Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Fair Trade’ Category

Another of Mum’s great passions was ‘Fair Trade’ i.e. paying a higher price for goods to allow people in the developing world to get a fair price for their products. We sold Fair Trade goods 30 years ago when we lived in the UK and Mum was always a passionate Fair Trade advocate. One of her more recent projects was the Springwood Fair Trade fair. It was mum’s initiative and she worked very hard to make the fair work.

I realised how important this was to Mum so I took Aiden and Aoife up with me to Sydney for the weekend to be there for the inaugural Springwood Fair Trade Fair.

Saturday 17th November 2012

Today was the big day – the Springwood Uniting Church Fair Trade fair. Mum and Dad were up very early and went off. Geoff was here and helped get Aiden and Aoife ready. We had breakfast and went down to the Springwood church at 9am.

I arrived and walked in, already at 9am the market was going well, lots of stallholders and people were buying. It got steadily better and better. The fair turned out to be a resounding success.

I hung out with Aiden and Aoife and we wandered around. We explored the grounds. I chatted with a few people – Anthony and Pat Head. The kids enjoyed some morning tea and we played in the creche room. We played there for a while. We also went for a couple of walks and the kids liked that.

All the while, the fair trade fair went very well. A huge number of people and I could see that it was going well.

I saw Neil Cottle (& Ainslie) now with 2 children! I also saw Justine Jenner (with 4 children) and also Damien. It was really great to see them, we had a nice chat for a while but it was way too short. We had some lunch and a brief chat with Damien, they were going ok.

They had to go on, it was nice to see them. Soon the fair trade fair wound down. Aiden and Aoife were getting tired, it had been pretty boring for them. At a bit after 2pm we headed off [Oh it had also been nice to see Joan & Alastair and Dianne].

Geoff drove us home and Aiden and Aoife watched some TV. We watched TV until 3:30pm. Then hung out outside, we played in the billycart and did a few other things.

Mum and Dad came home and were pleased with how the fair had gone. They talked about it.

We went for a late afternoon walk and Geoff went ahead. I was left with Aoife at the rear. We eventually caught up.

We ordered some Chinese take-away for dinner and we ate that. The kids ate ok. They were tired and we had them in to bed at 7pm.

I showed some YouTube videos to Mum and Dad and then we talked a bit about the fair trade fair. It really had gone well and there were a number of things for them to talk about. They were both very tired.

They went to bed and I wrote in here.

Advertisements

Read Full Post »

There has been much discussion about the ‘Fair Trade’ movement. This is something close to my (Rob’s) family’s heart as we have sold Fair Trade goods for some 30 years or so. I wrote an essay on this topic several years ago when at theological college. Though the essay was written in 2009, I feel that the material is still very relevant and contributes to a number of the contemporary debates surrounding Fair Trade.

The original essay was answering the question: ‘Evaluate “fair trade” initiatives. Are these interventions an appropriate response for producers and their societies?’

Here is my essay reproduced in full. I hope it provides some useful food for thought.

 

‘Change today, buy fairtrade’.[1] This pithy motto encapsulates the vision of Fair Trade—that the developing world can indeed be changed through individual purchasing decisions. Indeed the Fair Trade vision is sweeping the developed world; in 2008 the sale of Fairtrade products defied the global economic recession and grew by a staggering 22% to almost €2.9 billion.[2] Moreover, Cadbury recently announced that its flagship brand—Cadbury Dairy Milk—will become Fairtrade certified.[3] So given the increased growth, profile and influence of Fair Trade, questions must be asked concerning the actual benefits accrued by such initiatives. Do they really change the world, or just make us feel better or unwittingly even make the situation worse?[4] Are fair trade initiatives appropriate interventions to alleviate the poverty of producers and their societies?

After briefly outlining the mechanics of Fair Trade (FT), this essay will evaluate FT initiatives against the biblical message and also against the alternative development strategy often advocated—the pure free market capitalist approach. Finally a practical evaluation will be made assessing the actual benefits accruing to FT participants precipitating a judgement determining if these interventions are appropriate for producers and their societies.

Historically FT grew out of Christian organisations purchasing handicrafts from poor producers in the developing world and selling them directly to conscientious consumers.[5]  Since then commodity food lines have risen to dominate the FT market. The distinction between handicrafts and commodities is important for FT works slightly differently in each situation. FT handicraft organisations create employment for the marginalised, offer training and skills development and promote fair internal labour arrangements. FT commodity producers are organised into co-operatives and receive either the world market price or the fairtrade minimum price—a price floor set by the Fairtrade Labelling Organisations International – whichever is greater, guaranteeing the producer a minimum price. This price is supplemented with a compulsory ‘fairtrade premium’, paid to the co-operative, which finances various community development projects such as schools, recreational facilities[6] and educational centres.[7]

Therefore at its core Fair trade seeks to guarantee fairness: fair prices and conditions for participants. This is necessary because of the ‘unfairnesses’ faced by such people in the wake of modern capitalism. The poor are in a vulnerable position because they lack the factors contributing to empowerment. They often lack education—many coffee growers have about a fourth grade education.[8] They lack expertise to attempt alternatives: farmers in Dominica often return to bananas when they can’t earn a living from anything else.[9] Allied with this, the poor are often risk averse, for if a new, risky venture fails there will be nothing to feed their family.[10] The poor also lack capital and efficient credit markets; poor producers lack collateral and are at the mercy of loan sharks.[11] Moreover, standard economic models advocating free access to information or markets also break down.[12] Without these factors, the poor are powerless—lacking essential resources to participate in broader social communications,[13] they are trapped in unprofitable industries or jobs unable to switch to alternative income generation sources.

This problem is exacerbated by intense competition for either products or jobs where unemployment is high. The difficulties faced by small commodity producers are further illustrated with reference to Porter’s five force model of industry profitability.[14] At the producer level these markets are characterised by intense internal competition,[15] strong threat of substitutes and the huge bargaining power of a concentrated group of buyers.[16] These factors coalesce to drive down overall industry profitability,[17] and facilitate the ‘race to the bottom’, an unfortunate side effect of globalisation where corporations compete globally to exploit the lowest cost human and environmental inputs.[18] The FT movement recognises and attempts to address the ‘unfairnesses’ derived from this vulnerable position.

Importantly FT does not see itself as charity—it is built on trade, not aid—and operates completely within the capitalist system. An alternative market is created for participants and consumers voluntarily purchase the products. However FT also operates ‘against’ the market—where purchasing decisions are not based on simple financial considerations, but primarily on social conscience. Thus FT represents not pure capitalism, but generous capitalism.

FT ultimately exists to serve developmental goals. It seeks to assist in the alleviation of poverty and improve the livelihoods of those participating. This concern for the poor originates in the character of God who ‘watches over the sojourners; he upholds the widow and the fatherless’ (Ps 146:9). God desires that the powerless not be exploited and expects his followers to act similarly, ‘Open your mouth, judge righteously, defend the rights of the poor and needy’ (Prov 31:9). [19] Christians are also to reflect the grace of God and exhibit generosity; giving equal treatment to human beings[20] and loving our neighbour in practical and physical terms, ‘let us not live in word or talk but in deed and truth’ (1 Jn 3:18). FT intends to express this biblical concern for the weak and powerless. Particularly pertinent to FT are the theological maxims expressing labour justice, for example ‘Behold, the wages of the labourers who mowed your fields, which you kept back by fraud, are crying out against you, and the cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord Jesus’ (James 5:7). Whilst Christians in the developed world may not have actively withheld wages from their workers, complicity cannot be completely avoided if through low prices they have indirectly benefited from such practices.Moreover, globalisation has increasingly separated consumers from producers rendering exploitation invisible to the consumer’s eyes. Paying higher prices guaranteeing improved labour conditions expresses practical care to the powerless in the developing world and are generous economic expressions of ‘loving my neighbour’. FT offers a way of ensuring the twin tyrannies of distance and invisibility are to some extent overcome.[21] FT also embraces the universal human community inherent in all modern consumption, ‘we consume and possess in order, finally to share’[22] even with those in foreign countries. FT seeks to reflect exchange-transactions that uphold a slightly more just global society.[23] With the welfare of the poor at its heart, it is difficult to find theological fault with the intention of FT initiatives.

How optimistic can Christians be about unfettered capitalism? Some are critical of FT (and facilitating labour justice more generally) precisely because it is perceived to stand opposed to capitalism and the opportunities and development it creates. Some claim that the sweatshops of today are essential to facilitate economic prosperity in the future. Harvard economist Jeffery Sachs comments, ‘Those are precisely the jobs that were the steppingstone for Singapore and Hong Kong, […] and those are the jobs that have to come to Africa to get them out of their backbreaking rural poverty.’[24]

Many free trade advocates also consider FT initiatives as inappropriate because they ‘distort the market’ and send pricing signals that encourage overproduction and lead to a lower market price making everyone ultimately worse off.[25] They propose that the appropriate response to developing world poverty is free trade, unfettered capitalism—let the market weave its magic! The rapid economic development of East Asia and more recently India and China is attributed to them ‘embracing free markets’.[26] This embracement of the power of pure capitalism alone to alleviate poverty can be reflected in the thinking and rationale of Christians,[27] Tony Payne reflecting this view, ‘[i]t’s why those nasty free markets tend to promote efficiency and prosperity’.[28] This tacit acceptance of the economic system and ideology of pure capitalism as a driver of development is concerning because pure free market capitalism is not genuinely Christian. Cameron is correct by observing that, ‘neither ideology [Marxism or capitalism] offers an authentically Christian account of humanity or society’.[29] Capitalism is concerned for profit and efficiency; markets are blind, amoral and seek the most ‘efficient’ outcome, often disregarding the human cost. This human cost is accepted almost as a good by free market advocates: ‘creative destruction lies at the very heart of the market process.’[30] Thus the ‘race to the bottom’ is somehow a good thing.

Accepting pure capitalism as a driving force for development and alleviation of poverty overlooks the basic theological concern for justice, fair payment of workers and the welfare of the powerless. A Fairtrade price floor may ‘distort’ a free market, but it does so for the benefit of the powerless. Moreover, as outlined earlier, in many cases the relevant economic markets are not completely free—the world’s poor often have very few alternatives. Also, attributing all of the economic growth in East Asia to free market policies is overly simplistic and overlooks the important role government played in providing requisite physical and institutional infrastructure, ‘[t]o date, not one successful developing country has pursued a purely free market approach to development.’[31] Thus rejection of FT initiatives in favour of completely free market forces as a solution to global poverty is economically and theologically misguided.

FT initiatives are theologically appropriate expressions towards the powerless.However, the extent to which this appropriateness is valid depends largely on whether FT initiatives actually achieve their goals. Does FT work, or is it a ‘misguided waste of time’?[32] There is a growing body of evidence which suggests that fair trade initiatives do indeed make real, positive differences to the participants and their societies by empowering them with greater choices.

FT initiatives address the powerlessness of the poor in several ways. Firstly and most critically they empower participants by providing a higher income due to both a guaranteed price/wage and access to previously unavailable markets.[33] This was particularly evident for coffee producers during the recent coffee crisis, when the Fairtrade guaranteed price represented as much as double the conventional price.[34] Artisans report earning up to 40% of the retail price of their handcrafts compared to 10% from mainstream retailers.[35] Moreover, the income received is more stable and less susceptible to market volatility. Furthermore, FT participants have less need to borrow money and have less debt than their counterparts.[36] This allows participants to budget in a financially responsible and sustainable manner. The additional income often leads to corresponding improvements in other wellbeing indicators. FT participants are able to afford improved housing[37] and better education for their children—some educating their children beyond high school for the first time.[38] This in turn facilitates other opportunities which ultimately may assist families break the poverty cycle altogether. Empowerment also creates psychological benefits for participants; increased self esteem, pride in their work, and increased security.[39]

Some FT participants are empowered by possessing jobs previously unattainable. For example Craft Link in Vietnam creates employment for the marginalised: ethnic minorities in remote areas, street children and people with disabilities.[40] Allied to this many FT participants are also empowered through access to training and skills development affording greater employment opportunities e.g. Umtha, a jewellery manufacturer in South Africa, employs unskilled women from the townships providing training and development. Some of these employees even broke off and initiated their own, successful jewellery venture.[41] Alternatively, training is often provided which can lead to diversifying income streams.

FT also facilitates community development. Local co-operatives are empowered to make real changes which benefit their communities through the distribution of the Fairtrade premium. At this point Fairtrade becomes ‘aid’, but it is well directed and community empowered aid—with demonstrable community benefits.[42] Infrastructure and broader community development projects, unattainable through trade alone, do improve the societies of participants. This also demonstrates that well directed aid is also an appropriate intervention for producers.

Some claim that the improved conditions offered under FT creates less need for producers to emigrate.[43] However it is unclear that this is actually the case,[44] and it is also unclear if this remains a benefit. Migration is a complex issue but Jaffee outlines the ‘selectivity of migration’ where the very poorest are unable to migrate.[45] The slightly increased income FT provides opens up migratory opportunities previously unavailable. This then raises further questions, is migration necessarily bad? Some are critical that FT desires to prop up inefficient agrarian industries, ‘Fair Trade keeps farming families working the land.’[46] However the evidence suggests those with FT incomes migrate for educational or economic advancement, perhaps indicating in the longer term these families no longer be trapped in agriculture. Space precludes a full analysis of the societal complexities of migration, but it does seem clear that the additional income from FT affords greater choice and opportunity expressed in increased migration opportunities.

FT initiatives do empower the poor with greater choices. However it is important to recognise that FT is not the complete and only solution to poverty reduction.

It seems that FT initiatives work better for producers of handicrafts rather than for commodity producers, mainly because the FT mechanisms involved in commodity production are more complicated and bureaucratic. There are times where the benefits of FT are marginal for commodity producers. For example, the fair trade floor price is not indexed to any inflationary measure and has only increased once since inception. This may mean that the FT floor price fails to cover costs of production. Also, when the market prices are well above the FT floor, the market incentives for producing FT goods are reduced, particularly as FT certification requires more work and incurs higher certification expenses.[47] The bureaucracy created in FT commodity products is not without problems. There are examples of corruption,[48] and problems with the politics and bureaucracy of co-operatives.[49] Some acknowledge this is a problem with democratic economic organisations, and not specifically FT.[50] However FT requires the use of co-operatives, possibly encouraging a less efficient bureaucratic system.

Not everyone in the relevant society benefits from FT initiatives. Whilst there are some spillover effects, e.g. higher wages paid at FT farms caused unrest at neighbouring non-FT farms until neighbouring farms raised wages commensurately,[51] most of the benefits of FT accrue to producers or organisations who voluntarily subscribe. Workers in other organisations fail to reap the benefits of higher income. Indeed global labour justice represents a far bigger problem which can’t be completely solved through voluntary fair trade initiatives.[52] This difficulty explains the importance and appropriateness of advocacy and government action to enforce minimum wage requirements.

As a market based initiative, Fair Trade products are completely dependent on demand from ethical consumers in the developed world. Social conscience remains only one factor in a consumers purchasing decision, ‘the overwhelming majority of consumers buy coffee on the basis of how it tastes—and how much it costs.’[53] Coupled with the selfishness and greed of sinful humans, FT products are unlikely to dominate consumers’ shopping bags—even Christians are hard to convince![54]

It must also be recognised that there is an appropriate place for other interventions. As the application of the Fairtrade premium highlights—well directed direct aid benefits producers’ communities. Furthermore other entrepreneurial approaches can have demonstrable impacts on their societies, for example consultancy services,[55] and the provision of micro-credit.[56] The important correction that FT offers these entrepreneurial approaches is that labour fairness is guaranteed—hence FT can offer a more ‘just’ avenue to economic development.

According to Cameron FT is an appropriate response, ‘when the ‘free market’ excludes many producers from participation in trade’.[57] This is broadly correct, but it can be extended and improved. FT is an appropriate response to the economic exclusion suffered by many of the powerless in the developing world. FT offers jobs and guaranteed income which facilitates greater choice and hence opportunity for the powerless to escape poverty permanently. FT does facilitate change in the lives of producers and their societies—buying Fairtrade does indeed change today. It is also a theologically appropriate intervention—expressing concern for the powerless in our global society. However, FT should not be viewed as the complete or only response to adequately deal with the problems of poverty in the producers’ societies. The system is not perfect and must recognise the proper place for direct aid, advocacy, government intervention and other entrepreneurial activities. Overall FT initiatives must be considered theologically, economically and socially worthwhile, so ‘buy fair trade and have another bite’.[58]


 Bibliography of Sources Cited

Berndt, Colleen E. H. ‘Does Fair Trade Coffee Help the Poor? Evidence from Costa Rica and Guatemala’. Mercatus Policy Series, Policy Comment Number 11, Mercatus Center, George Mason University, June 2007: Online: http://www.mercatus.org/PublicationDetails.aspx?id=17688

Cameron, Andrew. ‘A Theological Approach to Social Reform, Advocacy and Engagement’. Pages 37-56 in Another Way to Love. Edited by Tim Costello and Rod Yule; Brunswick East: Acorn, 2009.

Chester, Tim. Good News to the Poor: Sharing the Gospel through Social Involvement. Leicester: IVP, 2004.

European Fair Trade Association. ‘Sixty Years of Fair Trade’. Online: http://www.european-fair-trade-association.org/efta/Doc/History.pdf

Fairtrade Labelling Organizations International. ‘Explanatory Document: Why Fairtrade?’ January 2006. Online: http://www.fairtrade.net/uploads/media/Explan_Doc_Why_Fairtrade__2__03.pdf

Fairtrade Labelling Organizations International. Annual Report 2008-09. Online: http://www.fairtrade.net/fileadmin/user_upload/content/2009/resources/FLO_ANNUAL_REPORT_08-09.pdf

Fair Trade Association of Australia and New Zealand. ‘Cadbury Announcement: Cadbury Dairy Milk to go Fairtrade in 2010’. Online: http://www.fairtrade.com.au/cadbury-announcement

Jaffee, Daniel. Brewing Justice: Fair Trade Coffee, Sustainability and Survival. Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2007.

Klein, Naomi. No Logo. London: Flamingo, 2000.

Lindsey, Brink. ‘Grounds for Complaint? Understanding the Coffee Crisis’. Trade Briefing Paper 16, Cato Institute, May 6, 2003. Online: http://www.freetrade.org/node/68

Moore, Geoff. ‘The Fair Trade Movement: Parameters, Issues and Future Research’. Journal of Business Ethics, 53 (2004): 73-86.

Murray, Douglas L. and Raynolds, Laura T. ‘Globalization and its antinomies: Negotiating a Fair Trade Movement’. Pages 3-14 in Fair Trade: The Challenges of Transforming Globalization. Edited by Laura T. Raynolds, Douglas L. Murray, and John Wilkinson; New York: Routledge, 2007.

Murray, Douglas, Raynolds, Laura T., Taylor, Peter Leigh. ‘One Cup at a Time: Poverty Alleviation and Fair Trade Coffee in Latin America’. Fair Trade Research Group. March 2003. Online: http://www.colostate.edu/dept/Sociology/FairTradeResearchGroup/doc/fairtrade.pdf

Myerson, Allen R. ‘In Principle, a Case for More Sweatshops’, New York Times, 22 June 1997. Online: http://www.nytimes.com/1997/06/22/weekinreview/in-principle-a-case-for-more-sweatshops.html

Nicholls, Alex & Opal, Charlotte. Fair Trade: Market-Driven Ethical Consumption. London: SAGE, 2005.

Novak, Michael. ‘An Apology for Democratic Capitalism’. First Things, 189 (January 2009): 39-42.

O’Donovan, Oliver. The Ways of Judgement, Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2005.

Payne, Tony. ‘Smell the coffee’. The Briefing, 358/9 (July/August 2008): 5-8.

Payne, Tony. ‘Interchange’. The Briefing, 360 (September 2008): 32-33.

Parrish, Bradley D., Luzadis, Valerie A. and Bentley, William R. ‘What Tanzania’s Coffee Farmers Can Teach the World: A Performance-Based Look at the Fair Trade-Free Trade Debate’, Sustainable Development, 13 (2005): 177-89.

Porter, Michael E. Competitive Strategy: Techniques for Analyzing Industries and Competitors. New York: Free Press, 1980.

Ransom, David. The No-Nonsense Guide to Fair Trade. Oxford: New Internationalist, 2001.

Raynolds, Laura T. and Long, Michael A.  ‘Fair/Alternative Trade: Historical and Empirical Dimensions’. Pages 15-32 in Fair Trade: The Challenges of Transforming Globalization. Edited by Laura T. Raynolds, Douglas L. Murray, and John Wilkinson; New York: Routledge, 2007.

Raynolds, Laura T. and Murray, Douglas L. ‘Fair Trade: Contemporary Challenges and Future Prospects’. Pages 223-234 in Fair Trade: The Challenges of Transforming Globalization. Edited by Laura T. Raynolds, Douglas L. Murray, and John Wilkinson; New York: Routledge, 2007.

Ronchi, Loraine. ‘The Impact of Fair Trade on Producers and their Organisations: A Case Study with Cooocafe in Costa Rica’. Prius Working Paper No. 11, University of Sussex, June 2002. Online: http://www.sussex.ac.uk/Units/PRU/wps/wp11.pdf.

Sidwell, Marc. ‘Unfair Trade’. Adam Smith Institute, London, 2008. Online: http://www.adamsmith.org/images/pdf/unfair_trade.pdf

Stigliz, Joseph E. and Charlton, Andrew. Fair Trade for all: How Trade Can Promote Development. New York: Oxford University Press, 2005.

Taylor, Peter Leigh, Murray, Douglas L. and Raynolds, Laura T. ‘Keeping Trade Fair: Governance Challenges in the Fair Trade Coffee Initiative’, Sustainable Development, 13 (2005): 199-208.

Wilson, Tim. ‘Macchiato Myths: The Dubious Benefits of Fair Trade Coffee’, IPA Review, July 2006: 24-27. Online: http://www.ipa.org.au/library/58-2-WILSON.pdf

 

[1] Fair Trade Association of Australia and New Zealand, Fridge Magnet.

[2] Fairtrade Labelling Organizations International, Annual Report 2008-09, 21. Cited: 21st August 2009. Online: http://www.fairtrade.net/fileadmin/user_upload/content/2009/resources/FLO_ANNUAL_REPORT_08-09.pdf

[3] Fair Trade Association of Australia and New Zealand, ‘Cadbury Announcement: Cadbury Dairy Milk to go Fairtrade in 2010’. Cited: 17th September 2009. Online: http://www.fairtrade.com.au/cadbury-announcement

[4] So Lindsey’s accusation, Brink Lindsey, ‘Grounds for Complaint? Understanding the Coffee Crisis’, Trade Briefing Paper 16, Cato Institute, May 6, 2003, 9. Cited: 21st August 2009. Online: http://www.freetrade.org/node/68

[5] Laura T. Raynold and Michael A. Long, ‘Fair/Alternative Trade: Historical and Empirical Dimensions’ in Fair Trade: The Challenges of Transforming Globalization, (Ed. Laura T. Raynolds, Douglas L. Murray, and John Wilkinson; New York: Routledge, 2007), 15-16.; Also, ‘Sixty Years of Fair Trade’, European Fair Trade Association. Cited: 18th September 2009. Online: http://www.european-fair-trade-association.org/efta/Doc/History.pdf

[6] Fairtrade Labelling Organizations International, ‘Explanatory Document: Why Fairtrade?’ January 2006, 3. Cited: 19th August 2009. Online: http://www.fairtrade.net/uploads/media/Explan_Doc_Why_Fairtrade__2__03.pdf

[7] Peter Leigh Taylor, Douglas L. Murray and Laura T. Raynolds, ‘Keeping Trade Fair: Governance Challenges in the Fair Trade Coffee Initiative’, Sustainable Development, 13 (2005): 202.

[8] Alex Nicholls & Charlotte Opal, Fair Trade: Market-Driven Ethical Consumption, (London: SAGE, 2005), 208.; for similar numbers see Daniel Jaffee, Brewing Justice: Fair Trade Coffee, Sustainability and Survival, (Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2007), 113.

[9] David Ransom, The No-Nonsense Guide to Fair Trade, (Oxford: New Internationalist, 2001), 86.

[10] Nicholls and Opal, Fair Trade, 37.

[11] Jaffee, Brewing Justice, 110; Nicholls and Opal, Fair Trade, 36-37.

[12] See Nicholls and Opal, Fair Trade, 33-40.

[13] Oliver O’Donovan, The Ways of Judgement, (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2005), 45.

[14] Porter’s model is recognised as the standard industry profitability model. See Michael E. Porter, Competitive Strategy: Techniques for Analyzing Industries and Competitors, (New York: Free Press, 1980).

[15] A commodity market intensifies the competition as switching can be made on price alone.

[16] See Ransom, The No-Nonsense Guide to Fair Trade, 118-119.

[17] This is not to suggest that these industries are unprofitable altogether – only at the producer level.

[18] Douglas L. Murray and Laura T. Raynolds, ‘Globalization and its antinomies: Negotiating a Fair Trade Movement’, in in Fair Trade: The Challenges of Transforming Globalization, (Ed. Laura T. Raynolds, Douglas L. Murray, and John Wilkinson; New York: Routledge, 2007): 3-14.

[19] Tim Chester, Good News to the Poor: Sharing the Gospel through Social Involvement, (Leicester: IVP, 2004), 34.

[20] O’Donovan, The Ways of Judgement, 45.

[21] This is not to suggest that every time a person purchases a non-fair trade item they are unwittingly oppressing the poor. Fairtrade simply provides a guarantee against such practices.

[22] Andrew Cameron, ‘A Theological Approach to Social Reform, Advocacy and Engagement’ in Another Way to Love, (Ed. Tim Costello and Rod Yule; Bruswick East: Acorn, 2009), 41.

[23] O’Donovan, The Ways of Judgement, 249.

[24] Allen R. Myerson, ‘In Principle, a Case for More Sweatshops’, New York Times, 22 June 1997, 5. Cited 24th September 2009. Online: http://www.nytimes.com/1997/06/22/weekinreview/in-principle-a-case-for-more-sweatshops.html

[25] Tim Wilson, ‘Macchiato Myths: The Dubious Benefits of Fair Trade Coffee’, IPA Review, July 2006, 27. Cited: 16th September 2009. Online: http://www.ipa.org.au/library/58-2-WILSON.pdf

[26] Marc Sidwell, ‘Unfair Trade’ Adam Smith Institute, London, 2008, 18. Cited: 21st August 2009. Online: http://www.adamsmith.org/images/pdf/unfair_trade.pdf

[27] For example, Michael Novak, ‘An Apology for Democratic Capitalism’, First Things, 189 (January 2009): 39-42.

[28] Tony Payne, ‘Smell the coffee’, The Briefing, 358/9 (July/August 2008): 6.

[29] Andrew Cameron, ‘A Theological Approach to Social Reform, Advocacy and Engagement’ in Another Way to Love, (Ed. Tim Costello and Rod Yule; Brunswick East: Acorn, 2009), 38.

[30] Lindsey, ‘Grounds for Complaint?’, 5.

[31] Joseph E. Stigliz and Andrew Charlton, Fair Trade for all: How Trade Can Promote Development, (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005), 17.

[32] Payne, ‘Smell the coffee’, 8.

[33] Bradley D. Parrish, Valerie A. Luzadis and William R. Bentley, ‘What Tanzania’s Coffee Farmers Can Teach the World: A Performance-Based Look at the Fair Trade-Free Trade Debate’, Sustainable Development, 13 (2005): 182.

[34] Taylor, Murray and Raynolds, ‘Keeping Trade Fair: Governance Challenges in the Fair Trade Coffee Initiative’, 202.; also, Jaffee, Brewing Justice, 94-101.; Nicholls and Opal, Fair Trade, 205.

[35] Geoff Moore, ‘The Fair Trade Movement: Parameters, Issues and Future Research’, Journal of Business Ethics, 53 (2004): 78.

[36] Jaffee, Brewing Justice, 110-112.

[37] Jaffee, Brewing Justice, 114-116.

[38] Jaffee, Brewing Justice, 112-114, also 190.; Douglas Murray, Laura T. Raynolds, Peter Leigh Taylor, ‘One Cup at a Time: Poverty Alleviation and Fair Trade Coffee in Latin America’, Fair Trade Research Group, March 2003, 9. Cited: 21st August 2009. Online: http://www.colostate.edu/dept/Sociology/FairTradeResearchGroup/doc/fairtrade.pdf

[39] Murray, Raynolds, and Taylor, ‘One Cup at a Time’, 8.

[40] Nicholls and Opal, Fair Trade, 245.

[41] Personal Correspondence, David Milligan, Umtha, 20th September 2009.

[42] Murray, Raynolds, and Taylor, ‘One Cup at a Time’, 10-11.

[43] Murray, Raynolds, and Taylor, ‘One Cup at a Time’, 9.

[44] See Jaffee, Brewing Justice, 190.

[45] Jaffee, Brewing Justice, 184-193.

[46] Sidwell, ‘Unfair Trade’, 14.

[47] Jaffee, Brewing Justice, 234-237.

[48] Colleen E. H. Berndt, ‘Does Fair Trade Coffee Help the Poor? Evidence from Costa Rica and Guatemala’, Mercatus Policy Series, Policy Comment Number 11, Mercatus Center, George Mason University, June 2007, 26. Cited: 16th September 2009. Online: http://www.mercatus.org/PublicationDetails.aspx?id=17688

[49] Taylor, Murray, and Raynolds, ‘Keeping Trade Fair’, 203.; Berndt, ‘Does Fair Trade Coffee Help the Poor?’, 26-27.; Nicholls and Opal, Fair Trade, 212.

[50] Taylor, Murray, and Raynolds, ‘Keeping Trade Fair’, 203.

[51] Loraine Ronchi, ‘The Impact of Fair Trade on Producers and their Organisations: A Case Study with Cooocafe in Costa Rica’, Prius Working Paper No. 11, University of Sussex, June 2002, 21. Cited: 21st August 2009, Online: http://www.sussex.ac.uk/Units/PRU/wps/wp11.pdf.

[52] Naomi Klein, No Logo, (London: Flamingo, 2000), 428.

[53] Lindsey, ‘Grounds for Complaint?’, 6.

[54] Tony Payne admits he might just have been persuaded to the benefits of FT and following several letters responding to his original ‘Smell the Coffee’, see, ‘Interchange’, The Briefing, 360 (September 2008): 32-33.

[55] For Example, TechnoServe, see: Parrish, Luzadis and Bentley, ‘What Tanzania’s Coffee Farmers Can Teach the World’.

[56] For example, Grameen Bank, Online: http://www.grameen-info.org/.; Kiva, Online: http://www.kiva.org,; Opportunity International, Online: http://www.opportunity.org.au/home.asp.; Five Talents, Online: http://www.fivetalents.org/.

[57] Cameron, ‘A Theological Approach to Social Reform, Advocacy and Engagement’, 54.

[58] Ransom, The No-Nonsense Guide to Fair Trade, 121.

Read Full Post »

Presently it is ‘fair trade fortnight’ where ‘fair trade’ products are promoted more intensely. Last week at our home we hosted a fair trade coffee break. This was an opportunity for friends and neighbours to come to our house, drink some fair trade tea and browse our range of fair trade crafts.

Di got a great package of material from Oxfam which included a wide variety of fair trade tea, some promotional material and some excellent vidoes outlining how fair trade works and the difference it makes.

So we cleaned the house and prepared for our ‘coffee break’ (which ironically, due to a courier mix-up, didn’t have much coffee to sample). We had about 10 friends and neighbours come between 10am and 1pm. It was a really nice time to get to know some of the neighbours and nice to share a bit about how fair trade works.

We would have liked more people to come, but when you’re in a place less than 3 months, it’s hard to invite more. All up it was a really nice morning, people chatted, we got to know our neighbours better, we sold some fair trade products and fair trade was promoted. A good morning’s work!

Read Full Post »