Think global, buy local?
by Simon Longstaff
'Ethics' is a word that we hear being used with ever-increasing frequency. Yet, for many people, the subject of ethics remains a little mysterious. So, for the sake of clarity, let's begin with a few general comments about what ‘ethics’ is supposed to be about.
The best way to get into the subject is start with the central question at the heart of any discussion about ethics. Ethics is about answering one of the simplest questions imaginable: "What should one do?". This is not a theoretical question reserved for armchair philosophers. Rather, it crops up whenever choices and decisions have to be made as part of daily life.
The real 'enemy' of ethics is unthinking custom and practice. What we have to watch out for are habits of action that we can't explain except to say that "everyone does it" or "it's just the way we do things around here". The trouble is that there are plenty of examples to be found where this is exactly how things operate. While it is clearly preferable that people do the 'right thing' (however we define that), it doesn't count for that much if the good deeds are just a matter of habit. In other words, ethics requires us to think and to make conscious decisions about what we hold to be good and right.
The other thing about ethics is that it draws attention to the nature and quality of our relationships with others. In particular, it forces us to be clear about who counts and who does not. In some cases, people want to draw a very tight boundary around them. For such people, ethical obligations may only exist in relation to themselves and their nearest family. Others draw a wide circle - recognising ethical obligations to all people (whoever and wherever they are).
So, ethics is about identifying basic values and principles and then consciously applying them across a range of relationships. It would be convenient to say that this is as easy as it sounds. Unfortunately, we all know that it is never so simple. I doubt that anyone gets through life without being caught in the pincers of a real ethical dilemma - where the choice is not so much between 'right and wrong' as between 'right and right'. Which brings us to the particular issue that I want to explore in this article. The question is this: "to what extent should we support our local markets rather than shopping around for the lowest price, best value, etc.?"
This issue affects everybody at one time or another. For the urban consumer, there are questions about whether or not to shop at one of the dwindling number of corner stores rather than at a major supermarket. Then there are questions about whether or not to buy Australian-made produce as opposed to goods manufactured overseas.
Similar questions arise for people in rural and regional Australia. Do they support local businesses or make use of the facilities in regional centres of commerce? This is an especially difficult question when times are tough. With limited income, it might seem sensible to maximise purchasing power by taking advantage of the lower prices able to be offered by the big players. However, this may force local businesses to close for want of an income.
As will be all too obvious, the issues are right at the heart of ethics. There is the immediate force of the question, "What should one do?". There are clear issues that test the boundaries of relationships - do I look after myself and my family (by paying a lower price) or do I take account of the needs of my neighbours? Then again, who is my neighbour? Is it the person who is part of my immediate community or, in the increasingly interdependent world, is it anybody with whom I might have contact - even the foreign manufacturer making shoes half a world away?
Firm supporters of the international market economy argue that we should answer such questions by pursuing self-interest. This argument typically reduces to one about buying goods and services at the lowest possible price. In their view, the rational pursuit of self-interest will lead to beneficial results for all concerned.
It works like this: if we pay the lowest possible price for the things that we need, then this will leave an increased surplus of funds that can either be saved or expended on additional items. This will, in turn, generate increased economic activity with improved employment, savings etc. etc.. The idea is that self-interest can act as the engine powering a virtuous spiral of increased prosperity for all.
Part of the argument is that, in an ideal world, goods and services will travel freely from one part of the world to another. Indeed, the ideal market imagines that we will seek out the lowest cost producers on a global scale and buy what they have to offer. From an ethical perspective, the global market asks us to treat all people as fundamentally equal - setting aside any prejudices that we might have in favour of our immediate community.
Such a perspective thinks that it is ethically wrong for a consumer in Australia to deny the opportunity of economic advancement to an African labourer who would be lifted from poverty if only we would buy what she has to offer.
Yet, the ideal market can tell us nothing of what we might value in the full reality of our lives. It assumes that we are all coolly rational consumers who will purchase goods and services of equal quality at the lowest price available to us.
Yet, this is not how we tend to be. Instead, we bring all manner of intangible elements to bear in making our purchasing decisions. Why else would a company like Coca-Cola spend millions every year in an attempt to invest their particular brand of sugary drink with distinctive qualities? As much as anything else, the soft-drink marketers want the consumer to identify their product with values around life-style.
Appeals to people to 'buy local' are much the same. The appeal is to a sense of solidarity with members of the immediate community, people with an obvious connection through shared values, language, geography and history.
Those who complain about campaigns to 'buy local' are attempting to undermine one of the most fundamental principles of any market. This is that the consumer is 'king' - able to make any choice he or she fancies - for any reason that appeals. There is really nothing to distinguish between the choice made by a person who prefers red cars to white and the choice made by a person who buys locally rather than from abroad. In the end, price is always relative to the value placed on a product by a potential purchaser. In turn, this is ultimately a reflection of the purchaser's values.
What we buy and where we buy it from tells us many things, not least about the values we hold and the range of our ethical concerns.
discuss this articleDr Simon Longstaff is Executive Director of St James Ethics Centre.
A version of this article was first published in The Australian Farm Review in September 2001
© St James Ethics Centre