Well, now that chip's off your shoulder, have you anything interesting to say about coffee-growing? Only that's what this article, and this discussion, are supposed to be about, is all. :0)

Based on the stats quoted, we have US$10 billion per annum shared amongst up to 25 million farmers. It seems we have too many coffee-growers and/or too low commodity prices.

But this article proposed no solutions, it was just attacking one of the trial schemes currently out there called "fair trade". But since the author offered only the status quo by way of alternative - $US400 per farmer per year - it's a bit of non-article, really.

Rhian,

I am under the impression that free trade is based on the principles of comparative advantage, which assumes that the outcome of such trade will not be a level playing field as you state, but a situation in which all will gain, only some more than others. Free trade does not promote a level playing field.

Free trade is also an ' ideologically driven' development model. How much choice producers in most countries ( including most 'developed countries') have in regards to dealing with the market, and how much power do these producers have in the market against the more powerful countries, which have and still do protect their own domestic markets, while at the same time pushing other countries to open up theirs?

I personally feel that the fair trade movement does not have all the answers –it is only a stepping stone. But any trade system that promotes a fair and equitable exchange, in which a producer is paid at least enough to cover the costs of production, must be at least preferable to one which is as fickle as the current free trade system.

Please explain exactly how fair trade subjects ‘poor farmers’ to the whims of ‘westerners

Dingo1

The benefits free trade promotes are indeed based on comparative advantage – the idea that both parties gain from trade if their relative costs are different. The “level playing field” is one where sellers compete on the quality and price of their products and consumers are free to buy the products they most want, without the interference of government tariffs, subsidies, quotas etc. There is no expectation that both countries will gain equally in the process, only that both will gain.

“Fair trade” subjects poor farmers to the whims of westerners far more than free trade because it places so many requirements on producers before than can earn the fair trade label – they must be co-operatives not trading as individual businesses, they cannot be employing businesses, for some certificates they must use organic farming methods. For better or worse, to a free trader all coffee beans (of comparable quality) are equal.

My main concern with "fair trade" is that such models may actually work against the development of economic structures and incentives that will help poor countries sustain economic growth. They discourage productivity improvements, innovation, business growth and entrepreneurship

"Based on the stats quoted, we have US$10 billion per annum shared amongst up to 25 million farmers. It seems we have too many coffee-growers and/or too low commodity prices."

Mercurius, you assume that all of those 25 million farmers grow nothing except coffee. This is certainly not the case, especially in the developing world.

It is my understanding that "fair trade" requires collectives to ensure the farmers are paid a "reasonable" price for their product(still low by our standards, but better than the money the "non-fair trade producers" workers(serfs)get), that the collectives do not have children working the farms, and that sustainable(especially with "organic fair trade") farming is pursued, so that the cost of our cheap coffee is not paid for by the environments (and therefore the peoples) of developing countries.

I'm also of the understanding that "fair trade" is entirely voluntary- no organisation is forced to be "fair trade", and no consumer is forced to buy "fair trade".

If this article, and the responses to it, are an effort to educate the consumer (surely a goal of anyone in favour of free trade), then they are to be applauded. I only wonder at why the education is one sided. What are the working conditions, organisational exploitations (cronyism), and environmental costs of other forms of farming?

I realise the article has a specific point to make, but it hasn't really compared many of the goals of "fair trade" with the comparable outcomes of non-fair trade products.

By presenting "fair trade" coffee as a "bourgeois luxury", the author has suggested that a "premium" price is really all we can expect from "fair trade" coffee. Wilson says that "The campaign against free trade in coffee will only work to realign the coffee market in the interests of the select few and against the interests of non-fair trade producers and consumers."

If consumers want to buy a product because it is "fair", or environmentally friendly, or because it looks good, tastes good, is trendy, or is cheap, or is "local", then that is their choice. If that isn't the free market in action, I don't know what is.

Free market "consultants" seem to have an issue with this consumer choice, only when it is not supporting "efficient" big business, that gains efficiency (i.e. low prices) from exploiting labour, the environment, and by misleading advertising and hiding production methods, to maximise market share, even the consumer.

Wibble - I'm all for consumers making choices that reflect their values as well as the things they like to eat/wear etc. Dolphin-friendly tuna, ethical investment funds, free-range eggs, cosmetics not tested on animals – the demand for all of these is a legitimate expression of consumer choice. So long as the consumers of these products don't try for force (rather than persuade) others to use them to, I'm all for them (in fact I choose to use many such products myself).

The difference with “fair trade” is that it is not fairer than other forms of trade and it does not help to improve conditions in poor countries. So it’s conning consumers. And there’s no consumer protection laws to protect us from the false or exaggerated claims of the people who peddle it. It’s the economic equivalent of aromatherapy – nice idea, completely ineffectual.

I wouldn’t ban aromatherapy any more than I’d ban “fair trade” products, but in both cases I applaud anyone who points out that they will not deliver what they claim.