In keeping with the College's dedication to the common good, the Bowdoin Bookstore should immediately cease all purchasing of "sweat-free" goods in favor of those produced exclusively in third-world "sweatshops."
This is not a heretical position. Rather, it is the most sound and rational policy that this institution can adopt in order to further its goal of bettering the conditions of the poor around the world with the ultimate goal of ending poverty as we know it.
To many, our position is unfathomable. Are we really suggesting that Nike should be viewed as the paradigm of civic and corporate responsibility? Although it is far more palatable to believe that supporting fair labor goods is furthering the College's noble aspirations of social responsibility, the sullen truth of the matter is that these well-intentioned efforts not only fail to meet their goal, but also hurt the very people they intend to help. This position is not based on a belief that working conditions in sweatshops are good. Undoubtedly, they are not. However, our position is founded in the belief that the anti-sweatshop movement can only help a small number of the world's poor. At a time when more than billion people toil on less than one dollar per day, we must do better.
Sweat-free goods appeal to niche markets. Socially conscious consumers, an inevitable minority in the grand scheme of the economy, are willing to pay a premium for specific products in an effort to further worker's rights in the developing world. However, the demand in such markets is miniscule when compared to that of mainstream consumer culture in America. No degree of activism will significantly raise the average Wal-Mart shopper's demand for sweat-free goods. Considering that this particularly reviled retailer had $344 billion in sales during 2006, anti-sweatshop activists are faced with a seemingly insurmountable obstacle in their efforts to tackle such a pervasive problem.
By accepting that the genesis of a universal sweat-free movement is highly improbable, the thrust of anti-sweatshop activism is ultimately rendered impotent as an effective policy tool for economic development. Consequently, the dichotomy of persistent sweat-free activity and the continued demand for low-cost manufacturing presents powerful ramifications for workers in the third-world.
Developing countries are desirable places for large-scale investment by foreign firms because of their vast supply of cheap labor. By pushing manufacturers to pay more than the going wage, sweatshop activists reduce this often exclusive labor-cost advantage, weakening the incentives for expansion into these countries. As foreign investment is a crucial component of development, it is detrimental to the long-term prospects of so many of the poor to discourage firms from setting up operations by needlessly inflating the cost of labor.
Hypothetically, sweat-free factories can be a viable option if these higher-paying firms had the ability to employ every worker in the area. Realistically, this is economically infeasible, yet the prevalence of such hypothetical thought evidences the failed logic continuously employed by the anti-sweatshop movement. The higher wages (but consequently fewer jobs) created by sweat-free factories have a strong potential to prematurely alter the urban-to-rural migration rates in developing countries. More people will be enticed to leave rural areas to seek factory jobs in cities, hoping to find better employment than what is offered by agriculture. Since too few high-paying jobs are available, these migrants are often forced to live shantytowns and enter undesirable industries (such as the sex trade) to make a living, contributing to many of the ills facing urban areas in developing countries. Hence, it does little good to make some of the poor better off at the expense of countless others. So what is our solution to the problem? Free trade. And by this we mean truly free trade. It is the dirty little secret of sweatshop activists that they are often the same people that support protectionist trade policies propagated by industrial unions and agricultural interests in the developed world. Such policies prevent the real benefits of free trade from being passed onto the poorest nations, circumventing the greatest potential tool for reducing poverty. Indeed, more good would be accomplished by lobbying Congress for equitable trade policies than by buying sweat-free sneakers.
Sweatshop activists are not completely misguided in their endeavors. It is undoubtedly noble to labor to improve the plight of the impoverished around the world. However, in a world with limited time and resources, our efforts must be effectively coordinated. As an institution and as individuals, we can do our part to fight third-world poverty by buying goods produced in these so-called sweatshops and by campaigning those in power to share the benefits of trade. While it might "feel good" to do otherwise, the profound challenges posed by poverty necessitates action geared towards rationally reaching the solution, not prolonging the problem.
Abrams is a member of the Class of 2009 and Bartus is a member of the Class of 2008.