Jump to content

Talk:Fair trade/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Price distortion argument

I removed from "Criticism" the response attributed to the Fairtrade Foundation, which showed a lack of understanding of economic principles. According to standard microeconomic theory, price floors (not just price fixing) create excess supply. The other two counterarguments are economically sound.

~ GreatBigCircles (talk) 06:11, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I have removed this section Rather they argue that Fair Trade is about committing to continuous efforts to shorten the supply chains, cutting out the middle men.[1] They also argue that consumers should not be satisfied by just the Fairtrade mark but instead educate themselves on issues of Trade Justice if a real difference is to be made.[2]. on the grounds that

a) everyone, but everyone, wants cheaper supply chains,

b) middlemen are economic producers: if you cut them out the produce stays on the farm, which nobody wants. Standard economics. It is quite possible to have cheaper, more efficient chains with private traders. And certainly many, small private traders often outcompete monolithic traders, to the benefit of farmers.

c)Those of us who support Trade Justice object to attempts to conflate it with the very different system of Fairtrade - there is virtually no overlap. AidWorker (talk) 13:53, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I have removed this section, on the grounds that it is neither for nor against Fairtrade: In the 1990s the value of exported coffee was $11 billion and the retail value was $30 billion, while in 2007 the value of exported coffee was $5.5 billion and the retail value was $70 billion.[3] These numbers are however misleading in assessing Fair Trade considering only 3.3 percent of coffee sold in the United States - the world's largest market for Fair Trade certified products - in 2006 was certified fair trade.[4] AidWorker (talk) 14:06, 5 May 2011 (UTC)


Fairtrade falls in the long established tradition of Agricultural Economics and Marketing, which covers everything from production to the supermarket shelf. It has an enormous mass of theory and practical experience to draw from. I insert Griffiths' criticisms.AidWorker (talk) 13:53, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Key principles

I do not think this is acceptable. There is an enormous literature pointing out that it concentrates on the richer farmers, not the marginalized ones. It does not allow access with fewer middlemen, nor would that necessarily be desirable - farmers sell to Nescafe who sell to supermarkets is the fewest. There is complete confusion between wages, prices and incomes. There is no clear statement that the contracts are with the exporting firms not the farmers. People providing transport, processing, marketing services are normally considered producers. There is no mention of their political objectives. I have deleted the contentious statements. AidWorker (talk) 11:14, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Improve readability of introduction

In the second paragraph, "FLO International" is named before the full name, "Fairtrade Labeling Organization International" is ever stated. This goes against generally accepted practice and can cause confusion in the reader. (I noticed because it confused me for a moment.) To be fair, this occurs throughout Wikipedia, but the Fair trade article has the distinction of getting me to say something rather than simply correcting it.

Tryanmax (talk) 13:30, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Definition

The Definition paragraph is a disaster. I don't use that word to be offensive. I want to paint a clear picture of how incredibly difficult it is to understand. Would someone who knows what is being said there please reorganize the paragraph, as I fear I do not understand what is being said well enough to safely correct the problem. Tryanmax (talk) 13:35, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

FLO and Cooperatives

The last explanation of FLO states "However, only products from certain developing countries are eligible for certification, and must be from cooperatives" This is factually incorrect. Both cooperatives and what FLO terms Hired Labour Organisations (HLO's) are certified. In South Africa there are only 3 certified cooperatives and over 30 HLO's — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.240.16.128 (talk) 12:45, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I just removed a sentence

I removed a sentence from the article, for three reasons. 1) it is not based on a reliable source. A commercial company promoting their products on their website is not a reliable source for objective factual info. 2) The statement on that page, even if it was reliable, does not support the statement in the article. 3) The sentence is in the wrong section and should be somewhere else. If someone can find a reliable source to back up this statement, then it should be put back in, but in a different section where it makes sense. In it's current position it is a non-sequitor injected into the middle of a paragraph talking about something completely different. PeaceLoveHarmony (talk) 18:10, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Oldftlogos2.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Oldftlogos2.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 3 December 2011

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:50, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit 7 Feb 2011

I have collected together the criticisms that were formerly scattered in bits through the page making them difficult to follow, and have shortened some: the overproduction argument is blindingly obvious to an economist and particularly an agricultural economist and the graphs are unintelligible to anyone else.I have cut the Justifications for Fair Trade: everybody agrees that farmers in the Third World are very poor, everybody agrees that the marketing system and commodities market is imperfect, and the specialists could go into enormous detail on this. It does not follow that Fair Trade can do anything about this, and nobody has attempted to show that it can. The critics argue that it does not. And of course, even if an argument could be made, it is still claimed that other approaches achieve far more at a fraction of the cost. I have cut references to non-verifiable sources, blogs, etc and to sources which do not make the points claimed in the discussion. The suggestion that one paper refutes the whole of marketing economics and indeed economics, is untenable.AidWorker (talk) 20:01, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Good work.
In principle, we should try to avoid "criticism" sections as they can allow an article to become unbalanced (ie. it splits into "pro" and "anti" sections rather than having neutral prose throughout). However, I think that your edit is a big net positive for the article. bobrayner (talk) 02:11, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Fair Trade in America

   * 7.1 European politics
   * 7.2 French politics
   * 7.3 British politics
   * 7.4 Italian politics
   * 7.5 Belgian politics

What about America? Well apparently since nobody has defined it in American terms, I am going to take a shot at it.

Fair Trade simply means Free Trade except in cases where the wage disparity between the US and another foreign country is so great, then tariffs be used to mitigate outsourcing. Disparities also can include retirement benefits, health care insurance, child labor laws, overtime laws, or any other type of employee benefit a civilized society would create in order benefit the "general welfare of the people." In addition fair traders embrace Thomas Jefferson's concept of reciprocity:

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/presiden/jeffpap.htm 

"The following principles, being founded in reciprocity, appear perfectly just, and to offer no cause of complaint to any nation:

   * 1.Where a nation imposes high duties on our productions, or prohibits them altogether, it may be proper for us to do the same by theirs; first burdening or excluding those productions which they bring here, in competition with our own of the same kind; selecting next, such manufactures as we take from them in greatest quantity, and which, at the same time, we could the soonest furnish to ourselves, or obtain from other countries; imposing on them duties lighter at first, but heavier and heavier afterwards, as other channels of supply open. Such duties having the effect of indirect encouragement to domestic manufactures of the same kind, may induce the manufacturer to come himself into these States, where cheaper subsistence, equal laws, and a vent of his wares, free of duty, may ensure him the highest profits from his skill and industry. And here, it would be in the power of the State governments to co-operate essentially, by opening the resources of encouragement which are under their control, extending them liberally to artists in those particular branches of manufacture for which their soil, climate, population and other circumstances have matured them, and fostering the precious efforts and progress of household manufacture, by some patronage suited to the nature of its objects, guided by the local informations they possess, and guarded against abuse by their presence and attentions. The oppressions on our agriculture, in foreign ports, would thus be made the occasion of relieving it from a dependence on the councils and conduct of others, and of promoting arts, manufactures and population at home.
   * 2.Where a nation refuses permission to our merchants and factors to reside within certain parts of their dominions, we may, if it should be thought expedient, refuse residence to theirs in any and every part of ours, or modify their transactions.
   * 3.Where a nation refuses to receive in our vessels any productions but our own, we may refuse to receive, in theirs, any but their own productions. The first and second clauses of the bill reported by the committee, are well formed to effect this object.
   * 4.Where a nation refuses to consider any vessel as ours which has not been built within our territories, we should refuse to consider as theirs, any vessel not built within their territories.
   * 5.Where a nation refuses to our vessels the carriage even of our own productions, to certain countries under their domination, we might refuse to theirs of every description, the carriage of the same productions to the same countries. But as justice and good neighborhood would dictate that those who have no part in imposing the restriction on us, should not be the victims of measures adopted to defeat its effect, it may be proper to confine the restrictions to vessels owned or navigated by any subjects of the same dominant power, other than the inhabitants of the country to which the said productions are to be carried. And to prevent all inconvenience to the said inhabitants, and to our own, by too sudden a check on the means of transportation, we may continue to admit the vessels marked for future exclusion, on an advanced tonnage, and for such length of time only, as may be supposed necessary to provide against that inconvenience."

There is nothing unAmerican about embracing tariffs, seeing that the US federal government ran entirely on tariffs when the founding fathers ran the country. In fact some (me) would argue free-traders are unAmerican, backstabbing, treacherous.68.106.248.211 (talk) 12:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I suggest making the changes you suggest to the Trade justice article - fair trade here refers to the consumer movement that promotes certified and non-certified goods from developing countries (such as handcrafts or coffee for example bearing the fair trade certification mark). The fair trade in politics section describes government initiatives in the regulation of the fair trade consumer market... unfortunately in the US there has not been any such initiative as of now, hence no section on the US. I hope that helps... Vincentl (talk) 12:31, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
"The mostly widely referred to demand of trade justice campaigners is often access to the markets of rich countries by developing countries. When developing countries export to developed country markets" This is absolutely not what fair-traders in America are proposing. That is similar to foreign aid.68.106.248.211 (talk) 10:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Free traders are "unAmerican, backstabbing and treacherous"? Wow, good thing the second commenter in this section doesn't like to throw around wild generalizations. Free trade has proven to be far more equitable than supposed "Fair Trade", because, as with so many other "social justice" projects, the benefits are almost never felt by the people who are supposed to benefit the most.74.141.153.78 (talk) 20:46, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

spelling

This article is inconsistent as to its use of British English or American English. As there is no strong tie to any one English speaking nation, this article should use the variety used by the first significant contributor, which is this case was American English. Is there any compelling reason to switch over to British English, before I go through and change a bunch of words? Natalie 18:20, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Only comment would be how, well known is free trade in America? Other wise (while it makes me wince every time I see some spellings) I'd have to agree --Nate 19:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm guessing you mean how well is fair trade known in America, since we know free trade backwards, forwards, and upside down. :) It's hard to make a comparison since I haven't ever lived in another country, so I don't know how well known fair trade is in other countries, but it is certainly known here. For example, megacorporation Starbucks made a highly publicized switch to fair trade coffee a few years back. While buying fair trade may be more popular in Europe, the concept does not have a tie to any one specific country. I understand the wincing as I'm a nut for consistency - seeing "labour" and "organization" in the same sentence makes me wince. Natalie 20:22, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't see why it's a problem and I actually like to see different spellings in the same article-- it's a sign of the collaborative nature of Wikipedia.---Gloriamarie 08:20, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

It should be in British English, It's not our fault the Americans borrowed a language they can neither spell or understand the grammer of. Samantha.pia (talk) 10:42, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Hahahahahahahahahahahaha, the comment above this is absolutely hilarious. In a comment chastising poor grammAr(I have intentionally emphasized the second A) and spelling it is best not to: a) misspell the word grammar; b) use an improper neither/or combination instead of the correct neither/nor; c)improperly end a sentence with a preposition; d)capitalize the word "It's" when it does not begin a sentence; e)use a comma in a place where a semicolon or period should have been used. As to the question of how well-known the term "Fair Trade" is in the United States, in the city in which I live there is actually a chain of coffee stores/cafes named "FairTrade Coffee"; the concept is well-known in the United States.74.141.153.78 (talk) 20:47, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
A few points which you might like to consider:
  • We're all vulnerable to Muphry's law. Your reply has lots of errors.
  • You're still in the bottom half of the hierarchy of argument.
  • You're replying to a comment made over a year ago. Who cares?
It's probably better to stick to discussing the substance of the article. bobrayner (talk) 21:01, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
My reply has a lot of errors? Why don't you point them out for me. 74.141.153.78 (talk) 23:47, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Websites as sources

Over the years (see above) there have been repeated criticisms of the use of company or organization websites as sources. Again much of the plug for Fair Trade is based on them. Websites are written by highly paid public relations professionals to support the organization. When they have unsupported statements, vague statements,statements that a casual reader will misunderstand, and when relevant and readily available information is omitted, it is reasonable to suspect that there is an attempt to mislead. Statements like, "Fairtrade International claims that some fair trade products account for 20-50% of all sales in their product categories in individual countries, and in June 2008, claimed that over 7.5 million producers and their families were benefiting from fair trade funded infrastructure, technical assistance and community development projects.[5]" show the extremely misleading and false inferences that can be drawn.

Listing all the aims and values of an organization is similarly misleading. "Wants higher prices for exporters in the Third World, supports Trade Justice, fond of children, kind to animals" are the sort of thing most firms and organizations would claim, and none would publicly attack. Wikipedia should concentrate on statements of what they actually do,based on evidence. And if possible, state what resources are devoted to each strand: no doubt someone in the organization does sign a Trade Justice petition once a year, just to make it true.

10:05, 5 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AidWorker (talk • contribs)

References

  1. ^ Lorna Young Foundation. (2007). Lorna Young Foundation - About Us URL accessed on August 3, 2010.
  2. ^ Jurang Fair Trade. (2010). Fairtrade or Fair Trade; does a philosophy need branding?. URL accessed on August 3, 2010.
  3. ^ Newton, Samantha; Grynberg, Roman (2007). Commodity prices and development. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press. p. 138. ISBN 0-19-923470-1.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  4. ^ Downie, Andrew (October 2, 2007). "Fair trade blooms". The New York Times. Retrieved May 2, 2010.
  5. ^ Fairtrade [Labelling Organizations] International (2008).FLO International: Annual Report 2007. URL accessed on June 16, 2008.

NPOV?

This article reads like a Fair Trade webpage. Even the "criticisms" are strategically placed to be promptly refuted in the pro-Fair Trade manner and tone of the whole. Indeed, less than half the text of the "Criticisms" section is spent discussing the criticisms of Fair Trade - the bulk is spent on rebuttals to those criticisms. -PM —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.209.46.240 (talk) 03:00, 13 May 2007 (UTC).

The criticism section of this article is sad. The article as a whole portrays ignorance of even fundamental economic principles. Unless the artificially high prices of fair trade can be maintained forever, they will eventually lead to magnified economic collapse of whatever is supported by the prices in the first place. I'm not questioning the motives of those who promote it, but to say that there is a rational economic argument to be made for fair trade is bunk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.140.154.13 (talk) 02:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I just came in to take a look at this article, and I actually agree with FT, but this is ridiculous. The whole article is one big pro-fair trade bonanza. The criticisms section is tiny and, as you point out, all economic criticisms are immediately refuted. Meanwhile, the "mainstreaming" criticism that comes from the left and suggests fair trade is not doing enough is left as a standing point. This article has a lot of interesting information, but NPOV it most certainly is not.70.132.14.64 19:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Partially disagree. I didn't read every bit ... but scanning down the page I came across this section:

Singleton's comments echo the main criticisms of Fair Trade, that "it also leads fair trade producers to increase production." While benefiting a number of Fair Trade producers over the short run, fair trade critics worry about the impact on long run development and economic growth. The reason coffee prices are so low on the world markets is that there is too much production.[39] By encouraging even more supply of coffee, fair trade makes the world price fall further.[39] This makes the vast majority of coffee producers worse off. It also focuses attention away from dealing with the real, long term solution to this problem, while giving retailers more money than the farmer sees.[39] Though the adjustment progress is difficult, this creative destruction is a core component of economic growth.[citation needed] By stopping price signals, fair trade may encourage inefficient activities that will not lift the world's poor out of poverty over the long run.[39]

  • (first bold section) is a stronger against FT than the article used to support it, for example the article says: "Mr Bretman of FLO International disagrees. In practice, he says, farmers cannot afford to diversify out of coffee when the price falls. Fairtrade producers can use the premiums they receive to make the necessary investments to diversify into other crops. But surely the price guarantee actually reduces the incentive to diversify?" as a response to Tim Harfords assertion (in a book called “The Undercover Economist” (2005)) that fairtrade lowers global prices. [me] In any case it's capitalist greed that lowers global prices, [global coffee] companies could own plantations and simply choose to pay workers a living wage rather than paying the lowest possible price on a global market.
  • (second bold section) doesn't say anything. It's not factual and probably too speculative for Wikipedia? Pbhj 22:01, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree, this article is horribly biased. Why are the arguments for Free Trade presented without counter argument, yet the arguments against Free Trade are? Wikipedia seems to be becoming less and less objective.

Some of the peopel who contribute to this page have kept the criticism at bay, whereas at the same time they ahve insisted that teh introduction to the Rainforest Alliance does contain criticism as well as an unfavourable comparison to Fairtrade. How fair is that? definitely biased. Mtl1969 10:12, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

We all devote some time on Wikipedia trying to bring in our own perspective and improve the articles here. As I said before, all the contributions I've made on the RA page were made in good faith and I truly believe make the article more interesting and complete. As for the fair trade page, it has significant criticism sections and several links to the fair trade debate page, which discusses in detail each of the most common criticism of fair trade. And who are you to criticize my impartiality, all your contributions have been to Unilever-related articles and topics... isn't it strange you've started noticing fair trade on wikipedia just when Unilever chose cheaper RA certification over fair trade a couple of weeks ago? Vincentl 11:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Vincent1, i did not name any user in particular- so i cannot have been critisising your impartiality. If you feel that I am addressing you, that says more about how you see yourself. Also, I cannot see any criticism in the Fairtrade certification page(one word, not 'Fair Trade') introduction, which is the one i was referring to. i have refrained from making edits in any of the pages as i prefer to reach consensus first on the discussion page- no need to get offended. Also, if you look at my contributions you will see that your allegations that i only contribute to Unilever articles are simply not trueMtl1969 13:46, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Done. I just added criticism sections on the Fairtrade page (including the lead). In the future, please assume good faith (WP:GF) and instead of bashing the work of editors, please try to make constructive comments and suggestions. Thank you Vincentl 15:17, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Vincent1, i agree with your change, but also with your comment to 'please assume good faith (WP:GF) and instead of bashing the work of editors, please try to make constructive comments and suggestions.' which i found lacking in your earlier comments today. Mtl1969 16:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

In order to properly address and discuss this I added a NPOV tag 194.60.106.5 15:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I disagree now, the balance has gone too far the other way, where the majority of the article is criticism! Leanne maybe (talk) 11:19, 12 September 2012 (UTC)leanne_maybe

I would have to agree with leanne_maybe. I am pro-FT, but this page is not the place for this debate. The article devotes too much space to criticism, giving the impression that FT is enormously widely criticised, which I don't believe is fair. It reads like someone's anti-FT PhD thesis. This section should be trimmed down and put into context. 9:57, 19 September 2012 Spuddddddd — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.185.38 (talk)

Pandas

Italic textare awesome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.28.207.199 (talk) 20:19, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Fair trade commodities

Hello all! I see a need for specific commodities to be recognized such as coffee, cocoa, and clothing and textiles. These commodities are mentioned throughout the article already but I plan on integrating the information and additional information into a new section on fair trade commodities. I want to look at differences in labor practices for these commodities and see how (or whether) fair trade companies actually promote sustainability and fair labor practices. There seems to be a lot of contention over how much of the extra money consumers pay for fair trade products actually goes back to the producers. It will be interesting to see if this amount varies with the type of commodity. Labor is an important topic that could also vary with the type of commodity. For example, are cocoa and textile workers treated differently because cocoa plantation workers are outside harvesting cocoa beans while textile workers are inside a factory? I am aware that there is already a Wikipedia article for Fair trade coffee, so I will link that page to the fair trade commodity section. Adding a section on fair trade commodities will also help with the Locations section. Examining specific commodities will make it more apparent which parts of the world are utilized in producing fair trade products. It is important to recognize that most of these locations are developing countries, and fair trade could have a strong impact on development. I will draw sources from journals such as Journal of Business Ethics, Research in Economic Anthropology, Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, and World Development. Although there is information about specific commodities on the Fair Trade USA website (in the Impact Reports), I will refrain from using this website because it is clearly not neutral. Any and all suggestions are welcome as I attempt to make the "Fair trade" page more comprehensive. I especially welcome input on criticisms of specific commodities being fair trade and differing labor practices based on the commodity. Allisonshields (talk) 05:37, 3 October 2012 (UTC)


That looks like a really good approach - go for it! In addition to the journals, may I suggest something like this? bobrayner (talk) 11:41, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, this needs a major fundamental rewrite. It is not an encyclopedia article. Someone looking at Wikipedia wants to know in the first 150 words what Fair Trade does, and wants verifiable statements. The next 1500 words should concentrate on what the vast majority of readers want to know. There should be the minimum of verbiage. Compare what is there now: For the first 4600 words there is nothing saying what exactly Fair Trade does and does not do, with or without evidence. There are a large number of grandiose statements of aims, objectives and ethical standards with no evidence whatsoever that they have been attempted. And there is no evidence that they have been achieved – the evidence does not exist. It is purely an advertisement for a commercial product. There are false claims and snippets of information carefully selected to put Fair Trade in the best light. A dishonest advertisement for a commercial product 853 words on Fairtrade in the EU, 2265 words on the history of Fair Trade, the rest on the number of different organizations and what they claim (leaving out several of the big ones). I doubt if one in a thousand readers care. So the page bores people silly. And it is verbose and ill organized. A very effective way of hiding awkward facts. Fairtrade in the EU, the history of Fairtrade and the different organizations can each be handled by a very brief paragraph with references to source documents. Note too that Fairtrade officials claimed 5000 products two years ago – you cannot cover them all. 18:36, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

what products can be fairtrade products?

--176.251.210.74 (talk) 19:40, 22 October 2012 (UTC)'Im doing homeowrk and i really need some fairtrade products, thanks x'''Italic text

Major rewrite

Thank you for the major rewrite. It is infinitely better than before: it says something meaningful and it has verifiable evidence. It must have taken you a long time. I have put in a disambiguation: you got it right but many of the previous editors were hopelessly confused, as are people reading the advertisements.AidWorker (talk) 14:21, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

No Definition

This entry is absolutely terrible. I read the entire thing and it never offers a definition of what fair trade actually is. How about a definition or some indication of what the concept means. This reads like a debate between topic insiders. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.46.43.64 (talk) 16:58, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Needs Major Edits

First of all, I agree with the user who posted above me. There is no clear definition of fair trade contained in the article. Not only that, but the first paragraph is just statistics. Secondly, the article seems a bit biased. The wording throughout the article just feels one-sided. I understand there is a criticism section, but even that feels a bit biased. Riffraff913 (talk) 10:43, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

The lead containing the definition was removed without explanation in January. I've restored it. jonkerz ♠talk 20:48, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
I agree that major edits are needed. For example I have removed the advertisements for twenty firms selling fair trade: why these rather than a thousand others? why not those with big volumes?. AidWorker (talk) 09:02, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Nice work. bobrayner (talk) 19:59, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Fair Trade Criticism

The world of trade and Economy still looks down on poor poeple and thinks sometimes that the rest of us are stupid.

- The equasion Big gain ---> More production ---> Lower prices ---> less gain is OKAY. Business is cyclical for everyone. At least these poor folks will pickup some benefits to allow them to change their lines of work and cover the basic needs. We are talking about people who do nothave enough food on the table or a shelter.

- Those poor artists and workers know some laws of the market and can figure out when it is good to stop or reduce production and when to move to new lines of business.


- Here is one of the principles we learn in kindergarten: Having someone toil for no proper compensation is WRONG (and they can keep their economic analyses to themselves).

- Rolexes never got cheaper because the owners make the big bucks. If you think this is so unrelated, why not teach the poor farmers what to do and therefore make further contribution to fair trade instead of speculating about the necessity of keeping poverty alive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.124.190.20 (talk) 14:06, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Fair Trade seems to be ill defined in this article and the comment above underscores the lack of understanding. At its heart, fair trade is a pricing subsidy which also imposes other requirements on its producers (only using "sustainable" methods, labor requirements, etc.) Whether this enables better access to markets is debatable. It is arrogant to presume that the subsistence farmer doesn't understand the law of the market. Across the world, micro finance organizations have found significantly savvy business partners in local producers to make great gains. One can argue the merits, but fair trade is neither. Jettparmer (talk) 17:05, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

"Anecdotes state that farmers were paid more or less by traders than by Fairtrade cooperatives" - what does this statement actually mean? What is it saying - do traders pay more or pay less? The following sentence appears to be rebutting the first statement but not clear. 86.149.32.233 (talk) 19:15, 21 May 2012 (UTC) leanne_maybe

There are too many comments in the criticism section stating "Critics say" with no reference or verification. I think these should be removed unless the person would like to add references. Leanne maybe (talk) 19:43, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

"Overproduction argument" section contains the statement "This argument falls away if, as critics and FLO state, farmers do not get a higher price." Earlier in the article there are references to FLO and critics stating that farmers do get a higher price. Indeed a number of the criticisms are based around this point. However, it is worth noting within the article that fairtrade publicity and website only state that farmers get a "fair and stable" price rather than higher.Leanne maybe (talk) 19:56, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

A number of sections in the criticisms part of this article appear to come almost word for word from Peter Griffith's website, which itself is not very well referenced in my opinion. Some of the references listed on this article are actually from Griffith's article so what is actually being quoted is Griffith's interpretation of the references rather than the references themselves. Leanne maybe (talk) 20:08, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

This isn't fair. There's criticism of capitalism, but we can't have criticism of fair trade? That doesn't make any logical sense. If there's a concern about the neutrality of this article, shouldn't we add some secondary arguments supporting fair trade like in the Capitalism article to be fair and impartial, or create another article entitled Criticism of fair trade and move the information there instead of deleting valuable information? Nashhinton (talk) 02:34, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Criticism section placement

Why does the criticism section appear before the movement is even discussed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.145.18 (talk) 14:10, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I thought that too. I changed it but it also seems a bit long. Munci (talk) 05:14, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

The problem is an overlong entry with vast amounts of information of little interest to most readers, history of the movement in great detail etc. It would be entirely inappropriate to put important criticisms after these, because nobody would ever read that far. So is anyone willing to cut down the description into a short, interesting, referenced, verifiable article?AidWorker (talk) 14:50, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

It's actually the "criticisms" that is overly long, filled with original research and interpretation, and vaguely sourced (when sourced at all). This section properly belongs at the end, and desperately needs to be trimmed considerably.Notmyrealname (talk) 19:45, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Really? The criticisms section looks fairly well sourced to me. Do you have any specific examples of OR or missing sources?
Picking a random example (very typical): "There have been largely political criticisms of Fairtrade from the left and the right. Some believe the fair trade system is not radical enough. French author Christian Jacquiau, in his book Les coulisses du commerce équitable, calls for stricter fair trade standards and criticizes the fair trade movement for working within the current system (i.e., partnerships with mass retailers, multinational corporations etc.) rather than establishing a new fairer, fully autonomous trading system. Jacquiau is also a staunch supporter of significantly higher fair trade prices in order to maximize the impact, as most producers only sell a portion of their crop under fair trade terms." This reads like a book report. It cites the whole book. Is the author speaking about the French version of FT or as it applies everywhere? "Left and Right" are vague descriptors.Notmyrealname (talk) 14:55, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Personally, I think that criticism sections in general are suboptimal - it's better to integrate criticism into the body of the article rather than having separate "pro" and "anti" blocks of text. However, this can take more work. Could we try integrating the criticism on this article? bobrayner (talk) 20:16, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Interestingly enough, "pro" blocks of text are actually quite rare. Only with the most well-loved of public figures do you see a praise section. Usually it's neutral, possibly followed by "anti". ("anti" coming first here would be highly unusual) It seems that people are often quite negative in their inclusion of opinion in articles. Munci (talk) 12:17, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Unless people are content to trim this section I think that, because its size and the existence of separate history and certification pages, there should be a separate Criticisms of Fairtrade page. This would allow the arguments to be better organised and would have space for (well referenced) retorts against the criticism. It would be a much more appropriate use of wikipedia than the slightly old-fashioned "This is X and this is why some people think X is bad" style that we're trying to move away from. Kansaikiwi (talk) 04:18, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

If criticism would be copied to the Criticisms of Fairtrade article, it would be redundant; but if criticism were moved to the Criticisms of Fairtrade article it would be a pov fork and neither that article nor this one would be neutral. bobrayner (talk) 18:18, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
If we created a Criticisms of Fairtrade article, we could leave a small summary on this page. Leaving it as is, has gone from NPOV to undue. I think this is a reasonable compromise. Not all forks are unwise forks.Notmyrealname (talk) 15:40, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Moving the criticisms would effectively restore the page to an advertisement for a highly suspect commercial brand, with all criticisms removed to a place where nearly all readers will miss them. The fact is that there have been an enormous number of criticisms, including criticisms by people broadly in favour, and there has been no response to cite. 10:05, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Notmyrealname objects to the bit on political basis of criticisms. But much of the debate very strongly influenced by the author's perception that he is on the right fighting the left, or vice versa. Personally I find that this part of the debate is confused, but my view is irrelevant. Someone has felt it necessary to mention this part of the debate, and I cannot disagree. Notmyrealname suggests, without evidence, that the French version of Fairtrade is different - how? I have not read Jacquieu but I gather much of his large book refers to the FLO central organization, e.g. monitoring and standards. And I cannot agree that anything written by people of a different nationality is automatically suspect.14:26, 5 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AidWorker (talk • contribs)

This isn't fair. There's criticism of capitalism, but we can't have criticism of fair trade? That doesn't make any logical sense. If there's a concern about the neutrality of this article, shouldn't we add some secondary arguments supporting fair trade like in the Capitalism article to be fair and impartial, or create another article entitled Criticism of fair trade and move the information there instead of deleting valuable information? Nashhinton (talk) 02:39, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Agricultural subsidies

Fair trade was created as a way to help level out/reduce the economic benefit that farmers in 1st world countries have; namely via the agricultural_subsidies. Please mention this in the article, it is very important that such background information is found at this page.

109.130.163.110 (talk) 08:10, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Check citations

It seems to me that many citations here are either unusually weak or somewhat misconstrued. For example, the sentence "The effectiveness of Fairtrade is questionable; workers on Fairtrade farms have a lower standard of living than on similar farms outside the Fairtrade system." carries a citation to this Economist article which does include that criticism, but is noted by the vast majority of commenters to be a misconstrual of the original report. I believe that many of the citations in this meandering article (both for and against) are likely to contain these subtle issues. Chyluchicago (talk) 15:41, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

"Fair Trade" or "fair trade"?

I would like to change the capitalization pattern throughout the whole article to be Fair Trade rather than fair trade or fairtrade. I think that capitalizing it in this way stresses that it is a movement and there is more behind it than just fairly traded goods. Please let me know your thoughts about this proposed change! ElleMegan (talk) 17:08, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I moved the page to "Fair trade (movement)" to address concerns like the one you express, ElleMegan.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:24, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

ESPM 163AC Critique Attempt on Wiki Fair Trade Page

This article was a good read but there is not enough criticisms about the fair trade systems. I do not mean about the conceptuality of fair trade but more of the critiques of how it is a great idea but one that is not working well due to globalization and the capitalistic market controlled by global institutions such as the World Bank and IMF.

Additionally, there needs to be more critique on the process of getting 'fair trade certified' to even begin to reap the benefits. Who controls this process, and where does the corruption lie? Is it exclusionary for the commonwealth farmers? Is there an economic middleman, who buys non-fair trade but can afford the certification and therefore receives the benefits? There is a short section on how farmers miss out on fair trade opportunities, but I am of the opinion that that fact should be the main point of the article, instead of starting the article praising the entire fair trade system. While it is a system that I am glad exists, it is not available to most global farmers and I would like to see more statistics/references/research to that fact.

There are lots of resources and references, and everything is relevant. The article is seemingly neutral but since I have studied global food systems I do not think it fairly describes how fair trade has not been working out, and its intersectionality with economics, race, class, privilege and even international trade deals. Yet that is simply my opinion.


Simrjot Mahal EJ 101 Skmahal (talk) 19:16, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Article evaluation

Hello!

The citation referring to Fairtrade International statistics in the fourth paragraph of the article refer to 2011-2012. This is out of date and perhaps should be updated if there are more recent statistics.

However, this article does a good job of representing multiple perspectives on fair trade equally. There is equally as much information of the criticism of fair trade as there is on its benefits.

Thanks!

Ericabohdan (talk) 16:24, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Original research or not

Hi Lawrenvekhoo, I see you have reverted the content removal from the Fairtrade article. While I agree the headings may be relevant, I found that once I read the cited content articles I found that each of them related to tiny individual (eg sample size of 1) problems with various forms of corruption. I consider all these cites as individually irrelevant and inappropriate to be cited this way in this article. I assume this is why they have all been collected to try and emphasise a point. wp:synth wp:or and wp:rs.CamV8 (talk) 12:09, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

I confess that I'm unfamiliar with this topic. If on a close reading of the sources, you believe that they don't support the text, then I have no basis to object to it's removal. However, can I suggest that you leave something behind, whatever you feel is supported by the sources. Thanks, LK (talk) 13:20, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Fair trade. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:56, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

economics

the criticism section is pretty weak on economic & trade theory; there's been plenty written about how "fair trade" does &/or does not work in such terms. Lx 121 (talk) 10:20, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Deleted the section on 'misleading volunteers', which was itself very misleading.

The section said:

"A lot of people volunteer to work to support Fairtrade. They may do unpaid work for firms, or market Fairtrade in schools, universities, local governments, or parliament. Crane and Davies'[152] study shows that distributors in developed countries make 'considerable use of unpaid volunteer workers for routine tasks, many of whom seemed to be under the (false) impression that they were helping out a charity.' However, the UK Fairtrade Foundation is a registered charity."

The only evidence of misleading volunteers given here is that quote from Crane and Davies, but what the quote actually says is: "Day also made considerable use of unpaid volunteer workers for routine tasks, many of whom seemed to be under the (false) impression that they were helping out a charity". That is referring specifically to the one specific company, the Day Chocolate Company. To quote that as "distributors in developed countries make 'considerable use of unpaid volunteer workers..." is tendentious.

Daveofthenewcity (talk) 11:39, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

comment - i do not object to a redaction of this, but the subject should not be "disappeared" completely. a more neutral wording & a clear defining the limits of the cited sourced example(s) would be better. otherwise, it looks too much like you are trying to make an "uncomfortable point" just "go away". & it is certainly relevant to the subject, the degree to which such programs depend on free/volunteer labour. Lx 121 (talk) 13:00, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

It is true that some Fairtrade organisations benefit from volunteer labour, but I don't accept that it is an 'uncomfortable point'. That is your PoV. There are plenty of situations in which people work for commercial organisations either unpaid or for little remuneration because they believe in the mission of the organisation. Daveofthenewcity (talk) 14:09, 24 October 2017 (UTC):
in that case you should not have any problem with restoring the text, suitably revised to indicate that it was only about the one example organisation? & perhaps a line like the one you have composed above, about dependency on volunteers? although without the weasel words. Lx 121 (talk) 16:38, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
There could be something saying that some Fairtrade organisations benefit from volunteer labour but that itself would not be a 'criticism' (which is the main heading of the section). Before restoring anything that quotes Crane and Davies and which provides a justification for criticism, I want to read the paper properly and check for further work (since it is from 2003). Daveofthenewcity (talk) 19:51, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Fair trade (movement) vs Fairtrade

This article is indiscriminate in it's reference to Fair trade - the overall social movement towards fairer trade, and the membership organisation Fairtrade (owned by Fairtrade Labelling Organizations International). In particular, many of the criticisms refer to Fairtrade in particular, and arguably should be on the alternate Fairtrade certification page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caterinaellen (talk • contribs) 08:37, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program course assignment

This article is the subject of an educational assignment at Rice University supported by the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2012 Q4 term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from {{WAP assignment}} by PrimeBOT (talk) on 17:26, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fair_trade/Archive_4&oldid=1131122023"