Comparative Method and Lesson-Drawing Process

Comparative Method

The final part of my chapter on methodology will discuss the comparative method based on lesson-drawing principles, which will be used as the third main qualitative research method in my doctoral thesis. To begin with, according to Della Porta and Keating, the

comparative method is another key research method of social sciences (2008, p.198). They praise it for its ability to go "beyond descriptive statistical measures, towards an in-depth understanding..." (Ibid., p.202). It is also common practice to combine this method with case study research (Gerring 2007, p.27). It is not unusual "to combine several cases in a single study. If the cases are comprised of large territorial units, then this combination may be referred to as the "comparative" method... Thus, while a case is always singular, a case study work or research design often refers to a study that includes several cases" (Ibid.). This type of case study research will be my choice as well.

Furthermore, one of my contributions to knowledge is related to my use of two illustrative case studies focused on Fairtrade producers in Mexico and Fairtrade traders and consumers in the UK (supported by my field research in Belgium) and their comparative employment as lesson-drawing bases for my main case study focused on Serbia.

Firstly, there is a possibility for such application because there are comparative referent objects. Mexican poor and marginalised small-scale Fairtrade agricultural producers and their counterparts in the form of Serbian poor and marginalised small-scale food producers, as well as Fairtrade traders and consumers in the UK (supported by my field research in Belgium) and their counterparts in Serbia. Finally, parts of an envisaged national Fairtrade-like system (producers, traders and consumers) will be covered by the two cases, but Mexico also serves as an excellent illustrative lesson-drawing case due to its institutional foundation for development of a national Fairtrade-like system, having both the national Fairtrade organisation and the Fairtrade producer organisations. This will be the base for research of possibilities of developing a national Fairtrade-like system in Serbia as well and will be further discussed in Chapters VII and VIII.

Before I continue with the next part of this section, I will address one of the possible shortfalls regarding my use of the comparative method envisaged in this way, the one of

comparing apples and oranges. For example, how can research of Mexican poor and marginalised small-scale coffee producers illuminate Serbian poor and marginalised small- scale fruit and vegetable producers as potential Fairtrade producers? I resolved this issue in bypassing the nature of the product, through my original notion of Fairtradeness which will be presented next.

Notion of Fairtradeness

The "notion of Fairtradeness" is an important part of my methodological, as well as theoretical and analytical framework, and I define it as a "degree of Fairtradeness", i.e. to what extent someone who is a part of the Fairtrade system (a food producer, trader or consumer), or something (a specific product, or the whole Fairtrade system) is Fairtrade.

This question is rarely raised by Fair Trade practitioners and academics. The reason for this lie in the general understanding that if a product is certified Fairtrade, then it is Fairtrade (FLO-CERT 2011), and all producers, traders and consumers of that product are a part of the Fairtrade system, as Fairtrade producers, traders and consumers. However, more and more academics in the Fair Trade literature identify differences between "how Fairtrade" are, firstly, traders of Fairtrade products (Doherty et al. 2013, Davies 2009, Doherty and Tranchell 2007 and Low and Davenport 2005a and 2005b). Secondly, consumers of Fairtrade products (Doherty et al. 2013, Bondy and Talwar 2011, Alexander and Nicholls 2006, Watson 2006, Moore et al. 2006 and Cowe and Williams 2000), and finally, Fairtrade global value chains through which Fairtrade products are sourced (Doherty et al. 2013). Although all of these papers show that there is a difference, none of them clearly define what that difference is, or show different degrees of this difference, which I will do next.

In the case of the three referent objects, I identify the degree of their "Fairtradeness", i.e. how Fairtrade they are, by applying two criteria: firstly, how important membership in the Fairtrade system and its future are for them and secondly, how far they go for Fairtrade. Therefore, my definition captures two distinct aspects of Fairtradeness, the first which I will name "Fairtradeness by situation" (the aspect of need) and the second, "Fairtradeness by practice" (the degree to which Fairtrade International's criteria are respected). In order to explain this further, I will now give examples for all three key members of the Fairtrade system.

In the case of poor and marginalised small-scale Fairtrade producers, I identify the degree of their Fairtradeness (how Fairtrade they are) with regard to two criteria: firstly, how much they initially need Fairtrade certification, i.e. how poor, marginalised and small-scale they are and secondly, how strictly they comply with Fairtrade standards, i.e., can they comply in the first place, and secondly, if they can, to what extent is this the case, and do they undertake additional efforts. This understanding, in terms of methodology, solves the issue of different types of production (coffee vs. fruit and vegetables for example), since I compare the Fairtradeness of poor and marginalised small-scale producers, i.e. their need for Fairtrade certification (the difficulty of their position - the extent of their poverty, marginalisation and their size), as well as in the case of already included Fairtrade producers, their compliance with Fairtrade standards and in the case of prospective Fairtrade producers, their potential for compliance with Fairtrade rules and regulations.

When both aspects are combined, a Fairtrade producer who is in the worst situation in terms of poverty, marginalisation and small-scaleness, and who is fulfilling her/his Fairtrade certification obligations, but also "goes the extra mile" would be the one with higher Fairtradeness.

The same goes for the next Fairtrade referent objects. To begin with, the Fairtrade traders with higher Fairtradeness would be the ones for which the need for Fairtrade certification is the highest, in that Fairtrade is their raison d'être and that they are fully compliant with all Fairtrade standards, often going above and beyond. A typical example would be a 100% Fair Trade company solely trading Fairtrade products. On the other hand, Fairtrade traders with lower Fairtradeness would be the ones who have a low need for Fairtrade. Fairtrade products represent a marginal part of their assortment and they try to follow just the minimum Fairtrade rules and regulations, transferring all the Fairtrade certification and compliance costs down the value chains.

Consequently, a Fairtrade trader whose whole palette is Fairtrade and therefore, whose prospect completely depends on the future progress of the Fairtrade system, and who goes beyond what is a threshold for certification has a higher degree of Fairtradeness. On the other hand, Fairtrade traders, whose share of Fairtrade products in their offer is smaller and whose compliance with the Fairtrade system's modus operandi is not always exemplar have lower Fairtradeness.

Regarding the consumers of Fairtrade products, their degrees of Fairtradeness is measured, firstly, before they enter the shop (connected with the how much they need Fairtrade criterion), i.e. with the question if they came educated and knew why they are buying Fairtrade products, or bought them because there were no non-Fairtrade alternatives. Secondly, when they leave the shop, i.e. with the question if they are going to support the Fairtrade movement further, by taking active participation in peer-to-peer promotion and sales, in local and national Fairtrade support groups, Fairtrade Fortnight, World Fair Trade Day celebrations or Fairtrade supporter conferences, or they will move on with their lives (connected with the how far they go for Fairtrade criterion). Hence, a Fairtrade campaigner is

assigned a higher degree of Fairtradeness than a consumer of Fairtrade products from the "do-what-I-can" group.

Consequently, a Fairtrade consumer who consciously and due to the fact that s/he is educated about Fairtrade buys and then continues to support the Fairtrade system is the one with higher Fairtradeness. On the other hand, a Fairtrade consumer who is not devoted to Fairtrade purchases, and who finds himself unable or unwilling to invest time and effort in future Fairtrade developments is accorded a correspondingly lower degree of Fairtradeness.

Finally, all three referent objects are connected through a Fairtrade product that they produce, trade and consume, because the Fairtrade system is the product certification system that certifies products rather than producers, traders or consumers. Therefore, the Fairtradeness of a Fairtrade product depends on how much a producer, trader and consumer of that product is "Fairtrade". This is all then connected with the type of the value chain through which it came. The Fairtrade system aims for the preferable - relational type because, in this envisaged scenario, it includes Fairtrade producers, traders and consumers with the highest Fairtradeness. The more Fairtrade the different parts of the Fairtrade system, i.e. Fairtrade producers, traders, consumers and consequently the Fairtrade products are, the higher is the degree of Fairtradeness of the whole system.

Assigning every actor in the Fairtrade value chain a qualitative value proves that not every Fairtrade transaction is the same, demonstrating that the degree of Fairtradeness is not only important from the ethical perspective, which is my dominant viewpoint, but also from a consequentialist/utilitarian perspective as well, since the most desirable scenario would include producers, traders and consumers with the highest degree of Fairtradeness, and the least between the ones with the lowest. This is significant because, as De Meulemeester states, today, utilitarianism is the dominant philosophy that governs the reform agenda in Europe and around the world (2011, p.17).

One final methodological remark, and one regarding the potential practical implications of my notion of Fairtradeness is appropriate before I close. Ultimately, my goal is to be able to use my Fairtradeness scale in purely ordinal terms, which allows me to say that one product is more Fairtrade than another. I do not aim to assign the Fairtradeness of an actor an exact value in comparison to others, hence, I will not use my Fairtradeness scale in cardinal terms. This limits usage of my notion of Fairtradeness to comparisons of only a set number of fixed case studies, which is not a problem for my doctoral thesis due to the fact that it is envisaged in the manner as previously explained.

Secondly, my notion of Fairtradeness can also be a base for business practices that distinguish different degrees of Fairtradeness of Fairtrade products focusing on the degree of Fairtradeness of Fairtrade producers and traders. An idea which came from one of my interviewees, Veillard, the Fair Trade expert at the Oxfam Magasins du Monde (2013, interview) is a star-like classification system. In this envisaged scenario, a Fairtrade product with higher Fairtradeness (i.e. whose Fairtrade producers and traders are more Fairtrade) will have more stars, while the ones with lower Fairtradeness will have less. This will lead to clear distinction between them and possibly, to a race to the top, which could also benefit the Fairtradeness of the Fairtrade system as a whole.

Lesson-Drawing Process

Finally, regarding the question of lesson-drawing principles on which my comparison is based, I will use the pioneer work of Strathclyde Professor Richard Rose (1991 and 1993). Rose defined the lesson-drawing concept as one addressing "[u]nder what circumstances and to what extent can a programme that is effective in one place transfer to another" (Rose 1991, p.3). The lesson-drawing approach has already influenced the development of numerous

other approaches such as, for example, Dolowitz and Marsh's "policy transfer" (1996 and 2000).

Although it has raised a number of questions, its critics are far more focused on the approaches that derived from it than on the initial concept itself (see in James and Lodge 2003). Even when the critiques are directed at the lesson-drawing itself, they are far more connected with the question of it being different than "conventional rational accounts of policymaking" (Ibid., p.181). At the same time, they recognise that their critique "is not based on specifying alternative definitions to encompass empirical events or processes that the concepts in some way fail to recognise. Nor does it assert an alternative abstract definition or alternative explanatory model" (Ibid., p.180).

On the other hand, the proponents of this approach are numerous. Apart from the above-stated Dolowitz and Marsh (1996 and 2000), it is important to point out that it is an increasingly influential way of public policy research (Page 2000), and that it even presented a theoretical base for the UK's Economic and Social Research Council's Future Governance Programme (ESRC 2000). I will use the comparative method based on lesson-drawing principles for four reasons, and I detail each in turn.

Firstly, although the lesson-drawing concept was initially focused on states, governments and policy research, Rose claims it can be connected even more easily with economic and business processes (Ibid., pp.9-10). Since my focus is not on policy research, but mainly on developmental, economic and business aspects of the Fairtrade system it is clear why this is the first reason for my selections.

Secondly, comparisons based on lesson-drawing process fundamentally differ from conventional comparisons which, according to Dogan and Pelassy (1984), focus solely on a posteriori explanations. "By avoiding the logical trap of generalizing from a single case study, such studies can explain why a programme that worked in country X did not work in

country Y. But it is unusual for conventional social scientists to take the next logical step: to predict whether a programme now in effect in country X would be effective if transferred to country Y" (Rose 1991, p.8).

This is exactly the aim of my research, firstly, by asking the question regarding the possibilities of the introduction of Fairtrade production in Serbia based on the findings from Mexico. Secondly, by asking the questions about the future development of Serbian Fairtrade trade and consumption based on explanations offered by UK research (supported by the Belgian findings). Finally, by exploring the possibilities of establishing national Fairtrade- like systems based both on the general findings from these two illustrative cases and on the findings focused on the situation in the Mexican Fairtrade system, which has the already- stated institutional bases for development of a national Fairtrade-like system.

Thirdly, according to Rose: "[l]essons belong to the world of Angewandte Sozialwissenschaft (applied social science)" (Ibid., p.7), which is again important for my research. Apart from contributing to knowledge, I also aim to be relevant for Fairtrade practitioners and the future development of the Fairtrade system itself. Fourthly, the lesson- drawing process allows "hybridization", i.e. for a researcher to "[c]ombine elements of programmes from two different places" (Ibid., p.22), which is again crucial for my research.

My comparison based on lesson-drawing principles will follow Rose's five-step lesson-drawing procedure. As he did, I will start with "[s]canning programmes elsewhere" with the idea "not to become an expert about foreign experience, but to gain fresh ideas relevant to a problem that one's [have]" (Ibid., p.19). Secondly, I will produce a conceptual model. "The model should be accurate as description but its elements should be generic, rather than labelled by their names in French or German" (Ibid., p.20), or in my case, based on Mexican or UK observations. The third step is to compare foreign practices with the ones in a researched country and it is followed by the fourth step, the creation of a new model.

"Lesson-drawing draws upon empirical evidence of programmes in effect elsewhere to create a new programme for adoption at home. The formulation of a programme is best considered as a creative act, rather than as a process of copying" (Ibid., p.21). The final stage is the prospective evaluation (Ibid., p.22).

In the following four chapters (V - VIII), I will put forward analyses of the three Fairtrade referent objects, i.e. producers, traders and consumers, and they will be primarily examined through a prism of four lessons drawn from two illustrative case studies. From the Mexican case, those lessons will identify the main characteristics of Fairtrade producers and their indispensability for Fairtrade benefits, and the economic and non-economic advantages that they can bring to table. From the UK case, those lessons will be Fairtrade mainstreaming through supermarkets and Fairtrade campaigning, consisting of the most aware consumers of Fairtrade products.

4.5. Concluding Remarks

I started this chapter by presenting the critical analysis method which I used in order to review, evaluate and analyse the Fair Trade literature in chapters II and III. This method aided me in construing my theoretical framework, and it helped me find an answer to the first part of the puzzle of my doctoral research, the one regarding the internal normative and operational logic of the Fairtrade system, which has been breached in practice by the exclusion of the nine producer-excluded upper-middle-income economies.

Furthermore, following the literature on methodology, I chose the case study research method. The first two cases that I selected will be illustrative, focusing on Mexico and the United Kingdom, representing successful cases of, firstly, Fairtrade producers' and secondly, Fairtrade traders and consumers' countries, clearly showing the historical, contemporary and

future challenges for development of Fairtrade from all three perspectives. These cases are envisaged as the comparative and lesson-drawing bases for the main (third) case study, which will be focused on Serbia and its Fairtrade potentials.

In addition, I presented a smaller original point, the notion of Fairtradeness. I defined it as a degree of Fairtradeness, i.e. to what extent someone who is a part of the Fairtrade system (a food producer, trader or consumer), or something (a specific product, or the whole Fairtrade system) is Fairtrade. In the case of the three referent objects, I identified the degree of their Fairtradeness, in regard to how much they initially need Fairtrade and how far they go in pursuit of Fairtrade, capturing the two distinct aspects of Fairtradeness - Fairtradeness by situation, and by practice. Finally, all three referent objects are connected through a Fairtrade product that they produce, trade and consume. This is also important because the more Fairtrade the different parts of the Fairtrade system, i.e. Fairtrade producers, traders, consumers and consequently the Fairtrade products are, the higher is the degree of Fairtradeness of the whole system.

Therefore, in Chapter IV, I identified, outlined and explained the methodological choices of my doctoral research that will aid me in answering my underlying research question, thereby bridging the gaps and making the contributions to knowledge. In particular, this chapter should be seen as the base for my third contribution to the literature focused on