← Back to home

Workers' Self-Management

Form of Organizational Management: Workers' Self-Management

Workers' self-management, also referred to by the less descriptive but equally common terms of labor management and organizational self-management, represents a distinct approach to organizational leadership. It is fundamentally based on the principle of self-directed work processes, where the entire workforce of an organization actively participates in its governance and operational decisions. This concept is not merely a management technique; it is considered a defining characteristic of socialism. Throughout the history of socialist thought, proposals for self-management have surfaced repeatedly, championed by a diverse spectrum of ideologies including democratic socialists, libertarian socialists, market socialists, as well as anarchists and communists.[1]

The implementation of self-management is far from monolithic, existing in numerous variations. In some models, all worker-members engage in direct management of the enterprise through collective assemblies, fostering a deeply participatory environment. In other forms, workers delegate management functions, electing representatives or specialized managers to oversee operations. This can manifest as direct worker oversight and supervision of the organization via elected bodies, the appointment of specialized managers chosen by the workforce, or even a completely self-directed management structure that forgoes specialized managerial roles altogether.[2] The overarching goals of self-management are multifaceted: to enhance organizational performance by granting workers greater autonomy in their daily tasks, to boost employee morale, to mitigate the pervasive sense of social alienation often found in traditional workplaces, and, crucially, to eliminate exploitation, particularly when self-management is coupled with employee ownership.[3]

An enterprise that operates under a system of self-management is often referred to as a labor-managed firm. It is vital to distinguish self-management from the concepts of ownership and the broader economic system in which the organization functions. Self-management pertains specifically to the locus of control rights within a productive organization.[4] While self-management frequently aligns with employee ownership, it is not intrinsically dependent upon it. Self-management can also be observed in organizations under public ownership and, to a more limited extent, within private companies through mechanisms like co-determination and the inclusion of worker representatives on corporate boards.

Economic Theory

An economic system composed entirely of self-managed enterprises is often described as a participatory economy, a self-managed economy, or a cooperative economy. This particular economic framework represents a significant iteration of market socialism and decentralized planned economy. Its philosophical underpinnings stem from the fundamental belief that individuals should possess the agency to participate directly in the decisions that shape their lives and well-being. Among the most influential proponents of self-managed market socialism in the 20th century were economists such as Benjamin N. Ward, Jaroslav Vanek, and Branko Horvat.[5] Horvat argued compellingly that participation is not merely a more desirable ethical outcome but also a more economically viable strategy than traditional hierarchical and authoritarian management structures. He supported this claim with econometric analyses suggesting that efficiency demonstrably increases with greater involvement in decision-making processes. Writing from the perspective of socialist Yugoslavia in the early 1980s, Horvat posited that the global trend was indeed leaning towards a self-governing, socialistic mode of organization.[6]

Labor Managed Firm

The theoretical framework known as the theory of the labor-managed firm aims to elucidate the behavior, performance characteristics, and overarching nature of self-managed organizational forms. While self-managed (or labor-managed) firms may often coincide with worker ownership (employee ownership), it is crucial to recognize that these are distinct concepts, and the presence of one does not automatically imply the other.

Neoclassical Economics

Within the traditional confines of neoclassical economic theory, it is generally posited that in a competitive market economy, the ownership of capital assets by the labor force (the workers within a given firm) should exert no significant influence on the firm's overall performance.[7]

A substantial portion of the research conducted within the neoclassical tradition concerning labor-managed firms has historically focused on dissecting the presumed maximand (the objective function), or the core goal, of such firms. This inquiry essentially seeks to answer the question: "What do labor-managed firms prioritize maximizing?" Common hypotheses include maximizing income per worker or, alternatively, maximizing profits. The implications of these differing objectives have been a central theme.[8] The foundational model of a labor-managed firm within this paradigm was introduced by the American economist Benjamin Ward in 1958. His interest was specifically piqued by the analysis of Yugoslav firms.[9] Ward's central thesis proposed that the labor-managed firm endeavors to maximize income per worker, a distinct objective from the traditional capitalist firm's aim of maximizing profits for its external owners. Drawing on this assumption, Ward developed an analysis that was, in many respects, critical of labor-managed firms. Notably, he argued that a supply curve for a labor-managed firm exhibits a negative slope. This implies that an increase in the market price of a product manufactured by a labor-managed firm would not necessarily incentivize it to increase production or hire additional workers. Consequently, Ward concluded that an economy populated by labor-managed firms would exhibit a tendency towards underutilization of labor, potentially leading to higher rates of unemployment. This model was subsequently elaborated upon by Evsey Domar and further generalized by Jaroslav Vaněk.[10]

These purely theoretical explorations, however, faced considerable criticism from the Yugoslav economist Branko Horvat in 1971. Horvat advocated for a more empirical approach, urging the study of actually existing labor-managed Yugoslav firms and the practices adopted by their members. He specifically highlighted that workers typically set wages at the commencement of the fiscal year and subsequently adjust them based on the enterprise's earnings. Horvat contended that incorporating this behavioral rule into theoretical models would demonstrate that the market behavior of a labor-managed firm, contrary to the assertions of Ward and his adherents, bears a much stronger resemblance to the hypothetical behavior of a "traditional," profit-maximizing firm.[11]

Drawing from an extensive body of empirical studies, contemporary Canadian economist Gregory Dow has conducted significant theoretical research on labor-managed firms from a neoclassical standpoint. His work primarily seeks to explain the relative rarity of labor-managed firms compared to their capital-managed counterparts.[12]

Classical Economics

The concept of a self-managed economy found its most comprehensive early articulation in the writings of the 19th-century anarchist philosopher and economist Pierre-Joseph Proudhon.[13] He termed this economic model mutualism, emphasizing the reciprocal relationship among individuals within such a system, wherein cooperatives would operate within the framework of a free-market economy.

The classical liberal philosopher and economist John Stuart Mill held a strong conviction that worker-run and owned cooperatives would, in time, supplant traditional capitalist (capital-managed) firms within the competitive market economy. He based this prediction on their perceived superior efficiency and the more robust incentive structures they offered. Mill famously wrote:

The form of association, however, which if mankind continue to improve, must be expected in the end to predominate, is not that which can exist between a capitalist as chief, and work-people without a voice in the management, but the association of the labourers themselves on terms of equality, collectively owning the capital with which they carry on their operations and working under managers elected and removable by themselves.

— John Stuart Mill, Principles of Political Economy, IV, Ch. 7[14][15]

While both Mill and Karl Marx acknowledged the potential for democratic worker management to be more efficient in the long run compared to hierarchical management, Marx harbored less optimism regarding the prospects of labor-managed and owned firms effectively displacing traditional capitalist firms within the market economy.[16] Despite their theoretical advantages in efficiency, labor-managed firms remain comparatively rare in Western market economies.[17]

Karl Marx, himself, championed the concept of a free association of producers as a hallmark of communist society. In this envisioned future, self-management processes would supersede the traditional notion of a centralized state. This idea is closely linked to the Marxist concept of overcoming alienation.[18]

Soviet-type Economic Planning

The Soviet-type economic model, as it was implemented in the former USSR and the Eastern Bloc, incorporated a form of self-management known as samoupravlenie[19]. This system was introduced into state-owned enterprises during the 1980s.[20] However, it has drawn significant criticism from socialists for its perceived lack of genuine, widespread worker self-management and for the limited input workers had in enterprise management.[21]

Management Science

In his influential book, Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us, Daniel H. Pink presents empirical evidence suggesting that self-management, or self-directed processes, coupled with opportunities for mastery and a sense of purpose (intrinsic rewards), serve as far more effective motivators than mere monetary gain (extrinsic rewards). Pink argues that for the majority of work in the 21st century, self-management and related intrinsic motivators are significantly more crucial than outdated notions of hierarchical management and an overemphasis on monetary compensation as a reward.

More contemporary research, however, suggests that carefully structured incentives and bonuses can indeed yield positive outcomes in terms of performance and autonomous motivation.[22] According to this perspective, the key lies in aligning bonuses and incentives in a way that reinforces, rather than undermines, a sense of autonomy, competence, and relatedness – the three fundamental needs identified by self-determination theory as essential for autonomous motivation.

Political Movements

Europe

Protests in Greece advocating for worker management and worker defense are a testament to the ongoing interest in these models.

One of the most significant historical experiments with workers' self-management occurred during the Spanish Revolution (1936–1939).[23] In his seminal work, Anarcho-Syndicalism (1938), Rudolf Rocker articulated this experience:

But by taking the land and the industrial plants under their own management they have taken the first and most important step on the road to Socialism. Above all, they (the Workers' and peasants self-management) have proved that the workers, even without the capitalists, are able to carry on production and to do it better than a lot of profit-hungry entrepreneurs.[24]

Following the watershed events of May 1968, the LIP factory, a clockwork manufacturer located in Besançon, transitioned to self-management in 1973 after its management announced plans for liquidation. The LIP experience became an emblematic symbol of social conflict in post-1968 France. The strike, led by trade-unionist Charles Piaget and supported by the CFDT (known as the CCT in Northern Spain), saw workers assert control over the means of production. The Unified Socialist Party (PSU), which included figures like the former Radical politician Pierre Mendès-France, actively advocated for autogestión, or self-management.[25]

In the Basque Country of Spain, the Mondragon Cooperative Corporation stands as arguably the most enduring and successful example of workers' self-management globally. It has been lauded by a diverse array of figures, including the Marxian economist Richard D. Wolff, and highlighted in research such as the book Capital and the Debt Trap by Claudia Sanchez Bajo and Bruno Roelants,[26] as a viable alternative model for economic organization distinct from the capitalist mode of production.[27]

In the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, a wave of factory occupations and subsequent self-management initiatives emerged across Greece,[28] France,[29] Italy,[30] Germany,[31] and Turkey.[32]

In Greece, the emergence of solidarity-based distribution networks can be partly attributed to the privatization of public services driven by austerity policies, which paradoxically spurred on-the-ground solidarity activities. These initiatives often arose from ambitious political mobilization and practical necessity, transforming informal solidarity networks into remunerative distribution cooperatives. This dynamic reflects a broader trend where the management of crises often reproduces the very conditions it seeks to combat, particularly when official policy initiatives are involved.[33] Since 2012, Greece has witnessed a proliferation of non-capitalist social experiments and innovations, including worker collectives and cooperatives, self-help groups, Local Exchange Trade Systems (LETS), Freecycle networks, Timebanks, and the groundbreaking example of the first worker-occupied factory.[34]

Yugoslavia

During the height of the Cold War, Yugoslavia, in the aftermath of the Tito-Stalin split, actively pursued and promoted what was officially termed socialist self-management. This policy distinguished Yugoslavia from the Eastern Bloc countries, which predominantly practiced central planning and centralized management of their economies. The Yugoslav model replaced strict central planning with a system of planning for basic proportions, intended to counteract "the chaos of social production and distribution that is innate to capitalism."[35] This approach was heavily influenced by the theories of Josip Broz Tito and, more directly, Edvard Kardelj. The Yugoslav economist Branko Horvat also made substantial theoretical contributions to the concept of workers' self-management (radničko samoupravljanje) as practiced in Yugoslavia. Given Yugoslavia's neutral stance and its leading role in the Non-Aligned Movement, Yugoslav companies successfully exported their products and services to both Western and Eastern markets, undertaking numerous significant infrastructural and industrial projects across Africa, Europe, and Asia.[36][37]

In 1950, the Law on Self-Management marked a pivotal moment by introducing workers' councils. This was heralded as the "beginning of the end of bureaucracy," echoing the Marxist concept of the withering away of the state under the rallying cry of "Factories to the workers!" According to Boris Kanzleiter, the inspiration for these workers' councils can be traced back to the revolutionary governing bodies of the People's Liberation Army and the Paris Commune – the People's councils.[38] The 1953 Yugoslav Constitutional Law formally enshrined self-management within the constitutional framework, transforming state property into social property. The 1963 Yugoslav Constitution, often referred to as the Charter of Self-Management, elevated self-management and social property to the status of supreme values, defining Yugoslavia as a "socialist self-managed democratic community."[39]

The Law of Associated Labour, enacted in 1976, represented the final evolutionary stage of Yugoslav self-management. Based on the principles of the 1974 Yugoslav Constitution, it established a fully autonomous system grounded in the direct sovereignty of the worker and citizen. This law mandated the creation of Basic Organizations of Associated Labour (BOALs) as the fundamental economic units, with every worker belonging to a BOAL based on their specific role in the production process. BOALs would then associate with other BOALs to form Organizations of Associated Labour (OALs), which could further aggregate into Complex Organizations of Associated Labour. The assembly, comprising all workers of a BOAL, elected delegates bound by an imperative mandate to the workers' council of the OAL. This council held decision-making authority over all matters, including the election of directors, determinations of salaries, investment strategies, association protocols, development plans, and specific production targets. Another distinctive feature of Yugoslav self-management was the replacement of traditional contracts with Self-Management Agreements and Social Compacts.[40] The objective of OALs was not primarily for-profit but rather a broader social goal, encompassing the facilitation of education, healthcare, employment, and the resolution of housing issues.[41]

However, the era of workers' self-management in Yugoslavia ultimately came to an end due to macro-economic reforms and structural adjustment programs imposed by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank.[42][43]

Empresas Recuperadas Movement

The phenomenon of empresas recuperadas, often translated into English as "recovered factories" or "worker-recuperated enterprises," is a significant manifestation of workers' self-management, particularly in Latin America. Other translations include worker-recuperated enterprise, recuperated/recovered factory/business/company, worker-recovered factory/business, worker-recuperated/recovered company, worker-reclaimed factory, and worker-run factory. The Spanish verb recuperar carries a dual meaning: not only "to get back," "to take back," or "to reclaim," but also "to put back into good condition."[44] The broader concept is also known internationally as autogestión.[44]

Argentina's empresas recuperadas movement gained significant momentum in response to the economic turmoil leading up to and following the nation's devastating 2001 economic crisis.[45] By the period of 2001–2002, approximately 200 Argentine companies had been taken over by their workers and transformed into worker co-operatives. Notable examples include the Brukman factory, the Hotel Bauen, and FaSinPat (formerly known as Zanon). As of 2020, an estimated 16,000 Argentine workers were managing nearly 400 such recuperated factories.[46]

While the empresas recuperadas movement is a contemporary phenomenon, the concept of "recovered enterprises" is not entirely new to Argentina. Such social movements were largely suppressed and dismantled during the brutal period of the so-called Dirty War in the 1970s. However, during the initial months of Héctor Cámpora's presidency (May–July 1973), a period marked by a moderately left-wing Peronist government, approximately 600 social conflicts, strikes, and factory occupations took place.[47]

The proliferation of these "recuperations" has fostered the development of a distinct movement with ties to a broad political spectrum, encompassing socialists, Peronists, anarchists, and communists. Organizationally, the movement is represented by two primary federations of recovered factories: the larger Movimiento Nacional de Empresas Recuperadas (National Movement of Recuperated Businesses, or MNER)[48] and the smaller National Movement of Recuperated Factories (MNFR)[49], which tends to align more with right-wing politics.[50]

This movement achieved a significant legislative victory in 2011 with the passage of a new bankruptcy law specifically designed to facilitate takeovers by workers.[51] This landmark legislation was officially signed into law by President Cristina Kirchner on June 29, 2011.[52]

See Also

Self-managed Organizations

Notes

  • ^ Steele, David (1992). From Marx to Mises: Post-Capitalist Society and the Challenge of Economic Calculation. Open Court Publishing Company. p. 323. ISBN 978-0875484495. The proposal that all the workers in a workplace should be in charge of the management of that workplace has appeared in various forms throughout the history of socialism. [...] [A]mong the labels attached to this form of organization are 'self-management', 'labor management', 'workers' control', 'workplace democracy', 'industrial democracy' and 'producers' cooperatives'.
  • ^ Steele, David (1992). From Marx to Mises: Post-Capitalist Society and the Challenge of Economic Calculation. Open Court Publishing Company. p. 323. ISBN 978-0875484495. The self-management idea has many variants. All the workers may manage together directly, by means of an assembly, or indirectly by electing a supervisory board. They may manage in co-operation with a group of specialized managers or they may do without them.
  • ^ O'Hara, Phillip (2003). Encyclopedia of Political Economy, Volume 2. Routledge. p. 9. ISBN 978-0415241878. In eliminating the domination of capital over labour, firms run by workers eliminate capitalist exploitation and reduce alienation.
  • ^ Prychito, David L. (2002). Markets, Planning, and Democracy: Essays After the Collapse of Communism. Edward Elgar Pub. p. 71. ISBN 978-1840645194. The labor-managed firm is a productive organization whose ultimate decision making rights rest in the workers of the firm...In this sense workers' self-management – as a basic principle – is about establishing control rights within a productive organization, while it leaves open the issue of de jure ownership (that is, who enjoys legal title to the physical and financial assets of the firm) and the type of economic system in which the firm is operating.
  • ^ Gregory and Stuart, Paul and Robert (2004). Comparing Economic Systems in the Twenty-First Century (7th ed.). George Hoffman. pp. 145–146. ISBN 978-0618261819.
  • ^ Horvat, Branko (1983). The Political Economy of Socialism: A Marxist Social Theory. M.E Sharpe Inc. p. 173. ISBN 978-0873322560. Participation is not only more desirable, it is also economically more viable than traditional authoritarian management. Econometric measurements indicate that efficiency increases with participation...There is little doubt that the world is moving toward a socialist, self-governing society at an accelerated pace.
  • ^ Paul Samuelson, Wages and Interest: A Modern Dissection of Marxian Economic Models, 47 Am.Econ.Rev. 884, 894 (1957): "In a perfectly competitive market it really doesn't matter who hires whom: so have labor hire 'capital'...")
  • ^ Nuti, Mario (1996). "Efficiency, equality and enterprise democracy.". In Pagano, Ugo; Rowthorn, RObert (eds.). Democracy and Efficiency in the Economic Enterprise. London: Routledge. pp. 184–206. {{cite book}}: CS1 maint: publisher location (link) A massive body of literature from Ward's seminal model of the "Illyria" firm (1958) and its generalization by Vanek (1970) to date, probably larger than for any other single economic issue, has accumulated on the economic implications of the presumed maximand of self-managed enterprises.
  • ^ Horvat, Branko (1971). "Yugoslav Economic Policy in the Post-War Period: Problems, Ideas, Institutional Developments". The American Economic Review. 61 (3). Theoretical analysis of the behavior of the Yugoslav firm has only begun. Oddly or understandably enough, the pioneering work was done by a foreigner, B. Ward of the University of California at Berkeley.
  • ^ Horvat, Branko (1971). "Yugoslav Economic Policy in the Post-War Period: Problems, Ideas, Institutional Developments". The American Economic Review. 61 (3). In a similar analysis eight years later, Domar showed that by generalizing the production function to include several products and several factors and by introducing the demand curve for labor the results are changed and begin to resemble the traditional conclusions about the behavior of the firm (Domar, 1966).
  • ^ Horvat, Branko (1971). "Yugoslav Economic Policy in the Post-War Period: Problems, Ideas, Institutional Developments". The American Economic Review. 61 (3). Instead of postulating what should be rational, the present author observes the actual practice of Yugoslav enterprises which fix wages in advance for the current year, and at least once a year make corrections (positive or negative) depending on the income earned. If this behavioral rule is used in the analysis, the results are again the same as in the traditional theory of the firm.
  • ^ "Greg Dow – Research". Archived from the original on 2019-01-20. Retrieved 2022-04-10.
  • ^ Proudhon, Pierre-Joseph (1866–1876). 'Oeuvres Complètes', volume 17. Paris: Lacroix. pp. 188–189.
  • ^ Mill, John Stuart (1909). Ashley, William James (ed.). Principles of Political Economy with some of their Applications to Social Philosophy (7th ed.). London: Longmans, Green and Co. Archived from the original on 2016-03-07. Retrieved 2017-12-27.
  • ^ Carson, Kevin (16 July 2006). "J.S. Mill, Market Socialist". Mutualist Blog: Free Market Anti-Capitalism. Archived from the original on 6 March 2019. Retrieved 2 March 2016.
  • ^ Where Did Mill Go Wrong?: Why the Capital-Managed Firm Rather than the Labor–Managed Enterprise Is the Predominant Organizational Form in Market Economies, by Schwartz, Justin. 2011. Ohio State Law Journal, vol. 73, no. 2, 2012: "Why, then, is the predominant form of industrial organization in market societies the traditional capital-owned and managed firm (the capitalist firm) rather than the labor-managed enterprise owned and managed by the workers (the cooperative)? This is exactly the opposite of the result predicted by John Stuart Mill over 150 years ago. He thought that such worker-run cooperative associations would eventually crowd capitalist firms out of the market because of their superior efficiency and other advantages for workers."
  • ^ Where Did Mill Go Wrong?: Why the Capital-Managed Firm Rather than the Labor–Managed Enterprise Is the Predominant Organizational Form in Market Economies, by Schwartz, Justin. 2011. Ohio State Law Journal, vol. 73, no. 2, 2012: "Mill was mistaken, and Marx correct, at least about the tendency for labor-managed firms to displace capital-managed firms in the ordinary operation of the market."
  • ^ O'Hara, Phillip (2003). Encyclopedia of Political Economy, Volume 2. Routledge. p. 836. ISBN 978-0415241878. it influenced Marx to champion the ideas of a 'free association of producers' and of self-management replacing the centralized state.
  • ^ Amann, Ronald; Cooper, Julian, eds. (1986). "Self-management (samoupravlenie)". Technical Progress and Soviet Economic Development. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. p. 156. ISBN 0631145729.
  • ^ Robinson, Neil (1995). Ideology and the Collapse of the Soviet System: A Critical History of Soviet Ideological Discourse. Brookfield, Vermont: Edward Elgar Publishing Co. p. 101. ISBN 1858981670.
  • ^ Ellman, Michael (1989). Socialist Planning. Cambridge University Press. p. 312. ISBN 978-0521358668. In general, it seems reasonable to say that the state socialist countries have made no progress whatsoever towards organizing the labour process so as to end the division between the scientist and the process workers. This is scarcely surprising, both in view of the Bolshevik attitude toward Taylorism and in view of Marx's own thesis that a society in which the labour process has been transformed would be one in which technical progress had eliminated dreary, repetitive, work. Such a state of affairs has not yet been reached in even the most advanced countries.
  • ^ Gerhart, Barry; Fang, Meiyu (10 April 2015). "Pay, Intrinsic Motivation, Extrinsic Motivation, Performance, and Creativity in the Workplace: Revisiting Long-Held Beliefs". Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior. 2 (1): 489–521. doi:10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032414-111418. Archived from the original on 19 April 2022. Retrieved 6 November 2019.
  • ^ Dolgoff, S. (1974). The Anarchist Collectives: Workers' Self-Management in the Spanish Revolution. Free Life Editions. ISBN 978-0914156031.
  • ^ Rocker, Rudolf (1938). Anarcho-Syndicalism. p. 69.
  • ^ LIP, l'imagination au pouvoir Archived 2010-06-09 at the Wayback Machine, article by Serge Halimi in Le Monde diplomatique, 20 March 2007 (in French).
  • ^ Sanchez Bajo, Claudia; Roelants, Bruno. "Capital and the Debt Trap: learning from cooperatives in the global crisis". Palgrave MacMillan. Archived from the original on 16 February 2016. Retrieved 12 February 2016.
  • ^ Richard D. Wolff (June 24, 2012). "Yes, there is an alternative to capitalism: Mondragon shows the way." Archived 2020-05-07 at the Wayback Machine The Guardian. Retrieved 15 November 2013.
  • ^ "Vio.Me: workers' control in the Greek crisis". workerscontrol.net. Archived from the original on 2020-06-09. Retrieved 2020-05-07.
  • ^ "Take back the factory: worker control in the current crisis". workerscontrol.net. Archived from the original on 2020-06-23. Retrieved 2020-05-07.
  • ^ "Occupy, Resist, Produce – Officine Zero". workerscontrol.net. Archived from the original on 2020-08-10. Retrieved 2020-05-07.
  • ^ "Strike Bike: an occupied factory in Germany". workerscontrol.net. Archived from the original on 2020-09-25. Retrieved 2020-05-07.
  • ^ "Kazova workers claim historic victory in Turkey". workerscontrol.net. Archived from the original on 2021-02-11. Retrieved 2020-05-07.
  • ^ Rakopoulos, Theodoros (June 2014). "The crisis seen from below, within, and against: From solidarity economy to food distribution cooperatives in Greece". Dialectical Anthropology. 38 (2): 189–207. doi:10.1007/s10624-014-9342-5. hdl:2263/41201. S2CID 143873220. Archived from the original on 2022-04-13. Retrieved 2022-04-13.
  • ^ Kokkinidis, George (November 2015). "Spaces of possibilities: workers' self-management in Greece". Organization. 22 (6): 847–871. doi:10.1177/1350508414521098. hdl:2381/31746. S2CID 53488748. Archived from the original on 2022-04-13. Retrieved 2022-04-13.
  • ^ "znaci.net" (PDF). znaci.net. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2020-01-09. Retrieved 2022-04-11.
  • ^ Liotta, P.H. (2001-12-31). "Paradigm Lost :Yugoslav Self-Management and the Economics of Disaster". Balkanologie. Revue d'Études Pluridisciplinaires. V (1–2). doi:10.4000/balkanologie.681. Archived from the original on 2010-08-01. Retrieved 18 August 2010.
  • ^ "Yugoslavia: Introduction of Socialist Self-Management". Country Data. December 1990. Archived from the original on 9 December 2004. Retrieved 18 August 2010.
  • ^ Tomašević, Tomislav (2018). Commons in Southeast Europe: Case of Croatia, Bosnia & Herzegovina and Macedonia (in Serbo-Croatian). Zagreb: Institute for Political Ecology. p. 61. ISBN 978-9535893837.
  • ^ Constitution of Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. Archived from the original on 2022-04-11. Retrieved 2022-04-11.
  • ^ "Yugoslavia – The Economic Management Mechanism". country-data.com. Archived from the original on 2021-10-09. Retrieved 2022-04-11.
  • ^ "Zakon o udruženom radu (1976) – Викизворник, слободна библиотека". sr.wikisource.org (in Serbian). Archived from the original on 2020-09-20. Retrieved 2022-04-11.
  • ^ Lebowitz, Michael (2004). Lecciones de la autogestión yugoslava (in Spanish). Caracas: Encuentro Mundial de Solidaridad con la Revolución Bolivariana. p. 9.
  • ^ Allen, Bob (1999). Why Kosovo? Anatomy of a Needless War. National Office, BC Office: Canadian Center for Policy Alternatives. pp. 11–13. ISBN 0886279631.
  • ^ a b Vieta, Marcelo, 2020, Workers' Self-Management in Argentina: Contesting Neo-Liberalism by Occupying Companies, Creating Cooperatives, and Recuperating Autogestión Archived 2020-02-17 at the Wayback Machine, Brill, Leiden.
  • ^ a b Guido Galafassi, Paula Lenguita, Robinson Salazar Perez (2004) Nuevas Practicas Politicas Insumisas En Argentina Archived 2013-06-02 at the Wayback Machine pp. 222, 238.
  • ^ a b Vieta, Marcelo, 2020, Workers' Self-Management in Argentina: Contesting Neo-Liberalism by Occupying Companies, Creating Cooperatives, and Recuperating Autogestión Archived 2020-02-17 at the Wayback Machine, Brill, Leiden, pp. 517–519.
  • ^ Hugo Moreno, Le désastre argentin. Péronisme, politique et violence sociale (1930–2001), Editions Syllepses, Paris, 2005, p. 109 (in French).
  • ^ Movimiento Nacional de Empresas Recuperadas
  • ^ Movimiento Nacional de Fabricas Recuperadas Archived 2007-02-18 at the Wayback Machine
  • ^ Marie Trigona, Recuperated Enterprises in Argentina – Reversing the Logic of Capitalism Archived 2020-05-08 at the Wayback Machine, Znet, March 27, 2006.
  • ^ Pagina12: Nueva Ley de Quiebras Archived 2013-06-03 at the Wayback Machine (April 2011), Fábricas recuperadas y también legales Archived 2012-02-28 at the Wayback Machine (June 2nd 2011)
  • ^ CFK promulgó la reforma de la Ley de Quiebras Archived 2011-09-02 at the Wayback Machine in Página/12, June 29, 2011