Historically, the term “fair trade” has meant many things. The Fair Trade League was founded in Britain in 1881 to restrict imports from foreign countries. In the US, businesses and labor unions use “fair trade” laws to construct what economist Joseph Stiglitz calls “barbed-wire barriers to imports.” These so called “anti-dumping” laws allow a company that suspects a foreign rival of selling a product below cost to ask the government to impose special tariffs to protect it from “unfair” competition.
Such dark protectionist thoughts are far from the minds of the benevolent organizers of the UK’s annual “Fairtrade Fortnight,” during which I just bought two bars of fair-trade chocolate and a jar of fair-trade chunky peanut butter. Their worthy aim is to raise the price paid to farmers from developing countries for their produce, by excluding the inflated profits of the middlemen on whom they depend to get their goods to distant markets. Fair-trade products like cocoa, coffee, tea and bananas do not compete with domestic European production and therefore do not have a protectionist motive.
This is how it works: In exchange for being paid a guaranteed price and meeting “agreed labor and environmental standards” (minimum wages, no pesticides), farming cooperatives in poor countries receive a Fairtrade mark for their products, issued by the Fairtrade Labeling Organization. This certification enables supermarkets and other retailers to sell the products at a premium. Third World farmers get a boost to their income, while first-world consumers get to feel virtuous: a marriage made in heaven.
The fair-trade movement, launched in the 1980’s, has been growing rapidly. In a notable breakthrough in 1997, the British House of Commons decided to serve only fair-trade coffee. By the end of 2007, more than 600 producers’ organizations, representing 1.4 million farmers in 58 countries, were selling fair-trade products. Today, a quarter of all bananas in UK supermarkets are sold under a Fairtrade mark. However, Fairtrade-labeled products still represent a very small share — typically less than 1 percent — of global sales of cocoa, tea, coffee etc.
The economic rationale for guaranteed prices is well known: stabilizing the prices of primary products, which are subject to sharp fluctuations, stabilizes their producers’ incomes. This argument inspired proposals — most famously by John Maynard Keynes in 1942 — to create “buffer stocks” for the main commodities, which would take supply off the market when prices fell and add to supply when prices rose. Keynes’s proposal never made it into the Bretton Woods Agreement of 1944, and while buffer stock schemes re-surfaced in the 1970’s, they, too, went nowhere.
Left-wing economists like Raul Prebisch, moreover, later advanced the theory of “declining terms of trade” for primary products: their prices’ long-run tendency to fall relative to the prices of manufactured goods. This tendency seemed to be at work from the mid-1980’s, as commodity producers experienced a persistent decline in prices. In addition, price fluctuations throughout that decade were huge, with dire effects on sub-Saharan African and other developing countries that were largely dependent on commodities for export earnings.
Since then, however, the price decline has been reversed. Food commodity prices have increased by 150 percent since 2001. This has raised farm producers’ income independently of the fair-trade movement’s efforts. The “declining terms of trade” argument has collapsed.
However, primary product prices remain much more volatile than the prices of manufactured goods and services, causing large fluctuations in producers’ incomes. This exaggerates the effects of booms and busts. As a result, the issue of price stabilization has not gone away.
It is difficult to see how the fair-trade movement can contribute much to solving this problem, because the only serious policy for stabilizing producers’ incomes is to control supply: but that is beyond the scope of fair trade.
The target of all versions of fair trade is “free trade,” and the most damaging attacks on Fairtrade have come from free traders. In Unfair Trade, a pamphlet published in 2008 by the Adam Smith Institute, Mark Sidwell argues that Fairtrade keeps uncompetitive farmers on the land, holding back diversification and mechanization. According to Sidwell, the Fairtrade scheme turns developing countries into low-profit, labor-intensive agrarian ghettos, denying future generations the chance of a better life.
This is without considering the effect that Fairtrade has on the poorest people in these countries — not farmers, but casual laborers — who are excluded from the scheme by its expensive regulations and labor standards. In other words, Fairtrade protects farmers against their rivals and against agricultural laborers.
Consumers, Sidwell says, are also being duped. Only a tiny proportion — as little as 1 percent — of the premium that we pay for a Fairtrade chocolate bar will ever make it to cocoa producers. Nor is Fairtrade necessarily a guarantee of quality: Because producers get a minimum price for fair-trade goods, they sell the best of their crop on the open market.
However, despite its shaky economics, the fair-trade movement should not be despised. While cynics say that its only achievement is to make consumers feel better about their purchases — rather like buying indulgences in the old Catholic Church — this is to sell fair trade short. The movement represents a spark of protest against mindless consumerism, grassroots resistance against an impersonal logic and an expression of communal activism.
That justification will not convince economists, who prefer a dryer sort of reasoning, but it is not out of place to remind ourselves that economists and bureaucrats need not always have things their own way.
Robert Skidelsky, a member of the British House of Lords, is an emeritus professor of political economy at Warwick University, UK.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath