In a recent column in Townhall Magazine, Managing Editor Elisabeth Meinecke published a column, titled, “Does Buying Local Hurt the Poor?” In it, she analyzed current proposals for the federal government’s dispensing of food aid to the poor who shop at roadside farmer’s markets.
For the record, I agree with the 24,000 Facebook Likes Meinecke received for her column. The proposals are replete with progressive ideas to reform the private agricultural sector, favoring: organically-grown foods; food with fewer marketing steps from farmers to consumers; food grown on farms that use practices that seem more “friendly” to the environment; food from farms that pay higher wages and employee benefits; and food from farms that provide better living conditions for animals.
As with so many proposals from progressives, such as electric cars, except for a modicum of success on both coasts, they have not really caught on with the general population. I wonder why?
However, I was surprised by the direction Meinecke’s column took. From the headline, I had expected a discussion of whether “Buy Local” campaigns, like we have occasionally seen in small- to medium-sized communities such as Plant City, have a greater negative impact on the poor.
In a local economic environment that has never emerged from recession, but still, thank God, primarily controlled by individual decisions of business owners and consumers, the impetus for “Buy Local” campaigns is to level the playing field between large corporations that operate local retail outlets and small, locally owned establishments that represent the strong American tradition of small business.
Yes, large corporations can offer products at lower prices, because their size enables them to spread their costs of operations over many similar outlets. However, a small business can offer another real advantage for the consumer — customer service.
How many times have you gone into a large store with a general idea of what you want to buy but in need of guidance from a clerk? How long does it take to find a clerk to assist you? Yes, their lower prices are good, but they are frequently unable to provide the same level of face-to-face, customer service of a locally owned small business.
As consumers, we want it both ways — low prices and good customer service. Without “Buy Local” campaigns, some fear consumers will only shop at large chain stores to get the best price. If that happens, more locally owned businesses may fail, resulting in more vacant storefronts, fewer consumer choices and further weakening of our local economy.
Ultimately, if that happens, it will force more of us, who continue to want good customer service in our shopping experience, to get in our cars and drive to Brandon or Lakeland. Then, we will be adding the transportation costs to the cost of the products we seek.
It is true those added costs will impact the poor at a greater level, perhaps even making that trip to Brandon or Lakeland impossible. But, I’m sure we would all agree that this situation is not ideal.
The ideal is for us, as consumers from all income levels, is to have choice in Plant City. If we know exactly what we want and want it at the lowest price, we want the convenience of a large chain. However, we also want the option of a locally owned mom-and-pop store to get that higher level of customer service. The competition between these two forms of business strengthens all in the marketplace. It keeps downward pressure on prices in locally owned businesses and keeps customer service pressure on large chain stores.
Most importantly, it keeps a diverse group of retail providers in the community. This diverse group can best meet the needs of all Plant City shoppers — from all income levels.
The question is: How do we give ourselves the best chance of keeping a local economy in which we, as consumers, have the benefit of all those good options?
The answer: We need regular “Buy Local” campaigns.
Felix Haynes is an owner and founding publisher of the Plant City Observer.
