illustration by Daniel Horowitz One of my favorite British sitcoms of the last decade, The League of Gentlemen, features the characters Edward and Tubbs, a couple that owns a local shop descriptively but unimaginatively called the Local Shop. "Are you local?" they inquire ominously when prospective customers enter to browse. "This is a local shop for local people." Inevitably, in nearly every episode, the customer is an out-of-towner, and the couple murders him in a grisly fashion -- for not being local.
Maybe it's from too much exposure to the show, but when I see exclamation-mark-laden signs in neighborhood stores demanding that I "buy local," I can't help but think that death and dismemberment are implied if I don't buy the sweater knit by area hipsters or locally grown produce. At the very least, I risk a condescending eye roll when I protest, "It's a cheaper and identical tomato."
The ostensible economic benefits of buying local are fairly simple: It cuts out the middleman, puts more money into the local economy, and reduces transportation costs and environment-destroying, energy-wasting long hauls.
The best defense of buying local is probably the last one. I'm not going to argue that energy conservation isn't better for everyone. Except, well, long-haul truck drivers.
The other arguments fall apart easily enough under the pressure of a gentle poking with comfy pillows (to borrow another British comedy motif). For starters, the middleman doesn't live in Middle Earth. He's often local and dependent upon large companies with better economies of scale to provide him with products he can afford to buy wholesale and for which there is a large enough market to resell profitably.
As for local money staying in the local economy, when you walk into your least-favorite national chain store, no one working behind the counter is likely to be, as Edward and Tubbs would sneer, nonlocal. Nor are the recipients of its property taxes or many of the vendors that service it.
In urban enclaves such as my neighborhood in Brooklyn, where people are overeducated and generally have liberal sympathies, the buy-local hordes seem completely oblivious to much of the actual local economy, which is partially, if not mostly, supported by the companies the movement most enjoys deriding. The same people who are horrified by the xenophobic implications of "buy American" campaigns also engage in a different sort of provincialism when it comes to their own consumption choices.
Why? Let's face it, much of the buy-local movement has nothing to do with geography. The emotional tenor, at least, is much more about shunning corporate behemoths. If the farmer next door happens to be Monsanto, you rethink buying local. What buying local really means is buying boutique-branded artisanal products that are crafted with tender loving care by actual human beings.
Or that merely appear to be. Witness the success of the slightly-more-expensive-but-supposedly-made-with-love-by-seemingly-small-companies Muir Glen, Kashi, and Odwalla -- owned by General Mills, Kellogg, and Coca-Cola, respectively. Large corporations certainly aren't unaware of local appeal and are happy to exploit it as a marketing tool. Every gargantuan retail-financial institution in the country declares itself your "friendly neighborhood bank." And one of the first steps in Starbucks's reinvention was to put signs on the door that say, "Come in for the neighborhood's best espresso."
The challenge for the socially conscious consumer is to determine whether a "local" purchase actually achieves what it's supposed to achieve -- a decision that should be made without fear of death and dismemberment.
Comments | 12
May 18, 2008 at 7:09pm
Paula HayMany studies have been conducted that demonstrate conclusively that purchasing from locally-owned businesses does circulate more money through the local economy and makes the local pie higher. Many of these are archived at the BALLE website. There is no challenge -- it's already done.
May 22, 2008 at 3:25am
Eric A. AldretteI don’t think is fair enough to reduce the reality that is happening in many communities trough the country to simplistic economic and environmental benefits like you described “…buying local are fairly simple: It cuts out the middleman, puts more money into the local economy, and reduces transportation costs and environment-destroying, energy-wasting long hauls”. Or “…The best defense of buying local is probably the last one. I'm not going to argue that energy conservation isn't better for everyone. Except, well, long-haul truck drivers.”
In our experience is also the desire to preserve the character and uniqueness of our community that really had motivated community leaders, business owners and non-profit organization to come together and collectively unify our voice to participate more effectively in the re-development process that is currently underway in our community. The future of the diverse independent and family owned businesses hangs in the balance.
May 25, 2008 at 9:29pm
Jason NorthergI can't even tell if you're joking when you point out that the cashier at the big box retailer is local. Most of the money is not going to that worker. Most of the money is going out to the corporate owners and investors. And they're not generally living in my local community. When I support a local store, I'm directly supporting the people I can actually meet and live with. When I buy food grown by local farmers, I'm supporting folks more near to my environs. And the environmental cost of flying products all over the world is very significant.
June 2, 2008 at 8:24am
Anthony NicaloThe real "challenge" for the consumer can only be solved by truly understanding the provenance of goods. Often, it makes more sense to support a small farm that might be outside of your neighborhood. Especially when considering products that have been traded for millenia and travel well- spices, wine, cured meats, etc. These are often made by small farms in harmony with nature and with love.
June 3, 2008 at 3:00pm
Michael ShumanElizabeth, let me offer an apology on behalf of locavores across the country. We're truly sorry you were made to feel bad about your shopping habits. You should never have to "risk a condescending eye roll when I protest, 'It's a cheaper and identical tomato.'"
But, methinks you protest too much.
You may "see exclamation-mark-laden signs in neighborhood stores that 'I buy local,'" but these kinds of signs are actually increasingly rare. The more common phrase is "Think Local First," deployed precisely to calm folks like yourself who have limited resistance to Big Box temptations.
We don't seek perfection. We just want you to become a smarter shopper, to find cheaper produce that's also locally grown, to realize that your Starbucks latte is almost never your cheapest cup of Joe (or, in New York City, remotely your tastiest), and to make modest shifts in your purchasing behavior that can benefit your personal and your community's bottom lines.
Elizabeth, I'm disappointed you didn't talk to a single person who promotes local when writing your piece. I don't know how else to explain the absence of "Think Local First" from your discussion. Plus, you don’t seem to know what "local" means.
"The emotional tenor," you write "is much more about shunning corporate behemoths. If the farmer next door happens to be Monsanto, you rethink buying local." But local business refers to local ownership, not proximity.
And where do you get economic arguments like the following? "As for local money staying in the local economy, when you walk into your least-favorite national chain store, no one working behind the counter is likely to be [...] nonlocal. Nor are the recipients of its property taxes or many of the vendors that service it."
Elizabeth, research was apparently not your best subject at school. No problem. Let's review some studies that carry more weight than your opinion....
FOR MORE OF THIS REBUTTAL, CHECK OUT http://www.small-mart.org/fastcompany-rebuttal
Comment