This essay critically examines the "buy local" movement, arguing that prioritizing locally manufactured goods over imported alternatives carries significant economic, environmental, and social costs. Drawing on examples from the United States and beyond, the paper contends that locally produced goods are often more expensive, of questionable quality, and environmentally burdensome when full production cycles are considered. The essay further argues that buying local stifles international trade, reduces job diversity, increases tax burdens, and threatens the livelihoods of workers in global supply chains. Alternative approaches, such as local currency systems, are briefly explored as more effective ways to stimulate local economies without the drawbacks of the buy-local ideology.
Those who lived in the early ages had limited options and had to buy anything they wanted locally, ranging from fruits to vegetables grown on nearby farms. However, as the world has become increasingly interconnected, the idea of cross-border trade has been widely accepted. Because of economically volatile times and, in part, because of environmental degradation, the phrase "buy local" has become a fixture in the vocabulary of almost every household. This paper focuses on the disadvantages of supporting the "buy local" notion that is championed in countries like the United States, where citizens are urged to purchase locally made products without critically examining issues of quality, price, and availability.
The notion that citizens of a given country should support their economy by purchasing locally manufactured products is not as straightforward as it seems. The most important considerations when buying a good should be its quality, price, and availability — regardless of where it is manufactured. A blanket endorsement of locally purchased products ignores far-reaching consequences that deserve serious scrutiny.
Buying goods made within a country's borders can be a costly experience. This has been demonstrated by Mike Catherwood, a co-host on the radio advice show Loveline, who resolved to buy only American-made products as part of a year-long experiment (New, 2012). Catherwood revealed that only the wealthiest consumers could comfortably afford American-made products. Because American-made goods are expensive, the majority of Americans can only afford to buy imported goods.
Statistics indicate that the average American household had a median income of barely $50,000 in 2011 (New, 2012). With that level of income, many Americans can only shop at retailers like Walmart and Old Navy, both of which stock inexpensive imported goods. By contrast, a combination of U.S.-made blue jeans, a white T-shirt, and work boots costs a total of $421 — comprising domestic Levi's 501 jeans at $178, an American Apparel white T-shirt at $18, and classic Red Wing work boots at $225. When these items are imported, the cost drops substantially. A consumer could save at least $100 by purchasing Brahma-brand work boots from Walmart at $33, a white Hanes T-shirt at $6, and Gap classic blue jeans at $60.
Critics of importation often argue that it costs Americans jobs. However, few acknowledge that importation — as opposed to buying locally made goods — lowers the cost of living for lower- and middle-class Americans (New, 2012). The "Made in U.S.A." label does little to improve the lives of average Americans beyond creating a symbol of Main Street pride — essentially a status symbol for upscale retailers. Indeed, hyper-specific labels like "Made in Brooklyn" have been introduced to add additional cachet. Buying such items may feel virtuous, much like purchasing organic lettuce, but the bottom line is that they are niche products. With globalized trade, it is increasingly difficult for virtually all products to be manufactured within the United States, as the Federal Trade Commission has noted. American cotton can be used to make clothes overseas, just as Japanese cars are assembled in the United States (New, 2012).
Locally manufactured goods are generally more expensive than those found in grocery stores because local farmers typically operate on a small scale and run family businesses. They lack streamlined production processes (Cranbrook, 1997). Buyers therefore pay more for their products, even as they justify the expense by invoking the idea of supporting local businesses.
Proponents of locally made food have cited food miles as a key measure of a product's environmental impact. However, they often fail to recognize that what matters is how the food was transported, not simply how far it traveled. Whether food is trucked 100 miles or 1,000 miles, greenhouse gas emissions are still released. Those emissions must be evaluated across all phases of production, because food miles represent only a relatively small slice of the total greenhouse gas pie (DeWeerdt, 2013).
Embarking on intensive local food production means more inputs are required to grow a given quantity of food — more land, more chemicals, and more energy (Sexton, 2011). All of these come at the cost of increased carbon emissions. Greater demand for carbon-intensive inputs worsens our food's overall carbon footprint, destroys natural habitats, and intensifies environmental pollution (Sexton, 2011). Carbon emissions from transport cannot decline in the locavore model because local farms reduce population density as potential homes are displaced by community gardens. Local food production encourages more people to take up farming, leading to the growth of farm sizes and increased concentration in food processing and marketing. Large farms depend on synthetic fertilizers and intensive tilling operations. Such farms face greater pest pressure and waste disposal challenges that can ultimately lead to environmental degradation (Sexton, 2011).
It is easy to theorize that locally manufactured goods are environmentally friendly. However, it is important to recognize that much of the equipment used in the manufacturing process is itself shipped in from other countries, which in turn compromises the sustainability credentials of the final product.
It is hard to deny that buying locally made goods creates job opportunities, generates tax revenue, and helps local communities grow. The most fundamental questions one needs to ask, however, are: job opportunities are created at the expense of what? Are those opportunities genuinely benefiting the local population? Are the taxes collected being used to improve lives and service delivery?
Consider the concept of importation versus the creation of locally owned companies from which locals would purchase. Importation of goods can actually create more job opportunities than locally owned enterprises, because jobs and taxes are generated at every stage — from shipping and port clearance (where import duties are levied) to transportation to wholesalers' warehouses and retail distribution. It is also no secret that taxpayer money is sometimes used to subsidize the operations of local companies, adding to the public cost burden.
"Importation creates more jobs than local enterprises"
"Local goods lack certification, regulation, and convenience"
"Buying local undermines global trade and tax revenue"
The "buy local" mentality has veered off its intended path and is now posing the danger of promoting a parochial image of traditional rural ideals in the context of localized food. Local food production denies many sectors their job opportunities — especially in upstream supply industries and downstream transport, packaging, and processing businesses (McGinnis, 1999). Supermarkets and major stores are likely to experience significant job losses if the buy-local idea is widely implemented, and the workforce they currently employ cannot simply be absorbed into the local enterprise sector (Cranbrook, 1997).
You’re 45% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 3 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.