To put it another way, why not see fairtrade as an enterprise like any other in the free market, offering a product for which there is a demand, namely reassurance that your consumption has not increased global injustice?

1) It seems that the big retail values (almost US$ Billion in 2008) distract us from what part of this is the farmer’s. At a time the GEO Bar was a big Fairtrade item but the farmers only provided the rasins, honey and cocoa – the rest including other ingredients, packaging and processing was for UK industry. In fact in an evaluation Traidcraft reported that in 2006 21.4% of their turnover was spent in the “developing world”, at least this was up from 17.4% in 2002.

2) The next question is who in the developing world? Besides the concerns about which countries I was surprised to see the FAIRTRADE exporters list from the South African site (click Producers & Traders on http://www.fairtrade.org.za/). None of the 30 certified traders appear to be what I thought the beneficiaries of FAIRTRADE were. The list contains big, previously white owned companies, like Westfalia, Halls and Bergendal with all contacts being English or Afrikaans surnames.

I wasn’t referring to individual cases of poverty, in which case anything (legal) that makes a buck is a good idea. That seemed like too trivial a truism to state.

Instead, I was referring to the productive basis for a developing country’s economy as a whole.

Crafts may be a great way to create new income out of relatively little for some people. In fact, I’m sure it is. But it is neither able to provide for an entire population, nor can it do much to create a broad basis for future economic and technological progress.

NGOs that turn the ideas of poor communities into cookie cutters for the masses risk reducing the market value of those ideas. Instead of an entrepreneur carving three unique giraffes a month, an “empowered entrepreneur” has to carve 30 identical ones a month and compete against hundreds of other giraffe-carvers for a market in which prices are driven down for lack of differentiation and competitive advantage. That is, of course, how it should be: competition lowers prices. But that dynamic suggests that imposing such ideas as “the solution to poverty” on poor people is misleading and is in fact undermined by the very NGOs themselves. That’s far more patronising than sneering at a curio-driven economy as a universal means out of poverty.

And once everyone is locked into these NGO-imposed ideas of what poor people should be doing to earn a living, such as making nice curios by hand, or quaintly “traditional” farming methods, what then? How will they compete with the rise of commercial farmers, for example? Or should poor black farmers not enjoy the success of becoming commercial operations that can produce cheaper food on a large-scale basis for the benefit of all consumers?

I’m sure craft-based NGOs do good stuff for a few people, but just like Fairtrade, they seem to want to freeze Africa into this Western image of what Africa should look like: quaint, rural, charming. In the case of craft NGOs, they may benefit some people, but by cheapening the product they do so at the cost of those who were the real entrepreneurs. In the case of Fairtrade, they benefit a few selected people at the cost of hurting the majority of people who simply work hard at good, old productive ideas like farming or manufacturing. If that’s what they want to do, fine. But then advertise that. Don’t presume to call it “fair”.

These programmes may help individuals, sometimes greatly. But neither is healthy, in my view. Neither is a long-term solution to poverty and the goal of Africa’s development.

And no, Adam Smith types don’t advocate abandoning rural economies. They advocate letting supply and demand determine such things. Nor do they say there is only one version of development. Quite the contrary: they claim economics is decentralised, and development is the product of many market actors all acting according to their own interest and best judgement. There is no model to be imposed from the top down, as is so popular with the development-aid and fair-trade crowd. And unlike with top-down planning, Adam Smith’s economics have done more to get people out of slums than any other economic theory. Where do you think the middle class came from? How did it become so large? Socialist central planning? Development aid? Fairtrade? I don’t think so.

I run a non-profit art and craft trust. I provide full time employment for eight people and home based employment for 25 people. We produce high end beadwork, and to tell the truth are so under resourced, that we have not had time to even consider applying for a fair trade label. I do want to remind people that when they scoff at the notion of art and craft helping people out of poverty, that it does, and that it is happening.While people are sipping on their capuccino’s and debating the finer things in life, there are many people like myself working on the ground with groups of people, and helping people to feel better about themselves, their lives and ultimately to put food on the table. There are many working models like ours, that while people pontify, are helping people to become skilled and have a piece of the pie. No, we are not saving the world, but never dismiss us and what we do, until you have taken the time to come and see what we do and the difference it makes daily in peoples lives. Never deny people their achievements and hope for the future, without informing yourself properly about them. If you can offer something better, I am all ears.

No, with free trade I simply mean the removal of any and all restrictions on trade, unilaterally if necessary. In the broader sense, it refers to economic freedom, which covers a range of things from low taxes to institutional rule of law, from small goverment to reducing regulatory burdens, from lowering subsidies and trade tariffs to rooting out government corruption. There is plenty data that shows that countries which improve on such measures of economic freedom also tend to prosper. As economies become more free, so average real incomes rise and poverty declines.

I have blogged about this, with links, here and here.

The report specifically says that it does some good among the Fairtrade producers, by paying them a higher price for their goods. But perhaps you can explain how this benefits those farmers who are not paying members of Fairtrade. Perhaps you can explain how this unearned bounty places pressure on Fairtrade producers to improve their efficiency. Perhaps you can explain why only 10% of the Fairtrade markup reaches the intended beneficiaries.

Of course with some proper reading it would have been possible to consider the facts accurately and comprehensively, but obviously this is not debateworthy — standing on the edge and being defensive of every effort is.

Please don’t tell me you draw a paycheque from them, but as a stout defender of Fairtrade, perhaps you can explain something, since the Adam Smith report is so emphatically wrong. If all it does is stand on the edge and being critical of every effort, as you claim it does, why does it commend similar certifications schemes, such as the Rainforest Alliance, and approve of alternative means of helping the poor, such as Café Britt or kiva.org? Your caricature “right-wing wacko” (to borrow a phrase from MFB) would not prefer those soft-headed pinko-liberal emo-hippie alternatives, now would they? Or didn’t you read that far?