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
Modern domestic barter systems are operating in Australia and other high income countries at the local community level, and at the national level for business exchanges. These exchange regimes appear to have become institutionalised in a macro-marketing system that is organised on the primacy of market exchange based on price as the co-ordinating device. This points to widespread imperfections in various markets at the local level, and in particular, in markets for credit and labour. In this paper, the nature of Australian community-based LETSystems is discussed and some results from a national survey in Australia of LETS members are presented. The interface between LETSystems, the federal taxation system and the social security system in Australia is introduced.
To cite this article: Liesch, P.W.; Birch, D. (2000) ‘Community-based LETSystems in Australia: Localised Barter in a Sophisticated Western Economy’ International Journal of Community Currency Research 4 <www.ijccr.net> ISSN 1325-9547 http://dx.doi.org/10.15133/j.ijccr.2000.005
Case studies of eight LETSystems in Victoria, Australia, are used to explore LETS’ potential to create new ‘communities of meaning’ which reflect local responses to the globalisation of capital. The paper reaches beyond meanings of exchange to explore instead LETS’ potential to facilitate community development which focusses upon maintaining values unique to local communities. The potential for conflict between differing ‘communities of meanings’ within LETSystems is highlighted, as are their attempts at resolving these conflicts. Given these considerations, LETS is regarded as involving significant potential for new, more democratic communities of meaning, albeit within the constraints of broader social values.
To cite this article: Ingleby, J. (1998) ‘Local Exchange and Trading Systems (LETS) in Australia: a new tool for community development?’ International Journal of Community Currency Research 2 <www.ijccr.net> ISSN 1325-9547 http://dx.doi.org/10.15133/j.ijccr.1998.004
Local Exchange and Trading Systems (LETS) are a form of not-for-profit community enterprise which have rapidly spread throughout the English-speaking industrialised nations during the 1990s. A LETS is a local association whose members list their offers of, and requests for, work in a directory and members then exchange this activity valued in a local unit of currency. However, little is known about them. Drawing upon the results of a questionnaire sent to all Australian LETS in April 1995, this paper evaluates their contributions to community development. Finding that LETS are to some extent rebuilding more localised economies, reconstructing local social networks and helping the unemployed engage in productive activity, recommendations are made about how these achievements could be further improved. However, and on a more cautionary note, questions are raised about not only the effectiveness of, but also the reasons for, the state’s support of LETS in Australia.
To cite this article: Williams, C. (1997) ‘Local Exchange and Trading Systems (LETS) in Australia: a new tool for community development?’ International Journal of Community Currency Research 1 <www.ijccr.net> ISSN 1325-9547 http://dx.doi.org/10.15133/j.ijccr.1997.002