|
|
|
'Practical Utopians': Rochdale Consumer Co-operatives in Australia and New Zealand
Nikola Balnave and Greg Patmore*
Rochdale consumer co-operatives have played an integral role in the lives of many people in particular localities in Australia and New Zealand, but have been largely overlooked by labour historians in both countries. While the Rochdale movement was more advanced in Australia than New Zealand, at no point did the movements in the two countries reach the same heights as their counterpart in Britain. A preliminary examination of the movements in Australia and New Zealand demonstrates that Rochdale co-operatives in both countries had similar 'waves of interest' and obstacles to their advancement. While the movement has collapsed in both countries, a number of Rochdale consumer co-operatives survive in rural areas of Australia, chiefly by drawing upon a reciprocal loyalty relationship with the local community.
|
|
|
| The idea of Rochdale consumer co-operatives (hereafter co-ops) was imported from the United Kingdom (UK) to Australia and New Zealand. The ideology of the co-operative movement ranged from what may be termed `business co-operativism', which focussed on the regular `divvy' or dividend (based on purchases and the return of capital), to a fundamental belief in the need to replace capitalism with a 'Co-operative Commonwealth'. Under this model, the consumer co-ops would generate sufficient capital for the establishment of co-operative banks, co-operative insurance and producer co-ops, which would supplant capitalist enterprises. This article undertakes a preliminary examination of Rochdale co-ops in both Australia and New Zealand. It is concerned with mapping the extent and impact of Rochdale consumer co-ops in the two countries and providing some explanation for the movement's failure to consolidate in both Australia and New Zealand. |
1
|
|
Undertaking such a study poses a number of challenges. While there has been one major study of Rochdale consumer co-ops in Australia, it deals with New South Wales (NSW) and does not focus on the local level.2 In New Zealand, labour historians have largely ignored the Rochdale consumer co-ops, with major secondary studies coming mainly from economists and accountants. There are also problems with finding basic statistics on Rochdale consumer co-ops, particularly at the local level. In NSW official data, details concerning local co-ops are not available after 1952. Currently the NSW Registrar of Co-operatives only retains the annual reports of co-ops for seven years. Similar shortcomings are evident in the official data for New Zealand. For instance, researchers seeking to explain the collapse of the Manawatu Consumers Co-operative at Palmerston North in New Zealand have been able to obtain little data from the Department of Justice despite a requirement for the lodgement of annual accounts.3 Further problems arise from the aggregation of information on Rochdale consumer co-ops with that relating to other co-ops. The Mt Barker Co-operative in Western Australia, for example, was established in 1918 to serve the interests of fruit growers with the provision of a packing shed. It built and operated a power station from 1929 to 1934 and did not enter the retail trade until 1934 when it took over a struggling local store. However, it subsequently breached the Rochdale principle of one vote for each shareholder. Registered as a company, it allowed farmers who were members full voting rights, but allowed town members access only to a share of profits and denied them a voice in its management.4 |
2
|
|
While the focus of comparative labour history is generally on nation states, this poses some problems for the study of Rochdale co-ops in Australasia. In Australia, the states had legislative responsibility for co-ops, which meant that the legislative and political context for the Rochdale co-ops varied. In both Australia and New Zealand the attempts to form permanent national associations for the Rochdale co-ops were unsuccessful. By the same token, absence of strong centralism meant that localism assumed even greater importance in co-op viability. Indeed, the survival of some Rochdale co-ops in Australia relates more to specific factors in the local economy and community.5 |
. . . |
There are about 7707 more words in this article.
Please log in (or, if you are not yet an
authorized user, please go to the
User Setup page) to gain full access rights. Or if you're already logged in register your subscription.
|
