This paper investigates the prices set within the Exchange Network of Chania and tries to examine what prices are attributed to which products and services, how those prices are set and what they reveal about the values of the goods offered. Moreover, the further aim of the paper is to explore the implications of those prices concerning the function of the scheme itself, within the context of the local economy of the Chania area. The data have been gathered during regular visits to the open markets of the scheme since January 2012. Therefore, the paper attempts to contribute original research findings concerning prices in parallel currency schemes and study several important issues which arise in multiple currency practice.
To cite this article: Sotiropoulou, I. (2015) ‘Prices in parallel currency: The case of the exchange network of Chania, Crete’ International Journal of Community Currency Research 19 (Summer) 128-136 <www.ijccr.net> ISSN 1325-9547 http://dx.doi.org/10.15133/j.ijccr.2015.013
This paper attempts to explain the success of secondary currencies. Success is defined as the degree to which the initiators of these currencies manage to reach their original goals. In order to do so, we draw on two explanatory factors: the motivation of a currency’s founder and the degree of organization. We employed a combination of qualitative interviews, secondary literature review and standardized questionnaires with seven secondary currency projects in Croatia (CROM), Germany (KannWas, Engelgeld), Greece (Ovolos, TEM) and the United Kingdom (Bristol Pound, Brixton Pound). The main findings are that projects which pursue several different motivations are more successful than those with fewer goals. As for the degree of organization, projects which score high on all dimensions of organization are correlated with higher project success. Building on this we propose a typology of two groups: Type 1 cases have low diversity of motivation and organization (CROM and Engelgeld) and Type 2 cases have high diversity of motivation and organization (Bristol Pound, Brixton Pound, and TEM). The two remaining cases, the Ovolos and the KannWas cannot be clearly assigned to any of the types. The motivation-organization typology can guide future research on the motivation of founding and using secondary currencies.
Lukas Fesenfeld, Jan Stuckatz, Iona Summerson, Thomas Kiesgen, Daniela Ruß, Maja Klimaschewski
To cite this article: Fesenfeld, L., Stuckatz, J., Summerson, I., Kiesgen, T., Ruß, D. and Klimaschewski, M. (2015) ‘It’s the motivation, stupid! The influence of motivation of secondary currency initiators on the currencies’ success’ International Journal of Community Currency Research 19 (Summer) 165-172 <www.ijccr.net> ISSN 1325-9547 http://dx.doi.org/10.15133/j.ijccr.2015.016
Credibility and legitimacy are required to improve the design and implementation of complementary currency systems (CCS) and to engage with public institutions, while depending on sustained support from funders. It is hence necessary to evidence the impact of CCS as effective and efficient tools to reach sustainable development goals. Only around a fourth of the existing studies even touch upon impact evaluation processes. A standardisation of impact evaluation would lead to improve the quantity, quality and comparability of the data collected, as well as to support longitudinal studies and juxtapositions of different types of currencies in their environmental and socio-economic context. After reviewing the literature, this article proposes two complementary approaches to assess the impact of CCS: a prototype of an integral Impact Assessment Matrix based on the goals, objectives and performance indicators, and a tool based on the “Theory of Change” methodology as a common, comprehensive and incremental approach for impact evaluation. Both propositions are currently being applied and further developed by the authors.
To cite this article: Place, C. and Bindewald, L. (2015) ‘Validating and improving the Impact of Complementary Currency Systems through impact assessment frameworks’ International Journal of Community Currency Research 19 (Summer) 152-164 <www.ijccr.net> ISSN 1325-9547 http://dx.doi.org/10.15133/j.ijccr.2015.015
Cooperation, interchange or intertrade of complementary currencies is not yet very common, perhaps of because the funding impulse of most complementary currencies does not cover the question of interchange and cooperation yet, or because theoretical aspects are not often stud- ied. The article describes money or currency as an instrument of cooperation, based on a socio- logical and institutional economics background. It then postulates currency as an operating system and focuses on the technical terms of trade if one would try to establish cooperation between such systems. Basic principles of interchange and intertrade, which are necessary for success, are presented, such as the ideas of trade balance, compensation funds, exchange rates and clearing, set-points and limits, references, anchoring money and tolls and taxes. Further some aspects of governance and negotiation are discussed and a nested framework of rules is adapted to currencies. As an Appendix a case study of the Zurich region is presented where a process of negotiation and building of an interchange network between several CC-groups is on-going.
To cite this article: Martignoni, J., (2015) ‘Cooperation and Intertrade between Community Currencies : From fundamentals to rule-making and clearing systems, including a case study of the Zurich Area, Switzer- land’ International Journal of Community Currency Research 19 (Summer) 137-151 <www.ijccr.net> ISSN 1325-9547 http://dx.doi.org/10.15133/j.ijccr.2015.014
This paper identifies trust as a current crucial challenge for sustainability. Our increased reliance on exchange, specifically where the exchange involves ambivalent trust is a further aspect of this challenge. Ambivalent trust refers here to conflict between our desire to trust others and a reticence to do so, given evidence of opportunism, particularly with regard to strangers. Negotiated exchange is proposed as necessary to account for ambivalent trust. This paper seeks to investigate the potential of addressing ambivalent trust via negotiated exchange using community exchange. Community exchange is a hybrid currency system between monetary exchange and gift exchange. This paper uses the case study of a recently commenced project in North-West Tasmania, Australia, called CENTs – Community Exchange North-West Tasmania, to analyse these dynamics. CENTs aims via a series of stages to build trust and then incorporate the concept of a reputation currency. Although in the early stages of development, to date CENTs is showing potential to build trust via the concept of community exchange, albeit on a necessarily incremental basis.
To cite this article: Krabbe, R. (2015) ‘Building trust: exploring the role of community exchange and reputation’ International Journal of Community Currency Research 19 (Summer) 62-71 <www.ijccr.net> ISSN 1325-9547 http://dx.doi.org/10.15133/j.ijccr.2015.007
Community currency schemes were first introduced in Korea in 1998. Since then, there have been many efforts to use them but no report or academic research on the topic in Korea. Thus, we conducted a field investigation to identify the scope of community currency schemes in Korea and as of 2012 we found 43 groups which use them. The design elements were also investigated but most groups were in an under-developed state, therefore design elements were unidentifiable. Furthermore, we investigate how the community currency coordinators in Korea envision the system using Q-methodology, a method to find the subjective views on the topic. The result shows that the perception on community currency can be divided into four types: ‘Neighborhood as a community’ in which coordinators agree with mainstream economic values and view community currencies as a tool to revitalize the community and to empower local residents; ‘Alternative community’ in which coordinators view currencies as the means to resist the dominant neoliberal ideology; ‘Community through eco-friendly affinity groups’, in which the scheme is a tool to promote an ecologically-friendly lifestyle, and ‘Ecological community’, which represents coordinators who believe that it is an alternative to capitalism and a way to maintain an ecological community.
To cite this article: Kang, J. and Hong, B. (2015) ‘Community Currency in Korea: How do we envision community currency?’ International Journal of Community Currency Research 19 (Summer) 72-80 <www.ijccr.net> ISSN 1325-9547 http://dx.doi.org/10.15133/j.ijccr.2015.008