Well, I have finally finished Friedman’s Hot, Flat and Crowded and McKibben’s Deep Economy. I think my readers can tell that I favor McKibben’s arguements and ideas, but Friedman does have his high points amidst all of his anecdotes, analogies, and statistics. Whew, am I glad I have finally started another book! This week I began reading The Travels of a T-Shirt in the Global Economy by Pietra Rivoli. It was Business Book of the Year finalist in 2005, and it examines the markets, power, and politics of world trade. Basically, Rivoli follows the travels of her tourist-stamped t-shirt from the cotton fields of Texas to a Walgreen’s store in Florida. So far, I have f inished her preface, prologue, and first three chapters. Here is what’s going on:
Pietra Rivoli opens The Travels of a T-Shirt with a story about how she arrived at the idea for her book, and she presents an objective: to illuminate the world that formed her t-shirt and to shed light on globalization (pp. xii-xiii). She goes on to explain how the U.S. cotton industry has dominated by avoiding the market, forcing poor cotton-producing countries into a can’t-win trap (p. xv). Finally, she ends her prologue with a brief description of the places her t-shirt traveled before coming into her hands.
I am excited about Rivoli’s book because I feel like it is going to make globalization easier to understand. Globalization is such a broad intangible term, but because I have many cotton t-shirts from tourist destinations and because I live so close to Texas (cotton country), I think I’ll be able to grasp an opinion of globalization and see its effects on the world. I find it fascinating that the cotton industry in this country has dominated for so long without being a competitor in the world market. I am curious as to how this works.
The first three chapters of Rivoli’s book focuses on the cotton industry in the United States. She takes us through a brief history of cotton farming, explains how U.S. farmers have been so prosperous while ducking the markets, and shows how the government has played a big part in the success story of U.S. cotton.
I found the history of American cotton farming to be very informative, even if it was rather dull to read. I am really glad Rivoli clued me in to the difficulties of cotton farming. It is amazing that such a picky crop has received so much protection over the years. While research and capital have been key factors in improving crop yield and harvesting, the real success story comes from ducking the markets. First, farmers used slave labor and a system of control and incentives to care for the crop. Once slavery was outlawed, farmers came up with the idea of sharecropping. However, certain laws and lack of worker education kept the hired help from getting ahead financially. Then, farmers moved on to the company town. This was the most human set up, and it allowed the laborers to have a chance a normal life. Still, the people were tied to the land, and they owned very little. Finally, farmers have used technology to make the laborer obsolete. Tractors can do the work in nearly every stage of the growing process, chemicals and sprinkler systems keep the crop weeded and watered, and ginning has gotten easier as the years have passed. Cotton farmers have never been dependent on a labor market. What system helps farmers be so independent?
Rivoli urges us to take a look at the “whole picture” (pp. 53-54). Most free-trade activist will point to government subsidies as the source of U.S. cotton’s success. However, there are many institutions that are in place to help cotton farmers. Capital, market, literacy, a “virtuous circle,” and subsidies all play a role (p. 54). Most poor countries do not have these institutions to help them get on their feet. I think the most important and influential institution the U.S. farmers have is the virtuous circle of academia (research), government, and a market. Research has allowed the farmer to get more from a crop by using nearly every part of the cotton plant. Government money has funded the research and subsidized the crops. Finally, cotton has market because research has made it possible to turn cotton into many value-added wares. It is a never-ending circle of support. While knocking out the cotton subsidies would be a step in the right direction toward fair trade, I agree with Rivoli when she says it won’t be enough to help poor countries compete. She says, “They never had a chance against Nelson Reinsch, Texas Tech, and George W. Bush” (p. 57).” Taking away a subsidy now, will not change the fact that our institutions are long-standing and impossibly strong.
