That quote doesn't impress me, though. The Cowen argument I linked says this will happen, but at the cost of the other farmers being worse off. Would that be a positive effect of fair trade? Depends on your preferences, but I doubt that people are hoping to create more variance in the standard of living for coffee farmers. As Cowen asks, would people buy a product called exploitation coffee that promises to make farmers worse off (benefiting non-exploitation coffee farmers)? He thinks the effects would be the same, and I am inclined to agree. Definitely more empirical work is needed.

Yes, the quote isn't impressive, but that is the work of Mr. Weber from the CATO Institute. Basically he doesn't believe that the farmers are worse off because of "Fair Trade", but apparently better off.

Mr. Cowen offers a product, his economics advice and his intellect. Is his work as a teacher engaged in "Fair Trade" (let's call it FT for short)? Is he engaged in "Exploitation Trade" ET? If it's FT is he getting paid enough? If so will he turn down a raise if offered? I doubt that, but it seems that he should to help the other people in the ET category (I'm sure there are some economics majors who are being exploited).

I found the NYT article. If you search: (“Fair Trade”, coffee) it won’t come up, but (“Fair Trade coffee”) will. Go figure. I found an alternative link to it:

Fair Prices for Farmers: Simple Idea, Complex Reality
New York Times
March 19, 2006
By Jennifer Alsever
http://www.laborrights.org/press/gen...nyt_031906.htm

While the article addresses some questions about "Fair Trade" it does imply that it is worthwhile. Mr. Weber and Mr. Cowen have theories and figures but there is a wide gap between them and being on the ground with coffee farmers. I would prefer farmers expert testimony to someone in this country with theories. The movie "Black Gold" is from the perspective of the growers. While Weber & Cowen are able to find inequaties in the “Fair Trade” process they don't present any evidence implying that “Fair Trade” is hurting coffee farmers. Only that it might not be as fair as the consumer assumes it might be.

Right, but how well off are the farmers who are not involved with fair trade? And how well off would we expect them to be without a fair trade? What are the broader economic trends? We will need more data and careful econometrics to understand the total impact of fair trade. "Time on the ground" with some farmers is not enough.

As to the farmers not in engaged FT it would seem that Weber & Cowen would start by studying importers in this country and asking them. And then formulating idea about farmers based on the studies. "Time on the ground" with some farmers is not enough, but it shouldn't be ignored.

?? incomprehensible

In any event, I think you are taking Weber's report too lightly. He's a grad student, but respond to the substance. He clearly doesn't see fair trade as making farmers over all better off, as you mischaracterized him. He also cites troubling statistics, like the over supply of fair trade coffee: the gorwers send most of their coffee into the conventional market and only 15% is utilized for fair trade. It had to be closed to new members for a while because of the excess. Now why would that be? If fair trade is so great for them, why aren't they fully using it?

Again, I don't see that there is good enough evidence yet to fully understand the impact of fair trade. But it seems that enthusiasts are motivated to look past the troubling facts and unwilling/unable to supply a solid economic analysis of how it would even work. I can't see how it would provide an overall welfare improvement (as opposed to improving the welfare of some at the expense of others) and am waiting to be convinced otherwise.

FAIR TRADE COFFEE ENTHUSIASTS SHOULD
CONFRONT REALITY
Jeremy Weber

“It is true that the Fair Trade coffee
system—the producers, exporters, importers, and retailers operating
by the rules and standards of FLO—has improved living standards for
many participating coffee growers (Bacon 2005, Raynolds 2004).”

I did not mischaracterize Mr. Weber. Weber wrote it in his report to the CATO and he based what he said on the work of Mr. Bacon.

Since Weber & the CATO think so much of Mr. Bacon’s work here is his website with a link to his publications:
http://www.agroecology.org/chrisbacon.html

Weber's report to the CATO clearly states that the farmers benefit from Fair Trade. Jizay said that I should read it, I did, and I took it seriously. Jizay said that he wasn’t impressed with what Weber found regarding farmers and Fair Trade. So we both found flaws in his work.

Anything that Weber discovered would only apply to farmers in Peru, which he doesn’t seem to have investigated. Most of his research seems to be based in this country on the supply end, as with Cowen. Perhaps in Peru farmers have always been better organized and have traditional gotten a fair price for their coffee? After 10 months there I would think the Weber could offer some historical background to the conditions farmers have faced. What is life like for the average Peruvian coffee farmer? Has it changed?

The method for discovering if farmers are being helped by Fair Trade is go to coffee producing countries and investigate, observe, and then formulate a theory as to whether FT is benefiting. Mr. Weber relies on Mr. Bacon for this and maybe we should as well.

Learn to read!!

I put stars around the part that you are consistently ignoring. Improving standards for *participating* growers. I continue to assert, as have others, that this comes at a cost to the non-participating growers. That's why you would accomplish the same thing with exploitation coffee that only treated participaters badly. That would make non-participaters better off.

To the extent that you cite Weber as showing "fair trade is good" yes you did. You are picking one sentence from the beginning of an article title "fair trade coffee enthusiasts should confront reality." The sentence after the one you picked reads "Yet the system faces vexing issues such as a disconnect between promotional materials and reality, excess supply, and the *marginalization of economically disadvantaged producers and groups*." Again, that is almost certainly not the intended effect of fair trade coffee. See if you can follow: Weber admits that some participating farmers' welfare is increased due to fair trade. That does not make fair trade good because, among other reasons, the lives of farmers who cannot participate actually get worse. It's a simple argument.

Weber only cited his paper, don't get carried away. Don't extend it to CATO. Since you like argument from authority (see your earlier posts), why should I listen to Bacon who is a researcher at the "Community Agroecology Network" (off the map) versus a bona fide genius (who is not alone in his views) in Tyler Cowen? Which is it? Do we revert to authority or do we give all sides respect?


<sigh> participating farmers, and not that clearly if you actually read the whole paper and not the title and first couple of sentences

Jizay posted it at your request. As Jizay predicted, it looks like you didn't read it as of your earlier posts because you threw out a couple of facts gleaned from the title, acknowledgments and first paragraph and don't even know Weber's arguments.

Jizay didn't say he was not impressed with Weber's findings. I was not impressed with the quote saying some participating farmers are made better off. I made it clear that it was because non-participating farmers are probably made worse off and then you ignored that line of argument.[/quote]


By "this country" do you mean Peru? Weber spent 10 months in Peru and studied suppliers there.

Wow. Weber went to a coffee producing country and investigated, observed, and formulated a theory as to whether FT was benefiting. Somehow you missed that. As above, but I can't state it enough for you to catch on, Weber didn't rely on Bacon. Weber cited Bacon as a source for saying some fair trade farmers were made better off. He then states that economically disadvantaged producers are made worse off. I would gues that such a consequence is exactly the opposite of what a fair trade drinker would want.

You really should have quit after your pwnage yesterday. I'm glad you didn't because your posts make my case: Many fair trade drinkers have an emotional need to believe they are doing good and are unwilling to address the problems with the system. They would rather pretend they aren't there. Your posts are the most aesthetically pure example I can find. You see an article called "Fair Trade Coffee Enthusiasts Should Confront Reality" and come away stating the author defends your argument. Then you respond to my last post by ignoring the troubling fact I raised and the questions I had about it and reverting back to quoting a single sentence from a paper taken as wildly out of context as imaginable. Classic.

Oh wow. I did'nt read the last post by Jizay cause it was pretty damn long.
But I'm pretty sure he beat that varga guy, again.

The score is now 2 - 0 in favor of Jizay with that varga guy being the loser....again.....

I think you have two different issues confused. Coffee Farmers, which is how this thread began, and Fair Trade as a system. Jizay repeats that coffee farmers are worse off because of FT, yet he presents a report that says they are better off because of FT. Apparently Weber, Bacon, Reynolds all agree on this.

The Weber report addresses flaws in the system as a whole regarding FT. However, while he was in Peru nowhere in his report does he mention meeting, interviewing, or observing a coffee farmer. According to his report he did none of this. According to the report he did attend Fair Trade events in this country (the US), and did his research and quoted people such as Bacon, but not Cowen. I wonder why? Because Bacon is an expert:

Christopher Bacon
Participatory Action-Research Director
Community Agroecology Network

Ph.D. Environmental Studies Department - 2005
(Political Economy and Agroecology)
University of California, Santa Cruz

Someone who has worked with coffee farmers, and published his results:

Confronting the Coffee Crisis: Can Fair
Trade, Organic, and Specialty Coffees Reduce
Small-Scale Farmer Vulnerability in Northern
Nicaragua?
“…A research team surveyed 228 farmers to measure the impact
of sales on organic and Fair Trade markets. The results suggest that participation in organic
and Fair Trade networks reduces farmers’ livelihood vulnerability.”
http://www.ecodes.org/pages/especial...docs/bacon.pdf

Jizay prefers the grad student.

Mr. Cowen is a fine man but he has not done the hands on research, and doesn’t know for sure if non-FT coffee farmers are actually being hurt by FT? He has a theory based on an economic formula which may or may not apply due to information that he might have if he left this country and went and did research among 200 coffee farmers and studied the situation first hand from the ground up. I’m not ignoring any evidence, but none has been presented that coffee farmers are being hurt by FT.

I should say that there are two threads with similiar subjects and I thought I was on the other one when I made my last post. The other thread had posts from Tanhauser and I got Jizay & Tanhauser mixed up.

My apologies to both of you.
Colin