Religion is a prickly issue that affects nearly everyone, even the non-religious. No matter how lightly one steps or how respectfully one speaks on the subject of religion, someone is going to be offended. This is because like ethnicity, religion is one of the strongest social glues that exist in society, it has been since the first days of city-states in the Ancient Near East; where religious cult centres served as city-state's centre for both political power and the economy of the city-state itself [1]. Polytheistic societies did not wage war with one another over religion and only with the advent of monotheistic religions did the rise of religious wars begin to occur. However, in the 21st century it has become clear that religion or at least fundamentalist religion in the developing world is holding back not only political and economic progress, religious ideas and norms are holding back human progress and hurting the growth of human rights. It becomes especially problematic when a religion becomes the de jure or de facto religion of a state such as the majority of countries in the Near East and the South Pacific. Non-secular states that officially prefer on religion have a terrible record when it comes to human rights. This one argues that fundamentalist religion has no place in the world in the 21st century. In late 2014, the show, Real Time With Bill Maher came into the political foreground in America when liberal actor/director Ben Affleck, and neurologist and expert of religious extremism Sam Harris, got in verbal fisticuffs on whether or not criticism of Islam and the beliefs of the religion constituted as Islamophobia. As an extremely socially person. I of course would argue that everyone is entitled to peacefully express their religious beliefs without fear of violence. In other words, i strongly believe in the liberal idea of freedom of religion. However at the same time, we do have to look at what people like Sam Harris say about fundamentalist religions like Islam and Christianity in developing worlds. It is hard to believe that religions like Islam are religions of peace when you have strong majorities of followers in Near Eastern and African states who believe that the appropriate punishment for leaving the religion of Islam or heresy should be death by stoning. The Pew Research Poll conducted in 2013, 86% of the Muslim Egyptians who believed that Sharia Law should be the law of the land, believed that a person should be put to death for apostasy. 82% in Jordan.
What is the worst part, is that the governments of these Near Eastern countries like Egypt and Jordan, in the least worst case scenario will put a person in prison for apostasy. These governments are or were considered pretty moderate and stable by western standards. In other countries like Saudi Arabia (a country that is currently sitting on the UN Human Rights Council but according to Freedom House, a Human Rights Index, is considered a not free nation and terrible rights score), crimes like apostasy are punishable by death. It is a travesty and pathetically laughable that the UN can claim to uphold Universal Declaration of Human Rights while allowing a country like SA to sit on its Human Rights Council while it hangs beheaded prisoners high on cranes in public for citizens to cower in fear or sentencing a non-religious person to suffer 2000 lashes and 10 years in prison.
There was an intriguing op-ed in the New York Times that came out in the aftermath of the inhumane terrorist attacks in Beirut and Paris last November. In the op-ed, Kamel Daoud, the author argued, the only difference between Saudi Arabia (one of America's closest political allies in the Near East next to Israel), a country that has and continues to receive billions in military aid from the US, and ISIL/ISIS (Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant) is that Saudi Arabia has simply made it. In other words, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and ISIL are pretty much the same, the only difference between the two entities is that one is universally recognized to be one of the worst violators of human rights and perpetrators of terrorism, and the other, Saudi Arabia, they are more than welcome to shake hands with every major world leader despite being one of the largest state sponsors of terrorism [2].
As a tolerant person who believes as long you are not violent and dont wave your religion in my face, you can practice your religion freely, it is hard to reconcile the idea that the religious culture that exists in the Near East where fundamentalism chokes the life out of women's rights or even basic human rights, should be tolerated much less respected. We as a liberal society, have to come to the hard realisation that not all cultures are to be respected or considered equal. Now i am not arguing that as white westerners, we need to go over to the Near East and Africa or the South Pacific and uplift these people from their backward ways. They can have their culture, but they cannot hope to be part of an international and universal community and hope to get away with mass beheadings in the public square like it is 1794. There has to be a set standard taht everyone should be encouraged to meeting in terms of human rights milestones, especially if you want to sit on an international council that deals with human rights.
Which leads the discussion to the question of what can be done about the ever-growing problem of the role that fundamentalist religion plays in influencing the actions of government states like Saudi Arabia or other countries in the Near East or in the Indian Ocean Region. As global citizens we cannot condone the fact that Near Eastern Countries like Saudi Arabia are able to receive billions in military aid while at the same time shoveling the same religious crap that the death cult ISIL violently forces upon populations via the sword and gun. We as westerners have to encourage religious institutions like the Vatican to see that abstinence is a terrible way to solve the AIDS pandemic in Africa. We have to encourage the moderate populations of stable countries like Iran and Jordan to demand organic religious and political reform within these countries. As long as Muslims fail to push for meaningful democratization and reform of Islam, violence in the Near East will always be present.
Former muslim, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who has spoken out against the brutal forced female genital mutilations that young muslim wives are forced to perform, succinctly summarises the road that Islam as a religion faces. It can either remain the Islam that was founded by Muhammad of Medina who spread Islam by force and violence, or the Islam that was founded by Muhammad of Mecca that seeks to spread its religion through peace [3]. She speaks about a path in the road that all major monotheistic religions have or will need to face. Most major monotheistic religions like Christianity and Judaism and Islam, have been violently spread throughout the ages. However these religions do not need to continue to follow that path. They have a choice. Christianity has generally made that choice, the religion chose to follow the path of democratization. The same goes with Judaism. However with Islam, that choice has not been made up by its followers. Islam has never faced a major reformation period in its fourteen hundred years of existence. I believe that in order to remain a viable religion in the next 50 years, Islam as a whole needs to take a serious look at itself and decide if it wants to be the Islam that scoffs at the notion that adulterers and former muslims deserve to be violently stoned to death, or it will become the violent death religion that ISIL wishes it to become. The choice is up to the 1.6 billion Muslims that inhabit this world. And if they wish to remain part of this ever increasingly globalized world, they will need to modernise their religion to meet the new demands that the 21st century will require. And it is in the best interest of all of us to encourage the people living under fundamentalist religious states to demand reform. Already we see progress in reforms in theocratic states. Just over the weekend, Iran held elections and the people of Iran created a strong message by voting many moderate representatives that could combat the more religious hardliners in the nation [4]. But there is still a long way to go, as the elections in Uganda would show, where six innocent children were horribly murdered and sacrificed in order to bring good luck to the campaigns [5]. How in the world can we still live in a globalised society where we would allow children to be sacrificed for elections, regardless of whether or not you believe that different cultures should be respected. It is simply not okay. As global citizens it is our duty to stand up for human rights, even if it means stepping on the toes of different cultures. Religion is supposed to help people, not prey on the innocent like children. That is why regardless of geographic location, politics, if a religion causes suffering such as gender oppression, violence, lgbt discrimination, or political oppression, those religions and the people who ascribe to those religions always need to be demanding religious reform in order to make it so that religion is a tool for building up communities and decreasing suffering, and not the opposite.
Endnotes:
1. Steven J Garfinkle, "Ancient Near Eastern City-States," in The Oxford Handbook of the State in the Ancient Near East and Mediterranean, eds. Peter Fibiger Bang and Walter Scheidel (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013), 105-107.
2. Kamel Daoud, "L'Arabie Saudite, un daesh qui a réussi," New York Times, November 20, 2015, accessed November 20, 2015. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/21/opinion/larabie-saoudite-un-daesh-qui-a-reussi.html.
Kamel Daoud, "Saudi Arabia, an ISIS That Has Made It," New York Times, November 20, 2015, accessed March 1, 2016. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/21/opinion/saudi-arabia-an-isis-that-has-made-it.html.
3. Ayaan Hirsi Ali, "Islam is a Religion of Violence," Foreign Policy Magazine, November 9, 2015, accessed November 9, 2015. http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/11/09/islam-is-a-religion-of-violence-ayaan-hirsi-ali-debate-islamic-state/.
4. Thomas Erdbrink, "Iranian President and Moderates Make Strong Gains in Elections," New York Times, February 29, 2016, accessed February 29, 2016. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/01/world/middleeast/iran-elections.html?_r=0
5. Connor Gaffey, "Uganda 2016: Child Sacrifices Reported During Election Campaign," Newsweek, February 29, 2016, accessed February 29, 2016. http://www.newsweek.com/uganda-elections-child-sacrifice-431436?piano_t=1
Other Sources to Read:
Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Heretic: Why Islam Needs a Reformation Now (New York: Harper, 2014).
David D Kirkpatrick, "ISIS' Harsh Brand of Islam Is Rooted in Austere Saudi Creed," New York Times, September 24, 2014. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/25/world/middleeast/isis-abu-bakr-baghdadi-caliph-wahhabi.html
Jonathan Fox, "Equal Opportunity Oppression," Foreign Affairs, August 31, 2015, accessed August 31 , 2015. https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/2015-08-31/equal-opportunity-oppression
Manal Omar, "Islam is a Religion of Peace," Foreign Policy Magazine, November 9, 2015, accessed November 9, 2015. http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/11/09/islam-is-a-religion-of-peace-manal-omar-debate-islamic-state/.
Monica Duffy Toft, "Religious Fundamentalism and the Backlash to Women's Equality," Huffington Post, November 7, 2014. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/monica-duffy-toft/religious-fundamentalism-women_b_6121190.html.
Reji Samuel, "Impact of Religious Fundamentalism on Women and Children." https://www.academia.edu/8246269/impact_of_Religious_Fundamentalism_on_Women_and_Children
Sunday, February 28, 2016
Sunday, February 7, 2016
Saving Grace: The Role Technology and Policy Change Regarding Education in Developing Nations
Research has shown that education is one of the most reliable ways to help bring impoverished communities out of poverty.[1] It is also one of the best ways to help instill democratic ideals within societies. A better educated society is a better informed society that can better engage in the political discourse of their community. As Paulo Freire asserted, education is a liberating force. However education in many parts of the world outside of developed nations have continually struggled with providing competent education. The question that is asked, is why? A great deal of this gap between the highly educated developed world and regions like the Near East exists due to cultural and religious norms that exists within these societies. The gap also exists because much like in the US where quality of education is highly dependent on the economic development of two neighbourhoods in New York City.[2] In undeveloped nations, the lack of education exists because simply put, there lacks an infrastructure that will allow even the most basic education programs to flourish due to the lack of capital.
As easy as it is to point out about the deficiencies of education in developing worlds is, there has to be some simple solutions that developed nations and private citizens can take to help spur growth in quality education.
The first way to improve access to quality education, is the spread and access of inexpensive technology. In America, schools across the nation have moved towards integrating technology with education. My old high school in Seattle has moved towards providing students with iPads to improve the quality of education. In america, companies like Comcast are engaging in programs to provide cheap internet to low-income families because they see the importance of closing the internet gap between those who are financially stable and families that struggle living paycheck-to-paycheck. The internet is an essential source of cheap education that can allow anyone to learn outside of school. Programs like Khan Academy have made deep inroads in providing easy and simple videos to learners outside of the classroom. I can attest to that as i probably would have not passed a few of my college level STEM courses without Khan Academy. But in developing nations the ability to access technology can be extremely difficult. However scholars and experts agree that the ability to provide cheap technology has the great potential to close the education gap between developing nations and developed nations. Private citizens and foundations such as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation are taking initiative in providing easy access to education in developing worlds.
However access to technology is only part of the solution. In order to close the gap, developed nations need to influence underdeveloped nations in changing their domestic policies. Countries like the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, tout relatively high literacy rates but once one examines past the facade, one realises that the quality of education is laughably inadequate in providing its citizens with practical skills and knowledge to thrive in the private sector. SA has the 15 largest GDP in the world but at least 80 percent of its labour workforce is comprised on foreign labourers. This demonstrates an economy that is not supported by an educated workforce. It is up to developed nations to encourage countries like SA to (if one will excuse the vulgarity) to get their shit together. You also have regions where women are pressured into not pursuing education. Females in Pakistan and Afghanistan consistently face the threat of violence for wanting to become educated. Brave women such as Malala Yousafzai are struggling to fight against cultures that for all intents and purposes wish to keep women as second class citizens. Again the onus lies on developed nations and private citisens to pressure regimes and nations to provide better education. Real change occurs when governments and cultures are forced by its people who are part of those societies, to examine and reform their societies, until then we will continue to watch documentaries that deal with how women are continually threatened with violence because they want to get a semblance of a decent education.
Technology will help allow those in impoverished regions to expand their horizons and get a better sense of the world around them. However in order to make lasting and meaningful change, both developed nations and thsoe within developing nations need to work in tandem to pressure their leaders to improve education.
[1] Alberto Alesina, Edward Glaeser, Fighting Poverty in the US and Europe: A World of Difference (The Rodolfo De Benedetti Lecture Series) (New York: Oxford University Press, 2006).
[2] Jonathon Kozol, Amazing Grace: The Lives of Children and the Conscience of a Nation (New York, Broadway Books, 2012)
As easy as it is to point out about the deficiencies of education in developing worlds is, there has to be some simple solutions that developed nations and private citizens can take to help spur growth in quality education.
The first way to improve access to quality education, is the spread and access of inexpensive technology. In America, schools across the nation have moved towards integrating technology with education. My old high school in Seattle has moved towards providing students with iPads to improve the quality of education. In america, companies like Comcast are engaging in programs to provide cheap internet to low-income families because they see the importance of closing the internet gap between those who are financially stable and families that struggle living paycheck-to-paycheck. The internet is an essential source of cheap education that can allow anyone to learn outside of school. Programs like Khan Academy have made deep inroads in providing easy and simple videos to learners outside of the classroom. I can attest to that as i probably would have not passed a few of my college level STEM courses without Khan Academy. But in developing nations the ability to access technology can be extremely difficult. However scholars and experts agree that the ability to provide cheap technology has the great potential to close the education gap between developing nations and developed nations. Private citizens and foundations such as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation are taking initiative in providing easy access to education in developing worlds.
However access to technology is only part of the solution. In order to close the gap, developed nations need to influence underdeveloped nations in changing their domestic policies. Countries like the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, tout relatively high literacy rates but once one examines past the facade, one realises that the quality of education is laughably inadequate in providing its citizens with practical skills and knowledge to thrive in the private sector. SA has the 15 largest GDP in the world but at least 80 percent of its labour workforce is comprised on foreign labourers. This demonstrates an economy that is not supported by an educated workforce. It is up to developed nations to encourage countries like SA to (if one will excuse the vulgarity) to get their shit together. You also have regions where women are pressured into not pursuing education. Females in Pakistan and Afghanistan consistently face the threat of violence for wanting to become educated. Brave women such as Malala Yousafzai are struggling to fight against cultures that for all intents and purposes wish to keep women as second class citizens. Again the onus lies on developed nations and private citisens to pressure regimes and nations to provide better education. Real change occurs when governments and cultures are forced by its people who are part of those societies, to examine and reform their societies, until then we will continue to watch documentaries that deal with how women are continually threatened with violence because they want to get a semblance of a decent education.
Technology will help allow those in impoverished regions to expand their horizons and get a better sense of the world around them. However in order to make lasting and meaningful change, both developed nations and thsoe within developing nations need to work in tandem to pressure their leaders to improve education.
[1] Alberto Alesina, Edward Glaeser, Fighting Poverty in the US and Europe: A World of Difference (The Rodolfo De Benedetti Lecture Series) (New York: Oxford University Press, 2006).
[2] Jonathon Kozol, Amazing Grace: The Lives of Children and the Conscience of a Nation (New York, Broadway Books, 2012)
Friday, February 5, 2016
The Myths Regarding Fair Trade Products
In the last decade or so, there has been this great shift
towards recognising Fair Trade products such as coffee as a viable and more
humane option to big companies like Starbucks or Dunkin Donuts. Many of us have
at one time or another heard about fair trade. It would be more impressive than
not, to actually know a person who is from the Seattle/Portland/ Bellingham
area who actually has not heard of fair trade. And on paper, fair trade
products like coffee seem to be a great idea. The idea that I pay a little more
money for each cup of coffee that we get each day so that the producers of the
coffee beans in these often poor regions of the world, sounds very appealing. However,
when one begins to actually look at the numbers of this burgeoning “conscience-oriented”
industry, there is a lot of smoke and mirrors that would point to the idea that
Fair Trade is at this point in time, a unregulated marketing scheme where in
reality the farmers and growers of products like sugar, coffee are not seeing
any of the supposed capital that was promised by organisations such as FairTrade USAand Fairtrade Labelling Organizations Intl (FLO). In other words, we
as conscientious consumers are paying more money for a cup of coffee, money
that does not actually go to the farmers. In fact in many cases, producers of
coffee beans are better off not being part of the Fair Trade system because
they would see three to four times as much money given back to them compared to
what they would get by working with fair trade co-ops.
The problem first arises
in how the markets are set up in fair trade. In a post-International Coffee Agreement world where the price of coffee production has become extremely volatile (see page 4). In theory, Fair Trade organisations such as FLO attempt negate the volatility of these markets by setting prices for the markets. For example by setting a fixed price of $1.40 per pound of coffee, During those times of low prices of raw coffee, those fixed prices are a great buffer. However when prices rise, those who use fixed prices are often unable to demand higher prices for the coffee they produce. This becomes especially problematic when the coffee produced is varied in quality of grade. As Colleen Haight argues:
"A farmer has two bags of coffee to sell and there is a Fair Trade buyer for only one bag. The farmer knows bag A would be worth $1.70 per pound on the open market because the quality is high and bag B would be worth only $1.20 because the quality is lower. Which should he sell as Fair Trade coffee for the guaranteed price of $1.40? If he sells bag A as Fair Trade, he earns $1.40 (the Fair Trade price) and sells bag B for $1.20 (the market price), equaling $2.60. If he sells bag B as Fair Trade coffee he earns $1.40, and sells bag A at the market price for $1.70, he earns a total of $3.10. To maximize his income, therefore,he will choose to sell his lower quality coffee as Fair Trade coffee. Also, if the farmer knows that his lower quality beans can be sold at $1.40 per pound(provided there is demand), he may decide to increase his income by reallocating his resources to boost the quality of some beans over others. For example, he might stop fertilizing one group of plants and concentrate on improving the quality of the others. Thus the chances increase that the Fair Trade coffee will be of consistently lower quality. This problem is accentuated when the price of coffee rises to 30-year highs, as it has done recently."
This tactic directly hurts the consumer and is less likely to buy fair trade if the belief that they are paying more for an inferior product. Which then directly negatively affects the fair trade producer because no one is willing to buy their product.
There also arises the issue that as globalisation occurs and growers who used to be isolated 10-30 years ago from the rest of the world, are now likely connected to the outside world. In other words, why go through a middle man like FLO when as a grower i can go straight to he buyer of the coffee and potentially make much more by directly selling the product?
There is also the trouble with transparency when it comes to Fair trade, there is a lack of regulation and oversight with these businesses. Often while the marketing of Fair Trade, companies highlight how the extra money that we as consumers will pay for that cup of fair-trade, very little of that extra capital that we paid is actually seen by the producer and that capital is spent on marketting and expanding operations. There is a lack of regulation to keep Fair trade operations honest to their goals marketed to consumers.
Moving forward, there is a great deal of potential for Fair trade but it needs to become more adaptable while more regulated by government bodies. With the collapse of the ICO, fair trade companies attempted to pick up where the ICO left off, however there is still a long way to go for Fair Trade to actually be a viable and consistent option for disenfranchised growers of products like coffee and sugar.
Other reading to look at:
"A farmer has two bags of coffee to sell and there is a Fair Trade buyer for only one bag. The farmer knows bag A would be worth $1.70 per pound on the open market because the quality is high and bag B would be worth only $1.20 because the quality is lower. Which should he sell as Fair Trade coffee for the guaranteed price of $1.40? If he sells bag A as Fair Trade, he earns $1.40 (the Fair Trade price) and sells bag B for $1.20 (the market price), equaling $2.60. If he sells bag B as Fair Trade coffee he earns $1.40, and sells bag A at the market price for $1.70, he earns a total of $3.10. To maximize his income, therefore,he will choose to sell his lower quality coffee as Fair Trade coffee. Also, if the farmer knows that his lower quality beans can be sold at $1.40 per pound(provided there is demand), he may decide to increase his income by reallocating his resources to boost the quality of some beans over others. For example, he might stop fertilizing one group of plants and concentrate on improving the quality of the others. Thus the chances increase that the Fair Trade coffee will be of consistently lower quality. This problem is accentuated when the price of coffee rises to 30-year highs, as it has done recently."
This tactic directly hurts the consumer and is less likely to buy fair trade if the belief that they are paying more for an inferior product. Which then directly negatively affects the fair trade producer because no one is willing to buy their product.
There also arises the issue that as globalisation occurs and growers who used to be isolated 10-30 years ago from the rest of the world, are now likely connected to the outside world. In other words, why go through a middle man like FLO when as a grower i can go straight to he buyer of the coffee and potentially make much more by directly selling the product?
There is also the trouble with transparency when it comes to Fair trade, there is a lack of regulation and oversight with these businesses. Often while the marketing of Fair Trade, companies highlight how the extra money that we as consumers will pay for that cup of fair-trade, very little of that extra capital that we paid is actually seen by the producer and that capital is spent on marketting and expanding operations. There is a lack of regulation to keep Fair trade operations honest to their goals marketed to consumers.
Moving forward, there is a great deal of potential for Fair trade but it needs to become more adaptable while more regulated by government bodies. With the collapse of the ICO, fair trade companies attempted to pick up where the ICO left off, however there is still a long way to go for Fair Trade to actually be a viable and consistent option for disenfranchised growers of products like coffee and sugar.
Other reading to look at:
Empowering Coffee Traders? The Coffee Value Chain from Nicaraguan Fair Trade Farmers to Finnish Consumer. (Use JSTOR to read)
Fairtrade is an Unjust Movement that Serves the Rich.
Fair Trade: Good Thing, or Bad?
A
farmer has two bags of coffee to sell and there is a Fair Trade buyer
for only one bag. The farmer knows bag A would be worth $1.70 per pound
on the open market because the quality is high and bag B would be worth
only $1.20 because the quality is lower. Which should he sell as Fair
Trade coffee for the guaranteed price of $1.40? If he sells bag A as
Fair Trade, he earns $1.40 (the Fair Trade price) and sells bag B for
$1.20 (the market price), equaling $2.60. If he sells bag B as Fair
Trade coffee he earns $1.40, and sells bag A at the market price for
$1.70, he earns a total of $3.10. To maximize his income, therefore, he
will choose to sell his lower quality coffee as Fair Trade coffee. Also,
if the farmer knows that his lower quality beans can be sold at $1.40
per pound (provided there is demand), he may decide to increase his
income by reallocating his resources to boost the quality of some beans
over others. For example, he might stop fertilizing one group of plants
and concentrate on improving the quality of the others. Thus the chances
increase that the Fair Trade coffee will be of consistently lower
quality. This problem is accentuated when the price of coffee rises to
30-year highs, as it has done recently. - See more at:
http://ssir.org/articles/entry/the_problem_with_fair_trade_coffee#sthash.G9s5aTBX.dpuf
A
farmer has two bags of coffee to sell and there is a Fair Trade buyer
for only one bag. The farmer knows bag A would be worth $1.70 per pound
on the open market because the quality is high and bag B would be worth
only $1.20 because the quality is lower. Which should he sell as Fair
Trade coffee for the guaranteed price of $1.40? If he sells bag A as
Fair Trade, he earns $1.40 (the Fair Trade price) and sells bag B for
$1.20 (the market price), equaling $2.60. If he sells bag B as Fair
Trade coffee he earns $1.40, and sells bag A at the market price for
$1.70, he earns a total of $3.10. To maximize his income, therefore, he
will choose to sell his lower quality coffee as Fair Trade coffee. Also,
if the farmer knows that his lower quality beans can be sold at $1.40
per pound (provided there is demand), he may decide to increase his
income by reallocating his resources to boost the quality of some beans
over others. For example, he might stop fertilizing one group of plants
and concentrate on improving the quality of the others. Thus the chances
increase that the Fair Trade coffee will be of consistently lower
quality. This problem is accentuated when the price of coffee rises to
30-year highs, as it has done recently. - See more at:
http://ssir.org/articles/entry/the_problem_with_fair_trade_coffee#sthash.G9s5aTBX.dpuf
A
farmer has two bags of coffee to sell and there is a Fair Trade buyer
for only one bag. The farmer knows bag A would be worth $1.70 per pound
on the open market because the quality is high and bag B would be worth
only $1.20 because the quality is lower. Which should he sell as Fair
Trade coffee for the guaranteed price of $1.40? If he sells bag A as
Fair Trade, he earns $1.40 (the Fair Trade price) and sells bag B for
$1.20 (the market price), equaling $2.60. If he sells bag B as Fair
Trade coffee he earns $1.40, and sells bag A at the market price for
$1.70, he earns a total of $3.10. To maximize his income, therefore, he
will choose to sell his lower quality coffee as Fair Trade coffee. Also,
if the farmer knows that his lower quality beans can be sold at $1.40
per pound (provided there is demand), he may decide to increase his
income by reallocating his resources to boost the quality of some beans
over others. For example, he might stop fertilizing one group of plants
and concentrate on improving the quality of the others. Thus the chances
increase that the Fair Trade coffee will be of consistently lower
quality. This problem is accentuated when the price of coffee rises to
30-year highs, as it has done recently. - See more at:
http://ssir.org/articles/entry/the_problem_with_fair_trade_coffee#sthash.G9s5aTBX.dpuf
A
farmer has two bags of coffee to sell and there is a Fair Trade buyer
for only one bag. The farmer knows bag A would be worth $1.70 per pound
on the open market because the quality is high and bag B would be worth
only $1.20 because the quality is lower. Which should he sell as Fair
Trade coffee for the guaranteed price of $1.40? If he sells bag A as
Fair Trade, he earns $1.40 (the Fair Trade price) and sells bag B for
$1.20 (the market price), equaling $2.60. If he sells bag B as Fair
Trade coffee he earns $1.40, and sells bag A at the market price for
$1.70, he earns a total of $3.10. To maximize his income, therefore, he
will choose to sell his lower quality coffee as Fair Trade coffee. Also,
if the farmer knows that his lower quality beans can be sold at $1.40
per pound (provided there is demand), he may decide to increase his
income by reallocating his resources to boost the quality of some beans
over others. For example, he might stop fertilizing one group of plants
and concentrate on improving the quality of the others. Thus the chances
increase that the Fair Trade coffee will be of consistently lower
quality. This problem is accentuated when the price of coffee rises to
30-year highs, as it has done recently. - See more at:
http://ssir.org/articles/entry/the_problem_with_fair_trade_coffee#sthash.G9s5aTBX.dpuf
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)