April 19: Discussion Questions: The Marriage of Ecology and Social Justice: Fair Trade

[Emilie Dubois]

Daniel Jaffee, 2007, Brewing Justice: Fair Trade Coffee,
Sustainability, and Survival (Berkeley, CA: University of California),
chs. 1, 4, 5, 7, 8, Conclusion

Nick Clarke, Clive Barnett, Paul Cloke and Alice Malpass, 2007, “The
Political Rationalities of Fair-Trade Consumption in the United
Kingdom, Politics & Society 35(4): 583-607.

[Tom Laidley]

Both Clarke et al and Jaffee seem to be optimistic about the potential for consumers to actively shape political circumstances and social realities. Clarke et al see fair trade consumption as part of a larger civic engagement, and shows through their qualitative data that consumers express a similar view. Here, people aren't just buying things to convey status or assuage some first-world geopolitical guilt complex, but really do believe the potential of changing practices in signalling broad political goals to public and private interests. It less constitutes an atrophied engagement with politics or civic life than a realistic concession that in a neoliberal environment like this, these strategies may simply be more effective in the short and long term. To me- so long as it doesn't lapse into flowery utopian views of the future, as time makes fools of us all on that score- this is a refreshing and realistic view of such consumer approaches. Hardcore activists that derisively sneer at fair trade labels might actually be right when it all comes down to it, but life is a series of uneasy concessions and political realities. Quite frankly, all the bedrock, unassailable principles in the world don't mean anything if there's no hope for them actually materializing.

Still, it is somewhat frustrating trying to conceive how such overtures as fair trade can really work in theory when they're diametrically opposed to the systems they are undertaken in. Fair trade goes against every facet of the free market- it's conceding that determinants of price are not faceless, nameless, and tempestuous forces, but that lives hinge on $.03 per unit sold. Jaffee more or less spells this out in his conclusion, and it's probably why that while he concedes it inarguably provides better quality of life for rural farmers (if sometimes only incremental gains), he seems more reserved about its potential even while trumpeting its admittedly limited potential. Figuring out how we can resolve social and environmental concerns- making poorer people a little richer, while keeping commodities affordable; giving people more purchasing power, while lowering aggregate consumption; etc.- is a Herculean task. In the end, I think it's fair to ask: Are strategies like fair trade a real engagment with these questions, or an easy symbolic resolution to the pain and guilt the contemporary neoliberal economy is fraught with?

[L Carfagna]

Clarke et al are keen to problematize the consumer as the key driver of fair-trade consumption.  They note that "levels of commodity consumption are not straightforwardly sustained by consumer demand at all.  First, a great deal of consumption is embedded in practices where people are acting as parents, caring partners, football fans, or good friends" (588).  Their article captures an important point in the debate that Jaffee outline, particularly what Tom just commented upon earlier (the potential of Fair Trade to make "poorer people a little richer, while keeping commodities affordable; giving people more purchasing power, while lowering aggregate consumption; etc".  That point is that these practices are both embedded within and depend upon existing networks, organizations, and institutions.  I ran into this point when getting my Common Security Club off the ground.  The lead organizers suggested that facilitators establish clubs around existing networks and associational ties, like a church community.  I was afraid we'd be preaching to the choir (somewhat literally in this case), but the organizers stressed the point that these existing networks were ripe for new ways of thinking about our practices around economic exchange.  Clarke et al point out how crucial the church network was for Traidcraft and even though some of their interview respondents shunned the thought that their Christian identity precluded their Fairtrade involvement, I think it is safe to say that this identity absolutely facilitated their involvement - maybe not in a "what would Jesus do" kind of way", but more in a "what would my fellow congregant do" kind of way.   This point brings me back to Schor's work on reference groups, which also seems to be at the heart of diffusing sustainable change (sustainable in a long-lasting sense, not a "green" sense).  Clarke et al could have extended their analysis beyond the church as organizational intermediary and possibly look at the key functionaries in the movement and how they came to their identity (he points this out a bit with Edna, who "embodies a series of different roles-  customer, seller, activist).  Does the impetus on consumption in this movement give it easier entry points for the average citizen (because we are all SO good at consumption), or are people like Edna already more inclined to take on multiple political roles in a movement?  To me, it seems a bit tricky to consider something like Fairtrade as having the necessary conditions to empower citizen consumers as citizen actors.  Every movement has its leaders and its people that buy in more.  Clarke et al could have engaged the social movement literature a bit more here.  

My question then comes back to coherence:  is it necessary to have a magic bullet scheme or can we settle on the power of practices to have multiple meanings for individuals, even if those meanings contradict or completely miss the "intention" of the practice to begin with?  (Tom gets to this as well, when he writes: "Hardcore activists that derisively sneer at fair trade labels might actually be right when it all comes down to it, but life is a series of uneasy concessions and political realities.")

[Hyemi]

Daniel Jaffee’s Brewing Justice makes me think of the various issues
related to the fair trade. The discourse of the fair trade is a recent
topic. The center of the discourse is coffee. Jaffee tries to examine
the benefits and the limitations of the fair trade through coffee
trade. Jaffee raises the questions of whether our attempts and efforts
for justice of fair trade deliver the real benefits to the farmers and
whether the existing fair-trade system can indeed realize justice.
Jaffee starts with these questions, and scrutinizes the differences
between the general families and the farm families who plant the fair
trade coffee in terms of quantitative and qualitative benefits and the
politics of the fair-trade system in terms of its relationship with
markets and social movements.

He captures the problem of the fair trade movement rather strengthens
the very mechanism that produces the unfair results or environments
for farmers or producers. In detail, he illustrates the three
limitations of the existing the fair-trade system. First thing is
whether the minimum prices allows producers to achieve self-
sufficiency through fair and full compensation for their labor. One of
informants, Rodolfo’s states, “really, the costs of production are
going up, but the fair trade price has remained the same for tem
years. Ten years ago, a mozo cost twenty pesos per day, but now they
charge fifty pesos. Fair trade really isn’t fair anymore” (p.236).
Second issue is concerning the relationship to the global market. Fair
traders in the movement have very different philosophies of the fair
trade. Because of the varying philosophies, the fair trade movement
has difficulties with reaching agreement on the strong strategies.
Lastly, Jaffe questions “how corporate participation change the nature
of fair trade” (p.161). In order for corporations to participate in
the fair trade, they are required to meet the strict standards.
Because it is quite difficult for these corporations to meet those
standards, such corporate participation may hinder the growth of the
fair trade. For this, Jaffee recommends that the movement should
emphasize its strength and integrity.

Although there are several limitations in the movement, Jaffee also
indicates that there is still hope for the real ‘fair’-trade system,
given the existence of farmers families who have benefited from the
current fair trade.

I think that the reasons for the world not being able realize a sense
of community is not limited the issues of coffee. We cannot fully see
the hidden political concerns regarding all the issues among around
the world. Actually, any politics and movements are for the sake of
the sense of community in the world. The reality, however, is very
different from the ideal. Especially, the powerful and advanced
countries still are eager to conquer the rest and powerless nations as
these advanced nations once had owned slave markets in the past. In
the modern world, these superpower nations rather use clever and
subtle schemes to get what they want. Jaffee helps me realize
complexities of politics around the world regarding fair trading.

[Emilie Dubois]

Coffee is in many ways the ideal fair-trade product: “from the point
it is picked to the moment of grinding, it remains a discrete physical
commodity; it undergoes relatively few transformations and changes
hands fewer times than many other commodities; it is not perishable;
and it is produced in large part by peasant farmers on small plots
that they own” (http://www.oxfamamerica.org/files/mugged-full-
report.pdf; pgs. 8-9).

Despite coffee’s potential to be the hallmark product of the fair-
trade movement, the reality of its production and sale is sometimes
conflict-ridden and always context dependent. A refreshingly grounded
departure from the methodological acrobatics of Nelson, Rademacher,
and Paek's freecycle study last week, Daniel Jaffee details the
promises and complexities of a social movement without cloaking its
pitfalls in cheerful rhetoric. Though I would have been interested to
read about perspectives from the Northern consumers, who remain mostly
silent and anonymous in this account, Jaffee compellingly triangulates
a number of methods (quantitative and qualitative surveys, participant
observation, semi-structured interviews, and document analysis) in
this work. The parts of his account that we read in preparation for
Tuesday's class aim to answer three weighty research questions:

1. Do fair-trade arrangements really protect participants from the
harshest impositions of the market?
2. What is the relationship between concrete fair-trade commodity
arrangements, such as certified fair-trade coffee, and the larger
critiques and social movements (many of which also use the term fair
trade as a slogan) that are seeking to transform the very nature of
international economic exchange?
3. Last, what constitutes success? Should the goal of fair-trade
movement be to increase demand and market share for its certified
products – sold under whatever brand label – as quickly as possible?
Or should it instead be to build more truly alternative trading
structures and institutions, taking the time to educate consumers in a
meaningful way about fair trade? (Jaffee 2007, pgs. 7, 267-283).

Jaffee first walks the reader through a brief history of fair trade
and explores some key ideas about the nature of markets. Then, he
illustrates social and economic benefits of fair trade for the
families who participate and examines why fair-trade coffee producers
have not only higher gross incomes but higher costs as well. "A
Sustainable Cup?" focuses on the intimate links between labor-
intensive organic growing and fair-trade's environmental benefits. He
gives special attention to the "role of international organic
certification and the extra labor burden it imposes on small
famers" (Jaffee 2007, pgs.154-163). Jaffee does consider the places
(rich nations in the North) where fair-trade products are consumed.
(How upsetting was reading about Starbuck's minimal investment in fair-
trade coffee despite the push from consumer activists?! I was
completely hoodwinked by some lamentable combination of a short
attention span and the organization's PR.) In the end Jaffee returns
to his third research question by exploring the limits to the
advantages granted by fair-trade.

The book concludes by putting forward recommendations for
strengthening and defending fair trade and for addressing the internal
challenges facing this diverse movement. How can the class take
seriously Jaffee's parting advice "extending the reach of fair trade
justice throughout the global economy"? I started by talking about
how coffee's low "marketness" make it a product that seems almost
tailor-made to showcase fair-trade's potential. The reality is still
maddeningly complex in this best case scenario. What would make this
market alterative viable for other products that are just as integral
to daily living but pass through far more hands in the production
chain? What kind of deeper, structural changes must occur within the
mechanisms and growth rate of the market to make fair-trade an
effective alternative to current modes of economic exchange? (Jaffee
2007, pgs. 9, 256)

[Monique]

Jaffee’s book highlights the ways in which fair trade and organic
production do not significantly increase the economic well-being of
the families that produce and sell such coffee. Though fair trade and
organic producers were able to sell their coffee for more than
conventional producers, the increased labor requirements and costs of
certification associated with organic production diminish the price
advantage. Jaffee argues that consumers of coffee in the global North,
who are increasingly demanding organic coffee, must be willing to pay
the costs associated with helping famers to transition to organic
methods and to participate in third-party certification processes
(p163-164). Given the tremendous disparities in the material lives of
those who grow coffee and those who consume it in the global North, it
only seems fair that more of the burden of financing the transition
should fall to coffee consumers.

I wonder how many cups of coffee are produced from the crops of the
farmers that only gross about $500 per year for their crops.


On Apr 18, 7:09 pm, Emilie Dubois <emilie.anne.dub...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> > complexities of politics around the world regarding fair trading.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Margaret Lister]

Monique makes a great point... "I wonder how many cups of coffee are produced from the crops of the farmers that only gross about $500 per year for their crops." This, and the characterization of foreign regulators as the "organic mafia" made me wonder to what extend the North is merely continuing to exploit the South on the basis of moral and health satisfaction. Fair trade growers clearly are not making much more money, and it is both difficult and time consuming for farmers to transition from traditional to organic growing. Jaffee (in what I have read so far) portrays the marriage of sustainability and fair trade as a complementary partnership, yet I fear it is not always so. Fair trade can occasionally come into direct conflict with ideals espoused by the Farmer's Markets and CSAs he describes in the first chapter, particularly the local and carbon footprint minimization aspects.

[Shan]

One of the big issues that Daniel Jaffe's "Brewing Justice" helped me
to understand is the nature of what we call "the market" and the ways
in which this rather abstract concept has come to dominate our global
economic system. The manner in which people talk about "the market"
makes it sound like it is some kind of vertically-oriented god that
can make wealth magically appear if only we don't try to control it
too much. I appreciated reading about Karl Polanyi's work, which
criticizes the modernist notion of the self-regulating market (brought
to us by the brilliant mind of Adam Smith and those 19th century minds
who followed). Thinking in the abstract about our economic relations
has led to a "disembedding" of these relations from what happens in
our social and political systems, giving us the idea that economics
exists outside of a context and beyond our control. Just as in
modernist philosophy, which posited the mind's ability to step outside
of everything and see it all from nowhere, this notion of the market
proposes its ability to operate of its own logic, away and above us
all. In some sense, neoliberal economic theory points heavenward and
away from us; and the supporters/beneficiaries of this vision want to
keep us looking away, arguing that we must not try to control the god
that has been so good to us all.

But this objectivist theoretical standpoint is, of course, beneficial
to someone somewhere, and it is organized and articulated in such a
way as to hide the flow of benefits. What Jaffe does both
theoretically and in concrete is to expose the flow of benefits--at
least, as they flow away from small peasant farmers in Oaxaca, Mexico.
I appreciate his effort to return "the market" to the horizontal realm
where we live and interact with each other. I appreciate his close
attention to the lives of the Mexican coffee farmers and to the
complexity of fair trade practices for them; his efforts humanize what
is so easily dehumanized and disembodied in American economic and
political rhetoric. The book is a real eye-opener for me.

Additionally, the Clarke, et al, essay returned me to a question with
which I began the semester. It had to do with the characterization of
human beings as consumers rather than anything else, which seemed too
reductive a way to define human beings. Clarke and company put our
early writers' singular focus on our consuming function into
perspective, arguing for a "displacement of the consumer." I
especially appreciated the authors' efforts to connect our individual
decision-making with collective action. As above, I think this move
humanizes us, enables us to see how we operate together rather than as
isolated individuals. The authors want to show how organizations like
Traidcraft can link individuals with "new arenas of of public
participation with global reach," a process which can be empowering
and help people stay focused on developing alternative economic
systems and arrangements despite the huge forces operating to stop
such collaborative action. Overall, this essay and the book, while
giving me pause to consider the gigantic task that lies ahead, made me
feel that something else might be possible.

[Gemma]

Daniel Jaffee brings up some very interesting and challenging questions in “Brewing Justice.” Jaffee asks, “Aren’t the formative principles of fair trade diametrically opposed to an institution such as the WTO and its one-size-fits-all global free-trade policies?” (33) This is one of the serious questions fair trade will have to answer about its credentials. While it lies in a niche in the market, it still must respond to the larger demands of the market and also this niche only allows for a small potential for change, which is not nearly enough to make a noticeable impact. How should fair trade relate to the global market and economic policy? Is it enough for only NGO’s to be organizing the fair trade movement or do corporations and the WTO need to be involved? Who exactly is in control: the mainstream market or the organizations working to set a standard for free trade? Will it be possible to set a fair trade standard and successfully enforce it without calling upon government powers like the WTO when dealing with large corporations?

[John Petroff]

One of the biggest underlying questions regarding fair-trade is its
ability to scale and make a significant impact not only on the lives
of impoverished producers but also in economic markets. Jaffee points
out a few challenges to this goal, but one stands out the most to me.
The lack of structure in the certification process presents a huge
challenge to fair-trade. This idea first became apparent to me with
the mention of the "Bird-Friendly" certification and the "Eco-OK" seal
in chapter 5. Clearly these two seals cannot protect against every
challenge to environmental health; how many certifications are we
ultimately going to have? It is also important to note that protecting
birds in the rainforest covers a number of other ecological concerns,
but the average consumer would have a difficult time recognizing that.
While considering how consumers perceive various certifications, it is
easy to see how corporations who use fair-trade to access a niche
market can take advantage of the lack of certification regulation and
the average consumers' inability to have thorough knowledge of each
seal. In chapter 7, Jaffee references Kraft's recent deal with the
Rainforest Alliance which many experts of the fair-trade movement
consider inferior. What is preventing international corporations from
developing their own certification or signing with vastly inferior
organizations? The concern here is obvious: consumers have a difficult
time distinguishing between seals, and some that are inferior can be
perceived similarly to truly well-intentioned seals. This could only
last a limited amount of time before people realize that some
certifications do not actually deliver on expected promises at which
point the majority of certifications, well-intentioned or not, would
lose credibility.
A quick anecdote: my brother formerly worked with a small beverage
company that appealed to ethical and health-oriented consumers. All of
its products are made with cane sugar as opposed to refined sugar, and
most of them are certified organic. My brother would also point out
the importance of the organic certification on this company's products
as well as others'. I never paid attention to who the seal came from
(I think it was USDA most of the time) or what it actually meant
however, and he never attempted to provide any details either. Looking
back on these encounters, it seems like any seal is as good as another
to the producer and consumer.

> with large corporations?**