaan tersusun untuk membawa aset baru segaris,

untuk memindahkan kepemilikan dari aset yang ada atau untuk menggabungkan aset

tersebut dengan perusahaan lain, sasaran kepemilikan yang sama: tujuan dari pembiayaan

adalah untuk membolehkan orang mendapatkan aset sebelum mereka memiliki simpanan

dana untuk membayar mereka. Teknik self-financing secara luas lazimnya dapat

bermanfaat bagi warganegara. Sejarah terbaru mengkonfirmasikan bahwa, tanpa suatu

kombinasi kepemimpinan perusahaan dan kebijakan masukan, peristiwa ini akan

berlanjut untuk menciptakan beberapa kepemilikan.

Tantangan kepemilikan dapat ditanggulangi. Bagaimanapun, karena kapitalisme untuk

menciptakan kapitalis lebih, diperlukan suatu pengetahuan pembiayaan dan politik yang

bertautan dengan penduduk, kecerdasan pembiayaan pemimpin politik dan perhatian

pemimpin pada sektor perusahaan.

Pembaharuan dan regenerasi adalah pusat dari keuangan, terutama sekali melalui

penyusutan sebagai penengah dengan suatu generasi teknologi online. Teknologi

produktif modern (mekanis, kimia, informasi, organisasi) telah sukses luar biasa pada

penekanan jam kerja – yang secara berkesinambungan tidak memberi kuasa terhadap

siapa yang bekerja saat pemberian kuasa terhadap siapa yang memiliki. Sementara itu,

pasar tentu saja tetap acuh tak acuh. Ini secara sederhana menilai daya produksi,

mengarahkan pendapatan kepada siapa saja yang menghasilkan, dengan mengabaikan

apakah tenaga terampil atau aset tabungan pekerja.

Chapter 4: PUTTING THE “OWN” BACK IN OWNERSHIP

Lebih dari dua dekade yang lalu, kapitalisme menurut sejarah terpusat pada kepemilikan

pribadi (personal ownership) telah dihubungkan dengan suatu yang baru dan hingga kini

format pengertian sederhana dari kekayaan terpusat: konsentrasi di tangan lembaga

investor. Kelembagaan yang sama sedang dijalankan di negara lain ketika tiga faktor

pokok bertemu. Pertama, Perang Dunia II ledakan populasi yang sekarang mulai

memasuki tahun utamanya, mendekati periode ketika “siklus kehidupan uang tabungan”

menjangkau puncak mereka, seperti yang diramalkan ahli ekonomi, Franco Modigliani.

Kedua, pembuat kebijakan di dunia sibuk menetapkan kebijakan untuk tabungan pensiun

– baik sebagai alat untuk menghimpun dana investasi maupun sebagai jalan untuk

memajukan kepercayaan diri sebagai suatu alternatif menuju program pemerintah. Faktor

ketiga, sedang dalam pengerjaan.

Hukum warisan mendorong orang-orang kaya untuk meninggalkan sejumlah besar harta

untuk lembaga non-profit, terutama yayasan. Bill Gates telah mengumumkan tujuannya

untuk memindahkan sebagian besar keuntungannya untuk sebuah yayasan. Pertumbuhan

terus melaju, kelembagaan datang sebagai kejutan bagi yang menciptakan kebijakan

lingkungan yang mempengaruhi perubahan ini. Sebagai contoh, banyak ahli ekonomi dari

Timur dan Pusat Eropa menghimpun dana bersama sebagai komponen kunci dari strategi

privatisasi mereka, melaju dari kapitalis sebelumnya, era sosialis “pengkolektifan” secara

langsung menuju pos kapitalis “kelembagaan.”

Satu dari hal-hal penting yang dihadapi kapitalis modern adalah penentuan dari apa yang

dimaksud “kepunyaan” ketika kepemilikan dilembagakan. Berkomentar mengenai apa

yang disebut ahli ekonomi dilema “agency cost”, Professor Lester Thurow di M.I.T.

Sloan School of Management menyarankan: “jalan satu-satunya bagi kapitalisme untuk

dapat bekerja adalah pemilik harus ikut bertanggung jawab.” Di tahun 1996, Perusahaan

William M. Mercer mensurvei 608 perusahaan dan menemukan bahwa tipe perusahaan

besar (dengan pendapatan lebih dari seratus juta dollar) memiliki lima persen simpanan

bagian saham untuk eksekutif puncak. Secara khas pertimbangan untuk upah eksekutif

terkemas dalam beberapa varian pada “great man theory”, yang menyatakan bahwa

seorang pemimpin perusahaan yang baik diperlukan untuk memikat modal dari satu

investasi ke investasi lain – meningkatkan nilai saham.

Di dalam kombinasi, pengertian yang mendalam menunjukkan bahwa lembaga investor

fokus pada “struktur yang tidak terlihat” dari perusahaan, mencakup penentuan sikap dan

kumpulan informasi yang berhubungan dengan kelalaian perusahaan pada risiko mereka.

Bukti menunjukkan bahwa konsep dalam dan luar yang menyangkut perusahaan dapat

berhasil. Bagi mereka yang menyamakan kepemilikan dengan kendali, adalah jelas

bahwa kendali dalam dunia pengaturan-uang telah tercerai dari model sederhana yang

diimpikan oleh Adam Smith. The Ownership Solution menyarankan ketahanan, dengan

ukuran apapun, memerlukan lembaga investor untuk mendesak agar “kepunyaan”

diletakkan kembali pada kepemilikan. Hal itu dapat berhasil dengan menghubungkan

kembali manusia pada umpan balik dasar dari sistem, kita menyebutnya dengan

kapitalisme.

Chapter 5: UP-CLOSE CAPITALISM – THE EMPLOYEE OWNERSHIP SOLUTION

ESOP (Enterprise Share Ownership Plans) merupakan solusi kepemilikan baru yang

tampak paling menyolok. Dalam sebuah “pengaruh” ESOP (dimana saham dibeli dengan

menggunakan dana pinjaman), empat bagian yang secara khusus terlibat: karyawan,

perusahaan sponsor, penjual, dan pemberi pinjaman. Insentif tersedia untuk masing-

masing bagian. Bagi karyawan, hitungan saham tidak kena pajak sampai diterima. Bagi

perusahaan, potongan pajak dibolehkan bukan hanya untuk biaya bunga pada dana

pinjaman yang digunakan sebuah ESOP namun juga untuk biaya dari pembayaran

kembali pinjaman utama. Ditambah pengurangan pajak karyawan dibolehkan untuk

pembayaran dividen atas pemegang saham ESOP sebagai jalan untuk menghasilkan suatu

kepemilikan dasar “pendapatan kedua” – kunci Kelso – dasar pemikiran dari ESOP.

Kepemilikan karyawan bukanlah tanpa resiko. Selama pengumpan ragu-ragu bahwa

karyawan akan “meletakkan semua telur ke dalam keranjang,” para pendukung khawatir

bahwa karyawan tidak mempunyai sama sekali telur dalam keranjangnya. Ini hal kecil

yang menggambarkan bahwa kepemilikan karyawan itu sendiri dapat dilakukan untuk

membatasi perusahaan dari persaingan, perubahan teknologi, atau pergeseran pasar. Ada

hal “ajaib” tentang kepemilikan saham karyawan jika perusahaan melakukan kesalahan

bisnis. Dilain hal, beberapa perusahaan merengkuh kepemilikan karyawan sebagai

komponen dari strategi daya saing mereka, memberi gambaran bahwa berhadapan

dengan risiko kepemilikan karyawan jadi lebih mungkin untuk memperlihatkan arah yang

bersifat wirausaha dan fleksibilitas diperlukan untuk mengidentifikasi dan membuat

perubahan, diperlukan perubahan teknologi dan pergeseran pasar.

Mackin, pendiri Cambride, Massachusetts-based Ownership Associates, menemukan

bahwa manajer dan pekerja sering menduduki tempat yang berbeda, tidak seimbangnya

hak atau tanggung jawab. Manajemen secara khusus positif tentang tanggung jawab dan

risiko dari kepemilikan karyawan namun negatif tentang hak dan penghargaan. Pesan

mengenai kebingungan mereka kepada manajemen: “ hargai saya seperti seorang pemilik

namun perlakukan saya seperti seorang karyawan.” Mackin menyimpulkan bahwa

perbaikan akan mendorong percakapan kepemilikan ini semakin panjang sehingga kedua

dapat disimpulkan sebagai kultur tempat kerja yang secara tetap bergeser menjadi sebuah

kultur kepemilikan.

Terdapat salah satu kunci tantangan menghadapi kapitalisme. Berbagai format dari up-

close kapitalime dengan baik menghadirkan harapan terbaik kapitalisme untuk mencapai

kesetiaan, motivasi, dedikasi, dan pengorbanan yang diperlukan oleh usaha bebas untuk

kesuksesan jangka panjang. Walaupun begitu tantangan belum dapat diukur.

Tantangan-tantangan lain: selama manajer menengah harus dipercayakan untuk membuat

perubahan, mereka boleh memiliki sedikit saham. Hal itu mendorong mereka untuk

melakukan apa yang memungkinkan suatu perubahan, termasuk perubahan yang

mungkin menurunkan peringkat manajemen dan mengubah otoritas manajer. Dan

kepemilikan karyawan merupakan suatu biaya efektif utama untuk mengarahkan sumber

kebijakan yang terbatas. Lingkungan kebijakan terbangun dengan baik sebelum up-close

kapitalisme mempertimbangkan tujuan yang diinginkan dan memungkinkan.

Chapter 6: NEW PROPERTY PARADIGMS

More than one hundred countries have an active interest in adapting ESOPs. Many are

well advanced. However, it is the growing use of ESOPs in multinational corporation that

offers potentially the most powerful short-term tool for spreading up-close ownership

worldwide. This trend is certain to accelerate as both capital and trade flow ever more

freely. An obvious ownership challenge accompanies this trend: how best to encourage

these cross-border firms to include indigenous employees as partial owners of parent-

company shares.

RESOPs (Related Enterprise Share Ownership Plans) provide an opportunity for

employees of smaller companies to gain an ownership stake in larger, more established

companies. From an ownership perspective, ESOP/RESOP solution enabled a broad base

of Jamaican workers to accumulate capital in a well-established Jamaican company.

Indeed, many of the micro enterprise employees would not be employed but for their

economic relationship with the larger firm. The RESOP also represents a natural

extension of the ESOP idea, expanding not only the definition of “employee” but also

utilizing the ESOP notion of “self-financing” to benefit a broader network of those who

add value to the firms’ operations.

Certain customer groups offer another potential “natural owner.” As investment bankers

know so well, practically any revenue stream can be used to “owner-ize” income-

producing assets over time. From a financial perspective, the value of a company is to be

liquidated and its assets sold. Much as water moves through a whirlpool and creates it at

the same time, the cash flowing through an enterprise both creates and sustains its

financial value is based on its customers paying their bills for their access to energy or

water. Without their patronage, the company’s financial value as a going concern would

quickly disappear. The goal of the CSOP (Customer Stock Ownership Plan) is to craft a

capital structure that will capture some portion of that value for those whose patronage

maintains that value. The developing world offers rich opportunities for ESOP/CSOP

combinations particularly with the worldwide boom in infrastructure development, such

as power generation.

A variation of the CSOP is under consideration in conjunction with the politically

sensitive privatization of the British Broadcasting Corporation. In conjunction with the

former head of news and current affairs at the BBC, we proposed the “stake owner-

ization” of the BBC, using an ESOP and a VSOP (Viewer Share Ownership Plan) plus an

equity stake for the BBC’s independent producers. Applying my owner-ization credo

(“where the cash flows, ownership grows”), I proposed an obvious ownership strategy:

gradually convert that revenue stream into BBC shares for BBC viewers.

ESOP-like self-financing techniques can also be used to expand ownership beyond

economic relationships based either on employment or consumption. One such

mechanism is the GSOC (General Stock Ownership Corporation), in which ownership is

based on geography or citizenship. In the only version of the GSOC thus far enacted into

federal law (in 1978), a for-profit corporation chartered by a state prior to 1984 could

operate tax-free provided it complied with the ESOP’s three operational principles;

namely, a GSOC must

1. Include as a shareholder each citizen of the chartering state, reflecting the ESOP

concept’s “democratic” principle of widespread participation.

2. Limit individual ownership to ten shares, reflecting the ESOP “antimonopoly”

principle ensuring that limits are imposed on relative shareholdings.

3. Pay out 90 percent of the company’s earnings to shareholders on a current

distribution of income to the company’s owners.

DSOP (Depositor Share Ownership Plan) seems that depositors are often receptive to the

motion of owning shares where they bank. That makes sense. If someone has sufficient

confidence to trust a bank with his or her savings, the bank may be able to draw on that

goodwill to persuades those customers to buy its shares.

In Speakman view, a bank privatization that includes an ESOP/DSOP component could

create a positive outcome for everyone involved. The government would be seen as

supporting a privatization technique that advances broad-based ownership; banks would

gain an opportunity to strengthen both employee and customer loyalty; and the customers

would become more knowledgeable up-close capitalists – both as savers and as potential

borrowers, secure in the knowledge that their borrowing enhances the earning of a bank

in which they own a stake.

Each of these new property paradigms (ESOPs, GESOPs, RESOPs, CSOPs, VSOPs,

GSOPs, DSOPs, etc) share a common goal: the transformation of economic relationships

in a way that enhances performance and sustainability across a wide range of measures.

This combination requires a combination of financial creativity, committed corporate

leadership and sustained political will, along with a populace prepared to embrace

change, complexity and risk.

Chapter 7: TOWARD A WORKABLE WORK ETHIC

Reflecting a combination of both morality and the market, the work ethic is captured in

the Greek word compensation, meaning “a balancing of accounts,” suggesting that a

person is entitled to take out of the economy according to what he or she puts in. Usually

that input is labor. The ethics of balance embodied in the work ethic under gird economic

policy making worldwide, where “full employment” remains a key goal, regardless of

whether the economy is socialist, a capitalist, developed, underdeveloped or somewhere

in between. On the other hand, certain types of human capital are becoming more

valuable, particularly those associated with the development of information technology

(IT). In the early nineteenth century, the spread of labor-saving looms caused displaced

workers to respond by attempting to destroy that era’s technological advances. Today’s

Luddites, secretive rebels who followed Ned Ludd, point out that information technology

(computer software, networked computers, advanced telecom equipment) is different in

at least three significant ways. First, the impact of IT is not limited to one segment of

economy, such as Luddite weavers. Second, IT is being phased in much faster than were

mechanical looms, particularly as measured by the plummeting price of computer power

and its pervasive reach into the service sector. Lastly, IT makes work far more portable,

often negating the need for personal contact with customers or even with employers. The

impact is further amplified by the spread of new organizational systems.

In truth, the widespread prevalence of productive, labor-saving technologies, including

information technology, could provide a foundation of security as leisure for a broad base

of those living in developed economies. Today’s fixation on jobs continues to erode the

ability of people to orient themselves. In an age when the workplace reality is a twenty-

first-century world of capital-and knowledge-intensive, information-processing, labor-

saving technology, policymakers in both the public and private sectors continue to rely on

outdated, outmoded nineteenth-century interpretation of how to participate effectively in

a market economy.

Buckminster Fuller, futurist, philosopher, engineer, and author, coined a term that aptly

describes what is happening to the world of work: he labeled this process

“comprehensive emphemeralization, the process of doing more with less.” As he

explained: “Since World War I, the world has turned from the wire to the wireless, the

track to the trackless, the visible structure. In each instance, man is able to do more with

less and less and less.” Information technology accelerates this trend so that, increasingly,

we are living in an intangible economy in which amusement, beauty, pleasure, beams and

cotton bales of an earlier era.

In a social and political environment firmly wedded both to the work ethic and political

equality the challenge lies in figuring out what a nation’s people are to do as the “doing-

ness” of production is done lee and less with involvement of human power and more and

more with the productive power (and knowledge) embodied in their culture’s tools,

including its information and networking technologies and its remarkable array of

congealed knowledge. This steady decoupling of productive output from human input has

been ongoing at least since the dawn of the industrial revolution. However, even though

our systems for accomplishing work have evolved is astonishing ways, we have yet to

devise genuinely systems-wise means for connecting people to the work that is done.

While it is clearly time to focus on preparing people for a more global form of capitalism,

it is also clear that the time has arrived to prepare capitalism for people. Full employment

policies will continue to be essential, but they are no longer sufficient. The challenges lies

in how to update the work ethic to make it relevant to the realities of modern production.

A modern form of economic connectivity is long overdue.

Chapter 8: REINVENTING LABOR UNIONS

From the perspective of the unions’ attempt to regain robustness in setting the national

social agenda, one of the most intriguing aspects of this strategy is its potential to foster

an allegiance to the union movement that is much stronger than now exists with any

employer. In setting out what he calls the “New Rules for the New Economy,” Kevin

Kelly (editor of Wired) suggests: “We are headed into an era when both workers and

consumers will feel more loyalty to a network than to any ordinary firm.” Labor’s

challenge in this new economy is to help build an empowering network that earns the

loyalty of those now struggling to stay afloat in a turbulent sea of change and in a

workaday world comprised of what Kelly calls “patchworks of vocations.”

Arguably, workers of all stripes have never needed unions more than they do now. But

the need is not for yesterday’s job myopic labor agenda. The manufacturing sector, long

the bastion of trade unionists, is certain to continue its steady decline in employment – at

least absent some fundamental shift in the terms of trade and the pace of technological

change. We are witnesses to a century-long evolution in production and politics that is

finally fusing the forces of labor-saving technology, global capital markets and free trade.

That combination, long seen as threatening to the interests of labor, could yet become the

capstone of labor’s century-long struggle.

However, that requires a labor movement willing to get smarter about ownership,

including ensuring that its members gain a stake in those income-producing assets with

which they are being displaced. Full employment is no longer sufficient as a goal-not for

labor, not for business and certainly not for national policymakers. The need is for

leaders-in labor, business and politics-with a broader view of economic participation and

a more comprehensive vision of what solidarity really means. The consequences for

social cohesion could be grave if labor leadership fails to quickly fashion a vision and a

plan in response to this fast-emerging commercial world in which trade and finance are

reorganizing the globe into a unified marketplace. A vision is simply values projected

into the future. Labor challenge lies in ensuring that the future it envision is engineered to

reflect the values that it holds most dear.

The emerging global capitalism that confronts labor is still immature, animated by an

internal logic that has succeeded in identifying the greatest possible return precisely

because it fails to account for the multidimensional consequences incurred in generating

those returns. In evaluating its effect in certain areas, such as the environment, its

performance seems akin to an oblivious child playing with razor blades and badly in need

of parental guidance. A newly energized, owner-ized and visionary labor movement,

informed and motivated by a broader frame of reference, and empowered by the rights

and responsibilities attending ownership, may be just what needed to restore a measure of

prudence, care and foresight.

At present, the abstract and largely indifferent forces at work in the commercial domain

are on verge of creating a hierarchy of concentrated economic power that will define the

nature of global commerce for the next century. A failure to act now could prove fateful

as the atomizing nature of the marketplace further divorces people from responsibility for

their actions, and as financial self interest diverges ever more widely from the broader

moral purpose.

Chapter 9: MAKING MONEY

With increasing frequency, the possession of money requires possession of either (a)

high-value human capital (such as that residing in “symbolic analysts”) or (b) nonhuman

capital – machinery and equipment, chemical processes, computer software and such.

Nature takes care of the distribution of human capital valuable in the marketplace may

require decades of investment (for instance, my law degree culminated nineteen years of

continuous schooling). For access to nonhuman capital, nature is not nearly so democratic

. in that realm, wealth and poverty begets poverty because investments in either physical

or human capital depend on current income.

The creation of money is not some inscrutable mystery. Reserve banking retain its

original function: facilitating the availability of credit through member banks who (quite

literally) are granted a franchise to print money. Operating in coordination with the

Treasury and the Bureau of Engraving and Printing (where money is physically made),

the politically independent Fed has enormous latitude and profound power. The twelve

member bank soon formed an investment committee so that the commercial banks could

purchase government bonds for their own portfolios. Initially, the impact of this

arrangement was not well understood, even though their bond purchases expanded the

amount of money in circulation as the federal government found it could easily money (to

build canals, levies, etc.) by selling its bonds to the banks.

The impact of monetary policy is widely felt – on the affordability of home mortgages,

the feasibility of business expansion, job creation and so forth. This creates an ongoing

dilemma for central bankers who are in constant need of a supportive constituency,

particularly during times when credit constraint – never popular – is essential to long-

term monetary stability. An ownership pattern-sensitive reserve-banking policy could

help build that constituency. That’s because, as a group, capital owners are the most

consistently vocal in their opposition to inflation, the bane of central bankers worldwide.

A reserve banking policy aimed at consciously broadening the base of those with a direct

stake in the conduct of monetary affairs could only help central bankers in their role of

insisting on prudence when others are pushing for expansion.

Communities is the purpose of politics. However, money and credit, with their

overarching influence, can undermine the best of community-building intentions. With

increasing frequency, globalization means that local, regional and even national

governments are under pressure to put aside policies designed for the common good – of

local people, local business, local cultures, and local environments.

To conclude where we began: money is a medium through which the economic system

communicates with its participants. With no will of its own, it simply responds to the

values of those who own or have access to it – or those to whom it is entrusted. Our

current money-dominated feedback mechanism is failing us because it fails to signal us

that something is fundamentally amiss. As well shall see in the next two chapters, in the

absence of a redesign of current financing techniques, the ever freer flow of financial

capital is unlikely to contribute to the building of community, either within or among

nations. And sustainability – by whatever measure – will continue to lie beyond our

grasp.

Chapter 10: CAPITALISM AS IF OUR CHILDREN MATTERED

Policy focus on two fronts. The first is how best to ensure that the market values

genuinely clean growth, particularly in a pricing environment (product pricing, share

pricing) that largely ignores environmental costs. The second is how to open free

enterprise to broader, more equitable participation.

Such company environments do not emerge spontaneously. That would be like expecting

an office building to construct itself without the aid of an architect, engineer or

construction company. Participative systems require ongoing organizational and financial

engineering, along with a leadership corps committed both to the goals (profitability and

sustainability) and to the means chosen to achieve those goals.

Cyclical production will need to be both a constituency for change and a constituency

empowered to effect that change. However, most people remain connected to their

economy by only the most tenuous of threads: a job. Imposing environmental chares on

corporations forces a difficult choice, particularly where the cost of labor may already be

the firm’s most controllable expense. The uncomfortable truth is that a new round of

environmental costs or regulations may be accompanied by yet another round of layoffs

and labor retrenchments.

It’s difficult to argue with the science suggesting that production systems must evolve

into “closed systems,” with a rigorous redesign of both inputs and outputs. That laudable

goal, I submit, is more likely to be achieved as our organizational systems become

increasingly “open” – incorporating feedback from those whose lives the firm affects. In

my ownership “systems” view of succeed in transforming a company stakeholders into

property-empowered shareowners. As a firm’s “natural owners” become genuine owners,

the needed “greening” of production will gain acceptability, adaptability, and hands-on

support.

The silver lining in the challenge of sustainability lies in the potential it holds for

awakening mankind to a more holistic way of thinking, and to the necessity of reflecting

this thinking in the reengineering of his laws and institutions. This awakening could come

remarkably quickly, particularly as communications reach ever more broadly into the

world community and shape the very image that man has of himself and his place in the

web of life. ecologists recommend a very simple personal standard for people to keep in

mind whenever contemplating an action that may have environmental consequences of

up-close ownership patterns: “what if everyone did it?”

Chapter 11:

A new synthesis is emerging, one that views ownership matter-of-factly as a social tool

for linking people not only to things but also to each other, to their community and to

their endangered environment. With the benefit of hindsight, policymakers in both the

public and private sector can sort through history’s dustbin of failed ownership solutions

and construct a political and commercial environment that evokes the best features of

those that flourished, while avoiding those that failed. Where successful, this ownership

engineering will succeed in incorporating the best features of capitalism while answering

the charges of capitalism’s harshest critics. This is not meant to suggest that other

components of a nation’s social capital are unimportant – families, civic associations and

such. However, I contend that a poorly conceived ownership policy is certain to

undermine attempts to strengthen civil society.

Corporate leader must be able to set out a broad vision and create a culture of

commitment. Today’s high-impact management practices include not only the standard,

contractual issues of pay and benefits but also how to create a workplace environment

where employees have an opportunity to develop their full human potential. Generation

X is particularly emphatic that interesting work, not just money and position, is a key

motivator.

The corporate entity is destined to become even more prevalent. Visionary corporate

leaders may yet emerge as our first true global leaders. The steady of this relatively new

organizational entity suggest the gradual emergence of a new notion of community, one

very different from its original connotation as a geographically specific “place.” Today’s

large companies often have production and service sites spread across the globe.

To create a sense of community around such a dispersed workforce suggests the need for

mechanisms capable of fostering a place-transcendent notion of belonging. Where

successful, the payoffs can be quite substantial.

With the corporate entity now the world’s most prevalent organizational tool, it is

essential that this tool become as convivial as possible. The evidence suggest that efforts

to enhance conviviality can have dramatic payoffs, not only in enhanced performance but

also in protecting the natural world while nurturing the human spirit. Though that may

not be nirvana, surely it reflects a major advancement in human condition.

Such ambiguity is also likely to blur the comfortable certainty of today’s financially dominated

corporate decision-making. Longer time horizons and financially dominated corporate decision-

making. Longer time horizons and broader return criteria, including nonfinancial returns, will

become commonplace. Consciously engineered, highly participative ownership strategies-

including a steady growth in insider ownership – will continue to make corporate agendas more

complex. A certain element of fuzziness should be expected while the search continues for how

best to strike a proper balance between those responsibilities that should reside with government

and those that rightly belong to the individual, the family, the community or the enterprise.

The search is on for an ownership solution that is equiable and efficient, market

responsive and consumer empowering, and an economic system in which power (both

political and economic is more proximate and personal. The answer lies in a design

solution. This need not mean a solution to emerge uncoaxed from the unbridled

operations of current capitalism.

What’s missing is an appropriately scaled sense of personal “connectivity.” A nation-

state is simply too vast and too abstract. Citizenship is a fine start, even an essential

prerequisite. But that connectivity-ized fashion. The opportunities for such connections

are widespread. Through doing more with less labor is the hallmark of industrial-and

information-age development, it is labor that is most needed to do much of the most

important work required at the community level, including restoring the environment,

teaching basic skills (and values), caring for the sick and the infirm, retaining those

whose skills have been made technologically obsolete-in short, creating, rejuvenating and

preserving local communities and their resources.

A more sustanaible balance must be struck among the diverse needs that underlie human

motivation. People want to give to each other-to their spouses, their children, to others in

their community. Commentators point to the dearth of great art as a sign that people can

no longer afford to create. Others suggest that fragmentationof the amily is due to the fact

that people cannot afford to spend more time on relationship. Still others sugest that the

fragmentation of the family is due to the fact that people cannot afford to spend more

time on relationships. Still others worry that those lacking a relatively secure situation in

the present often a little motivated to care for their longer-term future, including the

environement. The Ownership Solution is a call to the financial leaders of this finance-

dominant era to devise ways to finance the future in such a way that a steadily broadening

best of Americans can afford to participate in what has long been hailed as the uniquely

“human work” of mankind: caring for others, literature, music, the arts, politics, spiritual

practies, raising children and so forth. The very human need for such participation, for a

sense of being in community, is a primarily thene underlying this work. Fundamentally, it

is this need to which attention must be directed if national leaders hope to contribute to

the restoration of civil society and the strengthening of community.

Similar in tone to the ESOP notion of up-close capitalism, community-sensitive

“bioregionalism” seeks to create systems in which wealth generated in a region is

retained for the benefit of those who live there. Bioregionalism resists the tendency of

national currencies to concentrate investment (and wealth) in urban financial centers,

draining outlying areas of needed financial resources and undermining their capacity to

respond to changing economic conditions.

THE POLITICS OF OWNERSHIP

Despite the many flaws of the neoclasical model (which replaced a flawed neoliberal

model), American politics still seems to require a major dilemma to force political

realignment. I see at least three such possibilities. The first stems from capitalism’s

proven ability to push aside the old in the process of embracing the new. The second

dilemma emerges in the environmental area. Third is the entitlement dilemma. These

three dilemmas, in turn, suggest four key challenges-one conceptual and three that raise

very practical political concerns. The first political challenge finds its roots in the fact

that democracies are intended to be feedback-intensive, people-responsive systems. The

second political challenge arises from the fact that policies advancing long-term change

can be difficult for those who run for office on a short-term basis. Lastly, today’s leaders

and wanna-be leaders must be willing to advance a yet broken manner.

The Ownership Solution is not a panacea. Ownership is simply one component of the

social contract that can be written either to divide or to unite. Properly engineered,

ownership is simply one component of the social cohesion. The challenge lies in how

best to ensure that capitalism gains in strength and robustness from an ever widening

circle of independent yet self-sufficient capitalist. History offers ample proff that where

societies encourage free enterprise, people become more prosperous and where they

don’t, people don’t.

Modern man (particularly in the more developed countries) is increasingly uprooted and

cut off from traditional means for weving past and future into each day’s work. Along

with a commitment to constantly update those channels of communication and persuasion

through which we cope with and manage change, overcoming this uniquely modern lack

of place requires continuous innovation.

Today’s complex political challenge calls for a combination of both forecasting and

“backcasting.” Politically, we need to envision a societal design that starts from where we

want to be and then design our way back to what must be done today to get us

there.potential policy initiatives meant to take us in the direction of a more fully

connected populace. Nature historian and biologist, Jay Gould, document that natural

systems tend to change slowly, interspersed with periodic bursts of “punctuated

equilibrium” during which dramatic change occurs before the system settles back into a

more familiar state of gradual evolution. With the proper vision, committed leadership

and popular support, it would be quite possible to enact a sweeping legislative scheme

that could quickly put the U.S. economy (or practically any economy) on the road toward

an ownership solution.