Do you have a clear sense of what you believe to the role of fair trade should be? How accurately and succinctly do you think you could explain it in your own words?
Why is this important for everyone involved with fair trade?
Basically, the better we can explain what we believe, the more those we are in partnership with will be able to understand what we do and why we do it. Our ability to consistently and unambiguously articulate of our fair trade beliefs means we become easier to work with in all fairer trading contexts.
“People know where we stand and what we stand for”
A Framework for Reflection
According to Darryl Reed, Fair Trade Scholar and Professor of Business & Society Program, York University there are four main notions of the role that fair trade plays in a development context.
Fair Trade as:
- Having No Role
- Helping Small Producers Become Efficient Enough to Compete in the Mainstream Markets
- Helping to Correct for the Lack of Ideal Market Conditions
- An Alternative form of Local Development
Let’s look at each of these notions in more detail.
Fair Trade as Having No Role
Characteristics
- Fair Trade is counter-productive and represents unwarranted interventions (price subsidies) in the market
- Fair Trade will not help small producers, because they will become dependent on price subsidies
- Fair Trade does not increase producer efficiency
- In developing market efficiency there will always be inequality in outcomes (if someone is better off, others will be worse off)
- Fair Trade breaks WTO trade-agreement rules by discriminating between products on the basis of process or method of production
Fair Trade as helping small producers become efficient enough to compete in mainstream markets
Characteristics
- International markets are considered as largely ‘fair’
- Small producers are regarded as disadvantaged (historical backwardness)
- The goal of Fair Trade is to enable producers to be producing efficiently as quickly as possible by providing technological and financial assistance and social infrastructure support
- Fair trade is only a short-term strategy that will eventually result in producer integration in to the mainstream markets
- Fair Trade is seen as a catalyst for ‘progress’
Fair Trade as Helping to Correct for the Lack of ‘Ideal’ Market Conditions
Characteristics
- International markets are considered as largely ‘unfair’
- Fair Trade is able to help small producers, but this help is underpinned by the need to reform the international trade system
- Fair Trade will be necessary until trade reforms are achieved
- Fair Trade is meant to correct market imperfections by offering a parallel commodity chain
- Unfairness is a result of the absence of ‘ideal markets’
- Fair trade supports the abolition of all forms of interferences to cross boarder trade
- Fair Trade seen as a system of ‘governance’ over production, commercialization and consumption of global commodities
Fair Trade as an Alternative Form of Local Development
Characteristics
- International markets are considered as largely ‘unfair’
- Fair Trade is able to help small producers, but this help is underpinned by the need to reform the international trade system
- Fair Trade promotes an alternative understanding of development focused on local control over the local economy and sustainability (not growth)
- Fair trade enables communities to take over control of their development process
- The capacity building and training aspects of fair trade are seen as more meaningful than increased sales overseas
- Fair Trade promotes a focus on community economic development and sustainable community development – economic diversification, self-reliance, and social justice through citizen empowerment and improved access to information
- Fair trade is a leap forward to true cost pricing
These four notions of the role of fair trade in a development context are neither totally comprehensive nor complete. Hopefully however, they offer those of you still developing or refining your views a modest framework to reflect on and articulate your position with greater clarity. And in so doing, help those you work with to understand you better.
So where do you sit?
What’s your perspective?
What version or combination of the above best articulates what YOU believe?
{ 2 comments… read them below or add one }
Hi Scott,
Many thanks for this post. You gave us some hints to understand the different aspects of fairtrade.
I think you (and your blog’s readers) would find very interesting two more papers on the different perspectives of fairtrade.
The first one is “Fair Trade and Neoliberalism”, by G. Fridell (2007) (pdf: http://tinyurl.com/ykqy6we). According to Fridell, fairtrade perspectives can be grouped into three main categories on the basis of their overarching assumptions:
1) the “shaped advantage” perspective depicts fair trade as a project that assists local groups in developing capacities to help offset the negative impact of globalization.
2) the “alternative” perspective depicts fair trade as an alternative model of globalization that seeks to ‘include’ the poorest sectors in the purported benefits of international trade.
3) the “decommodification” perspective portrays fair trade as a challenge to the commodification of goods under global capitalism.
In addition to this paper, you could read: “Fair Trade: Three Key Challenges for Reaching the Mainstream”, by A. Hira and J. Ferrie (2006). (http://www.springerlink.com/content/y17n3760074t0t7v/) The authors describe two broad versions of fairtrade: the radical one and the reformist one.
i) The radical version of fairtrade considers global capitalism as the main opponent and seeks to create a whole new system; ii) the reformist version looks at ways to promote more equitable trade working within existing trade structures and channels, including mainstream retailers.
In my opinion, it’s inevitable to have different versions and perspectives in a movement that has been proliferated so radically. According to the long-term goals we seek to achieve, we should adopt the most appropriate perspective of fairtrade. Although, I think it’s worth trying to find the golden balance between these versions.
Cheers,
Konstantinos
HI Konstantinos,
Great to hear from you again and once again you bring great new perspectives for us all to consider.
I really liked your two references! Following your earlier guidance I have become a real fan of Gavin Fridell and also like his framework for the emerging perspectives of fair trade.
I have not yet read the Hira and Ferrie article but will check it out today. There does seem to be a growing polarization of perspectives of the role of fair trade in development. I have seen other frameworks that place perspectives along a continuum from the radicali/activists/Marxists end to the ultraconservative/neoliberal end with all points in between.
I take your point about inevitability of different versions and perspectives with the fair trade movement. At this stage, I am not sure that such major differences in fundamental perspectives of the purpose and role of fair trade is a good thing. It seem to me that the movement has been side stepping the debates about its meaning where many seem content (be it somewhat obsessed) with the growth of the fair trade certified market.
I do think that there will need to be some sort of ‘coming together’ of perspectives for all members of the fair trade networks for the most simple reason that when say to others who may be considering supporting or working with us in the future they need to have a clear understanding of “where we stand and what we stand for”
Konstantinos, thanks again for being so willing to share your knowledge and understandings.
Cheers
Scott