Grow or split, apart or together? Three strategies for development and collaboration

Over time, citizen collectives have adopted different “scaling strategies,” meaning choices regarding size, reach, and collaboration.

1. In the first wave of citizen collectives (Middle Ages), including market associations and guilds, rapid membership growth often led to splits and specialization. For example, a guild of artisans might split into separate guilds for carpenters, masons, and joiners. Market associations were limited by the size of the area relative to the number of users (farmers and their livestock). The advantage of this strategy is that the collective remains independent and close to the needs of its members. The disadvantage is vulnerability to governments and external events.

2. During the second wave (1880–1920) in the development of citizen collectives, the focus was on agricultural cooperatives and mutual insurance societies. These typically started as local organizations, but over time a strategy of merging and centralization prevailed. For Dutch context, there is a direct line from the hundreds of local dairy cooperatives around 1900 to today’s FrieslandCampina, or from the Onderlinge Brandassurantie in Achlum (1812) to today’s Achmea. The advantage of this merger and centralization strategy is achieving greater critical mass; the disadvantage is that members become more distant, reducing engagement.

3. Finally, in the current third wave of citizen collectives, a mix of scalable and non-scalable (stand-alone) organizational models has emerged. Regarding collaboration, a network strategy dominates, characterized by a polycentric structure. This means that collectives are connected but maintain a certain degree of autonomy. The advantage is that citizen collectives remain close to the needs of their members while forming a strong collective movement. The disadvantage is that cross-sector knowledge sharing is limited.

    

Dutch examples of strategic considerations

• Cooperation Stationspark Deurne is, so far, a unique, place-based organization. Its success has generated interest from municipalities and train station areas in other locations. Key questions: is the Deurne concept replicable and scalable, and who takes the initiative?

• De Participatiekeuken (the participation kitchen) has a clear scaling strategy: the more “dining tables” spread across The Hague or elsewhere, the better. Self-management is the guiding principle, and central coordination is absent.

• Herenboeren Nederland operates somewhat like a franchise model and aims to accelerate the development of a new food system. A polycentric governance model applies: local initiatives have autonomy but within fixed frameworks. This model allows for local innovation while enabling knowledge and information sharing between farms.

Rewatch: Prof. dr Tine De Moor op scaling strategies.