United States

Department of 

Agriculture

U

D

A

Rural Development

Rural Business-Cooperative Programs

Research Report 231

Comparing Cooperative 

Principles of the 

U.S. Department of Agriculture 

and the International 

Cooperative Alliance
For questions about this report, or cooperatives in general, contact USDA Cooperative Programs at: 

coopinfo@wdc.usda.gov, or (202) 720-7558. USDA maintains an on-line library of more than 100 publications about cooperatives at: www.rurdev.usda.gov/BCP_Coop_LibraryOfPubs.htm. Free hard copies 

of some of these publications are also available. Requests can be made via the contacts provided above. 

USDA also publishes “Rural Cooperatives” magazine bimonthly. The current and past issues can be 

viewed online at: www.rurdev.usda.gov/BCP_Coop_RurCoopMag.html.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination against its customers. If you believe 

you experienced discrimination when obtaining services from USDA, participating in a USDA program, 

or participating in a program that receives fi nancial assistance from USDA, you may fi le a complaint with 

USDA. Information about how to fi le a discrimination complaint is available from the Offi ce of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights.

To fi le a complaint of discrimination, complete, sign and mail a program discrimination complaint form, 

available at any USDA offi ce location or online at www.ascr.usda.gov, or write to:

USDA

Offi ce of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights

1400 Independence Avenue, S.W.

Washington, D.C. 20250-9410

Or call toll free at (866) 632-9992 (voice) to obtain additional information, the appropriate offi ce or to request documents. Individuals who are deaf, hard of hearing or have speech disabilities may contact USDA 

through the Federal Relay service at (800) 877-8339 or (800) 845-6136 (in Spanish). USDA is an equal 

opportunity provider, employer and lender.

Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (e.g., 

Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and 

TDD). 
Comparing Cooperative Principles i

ABSTRACT

The cooperative principles of the U.S. Department 

of Agriculture (USDA) and those of the International Cooperative Alliance (ICA) trace their origins 

back to the Rochdale statement developed in 1860, 

but they have evolved in slightly different directions. This report makes selective comparisons 

between two sets of contemporary cooperative principles in regard to how they distinguish that form of 

organization from other forms of business.

Keywords principles, organization, members, 

values, solidarity

Comparing Cooperative Principles of the U.S. Department of Agriculture

and the International Cooperative Alliance

Bruce J. Reynolds 

Economist 

USDA Rural Development

Rural Business-Cooperative Service

RBS Research Report 231

June, 2014
ii Comparing Cooperative Principles

PREFACE

This report was presented at the North Central 

Extension Research Activity -210 (NCERA-210) 

meeting on November 6, 2013 (http://ncera.aae.

wisc.edu/). Cooperative principles have been revised at various times by different organizations 

since they were fi rst articulated by the Rochdale 

weavers in 1860. 

By the 1980s, many cooperative leaders and 

academic researchers believed that cooperative 

principles needed to be articulated in a way that 

established their distinctiveness from other forms 

of organization. As part of several nationwide panel 

discussions that focused on how to best position 

farmer cooperatives for the future, USDA defi ned 

three core cooperative principles in a 1987 statement. Its approach was to eliminate “principles” 

that were actually “best practices.” The USDA coop statement is a concise defi nition of a distinctive 

form of business organization that is controlled by 

users or producers, rather than investors. 

The International Cooperative Alliance (ICA) 

took a different approach to articulating the distinctiveness of cooperatives with its statement of principles in 1995. Leading up to the 1995 statement, 

a concern of ICA was that this distinctiveness was 

being lost as some cooperatives were identifying 

themselves as being comparable with investorowned businesses in their respective industries. 

Another concern was that the public was viewing 

tax-reduction effi ciency as the primary value of a 

cooperative. ICA’s approach was to draft a cooperative identity statement that refl ected values that 

were either lacking in, or irrelevant, to organizations 

other than cooperatives. 

This examination of the two sets of co-op principles will explain why they differ in particular 

attributes, while recognizing that both contribute 

to a better understanding of the unique nature of 

cooperatives. 
Comparing Cooperative Principles of the 

U.S. Department of Agriculture

and the International Cooperative Alliance

Introduction

The cooperative principles defi ned by the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture (USDA), as well as 

those of the International Cooperative Alliance 

(ICA), both trace their origins back to the Rochdale 

statement, developed in 1860. But the USDA and 

ICA defi nitions evolved in slightly different directions. Throughout their history, cooperatives have 

not departed from the Rochdale ideas about the 

importance of democratic control by members and 

that the primary purpose of a co-op is to serve the 

interests of members. 

Yet, cooperative principles have been re-stated 

over time by different groups, with slight variations 

occurring in these defi nitions of the attributes of a 

cooperative. 

USDA provided a statement of three cooperative 

principles in 1987. ICA issued a revised statement 

of seven cooperative principles in 1995. This report 

makes some selective comparisons between the 

two sets of contemporary cooperative principles in 

regard to how they distinguish a co-op from other 

types of business organization, particularly from 

business entities focused on maximizing return on 

investment.

While these two sets of principles do not contradict each other, they do have several differences. 

This comparison will examine why they are different by contrasting the justifi cations used by those 

who developed these alternative statements. It will 

also consider how successful they are in describing 

the uniqueness of cooperatives. 

Using the term “principles”

The cooperative principles of USDA and those of 

the ICA purport to apply to all cooperatives and are 

not sector specifi c. Both sets of principles set out to 

provide a distinct identity to the cooperative form of 

business. A major source of the difference between 

them resides in their respective use of the term 

“principle.” How the two sets of principles use the 

term is the fi rst factor to consider. From that point, 

we examine the different philosophical orientations 

and beliefs they represent. 

A principle can be defi ned as follows: “A principle is any such generalization ...which provides 

a basis for reasoning, or... a guide for conduct or 

procedure.” (Webster’s Dictionary, as reported by 

Schaars).

This defi nition is split between “a basis for reasoning” and “a guide.” The word “principles” is 

commonly used in these two different ways, such 

as:

(a) Scientifi c explanations of phenomena, or the essential methods of a science;

(b) Necessary and suffi cient conditions for an entity 

to have distinct identity or be a type;

(c) Behavioral guidance for morality or for civic 

virtues;

(d) Behavioral guidance for effi ciency and success.

The “reasoning” approach of (a) and (b) and the 

“guidance” purposes of (c) and (d) are combined, to 

some extent, in all statements of cooperative principles. Yet, USDA’s reasoning approach to principles 

focuses on defi nition, while the ICA takes more of 

a guidance approach, with a separate statement for 

defi ning a cooperative. 

How cooperative members have understood the 

meaning of the term “principle” may have infl uenced the ways in which the statements of principles have been applied. British cooperative leader 

and author, Edgar Parnell, argues that in retrospect 

a strict adherence to principles has been detrimental to the growth and wider use of cooperatives 

1

Bruce J. Reynolds 

Economist
2 Comparing Cooperative Principles

(Parnell 1995). He recommends applying rules that 

guide rather than principles that assert “indisputable 

truth.” Parnell understands the term “principle” in 

its methodological reasoning sense and believes that 

guidance is what matters for cooperatives. Hence, 

he understands the term “principles” in the sense of 

items (a) and (b), not (c) and (d) as described above. 

The Rochdale statement of nine cooperative 

principles became an international standard. Parnell 

observes that the Rochdale pioneers regarded their 

statement as being rules, and it was not until the 

ICA adopted a slightly revised version in 1937 that 

they became enshrined as “principles.” Yet, there 

are references to the Rochdale Cooperative Principles well before 1937.

In the decades following the U.S. Civil War, the 

Grange and then the Alliance movements, followed 

by organizations such as the Farm Bureau, actively 

promoted farmer cooperatives. They adopted and 

made various adaptations to what they regarded 

as the Rochdale Principles (Nourse). Some of the 

principles were included in U.S. State incorporation 

statutes. While having some similarities, they were 

often stated with slight variations (Baarda 1979). 

Drawing from Abrahamsen’s textbook, Dave 

Barton, in a later textbook, specifi es the emergence 

of eight so-called traditional cooperative principles 

that prevailed in U.S. agriculture during the 20th 

century until the 1980s. Six of the eight principles 

are derived from Rochdale.

The Traditional 8 in concise form, are:

1. Voting is by members on a democratic (onemember-one-vote) basis;

2. Membership is open;

3. Equity is provided by patrons;

4. Ownership of voting stock is limited;

5. Net income is distributed to patrons as patronage 

refunds on a cost basis;

6. Dividend on equity capital is limited;

7. Business is done primarily with member-patrons;

8. Duty to educate.

By the 1980s, much of the “Traditional 8” were 

regarded as either “practices” or as archaic. Principle 4 was redundant if Principle 1 were applied. 

Principle 2, open membership, was viewed as 

impractical, particularly for U.S. agricultural cooperatives when dealing with mounting surpluses. 

However, the ICA has retained the open principle, 

meaning that a cooperative should not discriminate 

in its membership on the basis of gender, race, or 

religion (MacPherson, 1995). 

USDA principles

The need to update the principles was a topic of the 

mid-1980s meetings with leaders in the U.S. cooperative community, held to help prepare a report to 

Congress in 1987: “Positioning Farmer Cooperatives for the 21st Century.” Although the report was 

directed to farmer cooperatives, its statement of a 

new set of principles was developed to apply to all 

types of cooperatives. 

The USDA statement of three principles of cooperatives (USDA 3) is as follows:

• User-Owner Principle: Those who own and 

fi nance the cooperative are those who use the 

cooperative.

• User-Control Principle: Those who control the 

cooperative are those who use the cooperative.

• User-Benefi ts Principle: The cooperative’s sole 

purpose is to provide and distribute benefi ts to 

its users on the basis of their use.

The USDA 3 provides a concise statement by 

eliminating what were viewed as practices, rather 

than principles. When best practices are identifi ed 

to routinely follow, they may become principles, in 

the sense that they offer guidance. USDA wanted 

principles that provided a precise defi nition. 

USDA’s “economic reasoning” approach sought 

universal validity through necessary and suffi cient 

conditions for an organization to be a cooperative. 

In using the “reasoning” approach, the USDA 3 

principles are more of a defi nition of cooperatives 

than they are a guide for their conduct. Hence, the 

USDA 3 follows the (a) and (b) examples. 

The Traditional 8 are edited below to refl ect the 

USDA 3 (crossouts denote practices deleted from 

USDA principles): 

1. Voting is by members on a democratic (onemember-one-vote) basis;
Comparing Cooperative Principles 3

2. Membership is open;

3. Equity is provided by patrons;

4. Ownership of voting stock is limited;

5. Net income is distributed to patrons as patronage 

refunds on a cost basis (based on their use);

6. Dividend on equity capital is limited;

7. Business is done primarily with member-patrons;

8. Duty to educate.

Principle 1 is “user-control,” with “one-member, 

one-vote” deleted. Principle 3 is “user-owner.” Principles 5 and 7 can be combined to form the “userbenefi ts” principle of the USDA 3.

The principles in USDA 3 are universal and timeless in the sense of not being infl uenced by periodic 

changes in socio-economic conditions or in cultural 

norms. By contrast, those who developed the ICA 

principles embrace social and historical experience 

as a source for defi ning the distinctive purposes of 

cooperatives. As a result, the ICA statement requires 

lengthier explanation. USDA 3 focuses on the essential difference—cooperatives are businesses 

established for users and do not serve the interests 

of non-user investors.

Indeed, the USDA 3 is often expressed as a 

defi nition of a cooperative rather than as a set of 

principles. “A cooperative is a user-owned, usercontrolled business that distributes benefi ts on the 

basis of use” is a restatement of USDA 3 as a defi nition of a cooperative (Zeuli and Cropp). But even as 

a defi nition, it is questionable whether the USDA 3 

excludes other types of organizations that may satisfy its criteria, but which are neither incorporated 

as, nor which self-identify as, cooperatives. Several 

types of private businesses have no non-user owners. 

In other words, USDA 3 may not suffi ciently 

differentiate cooperatives with the emergence of 

non-cooperative entities that are user-owned, usercontrolled, and user-benefi ted. 

Such businesses are found in professional services and in the booming technology industries and 

are analogous to worker cooperatives. Farmers have 

also actively organized limited liability companies 

(LLCs), with many of these having no non-user 

owners, and some do not regard their organizations 

as cooperatives. These “user” entities can be defi ned 

as cooperatives if they satisfy USDA 3. But why 

increase the inclusiveness of a defi nition when the 

individuals who organize these entities do not selfidentify as cooperatives? 

Economics Interpretation

The reduced form approach of specifying the 

minimum principles is an immediate indication that 

USDA 3 was developed by looking through the 

lens of economics. USDA 3 is reduced to the essential elements of people working together for their 

mutual interests. While the ICA is willing to accept 

general best practices that have stood the test of 

time, USDA 3 draws a line between a practice and a 

principle (Dunn). 

Another feature of economics is that the individual is the basic unit of analysis. Economists 

have traditionally asserted the postulate that the 

individual is the fundamental basis of a cooperative 

(Schaars). In an infl uential application of economic 

theory, Emelianoff conceptualized cooperatives as 

an aggregation of individuals (Emelianoff 1942). 

This interpretation was recently discussed in Rural 

Cooperatives magazine (Ling). The individualist 

postulate is refl ected in discussions of USDA 3 by 

pointing out that a cooperative serves the interests 

of the “current” user and is not for perpetuating the 

organization or collective entity (Dunn). 

Economists believe that assertions about common 

goals must, at a minimum, be validated by processes of aggregating individual choices, but not on 

a priori grounds. In fact, one of the major contributions of the individualist postulate of economics is 

to understand how group commitments and practices can lead to conditions that increase individual 

incentives to act alone or to form dissenting coalitions (Schelling, Olson, Buchanan, and Tullock). 

A third aspect of economics that is refl ected in 

USDA 3, but not in other statements of cooperative 

principles, is the assumption of wertfrei (valuefree), also referred to as the positivist approach 

(Robbins, Friedman). Economists avoid asserting 

social values, yet this cautiousness when applied 

to principles may exclude attributes that contribute 

to further differentiating cooperatives from other 

forms of organization. 

The intention of theorists such as Emelianoff, 
4 Comparing Cooperative Principles

among others, was to defi ne the cooperative in a 

way to preserve distinctiveness from other forms of 

business in so far as that served the requirements for 

applying economic analysis and methodology. An 

economics approach, however, may not satisfy other 

requirements necessary for defi ning a unique cooperative identity. 

ICA 7

Turning to the seven principles of the International Cooperative Alliance (ICA 7), the idea of individual self-interest is operative but social theory is also 

applied to defi ning and guiding cooperatives. The 

ICA had issued statements of cooperative principles 

in 1937 and 1966; by the early 1980s they were already considering a re-statement that fi nally came in 

1995 (Hoyt). When revisiting the ICA principles of 

1966, it was deemed critically important to combine 

principles within an identity statement. 

ICA 7 set out to establish a unique identity for cooperatives. But applying the ICA identity statement 

as criteria is more complicated than the concise 

defi nition of USDA 3. 

The importance of identity was in reaction to the 

earlier ICA principles and the drift of some cooperatives away from a focus on serving member activities – not as a reaction to USDA 3. To that end, it 

is worth listing the 1966 statement in abbreviated 

form:

1. Open, voluntary membership.

2. Democratic governance; one-member, one-vote 

in primary cooperatives.

3. Limited return on equity.

4. Surplus belongs to members.

5. Education of members and public in cooperative 

principles and practices.

6. Cooperation between cooperatives.

Many of ICA’s members had regarded these as 

a rigid doctrine, as pointed out by Parnell, rather 

than living principles for direction and guidance. 

By setting the new principles within the context of 

an identity statement and a defi nition of unchanging cooperative values, they are pragmatic and not 

doctrinaire guidelines (MacPherson 1995). Some of 

the ICA 7 principles are clear lines to follow, such 

as voluntary and open membership or democratic 

member control. But others leave room for interpretation.

The statement of identity is in three parts: a defi -

nition of a cooperative, a list of cooperative values, 

followed by the statement of seven principles. 

Defi nition: A cooperative is an autonomous association of persons united voluntarily to meet their 

common economic, social, and cultural needs and 

aspirations through a jointly owned and democratically controlled enterprise.

Values: Cooperatives are based on the values of 

self-help, self-responsibility, democracy, equality, equity, and solidarity. In the tradition of their 

founders, cooperative members believe in the ethical values of honesty, openness, social responsibility, and caring for others.

Principles:

1. Voluntary and Open Membership – Cooperatives are voluntary organizations, open to all 

persons able to use their services and willing to 

accept the responsibilities of membership, without gender, social, racial, political, or religious 

discrimination.

2. Democratic Member Control – Cooperatives 

are democratic organizations controlled by their 

members, who actively participate in setting 

their policies and making decisions. Men and 

women serving as elected representatives are accountable to the membership. In primary cooperatives, members have equal voting rights (one 

member, one vote), and cooperatives at other 

levels are also organized in a democratic manner.

3. Member Economic Participation – Members 

contribute equitably to, and democratically 

control, the capital of their cooperative. At least 

part of that capital is usually the common property of the cooperative. Members usually receive 

limited compensation, if any, on capital subscribed as a condition of membership. Members 

allocate surpluses for any or all of the following 

purposes: developing their cooperative, possibly by setting up reserves, part of which at least 

would be indivisible; benefi tting members in 

proportion to their transactions with the cooperative; and supporting other activities approved 
Comparing Cooperative Principles 5

by membership.

4. Autonomy and Independence – Cooperatives are autonomous, self-help organizations 

controlled by their members. If they enter into 

agreements with other organizations, including governments, or raise capital from external 

sources, they do so on terms that ensure democratic control by their members and maintain 

their co-operative autonomy.

5. Education, Training, and Information – Cooperatives provide education and training for their 

members, elected representatives, managers, and 

employees so they can contribute effectively 

to the development of their cooperatives. They 

inform the general public – particularly young 

people and opinion leaders – about the nature 

and benefi ts of cooperation.

6. Cooperation Among Cooperatives – Cooperatives serve their members most effectively and 

strengthen the cooperative movement by working together through local, national, regional, 

and international structures. 

7. Concern for Community – Cooperatives work 

for the sustainable development of their communities through policies approved by their members.

 (Source: http://ica.coop/en/what-co-op/co-operative-identity-values-principles)

The ICA defi nition of a cooperative, while expressed in different words from the USDA statement, is concise and readily understandable by the 

general public. 

The ICA’s statement of cooperative values establishes a universality and timelessness, as the USDA 

3 principles do without asserting values. These 

values were articulated in a 1992 ICA publication 

by Sven Book. He drew these values, working in a 

team, out of studying the history and traditions of 

cooperatives throughout the world (Book). 

The sections of the principles’ statement (in italic 

type, above) denote where ICA 7 has commonalities 

with USDA 3. But while ICA 7 covers user control 

and benefi ts, it does not offer an explicit statement 

about user or member ownership, which is the fi rst 

principle of USDA 3. 

The ICA 7 principles are considered to be a living document that develops over time from shared 

learning and experience (MacPherson, 2004). They 

provide a basis for determining what is, and what is 

not, a cooperative, but they are more expansive criteria than USDA 3. Yet, their purpose is not entirely 

to serve as criteria. By including a defi nition in the 

identity statement, the ICA principles function as a 

guide to realize and follow the values that cooperatives have established throughout their history. 

There are at least three topics that are particularly 

relevant for comparing ICA 7 with USDA 3: (1) 

individual member ownership, (2) concern for community, and (3) member solidarity as an identifying 

trait of cooperatives. 

The user-owner of the USDA 3 is not explicitly 

stated as a principle in and of itself in ICA 7. Furthermore, nothing is stated about common or collective property in USDA 3. 

The 3rd principle of ICA 7 draws a distinction 

between the common property of the cooperative, 

while the idea of individual ownership is described 

in terms of subscriptions for membership and in the 

allocation of surpluses to members in proportion to 

use. Yet, as discussed by David Ellerman, in many 

cooperatives, individual capital accounts have an 

essential role in assigning ownership for a member’s past contributions. This equity is returned to 

members after their participation in the cooperative 

ends (Ellerman). 

Furthermore, the 3rd ICA principle states that 

a cooperative may want to set aside unallocated 

surpluses for an indivisible reserve. In the event a 

cooperative were sold to investors, the indivisible 

reserve would not be distributed to members but 

instead delivered to other cooperative associations. 

Indivisible reserves are essentially a constraint imposed at an earlier point in time by former members 

who have retired from participation in the cooperative. Such reserves would confl ict with the explanation of USDA principles as recognizing the interests 

of current members without regard to those in the 

future (Dunn).

The point being made by this comparison is that 

these two sets of principles are in sharp contrast on 

the idea of ownership; it is not intended as a recommendation for changes in either statement.

 A second point of contrast with USDA 3 is the 

ICA’s seventh principle, “concern for community,” 

which was entirely new in 1995, whereas the other 
6 Comparing Cooperative Principles

principles were revisions of previously existing 

statements. The late Ian Macpherson1 explained 

the background to its adoption and provided several 

justifi cations (2012). He references a substantial history throughout the world where individuals organized cooperatives in their communities to improve 

their well-being in the context of often harsh economic conditions. 

MacPherson makes an “origins” argument, that 

cooperatives arise out of communities and are not 

the creation of national governments or international 

institutions. The concerns of communities are the 

impetus to start cooperatives so this concern is essential to their existence. 

In addition, MacPherson argues that all the 

cultural connections of community are what makes 

cooperatives work well and provides their distinctiveness. In his words: “It (the cooperative movement) was based on bonds of association that were 

different from those that characterized joint stock 

and partnership fi rms” (2012). Cooperatives are 

both businesses and providers of services based on 

member needs, in addition to market demand. Meeting unmet needs is a distinctive feature of cooperatives that MacPherson considers as demonstrating 

their concern for communities. 

Some experts criticize this principle for extending 

the mission beyond the boundaries of cooperative 

membership and of offering nothing that is distinctive to cooperatives (Davis). Clearly, there are 

many organizations with concern for community 

that are not cooperatives. MacPherson’s discussion 

of the importance of community to cooperatives 

explains the motivations for the ICA to adopt the 

seventh principle. But it is different from the other 

principles in its external focus. 

The fi nal point to consider is “solidarity” as one 

of the ICA’s values of cooperatives and its potential 

for providing a key to creating distinctive identity. 

Similar to community, solidarity might be important 

to cooperatives but not be regarded as distinctive or 

essential. Yet, it may have distinctiveness if it is tied 

to the essential workings of members’ relationship 

with, and responsibility to, one another. 

Some help in this regard may come from con1

 Ian MacPherson had led the ICA project on revising the 

cooperative principles. He passed away on November 

16, 2013.

sidering a statement by Cooperative Business New 

Zealand: “What We Mean by a Cooperative” (http://

nz.coop/understanding-co-ops/). It accomplishes 

identity by emphasizing attributes of member solidarity and mutuality. Following Parnell, the New 

Zealand statement is not expressed as principles. It 

starts with a defi nition: “An enterprise, freely established, that is owned and controlled by a group of 

legal persons for the purpose of equitably providing 

themselves with mutual benefi ts arising from the 

activities of the enterprise, and not primarily from 

investment in it.”

Each phrase of the defi nition is then given explicit detailed statements. For example, “... the 

solidarity of the group needs to be maintained and 

developed.” In addition, a cooperative is “not based 

on one set of members gaining benefi ts from other 

members of the group.” 

The word “solidarity” is widely used. But the 

idea of cooperative “members’ solidarity” involves 

reciprocations and consensus within a distinct group 

and is different from the application of the term for 

socio-economic classes or national identities. 

Transparency about earnings, distributions, 

policies, and decisions about new strategic directions is a feature that is common to all user owned 

and controlled businesses, whether constituted as 

cooperatives or as alternative business organizations. Transparency, in turn, often leads to internal 

disagreements by users, which is a result that fi rms 

without transparency can avoid (Reynolds). 

The cooperative difference is in the practice of 

solidarity as a commitment to resolving differences to prevent departures or exiting by members. 

In contrast, user fi rms, such as those organized by 

lawyers or small technology businesses, will often 

have departures over confl icts in policy or strategic 

directions with member solidarity noticeably absent. 

The cooperative identity offered by the USDA 3 

defi nition would be improved by asserting the users’ 

commitment to consensus and to each other’s fair 

treatment. Member solidarity requires more user 

action than just having mutual economic interests. 

While this attribute falls under member governance, 

the user-control principle is not equivalent to the necessity of voice for all members, and their commitment to keep one another in the membership rather 

than let the exit option run its course (Hirschman). 
Comparing Cooperative Principles 7

Cooperative solidarity is also operative when 

a membership leaves behind a fi nancially sound 

business for younger members to continue. When 

cooperatives maintain a commitment to not demutualize, they exhibit solidarity that is not present 

in many other types of user-owned and controlled 

businesses. 

Principles and the distinctiveness of cooperatives

 Commenting and critiquing cooperative principles is a far easier task than having to prepare such 

statements. The two sets of defi nitions of cooperatives and principles discussed above have all made 

important and different contributions. 

USDA 3 exhibits the virtues of being a concise 

defi nition that includes essential attributes of cooperatives. Whether or not additional attributes are 

needed for a distinctive identity was examined in 

this paper. 

For most intents and purposes, the expression of 

USDA 3 as a defi nition is satisfactory. It is suggested that the attribute of solidarity, meaning the 

members’ concern for one another’s economic interests in the cooperative, would convey a decisive 

distinctiveness. Member solidarity supports, and 

does not confl ict with, an individualist perspective, 

unless the latter is defi ned in the narrow sense of 

atomistic individualism.

The ICA took up the issue of cooperative identity. 

Its identity statement seeks differentiation of cooperatives from other forms of business and from the 

command systems of governments. The argument 

was made above that while individual ownership is 

a common element of all businesses, it has specifi c 

forms that deserve to be more highlighted in the 

ICA statement. 

It was also pointed out, drawing upon comments 

of cooperatives experts, that Principle 7, “concern 

for communities,” may not offer much distinctiveness. If cooperatives accomplish a concern for the 

benefi ts of all members and an active democratic 

consensus on decisions, they will set an example 

that communities around the world will want to 

emulate. 

In closing, the effort to understand the history of, 

and apply critical analysis to, the defi nitions and 

principles is an important part of keeping cooperatives relevant and successful. This intellectual 

pursuit is defi nitely a legacy of Ian MacPherson. 

References

Abrahamsen, Martin A. 1976. Cooperative Business Enterprise. McGraw-Hill, Inc.

Baarda, James R. 1979. Cooperative Law and Cooperative Principles are Closely Connected. American Institute of Cooperation Yearbook. Washington, 

DC.

Barton, David G. 1989. Principles. Cooperatives in 

Agriculture. David Cobia, ed. Prentice Hall.

Book, Sven A. 1992. Co-operative Values in a 

Changing World. International Co-operative 

Alliance.

http://www.uwcc.wisc.edu/icic/orgs/ica/pubs/studies/Co-operative-Values-in-a-Changing- World- 1/

index.html. 

Buchanan, James A. and Gordon Tullock 1962. 

The Calculus of Consent. (Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press).

Davis, Peter. 1997. Co-operative Identity and 

Co-operative Management. International Cooperative Alliance. 

http://www.uwcc.wisc.edu/icic/def-hist/geninfo/Co-operative-Identity-and-Co-operativeM1.html

Dunn, John R. 1988. Basic Cooperative Principles 

and their Relationship to Selected Practices. 

Journal of Cooperatives (formerly the Journal of 

Agricultural Cooperation) V. 3.

Ellerman, David. 2007. On the Role of Capital in 

“Capitalist” and in Labor-Managed Firms. Review 

of Radical Political Economics. V. 39 No. 2, winter. 

Emelianoff, Ivan V. 1942. Economic Theory of Cooperation: Economic Structure of Cooperative 

Organizations (Ann Arbor, MI: Edward Brother, 

Inc.).

Friedman, Milton. 1953. Essays in Positive Economics (Chicago: University of Chicago Press).

Hirschman, Albert O. 1970. Exit, Voice, and Loyalty: Responses to Decline in Firms, Organizations, 

and States (Cambridge: Harvard University Press). 
8 Comparing Cooperative Principles

Hoyt, Ann. 1996. And Then There Were Seven: 

Cooperative Principles Updated. Cooperative 

Grocer, January/February. http://www.uwcc.wisc.

edu/staff/hoyt/princart.html.

Ling, Charles K. 2013. Essential economic role of 

farmer co-ops. Rural Cooperatives, November/December.

MacPherson, Ian. 1995 a. Cooperative Principles 

For The 21st Century (Geneva, Switzerland: 

International Cooperative Alliance). 

MacPherson, Ian. 1995 b. Speech Introducing 

the Co-operative Identity Statement to the 1995 

Manchester Congress of the ICA. One Path to 

Co-operative Studies (Victoria, Canada: New 

Rochdale Press).

MacPherson, Ian. 2012. Cooperatives’ Concern For 

The Community: From Members Towards Local 

Communities’ Interests (presentation at the International Conference, “Promoting the Understanding 

of Cooperatives for a Better World,” Venice, Italy: 

March 15-16- Euricse Working Paper Series ISSN 

2281-8235).

Nourse, Edwin G. 1927. The Legal Status of Agricultural Co-operation (New York: Macmillan 

Co.).

Olson, Mancur. 1965. The Logic of Collective Action (Cambridge: Harvard University Press). 

Positioning Farmer Cooperatives for the Future: A 

Report to Congress. 1987 (Washington, DC: 

USDA/ACS).

Parnell, Edgar. 1995. Reinventing the Cooperative 

(Oxfordshire, UK: Plunkett Foundation).

Reynolds, Bruce J. 1997. Decision-Making in 

Cooperatives with Diverse Member Interests 

(USDA: RBS Research Report 155). http://www.

rurdev.usda.gov/supportdocuments/RR155.pdf

Robbins, Lionel. 1932. An Essay on the Nature and 

Signifi cance of Economic Science. London: Macmillan.

Schaars, Marvin A. 1957. Basic Principles of 

Cooperatives: Their Growth and Development 

Agricultural Cooperation: Selected Readings, ed. 

Abrahamsen & Scroggs (Minneapolis: University of 

Minnesota Press).

Schelling, Thomas C. 1978. Micromotives and Macrobehavior (New York: W.W. Norton & Company).

Schelling, Thomas C., 1963. The Strategy of Confl ict (Cambridge: Harvard University Press).

Zeuli, Kimberley A. and Robert Cropp. 2004. 

Cooperatives: Principles & Practices in the 21st 

Century (Madison: University of Wisconsin Extension, A1457).