The Politics of Food Labeling and Certification - The Oxford Topic of Food, Politics, and Society - page 630

a consistent finding in all four country cases. Fair Trade certified farmers reported
positive income effects in Ecuador and Kenya; often this effect seemed to result from
increases in yield and/or quality. However, Fair Trade certification seems to have had
no effect on income in Ghana or India. Non-economic benefits were also reported (e.g.
social inclusion of women, community benefits like improved health and education,
increased food security) but these benefits were not consistently present across cases.
Importantly, many of the Fair Trade cooperatives that yielded these findings (those in
Ecuador, Kenya, and India) were multi-certified, so Fair Trade's independent effect is
uncertain in all but the Ghana results.
Other quantitative studies echo these cautiously positive results. Becchetti and
Constantino's (2006) study of Kenyan farmers finds that farmers with Fair Trade certifi-
cation have significantly higher price satisfaction11 than non-Fair Trade certified farm-
ers. A survey of 228 coffee farmers in Nicaragua showed that farmers participating in a
certification scheme (including Fair Trade and Organic) are four times less likely than
farmers selling only to conventional markets to perceive a risk of losing their land title
due to low prices (Bacon 2005). In a 2006 survey of the effects of Fair Trade on 1200 cof-
fee growers in Nicaragua, Peru, and Guatemala, findings suggest a correlation between
participation in Fair Trade and improvements in life quality, health, education, material
comforts, social participation, technical and social assistance, and sustainable agricul-
tural practices (Arnould, Plastina, and Ball 2006).12
Even in the case of large- n quantitative studies, caution is warranted in drawing infer-
ences about certification's causal impact on producers because of concerns about selec-
tion bias. Because studies on the effect of certification on producers have been mostly
observational rather than experimental, there is strong reason to suspect that the popu-
lation of farmers that selects into Fair Trade is not identical to the population of farmers
that does not. Certification is voluntary and not costless, and farmers are unlikely to
opt in if the expected costs outweigh the benefits. Since it is easier and less costly for
farmers to become certified when they are already following certification standards, it
is plausible that farmers who select into Fair Trade certification are already more or less
following relatively good labor, financial, and environmental practices. Thus, any differ-
ence observed between certified and uncertified farmers may be picking up underlying
differences in farmer type that existed prior to certification.
Indeed, in the view of one Fair Trade coffee cooperative manager, “involvement in
Fair Trade is one result of development at the local and regional level. The modernizing
process, the establishment of bureaucratic structures, the setting up of common agendas
and networking have, he feels, opened up the possibility for expansion and progress and
generated access to alternative trade” (Luetchford 2008, p. 28).
Another reason for caution is that researchers may not always be able to isolate the
causal effects of certification from the results of other agricultural development pro-
grams. A farm or production facility that receives ethical certification often receives
other kinds of benefits, interventions, or “treatments.” In other words, agricultural
development treatments often come in bundles. For example, a local development NGO
might promote Fair Trade certification, distribute discounted organic fertilizer, train