Solidarity Economy in Brazil: Towards Institutionalization of Sharing and Agroecological Practices

  • Kei OtsukiEmail author
  • Fabio de Castro
Part of the Science for Sustainable Societies book series (SFSS)


Solidarity economy is often focused on autonomous initiatives outside the regular market system. In Brazil, the leftist national government during the 2000s has supported a number of solidarity economy initiatives by institutionalizing the ideal and practices of sharing and sustainable production and consumption within the regular market system. New actors, policies, and procedures have been instrumental in this institutionalization. However, the questions of how the actors, policies, and procedures interact and how the interaction becomes socially and politically relevant remain largely unaddressed. In this chapter we will explore implications of the interactions for the establishment of solidarity economy based on agroecological practices carried out by small family farmers in Brazil. We firstly give an overview of the national context in which the agroecological practices were linked to the practice and economy of sharing. We then analyze cases of the Program of Food Acquisition in the south of Brazil and agroforestry systems in the Amazon region in order to highlight different patterns of the involved actors’ interaction and eventual articulation of solidarity economy in relation to the promotion of sustainability. The chapter concludes by discussing the linkage between actors at different levels, new institutional arrangements, and monetary and nonmonetary values added to the solidarity economy.


Agroecology Redistribution Sharing Social movements Solidarity economy Brazil 


  1. Acosta A (2013) Extractivism and neoextractivism; two sides of the same curse. In: Lang M, Mokrani D (eds) Beyond development: alternative visions from Latin America. Transnational Institute/Rosa Luxemburg Foundation, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  2. Allard J, Davidson C, Matthaei J e (2008) Solidarity economy: building alternatives for people and planet. ChangeMaker Publications, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  3. Altieri MA, Nicholls CI (2005) Agroecology and the search for a truly sustainable agriculture. Available from: Accessed on 25 May 2018
  4. Altieri MA, Rosset P (1996) Agroecology and the conversion of large-scale conventional systems to sustainable management. Int J Environ Stud 50(3–4):165–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Batistella M, Bolfe EL, Moran E (2013) Agroforestry in Tomé-Acu: an alternative to pasture in the Amazon. In: Brondizio E, Moran E (eds) Human-environment interactions: current and future directions. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 321–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Botelho MIV, Cardoso IM, Otsuki K (2016) “I made a pact with God, with nature, and with myself”: exploring deep agroecology. Agroecol Sustain Food Syst 40(2):116–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bowman B, Stone B (n.d.) The world social forum at a crossroads. Available from: Accessed on 17 Apr 2018
  8. Brondizio ES (2008) Amazonian Caboclo and the Acai Palm: forest farmers in the global market. New York Botanical Garden Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  9. Brondizio ES, Siqueira AD (1997) From extractivists to forest farmers: changing concepts of caboclo agroforestry in the Amazon estuary. Res Econ Anthropol 18:234–279Google Scholar
  10. Burchardt HJ, Dietz K (2014) (Neo-) extractivism: a new challenge for development theory from Latin America. Third World Q 35(3):468–486CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Caporal FR, Costabeber JA (2004) Agroecologia: Alguns conceitos e princípios. Available from: Accessed on 25 May 2018
  12. Carter M (ed) (2015) Challenging social inequality: the landless rural workers movement and agrarian reform in Brazil. Duke University Press, DurhamGoogle Scholar
  13. Castro F (2014) Environmental policies in the Lula Era: accomplishments and contradictions. In: Castro F, Koonings K, Wiesebron M (eds) Brazil under the workers’ party: continuity and change from Lula to Dilma. Palgrave Macmillan, London, pp 229–255Google Scholar
  14. Clement CR (1999) 1492 and the loss of Amazonian crop genetic resources. The relation between domestication and human population decline. Econ Bot 53:188–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Davies J, Spicer A (2014) Interrogating networks: towards an agnostic perspective on governance research. Environ Plan C 33(2)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. FBES (Fórum Brasileiro de Economia Solidária) (2018) Linha de tempo. Available from: Accessed on 25 May 2018
  17. Fisher WF, Ponniah T (2015) Another world is possible: world social forum proposals for an alternative globalization. Zed Books, LondonGoogle Scholar
  18. Freire P (2003 [1930]) Pedagogy of the Oppressed. 30th Anniversary Edition. The Continuum International, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  19. Graeber D (2001) Toward an anthropological theory of value: the false coin of our own dreams. Palgrave, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Graeber D (2007) Possibilities: essays on hierarchy, rebellion, and desire. AK Press, OaklandGoogle Scholar
  21. Hall A (2006) From Fome Zero to Bolsa Família: social policies and poverty alleviation under Lula. J Lat Am Stud 38:689–709CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hammond JL (1999) Law and disorder: the Brazilian landless farmworkers’ movement. Bull Lat Am Res 18(4):469–489CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lamaitre A, Helmsing AHJ (2012) Solidarity economy in Brazil: movement, discourse, and practice analysis through a Polanyian understanding of the economy. J Int Dev 24(6):745–762CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Leakey RRB (1996) Definition of agroforestry revisited. Agrofor Today 8(1):5–7Google Scholar
  25. Lechat NMP (2004) Trajetórias intelectuais e o campo da economia solidária no Brasil. Doctorate thesis, State University of Campinas, Campinas, SPGoogle Scholar
  26. Mauss M (1990 [1950]) The gift: the form and reason for exchange in archaic societies. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  27. McLaren D, Agyeman J (2015) Sharing cities: a case for truly smart and sustainable cities. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  28. Mitchell T (2002) Rule of experts: Egypt, techno-politics, modernity. University of California Press, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  29. Morgan K, Sonnino R (2007) Empowering consumers: the creative procurement of school meals in Italy and the UK. Int J Consum Stud 31(1):19–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Motta R (2017) Peasant movements in Argentina and Brazil. In: Engels B, Dietz K (eds) Contested extractivism, society and the state: struggles over mining and land. Development, justice, and citizen book series. Springer International, London, pp 171–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Otsuki K (2011) Sustainable partnerships for a green economy: a case study of public procurement for home-grown school feeding. Nat Res Forum 35:213–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Otsuki K (2014) Social economy of quality food. Int J Soc Econ 41(3):233–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Otsuki K, van Helvoirt B (2017) Pro-poor partnerships for infrastructure development in Africa: where are local communities? In: Leitão J, Sarmento EM, Aleluia J (eds) Handbook on public-private partnerships in developing & emerging economies. Emerald Publishing, LondonGoogle Scholar
  34. Peat M et al (2017) Creating institutional flexibility for adaptive water management: insights from two management agencies. J Environ Manag 202(1):188–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Petersen P, Mussoi EM, Soglio FD (2013) Institutionalization of the agroecological approach in Brazil: advances and challenges. Agroecol Sustain Food Syst 32:103–114Google Scholar
  36. Polanyi K (2001 [1944]) The great transformation: the political and economic origins of our time. Beacon Press, BeaconGoogle Scholar
  37. Porro R et al (2012) Agroforestry in the Amazon region: a pathway for balancing conservation and development. In: Nair P, Garrity D (eds) Agroforestry: the future of global land use. Advances in agroforestry, vol 9. Springer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  38. Posey D (1985) Indigenous management of tropical forest ecosystems: the case of the Kayapó indians of the Brazilian Amazon. Agrofor Syst 3(2):139–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Rosset P, Martinez-Torres ME (2012) Rural social movements and agroecology: context, theory and press. Ecol Soc 17(3):17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Singer P (2002) Introdução à Economia Solidária. Fundação Perseu Abramo, São PauloGoogle Scholar
  41. Smith N, Dubois J, Current D, Lutz E, Clement C (1998) Agroforestry experiences in the Brazilian Amazon: constraints and opportunities. The World Bank, Rainforest Unit, BrasíliaGoogle Scholar
  42. Solidarity Economy Association (2018) Lima Declaration. Available at: Accessed on 25 May 2018
  43. The Economist (2009) Brazil takes off. Available from: Accessed on 25 May 2018
  44. Titmuss RM (1970) The gift relationship: from human blood to social policy. Penguin Books, LondonGoogle Scholar
  45. Tremblay S, Lucotte M, Revéret JP et al (2015) Agroforestry systems as a profitable alternative to slash and burn practices in small-scale agriculture of the Brazilian Amazon. Agrofor Syst 89:193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Welch C (2009) Camponses: Brazil’s peasant movement in historical perspective (1946–2004). Lat Am Perspect 36(4):126–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Wezel A, Bellon S, Doré T, Francis C, Vallod D, David C (2011) Agroecology as a science, a movement and a practice. In: Lichtfouse E, Hamelin M, Navarrete M, Debaeke P (eds) Sustainable agriculture volume 2. Springer International, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  48. Wittman H (2009) Reworking the metabolic rift: La Vía Campesina, agrarian citizenship, and food sovereignty. J Peasant Stud 36(4):805–826CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. World Food Programme (2008) Home grown school feeding: a framework to link school feeding with local agricultural production. WFP, RomeGoogle Scholar
  50. World Food Programme (2015) Lessons learned from the “Purchase from Africans for Africa Initiative”. Available from: Accessed on 25 May 2018
  51. Yamada M (1999) Japanese immigrant agroforestry in the Brazilian amazon: a case study of sustainable rural development in the tropics, PhD thesis, University of Florida, GainesvilleGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Human Geography and Spatial Planning, Faculty of GeosciencesUtrecht UniversityUtrechtThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Centre for Latin American Research and Documentation, Faculty of HumanitiesUniversity of AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations