thepolitics.co.uk

Dr Martin Luther King once said that “before you’ve finished your breakfast this morning, you’ll have relied on half the world.” A consequence of that interdependence is that we have obligations to one another. When we buy our breakfast, we need to consider the impact of that purchase on others. These days going down to Primark is a thoroughly political experience. Fair trade is a fast growing industry. Between 2006 and 2007 alone, sales of fair trade products in the UK increased by 127%. Buying fair trade is an increasingly popular way to show you care about Third World poverty and global justice.

This is the peak of ethical consumerism - buy a slightly more expensive brand of coffee and voila, you have helped to save the world! But can it really be that simple? How much have consumers really thought about how their purchases affect producers?

I am not trying to take sides for or against fair trade schemes. But there should be a more serious debate about the pros and cons of the idea. Too many people take the purported benefits of fair trade at face value, without considering its wider implications.

How many of us stop to ask ourselves whether those few extra pence are encouraging distant farmers to continue business models that would ordinarily prove totally unprofitable? What will happen if the market is skewed like this? Is fair trade a kind of price-fixing that merely perpetuates unworkable farming practices?

It’s worth bearing in mind that according to The Economist, on average only 10% of the fair trade premium - the extra we pay for fair trade products - goes to the original producer. The rest is taken by the retailer and middlemen. Even then, the “producer” may not have been directly involved in the production process. As Marc Sidwell of the Adam Smith Institute points out, fair trade is targeted at - and thus benefits - small landowners far more than landless labourers.

Or suppose I buy a fair trade t-shirt. All very well - the cotton has been purchased for a “fair” price. Many of us assume that the garment is thereby automatically “ethical”. But how far does fair trade guarantee good working conditions? And don’t higher labour standards harm the competitive edge of poorer countries?

Can the fair trade idea be extended, or could it even become a permanent solution? If not, we should be focusing on other, more robust means to improve the lives of those affected by our consumption habits. We shouldn’t pretend that fair trade is an economic development strategy. It is not.

It is all too easy to outsource our consciences and assume that buying fair trade discharges all our ethical responsibilities. But the fair trade project shouldn’t been seen as a substitute for real international development and more equitable trade rules across the board.

Buying ethically, then, is more complicated than it often appears. There are a lot of question marks in this article. That’s all to the good - there are a lot of questions surrounding these issues and they need answering, or at least discussing. That’s a matter for another day. But in an age when the citizen’s primary political identity is more than ever that of a consumer, political power can be wielded from the wallet. Greater awareness is key. We need to stop and consider the real effects of our decisions, not just in the short-term, not just for our own consciences, but with a wider, more long-term vision, together with a view to improving the lives of all those affected by our shopping habits and ethical choices.