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