CEU eTD Collection

In fulfillmentof therequirements Partial for Master thedegreeArts of of Fair itGenerates the Trade Obligation Moral and Su pervisor: Professor Department ofPoliticalScience Central European University Yodahe Bu dapest, Hungary Submitted to Submitted Tesfaye ( 2012 Andrés Moles Velázquez By

) Lamore

CEU eTD Collection being a greatbeinga support throughout the thesiswrit for Hermela, wife, beloved my thank to like also would I directions. and comments valuable me giving and thesis my supervising for Moles Andres Professor to goes gratitude biggest My Acknowledgement ing process.ing i

CEU eTD Collection contributors tocontribute. has additionalvaluesIstrategies,argue thatit wha is, that comparative objection, the to response In products. Trade Fair purchase to duty a have consumers that argue further I theory, moral consequentialist act an following and premise, this On producers. goal major its with effective been Fair has that Trade studies, empirical various on based argue, I products? trade fair purchase to duties thesis this In ,

I explore whether Fair Trade is ‘working’, and if so, if consumers have moral moral have consumers if so, if and ‘working’, is Trade Fair whether explore I t makes purchasing Fair Trade a better alternative to other poverty relief relief poverty other to alternative better a Trade Fair purchasing makes t

Abstract ,

namely: avoiding exploitation and non namely: prompting avoiding ii

f rmtn te ieiod f disadvantaged of livelihood the promoting of

- CEU eTD Collection Chapter Five Chapter Four Chapter Three Chapter Two Chapter One Introduction Table Contentsof Fair Fair Trade: A Consequentialist Defence Act Consequentialism: A General Discussion Is working?Trade fair General Overview 3 3 3 2.4. Conclusion 2.3. Does Fair favorTrade the relatively rich? 2.2. Do producers benefit from amount the that trickles? 2.1. Does Fair keepTrade producers poor 1.4. Differing accounts of FT: complementary or conflicting the with market system 1.3. Defining Fair Trade 1.2. Mainstreaming Fair of Trade 1.1. 4.1. Is Fair Trade excessively demanding? .3. Hybrid The View .2. Satisficing Consequentialism (SC) .1. Simple Act Consequentialism Historical Overview

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

...... iii ......

......

......

......

......

49 43 40 40 37 35 30 30 30 27 25 24 21 19 19 14 11

9 6 6 6 1

CEU eTD Collection List Referenceof Conclusion

Other Other Values 5 5 .2. Argument from indirect benefit .1. Exploitation

......

......

......

......

...... iv

......

60 58 55 50 49

CEU eTD Collection chapter concludes with an important discussion on two contrasting accounts of fair trade. trade. fair of accounts contrasting two on discussion important an with concludes chapter trade fair of goals and definition The mainstreaming. of status present its to inception its from trade, fair of overview historical a present will I chapter, first to aspires will paper The duty topurchase trade products? fair attemp and ask to set is thesis this sentence, a In ‘working’? trade fair is question: related but separate another answer to seeks also paper the However, paper. the of question central the is This elsewhere? farmer is: to responded adequately not but many by asked is that question a movement, Trade Fair the to regards With sociallyenvironmentally Fair Trade andcan soundproduction. as: be defined p their of cost commensurate a reflects only not that price fair a receive South global the in producers that guarantee to aims which Trade, Fair of movement the of emergence the to led has This labor. their for income fair a receive not do and poverty, live people Many world. the in everyone benefit not does argued, is it trade, International the rulesconventional and practice international of engaged are rai consumers) awareness producers, by supporting (backed in actively organizations Trade Fair South. the in especially workers and producers marginalized of, rights the securing and to, conditions trading sust to contributes It trade. international in equity greater seeks that respect, and transparency, dialogue, on based partnership, trading …a deal with the first half of the question the of half first the with deal

be divided in two parts. The first part which consists of chapter one and two two and one chapter of consists which part first The parts. two in divided be

o osmr hv mrl obligatio moral have consumers Do t to reply to the question/s: the to reply to t

Introduction 1

, that ,

Is fair trade ‘working’, and if so, do we have a have we do so, if and ‘working’, trade fair Is

is s o ucae h pout o te poor the of products the purchase to ns in changes for campaigning in and sing, ,

whether fair trade is succeeding. In the In succeeding. is trade fair whether ainable development by offering better better offering by development ainable trade (

roduction, but also helps achieve a achieve helps also but roduction, will also be briefly presented. The The presented. briefly be also will FINE 2001)

— in CEU eTD Collection with regards to our obligations to the world’s poor. The theory claims that the morally right act is actthe morally is right claims that theory The poor. theworld’s to obligations with regards toour c t of moral basis consequentialist to in the look will forI products. trade looks fair buy to and obligation moral obligations consumers’ moral have we if asks paper the of part second The wellb economic the promoting in particularly succeeding actually is system the that indicate operates trade fair where world the of corner every almost in conducted studies assessment impact the on focusing go the Among goals. such realize to able been has movement the if asses to one of scope the beyond be to appears eno an requires it as question this avoid will a I as globally? system succeed trade fair can question the with confused be not should This working. actually is trade fair if see to studies case and researches empirical various through go I two, chapter In consideredas complementaryglobal system. market tothe Renard ( todothis ishere byfair berestructuring just and made trade thatmarkets some think to have (Walton lacking is level global the at justice of implementation wider a where employed be to measure temporary a as it regard Some improvements? aimingfor market global the and trade fair of relationship the is question: the to response their on divided are trade fair of Researchers ere, particularly heories, onsequentialism, which was popularized by Peter Singer (1972), has been a famous argument famous a been has (1972), Singer Peter by popularized was which onsequentialism, eing Southern producers. of 2003).I will argue that fair trade, based on its commonly accepted definition, should be be should definition, accepted commonly its on based trade, fair that argue will 2003).I the major goal of imp of goal major the c consequential act one of a conflict or is fair trade simply a complementary project project complementary a simply trade fair is or conflict a of one

roving the livelihood of disadvantaged producers. Majority of Majority producers. disadvantaged of livelihood the roving this paper. I will rely on rely will I paper. this s. Act ism. 2

- Conseq

fair trade’s goals outline goals trade’s fair uentialism, a major variant of of variant major a uentialism,

2010 rmous research on its own and and own its on research rmous ), while ),

the others prefer to prefer others the als, I will be be will I als, d

in chapter in see see

CEU eTD Collection defensible than simple act consequentialism act simple than defensible trade. fair of favor Howe in defence consequentialist a with up come to theories above the of any employ to problematic be not would it obligations, trade fair of nature demanding less the Given to the inju regards with worse do they objection demandingness the defend to seem versions case) latter the sub these Although whole. a as considered others of interests the to hig accord to free are they and good overall greatest the about bring always to agents upon incumbent morally not is it that holds similarly of instead alternative enough’ ‘good sub act to choose times at may agents rational that idea the on based is theory the satisficing, term the from evident is it As consequences. enough ( criticism: above the counter to attempt an in restructured are which consequentialism of variants moderate two discuss will I the demandingness ofthetheory reframing the force toblunt or it i of denying by either responded have Consequentialists unjust. and demanding excessively b well the promoting will act right morally the that follows It value. moral same the have should everyone well the equally, matter humans all since that assumption the on premised is theory bring that one the Schefler ver, the sub maximizing approaches, particularly the hybrid view, seem to be more more be to seem view, hybrid the particularly approaches, maximizing sub the ver, stice argument, theyconsequences. thatis, unjust allow for 92. h bsc da f h frt s ht cs r mrly ih i te cue good cause they if right morally are acts that is first the of idea basic The 1982). s about the best possible outcome in terms of the overall good. Such a moral a Such good. overall the of terms in outcome possible best the about s ig f vr oe Sne 1993: (Singer one every of eing lt’ ( Slote’s the best available (Slote 1984: (Slote available best the 94 Stsiig osqetaim n te Hybrid the and consequentialism Satisficing 1984) her moral weight to their personal interests compared interests personal their to weight moral her . I .

3 will argue that what fair trade asks of us is not not is us of asks trade fair what that argue will

- optimally which means means which optimally 13). The theory is attacked for being being for attacked is theory The 13). ts demandingness. 141). Schefler’s Hybrid V Hybrid Schefler’s 141).

- maximizing and partial(in and maximizing ht hy ik the pick they that

be the one the be - being of of being View View iew CEU eTD Collection with regards to Fair Trade goods but also inspire further philosophical inquiry in the issue of Fair of issue the inquiryin furtherphilosophical inspire also goodsbut FairTrade regards to with only not will it that in relevant is paper The discourse. this in Trade Fair of issue the involved have authors few very poor, the Trad Fair consequ the place to attempt an make will paper The manner than, say, donating toaidagencies. Walton(2012) charities to donating while involved those of exploitation the avoids trade fair that is first The mechanisms. relief poverty alternative other over trade fair of benefits additional separate two chapter, last the on present, I defensible a can seems, it then, Only consequentialist favor in argument of buying fa alternatives. other than strategy superior a is trade t shown be to has it impact, direct positive in trade fair buying po of for mechanisms alternative other the and trade defence fair both Since particular? a maintain consequentialist a would how then agencies, th Risse and (Kurjanska objection comparative the with deal will I Finally, doing from thingspersonal that matter a from perspective. and life meaningful a leading from agent an preclude not does hold, I products, bu words, other In products. trade fair purchase to have we so, and demanding t f h gas ar rd ses o civ cud e e b ohr as sy oaig o aid to donating say ways, other by met be could achieve to seeks trade fair goals the if at entialist debate. Although much Although debate. entialist ,

that purchasing fair trade is better in motivating people to contribute in the same the in contribute to people motivating in better is trade fair purchasing that ,

for

contribute by framing the issue of consumer moral responsibility responsibility moral consumer of issue the framing by contribute example,

has been said regarding our moral obligations towards obligations moral our regarding said been has

ak i ti rgr. eody I argue I Secondly, regard. this in lacks hat,

ir tradebe can made. 4

as kurjanska and kurjanska as

mvmn i te otx o the of context the in movement e Risse ( Risse

2008). The basic idea is idea basic The 2008). 2008: verty reduction have have reduction verty 45) contend, fair fair contend, 45) ying fair trade fair ying following , CEU eTD Collection case studies. assessment studiesand impact researches, previous on rely will I particular, in part, first the For hand. at questions the explore and written I willother rely onbooks moral obligations. Traderelation individual to in

5

sources to CEU eTD Collection of intermediaries. They also wished to transform the nature of commercial relations into a way way a into relations commercial of nature the transform to wished also They intermediaries. of developed already had Society Pioneer Equitable the ( products co a develop co the of emergence the to aimedItaly to Kingdom which theUnited and late century operative nineteenth inthe movement back traced be can movement Trade Fair the that argued is It the “developmental trade’’ few tomention (IFAT and trade’’, ‘‘solidarity the particularly solidarity of movements political movement, cooperative w origins multiple have to appears movement social a as trade fair However, oft NetherlandsUnited Kingdom,themiddle and in the o The century. stage present supermarkets th and as countries, many developing as in organized are who workers and producers small million a than more together bringing of boasts movement Trade Fair the Today, 1.1.

cooperative movement to explain the origins of Fair Trade: “The founders of the Rochdale Rochdale the of founders “The Trade: Fair of origins the explain to movement cooperative Historical Overview IFAT

, it has traveled, as many authors would agree, a journey of not less than half a a half than less not of journey a agree, would authors many as traveled, has it , - prtv eooy ht s nertd rm h pouto to production the from integrated is that economy operative the in rigins of fair trade are often referred back to craft shops in the United States, the States, United the in shops craft to back referred often are trade fair of rigins 2003). Malservisi and Faubert Mailloux point to the socialdevelopedprojectsthe to point Mailloux Faubertand Malservisi 2003).

North and elsewhere (WFTO (WFTO elsewhere and North

i pout ae od in sold are products eir General Overview ChapterOne 6

the principle of eliminating the excessive profit excessive the eliminating of principle the 2003 01. eoe h movem the Before 2011). ; Gendron he 20thCentury (Gendron he

thousands of Fair Trade shops and and shops Trade Fair of thousands

3,000

et al

2009: raiain i oe 50 over in organizations 64). the distribution of of distribution the n arvd o its to arrived ent hich include hich

et al et

200 9 - scale : :

64). the by by - CEU eTD Collection cnmcly agnlzd eeoig onre i te 90 ad 90, s el as well as or 1970s, and religious and agencies 1960s development international by initiated was the which trade’ ‘developmental in countries developing marginalized economically be also can trade Fair 2006: and production of relations social the challenge to seek not self duty, religious active of principles embodied model Trade’ the until absent was assistance the of beneficiaries the and crafts i the in refugees and communities aiding time same the at products, craft of Davenport and cra of sale the involved which business Men the as such II War World after appeared which agencies relief refugee international to back traced better ‘Alternative of origins The form. present its chari The capture ofFair we thestarting place inthe form knowit Trade adequately not might explanations such century, nineteenth late the of movements cooperative change citizen the making while itself organize to society civil the for n the beginni the n ganizations which assisted Southern producers to produce and export their products(Ge their export and produce to producers Southern assisted which ganizations needy 317). ”( cf. ty business of the 1940s could be a better starting place to analyze the origins of FT in in FT of origins the analyze to place starting better a be could 1940s the of business ty

in the North bears similarities to the ideal of FT as can be recognized be can as FT of ideal the to similarities bears North the in

Gend ng, as Low and Low as ng,

2006: ron nonite Central Committee Committee Central nonite

317

et al et traced back to solidarity trade which imported products from politically or or politically from products imported which trade solidarity to back traced ). Therefore this idea of financing development projects through the sale sale throughthe projects development financingof idea Therefore this ).

200 Davenport ( Davenport 9 : 65). Although the beginning of FT could be pointed towards the towards pointed be could FT of beginning the Although 65). fts produced by refugees to fund their relief their fund to refugees by produced fts 2005: Trade’, and and 7 143

xa who Oxfam - 53) explain, the link between the sale of the the of sale the between link the explain, 53)

FT as it was known as back then, can be can then, back as known was it as FT

consumption presently. -

help, and human dignity but did but dignity human and help, end of the 1950s. “The ‘Charity ‘Charity “The 1950s. the of end eeoe a oe o charity of model a developed - osmr n co of actor an consumer poor countries poor

” ( ” Low and Davenport Davenport and Low

today. However, However, today. efforts ( efforts

as well as as well as social social rdon Low

CEU eTD Collection expanded to include products like tea, cocoa, sugar, wine, fruit juices, nuts, spice nuts, juices, fruit wine, sugar, cocoa, tea, like products include to expanded from coffee traded” “fairly until, producers handcrafts with mostly traded Organizations Trade Fair beginning, the At South. the opportuni opened this North, the in increased Trade Fair for demand the As 2006 were Organizations Trade Fair Southern such Many producers. disadvantaged to assistance of forms other and advice provide would which organizations marketing fair for need the perceived south develop the ‘own’ to people poor for need “the underlining approach novel a marking programs development community finance to also but income generate to means a as only not trade used which NGOs Southern 2006: Davenport and strengthened (UNCTAD)) Development and Trade for United Conference through Nations made first was which trade’( but aid ‘Not want they that claiming by trade “ ‘Non the of advent the as such events Some disadvantaged ( challeng to desire a by guided al et neither East nor West nor East neither

).

2009 established, and relations were established with the new the with established were relations and established, i

n the beginning of the 1970s, Fair Tra Fair 1970s, the of beginning the n : 65; Low and Davenport 2006: Davenport and Low 65; Low and Davenport,Low and 2006: 1) Te ie f a of rise The 319). ” , and the demand by some deve some by demand the and ,

Guatemala ( Guatemala et rcs truh ‘bottom through process ment e the injustices of a world trade system that unfairly left the South South the left unfairly that system trade world a of injustices the e FO 2006 WFTO 318). om f lentv Tae eutd n h avn of advent the in resulted Trade Alternative of form 317 de Original in the Netherlands Netherlands the in Original de - 318). In this period, new organizations emerged organizations new period, this In 318).

8

-

lge Mvmn’ hc dsrbd tef a itself described which Movement’ aligned ). After ). loping countries for more just rules of rules just more for countries loping - p strategies up’ organizations in the in organizations coffee h yeo rdcs were products of type the , ( ” ties for producers for ties th ibid) imported the fi the imported e movement(Low e s, rice, and the the and rice, s, North ( North . Gs in NGOs WFTO WFTO

the rst in in s

CEU eTD Collection way thr consumers to sold were o establishment the with associated usually is movement trade fair the of mainstreaming the of success the for factor important An tradi “mai on influence an have to practice Trade Fair for opportunity an presents and purchasers; Trade Alternative mainstreaming benefitin thereby sold goods Trade such by guided mainstream the begun South and North the networks, structured these Through Association. Trade Fair European and Shops, World of Network Organization), Trade Fair World called Trade(now Trade Fair i most The strengthened. and created were Trade Fair expand to aiming of diversity the (Ge and offered being products quality the improving through and activities commercial on emphasis 1980s late the In 1 and c likes(ibid .2. Mainstreaming F of ngrelations”(Low Davenport and 2006: of selling the products emerged, that is, that emerged, products the selling of otton haveotton added been ).

Latter, in addition to these food products, other non food products such as flowers flowers as such products food non other products, food these to addition in Latter, Labeling has has , nstream retailer/wholesaler sourcing policies and to become a ‘model’ for all for ‘model’ a become to and policies sourcing retailer/wholesaler nstream

ar rd sos ee eoig oe rfsinlzd s rsl o an of result a as professionalized more becoming were shops Trade Fair allow

Organization air ed n . ough to

d

T r

discuss for the Fair Trade message to reach a wider audience than than audience wider a reach to message Trade Fair the for on rade

eeomns can developments Fair et al 2009: al et g a larger number of marginalized producers. Apart from this, this, from Apart producers. marginalized of number larger a g f the Fair Trade label. In the 70s and 80s, Fair Trade products products Trade Fair 80s, and 70s the In label. Trade Fair the f

Trade shops shops Trade 2006: Davenport and (Low strategies nentoa, nentoa Fdrto o Alternative of Federation International International, 319). 66). At the same time different fair trade networks, networks, trade fair different time same the At 66). Fair Trade Fair 9

until, in the second half of the 1980s, a new new a 1980s, the of half second the in until,

explain explain label ( label Alternat h increase the WFTO ive Trading Organizations Organizations Trading ive

20 06

mportant of these are: these of mportant n h vlm o Fair of volume the in ). The idea was that a that was idea The ). 318). The move in to to in move The 318). from

CEU eTD Collection onre wih mot wholesale import, which countries bu the of up made is group second the and products the supply which countries, developing in organizations producer the of consist first The groups. four to in candivided broadly movement be Fair Trade Currently, that areinvolved inthe theorganizations above all, isa‘high quality’pr terms financial flexible more offers environment, the for care promotes man, middle the eliminates buyers, and producers between fosters premium, social a includes which price’ ‘fair a pays “it that: is c supply a with products market the of end the atfarmers werethe benefitingreallyproducts the guaranteethat consumerbranded could business any that meant approach certification independent ethically other alongside stock to supermarket chains attractivefor… “offering an products FairTrademade factors that important emergence The gainaccess themainstr to Fair for opportunity great a presented This branded. and labeled be to begun coffee. the of importers certified become to encouraged were businesses hand other the on and sources Trade be to product companies other any as well as Organizations Trade Fair allowing thereby shops in products ordinary among visible more it make would that label a for qualify would conditions Trade Fair with conformity in traded and produced product hain(Redfern and Snedker 2002 : 2002 Snedker and hain(Redfern certified was coffee. was certified h nme o lbln ognztos nrae wt te ye o pout that products of types the with increased organizations labeling of number The f suc of esu Fi Tae aee products labeled Trade Fair cessful eam Snedker (Redfernand market oduct

A group of coffee producers were registered as certified Fair certified as registered were producers coffee of group A ” ( to producers including pre including producers to n rti toe rdcsMoe 2004: products(Moore those retail and labeled Low and Davenport 2006: 7). The simple message that message simple The 7).

product to sell Fair Trade Fair sell to 10

, uh s rai foods”(2006: organic as such s, 2002

- ,argue Low and Davenport, are are Davenport, and Low ,argue payment and loans, and, perhaps and, loans, and payment products ( products ying organizations in developed in organizations ying 320). : 7).

a Fair Trade label reflects reflects label Trade Fair a long WFTO 2006 WFTO 74).The third group group third 74).The

- trade producers to to producers trade term

relationships ).The first first ).The 319).T he he CEU eTD Collection EuropeanFair (EFTA). Association Trade the and Shops European of Network the (IFAT), Trade Alternative for Federation International 1 byfor thispaper) thepurpose isthedefinition FINE of comprehensive more and accepted widely A 1940s. the in defined been has Trade Fair 1 some wayTrade. involve inFair fou to finance trade provides which Interest Shared finally and products; labeled promotes which producers and retailers wholesalers, trade European nine in organizations Fair Trade Association(EFTA) products European Europe; in orga certification Trade Fair mainlysell that shops’’ ‘‘world the for body leading a as serves Shops(NEWS),which and setting standard FLO buyers; and producers both together brings that organization Trade Fair World the of bodies major the be me are to which of include,(some These movement. considered are which organizations of group a of consists

.3 FINE is a network that involves the Fairtrade Labeling Organizations International (FLO), the (FLO), International Organizations Labeling Fairtrade the involves that network a is FINE . t gop osss f ovninl raiain sc a sprakt ad trs hc in which stores and supermarkets as such organizations conventional of consists group rth Defining FairDefining Trade etr rdn cniin t, n scrn te ihs f mriaie prod marginalized of, rights the securing workers and to, conditions trading better respect, and transparency dialogue, offering by development sustainable to contributes It trade. international in equity greater on based partnership, trading …a –

seily n h Suh Fi tae raiain (akd y osmr) are consumers) by (backed organizations trade Fair South. the in especially

Organization

varying ways by various bodies since its emergence arguably in arguably emergence its since bodies various by ways varying countries; Fair Trade Federation which is an association of fair fair of association an is which Federation Trade Fair countries;

(previously Fair Trade movement(see Moore: movement(see Trade Fair

11 known as as known nization; Network of European World World European of Network nization;

ntioned already in preceding discussions): The The discussions): preceding in already ntioned 1 . Fair Trade be can defined definition ( definition FT, wrdie membership worldwide a IFAT), -

an association of twelve importing ofimporting twelve association an and which will also be used be also will which and - the worldwide Fair Trade Trade Fair worldwide the 74 - 76). The last and last The 76).

as:

which seeks seeks which

ucers and and ucers CEU eTD Collection services(that is, services(that shared is risk this that sure make buyers that, assumed is it Trade, Fair In return. of guarantee no is there as assets their losing risk producers have, they capital the of amount large trade fair of feature peculiar one is this in feature important community isanother the thebenefit of for used tobe theproducer to a premium The of payment development product and training, building capacity goal. developmental major global the in poverty Alleviating consumers, ( development This and Snedker 2002: of goals the be to following the note generally can one definition, this From

list of goals seem to emphasize on two broader goals, namely, goals, broader two on emphasize to seem goals of list practices environmental sound and justice, social promoting by rights human protect To 6. of producers on 5. Tocampaignchanges forrules andofconventional trade. practice international inthe effects negative the 4. Tosetdialogue, anexample ofpartnershipand through intrade respect. transparency of consumers among international they tradeexercise sothat their positively. purchasing power awareness producti raise the To in 3. exploitation from children protect toprocess. and people, indigenous and 2. Topromote for opportunities development especially women disadvantaged producers, the strengthening 1. Toimprove thelivelihoodsandwell for campaigning in and raising awareness changespractice and convent intherules of producers, supporting in actively engaged

tradingrelationship.

economic security. particularly Northernparticularly consumers any f oten rdcr) ad atesi i trade in partnership and producers), Southern of mainly

a pre a 11) -

: export finance, often 50 often finance, export

producer o producer regard ( regard

Fair Trade Fair

Oxford Policy Management 2000: Management Policy Oxford rganizations, paying a better pr better a paying rganizations, . Since entering in to tr to in entering Since . ot ad improving and south organizations organizations .

-

being ofproducers by marketaccess, improving 12 or 60 or

ional international

offer assistance to producers such as such producers to assistance offer percent upr ( support producers’ ade requires poor producers to invest a invest to producers poor requires ade of the final value of the order) the of value final the of efr ad Snedker and Redfern ice and providing continuity in in continuity providing and ice 10).

the promotion of promotion the ieiod is livelihoods trade( In addition, In

FINE f h fre with former the of Fair

Trade (Redfern Trade 2 001)

F risk sharing risk air

as support as economic 2002:

T credit, rade 12

are on

’s ).

CEU eTD Collection and theenhancement farmers’ of the production group, producers’ the of members spent, usually is payment This products. their of price agreed the from apart 3 and isaccountable stakeholders thatit to allits (WFTO 2011). 2 traders( as such stakeholders with consulted having after and production of cost producers’ on researching after price minimum payment premium additional the from price(apart minimum guaranteed the by mainly explained be can price fair the Among environment ( c working good l p disadvantaged economically a for opportunities creating more this make follow must as producers principles places ten The stakeholders. which primary relationship business a than more is sellers and buyers between partnership. of promotion the to pertains goal broader other The likes(see 2011,R Jaffee reductiondebt opportunities, education and housingbetter liveli farmers’ improve to thereby and trade Fair of goal reduction poverty and producers(ibid to provided abor;

ccountability The premium payment, premium The relations commercial and management its in transparent is organization the that implies This

commi s e

mn t nn iciiain gne eut ad f and equity gender discrimination, non to tment WFTO 2 standards ;

f onditions; air trading p trading air 3 ). The process starts when the Fair Trade Labeling organization(FLO) sets a sets organization(FLO) Labeling Trade Fair the when starts process The

2011). , aynolds 2002).

the payment of fair price is worth briefly mentioning here. mentioning briefly worth is price fair of payment the

which is also set by FLO, is a sum of money that pro that money of sum a is FLO, by set also is which

). rvdn cpct b capacity providing

These and similar devices are employed to further the development the further to employed are devices similar and These ractices; -

than see see

- on social development projects such as education, as such projects development social on a -

FLO payment of a fair p fair a of payment uies eainhp oe la. Th clear. more relationship business

prescribed by the WFTO the by prescribed , The Fair Trade Minimum Price Minimum Trade Fair The , 13 mechanism(seeFair FLO, The Trade Premium).

uilding;

rice; , rmtn fi t fair promoting

improvement of food securityfood of improvement

ensuring no child l child no ensuring ree roducers; o o a of dom that Fair Trade organizations organizations Trade Fair that t per ta te relation the that appears It rade; ).

e principles include: include: principles e upon the decision of decision the upon ssociation; The minimum price minimum The transparency and and transparency

abo respect for the the for respect od through hoods ducers receive receive ducers

r and forcedand r of idea The health care health

ensuring ensuring and the and

CEU eTD Collection model of international trade that makes a difference to the differenceato makes tradethat internationalof model aspirations two have to said be could trade Fair that subsection preceding the in presented goals its and Trade Fair of definition the from understood be could It 1 Southern the from producer” consumer Northern the separating distances cultural and psychological This the and the producer a of to livelihood directly contribute also they themselves, for consume only not do con the to known are conditions “living latter’s the distance, physical the despite that in producer the and consumer the between space Trade’ Fair conventional from it distinguish also but producers and consumers The payment ‘fair’. at price minimum the excessively, down fall prices market world when of cost c producer’s is production a that ensure to is aim the since and from; starts negotiation price which at point” starting possible lowest “the as considered is but price fixed a be to supposed not is .4 .

Differing accounts FTDiffering of standards eainl ethics relational .

s distinctive relational nature. Through its guiding principles, Fair Trade narrows the the narrows Trade Fair principles, guiding its Through nature. relational distinctive s

mentioned above mentioned

overed by the returns, the by overed

least guarantees that a farmer receives a sustainable price sustainable a receives farmer a that guarantees least ,

s alt a Ballet as : complementary themarketor with conflicting system , not only ensure that there exists a healthy partnership between between partnership healthy a exists there that ensure only not , development of a community in a certain developing country. country. developing certain a in community a of development nd nd

such a mechanism serves as a “safety net” for producers producers for net” “safety a as serves mechanism a such aietad ( Carimentrand sumer ” ( ” 14

Ballet and Carimentrand 2 Carimentrand and Ballet

that is, that 2 010:

below production cost(ibid). production below parties ( parties 1) call 319) . The first is to provide a working a provide to is first The . consumers and producers)andconsumersthat market market

t “ it, reduces the physical, physical, the reduces partnerships 010: rmto o the of promotion 319). which makes the the makes which

C Therefore, onsumers owing to owing

CEU eTD Collection market system global existing the reform completely to aspires that movement” social economic transformative justice. market conventiona the to alternative pure a as act to is Trade Fair this do hereto is assumes view second The are tosouthern farmersand harsh producers. considered tradeis no a in living persons between relations trade just establishing corrective interim “…an is: Trade amends make and it). implement fi the In project complementary a simply trade fair is improvements or conflict a of one market system”( that challengeto principally functions 2004:74; Moore 91; fo ‘‘tool a as serving by commerce are n

T - novd ( involved ideal world, necessary only until justice is justice until only necessary world, ideal his view suggests view his rst view, Fair Trade is regarded as a temporary measure to be employed where a wider wider a where employed be to measure temporary a as regarded is Trade Fair view, rst ation of justice at the global l global the at justice of ation

in the existing system or 2004: Moore (J

affee 2011: ( Proponents Walton

, here , n h eitn market existing the in

Walto within that ,

to be that of countering and improving some features of the market that that market the of features some improving and countering of that be to 2011:

2010: t hat markets hat , 2010: n 98)

73;

Fair Trade be assumed as a project seeking to correct for t for correct to seeking project a as assumed be Trade Fair h lgc f lbl aiaim or capitalism global of logic the f hs iw niin ar rd a “ mr hlsi, more holistic, more “a as trade fair envision view this of . 96). 434

Jaffee atn 2010: Walton -

434). r modifying the dom the modifying r 435). In other words, this latter view suggests that the aim of of aim the suggeststhat view latter this words, Inother 435). global the tradeand fair of relationship the is Inwords, other ?

notes that fair tradenotes thatfair is have to be made just by some some by just made be to have evel is evel

h question, The ytm ( system

434). The The 434). 15 realized lacking ( lacking

Walton

in the wider context”. context”. wider the in s Jaffee as the inant economic model’’ (Renard model’’ economic inant eod is second

view interim 2010 l market in a bid to achieve global achieve to bid a in market l regarded as pt it puts , : whether 3) Wlo wie ta Fair that writes Walton 434).

to challenge orthodoxy in in orthodoxy challenge to restructuring :

as Walton as

is t rsns distinct a presents it

“ whether The vision of fair fair of vision The

and fair trade fair and

(

aiming 2010

fair trade trade fair he ) 2003

fault calls for :

CEU eTD Collection completely institution. new to which is aim trade” the that implies international conventional of practice and rules the in changes “for campaign order. be new should whole system a market by the supplanted that fact the to suggests statement the that claim to plausible sense can one Although conditions’. trading ‘better and trade’ international in equity ‘greater seeks Trade Fair that propounds which earlier presented Trade Fair of definition accepted commonly global just of agenda grand a achieve to employed ones be to seem not do agree, I Trade, Fair by used tools market The global justice. in change of agent radical a as trade fair portrays that account ideal complete interim the find justice. I market regard, global a of that really are dreams trade’s fair if and interchangeable, However, trade. fairer for quest a on premised aretradefair of aims the about views both that note can One alternative thecurrent modelthat replaces sy p that appears It ciia tn aant h cret ytm f rd i ti saeet i wud o be not would it statement, this in trade of system current the against tone critical a ucinn o itrainl rd ad oig oad gniey qial global equitable genuinely economy ( a toward moving and trade international basic of the altering functioning economy, capitalist global the transforming radically of means A

it is worth is it ooet o ti ve asm fai assume view this of roponents 2011: examining, in light of fair trade’s agendas, trade’s fair of light in examining, 97).

introduce changes in the existing system and not to replace it with a with it replace to not and system existing the in changes introduce con ( account

arrangement. Walton h dfnto as idcts ht ar trad fair that indicates also definition The

s 00 to 2010) hs a b udrto fo te odn o the of wording the from understood be can This tem withanew worldtem order. 16

be more agreeable than the rather radical radical rather the than agreeable more be tr r d a a atmt to attempt an as ade

if fair trade and fairer trade are trade fairer and trade fair if

organizations e oe ih an with come

In this this In

CEU eTD Collection to lessen the harshness towards southern producers of the of producers southern towards harshness the lessen to program adjunct an it make believe, I would, trade fair of features m similar projects for used are which producers to premiums additional for producers; of livelihood and wellbeing intermedi by exploitation trade, fair “ promise It producers. system, market existing the system. conventional the challenges production”, and exchange of relations sustainable more and “creating and equitable standards social setting by conditions production of transformation the which the forlinks in commodities trade new strive tobuild resources…and human and natural devalue “that principles market capitalist challenges trade system. agricultural global conventional the against arrangement. intervention appropriate an it makes system existing the in injustice the mig trade fair Although ol b hlfl I ge with agree I helpful, be would

human rights protection rights human … caim on t te ead ar rd atce t atiig cnmc justice. economic attaining to attaches trade fair regard the to point echanism to answer complete and full a (see,

namely, : namely,

s one ot ale, h fi tae oeet tns s cii i pa in critic a as stands movement trade fair the earlier, out pointed As

o example for t he ht not be an absolute requirement for a just global arrangement, I believe I arrangement, global just a for requirement absolute an be not ht attempt to establish direct establish to attempt aries;

to reduce the suffering caused by the system particularly to Souther to particularly system the by caused suffering the reduce to

, of producers and workers in the fair trade system, the payment of payment the system, trade fair the in workers and producers of

Rayno

long hnlr ( Chandler

lds It -

term would be fair to say that fair trade aims, trade fair that say to fair be would

the the t l 200 al et issues”. justice economic all

setting of a of setting contracts contracts 2011 17

4 trade relations and pre and relations trade Wlo 2010, ,Walton : 256

As Raynolds(2010:306) rightly notes, fair fair notes, rightly Raynolds(2010:306) As iig to aiming ), guaranteed

uies n community and business to se resources are revalued”. Aiming at at Aiming revalued”. are resources se market. nesad ht ar rd de not does trade fair that understand

eue h instability the reduce

R to the market system aspiring system market the to minimum price minimum

uben Fair

However the tools used by by used tools the However h fi tae movement trade fair the

- rd, I trade, t al et financing

as a standard of just just of standard a as

2008) by acting within within acting by

assume,

, the attention attention the ,

development to avoid the avoid to

and other other and rticular rticular

of n the in Th e the the s n e

CEU eTD Collection I chapterwould be next arguing inthe producers offers assistanceit the market “the explains view which justice Fair understand to therefore, logical, appears It return mo a is Opal, and Nicholls of words re toproducers”(cf. income ” ( ” “ development tool that uses existing capitalist supply chains to to chains supply capitalist existing uses that tool development Walton

Jafee 2011: Jafee ,

that fair trade is that fair trade - critical stance of Fair Trade and provides an account of of account an provides and Trade Fair of stance critical

2010: 18

435 89). Trade as temporary measure of measure temporary as Trade

).

It ‘ working will be in this complementary this in be will ’ .

i nterim market nterim sense that sense

CEU eTD Collection some objections and challenges goal associatedwith this FT. of disad the of wellbeing the improving of goal trade’s fair Ifocusingbrief existingempirical on by chapterainto specifically this take journey will research The South the in especially Jaffee( workers, and producers disadvantaged of, rights “offe by crisis such counter to aims it trade, fair medicines, and in longer no were they that and school” of children…out their pulling are coffee by generated money the on dependent “families that deplored extreme report in The bogged poverty. were stay to decided that those while migrate to forced be and bankrupt costcoffee (Oxf production below their sell to forced were farmers coffee country developing and percent 50 almost by plummeted report Oxfam 2002, In question that remains is whether fair trade has been effective in achieving its goals so far. In far. so goals its achieving in effective been has trade fair whether is remains that question 2011: greater educational opportunities. trade, global of terms inequitable the by farmers small to denied improvements livelihood essential other in poverty rural severe ameliorating for device A 88),in this regard,88),in this eloquentlyfair describes trade as : are cutting back on food”(Oxfam 2002: food”(Oxfam on cutting are back d ht 5 ilo cfe fres ee n rss s h pie f coffee of price the as crisis in were farmers coffee million 25 that ed

uh s et reduction, debt as such am 2002: Is fairIs Trade working? Chapter Two

3). This grim situation led many poor producers grim led3). many situation This 19 ring better trading conditions to, and securing the securingthe and to, conditions trading better ring

od euiy bte huig odtos and conditions housing better security, food 2). As indicated earlier in the definition of definitionof earlier inthe 2). Asindicated vantaged producer. Latter, I will present present will I Latter, producer. vantaged

the global south, as well as achieving as well as south, global the

a position to “afford basic basic “afford to position a

(FINE 2001). 2001). (FINE to go to CEU eTD Collection 2009: pr below sales of result a as hardships other and migration T down go prices market world when even production costs of coverthe minimum, that,inthe prices isthe securingof regards households toindividual al et (Raynolds producers southern of being well in conventional improvement the to to contributed sales immensely have to markets, compared sales, Trade Fair from incomes stable more and Higher capacity development organizational building, “through power bargaining their and groups producer of strengthening of area the in obvious remark theirhow marketsindifferent abilityand intern toparticipate operate improved con 2007,2011; Jaffee also see 2009:8, Pound and econ ingeneral improved and product in equipment,; improvement quality, education, of rate higher and housing improved creditworthiness, improved and indebtedness of rate in decrease security, food increased producers, for income improved trade: fair in involved producers to accruing benefits s the tangible of Most about south. the brings in trade producers to fair benefits economic that idea the support studies case and researches Various rade firmed the positive empowerment impact of fair trade. Particularly, this relates to the the to relates this Particularly, trade. fair of impact empowerment positive the firmed 8). Some studi Some 8).

be nrae Nlo ad on 2009: Pound and (Nelson increase able urned iiu pie atclry nue ta poues r nt xoe to exposed not are producers that ensures particularly price minimum guaranteed market knowledge and negotiating skills negotiating and knowledge market

200 es 4 : 1118, Nelson and Pound 20 Pound and Nelson 1118, suggest that such guaranteed minimum price that producerspricethat rec guaranteedminimum suggestsuch that

diversification of income sources ; Improvements to facilities and facilities to Improvements ; sources income of diversification and marketing support”(ibid). 20

23). In this regard, the impact of FT has been been has FT of impact the regard, this In 23).

Ruben

, that is, the understanding of producers about producers of understanding the is, that , 09:

(FLO, “Benefits of Fair Trade”) Fair of “Benefits (FLO, 7). An important achievement of FT with FT of achievement important An 7).

t al et dcin costs oduction 2008).Similarly many others have have others many 2008).Similarly uis eel h floig actual following the reveal tudies ational marketsaational hasshown omic stability(Nelson

Nlo ad Pound and (Nelson eive means means eive . The F The . air air CEU eTD Collection eerhs niae hd sm dut n uh eeaiig betos gis fi tae It trade. fair against objections generalizing such on doubt some sheds indicate researches out be cannot criticisms these Although prospectsg these ofproducing economic poor relatively the of regardless products, these market to continue to individuals for trad be to happen which of most products, trade fair of price the in increase the that argues Leclaire Similarly income. of sources new or production of ways new with up come encouragedto arenot they and ways old the in production bett of possibility the of them robbing way a in farmers as stay always farmers poor that trade fair of assumption chain value the up moves and mechanization, diversification, back holding and land their on farmers ( crops” same the producing that is critics of concern major A producers. t fair involving by receiving are producers southern that benefits economic tangible the Despite 2.1. the price a but cost, production coverstheir that price a get producers producers” “more rade, critics contend that Fair trade does not really aid the economic development of these these of development economic the aid really not does trade Fair that contend critics rade, 2008: Does FairDoes producers Trade keep poor ” the ” 3) for example argues, example for 3) stable incomes stable at markets(Raynoldset local al reby

Nlo ad on 2009: Pound and (Nelson

denying the coming generations’ chance of “a better life”. better “a of chance generations’ coming the denying ering their lives their ering

and is consequently one of the most important direct benefits importantthe most direct th isconsequentlyof and one (Rohac,2012)

“fair trade keeps the poor in their place, sustaining uncompetitive sustaining place, their in poor the keeps trade “fair oods in thelong oods in . P . roducers are encouraged to do far do to encouraged are roducers

7). Moreover, some studies not only indicated that that indicated only not studies some Moreover, 7). . 2004:

rightly ignored, it appears that what various empirical various what that appears it ignored, rightly Instead of helping achieve economic stability, economic achieve helping of Instead itional agricultural produces, agricultural itional

1118). - term” (2002:term” 21 ar rd “ok po pol it agriculture, into people poor “locks trade Fair

lso earn two to three times more than than more threetimes to earntwo lso 955).

ming and other means of means other and ming

“ He claims that claims He provides an incentive incentive an provides at accrue to accrueat to

Sidwell Sidwell it is the is it CEU eTD Collection production, animal husbandry and husbandry animal enterprises production, farm their in invest and Producers instead ofbeingmigrate, tell storiesthat to stay forced“they to are ontheir able land option Producers) farmer” the of life hard the have of instead city, the in work and up grow “can perf who children to stipends giving as measures inspiring such result discussions this From children. their of future the discusses 2004: addition supporting even and harvest coffee the during school in remain to children their allowing supplies, school additional “purchasing are thatproducers noted have groups producer and cooperatives of range a on conducted researches Some ge coming the of lives the the of improve quality to view a with producers southern by practice common a become has indicate, researches various as education, of improvement the in premium and incomes of investment The Producers) processing and farm their upgrade to as in well services as healthcare communities, and education improve to price, trade Fair agreed the of top on paid is which premium, the invest usually Producers lives. better get producers these helps also producers Trade Fair for incomes stable impro to morecontributes and higher the does only not that appears 1118). Producer groups are constructing buildings where the community meets and and meets community the where buildings constructing are groups Producer 1118). s thanremaining primarygoods. producers of . . Such long .

vement in the wellbeing of the producers and their families, the Premium the families, their and producers the of wellbeing the in vement term investments as term

farm equipment” (ibid equipment” farm orm well in school and producers hope that their children their that hope producers and school in well orm eain se esn n Pud 2009; Pound and Nelson (see neration — n elnig si ipoeet hueod food household improvement, soil replanting, in education, 22

thus, help the next generation to have other generation other helpthus, tohave the next l er o shoig (anls t al et (Raynolds schooling” of years al ).Although fair trade could be said to said be could trade fair ).Although aiiis ( facilities e FLO, see

R (FLO, Meet the Meet (FLO, aynolds 2002). 2002). aynolds

Meet the the Meet

their their

CEU eTD Collection some southern producers. to benefits immense brings it but alone terms pecuniary or economic in assessed be not might preser is culture that sure makes it way, This production. of modes the of modernization the for doors opening time same the at goods these of production the encourages thus, trade, Fair preservation. cultural of point vantage the from pro higher accrue which goods those only emphasize and goods traditional the by “undervalued be could which accelera products related and handicrafts as such products the particularly goods, this traditi of preservation the to contributes of notes, Leclaire Trade, Fair cultures. of preservation production the with associated values monetary non other trad fair that objection The and producing crops. thesame farming of ways primitive in locked be not would producers that sign encouraging an therefore, is, producers southern by plants processing developing as well as products of Diversification value processing. t farmalso is their it businesses, in them keeping by families migrating otherwise saving in job great a done have invested inbuildingown their own Fair now Paraguayan the who or plant farmers processing banana fruit own Caribbean their the spices, and rubber sell and and produce unions also credit schemes, loan revolving suc projects, establish diversification to premiums used have farmers tion of global free trade free global of tion Crowther he case that producers diversify their products and move up in to higher to in up move and products their diversify producers that case he

e producers are stuck with traditional products also seems to overlook overlook to seems also products traditional with stuck are producers e

(2012)

” ( ”

explains tha explains 2002: h as the Indian cashew or Sri Lankan tea growers who now who growers tea Lankan Sri or cashew Indian the as h

mill. 955). Expecting indigenous producers to abandon such such abandon to producers indigenous Expecting 955).

ved and mechanization is promoted. This role of FT of role This promoted. is mechanization and ved t 23 :

trade sugar producers who have have who producers sugar trade fit, would be unfair be would fit, onal onal CEU eTD Collection good bring actually higherto the amount nonfair incomparison traded ones. w clai a such back to evidence the and research l a such undertaking of complexity the to owing mainly critics aby conducted been not researchhas is Trade Fair that prove To transfer, transaction. products the same the of of end producers the trade fair at non receive what with comparison of point a prove to care 4 to used In usually is ‘organization poverty. producers the of to goes that out price the of get proportion the addition, producer southern the helping thereby products these buy they that consu northern that necessary is it that in justified is trade fair promoting on spent is which income the of part example, For producer. disadvantaged the namely trade, fair of goals the sustain to necessary another, or way one are, expenditures payme debt servicing for and programs, environmental some are there improvements, that or costs fact processing or the production organizational, “for by deductions explained be can This surprising. not is which price trade this Although andare marketing promotional FT’s operation used tofund further and down figure produ trade fair a of price the countr developing in farmers that argued is It transaction. An 2.2. Doproducers from that benefit trickles? the amount

These criticisms only emphasize on the percentage that trickles down to producers and do not do and producers to down trickles that percentage the on emphasize only criticisms These hat can be be canhat other criticism relates to the amount of money that producers actually receive at the end of the the of end the atreceive producersmoneyactuallyof amountthat the to relatescriticism other

t eurs n xesv cost extensive an requires it roughly figure could be arguable, it appears that producers receive a proportion of the fair fair the of proportion a receive producers that appears it arguable, be could figure

understood from the case studies consulted for this section is that fair traded traded fair that is section this forconsulted studies case the from understood

contend ct or the premium payment(Moha premium the or ct

that

the lion’s share of the premium prices paid by consumers consumers by paid prices premium the of share lion’s the - eei comparison. benefit m is nonexistent is m 24

mers are aware of fair trade and its goals so so goals its and trade fair of aware are mers nts” (Nelson and Pound 2009: Pound and (Nelson nts” ies receive not more than10 per than10 more not receive ies 4 (Rohac

(see Smith 2008:30) Smith (see However, n 2010: n 2012) 52).Others

ess method of resource resource of method ess . t per ta sc a such that appears it

even bring this this bring even . for social and and social for Nonetheless, 9). These These 9). cent of of cent CEU eTD Collection report of trade internationalreads: fair lat The trade. fair of goals the with conflict in come not do true, if even second, and indicate, Ethiopia(2008: the Fair by helped farmers of “most that argues example, for Sidwell, do. to well relatively the on instead but poor, the on focus really not does it that is movement trade fair the with associated criticism Another Fair2.3. Does Trade the favor r a as spent be capitalization fund, thevalue producers receive isfair enough livelihoods. topromote their could and organizations producer or retailers to goes income sales the of part the and families their producers; Ruben 2002, Raynolds these (see large at community of livelihood the enhance indirectly and directly which projects various on spent is show, studies case assessment impact various as producers, is receive they value the that sure make to mechanism one is products their of sale the for receive farmers that premium additional tra fair of aim The being. well their to contribution the and production of cost the account to in taking price fair a received have farmers poor the not or whether be should believe I regard, this in question, important The producers themselves. benefit term long and indirect an has thus organizations producer of level the at used price( and competitiveness increasing thereby exported product the c processing up scale 3) . Such allegations, first, simply contradict with what some report findings findings report some what with contradict simply first, allegations, Such

apacity which contributes to the improvement of the quality and value of of value and quality the of improvement the to contributes which apacity

trade are trade e s o nac te cul mut ht ece te rdcr The producer. the reaches that amount actual the enhance to is de in Mexico, a relatively developed country, and not in places like like places in not and country, developed relatively a Mexico, in elatively rich? elatively nrae ( increased

25 see

et al et

rwhr 2012) Crowther

2008). It appears, ge appears, It 2008). ibid . This additional payment to to payment additional This . ). The capitalization fund capitalization The ). nerally, that, although that, nerally,

for the the for

est CEU eTD Collection does imply that “independent producers do not lose out as the simpler version of the theory theory the of version simpler the as out lose not do producers “independent that imply does increase, price a causing result a as decreases products conventional of supply the and goods 2008:24 theory(Smith economic simple a on be to seem does 2008) Sidwell trade(see fair in participate to able not are they if less earn potentially mee they giventradeprogramsfair in getinvolved welcometo producers arefirst place, all the in that, worst the FairTradehe that be could relatedobjection A exist. producers such where countries all are targets trade’s Fair producer, poor and disadvantaged countries s relatively in live quarters three rest the while countries developed least the in live that poor world’s the of quarter a only is it that show researches fact, In producers. extensively Congo” of Republic Democratic or Malawi d’Ivoire, Cote Afghanistan, including world the of countries poorest the of some “in Kenya,Ethio Tanzania, in systemare Fair the in smallholders of numbers largest “the that claimed further Foundation Fairtrade

Fairtrade and system, and Ocea Asia accounted Caribbean the and America Fair the within workers and farmers all of percent 58 Sme 2010:1) (Summer - te tnad ad principles. and standards the t off in Ghana but focuses on those Ghanaians not as worse off. worse as not Ghanaians those on focuses but Ghana in off

prts n ide noe onre de nt en ht t s o treig poor targeting not is it that mean not does countries income middle in operates . Therefore, as the goal is to promote the wellbeing of the the of wellbeing the promote to is goal the as Therefore, . Cote 2012) (Crowther pia and Ghana” and that Fair trade is expanding its program its expanding is Fairtrade that andGhana” and pia

However, the claim that non fair trade producers producers trade fair non that claim the However, nia for 17percent nia for 25 percent of all famers and workers within the within workers and famersall of percent 25 for lps not the poorest in the same country, that is, notsame is, country,the that in poorestthe not lps - 26 27).

Nvrhls, h fc ta fi tae also trade fair that fact the Nevertheless, .

lhuh a mor as Although,

(FLO, 2011: trade system lived in Africa. Latin Africa. in lived system trade poues el certified sell producers e table and middle income middle and table 17).

However, it appears appears it However,

based based trade that that

it

CEU eTD Collection markets. Consumers, mainly in the North, who are crucial partners in the fair trade operation, operation, trade fair the in partners crucial are who North, the in mainly Consumers, markets. and good their manufacture producers helping by role significant played has trade Fair standards. living their in improvement marked a to in translated has this and before than income stable more and higher getting are countries developing in farmers Poor income countries studieshave where conducted. the been th in impact positive significant a of majority the that observe could voice same areathe this with speakconducted in studies researchesimpactand one However, assessment. generalized a making risk trade fair “is question The poverty. theire an not itself is goalspecific this to regards with working?” of out farmers poor freeing of goal primary its achieving is is trade fair if assess briefly believe to made was attempt I an Instead, scope. wider of which question development economic term long about bring and level general the at alleviatepoverty to managed has trade fair if evaluate to been not has section this ofconcern The 2.4. give any in producer disadvantaged the particularlyworst includes off. the out bail to is trade fair of aim on based only not is objection poorer world developing the the concludes

alternative policy of universal ofalternative policy Conclusion ”(ibid)

.

Smith

(2008:25) further claims that “there is substantial credible evidence that evidence credible substantial is “there that claims further (2008:25) ”

non than before reforms reforms before than liberalization

e lives of poor farmers in the least developed and middle middle and developed least the in farmers poor of lives e credible research but also overlooks the fact that the major major the that fact the overlooks also but research credible

27 has left many hundreds of thousands of thousands of many hundreds left has

ie ar rd emerged. trade fair like

asy question to answer as one would one as answer to question asy

effectively participate in global in participate effectively - n that fair trade has trade fair that

General society

people in people , which which , y this ly,

a CEU eTD Collection and fair by workersbenefiting trade 1.2million from tobe 2011:13). 2011(FLO 5 the disadvantaged, farmer world. third of poor the le workingisat it that conclude Ito assume, fair, be would it producers, of livelihood the in trade fair of impact positive the account to in taking expanded. significantly be would trade fair of success present the that likely agendas, responsibility social corporate their in trade fair of sponsoring the include companies big such If trade. fair sponsor to move companies multinational if boosted be could a also is goods trade fair for demand public stimulating this, to relation In happens. currently than producers Southern to down trickles payments premium and sales product of proportion higher that ensure further produ by received is that value the increase to attempts encouraging the despite addition, Insector. food the from apart sectors other in replicated be also pro trade fair the system iscurrentlyl which in producers of number the expand to is challenge One it. of front in tackle to challenges some has it producers, poor world’s the of standards living the improving in success complet a is trade fair that imply not should this However, of empowerment significant as producersand developmentoftheir communities. well as improvement material and economic about brings This price. market the than observ be can as money, additional higher bit a price a at products these purchasing by contribute

The latest report of fair Trade international estimates the total number of farmers, producers producers farmers, of number total the estimates international Trade fair of report latest The ducts have attained a reasonably fair level of diversification, the success of fair trade needs to to needs trade fair of success the diversification, of level fair reasonably a attained have ducts

ohr challenge. nother imited to a little over a million globally million a over toalittle imited

ed from multiple case studies from every corner of the world, the of corner every from studies case multiple from ed

t ih as b add ht h efcec o fi trade fair of efficiency the that added be also might It 28

ast with respect to its primary goal of promotingprimaryofits goal respect to with ast

cers, more strategies might be required to required be might strategies more cers, e success story. Despite its relative relative its Despite story. success e 5 . Similarly,fair althoughtrade

Nevertheless, Nevertheless, ti more is it CEU eTD Collection generates moral towards obligation consumers. question, this with deals thesis the of part next The products. trade fair buy to obligation moral a have consumers whether be would exploring worth question a consumers; northern by products trade fair these of purchase south global the in producers and farmers of livelihoods the ameliorating to regards with particularly system working generally a is trade Fair that Given

and

n tep wl b md t explore to made be will attempt an

29

, and that it heavily relies on the the on relies heavily it that and , whether

fair trade trade fair CEU eTD Collection ugss ht e uh t mnmz sfeig y feig u assac t toe n need in those to assistance our Singer 1972, offering by suffering minimize to ought we that suggests 6 moral a Such outcome. overall best the about bringing concerns exclusively ov the of terms in outcome possible best the bringsabout that one the with regards toour Unger Peter and (1972) Singer Peter as such philosophers Act 3.1. Simple ActConsequentialism consequentialist moral theory. whether trade. fair of defence consequentialist a an make will to attempt I versions. various has also consequentialism act consequentialism, of forms However, consequences. best the with one the is it if right is act consequentialism, of forms various 2007:1).Among 2001:133; Mulgan good(see the promotes best it if right is “X” Consequentialism,

igr a Singer - osqetaim a ao vrat f osqetaim wih a pplrzd by popularized was which Consequentialism, of variant major a Consequentialism,

osmr’ biain o u f buy to obligation consumers’

d ne ae atclry aos o daig ih eaie osqetaim which consequentialism negative with dealing for famous particularly are Unger nd briefly disc briefly

2009; Unger 1996). 2009; Unger

the concern of this chapter wi chapter this of concern the

an influential moral theory since the 19 the since theory moral influential an obligations to the world’s poor. The theory claims that the morally right act is actthe morally is right claims that theory The poor. theworld’s to obligations Act Consequentialism: AGeneralD

uss the core of the of core the uss

Chapter Three s

e a y ak n usqet hpes il hn e o see to be then will chapters subsequent in task My

r rd pout cud id mrl ai i su in basis moral a find could products trade ir versions in versions 30

ll be act consequentialism which claims that an that claims which consequentialism act be ll

order to explore which type best supports best type which explore to order

th

(1996)

century, iscussion 6

, has been a famous argument argument famous a been has , being itself one among many many among one itself being

erall good and that morality that goodand erall is based on the thought that thought the on based is

theory is premised premised is theory

(see ch ch CEU eTD Collection to help(ibid). Instead of relying on our intuitions, which at times are not worthy of depending on, depending of worthy not are times at which intuitions, our on relying Insteadof help(ibid). to a wewhenclose ortousand whenarethose inneed visible they particularly for out reach to ought we that believe intuitively we that Singer, to according indicate, responses others” innocent of suffering serious the “lessen to hands their lend must they that assume they terms, tangible and real such in think to made are people when that imply to this takes quickly Singer above the in place child man’s the save this to choose circumstances; in put if argue, Singer and Unger both would, people Most who happens rails be and to be onthe wouldotherwise by killed the expensive his of direction the towards train runaway speeding a of route the divert can he switch, a click to chooses Bob If between ‘ choose his saving to confronted is man a where story child drowning the of version modified ( work your n only ruining of expense at the child but and the save pond inthe jump can You him. tosave around one thereisno also because but water above head his keep to unable is he because only not drowns he that likely is It drown. helpl little a that notice you and pond a by passing are you Imagine life. else’s somebody save to sacrifice a make to required is agent an which in scenario hypothetical outli Before wil act well right morally the that follows It value. moral same the well the equally, matter humans all since that assumption the on being o igr 2009: Singer ept o te hig the of despite f every one (Singer 1993: rare and valuable’ car and a child’s a and car valuable’ and rare ning his basic argument, that is the principle of beneficence, Singer comes up with a a with up comes Singer beneficence, of principle the is that argument, basic his ning 3). At an attempt to further exemplify, Singer borrows borrows Singer exemplify, further to attempt an At 3). car ( car cs ivle (igr 2009: (Singer involved cost h which will certainly destroy his car) his destroy certainly will which ew shoes, muddying yourforeventually late cloth and being ew muddying shoes, 13)

at the expense of the material loss they would sustain. would they loss material the of expense the at 31 life ( life

unrelated to him). In this hypothetical case, case, hypothetical this In him). to unrelated 5. uh xmls n people’s and examples Such 15). - being of everyone should have have should everyone of being

b te n pooig the promoting one the be l and as a result save the child the save result a as and train ( cf ess toddler is about to about is toddler ess . re the only ones able able re onlyones the

Singer 2009: ne’ ( Unger’s 14). 1996) 1996)

CEU eTD Collection difference in moral obligation between the acts of saving a drowning child near us and a child child a and us near child drowning a saving of acts the between obligation moral in difference illustrat be of can instead This her away. help far to situated enough else reason somebody be not should close geographically is person a that fact the words, other In helper. the and recipient the betweendistance account to in take not does beneficenc of principle Singer’s to relation in mentioning worth element important An requirement former. thanthe comp of “ to opposed as significant” “morally is which something sacrificing involve not does act the if bad something of occurrence the prevent (1972: commentator among disagreement of source a be well might which claim moral strong a make to seems premise second the However, chapter). this of end the at to return universa as considered be can they as objection much as much attract not might premises third and first The beshould thebasisconsidering inrelation when those living to moral issues indire poverty. w our and issues S moral consider we way they inger,1972,2009).Singer presents the following three pr three following the presents inger,1972,2009).Singer 231) wrong Therefore, Conclusion: of food,and shelter, care, medical s without youThird premise:donatingagencies By prevent can and toaid from death lack suffering sacrificing anything nearly wrongas doso. is important, notto it p your in is it If premise: Second First shelter, Premise:and Suffering and deathlackfood, care medical of from are bad. rbe oa importance moral arable Singer , lly held truths, in the first case, and an empirical claim in the third one(which I will will I one(which third the in claim empirical an and case, first the in truths, held lly (Singer 2009:

had included a qualified version of this premise where one is required to to required is one where premise this of version qualified a included had 15)

.

f o d nt oae o i aece, o ae doin are you agencies, aid to donate not do you if ( ” Singer anything nearly as important” as nearly anything ower to prevent something bad from happening, without happening, from bad something prevent to ower 92 wih em o ml a oe tign a stringent more a imply to seem which 1972) 32

acrificing anything nearly as important ay of life needs to be changed(see changed(see be to needs life of ay emise argument and suggests that such such that suggests and argument emise d n ht hr sol nt e any be not should there that in ed

(Singer

s. s. In his initial proposal proposal initial Inhis 2009) or “anything “anything or 2009) g something something g e is that it that is e

CEU eTD Collection expected to maximize ove maximize to expected former. the of that resembles almost situation agent’s an where point a to need in those help to resources other and time energy, one’s of use welfare, all over Mount, the on sermon the individual, the on demands oppressive and “mak it that argued who Brandt Richard like commentators by presented eloquently 2009: Hooker 2000:15; sim act like implications counterintuitive has which theory moral any act Act want save. to we those as bad as lives our make not does so doing as much as in death and suffering preclude wor even by suggests, Singer of agenda our devoting by conducted be to consequentialist has wellbeing overall the promoting Such ourselves. to risk considerable a at even there out poverty extreme under living those save to have we ourselves, to cost a at child drowning a save to have we as much as that: is makes Consequentialism act Classical Singer’s that point the general, In ourwellbeing,prioritize or thatof awellbeing, close person’s a before strangerliving elsewhere. req important an thus is appears, sub in somewhere say, disease, or hunger from dying is that - l b pasbe o og s t s o chrn wt or basic our with coherent not is it as long so plausible be ply osqetait hoy i theory consequentialist consequentialism is consequentialism

as demanded by consequentialism, by demanded as

attacked as being too demanding. Mulgan, among others, claims that the that claims others, among Mulgan, demanding. too being as attacked 4)Te objection, 149).The rall wellbeing by wellbeing rall

t s mora a is it uraoal dmnig (2001: demanding unreasonably s king fulltime (see Singer 1972: Singer (see fulltime king uirement of Act Consequentialism as we are not supposed to supposed not are we as Consequentialism Act of uirement iy ny o saints”(cf. for only lity

so much so that it can hardly be taken seriously; taken be hardly can it that so much so using all of his resources, with the exception of his of exception the with resources, his of all using

33

rdtoal psd gis utilitarianism, against posed traditionally

In terms of poverty alleviation, a person is is person a alleviation, poverty of terms In

involves the promotion of well being by the the by being well of promotion the involves 238). It follows that we ought to ought we that follows It 238). ) Sc ojcin sue that assumes objection Such 4).

- upy 2000: Murphy aaa Arc. mataiy it Impartiality, Africa. Saharan moral convictions (Murphy (Murphy convictions moral

available resources, and as and resources, available - osqetaim cannot Consequentialism 9 - 10). Promoting Promoting 10). es extreme es

like like

is

CEU eTD Collection osqetaim ae sc dmns eas i oelos h “oa sgiiac of significance “moral the overlooks it because demands integrity”(Mulgan 2001:16). such makes consequentialism b former the underlines as projects own her for used have could she resources her sacrifice to required only 8 7 not would outsider an that extent the to changed and meaningless rendered be could life agent’s m the overlooks Consequentialism ones ignoring by life own ones’ from alienated be 2001: time(cf same the at life one’s promote and consequentialism by required as perspective unthinkable, ho objection the his’, as much as wellbeing others’ of account take to agent an requires consequentialism Since consequentialist the against objection related A thegoodmaximizes sa and consequences, ar good, overall maximize to failing those is, that this, below fall which those right, and required morally are good overall promote which acts as much as that then, appears, It supererogation. rejecting implicitly thereby wrong p best the cause not does which act any regards former the because acts supererogatory that discussion preceding from follows obviously It as lives many as save possible. to generation, income for necessary resources and necessities basic

See ,for of fora the issueof detailed example,Kagan(1984) supererogation discussion Th e demandingness objection slightly differs from the integrity objection in that an agent is not is agentan that in integrityobjection the from differs slightly objection demandingness e 15).

As an agent takes such an impersonal perspective of her life, it happens that one will one that happens it life, her of perspective impersonal an such takes agent an As

ut also that she is required to required is she that also ut Williams would argue, that an agent can view her life from an impersonal impersonal an from life her view can agent an that argue, would Williams

a i svn lvs rm xrm poverty, extreme from lives saving in say d, t nemns h itgiy f h aet life agents the of integrity the undermines it lds, 7 toe cs hc ae od o o u ae o mrly rn n t do) to no wrong morally not are but do to good are which acts (those

ves as many lives as he possibly ves asmany lives ashe

oral relevance of personal projects and relations and so an an so and relations and projects personal of relevance oral mrly wrong. morally e

abandon the projects the abandon 34

account is account

s

imple act c act imple esnl on o view(Railton: of point personal

could. the integrity or alienation objection alienation or integrity the Although an agent produces good good produces agent an Although e a nt oe nuh nes he unless enough done not has he . onsequentialism does onsequentialism

The argument thus holds that holds thus argument The ossible outcome as morally as outcome ossible

Mla 2001: (Mulgan

134). Act Act 134). not allow not . Mulgan Mulgan .

5.t is 15).It 8 .

CEU eTD Collection PC insubsequentPC discussions. and natural is criterion improvement the “sinceI wil clear”(ibid). so not is PC while hoc ad is enough’ ‘good is to as way a what identifies Consequentialism Satisficing such way the that claim proponents PC in clear. very not is act “ to required its Jamieso areand world”(Elliot as the in agents value long increase as thus right and morally world is action the an improve that consequences holds PC welfare. overall maximize not do that to can furtpossibly to we resources our as of part much use to as us do allow we and good that overall promote require not do both that in SC with common in lot not would they starving, 10 the of shoes the in considerconsequentialism the of asdemanding(cf.Mulgan,2001:28). demands themselves put could and reason, clearly to able position his defends example, ,for Singer 9 achievable 10 satisficing of notion the is consequentialism restructure to attempt such One 3 an in attemptto reframe to actreduce Consequentialism force of the strategy, other unreasonable g or unreasonable make be not does consequentialism cannot demand consequentialist the stra different employing demandingness the to respond Consequentialists relative’s andpersonal projects commitments. con hi or hers characteristically as life agent’s the perceive

.2. Satisficing .2. Satisficing (Slote Progressive consequentialism(PC)(Elliot and Jamieson 2009), a similar variant, also shares a shares also variant, similar a 2009), Jamieson and consequentialism(PC)(Elliot Progressive hs ru cnit o Ptr igr 19) Kly aa (99 ad ee Unger Peter and (1989) Kagan Kelly (1993), Singer Peter of consists group This sequentialism undermines an agent’s integrity by alienating her from the pursuit of her or or her of pursuit the from her alienating by integrity agent’s an undermines sequentialism 1984). One aspect of consequentialism of aspect One 1984).

or best outcome best or

on which I will dwell for a while but only providing sketchy accounts, sketchy providing only but while a for dwell will I which on Consequentialism ( l limit myself from engaging in to further explanation as I do not plan to invoke invoke to plan not Ido as further explanation to engagingin from myself limit l

tegies. The extremists, as extremists, The tegies.

and thus is marked by a a markedby is thus and

SC)

by arguing that had people been well informed ,been ,been informed well been people had that arguing by

35 n 2009:244). The difference between SC and PC and SC between difference The 2009:244). n ’

s demandingness is that is demandingness s objection

Mulgan ( Mulgan reat dem reat maximiz s (Mulgan 2001: (Mulgan s 2001) calls them, prefer to argue that that argue to prefer them, calls 2001) (and 9 ands (see Mulgan Mulgan (see ands Ohr age that, argue .Others ing principle of beneficence. Slote’s Slote’s beneficence.of principle ing

its variants discussed above) by by above) discussed variants its

demandingness objection. her our personal projects personal our her 15 it it - 16). Simply put, act put, Simply 16). requires the highest the requires

2001 consequentialism consequentialism

: n practice, in 31 -

37). The The 37). attempts

(1996).

CEU eTD Collection assume an outcome to be good enough overall only if it is good enough for each affected person, affected each for enoughgood is it if only overall enough good be to outcome an assume we enough’; however that argues Mulgan demanding. under or demanding overly satisficing that claim which objections attracted also has version This hashe thecapacity still give more. to to, required. morally not but do to it good are acts certain as that acknowledges acts supererogatory recognizes Consequentialism Satisficing that appears It goodness. overa terms in of ifsuboptimal even of benevolenceismorallyjustified act thatan hand accepts at theory the wrong, morally as outcome overall suboptimal regards which Consequentialism optimal not is that action an choosecould one that holds Slote rational,perfectly is maximize that action an perform but utility expected to fail could person rational a as manner same the In consequences. enough good a that is Consequentialism of version this of idea basic The ( for regard “without enough good is what offer, available best the take to car, his selling waiting person A alternative. without enough good is what chooses agent an when is economic and morality consequentialist of demandingness the lessen to aims version outcome) available inthecircumstances say,

although it is possible that he could get a bet a get could he that possible is it although

Oxfam, an amount of money which is ‘good enough’, ‘good is which money of amount an Oxfam,

we end up do up end we ing some sort of sort some ing but j but ustifiable morally (Slote 1984: (Slote morally ustifiable

for example, may be content with a less than the best price best the than less a with content be may example, for

morality ( morality ” ( ” injustice ( injustice Mulgan 1993: Mulgan whether 36 osqetaim by consequentialism

see Slote Slote see ter offer. Similarly a moral agent may choose choose may agent moral a Similarly offer. ter see Mulgan 2007: Mulgan see

ht hy ae hsn s h best the is chosen have they what 121). 1984). In economic term economic In 1984). cts are morally right if they cause cause they if right morally are cts

such is such 148).

In other words, unlike act unlike words, other In 135). An individual could individual An 135). consequentialism could consequentialism if even acceptable morally creating analogy between between analogy creating

Thus, if a man donated man a if Thus, interpreted s, satisficing s,

‘good thing thing

be be ll - CEU eTD Collection lo al h otos nldn te n where one enough’. the including options the all allow person, a throwing and eight, save and it stop to bag sand big a throwing are: trolley ( Mulgan 11 would such although activities and relationships projects, personal to efforts devote to common agent an allowing by and morality consequentialism between ground middle a seeks prerogative, centered T view’. the ‘hybrid the as counterknown commonly by to proposed bid one the a is in objection consequentialism demandingness act restructure to attempt important Another 3 unacceptable with up ending or demanding unreasonably either consequences. being of risk the at but acts,acceptable morally of setamong choosea to freedom the agent givesan SC appearsthat s of capable justified, irrespective such interpretation, individual’s the on Based poverty. extreme from this, lives 50 saves and illustrate Oxfam to $1000 To donates agent an that enough(ibid). imagine good than less is result the whom for individuals some are overa enough good is outcome an interpretation,collective a on while .3. The Hybrid View Hybrid .3. The

This illustration reflects a milder criticism compared to the trolley case objection explained by explained objection case trolley the to compared criticism milder a reflects illustration This

2007:136 n h ee o SC, of eyes the in

aving double or triple that figure without sustaining additional cost to himself to cost additional sustaining without figure that triple or double aving of the cost to himself which is clearly overly demanding. The man would also be also would man The demanding. overly clearly is which himself to cost the of

- 3)I ti cs, h otos vial t sv tn peopl ten save to available options the case, this 137).In

en asn a uotml vrl otoe n t in outcome overall suboptimal a causing mean

o dig od nuh f e ae 5 lvs hn e s actually is he when lives 50 saves he if enough good doing for

Bob, and save al save and Bob,

is not good enough since the agent has to save every save to has agent the since enough good not is his view, which is based on the notion of an agent an of notion the on based is which view, his 37

bob dies since it could be regarded as ‘good ‘good as regarded be could it since dies bob

l but B but l save all save Schefler o

b d b ten, throwing a lighter sand bag and and bag sand lighter a throwing ten, ies. The problem is that SC would SC that is problem The ies.

(1982, ll despite the fact that there that fact the despite ll

1986,

e on a speeding speeding a on e 92 wih is which 1992) erms of of erms - sense sense 11 one one . It . - CEU eTD Collection rjcs s pr is personal projects her to gives she weight the that given cousin her kill to her allow to appears also it But goal. private her further to money the uses Carla that so stranger a of death the permits view maxi not is good overall means this although projects personal to weight greater give and pursue to us allows view hybrid the that recall We charity unknown. aan tosavelife of other the in and where, scenarios two consider Now pursuits. personal her realize to money of sum large a needs necessarily Carla that hybr the grounds what on clarify to case’ ‘inheritance help would It others. to harm the causing at of projects personal expense prioritizes it is, that objection, injustice the defeat to fails proposal optim than less producing acts take to agents allowing and impartiality avoiding by objection demandingness the of force the blunts view hybrid the that appears it Although what wouldalways produce thebest outcome”( that prescribing also but affairs” of state all over possible best the produce would what do to “permissible it considers it as acts supererogatory for allows version centered thei to weight higher proportionately accord to free are they and good overall greatest the about bring always impartiality( Schefler printl getr Te rbe, hn i ta te yrd iw ny gives only view hybrid the that is then, problem, The greater. oportionately proa itrss oprd o h itrss f te pol. hs hs agent this Thus people. other of interests the to compared interests personal r situation, she already has that much money but chooses not to give it to some to it give to not chooses but money much that has already she situation,

in the first, she kills her uncle to inherit the money she wants, she money the inherit to uncle her kills she first, the in 9252;ugn 2007: 1982:5,20;Mulgan

138).It is not morally incumbent upon agents to to agents upon incumbent morally not is 138).It mized by the outcome of our action. The hybrid The action. our of outcome the by mized Mulgan 2007:138) 38

id view is lacking in this regard. this in lacking is view id to reproduce here here reproduce to .

an agent “need not do not “need agent an ugns ( Mulgan’s l eut, the results, al

say $10,000; say 2007:

Assume Assume 138) - CEU eTD Collection wellbeing. ac the if even act same the allow versions former the while good overall optimize to allows intending is latter agent the the given that: acts harsh is such other the on consequentialism act and hand one on consequentialism) 12 but suffers from objection, demandingness the with away does successfully part, its on view, hybrid The objection. injustice the overcome to fails also and problem demandingness the solve really not e ‘good a produce to action agents’ requires simply but outcome possible best the require not does it as consequentialism of demand Satisficingconsequentialism, view. hybrid the satisficingand versio maximizing sub and moderate Two good. all over maximizing of for and agent the terms in outcome best the in results act on agent’s as long as injustice of commission the permitting demands unreasonable imposing for charged is It wellbeing. overall maximiz impartially to have we that suggests consequentialism act Simple consequentialism. paragraphs, foregoing the In personal our to attach we weight projects moral the of extent the restricting without prerogatives

In this particular sense, the difference between the hybrid view hybrid the between difference the sense, particular this In 12 .

other problems one ofwhich couldat isthatother beextremely it times problems unjust.

I have made an attempt to briefly present some variants of act act of variants some present briefly to attempt an made have I tor does not aim so, aim not does tor nough’ result. However, result. nough’ 39

or the outcome does not promote overall overall promote not does outcome the or

at the surface, appears to lessen the lessen appearsto surface, the at as shown above, this version does does version this above, shown as

(as well as Slote’s Satisficing Slote’s as well (as ns were also presented: also were ns

e

CEU eTD Collection of poverty,goods. weFairTrade purchase should reduction the to contributes directly goods Trade Fair purchasing since that and poverty reduce t find we hand, at issue the to argument this Adapting world”(2007: and it”, promote to Theconsequentialism, basic of idea moderate approaches. consequences, enough good causes The theory. tha having recalled is, section this concernof moral consequentialist a upholds agent an that assumption the on based be will argument My paper. this of scope the beyond way is think I which consequentialism of versions provide to intend not do I consequentialism. act simple than defensible sub trade. fair the of favor However, in defence consequentialist a with up come to theories above the of any em to problematic be not would it obligations, trade fair of nature demanding less the Given consequentialism. of form moderate this under view hybrid Schefler’s and consequentialism they that hand, other the On nature. impartial and earlier discussed as consequentialism, act Simple rps ls dmnig obligations. demanding less propose 3) Co 132).

“If maximizing approaches, particularly the hybrid view, seem to be more more be to seem view, hybrid the particularly approaches, maximizing

n youthink Fair Trade:Fair A Consequentialist Defence versely, if one assumes z is bad, then she should act to reduce z. z. reduce to act should she then bad, is z assumes one if versely,

x is good, is x

Mulgan that“the is appropriate explains, response o present to Chapter F

its restructured its

then you should try to increase the am the increase tryto youshould then t buying fair trade is a morally right thing to do as it it as do to rightthingmorally a is trade buyingfair t 40

cneunils agmn i te ie o the of lines the in argument consequentialist a

,

is counter intuitive because of its maximizing its of because intuitive counter is

our e a ctgrz Soes satisficing Slote’s categorize can We he following statement: we should act to act should we statement: following he

variants are sub maximizing in a sense sense a in maximizing sub are variants

a defence to any of the of any to defence a ount of x in the in x of ount

to value is is to value ploy

CEU eTD Collection remote place. a in than him to closer done is such if donation, say action, his of value expected the of estimate faraway in than circles closer in homes, our in with achieved be to are results if ascertainable easily and ( bounds the of certain more be su limits or can emphasizes she if oneactions, her of consequences that is objection the stated, Otherwise world. the of parts those in products, trade fair purchasing is that actions, our of outcomes the about sure be cannot t respond possibly could one products, such purchase to act to have we so and developing countries in farmers poor those of wellbeing the promotes trade Fair that argument the To has been far. not discussed so important less a with deal to first important it find I theories, consequentialist moderate the against forwarded trade, Fair to relation major in objections, the addressing Before position. my defend thereby will I objections, to responding of that argument consequentialist maximizing sub a buy should individuals tradegoodsfair atgood achieving targeted consequen enough for defence a provide to is chapter this a children food to education better for opportunities creates ensures vulnerability, economic producers’ reduces security, income, stable and higher guarantees it as system the in participate who those alleviation. poverty in tradeFair on effects the about out found have studies impact and researches empirical some of majority the what par tra fair of benefits the restating by space consume to intend not do I iual te or producers poor the ticularly

see Mulgan 2001: Mulgan see lcs ie h nrct cua rcs’a work at process’ ‘causal intricate the given places nd housing for families…etc. Assuming such is the case, the approach I will take in take will I approach the case, the is such Assuming families…etc. for housing nd

32

).The basic idea is that consequences of actions are more reliable reliable more are actions of consequences that is idea basic ).The in the global south. I have made an attempt to briefly outline outline briefly to attempt an made have I south. global the in Fair trade has immense positive impact in the lives of lives the in impact positive immense has trade Fair 41

but possible consequentialist objection which which objection consequentialist possible but ch acts of benevo of acts ch

( ibid ). An agent can have a better better a have can agent An ). de to the world’s poor, poor, world’s the to de lence within closer closer within lence ces. By way Byces. way hat we we hat CEU eTD Collection because the ofsuccess lowchances of sending of value’ ‘expected the where century 13 in consequence fro argument the Therefore act. his of value expected the about uncertain implausibl be thus, would, It latter. the of livelihood the in improvement an causes and producer the reaches product a on spends she money extra the that fact the of aware is general, in system the of reliability relative the and promotiona massive the given consumer, trade fair every that assume I meaningful. example, for intermediaries, by undermined somehow be could his promoted be to good through overall the Although group. payment producer’s premium additional plus cost production the above certainly is which product his of price the receives producer the price, minimum guaranteed a at coffee trade fair do middlemen ensurethat an through coffee his exports system trade fair good. trade fair a buying of outcome the determine to a his results what to as certain be can agent an complex, trade. fair to relation in untenable more even be could agency certain a to donated money aid of sound less be argumentto appearsThis

relation fair to trade. ugn20:3 nts ht uh n ruet f netit cud e luil i te 19 the in plausible be could uncertainty of argument an such that notes Mulgan(2001:33)

or the expected value of an agent’s benevolent act does not present itself as credible as itself present not doesactbenevolent agent’san ofvalue expected the or

not take unfair advantage of producers), a Northern consumer buys the consumerbuys Northern a advantageproducers), unfairtakeof not

h cnrbtos niiul ues ae s undoubtedly is make buyers individual contributions the e to argue that one would not buy fair trade because he is not is he because trade fair buy not would one that argue to e

,particularly

aid money to help those in need in faraway places places faraway in need in those help to money aid 42

Since the causal process involved is far from from far is involved process causal the Since intermediary ( intermediary

traced ( traced in the present world system where the value value wherethe system world present the in

The process is as simple: a producer in a a in producer a simple: as is process The ctions would produce. It is not difficult not is It produce. would ctions see Singer 1972) Singer see remember that one FT goal is to is goal FT one that remember l campaign by fair trade fair by campaign l inrne f the of ignorance m 13 .The argument is argument .The th

CEU eTD Collection prices of goods at a given supermarket that the price of commonly frequently consumed fair fair consumed frequently commonly of price the that supermarket given a at goods of prices of research comparative brief a from noted be can It consumer. Northern a on demandingness ca price market from price trade fair of difference The The pricedifferenceproducts generally is between trade certified fair andordinary ones minimal. whether isdemanding trade buying fair ornot. uncertified but differenc similar price this a of extent to The compared product. price higher a has which product trade fair a store a agent an when buying.in comes sacrifice additional of way by sacrifice to required not is agent an as respect this in all at demanding not is It buying. impulsive of sort some in engage to or product, consum a that apparent be should It product. of type same the buying of intention an with store a to go they when product certified trade fair a prefer to expected are North global the in consumers that first, helps, It products be from would immune theaforementioned charges. sub the of one defence consequentialist would be, then will question important more A unjust. and alienating demanding, overly being for theories the charging those world’ the towards approaches consequentialist against challenge strong A 4.1. Is F er is not required to purchase a fair trade item in addition to buying a non fair trade trade fair non a buying to addition in item trade fair a purchase to required not is er air T

rade

to see what purchasing a fair a purchasing what see to maximizing approaches, a consequentialist argument that we should buy fair trade trade fair buy should we that argument consequentialist a approaches, maximizing

excessively demanding? of fairof these criticisms these

trade? My trade? decides,

based on his usual buying plan, to pick from a shelf of shelf a from pick to buyingplan, usual his on based reply to this question would be that given one upholds upholds givenone that be would question this to reply e, I believe will be a decisive factor in order to see see to order in factor decisive a be will believe I e,

trade product involves practically. The basic idea is idea basic The practically. involves product trade

against act consequentialism in general also haunt a a haunt also general in consequentialism act against

43

nt e ad o moe unreasonable impose to said be nnot

oee, h ise of issue the However, s poor comes from from comes poor s CEU eTD Collection h pie f adcat ad te clua pout wt nn ar rd pout c products trade fair non with I complex, I have theseconducted when products notincluded ‘research’. my small products cultural other and handicrafts of price the 14 consequentialism suggest. would projects from oneself personal an detach to an agent requiretrade undemandingnot pricedoes at products a I which products trade fair of purchase my that claim to unreasonablebe would it that Isuppose South. the in wellbeing promote goesto price additional the that so plan) purchase her in not is such when frequently(even extremely exp were agent an if or difference price unreasonable involved it if alienating thus and demanding unreasonablybeen have would products trade fair Purchasing gives hehas. what trade fair similar has a product buying of act the Although welfare. general promote to aims which act such on energy and time resources, one’s of devotion the involve possibly could ways similar in poverty donating of idea The happiness. overall promote or poverty world alleviate to is resources and agent time energy, an his that of all such spend to not expected is first, trade, fair of nature The countries. affluent purch in consumers the account into taking and price additional minimal the considering objection demandingness the to rise gives trade fair purchasing that believe not do I tradegoods marginally coffe bags, tea as such products trade

This comparison, of course, can only be made on common market products. Since comparing Since products. market common on made be only can course, of comparison, This n atc t a ie f hrt ad vrl wlbig aiiain s ipe act simple as maximization wellbeing overall and charity of life a to attach and m currently involved currently m

effect of promoting well being, it is not characteristically so that an agent agent an that so characteristically not is it being, well promoting of effect

14 .

(see Mulgan 2007: Mulgan (see

ol “eah yef rm h poet ad omtet in commitments and projects the from myself “detach would e, honey, chocolate, fruits, rice…etc departs from non fair fair non from departs rice…etc fruits, chocolate, honey, e, oe t a ad gny r aig ie i extreme in lives saving or agency aid an to money 44

36 - 37 ). A once in a while act of buying fair fair buying of act while a in once A ). ected to buy fair trade products products trade fair buy to ected asing capacity of Northern Northern of capacity asing

ould be bit bit be ould CEU eTD Collection efr o ohr a mc o mr ta hs Teeoe i ses mluil t rjc a sub a reject to maximizing defence offair tradealienation or onthe based integrity obje implausible seems it Therefore, his. than more or much as others of welfare bu agent An buyer. the integrityof violate not does thus and view of point impersonal and solelyimpartial objection. integrity the from overal the to adds it value “the of terms in only life one’s appraise to person a requires consequentialism simple earlier, discussed As life. of view impersonal solely a taking by flourish can person a that way no is there that argues personal from agent an of alienation projects, the cause not does trade fair purchasing as much As act overall maximizes good. engage to time, or energy resource financial of terms in free, thus, is, trade fair buying agent An maximization. wellbeing of job fulltime a to attend and lives private their from themselves alienate to required not are agents projects), personal living a for activism of job this taken have who people are there that way a in arranged is system trade fair the As activism. and of wellbeing the optimize proje own the considers and commitments private own his as activism poverty and work charity like projects adopts he if projects personal his to attached be can agent an differently, Stated project. liveto allowed still is agentan that alienatingin simple As

ying a fair trade good is not required to required not is good trade fair a ying it does it cts(ibid act Consequentialists

not also undermine the integrity of one’s life. one’s of integrity the undermine also not . nie h psiiiy n h poet f i , aid of project the in possibility the Unlike ). a poor producer is not expected to commit herself to a life of charity of life a to herself commit to expected not is producer poor a

Buying fair trade does not involve taking account of one’s life from life one’s of account taking involve not does trade fair Buying

wo hmevs r a lbry o ie ihr egt t weight higher give to liberty at are themselves (who ol age mxmzn oe al el en i nt t all at not is being well all over maximizing argue, would l value l

of the universe the of 45 a fulfilling life by attaching to a different type ofdifferent typea by to attachingalife fulfilling

(though not restricted no to) regard highly the the highly regard to) no restricted not (though in any personal project whether or not such such not or whether project personal any in ” ( ”

As Williams As Mulgan 2001: Mulgan

a person buying fair trade to to trade fair buying person a ctions.

(1973: 15) and so suffers suffers so and 15)

116) rightly rightly 116) o their their o m as as m

CEU eTD Collection ol reject could Philips with vi economically are who consumers to limited be should believe, I products, trade moral be also they should countries, affluent in Finally, coinsgoal. she spares personal onher ( betray would she that claim to credible be not would It product. trade fair a purchasing when money extra of amount negligible spends only person a Similarly, mind. in project personal her further bee not she had and money of sum large a such been scenario, other only. notes dollar few had only uncle her that known she had injustice an ha not would she that noted simply be can it However, limit. any without do to her justifies view hybrid the which project personal her realize to money of sum large a needed explain, To to realizeto besufficient theformer has substantial a be to has wh enough demanding be necessarily should required obligation the applicable, be to objection this for that argue I others. to harm causing of expense the at projects personal to precedence give can agents withoutrestricting givetheory prerogatives only satisficing the and view hybrid the both that is idea basic The trade. fair to apply not can theories consequentialist moderate the of both against forwarded argument injustice the that argue also I

considering betray considering a stronger objection would be that: what about individuals who are ‘non affluent’ living affluent’ ‘non are who individuals about what that: be would objection stronger a ich fair trade does not impose on buyers. That is to say, to is That buyers. on impose not does trade fair ich

e m ilsrt uig al’ cs aoe Se a t kl hr nl bcue she because uncle her kill to had She above. case Carla’s using illustrate me let a duty to buy fair trade products, and one such case is the unstable economic or or economic unstable the is case such one and products, trade fair buy to duty a (2008:

she would have given her money to Oxfam had the amount not on her hand not hand her on not amount the had Oxfam to money her given have would she 243) in that it is only in the presence of some weighty reasons that an agent agent an that reasons weighty some of presence the in only is it that in 243)

one and the resource to be withdrawn from the impersonal project in order order in project impersonal the from withdrawn be to resource the and one al as an injustice) a poor southern farmer in farmer southern poor a injustice) an as al

ly

enough. 46 ly obligated to buy fair trade? A duty to buy fair fair buy to duty A trade? fair buy to obligated ly

our freedom to act in act freedom to our

cnicd ht t ol substantially would it that convinced n

the personal pr personal the favo

order to spend those few few those spend to order

Or, r of our projects. Thus our projects.r ofThus

with ve moved to such to moved ve regards oject at stake stake at oject able. I agree I able.

to the the to CEU eTD Collection this is a fair point. However, I will defend fair trade in the last chapter as being an effective effective an being as chapter last the in trade fair channel values characterizing additional owing to some ofpromotingwellbeing it. defend will I However, point. fair a is this ca agents which through options similar other 15 over easily be cannot which objection important one face could trade fair buy to duty a have consumers northern that argument The leadinga meaningfuland from life matter things from doing perspective. that a personal I products, trade fair Buying luxuries. few abandons she if others, of sake the for sacrificed is welfare her where is, that perspective, impersonal wholly a from life a leading be would one that assume to credible seem not does it However, welfare. wit concerned primarily be should we that sense a in perspective personal a from life of a take view be freeI to should thatwe assume ‘better’ lives. also lead to physically but survive li one’s in choices of narrowing the and burden extra concomitant a to leads which expenses extra of it expenditure that the is involves products trade fair buy to duty a reject to agent an for reason possible a Generally, the demandingness objection. over successfully one. to this like exceptions accommodate should trade fair this buy to duty a Thus, evade to liberty at be should they duties, stronger or equivalent have agents When such that chance a is there minimal, is product trade faira forpays consumer moneya additional the Althoughfarmer. Southern the sake the for lives personal their sacrifice should they that mean could trade fair others. of wellbeing the single a maximize or person unemployed and an Requiring goals personal abandon to one require not would consumer the of status social

The other reason Philips mentions as a possible rationale for rejecting such duty is if there are there if is duty such rejecting for rationale possible a as mentions Philips reason other The

an obligation could impose excessive burden for some class of people. people. of class some for burden excessive impose could obligation an

15 fe. It cannot be denied that we need financial resources not only not resources financial need we that denied be cannot It fe. I sol b rcle th recalled be should It . looked, namely, why prefer fair trade from other ways of ways other from trade fair prefer why namely, looked, n contribute more effectively more contribute n mother ( mother 47

or any one in such similar status) to buy to status) similar such in one any or hold, does not preclude an agent from from agent an preclude not does hold, t sub a at

aiiig consequentialist maximizing

(2008:243) I assume assume I (2008:243)

h our h come come CEU eTD Collection fair trade, valuesareother notcharacteristic which ofthe mechanisms. with additionalassociated benefits are arguing there challenge that by partially this will with deal I chapter, next the In producers. poor world’s the to charities as such contributions channeling 48

CEU eTD Collection which islesseningchances ofexploitation”. farmer”, poor a of livelihood theory, moral consequentialist a uphold non achallenge from possible a responseto a serveas poor same the of wellbeing the would assume, I trade, fair to associated values on based question this to reply promotesA producers? which charity a to it donates and product trade be: will chapter last question the terms, simple In prompting others tocontribute. in role indirect its and exploitation of avoidance it: with associated values of couple a to owing better attempt an make will I However, research. extensive an e an is producer poor Southern the of wellbeing the promote to effectivemechanism most the is trade fair that case a Making Trade. Fair through than effectively more contribute can agents which by options similar other are there du the reject to reasons the of one that previous Philips(2008) following chapter, the that in somewhere theory, out pointed moral have I consequentialist trade. fair buy a to obligations following have consumers chapter, preceding the in argued have I

(than some alternative strategies of poverty relief such as donating to charity) to donating as such relief poverty of strategies alternative some (than

what if an agent saves the extra money she is supposed to spend on a fair fair a on spend to supposed is she money extra the saves agent an if what

I would reply “because th “because reply would I that lingers from chapter four chapter from lingers that

normous task that escapes the ambit of this paper as it requires it as paper this of ambit the escapes that task normous Chapter Five O

ther V then why should I buy fair trade to promote the the promote to trade fair buy I should why then

49

alues - consequentialist. To the question “Inot question do the To consequentialist. ere are ere

to

and that I will try to reply to in this in to reply to try will I that and

hw that show other values to be hono be to values other ty to buy fair trade is if is trade fair buy to ty purchasing

ar rd is trade fair particular red among red

also ly ly CEU eTD Collection on ot ht h eitn mre sse de no does system market existing the that out point briefly to try will I exploited. be to it in involving workers or producers those allow not does Inw 5 out asa poverty strategy toothers. alleviation incomparison stand it makes that trade fair of features peculiar explore to be would second The handle. to task exceedinglyan tremen is I think reducing whichpovertyin results direct better tradehasfair First, ways. two least at in believe, I shown, be can This made. be can trade fair then, Only alternatives. that, shown impact, direct positive have reduction poverty of mechanisms alternative other the one. fair a is makes objection comparative the point the that believe I claim wouldbereasonable that it for p to agents tas easy particular? tradein fair buying for defencea maintain developmen possible “one ways, other as by met be could considered be only could 2008: Risse and strategy”(Kurjanska trade fair thus and South that buying thebest thereduce tradeonly isnot fair way available poverty ornecessarily to inthe Walton ‘comparative the of discussion brief a by start me Let .1. Exploitation hat follows I intend to show to Iintend follows hat

k to make a strong statement that individuals ought to buy fair trade goods but can only only can but goods trade fair buy to ought individuals that statement strong a make to k 2012,) against a consequentialist defence of fair trade. fair of defence consequentialist a against 2012,)

as kurjanska and Risse(2008: and kurjanska as

it seems, it

say donating to aid agencies, aid to donating say

that fair trade is non exploitative, or that the system of fair trade trade fair thesystemof that or exploitative, non tradeis fair that can a defensible consequentialist argument in favor of buying of favor in argument consequentialist defensible a can 46).The 45) contend, 45)

point is that if the goals fair trade seeks to achieve achieve to seeks trade fair goals the if that is point 50 urchase fair trade goods(Waltonurchase trade2012: fair

hv a efcie mcaim f tackling of mechanism a effective as have t

Consequentialist

fair trade is a superior strategy than other other than strategy superior a is trade fair hleg’ ( challenge’

then how would a consequentialist a would how then

The comparative objection holds holds objection comparative The ujnk ad is 2008 Risse and Kurjanska s

Since both fair trade and trade fair both Since would then find it not an not it find then would

by proving that proving by

it has to be to has it 130 - 131). dous

; t CEU eTD Collection th global the of percent 80 remaining less onthe relies world’s the population overpercent plus of percent therest84 income and have countries developed in population the of percent 15 About 17 system. o lives the improve to work aim, 16 food and farms big their subsidize and protect to countries “rich allows it since producers their protect but liberalization trade up speed to countries poor regulate they that in standard double cause possibly is which sector agriculture the in unfairness massive the of view of point the from example, for amplified, be could point Pogge’s countries, developing in producers to down issue the Bringing countries andcitizens corporations and their it as role” important an plays also order economic Although world. the in poverty the of part least at been avoid to possible been have would relations it poor, the to favorably economic regulated international governing rules had that argues He alone. assistance pove of problem the that and reasons domestic by solely producers to be unfair might trade global of system existing the that showing discussion brief a with start will I apart wellbeing from promotingtheir eco beneficiaries these of exploitation the eliminate to seeks addition, in trade, fair as superior be can trade fair purchasing run, long the in least at impacts direct similar have agencies aid to donating exploitation

an 20percent(cf. 2003:5). Pogge It has to be noted here that I still hold that interim approach is more conformant to fair trade’s fair to conformant more is approach interim that hold still I that here noted be to has It wrd ak report bank world A

that is, that economies ( economies

16

t sie nt o elc h xsigmre sse wt awoenwoebt to but one new whole a with system market existing the replace to not aspires it

s ar rd de. hrfr, wl age asmn ta byn fai buying that assuming argue, will I Therefore, does. trade fair as d

by the present international trading system. Global trade rules are criticized of of criticized are rules trade Global system. trading international present the by see Oxfam 2002: Oxfam see n or countries. poor in

back or cou poor f those harshly impacted by impacted harshly those f

in 03I eiv, ie a lms o te elt o te ground. the on reality the of glimpse a gives believe, 2003,I

11). This imposes enormous difficulty to d to difficulty enormous imposes This 11). ntries have have ntries og ( Pogge nomically. ” 17 (Pogge 51 200 otiue t ter rsn status present their to contributed

3

: ) ihl nts ht oet i nt caused not is poverty that notes rightly 4) is 200 some “shaped to reflect the interests of rich rich of interests the reflect to “shaped 3: 5). rty should not be seen in terms of of terms in seen be not should rty of the the of

unfair natures of the present the of natures unfair eveloping country country eveloping ,

te global “the tae and trade r

CEU eTD Collection f h hrh etrs f h eitn taig ytm Te tnad st n lc b the by place in set standards The system. trading existing the of features harsh the of some from producer southern the shield to aims trade fair that one chapter in out pointed have I poor protect producers, throughwithnorthern partnership consumers. its to working by so does it order, economic global whole the of restructuring the system. economic ‘unfair’ doing, the of impacts negative produc southern the Compensating reducing of ways for looking involves assume, I This, harm”. to not duties negative stringent more also but assist to duties developed nations, of interests the favor interaction economic global of rules the that case the is it If IFADbleak(see li to seem not do nations developed the makes powerful the recently, since What introduced been have reforms some although countries. that, is worse problem poor in farmers small to blow huge a strikes it since unethical” producers country developed of commodities export on spent is subsidies the of portion huge extremely an that however, is, problem The move. welcome a is IFAD, to according farmers”, of subsistence the and consumption “domestic Subsidizing 2004). agricul of price in decline the and market world the flooding products of surplus for reason main the is which 1980s since agriculture on USD trillion 6.5 Internati The imports” (Third WorldNetwork food cheap to markets their open to countries developing pressuring time same the at companies,

is obviously crucial. Although fair trade does not apply the negative duty by calling for for calling by duty negative the apply not does trade fair Although crucial. obviously is

I would h Iwould onal fund for Agricultural Development observes that OECD countries have spent spent have countries OECD that observes Development Agricultural for fund onal 2004). ave to agree with Pogge with agree to ave

ers economically by promoting their livelihoods, as fair trade is trade fair as livelihoods, their promoting by economically ers 2004). ve up to their commitments which makes the makes which commitments their to up ve

(200 52 3

: 6

- 7) that we have to consider not only “positive only“positive not consider to have we that 7)

. This is “uneconomical and highly highly and “uneconomical is This . tural commodities globa commodities tural situation rather situation lly

system system (IFAD (IFAD

CEU eTD Collection guarantees, working hours…comply wit parti by conditions working good promote to expected as join and bargain collectively to freedom their exercise they that and traits other or gender their on based procedure. production the in used conditions. that and price fair assigning by exploitation fighting to addition In principle of “equal payequal for work’ accepted “socially a receive to expected are organizations trade fair in workers Similarly cost. production the below price a at sells product their that prospect (1988: price” f a at needs desperatelyone what offered is one “if exploited been have to said ( exploitation preventing acceptable an and price minimum a of setting The fairproducera a trade organization is or workerin association; of Conditions…etc freedom and equity gender discrimination, non p are: standards workers. and producers of rights of violation avoid to enable that tools peculiar whic requires h participants’

It is incumbent upon producer groups to groups producer upon incumbent Itis oitos f hi choice their of sociations exploitation. Brewer 1987: Brewer 138).

ayment of a Fair Price; Fair a of ayment

n fi tae raiain o opy ih n te etfcto sse are system certification the and with comply to organization trade fair any (WFTO (WFTO

ic poues eev fi prices, fair receive producers Since rights are not violated and that they are producing under fair working working fair under producing are they that and violated not are rights

aln t py t pay to Failing 2011). This standards work together to make sure that a southern southern a that sure make to together work standards This 2011). 86). Benn negatively frames exploitation in that a person cannot be be cannot person a that in exploitation frames negatively Benn 86).

The standards also require that workers are not discriminated discriminated not are workers that require also standards The

(WFTO ensuring no child Labor and forced forced and Labor child no ensuring and of irrespective h relevant ILOh relevantConventions e mria pout o a labo a of product’ ‘marginal he 53 2011). Finally, producer organizations are also also are organizations producer Finally, 2011).

not exploite

see to it that no child labor or forced labor is labor forced or labor child no that it to see remuneration

hy r sae fo wryn a t at worrying from spared are they cularly gen der ( der d

or is at remuneration

checking if health and safety safety and health if checking WFTO WFTO is one of fair trade’s ways trade’s fair of one is

remuneration (WFTO (WFTO

nuig Go Ensuring

least lessexploited. 2011). labor; wud amou would r 2011). , fair trade ensures ensures trade fair , air and reasonable reasonable and air

” based on the the on based ” commitment to commitment

od Working Working od oe f the of Some

nt to to nt he he of of CEU eTD Collection beneficiary’sgets aslong hedonations. exploitation her A appealing. so seem not does donate to order in product trade fair a buying from refraining of idea the do, to thing acceptable morally a is good the promote to charity to donating Although light. this in seen be the donate then tradegoodand fair buynon decideto To way cooperating system withthe exploitative at a in thus, is, good trade fair non her Buying starve. and product her keep to o or market), good subsidized price low the to due example cost(for production below possibly price cheap a at product her sell to either options: two has trade fair in participating unfa the toMainlysomeform. of due exploitation of stain ahave could countrycertain developinga from hand, other the On is also but wellbeing farmer’s poor a of promotion the to contribution a only not is pays consumer a money additional The producer. exploited less or exploited non a by produced been has which st a of shelf a from one trade fair non a over product trade exploitation of result a is mark such bearing product messagethe that simple goodthe conveyscertifieda ortradelabeledfair that this from Itfollows ,

in away irness inherent in the global trading system discussed above, a southern producer not not producer southern a above, discussed system trading global the in inherent irness ,

an acknowled there is all likelihood that a product that comes out comes that product a that likelihood all is there n agent who does so is, in effect, saying that she does not care about the about care not does she that saying effect, in is, so does who agent n gem ent process ofa nonexploitative work ( work 54

see Steiner - free labor. When an agent chooses a fair fair a chooses agent an When labor. free difference to a charity should, I believe, charityshould, a differenceto

ore, she has, thus, picked up a good a up picked thus, has, she ore, 1984,

of production. of

2011, Brewer2011, 1987). side side of the fair trade route route trade fair the of

e fodn the flooding ver

CEU eTD Collection consequentialist. a making 18 party third a of likelihood the Likewise, contributes. she that unlikely is it it, about aware not is or contribution, a constitutes action certain a that convinced, not is or believe, not att to has action the and goal; the to contributes actually action the that believe to have contributors non fulfilled: agent an encourage to action an For is, make contributions themselves. contributions which group a than more” ‘substantially contributed made have others contribution higher the about a mentions Singer Particularly thing. other think they if thing right the do to tend people that found which researches psychological numerous on argument te reason, One fair trade preferable(2012: m fact which relief” poverty to contribution higher a in result to likely “more are trade fair contribute”, otherwise not would who individuals from relief poverty justification, alternat exploitation, of avoidance the from Apart 5 .2. Argument from indirect benefit

ndency to give depends on “how much “how on depends give to ndency hs ruet evs s rsos priual t a osqetait n nt o h non the to not and consequentialist a to particularly response a as serves argument This i nt eev such receive not did v pvry eif strategies. relief poverty ive

among others, among

recently pointed out that purchasing fair trade goods could “prompt contributions to contributions “prompt could goods trade fair purchasing that out recentlypointed not only influences others others influences only not ract attention (see Singer 2009:64 Singer (see attention ract

people, 132

that individuals do not contribute, not do individuals that

- nomto ( information 138).

particularly those with whom they identify with, are with, identify they whom with those particularly

to make contributions, it it contributions, make to 18 research which found out that donors who were informed informed were who donors that out found which research

Walton, but

fair trade has indirect positive impact better than other other than better impact positive indirect has trade fair they believe others give” others believe they ibid). could also prompt them to act in a certain way, that that way, certain a in act to them prompt also could 55

n ht e al te ie consequentialist wide the calls he what in

It follows that people’s actions, say making making say actions, people’s that follows It - 78 , Walton , seems

S 2012: inger would argue, would inger

(2009:

some conditions have to be be to have conditions some 132 and s and - 138). If an agent does agent an If 138). uch actions as buying as actions uch 64). Singer bases his bases Singer 64).

is that their that is doing this this doing akes akes -

CEU eTD Collection fact thatthecontribution. they made self be not might givingof motive the Although publicity. of 19 creating year after year by reported are increases huge off that fact The consumers. pays Northern among awareness obviously promotion on emphasis huge the Thus, quantity. greater in b will producers the beneficial more the gets trade fair publicized more the since necessary is this that argued I defence, In activity. promotional and campaign on cri One extent. greater a to conditions above the meets trade fair that likeliness the to point which trade fair of characteristics some arethere that Walton with agreeI research, empirical further requires bit a is trade fair to argument this Adapting effects, favor would engage consequentialism agent an B. to inaction has latter the but effects equivalent have B action and A action if then, eliciting ( increases of probability the is, That cond these which to extent the as increases reduction povertytowards contributions contributions. greater motivating of chance higher hig a to conditions these feature that benevolence of acts those Nevertheless, morewill likely than be those higher actions no abov the fulfils through follow to others inspire would contribution of act his for others by appreciation gains else somebody that fact the example, i contribution the does agent an if increases contribution

Singer (2009:66 Singer ticism against fair trade, as can be recalled from chapter one, is that much money is spent spent is money much that is one, chapter from recalled be can as trade, fair against ticism Walton 2012: Walton e conditions, the chance of the action to motivate others to act in a similar manner manner similar a in act to others motivate to action the ofchance the conditions, e - 68) mentions scenarios in which people were inspired to give more as a as more give to inspired were people which scenariosin mentions 68)

134).

In terms of promoting of terms In

19 .The basic idea, in general, is that if an agent’s action agent’s an if that is general, in idea, basic .The

56 t meetingt the rcy u nt implausible. not but tricky

the the general good through poverty reduction, reduction, poverty through good general te teto o te omr For former. the of attention the n - conditions ( less, e as their products will be sold be will products their as e

what matters, what

Walton 2012: Walton

diinl ( additional lhuh uh task such Although her degree have a a have degree her

he argues, is the is argues, he itions are met are itions 134). indirect)

result

CEU eTD Collection and New Zealand (72 percent), Canada (67 percent), Finland (57 percent), Germany (50 (50 Germany percent), (57 Finland percent), (67 Canada percent), percent), Norway (73 percent (72 trade Fair Zealand on New Euros and billion 3 about spent consumers ( products as crisis economic global the Despite 20 reduc as such values crucialaccountother to in strategysuperiora taking is trade fairargued that be still could it benefits, indirect the to regards with strategies alternative other to contrast in t trade fair is, that case, the not is this that assuming Nevertheless, products. trade fair buy to considering itcan benefitargued theadditional beanagent offairtradehasa discussed, duty that effects equivalent have charities and trade fair that Assuming charities. to donating than above discussed conditions the meet better trade fair purchasing of acts that likely is it points, above the considering simply by assume, I agent’strade choice helpsto fair an notice could others where manner a in and public at made is contribution factthat the general, optio fair the either chooses “one that th message of presence The attention. attracting in role important an plays also places, public other the fulfilling of chance better a creates requirement. also sold are products trade fair way The met. is requirements the of one that indicates consumers among recognition in increase the that say pro trade fair of sales of amount the in

A 2009 report, for example, indicated that global fair trade sales have increased by 22 percent 22 by increased have sales trade fair global that indicated example, for report, 2009 A

es

the chancesexploitation. the of FLO Since consumers buy fair trade products in places like coffee shops, stores and and stores shops, coffee like places in products trade fair buy consumers Since 2009). Fair trade sales showed an impressive growth in countries like Australia like countries in growth impressive an showed sales trade Fair 2009).

the likelihood of calling attention is high. Apart from this, the fair trade label label trade fair the this, from Apart high. is attention calling of likelihood the

)

, and (75 Sweden percent), fulfill

t ducts could be explained by this by explained be could ducts n em o drc ipcs oad pvry eif and relief poverty towards impacts direct of terms in he publicity condition. 57

o te nar option” unfair the or n

United Kingdom(43 percent)(ibid).United

20 Wlo 2012: (Walton .

e labels conveys the the conveys labels e It will thus be fair to fair be thus will It 3) In 135). that it that other other

rails rails CEU eTD Collection fair trade or in respects some in better is trade a fair that shown be necessarily to has maintain it that appears It particular? in consequentialist trade fair buying for defence a would how then agencies, aid to donating say ways, other by seek trade fair goals a the if that: is challengeThe pass. to has one hurdle is there defence consequentialist a present successfully to However, perspective. personal pr I products, trade fair buying words, other In products. trade fair purchase to have we so, and demanding not is us of asks trade fair what that argue to consequentialism act simple sub the on relied I with. particularl approaches, deal maximizing to challenging more bit a is question the of part second The globaland producers inthe south. a is globa in participate effectively and good their manufacture producers helping by role significant played has trade Fair livelihoods. their in improvement hig getting are countries farmers indeveloping fairly tothe questioncanaffirmative. answered Poor ofthe the first be part that indicate explored I researches the of Majority products? trade fair purchase to duties moral was paper The cue n gn fo laig maigu lf ad rm on tig ta mte fo a from matter that things doing from and life meaningful a leading from agent an eclude

generally .

working system particularly with regards to ameliorating the livelihoods of farmers of livelihoods ameliorating the to particularlyregards system with working

set out to reply to the to reply to out set e and her

more stable income income stable more y the hybrid view, which seems to be more defensible than than defensible more be to seems which view, hybrid the y der to make a consequentialist argument in favor of buying buying of favor in argument consequentialist a make to der

question Conclusion 58 / s: is fair trade ‘working’ trade fair is s:

n ti hs rnltd n o marked a to in translated has this and

l markets. Fair Fair markets. l s to achieve could be met met be could achieve to s , and if so, do we have we do so, if and , trade,

it could be said, said, be could it

ho ld, does not does ld, CEU eTD Collection such. However, itgenerally appea non from contributions subject be val a as exploitation of Elimination overlook. to value additional huge too is this and exploitation trade fair for case strong a is one first The agencies. aid to donating say, than, manner same the in contribute to people motivating in better is trade fair purchasing that argued Isecond, And regard. this in lacks charities to donating while thos of exploitation the avoids trade fair that is first The mechanisms. relief poverty alternative other over trade fair of benefits additional separate two presented I response, a As ue to be honored be to ue

to arguments. Although fair trade has some features that enable it to better prompt better to it enable that features some has trade fair Although arguments. to could also be appealing to a non a to appealing be also could - contributors, alternative poverty relief strategies could also at time have time at also could strategies relief poverty alternative contributors, rs that fair trade does better rs thattrade inthis fair as it can clearly be shown that it aims to eliminate to aims it that shown be clearly can it as 59

- consequentialist. The second, however, can can however, second, The consequentialist. regard too. regard

e involved e CEU eTD Collection L,h Fi Tae Premiu Trade Fair FLO,The Price Minimum Trade Fair FLO,The percent 22 by Increase Sales Trade Fair FLO,Global FLO, FLO trade Fair of benefits and scope the Monitoring FLO,(2011) FINE Justic and Freedom, Exploitation, (1983). J. Elster, Crowther Chandler, trade (2006). P. global Fair and justice. Action. Collective of Marxism New the in Exploitation (1987). J. Brewer, Benn, (1988). S. A Ballet,J. ,

. (2001). Retrieved 05 11,2012,from http://www.eftafairtrade.org/definition. (2001). Retrieved mark/the_fairtrade_premium.aspx http://www.fairtrade.org.uk/what_is_fairtrade/fairtrade_certification_and_the_fairtrade_ mark/the_fairtrade_minimum_price.aspx http://www.fairtrade.org.uk/what_is_fairtrade/fairtrade_certification_and_the_fairtrade_ _f http://www.fairtrade.org.uk/press_office/press_releases_and_statements/jun_2009/global news[tt_news]=293 http://www.fairtr http://www.fairtrade.net/benefits_of_fairtrade.html 11.pdf 0scope%20and%20benefits%20of%20Fairtrade%20201 http://www.fairtrade.org.uk/includes/documents/cm_docs/2012/M/Monitoring%20the%2 Marxism http://fairtradeblog.tumblr.com/post/18501851430/fair welcome from 2012, 15, 35 92 , B. (2012). (2012). B. , airtrade_sales_increase_by_22.aspx M , 84 , 317 . (2010). Fair Trade and the Depersonalization of Ethics :. Ethics of Depersonalization the and Trade Fair (2010). . eeis f ar Trade Fair of Benefits e te producers the eet -

96. – 330.

- (pp. 227 A Theory ofFreedom.A Theory but

-

lets Fair trade debate is welcome,but lets get the facts straight. facts the get lets welcome,but is debate trade Fair ade.net/967.html?&cHash=e695e18f75366a5a2ba36542ab29984e&tx_tt - - get 52). New York:University YorkNew New 52). Press.

- the - facts List List of Reference . (n.d.). Retrieved 05 17, 2012, from from 2012, 17, 05 Retrieved (n.d.). .

m

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cambridge UniversityCambridge: . (n.d.). Retrieved 05 19, 2012, from from 2012, 19, 05 Retrieved (n.d.). .

. (n.d.). Retrieved 05 17, 2012, from from 2012, 17, 05 Retrieved (n.d.). . 60

Globalizations, 3 Globalizations, Rtivd 0 12,2012,from 005 Retrieved . . n . . hpa (Ed.), Chapman R. J. In e. (09. eree 0 0, 02 from 2012, 08, 05 Retrieved (2009). .

1%20PUBLIC%20FLO%20Dec Rtivd 5 18, 05 Retrieved . (2), 255 Journal of Business Ethics, Ethics, Business of Journal

- 257. Sociological Review, Sociological

-

trade

oo XXVI: Nomos

Retrieved 05 Retrieved

- 2012,from 2012,from debate - is - CEU eTD Collection Murphy, B. L. (2000). (2000). L. B. Murphy, justice. of demands the and Institutions (1999). L. B. Murphy, Mulgan,(2007). T. Mulgan,(2001). T. Research. Future and Issues Parameters, Movement: Trade Fair The (2004). G. Moore, (2010). ,. S. Mohan, PolicyManagement,. Oxford Davenport and Low,W., Low, (20 M. LeClair, movement. Trade Fair the and subsidies export II: trade in Fairness (2008). a. M. Kurjanska, Kagan, (1989). S. of limits the on works Recent much? Too Demand Consequentialism Does (1984). S. Kagan, (Ed.), Warrier M. In paradigm. changing development:a and Trade Fair (2011). D. Jaffee, (2007). D. Jaffee, IFAT, producers rural poor on globalization and liberalization trade of impact the on Forum IFAD, Form Degraded a Just than More Trade: Fair of Institutionalization The (2009). E. C. Gendron, W . (2003) Press. 27 53 of Business Ethics, Trade. Trade. (DFID) Department toFair Development’s International for support [UK Government’s] appropriation. marketingfair mainstream. trade inthe Trade. Philosophy Economics,Politics 7 obligation. Trade. ofFair Politics university ofCalifornia Press. 10, 2012,from www.ifat.org/fairtrade (2004). Retrieved2012, from http://www.ifad.org/events/gc/27/trade/index.htm 0517, of ., and Davenport and (4), 251 Social Action. .

A Brief History of the Fair Trade Movement, IFAT Briefings IFAT Movement, Trade Fair the of History Brief A World ,30 Development Retrieved from http://www.opml.co.uk. London:Instituteof Economic Affairs. 02). Fighting the Tide: Alternative Trade Organisations in the Era of Global Free Free Global of Era the in Organisations Trade Alternative Tide: the Fighting 02). - The Limits of Morality. of The Limits 91. Philosoph rwn Jsie Fi Tae ofeSsanblt ad Survival. and coffee,Sustainability Trade Fair Justice: Brewing Understanding Utilitarianism. Understanding Demands ofConsequentialism. The Fair Trade Without the Froth: A Dispassionate Ec Dispassionate A Froth: the Without Trade Fair

Journal of StrategicMarketingJournal ,14 of

Mo ,E Journal of Business Ethics, 86 ofBusiness Ethics, Journal .,. a Dmns n Non in Demands ral (2005). Has the medium (roast) become the message?(roast)becomethe medium the Has(2005). ,E y and public affairs, 13 public affairs, y and

, 73 (2000).

London and Newyork:Routledge. (06. antemn fi tae aoto, assimilation, adoption, trade: fair Mainstreaming (2006). . – 86.

Fair Trade: Overview, Impact, Challenges. Study to inform inform to Study Challenges. Impact, Overview, Trade: Fair (6), 949 (1), 29

Oxford: Clarendon Press. - res2.html

– International Marketing ReviewInternational ,22 61 - 958. 56.

-

Stocksfield: Acumen Publishing Limited.Stocksfield: Acumen Publishing da Theory. ideal

(3), 239

, 63

Oxford: Oxford University Oxford Oxford: Press. , 315 – - 79. 54. –

327.

e Yr: xod University Oxford York: New Philosophy and Public affairs, affairs, Public and Philosophy

onomic Analysis of Fair of Analysis onomic . (n.d.). Retrieved 05 05 Retrieved (n.d.). . — (5), 494 the ethics ofethics the

California:

Journal –

511. The

.

CEU eTD Collection Sidwell, M.(2008 Sidwell, (1994). S. Scheffler, witho Prerogatives (1992). S. Scheffler, (2008). R. F. P, Ruben (2012). D. Rohac, Conventions. and Market Quality, Trade: Enterprises:Fair (2003). C. M. Renard, Small for Opportunities Market Creating (2002). Snedker,P. A.and Redfern, networks. global via capacity producer Building Coffee: Trade Fair (2004). al, L.et Raynolds, (2002). L., Raynolds Re (2000). L. Raynolds, Morality. and Alienation,Consequentialism (1984). P. Railton, (2003). T. Pogge, Produ Trade Fair for Case Moral a There Is (2008). Philips,J., Oxfam. (2002). Wo Third V. Nelson, osdrtos nelig ia Mrl conceptions university press. Moral Rival underlying Considerations 97. Development International for Centre Issues(CIDIN). the by Coordinated Solidaridad by Assignment Fairt http://www.iea.org.uk/blog/lets 19 ExperiencesFair ofthe WORKING TradeSEED 30. Movement. No. PAPER Development,Journal ofInternational 16 from http://are.berkeley.edu/courses/EEP131/fall2007/Fairtrade/Raynolds.pdf P Development Resource and Community the by Funded Project for Prepared Paper Issues:Background Critical and Research Existing Movements. 13 http://www.princeton.edu/rpds/ (Wageningen (Ed.), Ruben R. ). In Products. Trade Fair Support to Governments for and buy to Consumers http://www.twnside.org.sg/title2/gtrends6.htm on theImpact(NRI). Resources Fairtrade,Natural of Institute , 87 , 134

and Pound,B. and rld ae rgas o Cfe ad aaa i Pr, ot Rc ad hn Study Ghana and Rica Costa Peru, in Bananas and Coffee for Programs rade – 96. - 71. Rigged Rules andDouble Standards. Rigged Rules Network

). U

Agricul e' gt h fcs tagt n 'fairtrade'. on straight facts the get Let's Poverty Alleviation Through Participation in Fair trade Coffee Networks: Networks: Coffee trade Fair in Participation Through Alleviation Poverty h Rjcin f osqetaim A hlspia Ivsiain f the of Investigation philosophical A Consequentialism: of Rejection The

nfair Trade nfair The Netherlands: RadboundThe Univerity Nijmegen.

Final Report. Fair trade programme evaluation. Impact Assessment of Assessment Impact evaluation. programme trade Fair Report. Final - (2009). . embedding global agriculture: The international organic and fair trade trade fair and organic international The agriculture: global embedding

sitn te lbl Poor. Global the Assisting The Impact FairTrade. The of ture andHuman Values, 17 (2004). The Last Ten Years: A Comprehensive Review of the Literature Literature the of Review Comprehensive A Years: Ten Last The .

London: Institute. Smith Adam lbl cnmc trends economic Global - seminars/pdfs/pogge_assistingpoor.pdf get ut Restrictions. ut - the - facts 62

, 1109

- straight

Oxford: Oxfam International. Oxfam Oxford:

- , 297 112 Philosophical Perspectives, 6 Perspectives, Philosophical rogram,New York. rogram,New 1. - –

on 309.

- Rvsd d) Ofr: Oxford Oxford: ed.). (Revised Retrieved 05 2012, from from 2012, 05 Retrieved fairtrade . Retrieved 05 2012, from from 2012, 05 Retrieved . hlspy n Pbi Affairs, Public and Philosophy

cts? On the Moral Duty for for Duty Moral the On cts?

eree 0 21, from 2012, 05 Retrieved University of Greenwich.University of Journal of Rural Studies, Studies, Rural of Journal

Retrieved 05 2012, 2012, 05 Retrieved

(1), 377 (1),

- CEU eTD Collection (Ed.), B.williams(eds.) a. A. In . Integrity and Consequentialism (1972). B. Williams, WF (2006). WFTO. A.(2010).Walton, . ’'WhatFair is Trade?’ A.(2012).IndirectWalton 'Consequentialism, Effect (1996). P. Unger, (2010). A. Summer, : Manchester 5,. paper Trade,working Fair and Bargaining Justice, Freedom, (2011). H. Steiner, Steiner, H.Liberal (1984). A ofExploitation. Theory About Think to Way New A & Report Smith Adam the to Response A (2008). A. Smith, society. Aristotelian the of Proceedings Consequentialism. Satisficing (1984). M. Slote, (2009). P. Singer, Singer,Famine, Affluenceand P.(1972). Morality. TO. (2011). (2011). TO. Utilitariansim: For and Utilitariansim: Against. 3 http://www.wfto.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1506&Itemid=29 association.org/efta/Doc/History.pdf University press. from http://www.ids.ac.uk/files/dmfile/GlobalPovertyDataPaper1.pdf Middle In Live Poor World’s The Manchester papers. Accountability,and and SustainabilitySociety: Analysis Comment Cup Trade Fair the of Content the Measuring 139 House.

- 63.

it yas f ar Trade. Fair of years Sixty The life you can save: acting now to end world poverty. world end to now acting save: can you life The iig ih n Ltig i: u ilso o innocence. of illusion Our Die: Letting and High Living Global Poverty And The New Bottom Billion: What If Three If What Billion: Bottom New The And Poverty Global

0 rnils f ar Trade. Fair of principles 10

Ca - Income Countries, work Countries, Income Third Third World Quarterly, 31 mbridge:University Cambridge Press.

63 eree fo http://www.european from Retrieved

Philosophy and Public affairs, 1 affairs, Philosophy andPublic s and Fair s and Trade’. Ethics, 94 ,

h ete o Bsns Re Business For Centre The (2 ), 225 ing paper. ing (3), 431 (3), Utilitas ,24 Utilitas -

241.

New York: Random York: New

Retrieved from from Retrieved Retrieved 05 2012, 05 Retrieved —

Oxford: Oxford Oxford Oxford:

447.

(1), 126 - , 229 Quarters Of Quarters lationships,

- fair - 43. - - trade 5891 38.

- ,