However, we do know a think or two about secondhand clothing (SHC). I decided to look around to see what I could find in terms of performed studies. In a study conducted in 2005, Oxfam looked at existing data, West Africa and Senegal to determine the impact of SHC on the continent. The study concluded that:
- SHC trade benefits the consumers, especially poorer consumers in countries with lower purchasing power.
- The SHC trade has shifted consumption away from locally tailored goods.
- It creates hundreds of thousands of jobs.
- It has had a undermined the growth/development of local textiles.
- It displaces new exports from third countries (ie. Asia) and leads to less jobs in those nations (due to no need for African countries to import newer goods from Asia).
- SHC may have contributed to demise of textile industry, but absence will not bring it back due to cheaper exports from Asian nations.
The question is, what happens when free goods are introduced? With so many jobs created and dependent upon SHC trade, will free clothing harm the industry or provide items to those who would not otherwise participate in the trade?
10 comments:
What about all the research @texasinafrica linked to on my blog post http://goodintents.org/aid-debates/world-vision-nfl-controversy#comment-4899
For instance Used-Clothing Donations and Apparel Production in Africa. Here's the abstract.
"This article examines the importance of one possible explanation for the failure of African countries to step onto the bottom rung of the manufacturing sophistication ladder, that is to produce apparel. Used-clothing donations to thrift shops and other organisations in industrialised countries typically end up being sold to consumers in Africa. Since used clothing is initially provided as a donation, it shares characteristics with food aid, which always assists consumers, but at times harms African food producers. Used-clothing imports are found to have a negative impact on apparel production in Africa, explaining roughly 40% of the decline in production and 50% of the decline in employment over the period 1981–2000."
Or what about THREADBARE: THE USED CLOTHING TRADE AND ITS EFFECTS ON THE TEXTILE INDUSTRIES IN NIGERIA AND
OTHER SUBSAHARAN AFRICAN NATIONS http://www.philau.edu/schools/liberalarts/news/documents/SlotterbackSET.pdf
Has he not read these or does he consider these to be insufficient? @TexasinAfrica considers them sufficient. I tried to comment on his blog, but it hasn't been approved. Perhaps too many links.
I have long thought that the Second Hand Clothing market is actually the most ethical part of the whole textile life cycle. That doesn't make it good, but let it be said, the rest of the chain is a lot worse.
Compared to giving away stuff, the SHC market is a paragon of virtue.
Saundra - This is a study which I found that discusses SHC. I did read the one that Laura mentioned and it comes to many of the same conclusions as it focuses on SHC. So, I did not add it here.
One thing that it does do is start with the assumption that food aid is bad and then connects it to that. To me, there are two problems. A quick look around on Google came back with some studies that said that food aid is good. I am not qualified to evaluate them so I am taking it to be a mixed result. Secondly, the delivery of food is very different than clothing as the number of people who engage in the food marketplace is very different than that of clothing.
So, it is one study from Oxfam that seems to do a pretty good job looking at other studies and their own data.
Another point. The NFL cannot take the tax deduction if the clothing is not distributed directly to the recipients. It's part of our tax laws Contributions for care of the ill, the needy or infants. IRC Sec. 170(e)(3); Reg. 1.170A-4A
So there's far less benefit to the NFL to donate the shirts.
Definitely understood. This is less about World Vision and more about the SHC market. There is really not much about the impact of distributed clothes (in terms of studies), so this is a point to at least examine as it is possible that introducing free goods could impact the market.
Definitely understood. This is less about World Vision and more about the SHC market. There is really not much about the impact of distributed clothes (in terms of studies), so this is a point to at least examine as it is possible that introducing free goods could impact the market.
"Will free clothing harm the industry or provide items to those who would not otherwise participate in the trade?" I have no other choice but to go with the latter. Free goods distributed to the less-privileged is a moral obligation.
There's a lot to go about when it comes to clothing. The industry still needs more development in the market.
Opponents argue that sending shirts destroys local textile economies by flooding the market with free goods and undercutting local t-shirt producers.
australian online clothing stores
Personally I don't see anything wrong with selling second hand clothing, first of all, it provides livelihood for thousands of people and it provides clothing to those who are in need of cheaper clothes and of course, it's eco-friendly because instead of being thrown, old clothes are used again.
Post a Comment