The other side of simplicity

Nothing makes me recoil like something that is obviously, simply and clearly the right thing to do. Any campaign that seems to be the realisation of morality in simple form generally makes me worried.

It’s not that I don’t like doing the right thing, I do. Contrary to popular belief I do have a sense of morality, although it is well hidden. The only problem is that after three years of studying politics one comes to realise that no easy choices really exist, only difficult compromises and complex situations. If everything was as simple as people are inclined to make them seem then the likelihood is that they would have already been done. Funny old thing but students aren’t the only ones with morals.

The crux of this little rant is fair trade. How fair can it be? It seems like one of those brilliant little things that is so patently right that it’s irresistible. Why would you not do it, a couple of extra pence, a nice tasty drink or food and the chance to assuage your frankly disgustingly middle class westernised conscience by helping a poor farmer off the poverty line for one more day? Everyone, as the maxim goes, is a winner.

Thing is, as I say, nothing can be that simple. Even something as innocuous and seemingly virtuous as fair trade has a host of critics, most of which nobody is really aware of. Everybody loves to embrace the simple idea that people might be able to make a difference and help others by doing their daily shop but the truth is that fair trade is just a novel way of allowing people to believe that they might be making a difference while creaming off a chunky profit for the rich western retailer and allowing essential underlying problems continue.

As anybody with a basic understanding of economics will know a guaranteed price above market value will encourage overproduction. Look at the results of the EU’s much maligned Common Agricultural Policy. Meat mountains and wine lakes, which might sound like a great way to improve walks in the country but are in fact a stunning way to waste public monies. Apparently, prices of raw agricultural commodities are already low because of oversupply. So essentially encouraging farmers to stop growing other crops which might be useful and concentrating on areas where they can get the best fair trade subsidies might not be best for those not caught by the fair trade banner as this excess production becomes dumped on the markets increasing supply and, therefore, lowering the price. More people on the poverty line.

I’m not one to say that fair trade is not a worthwhile cause, or that it isn’t possible to achieve a positive result but just that it is worth considering that there are negative implications for nearly everything that we can do. Bad things are probably happening just because you’re reading this.

Also, it gives me the chance to point out that, whilst fair trade is great and all, its going to take a state level solution to provide any lasting change. Free trade and an end to ridiculous protectionism like the CAP will need to be mastered before we can hope to help third world farmers. Extending protectionism is not the way forward. It almost never works when governments intervene in markets, this is just another example.

Most importantly, don’t be fooled by the simple solutions. The same could be said of anything that seems like the intuitively right thing to do, from local produce to recycling. There are always downsides, local produce for instance is just protectionism incognito, and it has been suggested by several studies recycling certain items might cost more and is more polluting than to just make new ones in the traditional manner. Fair trade is not perfect, but neither is anything. Knowing that doesn’t mean you have to stop doing whatever it is you believe in, or necessarily that there is anything wrong with it. I still buy some fairtrade items. Not thinking about the downsides though is verging on irresponsible.