All's Swell that Sells Well

A while ago, when I was busy procrastinating as usual, I chanced upon this video that a friend emailed me:

                                              Black and Blue Friday?

I’ve heard much about this... (tradition) here in the US mostly from news stories of injuries, deaths and arrests from all the... (festivities) at stores across the country. But seeing it on video makes one think about life, meaning, value, ambition, economics and, on certain caffeine-saturated nights at Cornell, about liberalization of global trade.

 Strangely similar scenes: Black Friday in the US, food aid distribution in a crisis zone


For much of my life, I grew up associating under-developed countries with images of people scrambling for food near western aid trucks. It is ironically refreshing to see that this strange scene of “development” has people scrambling for Chinese factory goods with a 6-month product lifespan.

I’m not sure I get it.

Lets start with what I know.

A pair of Nike Air Jordan XI Concords put together in a Chinese factory (sometimes by under-age, underpaid workers), is so integral a part of the identity of a customer 14000 km away that he is willing to kill to have them. Substitute Nike shoes with Apple Ipads or Sony playstations and the story remains the same- release a product of no critical value to human flourishing and watch people fight to death to get them.

And yet, it is not the procession of such goods that merits them the title “developed”, rather their ability to seek those goods. But just what is the measure of development? Almost every major economic agency and every academic statistic measures development in monetary terms of income, consumption or purchasing power- partly I believe, because they are measurable, and partly because our judgment is clouded. This article from the Guardian, briefly touches upon the issues of measuring development.

From the NYtimes

The Average American consumes the same amount of resources as 32 Kenyans. We are told that this is a noble goal to pursue. Consumerism is not just thrown at us from every angle through media and advertizing, it is also an objective pushed for by say, the WTO. The expansion of trade needs an expansion of production, which needs the expansion of consumption. We are told that, “People must consume to survive, and the world’s poorest will need to increase their level of consumption if they are to lead lives of dignity and opportunity.” (quoted from here) But along with the Nikes and Ipads, an accompanying lifestyle is also exported- one that is neither sustainable nor morally right- in the name of development.

Here are two examples to illustrate my point:

The most conscious shoe shopper at a store in the US may spare a thought about labor rights in China and buy an “eco-friendly” product that does not kill too many endangered animals. However, the carbon footprint of those shoes and the consumption of resources in its production are mostly lost on the customer. Footwear is a water intensive industry. Shoes manufactured in South Asia or China, come from areas of severe water scarcity. While the manufacturer itself may employ sustainable practices, there is little oversight on local suppliers and services further down its supply-chain. The final product is sold with a feel good tag that reads “created using X gallons of water”, without any mention of the fact that X gallons in Africa goes 32 times further than X gallons in the US. The global market puts industry in the cheapest place, but that doesn’t make it a smart choice. On a city scale we use land use zoning to put industry in appropriate places balancing priorities of economy, ecology and transportation. The same just does not happen on a global scale- it’s an un-zoned free for all.

You need to think outside the box.

Secondly, the liberalization of trade also increases consumption in the developing world- and not just in a good way. This WorldBank paper “The impact of trade liberalization on tobacco consumption” argues that trade liberalization in low and middle income countries has led to a significant increase in tobacco consumption in these places. With cheaper cigarettes flooding the market, there is an accompanying per capita increase in smoking coupled with a billion dollar health risk to these developing economies.

The solutions to such problems are hard to pin down because the problems themselves are easy to ignore, are systemic and are often not even seen as a problem. The book The McDonaldization of Society by George Ritzer talks about how the McDonalds corporate model, hailed as the triumph of rational strategy is truly irrational. Some of the effects he describes can surely be seen in the effects of globalization as well- the need for predictable efficiency, control and a homogenization of culture. Indeed McDonalds in the third world itself is a sign that globalization has come to a store near you- teaching you that beef patties in a bun are what the world needs and what you need. The culture is exported along with the product. Sales can be quantified; culture, health and taste cannot and are therefore ignored.

True Globalization is when McDonalds in Germany serves this Asian menu

But while the WorldBank and the WTO do not dare regulate fast food, they do take some steps in the tobacco industry. The WTO so far has not acted against trade restrictions on tobacco on health grounds as long as they were non-discriminatory. The World Bank does not lend toward tobacco production and actively seeks to help countries diversify away from tobacco. Tobacco trade is largely exempt from tariff restrictions and is on a negative list of imports for loan agreements. The negative list also includes alcohol, military-use products, jewelry and luxury goods.

This list cannot afford to be a standard one imposed from above. It needs to be context-based and must vary by region and country to include safeguards to local health and perhaps even culture as well.  

A second more fantastic idea would be a sort of global trade zoning much like land use zoning in the US. Global restrictions on products requiring high water consumption from water-scarce zones for example, would have a much greater impact on manufacturers than just depending on the consumer to make educated choices. We’ve been able to ban exports of animal products from specific areas, so this would just be an expansion of this idea to cover other issues that escape under the radar.

Lastly, fixing a consumerist attitude is also an improbable task even though mindless consumerism is in the long term, highly unsustainable.  Yet, all developing countries are headed down the same road toward mass produced, disposable and cheap goods. This will happen as long as our chief measures of development continue to be monetary ones like income, consumption and processions rather than human ones such as well being, happiness, security and peace.
More on this from the UNDP here. 

* This entry was typed out on an American brand laptop made in China

Paradise Lost: The Story of Nauru

Nauru, a small island nation in the Pacific holds two major distinctions. It is officially the world’s smallest republic- at 8 square miles you can drive around the whole country in 20 minutes. It also has the world’s highest obesity rate with 95% of its population either obese or overweight. In fact, 8 out of the top 10 most obese countries are all tiny island nations in the Pacific; in the middle of nowhere (the other two are the US and Kuwait).

Nauru’s story is a sad one: What was once a prosperous country is now a major health crisis. 45% of the population has type-II diabetes along with a host of other chronic diseases caused by obesity. The economy has ground to a halt- few people work, and the president is desperately trying to promote exercise programs for the locals in a bid to bring the country back to life.

So what changed in Nauru? How did a nation of rich, healthy islanders become the leading statistic in global obesity? The short answer is globalization.

Beginning in the 1970s, Nauru and other pacific island nations began industrializing their economies and opened themselves up to foreign investment. The population made a quick transition from mining and agriculture to white-collar desk jobs. At the same time, major changes in world trade policies saw Nauru begin to import processed food from the United States.  The islanders’ diet shifted dramatically from fish, fruit and vegetables to canned meats, cooking oils, soda, beer, sugar and rice.  A once healthy people (the former president was an Olympic athlete and has 12 medals from the Commonwealth games) are now the unhealthiest people on the planet.

Graphs show increasing imports and declining exports from the 80s.  (Taken from the Australian Treasury and data from Wolfram Alpha)

Nauru’s depleted mines and physically unfit workers have led to an economic collapse. The country now has a debt that is 27 times its GDP, and a large chunk of it was owed to a single US corporation – General Electric Capital. This pattern of complete economic and health shut down is unique to small nations faced with a sudden entry into a vicious global market. Countries in the Middle East, Africa and Asia that hit oil in the 1970s are also dealing with the massive health problems brought about by a sharp spike in prosperity (although unlike Nauru, they have oil wealth to keep the economy running).

Blame it on the Spam  (The Telegraph)

The pattern is visible nationally as well. A project I am currently working on for the Department of Health in New York City, examines food availability in parts of Brooklyn. The results are not surprising- food habits lean toward processed high-calorie and unhealthy foods in lower income areas. It is a matter of market economics. Fast food and processed food sellers see a huge market for cheap meals while fresh food retailers and supermarkets prefer more up-market areas.  For the same reason, retailers in Nauru prefer to stock their shops with imported cans of spam and mutton or beef. The result is that area inhabitants have very little choice (and very little desire to change) in the matter. Coupled with poor health information and education, corned beef and beer become the ingredients of a public health disaster.

Understanding the effects of national and international food and trade policy is vital. Intervention by most international agencies is almost always after the fact- mostly due to the compartmentalized nature of the problem. So the major trade and development agencies would push for increasingly open markets and industrialization and 30 years later WHO steps in to declare a health crisis. The truth is that development and all its pros and cons are one complete package.

Developing and maintaining a local food culture and industry is also an important step. Pacific island nations have begun imposing restrictions and “sin” taxes on importing high fat, poor quality meat (a 30 million dollar industry)  and processed foods. Price controls and incentives work at one level, but a community-led initiative toward healthy lifestyles also works well.  A community awareness of health risk may be the only incentive that works when imported beef is cheaper than local fish.

On an international scale, agencies such as AusAID and WHO are playing an active role in reversing the trend. The island states themselves are also working toward a regional level cooperation to enable a collective louder voice on the international stage. It is easy for the world to ignore Nauru. With a population of just 9500 people in a world of 6+ billion, Nauru has to compete in the global aid market for financial and health aid. And face it, most donors would rather give their time and efforts to starving children than well-fed islanders (or inner city residents for that matter).

It is ironic how both scarcity and plenty can be devastating.

Also, see this video from ABC news called the Fattest Place on Earth