Planning the social economy: the spatial politics of community economic development in Toronto
Bibliographic record
Abstract
What is the social economy and how can it reorient market-making to forge equitable local economies and reverse patterns of socio-spatial inequality?1 This chapter takes up these questions within a fundamentally Polanyian framework attentive to contemporary initiatives within urban planning and community development to build social economies that counter the commodification of land and labour with alternative institutions of accumulation and democratic community control. Empirically, the chapter investigates the recent flourishing of community economic development initiatives in the City of Toronto, as the potential site for a counter-movement to neoliberal market forms. Theoretically, the chapter probes the concept of social economy to address the vexing paradox that community economic development seeks to mobilize local capacities and assets from within the very communities that have been most severely compromised by neoliberal governmentality. We argue that in order to reject a functional role for the social economy as a kind of neoliberal communitarianism – local communities and non-profit agencies fulfilling welfare functions more properly situated at the scale of state governance – some clear criteria are needed for articulating a more radical mode of market-making for social justice. To this end, we advocate an interpretation of social economy as comprised of three pillars of market-making, namely redistributive justice, economic democracy and relational autonomy (Rankin 2013). We suggest that the three pillars, which should be understood as normative principles, could serve as a conceptual framework for exploring actually existing market diversity. Community economic development (CED) refers to a sector of practice and an associated literature that aims to analyse and mitigate the consequences of historic patterns of uneven investment, racial discrimination and gender oppression, and to catalyse economic development within marginalized and disinvested communities. CED encompasses critical debates about the appropriate scale and place for making markets as well as competing normative theories of action. We read the dynamic CED sector in Toronto against the notion of social economy in order to probe the conditions of possibility for CED to play a role in making socially just markets.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".