On the surface it would seem that fair trade could be nothing but beneficial to workers in developing countries. What could be wrong with having corporations pay more than the standard market price for products produced by the world’s poor? After reading How Fair is Fairtrade?, it seems that both sides of the debate present valid arguments–making the answer to the question that more difficult. Justin Purser, the commodities manager for Trade Aid Importers in New Zealand, argues that fair trade promotes self sufficiency among third-world farmers. He argues that “it is very common for fair trade coffee co-operatives to seek to build infrastructures which will cut down on the amount of labor required to process their coffee, and will also enable them to improve their coffee quality and, thereby, the higher prices they can command in the market.” Purser’s statements conflict with the arguments made by fair trade critics, mainly that fair trade is poverty trap that promotes dependency on charitable-minded consumers. Despite its critiques, I believe that currently, fair trade is the most beneficial option to help the farmers in developing countries. One of the main arguments against fair trade is that it doesn’t address issues of industrialization, which could allow farmers to break out of the poverty cycle. However, I have not seen any other options being proposed that would facilitate this kind of development. At least through fair trade, the every-day person can help the lives of people across the world by simply purchasing a product with the fair trade certification, and the extra income could help these farmers educate their children, who could then break out of the poverty cycle.
