| Gar Alperovitz
Published Summer 2002 — Owners At Work
Presented at the 16th Annual Ohio Employee Ownership Conference
Wealth and income inequality have increased dramatically over the
past three decades. Since the mid 1970s, households in the top 5
percent have seen their share of national income increase by a third
(from 15.9 percent to 21.5 percent); and the inflation-adjusted
income gap between the average family in the top 5 percent and the
average family in the bottom 20 percent has grown from $142,658
to $235,392 (in 1999 dollars). The top 1 percent’s share of
household wealth nearly doubled (from 19.9 percent to 38.1 percent).
Growing inequality has negative consequences for our sense of
community. It contributes to the marked decline in generalized trust,
social capital, and civic engagement over the same time period.
And an economy characterized by free-ranging, investor-owned corporations
which open, close, and relocate according to narrow financial criteria
makes economic dislocation virtually inevitable.
The tremendous upheavals and devastation left in the wake of the
rust belt plant closures during the 1980s, as well as the ongoing
abandonment of inner city areas by business and investors, are only
the most obvious examples of a common phenomenon which has not significantly
declined even in the most recent economic boom. Indeed, corporate
migration within the U.S. has accelerated sharply since 1996 from
fewer than 5,200 occurrences annually from 1980 through 1994 to
more than 11,400 a year in the late 1990s. More than 11 million
jobs were eliminated between 1993 and 1999 alone.
Since the New Deal, we have sought to redress economic inequality
through tax-and-transfer measures that redistributed income. In
recent years, however, such traditional measures have been politically
stymied.
In the face of these unyielding trends, a growing number have begun
to advocate remedies that are asset- or wealth-based. The basic
concept is that giving relatively poor and other Americans a capital
stake up front may be politically feasible and in some areas more
efficient than trying to compensate after the fact for inequality
through redistributive policies. As Harvard’s Richard Freeman
puts it: “Equality of income obtained in the first instance
via greater equality of assets, rather than as an after-the-fact
... state redistribution of income from rich to poor, would enable
us to better square the circle of market efficiency and egalitarian
aspiration.”
Most of the asset-based strategies and policies now being proposed
involve giving lower- income Americans some form of individual savings
or equity account. A critically important related alternative involves
community-based, asset-holding economic institutions. They can take
additional steps (1) to help stabilize local economies and (2) to
foster greater participation.
Employee Ownership
Employee ownership is one of several community-based ownership strategies
which deserve our attention. Worker-owned firms in the form of Employee
Share Ownership Plans (ESOPs) have grown rapidly. In 1974 there
were only 200 ESOPs. By 1980, there were 4,000 ESOPS and equivalent
programs involving 3.1 million employee-participants and $20 billion
in assets. By 1998 there were 11,500 ESOPS (and similar stock bonus
plans) with 8.5 million employee-participants and $400 billion in
assets.
Other forms of employee ownership plans have evolved alongside
ESOPs. Some 3,000 broad-based stock option plans (plans that grant
stock options to at least half the full-time employees) now involve
some 7 million employee-participants. Another 4,000 stock purchase
plans (which can give employees a 15 percent discount on company
stock and which receive preferential tax treatment) involve 15.7
million employees. Finally, at last count, at least 2 million employees
were covered by 401(k) plans invested primarily in company stock.
The total number of employee-owners in the U.S. dwarfs the number
of private sector union members, a mere 9.4 million workers in 1997.
According to a recent estimate (which does not include employee
share purchase plans) employee-owners controlled 8.3 percent of
corporate equity in the U.S.
As impressive as these ownership trends may be, most of these
plans provide little worker control or participation. Yet worker
participation and control are important elements in anchoring ESOP
firms in their communities especially when employees (a) hold a
majority of shares and (b) are able to vote their shares for or
against buy-outs or relocations. In the long run, restructuring
decision-making in employee stock ownership companies will be important
if the community stabilizing potential of worker ownership is to
be actualized, especially in publicly traded firms.
Community Development Corporations
A second community-based ownership strategy which has emerged in
American urban areas over the past 30 years is the community development
corporation (CDC). The CDC was developed in the 1960s and adopted
as an innovative tool in the War on Poverty. CDCs were widely seen
by many political leaders as a new engine for economic development.
The original concept was one that integrated both for-profit and
non-profit functions at the level of the urban neighborhood.
CDCs have built an impressive record of housing and commercial development;
they have continued to proliferate at a dramatic rate from less
than 200 in the early 1980s to 3,400-3,600 in 1998. CDCs have produced
an estimated 550,000 units of affordable housing, 71 million square
feet of commercial/industrial space, and 247,000 private sector
jobs.
While most CDCs have focused exclusively on housing, some have
become major creators of jobs, especially in areas otherwise underserved
by the private sector. For example, New Communities Corporation
(NCC) in Newark, New Jersey, employs more than 1,400 people, making
it one of the largest private sector employees in the city. Among
other projects NCC owns and operates a Pathmark supermarket and
neighborhood shopping center. The supermarket is one of the most
successful in the entire Pathmark chain, with yearly profits of
over $1 million. As its majority (two-thirds) owner, NCC has made
important decisions in connection with hiring (100 percent local);
prices (lower prices on essential items for a healthy diet); and
hours (open 24 hours to meet resident needs). As sole owner of other
franchises in the shopping center (e.g., Dunkin Donuts, Mail Box,
Pizza Hut, Taco Bell, etc.), NCC has also been able to give its
hourly workers (even part-timers) full health benefits. In addition,
NCC uses its share of the profits from Pathmark to help support
the CDCs job training, day care, educational, and health programs.
The experience of New Communities suggests how CDCs can help impact
inequality and economic stability. First and most obviously, CDC
jobs can provide an alternative that not only offers more money,
but also, in the context of welfare reform time limits, arguably
a more stable source of income. Because CDC-owned businesses are
largely free of narrowly defined profit maximization pressures,
they often can choose to stabilize jobs, rather than maximize top-dollar
returns to the bottom line. That is, they can keep job-providing
businesses running during good economic times and bad at only modest
profit rates that either would not interest a private investor or
would-be entrepreneur in the first place or would encourage them
to move on to greener pastures. CDCs can also use some portion of
retained surpluses to fund community services that both provide
service jobs and meet community needs. Finally, CDCs can choose
to sacrifice some portion of profits in the interest of higher wages
or more benefits for employees or lower prices for residents.
Community Development Finance Institutions
A related development is the growth of new financial institutions
dedicated to the needs of a particular local area, usually one that
is under-served by traditional commercial lenders. Community Development
Finance Institutions (CDFIs) include community development banks
(such as South Shore Bank of Chicago) which operate at a profit
by making investments in low-income communities. Also included are
community development credit unions, community development loan
funds, and micro-credit/microenterprise programs.
CDFIs received a considerable show of support from the federal
government in 1994 when Congress overwhelmingly approved a Community
Development Financial Institution Fund in September of 1994. The
CDFI Fund provides assistance to certified CDFIs in a variety of
forms, including equity investments, deposits, loans, grants, and
technical assistance. In its first two rounds, the CDFI awarded
$75 million to 74 CDFIs and $30 million to 93 banks, thrifts, and
CDFIs for lending and investing in low-income communities under
the Bank Enterprise Award Program.
Other avenues for community-based ownership development include
community land trusts, which help provide affordable housing; leasing
of municipal property for development that is designed around community
needs; and expansion of local public enterprise to include cable
TV and internet service in low density areas where they are not
otherwise being provided.
The Role of Government
The emergence of community-based institutional forms has been assisted
in varying degrees by federal, state, and local policy over the
last thirty years.
CDCs, as noted, were strongly supported by the federal War on Poverty.
The federal government still remains the CDCs biggest funding source.
At the state level, there are model programs assisting CDCs in housing
provision in Ohio among several other states. Local government support
and cooperation has also played a key role in CDC success. Community
Development Financial Institutions have also expanded with Federal
action.
As for worker ownership, ESOPs began to take off after Congress
approved a provision in 1974 tax legislation which allowed companies
to deduct contributions of stock or cash to a worker trust. Over
the next twelve years new ESOP tax incentives were passed in every
Congress; one of the most important being a 1984 law allowing owners
of closely-held private companies to be excused from the capital
gains tax if they sold at least 30 percent of their company to employees.
Seventeen states also have some level of legislatively mandated
support for worker ownership, and five states have had active state
worker ownership programs.
Policies in support of community-based economic institutions appear
to be increasingly politically viable. There is considerable evidence
that the idea of worker ownership, for one, is politically popular
across partisan lines. Politicians and commentators who have spoken
out in favor of worker-ownership include Jesse Jackson, Jesse Helms,
Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, George Bush, Mario Cuomo, Dick Gephardt,
Jack Kemp, Bill Bradley, William F. Buckley, and George Will. Rep.
Dana Rohrabacher of California, a former Reagan speech writer and
one of the House’s more conservative Republicans, recently
introduced the Employee Ownership Act of 1999, with the goal that
by the year 2010, 30 percent of all United States corporations would
be owned and controlled by employees of the corporations. The bill
would create a new kind of employee-owned and controlled corporation
in which employees would own at least 50 percent of voting stock
and would get to vote on all corporate issues on a one person, one
vote basis. The bill’s 34 co-sponsors run the political gamut,
from very conservative Republicans like Rohrabacher and Ron Paul
of Texas to liberal Democrats like Dennis Kucinich and Marcy Kaptur
of Ohio.
Although community-based institutions we are examining are currently
relatively modest in scale, given adequate support, a major expansion
in the next century is now a realistic possibility. The developmental
and policy work done over the last 30 years has established a firm
foundation upon which to build in the future.
|