One common strategy is to work with existing businesses to create a localization movement. Often finding a few large local businesses, such as local hospitals, to create a leadership group to steer the effort
A second strategy is what's generally called a grassroots or bottom up approach in creating a localization movement. This type of organizing may be more challenging since it requires the public to organize in ways that are not typical and may require developing new forms of economic activity, such as, time banks and local currency,etc. Further, grassroots organizing may require new forms of group participation and decision making and may even require a reconsideration of the function of government and its relation to local business and regulation. In other words as participation rises in various forms of alternative local grassroots organizing, so does the legitimacy of such group to effect democratic change. A fine line may develop between what is legal and what is legitimate. This subject tends to bring fairly complex issues about democracy and representative forms of government, so I will use some examples regarding food to illustrate the point. The certification process for food grown at farmers markets or sold through local permitted businesses, is generally rigid one size fits all approach. There are no levels of certification or different kinds of certification for different types of foods, either you are legal to see according to the legal standards or you are not at the local level. However those who partake in local crop swaps, or time banks, are free to trade openly and are not bound by such legal restriction. The argument here is not to claim there is anything bad about the certification processes of local governments to regulate food products, but rather to highlight how, with increased public participation in alternative forms of local organizing, new rules and customs may be developed which eventually cause us to reconsider the general structure and meaning of local control in general.
A second strategy is what's generally called a grassroots or bottom up approach in creating a localization movement. This type of organizing may be more challenging since it requires the public to organize in ways that are not typical and may require developing new forms of economic activity, such as, time banks and local currency,etc. Further, grassroots organizing may require new forms of group participation and decision making and may even require a reconsideration of the function of government and its relation to local business and regulation. In other words as participation rises in various forms of alternative local grassroots organizing, so does the legitimacy of such group to effect democratic change. A fine line may develop between what is legal and what is legitimate. This subject tends to bring fairly complex issues about democracy and representative forms of government, so I will use some examples regarding food to illustrate the point. The certification process for food grown at farmers markets or sold through local permitted businesses, is generally rigid one size fits all approach. There are no levels of certification or different kinds of certification for different types of foods, either you are legal to see according to the legal standards or you are not at the local level. However those who partake in local crop swaps, or time banks, are free to trade openly and are not bound by such legal restriction. The argument here is not to claim there is anything bad about the certification processes of local governments to regulate food products, but rather to highlight how, with increased public participation in alternative forms of local organizing, new rules and customs may be developed which eventually cause us to reconsider the general structure and meaning of local control in general.