Conflicting food production values: global free market or local production?

Abstract

Global free markets are assumed to be of important long term benefit for poor countries. This is especially important for agriculture, as most poor countries have few other income alternatives. The main obstacle to a free market is trade-distorting measures in developing and developed countries, such as taxes, subsidies of production and export. This poses a challenge for global justice, if we accept that justice is a basic moral principle regulating relations between people belonging to same social institution, and that the economic world order should be regarded as such an institution. There are, however, moral and political reasons for retaining protection of national agriculture. Removing trade-distorting measures may lead to increased long transport of food, contributing to global warming due to CO2-release, and increased intensive agriculture in vulnerable areas which are even more exposed due to climate change. Free markets may undermine future national self-sufficiency as farm lands and farming competence deteriorate due to competition from cheap imports. In addition, increased industrialisation leads to pressure on small farms and rural life worldwide, altering ownership structure and increased global warming. Finally, protecting national farming has cultural significance. Food production and processing is crucial part of identity, signifying belonging in particular communities, and is essential for protecting cultural landscapes. Thus, there is a conflict between the duty to promote global justice and the duty to protect domestic agriculture in order to preserve cultural values, environment and self-sufficiency. I will argue that we should remove trade-distorting taxes and subsidies and instead support farmers for their work. In this way we can fulfil the duty of justice without sacrificing self-sufficiency and the cultural values of farming. The environmental challenges of a global free market still must be resolved.