Thank you, Joe Shlabotnik.

Is there any requirement about the utility or viability of an enterprise to qualify for subsidies? Are their limits on worker's actions? For example, will they be stopped from assigning themselves extraordinary wages and benefits while working at an enterprise that cannot afford that expense load?

Will there be production requirements and maximums set? Will the enterprise legally have to make a minimum number of mattresses, chew toys, blood separators, or mud flaps? Or will there be production limits to protect the market for other Lazurus-like enterprises that might also be making mattresses, chew toys, blood separators, or mud flaps?

This is an interesting concept, but without strict controls over the collectives, without making it a "prove why you are here" process for these enterprises, I can easily foresee some huge problems that could pound on the Bolivian government's budget.

Although all of the concerns that you mention would have to addressed, and maybe a committee to create a budget and guidelines and oversight, has yet to be set up to work out the details. No doubt there would be some evaluation as to the business's viability, and proof required to demonstrate that both suppliers, distributors and customers will remain.

#6 Adam 2013-10-21 19:11 EDT

Richard Fidler seems to be confused about what's going on in Bolivia. Enatex isn't worker-owned and it has nothing to do with the definition of a "social enterprise" set out either in Article 54 of the constitution or in this latest decree. It's a conventional state-owned enterprise (the name should give us a clue: Empresa Pública Nacional Estratégica Textil) that was set up when the government struck a deal to lease Ametex's plant and machinery. If I recall correctly, there was some negotiation around discounting some of Ametex's debts to the pension system from the price of the lease. In July of this year Enatex's workers went on strike to demand a raise (which they got) and the firing of the general manager Alejandro Zárate (which they didn't get).

Okasis is right to point out that workers' takeovers of failing firms aren't doomed to fail and they'd likely have a better chance of succeeding in Bolivia than in Argentina or Venezuela. The point is that no such takeovers have taken place yet and there's good reason to be skeptical of Fidler's claim that the government wants to promote them or give them any of the support they'd need to be successful. As I pointed out in my earlier comment, the government has basically ignored Article 54 up to this point. So what's different now? Why should we think this a serious proposal that's going to lead to any concrete action, especially in light of the continued tension between the MAS and the Bolivian workers' movement?