Reviewer: Dimitris Kitsikopoulos

The text is engaging and comprehensible. All topics are sufficiently analyzed.

The current essay provides contributions to the following: It explores the potential collaboration between state and social economy; it proposes way for the transition from the passive citizen to an active one; it proposes novel entrepreneurial ideas; it explores novel concepts like that of the partner-state concept; it reviews older concepts under a new lens (like the market as a social market and the investor as a contributor); it employs a holistic approach for change; it calls for feedback and dialogue; it attempts to raise awareness for the potential of the social economy; it bridges open open data systems with the social economy.

General comments
The title and the abstract mention the social economy without specifying any particular area of it. Yet throughout the remaining text seems – and in some instances explicitly stated – to focus the analysis on social welfare services as a sector of the Social Economy. Perhaps at this point there is an inconsistency which should be clarified in the title and in more detail in abstract. If the analysis concerns all areas of social economy then maybe parts of the text (such as the role of the state) should be redefined. For example, there might have been a different approach should the focus of the analysis was placed on a social care enterprise for the elderly and a worker cooperative that produces cars. The text appears to have been the focusing mainly on the former sector and if this is the case then it should probably be mentioned in the title but also become somewhat clearer in the abstract.

CURRENT COMPOSITION AND STRUCTURE OF SOCIAL ECONOMY. With regards to the following quote: “..if the social economy is to mature …” (page 3), I would like to mention that there may be a gap in the text about what are the components of social economy and what is its status and character today according to the author. Such a reference would provide a more complete picture and holistic approach.

AGENCIES REPRESENTING THE SOCIAL ECONOMY: Although there are some minor references, perhaps it is not sufficiently highlighted the existence and potential contribution of stakeholders representing the various entities of the social economy. European and global organizations representing cooperatives, NGOs, social enterprises, etc. I believe that they have sufficient expertise and willingness to cooperate with the State for the development of the strategy and the legal framework.

ACCOUNTING STANDARDS: While there are many references rearding the need for social goods and social capital, there is no reference to the existence and use of standards which calculate and illustrate the above.

Specific comments within the text:
Page 6 – “social goods”: I think more context is necessary for the definition of “social good” according to the author, because this point may potentially cause intense controversy (both within the social economy organizations, and those who are outside and trying to understand how to determine whether something are social goods or not). Personally I’m not sure I fully comprehend this point.

Page 6 – “The question is: To what purpose is this profit or surplus put?”: At this point it is not clear if the answer to this question, according to the author, is sufficient to determine the social good. Beyond this purpose, does the production process of profit (or surplus) play a role?

Page 9 – “Indivisible reserves”: I believe that the indivisible reserve funds are of great importance and there is perhaps a slight underestimation of their importance when referring to the “social benefit” that they might serve. My personal assessment is that it is much more than that. I would describe them as self help assets and practical sustainability tools. I think that they one of the most practical tools which it would be sensible for all organizations and social enterprises to look into and perhaps use. 1) At the level of symbolism that they are a very practical way of transition from the individual to the collective. Funds generated from the individuals within a collective enterprise are converted into collective and indivisible. 2) They gives effect to the saying “a cooperative is a cow that you milk forever but not in your interests to kill ever” while they are employed as a financial guarantee, like for instance emergency loans in times of crisis or difficult economic conditions. The indivisible reserve funds are a peculiarity of cooperatives which in many cases have helped their sustainability in difficult moments while they symbolize collectivity as they belong to all collectively and individually to no one.

Reviewer: Mathieu O’Neil
Thank you for the opportunity to review this article. It is an important piece which may well prove to be of great use, as it offers an insider’s perspective as well as practical and policy advice to aid in the development of cooperatives and commons enterprises. The author seems to know Ecuador well and we benefit greatly from his expertise.

At the same time there are several issues to resolve: this article needs more work to be published.

-The piece is overly long for an online journal such as JoPP.
-The referencing system should be switched to Harvard (intext refs).
-The position of the author could be clarified: is he inside or outside FLOK? Is the author a participant, a supporter, a critic?

An option would be to split the article into several parts. Whether it is kept as one piece or not, there will need to be some work to make the text more accessible. I am not against publishing long pieces but readers should be encouraged and helped. To that end:

(a) Some parts should be reduced and summarised. I believe the author has published
extensively on cooperatives in Emilia-Romagna; very well, rather than write several
pages on this, please summarise the key findings in one paragraph and cite the
appropriate reference. The same goes for the policy recommendations which should
be summarised as much as possible – include in full in annex if necessary.
(b) Sections should be more clearly identified. As it is I got a bit lost since there are so many “1s” and “2s”. Perhaps use letters as well to distinguish parts [eg., II.2.a, etc]
(c) One-sentence introductions and conclusions for each section would be a great help: what are we learning about now? What have we found out?

More specific comments below (based on the PDF which is different than the doc).

P5: rather than listing policies, summarise them and cite the source.

P6: ‘these constraints’ – can you be more specific? What regulations and controls? You talk about restrictions on freedom of association / expression below, is this the same thing?

P6: ‘instances of corruption’ – same thing, are there specific examples?

P8-9: can the list items [a-h] be grouped together; some seem quite close.

P15: ‘reciprocity’ and ‘mutuality’ appear successively in three paras – can you summarise?

P22: ‘Wherever the co-operative movement has played a significant role in the economic and social life of a society it has been led by a federated national association that both unites and mobilizes the co-operatives of the country.’ Can you provide sources, or examples for this? Otherwise you are asserting normatively, with no justification.

P25: You cite Robin Murray but provide no sources.

P32: ‘The Partner State seeks’ […] ‘For this reason, Ecuador’ – is Ecuador a Partner State then? Why or why not?

P35: ‘Perhaps the most effective means of implementing a Partner State approach to economic development is to focus on sector development and the creation of partnering institutions at provincial, canton, and parochial levels.’ Why? Says who?

P34-38: Summarize please.

P39: ‘Montecristi Constitution’?

P42: ‘In the context of Ecuador, such an approach may prove effective in limiting the unnecessary bureaucratization of such efforts, something that is in urgent need of modeling in the country.’ Can you explain what this means?