 | This articleneeds additional citations forverification. Please helpimprove this article byadding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. Find sources: "Local purchasing" – news ·newspapers ·books ·scholar ·JSTOR(September 2007) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
.jpg)
Local purchasing is a preference to buy locally produced goods and services rather than those produced farther away. It is very often abbreviated as a positive goal, "buy local" or "buy locally', that parallels the phrase "think globally, act locally", common ingreen politics.
On the national level, the equivalent of local purchasing isimport substitution, the deliberateindustrial policy oragricultural policy of replacing goods or services produced on the far side of a national border with those produced on the near side, i.e., in the same country ortrade bloc.
Beforeindustrialization andglobalization became widespread, there were so many incentives to buy locally that no one had to make any kind of point to do so, but with current market conditions, it is often cheaper to buy distantly-produced goods, despite any added costs in terms ofpackaging,transport,inspection,wholesale/retail facilities, etc. As such, one must now often take explicit action if one wants to purchase locally produced goods.
These market conditions are based onexternalized costs, argue local-economy advocates. Examples of externalized costs include the price ofwar,asthma,[citation needed] orclimate change, which are not typically included in the cost of (for example) a gallon of fuel. Most advocates for local economics addresscontracting andinvestment, as well as purchasing.
Agricultural alternatives are being sought,[by whom?] and have manifested themselves in the form offarmers' markets, farmed goods sold through the communitycooperatives,urban gardens, and even school programs that endorsecommunity agriculture.
_02.jpg)
Advocates often suggest local purchasing as a form ofmoral purchasing. Local purchasing is often claimed to be better for theenvironment and better forworking conditions. Others contend (with empirical evidence) that local purchasing and contracting enhances local job creation and wealth while strengthening community cohesiveness.[1]
The first potential moral benefit is environmental: Bringing goods from afar generally requiresusing more energy than transporting goods locally, and some environmental advocates see this as a serious environmental threat. Transportation contributes to environmental contamination in addition to the pollution caused by chemical inputs in the growing phase. Of course, locally produced goods are not always moreenergy-efficient; localagriculture ormanufacturing may rely on heavy inputs (e.g.,industrial agriculture) or energy-inefficient machinery and/or transportation systems. However, small-scale growers tend to be more environmentally friendly because industrial-sized agriculture usesgenetically modified crops, monoculture production, andchemical fertilizer-intensive processes to grow crops—practices that local farmers typically avoid.[2]
The second potential benefit is creating better working conditions. Nonetheless, while diverting purchasing from developing countries to local farmers helps build the local economy, it can lead to worse conditions for poor farmers in developing countries because it removes potential buyers from the market.
For communities, spending at local independent businesses also generates more jobs and wealth in the local economy compared to spending at absentee-owned businesses, including corporate chains.[3]
The goal of localisation is to reduce unnecessary transport, support entrepreneurism and to strengthen and diversify community economies.[4] This calls for condensation of agriculture and supports the idea that local farmers are capable of sustaining a community.
The term “Buy Local” has become subject to varying interpretations. While leading advocates of local independent business such as theAmerican Independent Business Alliance say the term should apply only to locally owned independent businesses, some campaigns run by governments andchambers of commerce consider "local" to be merely a geographic consideration.[5] Additionally, many corporations have manipulated the term in ways critics call "local-washing".[6]
The argument that "buying local" is good for the economy is questioned by many economic theorists. They argue that transportation costs actually account for a fraction of overall production prices, and that choosing less efficient local products over more efficient nonlocal products is an economicdeadweight loss. Moreover, the community as a whole does not actually save money because consumers have to spend so much more on the more expensive local products.[7]
Similarly, themoral purchasing argument has been questioned as more and more consumers consider the welfare of people in countries other than their own. Most "buy local" campaigns rely on theimplicit assumption that providing jobs for people in the consumers' own country is more moral than in "foreign" countries. They also imply that money going to foreign countries is worse than money staying in the consumers' own country. Increasingly, these campaigns have been called out as paranoid, jingoist and evenxenophobic.
Additionally, organiclocal food tends to be more costly so this is not an appealing option to consumers who are shopping on a budget. Small-scale farmers do not receive government subsidies and are not able to support their business on prices comparable to those of industrial-scale food production, so they must sell at higher prices to make a living.[2] Therefore, in order for the appeal of the local agriculture movement to overcome the economic cost, people must be willing to invest in it, which is unlikely when apparently similar products are available in grocery stores for a lower cost. Despite this, distribution costs of expansive food trade must also be factored in; with increasing gas prices, it becomes more expensive to ship food from outside sources.
Local purchasing preferences may conflict withprocurement rules affecting public sector organisations. For example, in the UK, "the country or territory of origin of supplies to, [and] the location in any country or territory of the business activities or interests of, contractors" are considered "non-commercial considerations" which cannot be taken into account in makinglocal government purchasing decisions.[8]
In 2006, Michael Shuman proposedLocal ownership import substituting (LOIS), as an alternative toneoliberalism. It rejects the ideology ofthere is no alternative.[9] Shuman claims LOIS businesses are long termwealth generators, are less likely toexit destructively and have highereconomic multipliers.[10]
