I agree with Timothy on a lot of the reasons why he liked this book as a commodity history the most out of the other books we have read. One of my favorite chapters was the one by Mahony on "The Local and the Global: Internal and External Factors in the Development of Bahia's Cacao Sector." She makes an important point that a historian cannot simply have tunnel vision when it comes to one commodity in order to effectively write its history. Just the way that many historians are unable to look at just one nation and instead have to look at the nation in trasnational and global contexts, so too must a commodity historian look at the related commodities to more fully understand it. Thus the high price of wood in Brazil made colonists "reluctant to clearcut any district containing marketable hardwoods solely for the purpose of planting crops. This attitude tended to inhibit all economic growth based on agriculture."(181) Sugar wasn't grown because it required too much land to be cleared, whereas coffee and cacao, which were grown on trees, were favored. I think we brought up other commodities with some other of the books we read, such as what was the effect of sugar production/consumption in Mintz with the discovery of beet sugar and its growth. Another thought we had last week was what was the role of indigo or even the "commodity of the color blue" on red/cochineal. Looking at commodities in vacuums elides important aspects of its development, and I thought Mahony made an excellent argument in her article for not looking at commodity chains as isolated but rather part of a larger trade system as well as sharing steps with other commodity chains.
I would disagree with Timothy that the book focuses on the demand side that is driving these commodity chains. From my reading, I feel the majority of developments were on the supply side with production techniques, government regulations, and other external factors allowing production to go up. I think the majority of these articles avoid dealing with who is demanding the project other than a "faceless" consumer. Obviously the product is being consumed and bought by people, but we don't really see how demand may have forced producers to adapt to them. It seems to me that producer control of the product determined the subsequent demand rather than the other way around. I guess that also begs the important question - does demand or supply/production determine the historical trajectory of a commodity? Or to get away from the binary, what exactly is the relationship between producer and consumer in terms of "negotiating" the acquisition of this project through the market. For instance, the indigo chapter argues that it was grown in North America because it fit in well with the tobacco cycle as well as utilizing lands tobacco and rice couldn't be grown on. A lot of the arguments different chapters make is that industrialization and steam power enabled mechanization of certain parts of the production process which enabled production to go up, or the growth of railroads and other infrastructure reduced costs and transportation time. I think the most telling evidence of these chains is that the multiple visual pictures of commodity chains include every step along the production and supply part of the chain, but then barely deal with the consumer that is buying them. So on page 134, the end of the process just has two end points: grocers who sell to consumers and coffehouses who sell to consumers. I wonder if a full commodity chain needs to discuss what types of people buy the commodity and for what uses? All the commodity chains go in-depth into the production and supply chain with little discussion of the consumer.
McCreery says, "To a very considerable extent world markets, by defining what is acceptable as a commodity, largely determine how processing must occur. That is, the product has to meet certain standards of size, finish, and quality to become a commodity."(63) While in theory I agree with this, the works in this book argue more that the government and traders were determining the quality of the commodity. Governments made laws to become arbiters of quality on behalf of consumers. Did consumers want this protection? Did merchants? One thing all the commodity histories seem to have a problem doing is discussing the ways in which consumers might be influencing the market.
I would disagree with Timothy that the book focuses on the demand side that is driving these commodity chains. From my reading, I feel the majority of developments were on the supply side with production techniques, government regulations, and other external factors allowing production to go up. I think the majority of these articles avoid dealing with who is demanding the project other than a "faceless" consumer. Obviously the product is being consumed and bought by people, but we don't really see how demand may have forced producers to adapt to them. It seems to me that producer control of the product determined the subsequent demand rather than the other way around. I guess that also begs the important question - does demand or supply/production determine the historical trajectory of a commodity? Or to get away from the binary, what exactly is the relationship between producer and consumer in terms of "negotiating" the acquisition of this project through the market. For instance, the indigo chapter argues that it was grown in North America because it fit in well with the tobacco cycle as well as utilizing lands tobacco and rice couldn't be grown on. A lot of the arguments different chapters make is that industrialization and steam power enabled mechanization of certain parts of the production process which enabled production to go up, or the growth of railroads and other infrastructure reduced costs and transportation time. I think the most telling evidence of these chains is that the multiple visual pictures of commodity chains include every step along the production and supply part of the chain, but then barely deal with the consumer that is buying them. So on page 134, the end of the process just has two end points: grocers who sell to consumers and coffehouses who sell to consumers. I wonder if a full commodity chain needs to discuss what types of people buy the commodity and for what uses? All the commodity chains go in-depth into the production and supply chain with little discussion of the consumer.
McCreery says, "To a very considerable extent world markets, by defining what is acceptable as a commodity, largely determine how processing must occur. That is, the product has to meet certain standards of size, finish, and quality to become a commodity."(63) While in theory I agree with this, the works in this book argue more that the government and traders were determining the quality of the commodity. Governments made laws to become arbiters of quality on behalf of consumers. Did consumers want this protection? Did merchants? One thing all the commodity histories seem to have a problem doing is discussing the ways in which consumers might be influencing the market.
No comments:
Post a Comment