Global tools enhance local exchange through community currency in an alternate economy (expanded)

1 Introduction 2
2 Reciprocal Gift E-conomy 2
2.1 “The High-Tech Gift Economy” 3
2.2 Money 2:0 4
2.2.1 Money as memory 4
2.2.2 Community Currency 4
2.2.3 Impact of ICTs on community currencies 5
2.3 Community Exchange System 6
2.3.1 How it works 6
2.3.2 Use and Abuse 7
3 Mutual trust and reciprocity in (online) Community Currency Networks 7
3.1 Generalized Exchange 8
3.2 Features to encourage online reciprocity 9
3.2.1 Identity 9
3.2.2 Transparency 10
3.2.3 Recognition and reputation 10
3.2.4 Online social networks – Facebook & Ning 10
3.3 Building community offline 11
3.3.1 Scale 11
3.3.2 Offline links – markets, shops and slips 12
3.3.3 Building community across the digital divide 13
4 Conclusion 13


1 Introduction

This paper discusses the way in which Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs), traditionally renowned for enhancing global reach, can be used to build and strengthen local exchange systems using community currencies. The relevance of such currencies in today’s economic climate is stressed by its coverage in CNN Time’s business pages, where it is noted that “[al]ternative means of trade often surface during tough economic times.” (Schwartz, 2008) The paper looks particularly at the Community Exchange System (CES), which is a community-based, global trading network using a local, alternative, community or complementary currency system. The system was developed in Cape Town, South Africa, and is currently used by 145 exchanges in 19 countries, with the majority in Australia (44), the USA (25), South Africa (23), and New Zealand (21) (CES Website, 2009)
The Internet has long stimulated thought and discussion around the idea of an alternative economy based on reciprocal exchange. When Barbrook first noted the emergence of what he termed an ‘anarcho-communist high-tech gift economy’ emerging in cyberspace in 1998 he was considered controversially leftist (Barbrook, 2005). Today the terms ‘giving’ (Anderson, 2009) the ‘gift economy’ (Fox, 2005), ‘reciprocity’ (Suntrader, 2008) and ‘relationship economics’ (Deragon (2007) are featured regularly in mainstream media and the blogosphere, all the more in the light of the plight of the ‘conventional’ economy.
To date however the benefits of this gift economy have been largely virtual. Examples of gifted ‘goods’ include contributions to the development of open source software, knowledge and specialist advice, wikipedia, file sharing, reciprocal comments shared on blogs and in online social and business networks. Yet, despite the dramatic changes in social interaction and exchanges facilitated by online networking, and the evolution of what may be referred to as a “high-tech gift economy”, the potential of the Internet to really revolutionize economic systems has been limited, as the gifting involved did not extend beyond the realms of cyberspace.
In contrast to this global, virtual, gift economy that has developed online, the CES provides an online trading platform and ‘payment system’ for real goods and services amongst local communities using an alternative, valueless ‘currency’.
In comparing an alternative money system like the CES to the emergence of a ‘gift-economy’, the paper draws on Mauss’ description of the ‘gift’ as essentially reciprocal in nature. It is argued that by providing an online record of exchanges, the CES serves merely as collective memory of ‘gifts’ of goods and services exchanged, thus enabling a form of generalized reciprocity between members of a community. Like gift economies, community currencies are founded on relationships. By taking traditional ‘money’ – created by banks as interest bearing debt, hence by its nature inducing scarcity – out of the equation, the system aims to encourage a more ‘giving’ economy based on abundance.
The paper looks specifically at the Cape Town Talent Exchange (CTTE), which was the first exchange established under the CES network. The extent to which exchange in this network may be considered reciprocal is examined, noting features built in to encourage reciprocity and build community by encouraging face-to-face interaction, as well as through the CES’ use of online social networking tools. Online-offline linkages are explored, noting how the system aims to encourage community-building across the digital divide, and the extent to which it succeeds in doing so.

2 Reciprocal Gift E-conomy

The concept of ‘gifting’ has received much attention in Western anthropology, particularly since Mauss's theorizing on The Gift in the 1920s. Mauss (1990 [1923]) emphasizes the role of reciprocity (i) as critical to gift exchange. Mauss’s tripartite formula for “total prestation” involves the obligations to 1) give, 2) receive, and 3) repay. Carrier (1991: 122).expands on Mauss’s conception of the gift, which he defines as “(1) the obligatory transfer, (2) of inalienable objects or services, (3) between related and mutually obligated transactors.”
Reciprocity in gift giving and receiving places emphasis on the relationship between giver and receiver. A gift economy is one driven by social relations rather than price according to Bell (1991), who examines ways in which individuals can increase the benefits of their exchanges in gift as well as commodity economies. He notes that benefits in a gift economy are derived from improving the ‘technology of social relations’ by, for example, increasing the range and diversity of one's social network. By contrast, benefits in commodity economies are derived from making improvements in the technology of production. Gift economies are thus driven by social relations while commodity economies are driven by price (Kollock, 1999).

2.1 “The High-Tech Gift Economy”

The Internet has long been argued to provide the technology required for the formation of what might be called a gift economy (see Rheingold 1991; Barbrook 1998; Raymond 2000; Crawford 2001; Ippolito 2001, Ghosh 1998; Kollock 1999; Offer 1997; Pinchot 1995). Rheingold (1991) described the exchange system fostered by the Internet as “a kind of gift economy where people do things for one another out of a spirit of building something between them, rather than a spreadsheet-calculated quid pro quo.”
Barbrook argues that, despite its military origins, the Internet was in essence constructed around the gift economy as early developers shared ideas, and that the free exchange of information has thus been firmly embedded within the technologies and social mores of cyberspace since its origin. While the commodification of information through a tightening of intellectual property rights has become an increased concern of politicians and corporate leaders in the developed world over the past decades, online networks geared to information sharing have simultaneously sprouted in cyberspace. “[A]t the 'cutting edge' of the emerging information society, money-commodity relations play a secondary role to those created by a really existing form of anarcho-communism… In the absence of states or markets to mediate social bonds, network communities are instead formed through the mutual obligations created by gifts of time and ideas” (Barbrook, 1998:5).
To date however the benefits of the gift economy espoused by Internet researchers have been largely virtual, exchanging gifts of knowledge, information, ideas and comments. Commonly cited examples include the development of free and open source software, and alternative licensing practices to promote freedom of information (Barbrook 1998; Ghosh 1998; Raymond 2000). Despite the dramatic changes in social interaction and exchanges facilitated by online networking, and the evolution of what may be referred to as the “high-tech gift economy”, some feel the full potential of the Internet to revolutionize economic systems is not being reached.
“I want to see somebody set up a barter network where I could trade poetry for turnips. Or not even poetry--lawn cutting, whatever. I want to see the Internet used to spread the Ithaca dollar system around America so that every community could start using alternative labor dollars. It is not happening. And so I wonder, why isn't it happening?” (LambornWilson, 2004).
LambornWilson recognizes that technology cannot change the essence of a society, and despite its potential to connect, can in fact alienate people to such an extent that they mistake technological and symbolic action for social/political action. Some basic limitations of the gift-economy relate to a) its accessibility (or lack of) for a large proportion of the human race, and b) its dependence on the ‘money-economy’, without which it cannot exist.
To overcome such limitations we need to look at how the Internet does or can impact on what may be considered the most fundamental means of exchange of everyday goods and services in the off(and on)line world: money.

2.2 Money 2:0

This section provides an overview of the concept of ‘money’, which is defined in essence as an ‘information system’ or collective ‘memory’ device for recording transactions. This is followed by a look at community currencies, and particularly the impact of the Internet on such ‘people-centred’ means of exchange.

2.2.1 Money as memory

In tracing the origins of money, one can look back beyond traditional theories of its birth in barter networks, to the actual origins of human exchange, proposed by Mauss (1990 [1923]) to lie in the (reciprocal) gift. This leads to a personalised conception of money, whereby markets can be seen as “a form of symbolic human activity rather than as the circulation of dissociated objects between isolated individuals.” (Hart, 2005: 3).
In tracing the origins of the modern economy and the money that sustains it back to the gift, rather than barter, Mauss supported the idea of money as personal credit. In this sense money may be seen as a means of collective memory mediating the need to keep track of proliferating connections with others (Hart, 2005). This indeed correlates with the root of the word ‘money’, named after the goddess of memory, Juno Moneta, at whose temple in Rome coins were once minted. Moneta’s name was derived from the Latin verb moneo, meaning to remind, or bring to ones recollection (Hart, 2005). Tracing the origin of the word money to ‘moneta’, Hart argues that one of money’s chief functions is remembering, referring to it as a ‘memory bank’ (2000), which he describes as “a store allowing individuals to keep track of those exchanges they wish to calculate and, beyond that, a source of economic memory for the community” Hart (2007: 15).
Seen solely as a way of keeping track of people’s exchanges, new possibilities present themselves in an age of electronic money. Hart (2005) predicts that central powers will in future be devolved to regional or local government bodies as people are more likely to fund public projects nearer to home, and that the territorial dimension of society will thus devolve to more local units. With the erosion of territorial power people will have to turn to their own forms of association and to more informal means of regulation which could lead to participation in many forms of money, and in the circuits of exchange corresponding to them. In a world where money resumes its role as collective ‘memory’ of individual debts, Hart believes that people will voluntarily enter into circuits of exchange based on special currencies. As digitalization encourages a growing separation between society and landed power, appropriation of ‘money’ by ‘the people’ becomes a natural step in society’s drive to a more equitable world in which “we can make our own money, rather than pay for the privilege of receiving it from our rulers” (Hart, 2005: 9).

2.2.2 Community Currency

“The origin of the word "community" comes from the Latin munus, which means the gift, and cum, which means together, among each other. So community literally means to give among each other. Therefore I define my community as a group of people who welcome and honor my gifts, and from whom I can reasonably expect to receive gifts in return.” Lietaer, 1997: 2)
In the context of currencies, the term community can be used to describe any association of individuals, groups, or businesses agreeing to use an internal payment mechanism. Under this definition a community need not be defined by geographical proximity, as demonstrated by the emergence of Internet-based communities in which transactions take place in cyberspace and participants are scattered all over the world.
A community currency does not require physical ‘money’ (e.g. notes and coins), and can be as simple as a set of entries in a notebook recording the values of trades, with the currency consisting of the numbers comprising members’ account balances. “In essence, then, a community currency means that members of the group empower themselves to create their own “money,” which they agree to use in paying for purchases made among themselves.” (Greco, 2001: 14)
Schraven, (2001) refers to three archetypes of community currencies, namely the Backed Currency (ii), the Fiat Currency (iii), and the Mutual Credit System Currency (iv). The Community Exchange System (CES) discussed in this paper is an example of a Mutual Credit exchange, providing a credit clearing service to members. Mutual credit is the generic term used to describe an association of traders who have agreed to create and utilize their own exchange medium (Greco, 2001). Members of a mutual credit system empower themselves by creating their own money in the form of credit, but saving the cost of interest, while distributing the money amongst themselves according to their own needs. Holding credits in such a system is evidence that so much value has been delivered to the community, while a debit balance shows that a member has received more from the community than delivered. “A debit balance thus represents a person’s commitment to deliver that much value to the community sometime in the near future” (Greco, 2001: 68). In this sense, mutual credit systems depend strongly on reciprocal relationships between members, and commonly have built-in systems whereby such reciprocity can be encouraged.

2.2.3 Impact of ICTs on community currencies

Speculation on how the Internet will impact on the future of money started in the 1990s, in both cyber and economic fields. In 1997 Howard Rheingold devoted two parts of his Tomorrow column to an article on The Internet and the Future of Money, in which he explores the work of Bernard Lietaer, later published in The Future of Money: Beyond Greed and Scarcity (Lietaer, 2001). Rheingold (1997, Part II) expects the Internet to lead to “a radical change in the future of money, if [its] technical mechanisms are used to support the creation and maintenance of 'local currencies' – a medium of exchange that many communities around the world are beginning to experiment with.”
The development of computerized telecommunications technologies and the Internet has the potential to impact community currencies through enabling a) the organization of grassroots communities of interest transcending barriers of distance, language, and culture; and b) the development of new nonmonetary, nonpolitical ways of exchanging goods and services. (Greco, 2001)
Rushkoff (2009) emphasizes the fact that “[m]oneys are programmed”, showing that the way these moneys behave and their impact on society is the result of certain biases embedded into their design. In this light the current credit crisis can be considered the result of underlying biases of the centralized, monopoly currencies in use. In response to this realization a growing population of citizens and businesses are turning to the use of complementary currencies, which Rushkoff (2009: 2) describes as “alternative, net-enabled, bottom-up money systems that let them accomplish what money loaned out by the Fed just isn't letting them do anymore”. Rushkoff argues that Internet-enabled complementary currencies can revive the decentralized marketplace, with networks providing a way to verify transactions and develop trust. He emphasizes the fact that many of the tools we use are the result of programs, proposing that “[w]e are proving more likely to treat our money as software, and to write our own” (2009: 3) (v).
The following section examines an example of an online mutual credit clearing money system that has been thus programmed to function as the means of exchange between local communities networked across a global, web-based platform. Local mutual credit trading systems have traditionally operated offline, posing obstacles in terms of administration as well as establishing sufficient ‘connectedness’ between members to facilitate easy exchange. The Internet has revolutionized the potential of such systems in a number of ways, including (Squires, 2009):
• Reduced administrative burden of record keeping.
• Search engine functionalities for goods and services offered and required.
• Communication tools providing the ability to instantly connect with others’ wants and offerings.
• Networking tools to build community between users, in turn strengthening the network and the types of services exchanged.
• A web-based system allows for transparency, as users have instant access to each others’ trading records and account balances.
• Expanding geographical scope as different local exchanges can be networked in a web-based trading platform.
The paper explores the use of the Internet by the Community Exchange System, with particular focus on the first local exchange for which this system was designed in Cape Town, South Africa.

2.3 Community Exchange System

The community Exchange System (CES) was initiated by the South African New Economics (SANE) Network, an organization modeled on the New Economics Foundation in the UK, which encourages complementary currencies as a means of promoting local economic activity. Initial proposals were to establish a paper-based LETS (Local Exchange Trading System)(vi) group. Founding member Tim Jenkin had recently designed an internet-based trading system for a Cape Town hiking club which, while failing to gain popularity amongst hiking club members, was immediately taken up by members of the SANE Steering Committee as platform for the proposed system. The currency was called ‘Talents’, and its value based on the South African Rand, though this was to be taken merely as a reference for pricing as the Talent would not be ‘tied’ to the Rand and was expected to deviate from it over time. The system became known as the SANE Community Exchange System (CES).
The CES was launched as a pilot project in February 2003, with 11 participants - all members of the Steering Committee. Very little trading took place initially, as commonly experienced by LETS start-up groups when little is on offer. Membership, and with it the number and range of offerings began to increase after a public meeting was held and Talents were introduced at a few public markets. The system gained momentum as membership approached three hundred, and the South African CES was renamed the “Talent Exchange”, with the motto “Your Wealth is your Talent”. (Jenkins, 2004).
The system quickly spread to exchanges around South Africa, and in 2005 the first international exchange was added when a LETS group in Australia asked to become part of the CES. (CTTE Newsletter, March 2005) This was rapidly followed by more groups in Australia, New Zealand, the USA, and Europe. These group each function as separate exchanges with their own local currencies, all linked via a common platform that enables inter-group trading.
In 2008 a split occurred between the CES and SANE, who were responsible for managing the Cape Town Talent Exchange (CTTE). While membership of this exchange was by this time sufficient to sustain trading despite managerial difficulties, a number of initiatives that relied on SANE’s involvement were abandoned, particularly in terms of community building and efforts to promote social development in disadvantaged communities.

2.3.1 How it works

The CES home page can be found on http://www.community-exchange.org/, providing links to numerous public information pages, and requiring members to log in. An online application form requires full contact details and three offerings for the applicant to be considered. There is no membership fee, but members pay a levy per trade which is accumulated in a CES administration account. This levy was initially set at 4%, but was reduced to 2% as membership and trade volume grew.
Beyond the login page the site can be regarded as an online ‘bank’ or ‘clearing house’ (similar to online banking services offered by commercial banks) as well as providing membership lists, ‘offering’ and ‘wants’ directories, and trading statistics. Users can update their account, profile information, offers and wants, browse and respond to others’ offerings via phone or email, or send an order directly through the site. Sellers enter transaction information into a transaction form on the site and account balances are immediately updated.
As the site expanded first across South Africa, and later globally, a remote trading facility was introduced to allow for exchange with members of other networks, both nationally and globally. This was done through the introduction of an intermediate ‘virtual member’ when trading outside the group (Jenkins, 2004). New features were systematically introduced to allow searching and trading with, as well as advertising offerings and wants on other exchanges.(vii)

2.3.2 Use and Abuse

By August 2009 over thirty thousand trades had taken place on the Cape Town Talent Exchange, amounting to a total of over seven million Talents exchanged. Of a total of 3795 members of the CTTE, a total of 2391 (63%) have actively traded on the system. Of these traders 65% have ‘sold’ (given), while 84% have ‘bought’ (received) goods/ services through the exchange. It is worth noting that 25% of sellers have not bought anything on the exchange, while 41% of buyers have not sold anything. Takers thus seem to outnumber givers.
As the system expanded and some users were found to abuse it, a limit of T5000 for credits and debits was introduced, although this is not rigidly imposed. While users are encouraged to go into debit as it is essential for some to be in debit to keep the system flowing, members are discouraged from trading with others who have exceeded a T5000 debit limit. The (nominal) credit limit was instituted as 'hoarding' of Talents by some members deny others the opportunity to earn. It is hoped that the credit limit feature will remind those heavily 'in the black' to spend more on others’ offerings.
Statistics for August 2009 show that 45% of CTTE members have a positive balance, and just over half (53%), a negative balance, while 2% have what may be considered the ‘ideal zero’ balance. What is worth noting is that 67 traders have exceeded the T5000 debit limit by an accumulated total of T414 009, while 66 have more than the official T5000 debit limit, by a total of T347 280. The difference between excess credit and debits thus stands at -T66 728.70, which may be considered as a quantification of the extent to which the system is being abused by some members free-riding on others’ efforts. Currently members who have exceeded their monthly limits by significant amounts are blocked from using the system. While there have been intentions to follow up on such free-riders, this has not yet happened due to lack of administrative capacity and staffing for what is essentially a volunteer run system.
It is worth noting that, while these statistics date back to the origin of the exchange in 2003, only 1136 (30%) of the members currently listed on the exchange have accessed their accounts in the past year. These figures show that although trade figures indicate active use of the system by many, there is room for improvement in terms of both the proportion of members actively engaging in trade, as well as the prevalence of free-riders taking more than they give back. These factors emphasize the critical importance of reciprocity as a fundamental factor of a community exchange, discussed in more detail below.

3 Mutual trust and reciprocity in (online) Community Currency Networks

Mutual trust and reciprocity is essential for the effective circulation of goods and services using a community currency, and its lack is one of the most common factors that reduce motivation to partake (Greco, 2009). Problems arise around the issue of trust in whether or not others in the system will reciprocate, which will determine if the currency can procure sufficient exchange for services rendered. Those who do initially dedicate time to providing goods and services for alternate currency, thus earning credits in the system, are often unable to spend these as the services available do not meet their needs. By contrast, others go into debits without providing services in return, or decline from trading at all as they either do not have the time, or the inclination, to provide services. Unable to exchange their credits as the supply of available services is limited, many initial enthusiasts eventually drop out or become less inclined to offer their services, thus detracting value from the system as a whole.
Lack of trust can be most effectively addressed through conscious community building by designing means whereby real relationships can be fostered between members. In a reasonably small and close knit community some degree of social pressure can be exerted on those perceived to be taking more from the system than they are putting in. While geographically proximate ‘communities’ have been known to encourage community building through market days and other activities where members can meet face to face, this becomes more complicated when the ‘communities’ in question are virtual, expanding over vast geographical distances.
The ability of the Internet to expand the scope of community currencies, which traditionally cater for small, geographically close-knit communities, is well illustrated by the Cape Town Talent Exchange which, with its membership approaching 4000, may be considered a very large network, spread across a vast geographical area. While much of the focus in designing the (CES) system has been on technical factors to provide an online platform that can be linked to similar networks across the country and globe, more attention may be required to overcome problems pertaining to reciprocity between members of the local (CTTE) exchange. This section explores the concept of reciprocity in an online environment, noting how this relates to the web-based community currency context. This is followed by a look at features built into the CES site to encourage reciprocity, and mechanisms to promote community building.

3.1 Generalized Exchange

The reciprocation of online ‘gifts’ of information can be subject to various complexities, especially when considering the anonymity of the recipient(s). Such anonymity makes a direct giver-recipient relationship impossible, as highlighted by Kollock (1999:3) who notes that “[t]he relative or absolute anonymity of the recipient makes it all the more remarkable that individuals volunteer valuable information – one cannot realistically count on the reciprocity of the recipient in the future to balance the gift that has occurred”. However, while a balanced reciprocity with a particular individual may not be possible, balance might be sensed to occur within a group as a whole.
A similar conception of reciprocity can be seen to hold for community currencies such as the CES, in which members provide goods and services to the community for what is essentially ‘free’ (up to the nominal limit of T5000). These services are provided based on the trust that goods and services of similar value can be obtained, or in ‘reciprocation’ for benefits already received. In this sense the currency is regarded by its founder and those with similar ideas as nothing more than a record of favors exchanged between community members (Jenkin, 2009). Thus, similar to online groups, community currencies involve reciprocation from the community, rather than the individual.
Ekeh (1974: 52) refers to this type of network-wide accounting system, in which a benefit given to a person is reciprocated not by the recipient but by someone else in the group as “generalized exchange”. Kollock (1999) believes this system of sharing to be both more generous and riskier than traditional gift exchange, on both accounts due to the fact that an individual provides a benefit without the expectation of immediate reciprocation. The temptation therefore exists to gather valuable information and advice in online groups, or obtain goods and services using a community currency, without contributing anything back. If everyone succumbs to this temptation to ‘free-ride’ on others’ efforts, everyone is worse off than they might have been otherwise, leading to what may be referred to as a social dilemma whereby individually reasonable behavior (taking without giving) leads to collective disaster (Kollock, 1999).
Veale (2003) believes that failing to provide tangible, quantifiable rewards, the ‘gift economy’ claimed to exist on the Internet faces the risk of breaking down as the presence of ‘free riders’ could make ‘givers’ of information more reluctant to contribute. Demonstrating ways whereby sharing can continue to thrive in an online environment, Veale argues that reciprocity is operationalized in the Internet’s gift economy through a variety of guises, including voluntary payments schemes, allowing participants to send tangible gifts to the giver. This section will now examine some tangible and intangible motivations for online sharing, noting how these are also relevant in the (online) community currency context, which it may be argued provides an alternative means of ‘quantifying’ gifts circulated in an Internet enhanced economy.

3.2 Features to encourage online reciprocity

Wellman & Gulia, (1999: 8) highlight the fact that “many of the exchanges that take place on-line are between persons who have never met face to face, have only weak ties, and are not bound into densely-knit community structures that could enforce norms of reciprocity” as a challenge to motivation for giving support in virtual communities. A variety of factors that could motivate people to be active, sharing participants in online community networks despite these potential challenges of physical distance have been cited in research on Internet exchanges. Some of these that may be considered equally applicable for exchange in alternative/ community currencies, particularly those that operate online, include:
 Anticipated Reciprocity (Kollock 1993, 1999, Haung 1999, Wellman & Gulia 1997, Rheingold 1993, Barbrook 1999, Ghosh 1998, Ostrom 1990, Kollock & Smith 1999).
 Expressing Identity (Cutler 1995, Constant, Sproull & Kiesler 1996, Wellman & Gulia 1997, Meyer 1989)
 Reputation (Rheingold 1993, Kreps 1994, Raymond 1998, Kollock 1999, Haung1999)
 Sense of efficacy (Bandura 1995, Kollock 1999)
 Attachment/ Group Dynamics (Haung 1999, Cutler 1995, Kollock 1999, Constant, Sproull & Kiesler 1996, Wellman & Gulia 1997), and
 Fulfilling a need of the community. (Kollock 1999, Osteen 2002)
Recognizing these core motivational factors, methods have been proposed to encourage online reciprocity through the design of appropriate features to promote identity persistence; ensure transparency by providing visible records of past interactions; provide recognition; expand group size, and build community. Kollock (1999) shows that reciprocity in online networks can be encouraged through use of a broadcast communication mechanism whereby posted messages are readable by all. This section now looks at some of the features that have been built into the CES website to encourage reciprocity, focusing on issues of identity, transparency, and recognition, as well as the use of online social networking platforms, while the next section highlights issues of scale and offline community building for the CTTE.

3.2.1 Identity

Expression of identity is considered a key element in the formation of online social networks on sites such as Facebook, My Space, Ning communities and many others (viii). The CES does not claim or attempt to be a social networking site, and hence keeps its profiling features limited to what is considered essential, notably name and contact details (including location), and offerings (ix). While users are encouraged to describe their offerings in detail, which can to some degree provide a sense of identity, there are no specific features on the site to encourage expression of identity. This was recently enhanced to some extent through the addition of a new feature enabling users to upload a profile picture, though few have made use of this facility. Users are encouraged to join the Community Exchange Network on Ning, thus hoping to harness the power of an established social networking platform to provide identity features.

3.2.2 Transparency

Detailed accounts of member balances are visible to all logged in members, and updated in real-time as trades are recorded. Statistics provided on the site include trading statistics and current balances of all members, as well as a list of traders who have exceeded their debit and credit limits. Although this information is available on the site, only a very small percentage of users access it. In an online survey conducted with members of the CTTE less than half the respondents indicated that they use the website to check their own trading records monthly or more, and less than 20% are likely to check others’ records. Thus, while this information is provided on the site, it is not actively used and hence of limited effectiveness in promoting greater trust and encouraging reciprocity. Although members may not spend time looking up others’ trade information, the fact that this information is available does provide some members with a greater sense of security in using the system.

3.2.3 Recognition and reputation

Referencing systems are commonly used by social networking sites to encourage reciprocity amongst members (x). A recommendation feature on the CES site allows members to comment on the quality of others’ offerings. The feature has a strong positive bias, and only one user has used it to post negative comments. Since the introduction of this feature in July 2005 a total of 137 comments were submitted by 77 members, pertaining to the services of 99 members. Seen as a proportion of the total 24 687 trades that took place over this time, this feature does not appear to have had a significant impact on trading.
The phenomenon of “bad traders” was first highlighted in a CTTE Newsletter in July 2005. From February 2006 until 2008 a list of ‘worst abusers’ was published in CTTE newsletters, and members were encouraged to avoid selling to such persons.

3.2.4 Online social networks – Facebook & Ning

In recent years there have been a number of attempts by the CES to utilize the Internet’s potential for online networking. While some attempts were made to create a discussion forum on the CES site in 2008, these were abandoned in favor of closer links with existing social networking platforms.
A Community Exchange Network group was created on Facebook in 2007, and attracted membership from networks around the world. Early discussions in this group related to ways whereby the CES payment system could be more closely integrated with Facebook applications. Although this suggestion drew interest and support, it was not further pursued, and the relationship to the CES is limited to a link to its log-in page. The Facebook CEN group currently has 692 members. Following active interest for about a year, discussions petered out towards the end of 2008. By this time increased effort was going into the introduction of groups features and a discussion forum on the CES site itself, as well as the creation of the www.communityexchange.ning.com network, which administrators felt would replace the Facebook group.
In addition to its role as a discussion forum, the Ning site provides links to log into a designated CES site, as well as to registering new exchanges, and new users on existing exchanges. Members can also join or set up groups for their respective exchanges, which it is hoped will encourage more local community building. To date however limited membership prevents active use of this feature. The Ning group currently consists of 320 members from around the world, and appears to be growing slowly. The idea of closer integration between the CES and social networking sites that was discussed in early postings to the Facebook group has been reiterated on the Ning site, where one user envisions a future in which people would be able to switch immediately from the social networking site to a CES online system for trading. It is proposed that “people would use the Ning site to advertise their immediate offers and needs, and do networking, but the CES site would have the permanent "directory of services" and do the accounting.” (McNamara, 2009).
While such developments may arise in the future, to date activity in both the Facebook and Ning groups has been limited to ideological discussions around alternative economics, and technical matters pertaining to setting up of new exchanges. Discussions on both these networking sites have involved members of exchanges around the world, as well as others interested in the concept of community currencies, looking for guidance into starting similar systems, or integrating their own local exchanges with the CES payment system. In this manner these sites have provided a valuable platform for exchange of ideas and global networking. From a more localized perspective however the limited number of members of any one local exchange on the network has not allowed for significant local community building efforts using these forums.

3.3 Building community offline

Ayley & Ayley (2005) believe that many local currencies fail because the founders do not place sufficient emphasis on facilitating the development of personal contacts and one-to-one relationships essential for the community building required for such currencies to thrive. They argue that the corporatization process has reinforced a view of trading in which monetary exchange is seen as primary, and personal relationship, if it exists at all, is secondary.
“Conditioned by this situation, it is easy to focus on the ‘trading’ aspect of local currencies, and forget that it is people who are making those trades, and it’s also personal relationships that underpin people’s willingness to trade with one another. Successful systems usually provide ongoing opportunities for social connections between members, fostering a sense of community and the personal contacts that facilitate trading.” (Ayley & Ayley, 2005: 3).
One way to encourage such personal interaction required to build relationships is through the facilitation of social gatherings where members can meet and interact with each other. Such interaction forms the basis of future trading and exchanges as people become aware of each others potential offerings and needs.
While regular social gatherings may be feasible for networks with members within reasonable geographical proximity, this becomes more complicated when the ‘community’ is spread over a vast area, as becomes increasingly possible with a web-based platform. This section will examine issues of scale, followed by a look at measures that have been taken by the CTTE to build community and promote inclusiveness.

3.3.1 Scale

Increasing membership is noted as means to encourage reciprocity in online networks, where a larger audience has implications for reputation, as well as need based motivations to reciprocate (Kollock, 1999). In a community currency increased membership similarly provides users with an increased ‘audience’ or ‘market’ for their services, as well as greater variety of offerings allowing for reciprocal exchange.
Greco (2009: 143) notes a number of potential constraints relating to the appropriate scale and scope of a community exchange network:
• Failure to achieve critical size of the participant base
• Too narrow an assortment of goods and services offered
• Failure to attract participants from all levels of the supply chain (production/ distribution circuit), and
• Failure to gain wide acceptance among the mainstream business community.
Although the CTTE has grown rapidly, less than a third of its 3795 members have accessed their accounts in the past year. The assortment of offerings remains relatively limited (xi) as does reach across the supply chain, and acceptance amongst mainstream businesses.
Concerns raised above point to the need to grow the exchange in order to increase the diversity of goods and services supplied, thus making the currency more worthwhile. Larger exchanges however come with increased administrative burdens, as well as greater difficulty in maintaining the ‘community’ aspect of an alternative currency. Douthwaite (1996) notes examples of community currency administrators taking special initiative to encourage reciprocal trading by approaching those with substantial debits or credits, assisting where possible to find appropriate ways in which units may be earned or spent to restore equilibrium and stimulate exchanges. However, Schraven (2001) shows that, as membership increases beyond the lines of social control, such monitoring becomes more difficult and expensive, as transactors do not know each other. This trend is noted by Ellickson (1991:283) who finds that people start resorting to the law when the social distance between them increases.
During consultation with some CTTE members, the issue of geographical distance was noted to limit the feasibility of exchange, as traveling long distances across the city to obtain something for Talents often makes buying it for cash at a nearby store more economical. Distance is also a factor when it comes to partaking in the community building efforts such as markets and meetings. In an attempt to ‘localize’ the exchange further sub-areas were introduced and local area co-ordinators assigned to promote activity within these areas (CTTE Newsletter, July 2004). To date trade within these sub-areas remains limited. It is hoped that by continuing to grow the network, and maintaining the intended emphasis on more locally based exchange, sub-areas will eventually reach the critical mass to be able to function more independently as greater variety of offerings become available in these areas.

3.3.2 Offline links – markets, shops and slips

Recognizing the need for face-to-face interaction as a key element in building community, attempts were made in earlier years to have at least one ‘Market Day’ each month (Jenkins, 2004). While earlier markets were organized by SANE members, the hope was that once the system grew and sub-areas became more active, members would take over this initiative to organize markets in their areas. This has not happened to the extent intended, and as the pressure on volunteer administrators became too much, coinciding with the split between SANE and the CES, markets diminished. Although a total of 8 markets have been held in various venues across Cape Town in 2009, these only last for approximately 3 to 4 hours, and tend to attract the same small, core group of traders.
As an additional means to promote ‘real-life’ interaction, an attempt was made to introduce Talent only shops where members could bring their goods to trade, and buyers could come to spend their Talents. The pilot for this initiative opened in October 2005 using SANE premises in what was thought to be a central and accessible location. (CTTE Newsletter, October 2005). The hope was that members would eventually take the initiative to open more such shops in their sub-areas. The split with SANE in 2008 resulted in loss of these premises, and no attempts were made to open another.
To encourage the use of Talents amongst those with no or limited access to the Internet, a parallel paper-based system was designed for use at markets, as well as individual exchanges between members. A range of documents that can be printed out is provided for this purpose, including trading sheets for use by sellers at fairs and in shops, and trading slips that can be cut out to make ‘cheque books’. Trades thus recorded would then be captured into the system by area coordinators or others with Internet access, who would act as mediators, thus extending the Internet’s benefits to those without access. The role of such ‘mediators’ extending access to Internet technologies is highlighted by Geser (2001: 15) who believes that “the Internet may well have an extensive impact on the whole mankind, because even highly marginal population segments profit at least indirectly from it: by having relationships to sympathetic users.” (xii)

3.3.3 Building community across the digital divide

Although the CES is essentially a web-based platform, among the primary objectives of its creators was to reform the monetary system in a way that would benefit those lacking access to Internet technologies (Jenkins, 2004). In South Africa this currently comprises approximately 90% of the population. (Internet World Stats, 2009). A review of CTTE members’ account details shows that while 14% do not have email accounts listed, a further 36% have addresses of either their local sub area network administration, or other members’ addresses, indicating that these members do not have their own email accounts, or access to the Internet. Although many more have cell phones, few know how to access the mobile system.
In an attempt to bridge the digital divide SANE embarked on a project to take the CES to disadvantaged communities, targeting three areas (xiii) that were intended to serve as pilots for a much broader roll out (CTTE Newsletter, October 2005). Residents of these communities attended New Economics courses explaining the principles of New Economics and the Talent Exchange. Local market days were organized, and offices were established where administrators entered offerings and trades into the system, and members could browse offerings.
SANE’s initiative initially sparked significant interest in communities, resulting in a substantial increase in membership. Activity declined following the split between the CES and SANE. Through its non-profit status SANE had accessed funding (xiv) for the social development component of the exchange. Without further funding (xv) and support following SANE’s withdrawal, offices closed down and markets were abandoned. The hope that community members would take over the initiative for organizing their own markets and opening a shop was never realized. Without own access to the Internet, the majority of new members could no longer participate in the exchange.
It is worth noting that a few traders in these areas who do have Internet access continue to act as mediators for others in their communities, and hope to stimulate more interest in the system. Talent enthusiasts Toni Khulule and William Kambeva from Khayelitsha township recently started a food garden initiative which they intend to run on Talents, although administration and Internet access remains a challenge. Likening the Talent Exchange to the spirit of ‘Ubuntu’ (xvi) – which they and their neighbors grew up with before migrating to the city in search for work – they believe such a relationship-centered system can form an important buffer against economic hardship.

4 Conclusion

The word ‘ubuntu’, used by Khayelitsha township residents to describe a life philosophy based on relationships and sharing, entered the IT world as name of a major open source operating system. Open source software has been the quintessential example of the ‘high-tech gift economy’, a concept that has been discussed in Internet research since the 1990s. This paper proposes that the concept of an Internet enabled ‘gift economy’ can be extended beyond the realms of cyberspace, by looking at the emergence of web-based community currencies. ‘Gifts’ are defined as essentially reciprocal, and a ‘gift-economy’ as one based on relationships. By defining money as ‘memory’ or information only (thus excluding all inherent value added in its creation as interest-bearing bank debts), it is argued that a mutual credit currency serves as the community’s collective memory of ‘gifts’ given and received.
The Community Exchange System (CES) is examined as an example of such a web-based mutual credit currency. First piloted in Cape Town in 2003, the system quickly expanded across South Africa and then the world, where it is now used by many local community exchanges to record transactions. Simultaneous to the CES’s global expansion, its pilot Talent Exchange in Cape Town (CTTE) grew rapidly, largely through the efforts of SANE who organized markets, provided premises for a shop, and promoted the Talent Exchange as a social development initiative in local townships.
Reciprocity is noted as a key prerequisite of the online ‘gift economy’ as well as community currencies, in both cases involving a form of ‘generalized exchange’ whereby the giver can expect reciprocation from the community as a whole, rather than directly from the receiver. Such reciprocity poses the risk of ‘free-riding’ whereby some yield to the temptation to take without giving. Ways to encourage reciprocity in such a system, using both online tools, as well as offline initiatives to build the ‘community’ element essential for community currency, are examined.
Features on the CES site provide some encouragement for reciprocal exchange, as they include information on identity, promote transparency, and provide a mechanism for recognition. Online social networking tools are also used to build community amongst members, although to date membership of and activity in the Ning community and Facebook groups created for this purpose is limited.
Emphasis on offline community building initiatives for the Cape Town exchange waned following SANE’s withdrawal from the CES. Despite these difficulties, the network appears to have reached a sufficient size allowing trading activity to continue, and new members still join every month. Access however remains largely limited to those with Internet access, thus excluding approximately 90% of South Africa’s population. Despite attempts to bridge the digital divide through social development initiatives, without ongoing external support these have been largely unsustainable. Some do however still express hope that the system can be revived, citing the emphasis on relationships and gift exchange as a traditional survival strategy many forgot when they moved to the city.
Despite its limited success in straddling the digital divide, the CES provides an ideal example of a way whereby theories on the gift economy enabled by the Internet can move from cyberspace into the real world of food gardens, lift clubs and massage treatments (xvii). In addition to providing a searchable online directory of offerings and wants, and a ‘memory’ of exchanges, the Internet also provides tools for building community online. While use of these tools has been limited to date, increasing interest in alternative economics could result in rapid growth of this and similar systems fostering real-life local exchange through web-based global payment systems linked with online social networks.

Notes

i) The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language defines reciprocity as: “a mutual or cooperative interchange of favors or privileges. Something is reciprocal when it is performed, experienced, or felt by both sides.”
ii) Backed Currencies are directly backed by, and can be exchanged at a fixed fee for, either real goods or legal tender. Some of the earlier Backed Community Currencies were based the ideas of economist Silvio Gesell (1862-1930), who argued that money should have a carrying cost (referred to as ‘demurrage charge’), in order to increase the rate of circulation. This would enable more exchanges to be facilitated with the same stock of money, thus alleviating the problem of local money shortage. (Schraven, 2001: 3) An example of a modern-day backed currency are the Liberty Dollar (Lesnick, 2007) and the Phoenix Dollar (Herpel, 2006), both backed by precious metals.
iii) The Fiat Community Currency is similar to legal tender in that it is neither backed by real goods, nor by labour. The most famous Fiat Community Currency initiatives include the Capitol-hill baby-sitting co-op (see Sweeney and Sweeney, 1977), and the Ithaca Hours system in New York State (Schraven, 2001: 6).
iv) Mutual credit systems (MCS) are a completely different means of issuing money, based on 19th century French social-anarchist Proudhon’s idea of mutual banking (See Dana, 1896). All members of such a system open an account with a central administration unit, which records transfers in ‘units’ between these accounts. Transactions are facilitated by members running down balances or going into debt, thus ‘creating’ money according to transaction need. In a well-administered system, all accounts sum to zero. The system operates as a pure accounting system of exchange (Black 1970, Fama 1980, White 1984) without an initial stock of cash. (Schraven, 2001: 6) The most renowned of such systems operating as Mutual Credit System Currencies is the Local Exchange and Trading System (LETS) developed by Michael Linton (Cohen-Mitchell, 2000).
v) Confirming Rushkoff’s belief in alternate moneys programmed by the people for the people, a variety of Internet based currencies, including specialized software to facilitate alternate forms of exchange have proliferated in cyberspace in recent years. Some examples of these include: Open Money/ Community Way (http://www.openmoney.org/cw/); QQ coin in China (http://www.businessinsider.com/virtual-currency-in-china-is-a-2-billion-economy-2009-7); Ripple (http://ripple.sourceforge.net/); Cyclos (http://project.cyclos.org/); Drupal (http://drupal.org/project/marketplace) & Community Forge (http://communityforge.net/); Friendly Favours (http://www.favors.org/FF/); Ven (Hub-Culture) (http://www.hubculture.com/groups/hubnews/news/96/); Freeconomy (http://forum.justfortheloveofit.org/); CuroMuto (http://www.curomuto.com); Universal Currency (http://www.ucci.biz/); Google open source virtual currency (https://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dfjcf7w4_10ddst9xd9&hl=en); and The Community Exchange System (www.ces.org)
vi) Local Exchange Trading Systems (LETS) also known as LETSystems are local, non-profit exchange networks in which goods and services can be traded without the need for printed currency. LETS networks use interest-free local credit so direct swaps do not need to be made. In LETS, unlike other local currencies, no scrip is issued, but rather transactions are recorded in a central location open to all members. As credit is issued by the network members, for the benefit of the members themselves, LETS are considered mutual credit systems. Michael Linton originated the term "Local Exchange Trading System" in 1982 and, with his wife Shirley, for a time ran the Comox Valley LETSystems in Courtenay, British Columbia. The system he designed was intended as an adjunct to the national currency, rather than a replacement for it, although there are examples of individuals who have managed to replace their use of national currency through inventive usage of LETS (NationMaster Encyclopedia)
vii) While the web-based platform technically expands access to offerings in other exchanges, less than 20% of respondents to an online survey of CTTE members have actively traded with members of other exchanges. Thus, although the potential scope of offerings is increased, it does not appear as though this is yet having a significant impact on members’ experience of the exchange.
viii) An example of a site which, while not an alternative ‘currency’ per se, is specifically geared towards the reciprocal exchange of ‘gifts’, in this case of accommodation and companionship, is CouchSurfing. The nature of the ‘gifts’ exchanged on this site places particular emphasis on the question of identity, a key determinant of compatibility for anyone choosing to let a stranger into their house for free, or choosing to stay on another’s “couch” in a foreign country. For this reason the profile information requested of new members probes much deeper than what is commonly required of more ‘casual’ social networking sites, and honesty is expected in responses. Requests from members with fully completed profiles carry a significantly greater likelihood to be accepted by potential hosts, or selected by surfers.
ix) New members are required to submit three offerings upon signing up, where after they can update these offerings, register wants, browse others’ listings and start trading
x) Examples of such uses include the reference feature on the business networking site LinkedIn whereby connections can provide each other with references for work conducted or general professional experiences. Such references heighten the value of a personal profile on this site, which is largely used as a networking tool for business promotion. The recommendation feature also forms a critical component of the CouchSurfing website, where members can provide references for others they have hosted, surfed or traveled with, met through the site or know from elsewhere. These references (which can be both positive and negative) are prominently displayed on members’ profiles, and can be a deciding factor in assessing whether or not to accept a request for meeting or hosting. In both LinkedIn and CouchSurfing members are alerted of recommendations placed by others, and a tacit expectation exists that such recommendations will be reciprocated. In this way these features can be regarded as an important factor in building reputation in these networks, thus encouraging active, reciprocal, participation.
xi) As with many similar exchanges across the world, membership of which predominantly comprises what may be considered alternative communities, a large proportion of offerings on the CES exchange involve holistic healing treatments.
xii) Examples of mediators extending the power of the Internet to those without access cited by Geser (2001) include opposition groups in Burma communicating their messages orally to people in Thailand border villages which then feed it into the net, as well as the Zapatista National Liberation Army (EZLN) in Chiapas (Southern Mexico). While the Zapatista communities themselves are indigenous, poor and often cut-off not only from computer communications but also from the necessary electricity and telephone systems, they have had a mediated relationship to the Internet through volunteering intermediaries from various Western countries. This has involved handwritten reports passed on to reporters for typing or scanning into digital format for online publication (Cleaver1998). In his assessment of the use of the Internet by the South African Treatment Action Campaign (TAC) Wasserman notes that while the TAC uses traditional media to promote its cause, it also uses a website and email to communicate with supporters and establish links with solidarity networks.
xiii) Delft, Masipumalele near Hout Bay, and Harare in the Khayelitsha township,
Funding for these interventions was obtained from the Ford Foundation, the Embassy of Finland, and the German Development Bank.
xiv) In an attempt to revitalize the development component of the system without the backing of SANE, the CES recently formed a Section 21 Company that would entitle them to funding for similar ventures into the future, and has also registered with the online donation system GivenGain (www.givengain.com).
xv) Derived from the Zulu phrase: “umuntu ngumuntu ngabantu" which, literally translated, means a person can only be a person through others. (Mbigi & Maree, 1995)
xvi) Or poetry, turnips and lawn cutting as LambornWilson would have it.

References

American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 4th edition.
Anderson, C. 2009 “The Economics of Giving It Away” in Wall Street Journal 3 February 2009. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123335678420235003.html, accessed 30 August 2009
Ayley, F. & and Ayley. L 2005. Abundant Money: Fourth Corner Exchange Brings Time Dollars to Whatcom County. http://www.complementarycurrency.org/ccLibrary/0506%20Abundant%20Money.doc, accessed 30 August 2009
Bandura, A. (editor). 1995. Self-Efficacy in Changing Societies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cited in Kollock, 1999. “The Economies of Online Cooperation: Gifts and Public Goods in Cyberspace” In Communities in Cyberspace: Perspectives on New Forms of Social Organization, edited by Peter Kollock and Marc Smith. Los Angeles: University of California Press.
Barbrook, R. 1998. “The High-tech Gift Economy” in First Monday Volume 3, Number 12 - 7 December 1998. http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/631/552, accessed 30 August 2009
Barbrook, R. 2005. Comments from authors. First Monday Special Issue #3: Internet banking, e-money, and Internet gift economies, published in December 2005. http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/viewArticle/1517/1432#d3, accessed 30 August 2009
Bell, D. 1991. “Modes of Exchange: Gift and Commodity.” The Journal of Socio-Economics 20(2):155-167. Cited in Kollock, 1999.
Black, F. (1970), “Banking and Interest Rates in a World Without Money: the Effects of Uncontrolled Banking”, Journal of Bank Research, Autumn, 9-20. in Schraven, 2001.
Carrier, J. 1991. “Gifts, Commodities, and Social Relations: A Maussian View of Exchange.” Sociological Forum 6(1):119-136. Cited in Kollock, 1999.
CES Website, 2009. http://www.community-exchange.org/, accessed 30 August 2009
Cleaver, HM. (1998): “The Zapatista Effect: The Internet and the Rise of an Alternative Political Fabric.” In: Journal of International Affairs 51. pp. 621ff. Cited in Geser, 2001. “On the Functions and Consequences of the Internet for Socal Movements and Voluntary Associations”. In: Sociology in Switzerland: Social Movements, Pressure Groups and Political Parties. Online Publications. Zuerich, March 2001
Cohen-Mitchell, T. 2000. “Community Currencies at a Crossroads - New Ways Forward”. New Village Journal, Issue 2 2000 http://www.newvillage.net/Journal/Issue2/2commcurrencies.html, accessed 30 August 2009
Constant, D., Sproull, L. and Kiesler, S., 1996 “The Kindness of Strangers: The Usefulness of Electronic Weak Ties for Technical Advice.” Organization Science 1996. 7: 119-135.
CTTE Newsletters, 2003-2009. http://www.ces.org.za/cen/ctte/index.htm, accessed 30 August 2009
Cutler, RH 1995. “Distributed Presence and Community in Cyberspace” in Interpersonal Computing and Technology: An Electronic Journal for the 21st Century April, 1995 Volume 3, Number 2, pp.12-32. http://www.helsinki.fi/science/optek/1995/n2/cutler.txt, accessed 30 August 2009
Crawford, W. 2001. "Sampling the Circle of Gifts," eContent Magazine (December), at http://www.econtentmag.com/Articles/ArticleReader.aspx?ArticleID=876, , accessed 30 August 2009.
Dana, CA. 1896. Proudhon and his "Bank of the People",New York: Benj. J. Tucker. http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_archives/proudhon/dana.html, accessed 30 August 2009
Deragon, J. 2007 “Relationship Economics” The Relationship Economy http://www.relationship-economy.com/?p=84, accessed 30 August 2009
Douthwaite, Richard, 1996, Short circuit: strengthening local economies for security in an unstable world, The Lilliput Press, Dublin. 2004 edition online at http://www.feasta.org/documents/shortcircuit/contents.html, accessed 30 August 2009
Ekeh, P. 1974. Social Exchange Theory: The Two Traditions. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Ellickson, R. (1991), Order Without Law: How Neighbours Settle Disputes, Harvard University Press, Cambridge. in Schraven, 2001.
Fama, E. (1980), “Banking in the Theory of Finance”, Journal of Monetary Economics, 6:39-57. in Schraven, 2001. Economics of Community Currencies: a Theoretical Perspective
Fox, 2005. “Internet banking, e-money and the Internet gift economy” First Monday's Special Issue #3: Internet banking, e-money and the Internet gift economy. http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/1508/1423, accessed 30 August 2009
Geser. H. 2001. “On the Functions and Consequences of the Internet for Socal Movements and Voluntary Associations”. In: Sociology in Switzerland: Social Movements, Pressure Groups and Political Parties. Online Publications. Zuerich, March 2001 (Release 2.0). http://socio.ch/movpar/t_hgeser3.pdf, accessed 30 August 2009
Gesell, S. 1906. The Natural Economic Order. http://wikilivres.info/wiki/The_Natural_Economic_Order, accessed 30 August 2009
Greco, TH. 2001. Money. Understanding and Creating Alternatives to Legal Tender. E-book Excerpted Version CHELSEA GREEN PUBLISHING COMPANY White River Junction, Vermont. http://www.appropriate-economics.org/materials/greco_money.pdf, accessed 30 August 2009
Greco, TH 2009. The End of Money and the Future of Civilization. Chelsea Green Publishing. UK
Ghosh, R.A. 1998. "Cooking Pot Markets: An Economic Model for the Trade in Free Goods and Services on the Internet," First Monday, volume 3, number 3 (March), at http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue3_3/ghosh/, accessed 30 August 2009.
Hart, K. 2000. The memory bank. London: Profile. Republished in 2001 as Money in an unequal world. New York: Texere. In Hart, 2007. “Money is always personal and impersonal Anthropology Today Vol 23 No 5, October 2007
Hart, K. 2005. “Notes towards an anthropology of money” in Kritkos an international and interdisciplinary journal of postmodern cultural sound, text and image Volume 2, June 2005, ISSN 1552-5112
Hart, K. 2007. “Money is always personal and impersonal Anthropology Today Vol 23 No 5, October 2007
Haung, J. 1999. Knowledge Sharing and Innovation in Distributed Design. http://faculty.arch.usyd.edu.au/kcdc/journal/vol2/dcnet/sub5/knowledge.html, accessed 30 August 2009
Internet World Stats. 2009. Internet Usage Statistics for Africa http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats1.htm#africa, accessed 30 August 2009
Ippolito, J. 2001. “Whatever Happened to the Gift Economy?” Leonardo, volume 34, number 2 (April), pp. 159–160.
Jenkin, T. 2004. The SANE Community Exchange System. http://www.appropriate-economics.org/africa/ces.htm, accessed 30 August 2009
Jenkin, T. 2009. Interviews conducted on 27 January and 25 August 2009.
Khulule, Toni and Kambeva, William. 2009. Interview with CTTE representatives from Khayelitsha township, 22 June 2009.
Kollock, P. 1993. “An Eye for an Eye Leaves Everyone Blind': Cooperation and Accounting Systems.” American Sociological Review 58(6):768-786.
Kollock, P. 1999. “The Economies of Online Cooperation: Gifts and Public Goods in Cyberspace” In Communities in Cyberspace: Perspectives on New Forms of Social Organization, edited by Peter Kollock and Marc Smith. Los Angeles: University of California Press.
Kollock P and Smith, M. (ed). 1999. Communities in Cyberspace: Perspectives on New Forms of Social Organization, edited by Los Angeles: University of California Press.
Kreps, DM. 1994 “Corporate Culture and Economic Theory.” In James Alt and Kenneth Shepsle, eds., Perspectives on Positive Political Economy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994.
LambornWilson, P. 2004. Interactivist -- Jennifer Bleyer. In conversation with Peter LambornWilson (http://www.16beavergroup.org/mtarchive/archives/001164.php)
Lietaer, B. 1997. “An interview with Bernard Lietaer by Sarah van Gelder”. YES Magazine, April 1997. http://www.transaction.net/press/interviews/lietaer0497.html, accessed 30 August 2009
Lietaer, B. 2001, The Future of Money: Creating New Wealth, Work and a Wiser World, Century: The Random House Group Limited, London
Mauss, M. 1990 (1923) The Gift: forms and functions of exchange in archaic societies. London: Routledge. (originally published as Essai sur le don. Forme et raison de l'échange dans les sociétés archaïques ("An essay on the gift: the form and reason of exchange in archaic societies"), in the Annee Sociologique 1923-1924.
Mbigi, L. and Maree, J. 1995. Ubuntu: The Spirit of African Transformation Management Sigma Press Johannesburg. 1-7.
McNamara, G. 2009. Discussion “Future needs of LETS” on CommunityExchange.Ning group. http://communityexchange.ning.com/forum/topics/future-needs-of-lets, accessed 30 August 2009
Motavalli, J. 1996: “The virtual Environment.” In: E – Environmental Magazine 7 (32), pp. 28ff. Cited in Geser, 2001: 14. “On the Functions and Consequences of the Internet for Socal Movements and Voluntary Associations”. In: Sociology in Switzerland: Social Movements, Pressure Groups and Political Parties. Online Publications. Zuerich, March 2001
NationMaster Encyclopedia. 2009. Local Exchange Trading Systems. http://www.statemaster.com/encyclopedia/Local-Exchange-Trading-Systems accessed 30 August 2009.
Offer, A. 1997. "Between the Gift and the Market: The Economy of Regard," Economic History Review, volume 50, number 3, pp. 450-476.
Osteen, M. 2002. “Introduction: Questions of the gift,” In: M. Osteen (editor). The question of the gift: Essays across disciplines. London: Routledge, pp. 1–42.
Pinchot, G. 1995. "The Gift Economy," In Context, number 41, at http://www.context.org/ICLIB/IC41/PinchotG.htm, accessed 30 August 2009.
Raymond, E.S. 2000. "Homesteading the Noosphere," at http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar/homesteading/index.html, accessed 30 August 2009
Rheingold, H. 1991. ``A Slice of Life in my Virtual Community'' in Big dummies Guide to the Internet. Indiana University Press. Indiana. Obtained from http://www.nectec.or.th/net-guide/bigdummy/bdg_255.html#SEC258, accessed 30 August 2009
Rheingold, H. 1993. The Virtual Community: Homesteading on the Electronic Frontier. New York: Addison-Wesley.
Rheingold, H. 1997. “The Internet and the Future of Money” Tomorrow column © by Howard Rheingold.
Rushkoff, D. 2009. Program Your Own Money http://www.realitysandwich.com/program_your_own_money, accessed 30 August 2009
Schraven, J. 2001. The Economics of Community Currencies: a Theoretical Perspective http://www.strohalm.net/media/economicscommunitycurrencies.pdf . Complementary Currency Resource Center http://www.complementarycurrency.org/materials.php, accessed 30 August 2009
Schwartz, J. 2008 “Alternative Currencies Grow in Popularity” CNN Time http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1865467-1,00.html, accessed 30 August 2009
Squires, L. 2009. Skype Interview with Les Squires on 11 February 2009.
Suntrader, 2008 “Law of Reciprocity in Social Marketing” Suntrader Networks 19 November 2008. http://www.suntrader.com/law-of-reciprocity-in-social-marketing, accessed 30 August 2009
Sweeney, J. and Sweeney, R. (1977), “Monetary Theory and the Great Capitol Hill Baby Sitting Co-op Crisis”, Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, 9:86-89. Cited In Schraven, 2001. The Economics of Community Currencies: a Theoretical Perspective
Veale, KJ. 2003. “Internet gift economies: Voluntary payment schemes as tangible reciprocity” in First Monday, Volume 8, Number 12 - 1 December 2003. Republished in First Monday Special Issue #3: Internet banking, e-money, and Internet gift economies — 5 December 2005
http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/viewArticle/1518/1433, accessed 30 August 2009
White, L. (1984), “Competitive Payments Systems and the Unit of Account”, The American Economic Review, 74:699-712. In Schraven, 2001. The Economics of Community Currencies: a Theoretical Perspective
Wasserman, H. 2005. “Connecting African Activism with Global Networks: ICTs and South African Social Movements” in Africa Development, Vol. XXX, Nos. 1 & 2, 2005, pp. 163–182 © Council for the Development of Social Science Research in Africa
Wellman, B. and Gulia, M. 1999 “Virtual Communities as Communities.” In Kollock & Smith (eds). Communities in Cyberspace: Perspectives on New Forms of Social Organization, edited by Peter Kollock and Marc Smith. Los Angeles: University of California Press.