Content uploaded by Arne Bigsten
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Arne Bigsten on Feb 25, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
8VHG&ORWKHV$V'HYHORSPHQW$LG
7KHSROLWLFDOHFRQRP\RIUDJV
5HSRUWRIDVWXG\IRU6LGD
WKH6ZHGLVK,QWHUQDWLRQDO
'HYHORSPHQW&RRSHUDWLRQ$JHQF\
by
Rick Wicks
and
Arne Bigsten
Department of Economics
Göteborg University
Göteborg, Sweden
February 1996
Report of a study for Sida
email addresses:
Rick.Wicks@economics.gu.se
Arne.Bigsten@economics.gu.se
Used Clothes As Development Aid
i
7DEOHRI&RQWHQWV
7H[W7DEOHVDQG'LDJUDPV LY
,QWURGXFWLRQ Y
Four possible positions vi
Our plan of analysis vii
Possible empirical questions vii
Theoretical questions ix
The organization of the report ix
Our conclusions x
$FNQRZOHGJPHQWV [LL
3DUW,7KH8VHG&ORWKHV7UDGH
&KDSWHU8VHG&ORWKHV([SRUWV
Worldwide textile and clothing trade, including Third World exports 1
Worldwide gross and net used-clothes exports, 1984-’93 2
Twenty-four net used-clothes exporting countries, 1984-’93 3
Gross exports of 127 countries or trading territories in 1990 4
Commercial used-clothes exporters: the “rag merchants” 5
Charitable used-clothes (and other) exports 7
Sweden’s used-clothes collections, exports, and imports 8
Summary and conclusions 10
&KDSWHU8VHG&ORWKHV,PSRUWV
Ninety net used-clothes importing countries, 1984-’93 11
Gross imports of 181 countries or trading territories in 1990 11
Distribution of used clothes in Rwanda 12
Distribution of used clothes in Zambia 13
Summary and conclusions 16
&KDSWHU7KH*HQHUDO&RQWH[WRIWKH8VHG&ORWKHV7UDGH
Popular images: producer organizations, labor unions, and the mass media 22
A possibly more balanced, African media view 23
National government used-clothes trade policies and practices 24
Summary and conclusions 25
&KDSWHU1*2$WWLWXGHVDQG,QYROYHPHQWLQWKH8VHG&ORWKHV7UDGH
The naked truth (1988): PS and UFF used-clothes exports to Mozambique 28
Another slightly out-of-date example: the Swedish Red Cross (1992) 31
Combining commercial used-clothes sales with development projects (UFF) 32
Non-Swedish and international NGO attitudes towards used-clothes exports 35
Commercial “for-profit” involvement in used-clothes collection and distribution 36
Summary and conclusions 37
3DUW,,$$QDO\VLVRIWKH(IIHFWVRIWKH8VHG&ORWKHV7UDGHLQ*HQHUDO
&KDSWHU7KHRUHWLFDO:HOIDUH(IIHFWVRI8QVXEVLGL]HG,PSRUWV
Initial assumptions: Perfect markets (full employment of resources), free trade 39
Why are used-clothes imports welfare-maximizing? (Real goods are real income) 41
Our analytic strategy 42
Government support via production subsidy to capture positive externality 42
Other arguments for protection of infant industries 43
Production subsidy effects on exporting, and benefits 43
Less than fully functioning markets: Unemployment 44
Government support via import tariffs 44
The negative side-effect of tariffs 44
Less than fully functioning markets: Unemployment again 45
Conclusions 45
&KDSWHU(PSLULFDO:HOIDUH(IIHFWVRI8QVXEVLGL]HG,PSRUWV
Haggblade’s analysis of the economic effects of used-clothes imports in Rwanda 47
Global extensions of Haggblade’s analysis, including a multi-market model 48
Conclusion 49
Report of a study for Sida
ii
&KDSWHU$%ULHI+LVWRU\DQG6RFLRORJ\RIWKH8VHG&ORWKHV7UDGH
LDCs: Hansen’s study of used clothes in modern Zambia 51
The re-use of second-hand goods in modern industrial countries 52
Lemire’s study of the used-clothes trade in eighteenth century Britain 52
Used clothes for disaster relief 53
Conclusions 53
3DUW,,%$QDO\VLVRIWKH(IIHFWVRI6XEVLGL]LQJ8VHG&ORWKHV,PSRUWV
&KDSWHU7KHRUHWLFDO:HOIDUH(IIHFWVRI6XEVLGL]HG,PSRUWV
Introduction of a freight subsidy 55
The positive externality (infant industry) argument again 57
Less than fully functioning markets: Unemployment yet again 57
Distributional effects: Benefiting the poor 58
Import subsidy effects on exporting, and benefits 58
If there is no domestic clothes production 59
Dumping, and other cautions regarding who gets the subsidy, and how 59
Conclusions 60
&KDSWHU$OWHUQDWLY H&RVWVDQG%HVW8VHRI&DVKDQG&ORWKHV
The cost of the freight subsidy 61
The alternative cost of the freight subsidy: Cash 61
Best use of the cash 62
Best use of the clothes 62
Situations where freight subsidies would be warranted: Catastrophes, no supply 62
Conclusions 64
3DUW,,,6XPPDU\DQG3ROLF\5HFRPPHQGDWLRQV
6XPPDU\
3ROLF\5HFRPPHQGDWLRQV
$33(1',&(6 $
$SSHQGL[7HUPVRI5HIHUHQFHIRUWKH6WXG\ $
$SSHQGL[6WDWLVWLFDO7DEOHV $
Table A1: Twenty-four net used-clothes exporting countries, 1984-’93 A-5
Table A2: Some 1984 used-clothes exporters (19) and importers (51), with net weights and
values, and average prices; ranked by net value of exports or imports A-6
Table A3: 1990 world used-clothes gross exporters (127) ranked by value, with reported
and imputed weights, value and weight shares of total, weights per capita, and
average prices A-8
Table A4: 1990 world used-clothes gross exporters (127) ranked by weight per capita, with
values, reported and imputed weights, value and weight shares of total, and
average prices A-11
Table A5: 1990 world used-clothes gross exporters (127) ranked by average price, with
values, reported and imputed weights, value and weight shares of total, and
weights per capita A-14
Table A6: 1994 recipients of Swedish used-clothes exports (89) ranked by weight, with
values, prices, and weight-shares A-18
Table A7: 1994 recipients of Swedish used-clothes exports (89) ranked by value, with
weights, prices, and value-shares A-20
Table A8: 1994 recipients of Swedish used-clothes exports (89) ranked by price, with values
and weights A-22
Table A9: 1994 sources of Swedish used-clothes imports (16) ranked by value, with
weights, prices, and value-shares A-25
Table A10: Ninety net used-clothes importing countries, 1984-’93 A-26
Table A11: 1990 world used-clothes gross importers (181) ranked by value, with reported
and imputed weights, value and weight shares of total, weights per capita, and
average prices A-28
Table A12: 1990 world used-clothes gross importers (181) ranked by weight per capita, with
values, reported and imputed weights, value and weight shares of total, and
average prices A-32
Used Clothes As Development Aid
iii
Table A13: 1990 world used-clothes gross importers (181) ranked by average price, with
values, reported and imputed weights, value and weight shares of total, and
weights per capita A-36
$SSHQGL[1RWHVRQ6WDWLVWLFDO3UREOHPVDQG7KHLU,PSOLFDWLRQV $
The practice of netting imports and exports, and correlation of prices A-41
Table A14: Correlation of import and export prices, 1984-’93 A-41
Table A15: Comparison of 1987 import and export prices by country (US$/kg) A-42
Miscellaneous minor problems A-43
$SSHQGL[6RPH3KLORVRSKLFDO1RWHV $
The origin of markets, and their social and political context A-45
Doubts about the “evils” of the used-clothes trade, and about proposed solutions A-45
$SSHQGL[6RPH/DERUDQG0DVV0HGLD9LHZV $
ILO draft resolution on increasing world trade in clothing (except used clothing) A-49
A labor media (Free Labour World) image of the used-clothes trade A-49
A Canadian media (Ottawa Citizen, 1993) image of the used-clothes trade A-50
$SSHQGL[1DWLRQDO7UDG H3ROLFLHV $
Spain and some former Spanish colonies A-53
Other industrial, transitional, and new industrial economies A-55
Other less-developed countries A-55
The textile industry in Senegal A-57
$SSHQGL[6ZHGLVK1*2V $
Are Swedish NGOs effectively targeting “the poorest of the poor”? A-61
Two 1992 studies of Swedish Red Cross used-clothes practices A-62
$SSHQGL[)RRG$LGDVDQ([DPSOHRI&RPPRGLW\$LG $
Possible types of food aid (or used-clothes aid) A-67
Arguments for and against food aid
A-68
An empirical study of food for work in Kenya A-68
Disincentive effects of food aid A-69
Another point of view on food aid A-70
Some suggested guidelines for food aid A-71
$SSHQGL[7KH8VHG&ORWKHV7UDGHLQ(LJKWHHQWK&HQWXU\%ULWDLQ $
5HIHUHQFHV $
6RXUFH1RWHVQXPEHUHG $
Report of a study for Sida
iv
7H[W7DEOHVDQG'LDJUDPV
Table 0: Qualitative effects of used-clothes imports, and of subsidies thereon vi
Table 1: Leading traders in textiles and clothing, 1993 (US$billions) 1
Table 2: 1984 world textile and clothing exports, including those to and from LDCs (US$billions) 2
Table 3: Index numbers of textile and clothing production, 1973-’85 (1980=100) 2
Table 4: Worldwide gross and net used-clothes exports, 1984-’93 3
Table 5: U.S. exports and imports of used clothes and rags, 1984-’93 (US$1000s) 6
Table 6: U.S. private charitable exports, including food, wearing apparel, pharmaceuticals, and all
other goods, 1990-’94 (US$1000s) 7
Table 7: Sweden’s 1992 production, import, export, and net supply, of fiber, yarn, fabric, and clothing
(1000 kgs) 8
Table 8: Sweden’s 1994 used-clothes collections, resales, and exports (1000 kgs) 9
Table 9: Sweden’s used-clothes exports, 1984-’94 9
Table 10: Qualitative effects of used-clothes imports, and of subsidies thereon 19
Table 11: 1986 and 1987 used-clothes exports to Mozambique, by price 30
Diagram 1
d
: Domestic new clothes (with production subsidy) 40
Diagram 1
i
: Imported new clothes (with domestic production subsidy) 40
Diagram 1
u
: Imported used clothes (with domestic production subsidy) 41
Diagram 2
u
: Imported used clothes (showing welfare gain with freight subsidy, and its cost) 55
Diagram 2
d
: Domestic new clothes (showing welfare loss with used-clothes freight subsidy) 56
Diagram 2
i
: Imported new clothes (showing welfare loss with used-clothes freight subsidy) 56
Diagram 3
d
: Domestic new clothes (with exports, and used-clothes freight subsidy) 59
Diagram 4
u
: Imported used clothes (catastrophe = no supply—showing welfare gain, and its cost) 63
Used Clothes As Development Aid
v
,QWURGXFWLRQ
What is the nature of used clothes? Are they cheap goods being dumped unfairly,
disrupting local markets and destroying local production and jobs? Or are they
resources, like fish from the sea or oil from the ground, that can be used to improve
people’s lives?
These questions bring up some of the most fundamental issues in aid and
development. Should we send used clothes to be given to people in the Third (or
Second) Worlds, or should we help people there to make or buy their own clothes? The
latter might seem preferable in many ways, but is it possible that giving people used
clothes might also enable them to increase their productive power?
We have been asked to consider the economic effects of the commercial and charitable
import of used clothes, and other used goods,
a
from industrial countries to less-
developed countries (LDCs), and specifically whether, in the light of those effects, we
would recommend that the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency
(Sida) should, or should not, continue subsidizing freight and related costs for used-
clothes exports by Swedish non-governmental organizations (NGOs).
Expressing our terms of reference
b
schematically, we are asked to consider the
following questions:
1. What is happening in world used-clothes trade?
2. What are the economic effects:
a. of used-clothes imports in less-developed countries?
b. of subsidizing used-clothes exports from industrial countries?
3. Should Sida subsidize such exports?
a
Other used goods and materials that are sometimes WUDGHG internationally include cars, engines, busses and
airplanes, etc.; tires and tire cases [625.9]; waste and scrap iron, steel and other metals [282]; scrap
unhardened rubber [233.2]; waste paper and paperboard [251.1]; rags [269.02]; and waste and scrap
photographic film. [The numbers in brackets refer to the Standard International Trade Classification,
Revision 3; used clothes are 269.01; other used goods are not distinguished from new goods in
international trade statistics.]
Besides food [9802.1] and used clothing [9802.3], other goods that are sometimes GRQDWHG internationally
include surplus (out-dated) pharmaceuticals [9802.2] and school supplies including books, used sporting
equipment, used bicycles, used computers, and used agricultural or medical equipment. [These numbers
in brackets refer to the U.S. Census Schedule B classifications for U.S. charitable shipments only;
international data does not distinguish charitable from other shipments.]
6WLOO RWKHU used items traded internationally include production machinery and occasionally even entire
industrial plants. Other second-hand goods traded primarily in domestic markets include old phonograph
records and all kinds of household articles.
There is much more literature extant regarding second-hand machinery in development (such as used
agricultural or medical equipment, that Sida might also consider subsidizing), than there is literature
regarding second-hand clothing, but as the issues raised seem quite different from those relating to
second-hand clothing, we have not explored this channel. Clothes generally can be produced in the
recipient country, whereas there may be no industry producing similar agricultural or medical equipment
at present, and no likelihood of one developing in the near future. Thus the issues raised by such exports
are quite different—emphasizing, for example, appropriateness of technology, maintenance, and spare
parts—and they should probably be dealt with in a separate study, if interest warrants. For this reason, we
will neglect them for the remainder of this report.
b
An English translation of the terms of reference is attached as Appendix 1.
Report of a study for Sida
vi
We will answer question 1 in Part I, including a look at the general context of the used-
clothes trade: producer, labor union, media, and government reactions to it—regardless
of the basis of those reactions in economic analysis—as well as NGO attitudes towards
and participation in it. We will answer the two parts of question 2 in Parts II-A and II-B,
respectively. We will discuss question 3 in Part III.
)RXUSRVVLEOHSRVLWLRQV
The two parts of question 2 above (what are the economic effects of used-clothes
imports in general, and of subsidizing exports in particular?) can evoke analysis and
response in various ways. A table of four possible sets of simple answers might look like
this:
7DEOH4XDOLWDWLYHHIIHFWVRIXVHGFORWKHVLPSRUWVDQGRIVXEVLGLHVWKHUHRQ
effects of: 1 2 3 4
used-clothes imports good good bad bad
subsidies thereon better bad good worse
(not the best) (in catastrophes)
The two extreme columns in the table (columns 1 and 4) might be thought of as
representing two diametrically opposed positions:
• one position (column 1: used-clothes imports are good, and subsidizing exports is
better) might advocate re-use of used clothes as a simple and direct development
strategy;
• another position (column 4: used-clothes imports are bad, and subsidizing exports is
worse) might seek to ban used-clothes imports (or exports)—or to impose high tariffs
on them—and certainly not to subsidize them!
a
Sida and the organizations currently receiving subsidies are perhaps more familiar with
the first position, which we will review briefly in Part I while exploring more extensively
the other “extreme” position, which may be less familiar. The following quote may give a
sense of the feelings attached to the position represented in column 4:
³,W LV D VFDYHQJLQJ WUDGH ZKHUH FRPSDQLHV JHW WKHLU SURGXFW SUDFWLFDOO\ IUHH EHIRUH
FRQYHUWLQJ LW LQWR FDVK´—Neil Kearney, general secretary of the Brussels-based
International Textile, Garment and Leather Workers’ Federation
1
Between the extremes are two possible middle positions:
• One position (column 2: used-clothes trade is good, but subsidizing such trade is bad
or, at least, not best) could represent the most common point of view of classical
economics (assuming simple, “ideal” conditions); while
• the other position (column 3: the used-clothes trade might be bad—if it increases
unemployment and hinders development, for instance; but subsidizing it—in the case
of catastrophes, for instance—might be good) could represent a realistic economic
analysis under more complex conditions.
a
Of course, generalizations are difficult; for instance, some who would propose to ban the commercial
used-clothes trade might be willing to allow charitable imports of used clothes, to be given away only to
those who are too poor to enter the market. But then what is to keep the recipients from selling on the
market the clothes they received for free? In that case, there would be the same (or similar) disincentive
effect on local production as if the used clothes were imported and sold commercially in the first place, so
it seems that a more logically consistent position would be to ban all imports.
Used Clothes As Development Aid
vii
The following quote may give a sense of the feelings attached to at least the first part of
the position represented in columns 1 and 2:
³:H DUH WKH RQO\ ZD\ WKDW SRRU SHRSOH OHJLWLPDWHO\ FDQ JHW DQ\WKLQJ WR SXW RQ WKHLU
EDFNV LQ PRVW RI WKH 7KLUG :RUOG ,W EHDWV GXPSLQJ LW LQWR WKH ODQGILOO´—Ed Stubin,
president of Trans-Americas FSO Inc. (a commercial used-clothes exporter), Brooklyn,
New York
2
Part I explores all these positions: as adopted by producer organizations and labor
unions; as depicted in the media; as represented by government trade policies and
practices; and as expressed by various Swedish and international NGOs. Parts II-A and
II-B are devoted to economic analysis as a basis for taking one of these positions.
2XUSODQRIDQDO\VLV
To discover where on the table above we believe the correct answers lie, we break the
two parts of question 2 above into the following four questions:
1. Is there overall net economic benefit, or damage, from used-clothes imports in
general?
2. If there is no evidence of overall net damage from imports in general, we must still
consider the particular effects of subsidizing used-clothes exports—that is, do
subsidies introduce damaging distortions, either in general, or in any special
situations?
3. On the other hand, even if there is evidence of overall net damage from imports in
general, might there still be special situations in which subsidizing used-clothes
exports would be beneficial?
4. Finally, even if we find no overall net damage, or only minimal or uncertain damage,
from subsidizing used-clothes exports, either in general or in any special situations,
we must still ask, are such subsidies the most efficient use of scarce development
aid resources (both the funds used for subsidies, and the clothes themselves)?
3RVVLEOHHPSLULFDOTXHVWLRQV
To analyze fully just the first of these questions, regarding the degree of economic
benefits or damages resulting from used-clothes imports, we would probably need
extensive empirical work to answer all the following questions:
1. In the absence of used-clothes imports, to what extent would demand for clothing be
met from domestic production of new clothes, and to what extent would it be met
from production of new clothes in industrial or new industrial economies?
2. To what extent would demand for clothes not be met at all? That is, to what extent
are people “too poor to enter the market”? (In such cases, do they literally go naked,
or what do they wear?)
3. To what extent is domestic production exported? What are the prospects for
exporting domestic production in the future?
4. Is there unemployment? How well are factor markets working, and how easy is it for
resources (including labor and physical capital) to shift to other occupations or other
products?
5. To what extent are imported used clothes, domestically-produced new clothes, and
imported new clothes, substitutes for one another? That is, what are the cross-price
elasticities between these three sectors?
6. Do used-clothes imports reduce demand for locally produced clothes, thus reducing
employment and incomes directly?
Report of a study for Sida
viii
7. Do used-clothes imports hurt the prospects for future local clothes production by
reducing demand that would otherwise be an incentive for local production?
8. Do used-clothes imports affect growth—and thus employment and national
income—via the loss of any positive externalities associated with such production?
That is, for instance, do textile and garment production teach skills that are
especially useful for further development?
9. How much do used-clothes imports increase employment, income, and growth, both
in the used-clothes sector and in other unrelated sectors, and how do they affect
income distribution?
Incidentally, to the extent that new clothes may be imported from one less-developed
country to another, used-clothes imports to the latter may not damage production in that
latter country—if there is no production there to damage—but they may damage
production in the former country. In either case, less-developed country production is
damaged. This consideration must be understood to apply, not only to clothes
production itself, but also to the fiber and textile production which preceded it. Thus, in
the questions above:
• “Production” must be understood to include not only garment production as such, but
also the prior fiber and textile production; and
• “Local production” or “domestic production” must be understood to include production
not only in the particular less-developed country under consideration, but also in any
other less-developed countries. “Imported”, on the other hand, must be understood to
mean from industrial or new industrial economies.
Thus, to begin with, we would need a thorough empirical study of the effects of
importing used clothes generally. Then, in order to answer, the second and third
questions in our plan of analysis above, we would need answers to a further set of
empirical questions regarding the specific circumstances in which subsidized used
clothes were being distributed or sold, including the specific operational methods of all
relevant projects, etc. Possibilities we would have to study in detail range from free
distribution in disaster situations, or free distribution to the poor generally (or perhaps
only to those too poor to enter the clothes market at all), to selling cheaply to the poor,
or selling at maximum profit to maximize funds for other development purposes.
However, we are not engaged in an empirical study; we have not been asked to
conduct a field study ourselves.
a
The terms of reference for the project do ask questions
about the details of Swedish NGO involvement in the overseas distribution of used
clothes, but we have not found it feasible to pursue these questions very far. We have
not been encouraged to seek current information about specific projects or NGOs
receiving such subsidies. Rather, we have been asked primarily to review existing
economic literature, and to present a broad theoretical analysis.
We do include some data on Swedish NGO collections of used clothes and resulting
exports, however. We also include extensive analysis of several Scandinavian studies
on used-clothes exporting organizations. Further, we have discussed this report and its
conclusions, in draft form, with several of the relevant organizations. But we have not
attempted an exhaustive look at the project methodologies of all the Swedish NGOs
exporting used clothes, which would take us far afield.
a
Which, incidentally, we do not believe is necessary for the present purpose.
Used Clothes As Development Aid
ix
7KHRUHWLFDOTXHVWLRQV
Anyway, looked at theoretically rather than empirically, the problem actually becomes
much simpler. Although we will explore theoretical (and to some extent, empirical)
analyses of the first three questions in our plan of analysis above—regarding the
economic effects of imports in general, and of subsidies in particular—in fact it will turn
out that it is only the last question that matters, concerning efficient use of scarce
development aid resources. We can state that concern more explicitly in the following
questions:
1. What are the alternative uses of the development funds available for freight aid?
What is the best use of the development funds?
2. What are the alternative uses of the used clothes available for export? What is the
best use of the used clothes?
3. In summary, would the intended beneficiaries rather receive subsidized used clothes
or, using the available resources, is some greater benefit possible?
To elaborate a bit, the most important effect of subsidizing used-clothes imports—and
the effect most often neglected—is that it preempts whatever alternative uses of the aid
funds and of the clothes there might have been. If the intended beneficiaries would
rather have cash or something else, rather than whatever used clothes they might
receive via subsidized imports, then it might not matter if there are no negative effects
from used-clothes imports in general, or from subsidizing them in particular; even if
there were demonstrable overall positive effects from subsidizing used-clothes imports,
still greater alternative benefits might be possible, and would thus be desirable.
7KHRUJDQL]DWLRQRIWKHUHSRUW
We will start in Part I by looking at the facts of used-clothes exports (Chapter 1) and
imports (Chapter 2), both worldwide, and in and out of Sweden in particular. We will
note the relative importance of textiles and clothes from less-developed countries in
industrial country imports, and the relative importance of used clothes in total world
textile trade. We will examine the nature of imported and exported used clothes (in the
same country), and note that they are usually quite different markets. Finally, we will
see where most exports originate, and where most of them go, and we will note which
countries export or import the most per capita, and which ones receive or pay the
highest and lowest prices for their exports or imports.
Once we have an understanding of what is actually happening in world used-clothes
trade, it will be helpful to understand how powerful forces in the world are already
responding to that trade. Thus in the last two chapters of Part I we will look at some of
the social and political factors which might lead individuals, organizations, and
governments to take the extreme positions we have already discussed, while reviewing
more fully all four positions expressed in the table above. In Chapter 3 we will look at
some producer-organization damage estimates and at some labor union documents; at
some extreme and more moderate media descriptions of the used-clothes trade; and at
government trade policies and practices around the world. In Chapter 4 we will look at
some Swedish and international NGO attitudes and practices—including some possible
alternative policies, and controversies regarding them.
Then we begin our own analysis. Part II-A—which focuses on commercial used-clothes
imports in general (not on subsidies)—is divided into three chapters: Chapter 5 is totally
theoretical; Chapter 6 is based on an empirical study in Rwanda, which unfortunately is
a very special case; and Chapter 7 is a brief but wide-ranging sociological and historical
Report of a study for Sida
x
review of the re-use of used clothes. Though somewhat ambiguous, the conclusions
tentatively reached in the first (theoretical) chapter are basically corroborated in the
second (empirical) one, and in the final sociological and historical review as well.
Part II-B consists of two theoretical chapters: In Chapter 8 we look at the direct impact
of subsidies, without regard to their cost, or to any possible alternative uses of the aid
funds. Then in Chapter 9 we consider alternative uses of the aid funds, and of the
clothes.
Part III summarizes the previous sections briefly and then outlines our policy
recommendations. Various Appendices are also attached, including statistical tables
and fuller explorations of issues too lengthy for the main text, as well as References and
numbered Source Notes.
Any of the chapters can be read independently of any or all others. Except for the
general point that the commercial market for used clothes seems to be working quite
well both internationally and within most LDCs, none of the parts or chapters is really
crucial to our argument, except for the last chapter of Part II-B (Chapter 9).
Nevertheless, because the larger context is both fraught with emotion and little dealt
with in serious economic literature, we believe it is worthwhile to take this opportunity to
explore the full context of the used-clothes trade somewhat thoroughly. Those who wish
to focus only on the most specific question we have been asked—whether Sida should
continue to subsidize used-clothes exports—should feel free to skip straight to Chapter
9.
2XUFRQFOXVLRQV
Based mostly on economic theory, and thus having abstracted from most (but not all) of
the messy details, we will come to rather clear conclusions:
1. In a simple ideal world, used-clothes imports would result in net welfare gains.
2. In the real world, where there may be positive externalities associated with clothes
production, and where markets may be less than fully functioning so that there may
be chronic high unemployment, then used-clothes imports may result in net welfare
losses.
a
3. The exceptions, where used-clothes imports would not result in net welfare losses
(or perhaps in any welfare losses at all), would be if there is no supply, or if there is
no effective demand.
4. Even if there is no effective demand (so that people are too poor to buy clothes),
there are probably more effective uses of scarce development aid resources, and
thus more effective ways of helping the poor, than subsidizing used-clothes exports.
5. If there is no supply, subsidies may be justified on humanitarian grounds.
Thus we will ultimately come to the conclusion that possible damage from imports, and
probable better uses of aid funds, militate against freight subsidies in almost all
situations; we believe that there are generally—but perhaps not always—better uses for
scarce development aid funds than subsidizing used-clothes exports.
But we want to be clear about several points:
1. While economic theory is fairly clear, empirical studies tend to be somewhat murkier;
we acknowledge that, in many cases, the situation may be far from clear in practice.
a
At least in the short run, and unless countered by increased exports of domestically-produced new
clothes, and/or possible production subsidies.
Used Clothes As Development Aid
xi
2. While we believe in recycling and re-use wherever and whenever feasible, and we
empathize with individuals and NGOs in Sweden who have used clothes available
and who want to assist development processes in Second and Third World
countries, we believe it is important to understand both the real and the perceived
potential for damage from used-clothes imports. Consequently, we will spend some
time exploring union and media images of the used-clothes trade.
3. But we want to be clear that we have no sympathy for the view that valuable goods
such as used clothes, and the labor and materials embodied in them, should be
wasted, with garments burned, for instance, or reduced to raw fibers, in order to
increase possibilities for employment. Far better employment-generating solutions
exist. While we empathize with those in less-developed countries who believe that
their industries are being harmed by cheap used-clothes imports, we do not
generally believe in protection against imports, and we would not want to be
misinterpreted as advocating such protection. (Making factor markets work better, so
that capital and labor can find alternative employment, and producing for export, are
better responses.) Consequently, we will spend some time exploring the general
pattern and recent history of trade regulations worldwide, which will demonstrate that
there is no trend towards increased protection in this area.
4. Finally, while we empathize with those who might desire that the very clothes which
they have donated, collected, or sorted, might be given (with the help of freight
subsidies) directly into the hands of the people in greatest need, we want to point out
that there may well be greater benefits possible for those people, derivable from
alternative uses of both the used clothes and the development funds available.
Consequently, we will spend some time exploring some of the problems inherent in
direct subsidized delivery, and some alternatives.
So, in summary, we shall conduct a largely theoretical exploration of the effects of used-
clothes imports in general and of subsidies in particular, with concern not only for
market effects, but also for social and political ones. We shall not look much at the
specifics of Sida-funded projects, but we shall describe the used-clothes trade in
general (including its broad context), which is how we will begin.
Report of a study for Sida
xii
$FNQRZOHGJPHQWV
Arne Bigsten wrote the basic theoretical argument in Chapters 5, 8, and 9, while Rick
Wicks elaborated and embellished it, and wrote the rest. We would like to especially
acknowledge the following people for their support and assistance in the conduct of this
study:
• Eva von Oelreich of Svenska Röda Korset (the Swedish Red Cross),
• Göran Larsson of Praktisk Solidaritet (Practical Solidarity),
• Merete Schiøler of the UFF federation (Development Aid from People to People),
• Arne Sjöberg of Myrorna/Frälsningsarmén (the Salvation Army),
• Steven Haggblade, author of a major previous economic study,
• Karen Tranberg Hansen, author of a major sociological study, and
• Robert Thompson, who found some of our sources as part of a preliminary
investigation for Sida.
We also gratefully acknowledge the assistance of many others who took an interest in
the study, including all who are identified as sources herein. Magnus Lindell of Sida
gave excellent guidance. Ellinor Garbring translated sources from Swedish, read
successive drafts very carefully, and offered many helpful suggestions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cause and effect, chain of events,
all of the chaos makes perfect sense.
When you’re spinning round, things come undone —
welcome to Earth, third rock from the Sun!
3
We are not sure that everything makes perfect sense, but it is clear that, especially in
this complicated world, things can come undone, and the chains of cause and effect
bear close scrutiny.
Used Clothes As Development Aid
3DUW,7KH8VHG&ORWKHV7UDGH
&KDSWHU8VHG&ORWKHV([SRUWV
:RUOGZLGHWH[WLOHDQGFORWKLQJWUDGHLQFOXGLQJ7KLUG:RUOGH[SRUWV
To begin with, in order to understand the context for world trade in used clothes, it will
be helpful to have some sense of total trade in new textiles and clothing, including
production trends.
a
Table 1 (below) shows that the total 1993 trade of just the top six
exporters and importers was in the range of US$50-100 billion in both textiles and
clothing.
7DEOH/HDGLQJWUDGHUVLQWH[WLOHVDQGFORWKLQJ86ELOOLRQV
value value value value
Germany 11.9 Hong Kong 12.8 Hong Kong 21.0 United States 35.6
Hong Kong 11.2 Germany 10.4 China 18.4 Germany 22.5
Italy 10.0 United States 8.9 Italy 11.8 Japan 12.6
South Korea 9.0 China 7.6 Germany 6.7 Hong Kong 11.8
China 8.7 United Kingdom 6.1 South Korea 6.2 France 8.6
Taiwan 8.2 France 6.0 United States 5.0 United Kingdom 7.4
total 59.0 total 51.8 total 69.1 total 98.5
Source: WTO Focus, No. 1 (Jan.-Feb. 1995), p. 2.
As we will soon see (Table 4, below), total world used-clothes trade in 1993 amounted
to only US$0.78 billion, or less than 1% of just these top six textile and clothing
exporters and importers; thus it was clearly a much lower percentage of total worldwide
textile and clothing trade, when all countries are considered.
Several of the leading exporters of textiles and clothing shown in the table above are
new industrial or less-developed economies (Hong Kong, South Korea, China, and
Taiwan—Hong Kong and China are also major textile importers). There are also many
other major textile and clothing exporters among the less-developed countries (LDCs) of
the world, including Turkey, Thailand, Indonesia, and India, among others.
4
By contrast,
none of the top fifteen importers of new clothing in 1992 were LDCs.
Table 2 (below) shows that, by 1984, LDCs were already exporting far more textiles and
clothing to industrial countries (US$27.4 billion) than they were importing in return
(US$11.9 billion). Even if we were to add used clothes to the industrial country exports,
the LDCs as a group would still have a large trade surplus in textiles and clothing.
The trend in the last several decades has generally been for a decreasing share of
production of textiles and clothing in industrial countries, and for an increasing share of
production in, and exports from, LDCs. These trends are vividly illustrated in Table 3
(below), for the period from 1973 to 1985, with 1980 as the base year, with index value
a
We do not have figures on total world production of new textiles and clothing, nor on total world re-use of
second-hand textiles and clothing, both of which types of data would probably be almost impossible to
obtain accurately in any event. But we do have international trade data, which is collected at borders for
various reasons, and is generally considered to be fairly accurate for most purposes.
Report of a study for Sida
2
7DEOHZRUOGWH[WLOHDQGFORWKLQJH[SRUWVLQFOXGLQJWKRVHWRDQGIURP
/'&V86ELOOLRQV
exports of exports of exports of industrial LDC
industrial LDC centrally total country exports to
market market planned world exports industrial
economies economies economies exports to LDCs countries
textile fibers 10.8 4.4 2.5 17.7 2.7 2.1
yarns and fabrics 33.9 14.5 5.5 53.9 7.3 6.3
clothing 18.7 21.8 5.3 45.8 1.9 19.0
totals to and from LDCs 11.9 27.4
Source: UN Centre on Transnational Corporations, p. 2.
of 100. While industrial country production of textiles declined dramatically and then
recovered only partially, LDC production increased consistently throughout the period;
and while industrial country production of wearing apparel generally declined, LDC
production increased not only consistently, but spectacularly.
7DEOH,QGH[QXPEHUVRIWH[WLOHDQGFORWKLQJSURGXFWLRQ¶
WH[WLOHSURGXFWLRQRI
1973 1975 1982 1983 1984 1985
industrial market economies 103.3 91.4 93.0 94.8 96.1 97.0
LDC market economies 83.7 87.5 100.9 104.4 108.4 112.1
ZHDULQJDSSDUHOSURGXFWLRQRI
industrial market economies 101.3 96.6 94.5 94.2 95.5 94.5
LDC market economies 76.5 84.3 104.9 107.4 114.9 116.3
Source: UN Centre on Transnational Corporations, p. 3.
Note: Wearing apparel includes footwear and leather goods, in addition to clothing.
There is no indication that these trends have done anything other than continue and
accelerate in the decade since 1985: Indeed, from 1986 to 1989, while industrial
country clothing exports went up 37%, LDC exports went up nearly 64%; and from 1986
to 1992, while the industrial countries’ share of world clothing exports fell from 28% to
22%, the LDC share went up from 62% to 74%.
5
With the Uruguay Round of GATT negotiations and the resulting elimination of the Multi-
Fiber Agreement, the incorporation of textile trade into GATT and the World Trade
Organization, and further liberalization of trade rules, one can only expect the trends to
continue. As industrial countries increasingly open their markets to clothes exports from
the Third World, it almost seems fair that LDCs open their markets in return—and in fact
this is what is generally expected under the recently concluded Uruguay Round
agreements of the GATT/WTO.
a
:RUOGZLGHJURVVDQGQHWXVHGFORWKHVH[SRUWV¶
International trade in used clothes has also been consistently growing over the last
several decades, with dramatic increases in the early 1990s (see Table 4, below). Total
weight rose to at least 722,722 metric tons in 1993, and total value to over
US$782,834,000.
a
WTO Focus No. 1, January-February 1995, reports that the WTO agreements provide for “the eventual
elimination of the Multi-Fiber Arrangement”, with “progressive liberalization of trade in textiles and clothing
over ten years”, while “export restraints on textiles and clothing will be dismantled.” Used clothes are
specifically included in the Annex (List of Products Covered) to the Agreement on Textiles and Clothing.
While this may mean that it is expected that restrictions on used-clothes imports will be relaxed over the
next ten years, it also means that “safeguards” can be imposed for a time if excessive damage is caused
by such imports.
Used Clothes As Development Aid
3
7DEOH:RUOGZLGHJURVVDQGQHWXVHGFORWKHVH[SRUWV¶
1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993
39 44 51 52 51 55 55 60 59 50
value (US$1000s) 229,735 241,651 286,211 322,088 360,905 375,370 477,642 532,325 713,186 782,834
reported weight
(1000 kgs)
343,623 350,193 364,413 381,856 442,886 454,622 385,609 439,635 702,479 722,722
average export
price (US$/kg)
$0.67 $0.69 $0.79 $0.84 $0.79 $0.80 $0.89 $0.86 $0.99 $1.05
19 20 19 25 24 20 20 20 26 26
net export value
(US$1000s)
169,085 178,808 207,823 240,952 268,936 274,726 344,560 379,436 505,852 574,446
Source: Derived from SITC2 data obtained from the United Nations Statistical Division, International Trade Statistics Branch.
Notes: All values for all years are nominal, not corrected for inflation. In addition, some countries still using SITC1 at the beginning
of the period may have begun reporting under SITC2 during the period, so that later figures (both value and weight) may be
inflated for this reason as well. Neither effect should be large on total values or weights, first because inflation of the U.S.
dollar during the period was not especially high, and secondly because countries initially reporting on SITC1 were not major
exporters. Data was obtained in June 1995; data for 1993 may still have been incomplete.
While this trade is quite substantial, it is of course a very small part of total world trade
in fabric and garments.
a
Haggblade (1990) reported that in 1980, when total world used-
clothes exports were 244,000 tons, worth US$207 million,
b
used clothes represented
about 7% by weight of total garment-equivalents (fabric plus garments) traded
internationally.
c
By value, used clothes accounted for far less, about 0.4%.
d
As we noted
in discussion of Table 1 (above), the 1993 percentage was probably not much different.
7ZHQW\IRXUQHWXVHGFORWKHVH[SRUWLQJFRXQWULHV¶
Twenty-four net exporting countries over the period 1984-’93 are shown in Table A1 (in
Appendix 2). The U.S. alone provided 38% of total net exports during the period,
followed by Germany, Belgium-Luxembourg, Netherlands, Japan, United Kingdom,
Italy, Australia, Canada, Mexico, Denmark, and then Sweden, in 12
th
place, with 0.9% of
total net exports.
Annual data for 1984 (only) is provided in Table A2 (also in Appendix 2), showing gross
exports and imports for the 19 net exporters reporting under SITC2
e
in that year (and for
the 51 net importers).
f
Net weights and values are also shown, as are average prices.
a
Fabric (textiles) is included because its most usual purpose is for garment production (clothes).
b
For an average export value of $0.39 per pound, or $0.85 per kilogram.
c
This was the most recent data available for Haggblade’s study; we have not thought it necessary to
update Haggblade’s data in every detail, as we have no reason to expect any radical changes.
d
Because, of course, weight-for-weight, new clothes or even textiles are worth much more than used
clothes.
e
SITC refers to the Standard International Trade Classification, a system of product codes which has now
gone through two revisions (SITC2 and SITC3). Data reported to the UN under SITC2 can be converted
into SITC1, but not vice-versa. Thus SITC1 data can pick up some countries which SITC2 data misses.
Unfortunately, we were first given SITC2 data, and invested a great deal of work in it; rather than
reworking new data for the entire decade, we consider it adequate for the purposes of Tables 4, A1, A2,
and A10. But because countries reporting under SITC1 are missed in SITC2 data, as well as because
some countries’ data is considered of poor quality and thus is not reported by the UN at all, these tables
under-represent total exports (and imports) and the number of exporters (and importers). To correct
these problems, SITC1 data (including partner data, to pick up countries not reporting at all) is used in
most other tables.
f
At the bottom of the table we note that virtually all (99.96%) of exports by value also had weights reported,
and that nearly as much of imports (91%) had weights reported. Missing weights cause problems in
calculating average prices, but were not an especially big problem in this particular year. A bigger
problem is that, of course, all exports should show up somewhere as imports, but in 1984 only 67% by
weight, and 74% by value, did so (using SITC2 data). The problem, as discussed in an earlier note, is
Report of a study for Sida
4
This table clearly illustrates the fact that most net used-clothes exporters are also
importers, and many net importers are also exporters: Of 19 net exporting countries, 18
had imports as well; and of 51 net importing countries, 20 had exports. Thus, in that
particular year, although Denmark exported more used-clothes by weight (both gross,
and net) than did Sweden, Sweden ranked 8
th
by net export value, above Denmark, due
to having a higher average export price than Denmark. A more anomalous case is
Austria, which ranked 32
nd
among net importers by value, but was a next exporter by
weight, exporting almost twice as much as it imported. This was made possible because
Austria’s average import price was almost three times its average export price.
a
Used clothes are in fact a mixed bag (so to speak), and cannot be treated as a uniform
commodity: It appears that, in very many net-exporting countries, imports are not re-
exported, but are quite a different commodity from exports, with quite a different niche in
the market. This is most obvious when one considers the many cases where import
prices are far higher than export prices, such as Iceland, Austria, Japan, and Ethiopia
(at the bottom of Table A15 in Appendix 3). But it seems equally unlikely that Mexico,
Mali, India, or China (at the top of the same table) were adding sufficient value to
imported used clothes to account for their recorded export prices.
Thus, in attempting to get an overall sense of the worldwide trade in used clothes, in
addition to using SITC1 data and partner data (as discussed in footnotes above), it is
probably more useful to also retain data on both imports and exports for each country,
rather than just netting them out. Gross export tables in Appendix 2 (to be discussed
next) do just that. Similar import tables will be discussed in Chapter 2.
*URVVH[SRUWVRIFRXQWULHVRUWUDGLQJWHUULWRULHVLQ
Gross (not net) export figures for the single year 1990, for all countries either reporting
themselves under SITC1, or reported by their partner countries, are shown in Tables
A3-A5 in Appendix 2.
c
In 1990 there were actually 127 countries or separate trading
territories with exports recorded by the UN (and 181 countries or trading territories with
imports).
d
Thus the re-use of used clothes is clearly a worldwide phenomenon, not a
one-sided export from industrial to less-developed countries.
Comparing Table A3 (1990 gross exports) with the previously discussed Table A1 (net
exports for the whole period 1984-’93), we see that, although a few of the other
countries have changed places, Sweden was in 12
th
place of gross exports in 1990
that many importing countries were not reporting on SITC2, but rather on SITC1, or not reporting at all.
We will address this problem shortly, using SITC1 data—including trading partners, to pick up those not
reporting at all.
a
This in itself is nothing unusual: The related problem of netting imports and exports is discussed at some
length in Appendix 3.
b
No 1990 data was found for the following countries or territories: Anguilla, Bhutan, British Virgin Islands,
Christmas Island, Cook Islands, Falkland Islands, Iraq, Maldives, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Mongolia,
North Mariana Islands, Palau, St. Kitts-Nevis, Taiwan, Tokelau, Turks & Caicos, and Western Sahara;
the absence of a listing does not necessarily mean that no trade occurred.
c
Partner data is necessary in the case where, say, an importer does not report at all, or does not report in
a form satisfactory to the UN, but exporters may report exporting WR that country (as trade partner).
Interesting differences can arise in cases where a country reports its own imports and exports, but
partner countries also report exports to and imports from that country; our universal solution was to
assume that the one reporting the higher total value was correct, although in retrospect, this solution was
problematic, because of unrecognized differences in f.o.b. and c.i.f. values.
d
Nevertheless, the increase in 1990 total export value from Table 4 above (SITC2 data) to Tables A3-A5
(SITC1 data) is not great, about 3%; the increase in (imputed) weight is greater, about 45%.
Used Clothes As Development Aid
5
(with 1.1% of total exports), just as it was for the decade as a whole. The U.S. was also
in first place, but with only 25.4% of total gross exports.
a
In terms of weight per capita exported in 1990 (see Table A4), Belgium-Luxembourg
was in first place with 6.6 kgs, followed distantly by the Netherlands with 3.6 kgs, and
then (among others) by West Germany with 1.9 kgs, Denmark with 1.5 kgs, and Austria
with 1.3 kgs. Presumably at least the first two figures reflect the presence of major re-
exports, which is rather rare in the used-clothes trade, as discussed further in Appendix
3.
b
The U.S. was in 11
th
place with 0.55 kgs in 1990, and Sweden was in 13
th
place with
0.43 kgs.
c
Despite the minor statistical problems discussed in Appendix 3, the gross export and
import tables (Tables A3-A5 and A11-A13 in Appendix 2) should give somewhat more
accurate prices than those reported in Table A2 (in Appendix 2) and Table A15 (in
Appendix 3). Still, the variation is quite astounding: Export prices in 1990 (Table A5)
ranged from highs of US$22.67 (Burma), $15.29 (Israel), $12.53 (Yugoslavia), $10.20
(El Salvador), $9.00 (Madagascar), and $8.86 (Niger), to lows of US$0.27 (Austria),
$0.26 (Nauru), and $0.04 (Mali)! Sweden was in 54
th
place (US$1.42), and the U.S. was
in 82
nd
place ($0.91).
&RPPHUFLDOXVHGFORWKHVH[SRUWHUVWKH³UDJPHUFKDQWV´
It is clear that there are large international transfers of used clothes occurring, but we
have not yet explored how this is happening. As reported by Haggblade (1990) and
Hansen (1994) and corroborated by many reports in the mass media, most used
clothes traded internationally are initially donated by individuals to charity organizations
in the industrial countries of North America, Europe and Japan. Most donated articles of
clothing are initially sorted into one of at least three possible categories: those suitable
for domestic resale in local “thrift shops”; those with no value other than recycling the
fiber, for instance into “wiper cloths”; and those suitable for export.
The actual collection and sorting operations may be run by the charities themselves, or
they may contract out these operations to professional management companies. In the
U.S. at least, many thrift shops themselves—as well as the collection and sorting
operations which supply them—are run by professional management companies, and
there is some controversy as to whether the charities in whose names they act are
getting a fair deal, or not.
6
But in any case, clothes which are judged not suitable for
a
This probably does not indicate a decline in the relative size of U.S. exports, but rather the fact that
worldwide total JURVV exports are much larger than total QHW exports, so that the U.S. portion of the former
is a smaller share of a much bigger pile.
b
Data in Table A15 in Appendix 3 is consistent with this hypothesis: Both Belgium-Luxembourg and the
Netherlands show import prices substantially below export prices, in contrast to Sweden and many other
industrial countries, which are presumably importing rather specialized used clothes for use, not for re-
export.
c
Haggblade (1990) noted that QHW exports from Belgium and the Netherlands peaked at about 0.9 kgs per
capita in the late 1970s (which he took as a sort of empirical hypothetical maximum), and he noted that in
1984 the U.S. exported 0.4 kgs per capita. The figures in the text are gross exports, not net, but neither
the U.S. nor Sweden is a major used-clothes importer, so there is not much difference. U.S. exports (and
Swedish exports also) have continued to climb gradually, and in 1990 were still far from the hypothetical
peak noted by Haggblade. However, rough estimates for more recent years (based on data in Tables 5
and 9, below) show the U.S. exporting over that hypothetical peak level in 1993 (0.99 kgs per capita),
while Sweden in 1994 was far over that level (1.39 kgs per capita).
Report of a study for Sida
6
resale locally, but which are still judged to have remaining value as clothing, are
generally sold, even by the biggest charities,
a
to “the rag merchants”.
b
The rag merchants, as the name suggests, are “the domestic rag industry—a network of
recyclers, rag makers, wholesalers, and used clothing exporters”.
7
The U.S. Council for
Textile Recycling estimates that there are more than 100 commercial used-clothes
exporters from the U.S. alone.
8
The appellation “rag merchants”, and even the subtitle
of this paper,
c
may be a bit misleading, however: Although rags are clearly related to
used clothes, used clothes are actually quite a different commodity,
d
and at least in U.S.
exports, they are a much bigger (and growing) share of the business than rags, as
illustrated by the statistics in Table 5 (below). The value of U.S. used-clothes exports
has almost tripled in ten years, while rag exports have stayed virtually constant. Thus
the used-clothes share of the total has grown steadily, as it has for imports as well.
7DEOH86H[SRUWVDQGLPSRUWVRIXVHGFORWKHVDQGUDJV¶86V
H[SRUWV
1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993
used clothes 76,714 72,891 84,330 96,457 98,305 98,772 124,774 140,623 197,196 227,977
rags 65,052 60,621 58,658 60,898 65,192 55,356 49,495 47,979 61,381 64,310
total 141,766 133,512 142,988 157,355 163,497 154,128 174,269 188,602 258,577 292,287
used-clothes share 54% 55% 59% 61% 60% 64% 72% 75% 76% 78%
LPSRUWV
used clothes - - - - - 3,404 4,057 3,647 4,718 5,194
rags 8,564 9,844 8,486 8,040 8,669 10,145 7,470 8,289 6,944 6,166
total 8,564 9,844 8,486 8,040 8,669 13,549 11,527 11,936 11,662 11,360
used-clothes share ? ? ? ? ? 25% 35% 31% 40% 46%
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Foreign Trade Division, Commodity Analysis Branch.
Note: The lack of data for 1984-’88 used-clothes imports may not mean that no used clothes were imported; it may simply indicate
missing data.
We have just seen evidence of the same discrimination of quality and potential use
ZLWKLQ the category of used-clothes itself. Observing the great differences in the prices
of used-clothes exports and imports of different countries, we must assume that there
are corresponding differences in quality, and in suitability for different purposes.
Undoubtedly, such differences also exist within the exports (and imports) of any given
country.
e
Items of clothing which are donated to charities may be reclassified as rags if they are
too worn out, but we will note (in Appendix 5) much anecdotal evidence that many
donated items of clothing are of very fine quality indeed. It is just these differences that
the “sieve-like action” of the commercial rag industry is designed to discover and exploit.
It exploits these differences by directing particular types of clothes to particular countries
at particular seasons, so that those who will value those clothes the most, and will get
the most benefit from them, will in fact have the opportunity to do so. (We leave aside
a
Like the Salvation Army and Goodwill Industries in the U.S., both of which operate their own chains of
thrift shops and often provide vocational training as project aid in those operations; funds raised from the
sale for export of locally unsalable used clothes also generally go to support the charities’ projects.
b
Some used clothing may also be given away as project aid to needy individuals locally, but according to
Haggblade 1990 ( p. 510), 75% is estimated to find its way to the rag industry.
c
“The political economy of rags”.
d
Used clothes are SITC1 code 267.01, or SITC2 code 269.01, whereas rags are SITC1 code 267.02, or
SITC2 code 269.02. Rags may be used to manufacture “wiper cloths” or may be used or recycled in other
ways; used clothes, on the other hand, are mainly sold to be used again as clothes.
e
We will shortly see evidence for this assertion with regard to Swedish exports and imports.
Used Clothes As Development Aid
7
for now the question of ability to pay, to which we shall return much later in the paper.
a
)
In the process, naturally, the “rag merchants”—including all the in-country handlers and
dealers yet to be described—presumably maximize their profits. (We will explore in-
country commercial distribution in-depth in the next chapter.)
In any event, the rag industry “sifts, sorts, shuffles, reshapes, bales and ultimately ships
a portion of what it gets overseas as used clothing.
b
Emerging from the sieve-like action
of the rag industry is second-hand clothing sorted by fabric, garment, and sometimes by
size. Thus individual used clothing bales might contain men’s short-sleeved cotton
shirts, or synthetic dresses, or boy’s shorts, or baby clothes, or blue jeans. The sorting
allows exporters to target countries and seasons, thereby increasing both the value of
their exports and their ability to coordinate demand and supply patterns. After binding
like items together, most commonly in 45-kilogram (100 pound) bales, exporters ship
them abroad by the ton.”
9
According to all available reports, they generally do not clean
extensively, repair, or restyle clothes for export; these functions are performed in the
destination country, and thus provide employment and income there.
&KDULWDEOHXVHGFORWKHVDQGRWKHUH[SRUWV
Although most used-clothes exports worldwide are handled through commercial
channels similar to those described above, there are significant charitable shipments as
well. Data on such shipments is not kept separately by the United Nations, nor by other
international bodies, but data for the U.S. alone is given in Table 6 below, showing
recent private charitable shipments of food, pharmaceuticals, and all other goods, in
addition to wearing apparel. Wearing apparel seems to constitute 8-10% of total U.S.
private charitable exports, while the charitable share of total U.S. used-clothes exports
is 17-21%. Because the U.S. is the largest single exporter of used clothes, this data
may give a rough indication of the relative share of charitable exports in total used-
clothes exports worldwide.
7DEOH86SULYDWHFKDULWDEOHH[SRUWVLQFOXGLQJIRRGZHDULQJDSSDUHO
SKDUPDFHXWLFDOVDQGDOORWKHUJRRGV¶86V
1990 share 1991 share 1992 share 1993 share 1994 share
food 13,518 6% 14,354 4% 74,780 17% 35,205 8% 25,455 5%
wearing apparel 21,824 10% 27,546 8% 38,186 8% 38,933 8% 41,589 9%
pharmaceuticals 87,405 39% 123,939 36% 134,461 30% 155,336 33% 181,246 38%
all other goods 100,874 45% 179,081 52% 203,743 45% 237,037 51% 228,003 48%
total private charitable exports 223,621 344,920 451,170 466,511 476,293
total used-clothes exports 124,774 140,623 197,196 227,977 197,327
charitable share 17% 20% 19% 17% 21%
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Foreign Trade Division, Commodity Analysis Branch.
Note: Only goods “donated for relief or charity by individuals or private agencies” are included here. Wearing apparel includes
footwear and other wearable items, in addition to used clothes.
The definition of the term “charitable exports” is open to question, however: Many less-
developed countries classify goods as charitable imports only if they are given away
rather than sold; but we will see that much, and perhaps most, used-clothes imports,
even on behalf of charitable organizations, are in fact sold when they arrive in-country.
Thus, although goods may be “donated for relief or charity”, they may in fact be sold
a
The question we have been asked to discuss is not ZKHWKHU we should help poor people (which we
assume to be the case), but rather, whether subsidizing freight for used-clothes exports is the most
efficient way to do so.
b
What it FDQQRW sell as used clothes, either domestically or overseas, it may sell as rags.
Report of a study for Sida
8
initially; it is also suggested by some that most of the used clothes that are, in fact,
given away initially, nevertheless enter the market later.
a
6ZHGHQ¶VXVHGFORWKHVFROOHFWLRQVH[SRUWVDQGLPSRUWV
In 1992, Sweden imported 77,000 metric tons of new clothing (see Table 7, below), and
almost as much fiber, yarn, and fabric (combined).
7DEOH6ZHGHQ¶VSURGXFWLRQLPSRUWH[SRUWDQGQHWVXSSO\RIILEHU\DUQ
IDEULFDQGFORWKLQJNJV
wool cotton homemade
fiber fiber yarn fabric clothing fabric
production - - 9,030 9,470 ??
imports 420 11,900 24,600 22,300 77,000 -
less exports - - 4,150 10,600 ? -
net supply 420 11,900 29,480 21,170 77,000 ?
Source: Statens Naturvårdsverk (Swedish Environmental Protection Agency), 1995, p. 4 (from SCB).
The Swedish Environmental Protection Agency is concerned to know what happens to
all the clothes, textiles, etc., after people in Sweden have finished using them. They
state the following specific concerns:
10
“Cotton is the most common raw material for textiles, and cotton is one of the most
pesticide-intensive fibres in terms of its cultivation. Other environmental problems in
traditional cotton growing include high water consumption, soil deterioration, and
competition with food production.
“The textile industry itself is characterized by numerous different mechanical and
chemical processes. A host of different chemicals are used in raw material preparation.
The quantity of chemicals used is also great, in many cases several hundred grams per
kilogram of textile. The processes give rise to a contaminated process water, which can
have high environmental impact.”
The Swedish EPA reports estimates that, in the U.S. and Western Europe generally, 3-
5% of household waste is textiles (including used clothes), which are typically burnt or
buried, according to the normal method of trash-disposal in the various localities.
11
In
Sweden, the association of sanitation departments estimated that, for 1993, household
trash consisted of about 302 kgs per inhabitant, of which about 2% was textiles, which
works out to about 51,000 metric tons of used textiles in the trash. Another estimate
was in the range of 50-100,000 tons.
12
In addition, significant amounts of used clothes are collected every year by various
charitable organizations in Sweden, as elsewhere, partly for resale locally, and partly for
export. According to collection estimates from the various organizations involved (shown
in Table 8, below), about 10% is resold locally, roughly the same amount is considered
waste, and about 80% is exported. The organizations also estimate 390 tons of shoes
exported.
a
Since, as we will see later, charitable shipments of used clothes are often not sorted as thoroughly and
carefully as are most commercial shipments, we also cannot assume that they are being allocated to their
“highest and best” use, as a functioning market would tend to do.
Used Clothes As Development Aid
9
7DEOH6ZHGHQ¶VXVHGFORWKHVFROOHFWLRQVUHVDOHVDQGH[SRUWVNJV
collected resold exported waste
UFF (Development Aid from People to People) 4,805 720 3,322 763
Praktisk Solidaritet (Practical Solidarity)
a
3,686 153 3,273 260
Myrorna/Frälsningsarmén (Salvation Army) 2,850 450 1,950 450
Röda Korset (Red Cross) 2,682 100 2,382 200
other 904 - 904 -
total 14,927 1,423 11,831 1,673
Source: Adapted from Statens Naturvårdsverk (Swedish Environmental Protection Agency), 1995, p. 22 and Appendix 4.
By far the most popular collection method among the organizations is in neighborhood
containers (about 66% by weight overall);
13
other methods for some organizations
include collections at their thrift shops, and pick-ups at home or at workplaces.
Collection, sorting, and packing costs are estimated from SEK 3.80-5.50/kg, or in the
neighborhood of US$0.57-0.83.
14
Adding weights of used clothes collected to estimates of textiles in household trash, we
find that 65,000 tons or more of used clothes and textiles are disposed of each year in
Sweden, or about 8 kgs per inhabitant. This estimate is consistent with estimates from
Germany and the Netherlands of 8-10 kgs of clothes consumed per inhabitant per year,
and is also consistent with the figure of 77,000 tons of new clothes imported into
Sweden each year. Thus it appears that about 19% of the amount of new clothes
imported into Sweden annually is collected by charitable organizations for re-use, and
80% of that amount (about 15% of total imports) is exported. The EPA’s goal is that
more used clothing and used textiles should be collected for re-use or recycling, and all
of the collecting organizations indicate that they could increase their collections,
although noting that financing for further investments in collection facilities would be
required.
Table 9 (below) shows recent Swedish used-clothes exports, which have grown
markedly during the last five years, especially in terms of total weight exported. Average
prices, based on the values reported, vary considerably, but may reflect arbitrary
valuation methods, rather than market values.
7DEOH6ZHGHQ¶VXVHGFORWKHVH[SRUWV¶
1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994
reported value (US$1000s) 2,505 2,160 2,346 2,080 2,093 2,846 5,210 5,599 9,568 5,812 6,233
reported weight (1000 kgs) 3,670 2,746 3,334 2,662 2,337 2,477 3,647 5,165 8,372 9,180 11,831
average price (US$/kg) $0.68 $0.79 $0.70 $0.78 $0.90 $1.15 $1.43 $1.08 $1.14 $0.63 $0.53
Source: Derived from SITC1 data obtained from the United Nations Statistical Division, International Trade Statistics Branch.
Swedish exports go to an amazing variety of destinations (89 in 1994), including many
industrial countries, as well as many less-developed ones; 1994 exports ranked by
weight, value, and price are shown in Tables A6, A7, and A8, respectively (in Appendix
2). Weights probably give a better indication of overall importance, because pricing (or
valuation) methods of the various organizations involved may be somewhat arbitrary,
since much of the goods may not have been handled with normal commercial
procedures.
a
Praktisk Solidaritet is an umbrella organization composed of Brödet & Fiskarna and the regional Emmaus
organizations, as well as some smaller groups.
Report of a study for Sida
10
Africa remains an important destination for used clothes from Sweden: By weight (Table
A6), Mozambique is in third place, and Angola in seventh. The other big recipients are
now all in Europe, however: Estonia is in first place, followed by Latvia, Yugoslavia,
Russia, Lithuania, Poland, Finland, and Croatia.
Nicaragua, which is first in reported value (Table A7), is eleventh by weight. By value,
the U.S. is sixth, and Germany eighth; these are presumably not charitable exports
arbitrarily priced, and thus may represent market values.
By price (Table A8), Australia ranks first at US$49.00/kg, followed by Canada ($21/kg),
Cyprus, India, China, Hong Kong, Ethiopia, Honduras, El Salvador, Bolivia, the U.S.,
Norway, France, Japan, and Nicaragua.
Sweden’s sources of used-clothes imports (16 in 1994) show a similar diversity, and
considerable variation in price as well (see Table A9 in Appendix 2). Although there
were exports to China, Ethiopia, and Poland in 1994, there were also imports from
those countries. Similarly, there were both exports to and imports from Austria,
Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Hong Kong, the Netherlands, Norway, Saudi
Arabia, Singapore, the United Kingdom, and the U.S. By weight, Sweden imported
about 5% of the amount of used clothes that it exported; by value, about 10%. Import
prices averaged US$1.21, somewhat more than twice the average export price, and
ranged from $7.57 (U.S.) and $5.00 (UK), to $0.56 (Norway) and $0.50 (Austria).
6XPPDU\DQGFRQFOXVLRQV
:HOOIXQFWLRQLQJLQWHUQDWLRQDOFRPPHUFLDOPDUNHWVVWDEOHDQGJURZLQJVXSSO\
6ZHGHQSOD\VDVPDOOUROHLQZRUOGZLGHH[SRUWV
Used-clothes exports are a small and fairly constant proportion of world trade in textiles
and new clothing. The international market appears to be extremely competitive, with
many players: many firms and organizations exporting used clothes from many
countries. Supply has been growing steadily for decades, and there is no reason to
think that it will decline; if anything, it will continue to grow. Thus as more and more new
clothes are exported from less-developed countries to industrial ones, a fairly constant
proportion of them find their way back as used clothes. However, trade in used-clothes
is by no means uni-directional; used clothes are traded: between industrial countries;
between less-developed countries; and from less-developed to industrial countries; as
well as the other way around.
The Swedish role in total exports is rather small, as one would expect based on its
relative population. Thus, on the one hand, Swedish freight subsidies, if continued, will
have a relatively small direct economic effect in the overall scheme of things; but, on the
other hand, there is an extremely active commercial market for used clothes throughout
Europe, so that it should not be at all difficult for Swedish NGOs to change their mode
of operation—in other words, selling into that commercial network, or learning from their
methods—if they should wish to do so.
Used Clothes As Development Aid
11
&KDSWHU8VHG&ORWKHV,PSRUWV
Naturally, some countries and areas import far more used clothes than others, ranging
in 1980 from a high of 33.8% (by weight, of all clothes and fabric imported) for Sub-
Saharan Africa, to 10.8% for less-developed Asia, 7.3% for North Africa and the Middle
East, and 1.8% for Latin America. Included in these averages were highs at that time
over 50% for Bangladesh, Zaire, Mali and Tanzania. The value-shares of used-clothes
imports (as percentages of all clothes and fabric imported) were of course much lower,
ranging from a high of 5.0% for Sub-Saharan Africa, to 1.2% for less-developed Asia,
0.6% for North Africa and the Middle East, and 0.5% for Latin America.
15
Including domestic production as well, Haggblade calculated that “in 1980 second-hand
apparel accounted for roughly 10% of all garments acquired in Bangladesh, Pakistan
and the Southern African Customs Union countries… [while] the used clothing share
rose to 20-30% in Benin, Ghana, Togo and Zaire, and it exceeded 50% in Haiti and
Rwanda.”
16
Although some countries and areas account for large proportions of total used-clothes
imports, the trade is highly diversified, even moreso that exports. Worldwide, in the
decade 1984-’93 there were 90 net used-clothes importing countries reporting on
SITC2. But, as we have already seen, Sweden alone had 89 recipients for used-clothes
exports in 1994. SITC1 and partner data shows that worldwide, in the single year 1990,
there were actually twice that many gross importers.
1LQHW\QHWXVHGFORWKHVLPSRUWLQJFRXQWULHV¶
Ninety net importing countries during the period 1984-’93 are shown in Table A10 (in
Appendix 2).
a
In the period, Pakistan was by far the largest net importer, followed,
perhaps surprisingly, by Hong Kong. African, Asian, and Latin American LDCs took up
the next five places, followed by France and then Spain. The next ten places again were
mostly African, Asian, and Latin American LDCs, but Poland and Hungary had also
already moved into the top twenty.
*URVVLPSRUWVRIFRXQWULHVRUWUDGLQJWHUULWRULHVLQ
As discussed in the previous chapter, a much fuller understanding can be gained from
seeing data on gross imports. We already looked briefly at 1984 SITC2 import data in
Chapter 1 (Table A2 in Appendix 2). Tables A11-A13 show 1990 imports for all
countries reporting using SITC1, plus their partner countries and territories: 181 in all.
b
In 1990, France-Monaco was the biggest gross used-clothes importer by value
(US$33,646,000, see Table A11 in Appendix 2), followed by Belgium-Luxembourg,
Pakistan, Netherlands, Tunisia, Hong Kong, Togo, Benin, Singapore, and Zaire. The
a
Missing countries may have had net imports but may have reported data based on an earlier revision of
the SITC code (SITC1), or may not have reported data up to the UN’s standards, or may not have
reported at all. There are also undoubtedly inaccuracies regarding the existing data in this and many of
the other tables herein, due both to unreported, illegally-traded goods, and to under-valued goods; the
magnitude of these inaccuracies would of course be difficult to measure.
b
No 1990 data was found for the following countries or territories: Anguilla, Bhutan, British Virgin Islands,
Christmas Island, Cook Islands, Falkland Islands, Iraq, Maldives, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Mongolia,
North Mariana Islands, Palau, St. Kitts-Nevis, Taiwan, Tokelau, Turks & Caicos, and Western Sahara;
the absence of a listing does not necessarily mean that no trade occurred.
Report of a study for Sida
12
U.S. was in 30
th
place, and Sweden in 53
rd
place (US$1,997,000). By weight (not
ranked on a separate table), Pakistan was in first place, followed by the Netherlands,
both with much lower average import prices than Belgium-Luxembourg or France, which
came next; Tunisia was again in fifth place, but Italy and India had joined Singapore,
Hong Kong and Zaire in rounding out the top ten.
Djibouti had the highest imports per capita with 11.1 kgs (see Table A12 in Appendix 2),
followed by Singapore, Equatorial Guinea, Belgium-Luxembourg, Netherlands, St.
Helena, Togo, Benin, Tunisia, São Tomé & Príncipe, Hong Kong, Jordan, Lebanon,
Gabon, Belize, Macau, and Niue, all with at least one kilogram per person. De Valk
(1992) reported that total annual textile “demand per capita [in Kenya] can be taken as
approximately 0.9 kgs, corresponding with about 4.5 square meters.” All of the countries
listed immediately above imported more than that quantity of used clothes alone in 1990
(re-exports may account for some of the unexpectedly high figures, of course).
Haggblade (1990) reported that “at 0.13 kilograms per capita in 1980, Sub-Saharan
Africa imported approximately one used garment for every third citizen.” In 1990, 78 of
the 181 reported importing countries or territories imported at that level or higher.
Sweden was in 101
st
place with 0.056 kgs, and the U.S. was 137
th
with 0.008 kgs.
In the previous chapter we noted the extreme variation in used-clothes import and
export prices; in 1990, Bahrain had the highest import price (US$30, see Table A13 in
Appendix 2), twice as high as Oman ($15) and three times as high as third place
Gibraltar ($10.50). Japan ($9.43), Guadeloupe ($9.09), Suriname ($7.42), Bahamas,
New Caledonia, Reunion, and Panama rounded out the top ten. Sweden was in 18
th
place (US$4.14), while the U.S. was in 32
nd
place ($2.84). At the low end were
Bangladesh (US$0.41), Netherlands ($0.40), Pakistan (which imported the most weight)
and Nepal (both at $0.38), Morocco ($0.35), and Macau ($0.33).
How are all these used clothes distributed once they are imported into (mostly) less-
developed countries? Both economist Haggblade (regarding Rwanda before its recent
civil war) and anthropologist Karen Tranberg Hansen (regarding Zambia) provide
fascinating glimpses of the process.
'LVWULEXWLRQRIXVHGFORWKHVLQ5ZDQGD
Haggblade (1990) reported
17
that in Rwanda the process “begins with the country’s 14
used clothing importers, who order their merchandise in 45 kilogram bales, requesting
the garments and fabric they believe will sell most readily at each time of year. They
then sell the bales, unopened, to one of 40 wholesalers who stock them around the
country. The wholesalers operate substantial businesses, commonly holding inventories
on the order of 300 to 500 bales at any one time. They in turn sell their bales, still
unbroken, to distributors.”
Haggblade continued: “Distributors buy one to five bales at a time, immediately
transporting the bales, by wheelbarrow or truck, to the outdoor public markets where
used clothing is retailed. Shortly after daybreak, they break open the bales in one
section of the market reserved for that purpose. They then referee a wild mêlée in which
prospective retailers swarm over the merchandise to select the prime articles for resale.
Requiring considerable time and vigilance, the sorting involves lengthy haggling
between distributors and retailers. Distributors, about 700 nation-wide, often retail the
unsold residual directly to consumers.
“Before displaying their wares, retailers must prepare the used clothing for sale. They
contract with market tailors to effect any necessary repair work or fashion-induced
Used Clothes As Development Aid
13
alterations that would improve the value of their merchandise. The retailers then clean
and iron their new stock or hire others to perform these services. This activity attracts a
phalanx of push-pedal sewing machines, coal-fired clothes irons and washing basins
which align the perimeter of the large used clothing markets.
“When their merchandise is presentable, retailers display it in outdoor markets run by
local authorities. In the largest markets, used clothing retailers often specialize—in
shirts, pants or dresses—which they peddle from cement booths shaded by corrugated
metal roofs. While middle-sized markets offer raised wooden platforms on which
clothing can be displayed up off the ground, retailers in the smallest markets display
their used clothing stock on the ground on top of the heavy canvas bale covers. In the
medium and small markets, individual vendors offer a department-store range of
garments which they bundle in canvas bale covers and haul by bicycle or public
transport from one market to another. In all settings, retailing demands assiduous
attention because of the potential for theft and because of customers’ propensity to sift
carefully through merchandise at many establishments before committing to a
purchase. Approximately 4,700 enterprises retail used clothing in Rwanda’s public
markets.”
'LVWULEXWLRQRIXVHGFORWKHVLQ=DPELD
With reference to Zambia, Hansen (1994) reported
18
that “most of the used clothing
currently sold in local markets is imported by fifteen to twenty trading firms and their up-
country outlets. Charitable organizations also import used clothing and are exempt from
customs and duties if their goods are not sold for profit. The volume of second-hand
clothing imported by charitable organizations, and the extent to which donated clothing
is sold for profit, are difficult to estimate.”
Referring to the importers, Hansen said that “some have established links with the
textile manufacturing, dry goods, and transport businesses. These importers purchase
used apparel from dealers in the U.S., Canada, the United Kingdom and several
countries in Europe which includes not only garments but also shoes, handbags, towels,
sheets, blankets and draperies. A small proportion is new, mostly factory overruns and
canceled orders, but most of it is used clothing, bought by textile salvagers at bulk rates
from charities in the West. A good deal of clothing that does not sell in charity shops is
purchased cheaply by dealers, fumigated, sorted, packed into bales and shipped to
Third World destinations.
“Used clothing is exported in standard containers which hold 200 or 400 bales weighing
45 kgs. Most dealers used 45 kg bales, but some prefer 150 kg or 300 kg bales. The
containers are shipped to Zambia via Dar es Salaam [Tanzania], Durban [South Africa]
and Beira [Mozambique]. Importers and clearing agents complain of pilferage at Dar,
the red tape involved in port clearance, and port storage charges. In 1992, Durban was
the preferred port of entry. Used clothing is competitively priced. The figures vary from
US$0.44 per pound
a
c.i.f. (cost, insurance, freight) to a designated port from a
Canadian dealer (May 1991) to US$2.77 per kg c.i.f. to a designated port from an
Australian dealer (July 1992). Port clearance fees, port storage, transportation charges,
a variety of fees, sales tax, and customs duties considerably increase the cost.
“Although importers of used clothing complain of rising costs and uneven quality of
merchandise, they recognize that demand and competition are increasing. Several
a
At 2.2 pounds per kilogram, $0.44 per pound equals $0.97/kg.
Report of a study for Sida
14
importers hope to find new suppliers of quality goods and complain about uneven
quality, especially of the U.S. merchandise—particularly faded, torn, and cut jeans.
They also noted that the West’s cold-weather clothing only sells well during June and
July, the cold months in Zambia. Some considered Australia a potential source of
clothing suitable for a warm climate.
“Importers pass their risks on to local buyers, who have no guarantee of the quality of
the bale’s contents. When purchasing a bale from an importer’s warehouse outlet, the
buyer selects the type of fabric (cotton, polyester, or ‘wool’)
a
and clothing: for example,
FKDQJD FKDQJD (mixed children’s wear); girl’s or women’s dresses, skirts, jackets, or
trousers. There are also bales with mixed fabrics, as well as bales with assorted items,
e.g., women’s wear. The bales are sold unopened, but some dealers allow buyers to
inspect the plastic wrap and the metal straps to determine if the bale has been
tampered with. Looking through the plastic wrap at the variety of colors and prints, the
buyer makes a selection. After the buyer has decided, some dealers open the plastic
cover to allow the buyer a closer look and feel. Of course this does not guarantee
quality, and buyers complain of the many damaged, torn, faded and worn clothes in the
bales.
“The price of a 45 kg bale in 1992 ranged between K15,000 (jerseys), K30,000
(blouses) and K45,000 (jackets), depending on the type of garment and fabric.
b
Prices
increase steadily as importers adjust their prices in response to higher costs and
Zambia’s rapid inflation. Toward the end of June, for instance, a 45 kg bale of women’s
‘silk’ (polyester) blouses cost K34,000. It soon increased to K36,000 and then to
K40,000, and by mid-August the same importer charged K42,000 for a 45 kg bale of
women’s ‘silk’ blouses.
“Trade in used clothing is large and growing in local markets, village shops, and with
itinerant traders on bicycles. The salaula section
c
in markets is many times larger than
the food section in Lusaka and provincial towns. Every township in Lusaka has its
salaula market; the busiest are at Kamwala and Soweto. Each of these markets has an
inside and an outside salaula section. The inside section consists of covered stalls or
small shops; the outside section consists of demarcated plots on which traders build
intricate displays for their goods, or sell them from a pile on the ground. The outside
section is the larger and busier place.
“Salaula traders are young and old, women and men, with different educational and
employment histories and from many ethnic groups. Women slightly outnumber
men…
da
a
Hansen footnotes as follows: “‘Wool’, ‘silk’, and ‘crimplene’ are among the categories into which textile
salvagers sort used clothing. ‘Wool’ includes garments with a mixture of wool and artificial fiber.
Garments of pure wool are sorted for export to Italy, a chief recycler of wool products in today’s textile
world economy. ‘Silk’ refers to garments made mainly of polyester and other man-made fibers, and
‘crimplene’ refers to polyester knits.”
b
Hansen footnotes that “the NZDFKD equivalents of one U.S. dollar changed during the duration of this
research from K155 in June of 1992, to K174 in July, and K186 in September.” Using an average of 170
kwacha per dollar, jerseys thus cost $1.96 per kg, blouses $3.92, and jackets $5.88, at this stage of the
distribution process.
c
6DODXOD “means ‘to select from a pile’ in Bemba”; another term used is “NDXQMLN D which means ‘to pick’ in
Nyanja”—Hansen 1994, p. 506.
d
Hansen continues here with a detailed description of individual traders and trader categories.
Used Clothes As Development Aid
15
“Earnings from salaula sales differ widely and depend on factors such as location,
volume, type of clothing, business practices and competing demands on the trader’s
time and labor…
b
“People from all walks of life explore salaula markets. Some come with a view to buy in
order to resell; others are on the lookout for that special item to complement their
wardrobe. But the majority come to purchase the bulk of their household’s clothing.
Buying for the purpose of reselling occurs in at least two ways. The method of ‘one-one’
involves selecting individual items that are priced separately, usually after a bale has
been opened. At that point a crowd of customers fight for the best items, and some
select particular garments to resell.
“Buying with a view to reselling is also done ‘on order’, especially by rural visitors who
subsequently sell their goods in the villages. Buying ‘on-order’ means buying several
garments at a reduced rate. Often these are items that do not sell well in town. During
the winter season Zimbabwean women and men travel to Lusaka to purchase cold-
weather clothing—coats, jackets, ‘wool’ skirts, and jerseys. To finance their trips and
obtain Zambian currency, they bring Zimbabwean products that are of better quality or
scarce in Zambia, such as blankets, bath soap, tennis shoes, and fashion knitwear.
They sell their Zimbabwean goods to traders in Kamwala and Soweto markets and
purchase salaula with the Zambian currency earned by these sales. Or they exchange
their goods directly for salaula without any cash transaction.
“Items that do not sell well in the city are brought by rural people or taken to the
countryside by urban traders for sale or exchange. Such items include crimplene
(polyester knit) garments, men’s trousers in bright colors like red, green, and yellow,
men’s trousers and jackets of fabrics with large checks, and faded, torn and damaged
items. Some traders make occasional rural trips and bring back chickens, fish, or
produce… [while] villagers go to town particularly to purchase salaula for resale in rural
areas…
“Customers evaluate their merchandise when purchasing a bale from a dealer by
scrutinizing the plastic wrap and the metal straps to ensure that the bale has not been
tampered with. Dealers who import bales larger than the standard ones open, sort and
rebale items into 45 kg bales. Some Indian dealers are said to remove choice items in
the process of rebaling; clothing presorted in this way is said to end up in shops. The
customer’s scrutiny in the dealer’s warehouse reflects the preference for bales whose
contents are fresh from their western source, untouched by dealer interference, and
thus offering a range of ‘new’ items.
“The concern with ‘newness’ is particularly evident on ‘opening day’, when a bale is
broken up for resale. At this point, it is important that garments have not been meddled
with, and traders and customers prefer to open a bale publicly, enabling customers to
select on the spot. A bale that is opened in the market is considered to contain new
a
Rona Alexander of Oxfam notes: “Employment is created by the second-hand clothes industry as well as
damaged by it—so who are the winners and losers? Preliminary indications are that in some countries
the trade creates employment opportunities for women”—personal communication, May 1995.
b
Here Hansen describes why it is difficult to make “profits” in this business, because, among other things,
“other claims on the earnings make it difficult…” There seems to be a confusion of the lack of profits (or
the lack of retained earnings for investment) with the fact that the profits—or, indeed, returns to labor—
have been spent for other purposes—which she also recognizes: “Many explained that there is ‘no use in
keeping books because we don’t see the money,’ which is to say that earnings from salaula readily
disappear into the daily consumption budget.”
Report of a study for Sida
16
clothes. If it is opened privately, the trader might put aside choice items, causing
customers to suspect that they are being presented with a second cut, and not new
clothing.
“Both traders and customers are concerned with quality and style. These concerns
prompt extensive recycling. Items made of fabrics that do not sell easily, for example
crimplene, are turned into a variety of new garments. Crimplene trousers are remade
into boys’ shorts and girls’ dresses. Sweaters are unraveled and the yarn re-used to
crochet or knit baby blankets, jerseys, and rugs. Curtain material with colorful prints is
made into women’s dresses and suits, draperies with metallic sheen become men’s
trousers, and curtain lace ends up as trains of wedding gowns. The small-scale tailors
who used to sew everyday garments have recouped lost business by repairing and
altering salaula. Traders and customers bring men’s trousers in large sizes to the tailor
to alter and restyle with pleats at the waist, back pockets, and pegged bottoms. Tailors
also sew up vents on men’s jackets and turn single-breasted jackets into double-
breasted FKLOXEDV«
a
“Some salaula is sold in more exclusive shops, such as the Caroussel Botique [sic]…
[which] advertises its line of ‘imported cloths’ in styles of ‘London Wise’… Their shop
features cleaned, pressed and restyled clothing at prices slightly higher than elsewhere
in the market. According to the owners, everyone knows this shop, and customers come
from all over town to buy ‘the latest’, especially nicely restyled FKLOXEDV Emblematic of
changes following president Frederick Chiluba’s take-over from Kenneth Kaunda, the
FKLOXED suit’s replacement of Kaunda’s rigid Mao-inspired uniform tells a story of the
opening up of society, of new opportunities, and above all, of the common man’s
access. ‘The common man’ was the previous regime’s term for the masses. In short,
salaula implies choice and possibility, of better lives being with reach…”
6XPPDU\DQGFRQFOXVLRQV
,PSRUWVSULPDULO\WR/'&VZHOOIXQFWLRQLQJGRPHVWLFXVHGFORWKHVPDUNHWVORWV
RIHPSOR\PHQWJHQHUDWHG
Although most used-clothes exports go to LDCs (in 1990, about 70% by value, much
more by weight), and perhaps most tend to go to the poorest countries among them, still
the trade is extremely diverse, with many major importers among the industrial nations.
That most exports go to LDCs is no surprise; it is totally consistent with micro-data
reported in Haggblade’s study
19
—which we will review shortly—supporting the notion of
used clothes as a generally inferior good: That is, as incomes go up (beyond a rather
low threshold), people tend to buy less used clothes, rather than more. But it is
somewhat surprising that there are such voluminous used-clothes imports into industrial
countries, though the major instances may be accounted for largely by re-exporting and
recycling. Nevertheless, as we noted in the previous chapter, there is great variation of
a
The extent of “restyling” in less-developed countries is also attested to by Tom De Herdt of the University
of Antwerp, based on his research on the textile sector in Bukavu-Zaire: “‘Used clothes’ are not
necessarily used as clothes in the third world; many used clothes coming from abroad are ‘deconstructed’
by local artisans, in order to use the components in ‘new’ clothes… These [small] enterprises appear to
be the most efficient in the sector…” And Ben Blevins-Salic says regarding Guatemala: “[Used clothing]
creates a cottage industry for many Guatemalans, like [his] wife’s family. They make alterations in the
clothes and sell them on the local market, or cut up used clothes for material, which is much less
expensive than buying new material for making new clothes. The trade in used clothes is to-scale for the
locals, and they can raise sufficient capital to fund such an operation. To produce clothes from new
materials and put together a distribution network is only for the very small elite with access to much more
capital.”—personal communications, April 1995.
Used Clothes As Development Aid
17
quality and purpose (and price) within the general category of “used clothes”, and it is
apparent that they are not MXVW an inferior good, but can also be a fashion statement, for
instance—and this is just as true in LDCs as in industrial countries.
According to widespread evidence, there seem to be very well-functioning domestic
used-clothes markets in most LDCs, and lots of employment generated. The sorting
which is first carried out by NGOs or commercial exporters in industrial countries is
carried many steps further in less-developed countries, and in the process used clothes
are cleaned, repaired, restyled, and distributed hither and yon, according to highest
market value and, presumably, best purpose.
Report of a study for Sida
18
Used Clothes As Development Aid
19
&KDSWHU7KH*HQHUDO&RQWH[WRIWKH8VHG&ORWKHV7UDGH
This chapter deals with popular (producer, labor union and mass media) and
governmental attitudes to the voluminous used-clothes trade we have just looked at,
pointing out that there are some very strong negative feelings towards used-clothes
markets in some parts of the Third World (and elsewhere); but also showing that
national governments have not generally succumbed to pressure to restrict imports in
any extraordinary way, and in fact the trend seems to be the other way, towards
opening markets. While we believe it is important to understand this context for world
used-clothes trade, none of this chapter is essential for understanding our specific
conclusions regarding subsidies for used-clothes exports. (The parts describing
producer, labor union and mass media attitudes should certainly put up a warning flag
about such subsidies, however.) The next chapter deals with NGO attitudes towards
and involvement in the used-clothes trade, and may thus be the most directly relevant to
our final conclusions.
We noted in the Introduction that there are four possible sets of answers to the
questions whether used-clothes imports generally, and subsidies thereon specifically,
were good or bad (Table 0 from the Introduction is repeated as Table 10, below). There
are strong intuitive arguments for both extreme positions (columns 1 and 4). On the one
hand, sending surplus used clothes to less-developed countries may provide a low-cost
income-transfer which actually contributes to building productive capacity, by increasing
the stock of human capital in the form of better-clothed workers (this might be the
position represented by column 1, especially the bottom half). Other used goods which
may be donated, such as used agricultural or medical equipment, bicycles, computers
or books, may even more obviously contribute to capital accumulation, and thus to the
development of productive capacity.
7DEOH4XDOLWDWLYHHIIHFWVRIXVHGFORWKHVLPSRUWVDQGRIVXEVLGLHVWKHUHRQ
effects of: 1 2 3 4
used-clothes imports good good bad bad
subsidies thereon better bad good worse
(not the best) (in catastrophes)
If supplies are consistent and not wildly fluctuating (especially for any necessary goods),
so that dependence does not lead to disruption and further hardship, then one could
consider used clothes like any other goods, assuming that countries should produce
their products of comparative advantage, and import the rest (this position is
represented by the top of columns 1 and 2). Of course there may be social costs as
established industries adjust to cheaper imports, but in the long-run these costs should
be more than compensated for by increased productivity and income. And, assuming
that freight and transaction costs are properly accounted for, there would certainly seem
to be some environmental benefits from using still-serviceable goods (including surplus
used clothes), rather than disposing of them, and manufacturing more elsewhere on our
ecologically-strained planet.
a
a
Indeed, this goes to the heart of our understanding of economics itself: Is it better to produce and
consume more, or to have wealth? For instance, would it be better to have clothes which wore out daily,
thus requiring more production and consumption, or to have wealth in the form of clothes which lasted
Report of a study for Sida
20
However, others point out the disincentive effects on production, in which workers lose
jobs and income when cheap imports suddenly become widely available. Thus they
would argue against subsidization of exports, and perhaps in favor of tariffs or outright
bans on imports (this would be column 4). Still others might argue that, although there
may currently be no local textile or clothing industry to protect, development of such
industries is a necessary first step in industrial development—or is one of the most
convenient and beneficial industries to begin with, given that it requires relatively little
capital to enter, and that clothing may claim a major share of the household budget in
economies where incomes are low—and that there may be extra advantages in the
form of skills and experience gained. Thus they might argue that imports must be
banned (and certainly not subsidized), in order to promote the development of “infant
industries”.
A further range of controversy concerns the commercial export of used clothes which
have been initially donated to charities in industrial countries. Donors may not realize
that their donated clothes are being sold on the market, rather than being given away
free to the poorest of the poor. To state it simply, the question is whether there is a
place for market-based, profit-motivated businesses in the distribution of donated used
clothes, or whether all steps in the process should be on a nonprofit basis. Although this
question does not seem very closely related to the most specific question we have been
asked to address, whether exports of used clothes directly by charitable NGOs should
be subsidized by Sida, the issues it raises may prove enlightening as well, and we will
investigate them further below. A philosophical note on the origin of markets, and their
social and political context, is included in Appendix 4.
Because used-clothes exports arouse such strong feelings and contradictory
arguments, this report may be of interest not only to Sida, but perhaps to Swedish
NGOs, and possibly even to LDC governments and textile and clothing producers
(including labor unions) as well. Consequently, within the basic framework of our terms
of reference, we will attempt a fairly full exploration of the broad context of used-clothes
exports and, throughout, will attempt to explain economic terms, theory and
methodology somewhat thoroughly.
This is an economic study but, although we have specifically been asked to consider
“effects on income distribution, employment, institutional structure, environment, etc.”,
including “effects on supply and demand, growth effects, and other long-term effects on
production and the production structure”, we have also been asked to consider “other
questions that might come up during the course of the work and that might seem
relevant.”
20
Thus we will also try to identify and categorize some of the more important non-market
factors—such as social and political factors—which should also concern us. For
instance, one motivation for NGO and Sida involvement in used-clothes exports may be
a feeling of solidarity (social bonds or identity), on the part of the Swedish people, with
people in less-developed countries. On the other hand, particular countries may choose
to ban used-clothes imports (legally and politically; or to impose high tariffs on used-
clothes imports), possibly because of their effects on particular power groups in those
countries, regardless of any overall economic benefits that might be possible from
imports. Or, although not limiting used-clothes imports, powerful groups in some
longer and were consumed more slowly, thus allowing effort to be expended on other goods and
services? Upon reflection, the answer to this question, at least, seems clear.
Used Clothes As Development Aid
21
countries might be offended by them for various cultural reasons, especially if they were
to be subsidized as part of “development assistance”.
We have just seen (in Chapters 1 and 2, above) that there are very substantial
worldwide flows of used clothes, and that lots of them are ending up in less-developed
countries. Although over time those flows seem to constitute a fairly constant share of
total worldwide trade in textiles and clothing, they nevertheless have been increasing
dramatically in absolute terms, more than doubling over the past decade, for instance.
Flows of new textiles and clothing in the opposite direction, from LDCs to industrial
countries, have been increasing equally dramatically over the same period. Still, we can
understand that there might be protectionist sentiment aimed against used-clothes
imports in less-developed countries, just as there is a history of protectionist sentiment
aimed against new-clothes imports in industrial countries (witness the history of the
Multi-Fiber Arrangement
21
).
Whether based on thorough, accurate, in-depth economic analysis or not, it is important
that we understand these protectionist sentiments: They constitute one of the most
important ingredients in the overall context of used-clothes imports into less-developed
countries. Naturally enough, it is textile and clothing producers in LDCs, primarily
represented by their producer organizations and labor unions, who believe that there is
net economic damage from used-clothes imports. Consequently, we will begin this
chapter with a review of some producer-organization damage estimates and some
union and labor organization documents. This point of view (which we have associated
with column 4 of Table 10, above) has occasionally been strongly represented in the
mass media as well, and we will take a look at some Western examples, as well as
looking briefly at an example of what may be a more balanced, African media view.
Protectionist sentiment focuses primarily on getting LDC governments to impose high
tariffs on used-clothes imports, or to ban such imports altogether. Consequently, in the
second half of this chapter we will review the recent history and current state of trade
regulations regarding used-clothes imports. We will see that there seems to be no
current trend in favor of increased protection against used-clothes imports, but rather a
trend towards increased openness, as part of general global trade liberalization. Thus,
leaving aside the more specific question of subsidies, we will find that most LDC
governments take positions associated with the top half of the first two columns in Table
10, which we characterized simply as “trade is good”.
The other major players in the used-clothes business (besides the commercial
exporters and importers, whom we might expect to favor free trade) are the non-
governmental organizations (NGOs) which collect used-clothes in industrial countries
and which are involved in humanitarian and development work worldwide. In the next
chapter we will examine the attitudes and practices of a number of NGOs, both
international organizations, and specifically Swedish ones. We will see that some of the
NGOs recently espoused the position represented by column 1 (used-clothes as a
development tool directly), but that, partly for reasons represented in the top halves of
columns 3 and 4 (the concern that commercial trade is damaging to local producers),
many of them now essentially agree with the conclusions to which this report comes
(represented by a combination of columns 2 and 3: the effects of trade are not totally
clear; but subsidies are generally not the best, although necessary in catastrophes).
To begin with, we want to look at and be aware of some popular images (especially
negative images) of the used-clothes trade. Because several labor union and mass
media documents we wish to review are rather lengthy, they are found in Appendix 5.
Report of a study for Sida
22
While we will note (both here and in Appendix 5) some weaknesses in the arguments
and rhetoric presented, our main point is that many people in Third World countries,
and some of their sympathizers elsewhere, have very strong negative feelings about the
used-clothes trade. Given that Sida and the various Swedish NGOs have no desire to
offend those people, it would be well to be aware of their feelings.
3RSXODULPDJHVSURGXFHURUJDQL]DWLRQVODERUXQLRQVDQGWKHPDVVPHGLD
The Zimbabwe Clothing Council—a producer organization—is very aware of the
increasing level of used-clothes imports in that country, and believes that there has
been very significant damage to their industry because of it.
a
Assuming garment-for-
garment displacement,
b
the Council concludes that the 55 twenty-foot-long containers of
used clothes which were imported illegally or by charitable organizations in 1994, each
containing roughly 40,000 garments, resulted in at least 5,300 lost jobs in textile and
garment production,
c
or, considering families, a loss of subsistence for 34,450 people.
22
This is not insignificant, and when generalized across the Third World, one can imagine
widespread hardship and permanent damage resulting from what used-clothes donors
in industrial countries take to be charitable giving.
Naturally, labor unions representing Third World clothing-industry workers also feel
strongly about the issue, and have lobbied for international action against the used-
clothes trade. In 1992 the International Textile, Garment, and Leather Workers’
Federation (ITGLWF) adopted the following resolution against the used-clothes trade:
“NOTING that massive imports of used clothing have created unemployment for textile
and clothing workers in many countries of the world;
“CONCERNED at the fraud practised by unscrupulous companies trading in used
clothing, who import it as illegal contraband by mixing it with new clothing…
d
“DEPLORES the trade in charitable contributions of used clothing which results in the
export of used clothing at such low prices that the wages and conditions of textile and
clothing workers are undermined and many jobs are lost;
“DEPLORES the attitude of governments who close their eyes to this deplorable
situation, thus creating unemployment and health risks for consumers, given that the
origin of the clothing and the physical health of the previous owner are not known;
e
a
In Chapter 4 we will review a study (Denconsult 1993) which came to a different conclusion, namely, that
recent damage to the Zimbabwean clothing industry was primarily caused by trade problems with South
Africa and low domestic demand due to drought, combined with competition by low-cost new garments
from Asian producers.
b
This means that, if cheap used-clothes had not been available, an equal number of much more expensive
domestically-produced new clothes would have been purchased, which is a highly unrealistic assumption,
leaving aside completely, as it does, the question of ability to pay. A more realistic assumption might have
been that roughly one-fourth that number of new garments would have been purchased, since they
probably cost (on average) about four times as much.
c
A more thorough analysis would also consider both employment generated in the used-clothes sector and
possible employment generated in other sectors, due to growth made possible by the increased real
income provided by cheap imports—in other words, if people would have spent money on new clothes
but now did not do so, what did they spend their money on instead?
d
Some countries levy a higher rate of duty on used clothes than on new clothes, apparently providing an
incentive for importers to disguise used clothes by mixing them in with new clothes.
e
We have not studied the health risks of used-clothes imports, but we will see in the next chapter that only
a very few countries require such health certifications—even including the industrial countries, many of
which, as we have already seen, are very active used-clothes importers themselves.
Used Clothes As Development Aid
23
“AWARE that most of this used clothing is donated by people in the United States and
other countries to charities such as Goodwill and the Salvation Army,
a
with the intention
that it will be used to assist people in need when in reality it is sold for profit;
b
“URGES that used clothing donated for the poor should be used for that purpose and
distributed free of charge, thus avoiding the trade in used clothing which has been
occurring; …”
c
The position above was further elaborated in a draft resolution submitted by the
Workers’ Group to the February 1995 International Labour Organization (ILO) Technical
Meeting for the Clothing Industry, and reproduced in Appendix 5 (with some perhaps
contradictory passages italicized for emphasis).
Given such strong producer organization and labor union opposition to the used-clothes
trade, it is not surprising that similar themes occasionally have been picked up in the
mass media. Our first example (also found in Appendix 5), much more rhetorical than
the somewhat dry resolutions above, is actually from a union newspaper, Free Labour
World, dated June 1993, and the author is Neil Kearney, general secretary of the
ITGLWF, whom we also quoted briefly in the Introduction. Other examples (in Appendix
5) come from the Canadian media (Ottawa Citizen, 1993). We will reproduce here only
one short example, from the Latin American media:
23
“The used-goods merchants are netting huge profits… Earnings on used shirts and
dresses are high, with intermediaries averaging profits of 200%… Used car dealers
earn up to 600% profit…
d
Economists say Latin America has entered an era of
backdoor imports and they describe this as a spinoff of recession and neoliberalism…
Experts such as [a sociologist]… said it is no longer a question of importing goods and
technology but of making do with obsolete, discarded material and garbage…
e
[A]
political scientist… said Latin Americans ‘can no longer dream of wealth, but only of the
crumbs of opulence. The most we can hope for is to be secondhand rich’.”
$SRVVLEO\PRUHEDODQFHG$IULFDQPHGLDYLHZ
Under intense pressure from local producers (and presumably from the workers’ union
as well), the government of Zimbabwe has just recently (summer 1995) introduced a
very substantial (perhaps, theoretically, prohibitive) import-duty on used clothes. But
The Financial Gazette, published in Harare, reported
24
that:
“Last week’s introduction of import duty on second-hand clothing will not change the
fortunes of the clothing and textile industry, which is currently in the doldrums due to an
a
Why the U.S. and its two chief used-clothes collecting charities are singled out for attention is unclear; it is
true that the U.S. provides almost 40% of world net exports of used clothes (see Table 5, above), but
Europe provides over 50%.
b
This overlooks what is done with the funds gained from “selling for profit”, which may in fact be used “to
assist people in need”. “Selling for profit” which provides consumers with cheap but usable goods may
also “assist people in need”, namely, the poor people who mostly buy used clothes.
c
For further discussion of this issue, see the second “philosophical note” in Appendix 4.
d
In much of this literature there seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding of business accounting (let
alone economic accounting) and of commerce, of the function and activities of “middlemen”: Quite apart
from the question of distinguishing between business profits and economic profits, a business is normally
allowed to deduct its costs—including, for instance, the reasonable labor cost of the owner—before
declaring the remainder “profits”. As for “middlemen”, if they were serving no real distributional function,
would they not have been circumvented long ago, to increase the “profits” of all the other parties?
e
Or good quality stuff, hardly worn—the image seems to change at will.
Report of a study for Sida
24
assortment of problems, sources within the industry have said. There is general
consensus within the sector that the introduction of import duty on second-hand clothing
is a short-term measure, likely to benefit clothing and textile retailers who service the
domestic market, more than manufacturers who need to export… [One major textile
company executive said the measure] would not in any way help resuscitate the sector,
which needs exports to break even. He said large quantities of textile and clothing
products would continue to be smuggled into the country, willy nilly, despite the new
import duty… [T]he only permanent solution to the industry’s woes was the signing of a
trade agreement with South Africa and the reduction of interest rates, which currently
stand at over 30%… High interest rates, withdrawal of tariff protection, coupled with the
scrapping of the 9% export incentive scheme last year, contributed to the poor
performance of the local industry…”
1DWLRQDOJRYHUQPHQWXVHGFORWKHVWUDGHSROLFLHVDQGSUDFWLFHV
Given the horror stories that we have just reviewed (including those in Appendix 5), it
would not be surprising if many other countries besides Zimbabwe had recently
clamped down on used-clothes imports, with high tariffs or outright bans. In fact a few
do ban used-clothes imports, or impose prohibitive tariffs or impossible licensing
procedures. But most are relatively open to imports—that is, with tariffs in the same
range as for other clothing and textile products—and the worldwide trend generally
seems to be towards greater liberalization.
Spain and some former Spanish colonies seem to present a bit of an anomaly from this
trend, so we will look at their import practices first, followed by those of other industrial,
transitional, and new industrial economies, and finally those of other less-developed
countries. Details are provided in Appendix 6; only a brief summary is provided here.
Appendix 6 concludes with an illustrative look at the textile industry in Senegal, which is
interesting in the context of the larger question in our Terms of Reference (regarding
used clothes DQG RWKHU XVHG JRRGV because of Senegal’s current and historical
reliance on second-hand textile factories. More to the immediate point, it illustrates the
complex context in which the textile industry seems to operate in many African
countries, under various forms of government protection and mismanagement, and now
beset by the increasing tide of used-clothes imports.
As we saw in Chapter 2, most industrial countries have significant used-clothes imports
as well as exports. Spain seems to be the only industrial country with unusual (virtually
prohibitory) restrictions on used-clothes imports, but it nevertheless does import
substantial amounts of used clothes, and is also a significant used-clothes exporter.
Worldwide, several former Spanish colonies also either still have or have recently lifted
unusual restrictions on used-clothes imports, including Mexico, Chile, Venezuela,
Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, and the Philippines. Even those which maintain unusual
restrictions still import substantial amounts of used clothes, and many are themselves
significant used-clothes exporters as well. Several have recently relaxed unusual
restrictions, or removed them entirely, and many other former Spanish colonies seem
not to have ever imposed them, or at least not to have had them recently.
Among transitional economies, only Bulgaria and Hungary seem to have unusual
restrictions on used-clothes imports, though Bulgaria’s is not very severe, and
Hungary’s (a quota system) is directed at all consumer goods, not just at used clothes.
Poland and Russia have both had large used-clothes imports recently.
Used Clothes As Development Aid
25
None of the new industrial economies of East and Southeast Asia impose any unusual
restrictions on used-clothes imports, although tariffs may be quite high on apparel and
related products generally.
Egypt bans most textile and garment imports including used clothes, although partner
data for 1990 indicates that Egypt imported a large amount (and also exported a small
amount) of used clothes in that year. Despite the fact that Israel has free trade
agreements with the EU, EFTA, and the U.S., it also bans used-clothes imports, but
again, partner data shows both imports and exports.
Despite strongly growing used-clothes imports in Sub-Saharan Africa, there seems to
be a trend towards greater liberalization of the trade. South Africa seems to allow
imports only for charitable purposes (that is, to be given away, not sold). Nigeria bans
import of all textiles and apparel, but nevertheless tolerates significant smuggling, of
used-clothes in particular. Cameroon lifted a ban on used-clothes imports in 1991; Chad
and Cote D’Ivoire in 1992; Tanzania liberalized in the 1980s. Other African countries
seem to have normal tariffs on used clothes, in the range of 45-90%, and trade is brisk,
as we have seen.
6XPPDU\DQGFRQFOXVLRQV
9HU\VWURQJQHJDWLYHIHHOLQJVWRZDUGVWKHXVHGFORWKHVWUDGHLPDJHVRIWHQ
VHHPH[DJJHUDWHGDQGDUJXPHQWVZHDNQHYHUWKHOHVVFDXWLRQPD\EHDGYLVHG
RQO\DIHZFRXQWULHVZRUOGZLGHKDYHH[FHSWLRQDOUHVWULFWLRQVRQXVHGFORWKHV
LPSRUWVWKH\RIWHQDOORZLPSRUWVLQSUDFWLFHDQGPDQ\DUHWKHPVHOYHVXVHG
FORWKHVH[SRUWHUV
Many of the arguments and much of the rhetoric used against the used-clothes trade
seem wildly exaggerated and, upon analysis, many of the points made seem rather
weak or fallacious. Nevertheless, the overriding impression must be of very strong
negative feelings, attached to very strong perceptions of very severe damage being
done. This is something that Sida and relevant Swedish NGOs should be aware of (and
may in fact be the main reason why this study was requested).
If one believed that exports of used clothes to less-developed countries resulted mainly
in jobs lost in those countries, one might consider that to be a strong argument against
subsidizing such exports. But also, if one thought that many people in those countries
EHOLHYHG there were such net losses—even if one did not believe it oneself—one might
still consider that to be a strong argument against subsidizing such exports. Thus, given
the extreme hostility of most of the images of the used-clothes trade we have just
reviewed, one might want to be somewhat cautious about subsidizing used-clothes
exports for that reason alone. Given the potential for contributing to a destructive or
wasteful effect—or at least to the perception of a destructive effect by industries which
lose sales and employees who lose jobs—it might not seem prudent for Sida to be seen
as subsidizing used-clothes exports by NGOs.
While we have not attempted to do an exhaustive search of the popular media on the
subject of used-clothes collection and redistribution, there seem to be two general
themes in most of what we have just reviewed: One is that used-clothes exports to less-
developed countries have a disincentive effect on local production, putting local
garment-producers out of work; the other is that individual clothes-donors (and the
general public) in industrial countries are sometimes shocked to discover that used
clothes are being sold “for profit”, rather than being given away free to “the poorest of
the poor”. An even broader expression of this issue is the question whether it is proper
Report of a study for Sida
26
for commercial “for-profit” companies to have any involvement at all in the redistribution
of used clothes which were originally donated by individuals to charities—not just in
selling surplus used clothes overseas, but even in running commercial for-profit second-
hand shops in industrial countries, and actually conducting the used-clothes collections
themselves. In the next chapter we will take a brief look at this issue.
Trying to solve the former problem (lost jobs) as the ITGLWF urges, by catering to the
second concern (only giving clothes away free to the poorest of the poor) probably does
not solve the disincentive problem, as we discuss at some length in the second part of
Appendix 4. Given our own analysis in later chapters, it is encouraging to find that an
influential African voice does not seem to share in the complete demonization of the
used-clothes trade like most of the other examples above.
At least so far, most governments worldwide do not seem convinced by producer
organization, labor union, and media images of—and arguments against—the used-
clothes trade. Most seem to take the general view that trade is positive, not just when
their producers can export to foreign markets, but also when their consumers can get
cheaper goods from foreign sources. There are high tariffs on used-clothes in many
countries, just as there are on textiles and garments generally, to protect domestic
industries; but it is primarily some former Spanish colonies (and Spain itself), plus a
scattering of other countries, that have exceptional restrictions on used-clothes. Even
the countries which impose exceptional restrictions often seem to have substantial
used-clothes imports anyway and, when we look at the trade data in Appendix 2, we
see that they are usually exporters as well.
Used Clothes As Development Aid
27
&KDSWHU 1*2$WWLW XGHVDQG, QYROYHPHQW L QW KH8VHG &ORW KHV7UDGH
In the previous chapter we saw that there are very strong producer, union, and media
pressures aiming to ban or severely restrict the used-clothes trade, and yet most
national trade policies are as open to trade in used-clothes as they are to trade in
textiles and new clothes. To conclude this section on the used-clothes trade and its
general context, and before we begin our own analysis of the economic effects of that
trade, we want to review Swedish and international NGO attitudes and practices
towards used-clothes exports in general, and more specifically towards used clothes as
emergency or development aid. We want to have some idea of how NGOs utilize used
clothes, and we would like to know to what extent they effectively reach and help “the
poorest of the poor” with clothes aid.
In Appendix 7 we review and discuss at greater length a recent study entitled Promoting
Development by Proxy: The Development Impact of Government Support to Swedish
NGOs (Riddell, 1994) which analyzes the development impact of Swedish NGOs in
general. The spirit of the Riddell report is well expressed in the following quote: “To the
extent that Swedish taxpayers’ money is not being put to its best use, it is ultimately the
poor people in developing countries who are the losers. The recommendations given
here are made with the express purpose of trying to ensure that these state funds,
channelled through Swedish NGOs, are used to the maximum advantage of the poor.
To the extent that efforts are not made to enhance efficiency, it is not the Swedish
NGOs which will be the ultimate losers, it will be the poor themselves.”
25
One of the most frequent claims made on behalf of NGO development activities is that
NGOs are most innovative and know best how to target the very poor. It is also often
asserted more specifically that subsidized used-clothes exports do not damage local
textile or clothing production because they go only (or primarily) to the poorest of the
poor. In Appendix 4 we discuss the likelihood that, even if used-clothes were actually
distributed only to the very poor—who perhaps could not otherwise afford to enter the
market for clothing—probably a large percentage of the used clothes would find their
way onto the market anyway, so that the assertion of lack of damage is probably
fallacious. Now, however, we want to look at the assumption that the clothes actually
get to “the poorest of the poor” in the first place.
The Riddell report concludes that Swedish NGOs are not generally effective at reaching
and helping the poorest of the poor, largely because they have an inadequate
understanding of poverty, and lack an in-depth understanding of markets: “The staff and
experience of Swedish NGOs do not equip them well, nor predispose them, to focus on
analytic issues related to income and employment generation, or markets and market
analysis… The challenge of generating income and employment in stagnant economies
where markets are weak or absent surpasses the resources and capacities of many
Swedish NGOs.”
26
Thus we will review not only the specific question of the extent to
which used clothes exported by Swedish NGOs reach the very poor, but also the more
general question of their understanding of poverty and markets, as revealed in recent
studies of their activities with used clothes.
As we saw in Chapter 1, the four major Swedish organizations exporting used clothes
are UFF (Utlandshjälp från Folk till Folk, or Development Aid from People to People
a
),
a
Sometimes referred to in English as DAPP, but for consistency we will stick to the Swedish acronym UFF.
Report of a study for Sida
28
PS (Praktisk Solidaritet, or Practical Solidarity), Myrorna (an agency of
Frälsningsarmén, the Salvation Army), and SRC (Svenska Röda Korset, the Swedish
Red Cross). Individual studies have reviewed the used-clothes export practices of both
UFF (Interconsult, 1990a; and Denconsult, 1993) and the Swedish Red Cross (SRC,
April and May, 1992); and another earlier study reviewed used-clothes exports
specifically to Mozambique of both UFF and PS (Abrahamsson, 1988). In addition,
another Interconsult study (1990b) reviewed the dependence of PS on Sida funding for
used-clothes collection and related activities in Sweden, after which PS cut costs and
increased sales of used-clothes in Sweden to reduce that dependence.
27
We have reviewed the above studies and have also discussed the issues involved in
the current study with each of the organizations covered. The previous studies are
almost all a little out of date now because of historical and organization changes since
they were done, but they provide some glimpse of how the organizations have operated
in the recent past. We will summarize and discuss them below, noting subsequent
changes in policies and practices where we are aware of them.
We will also briefly review the attitudes and policies of some non-Swedish and
international NGOs, and we will conclude with a review of some issues surrounding “for-
profit” firms’ involvement in NGO activities.
7KHQDNHGWUXWK36DQG8))XVHGFORWKHVH[SRUWVWR0R]DPELTXH
The 1988 study Den Nakna Sanningen (The Naked Truth) recommended increased
shipment of used clothes to Mozambique by Swedish charitable organizations
(specifically PS and UFF), as well as development of increased sorting and handling
capacity in Mozambique—and it recommended increased Sida aid for those purposes—
for the following 10 reasons:
28
1. Clothes are a basic need; if the need is met, significant economic effects can result.
Swedish clothes aid to Mozambique is a good example: The clothes reach the
target groups and, through their use, contribute to increased employment in the
countryside and to improved production of food for sale.
2. Clothes are scarce in Mozambique, where domestic production can barely supply
10% of the need. Aid recipients will need support—at a much increased level—for
the next 5-10 years.
3. Used clothes are a surplus item in Sweden, and thus resources will be wasted if
they are not utilized.
4. The clothes which are sent are of high quality, with an average remaining life of 2/3
of the original. The cost for transporting the clothes (SEK 7/kg)
a
is low in relation to
the clothes’ value to the receivers.
5. In general, Swedish clothing aid has no negative effect on local textile production.
6. The alternative cost for import of new fabric or new clothes from competitive
suppliers on the world market would be 4-5 times higher.
7. Swedish clothing aid constitutes a very important complement to other Swedish aid.
8. The sending organizations have a well-functioning relationship with the receiving
organizations, and both have capacity to handle increased quantities of used
clothes.
9. Clothes aid is very effective aid, and the receivers give a high priority to this aid.
a
SEK is the designation for Swedish kronor: Over the last decade, the exchange rate has generally
fluctuated between SEK 5-8 per U.S. dollar.
Used Clothes As Development Aid
29
10. Clothes aid strengthens the interest of the Swedish people in development issues,
and thus their willingness to give aid.
The reasons given in this study for increased used-clothes exports, and subsidies
thereon, can perhaps be summarized more briefly as follows: People need clothes to
work. Used clothes have value and should not be wasted. The receivers like receiving
subsidized used-clothes. People in Sweden like to help others by donating their used
clothes. The sending and receiving organizations work well together. Because there is
insufficient production in Mozambique, there is no effect on the market. To import new
clothes would cost much more. Sending used clothes helps in a way that other Swedish
aid does not.
We would not disagree with any of these reasons, except to point out that, even if there
is insufficient production at any given time, subsidizing used-clothes imports might
reduce the incentive to increase domestic production later, as we will discuss further in
Chapter 8. But this view of the situation seems to rely exclusively on social and political
remedies, and in analyzing alternatives, overlooks markets almost entirely. It overlooks
alternative uses of the used clothes, as well as alternative sources of used clothes. In
addition, it overlooks alternative uses of the funds used for subsidies, such as for
employment- and income-generating projects. Thus, in the specific context of used-
clothes exports, it seems to confirm the characterization of Swedish NGOs—as given in
the Riddell report—as lacking an adequate conceptualization of poverty and
understanding of markets.
A more detailed look at this study indicates that markets were in fact playing a big role
in NGO thinking even in 1988. “The aim of clothing support is to motivate the rural
population to increase surplus production for marketing purposes… Recipient
[organizations] sell the major part of the… clothing to intended target groups, in
exchange for either agricultural products or money… The income which results from
these sales is in part used to create so-called development funds. The objective of
these funds is to provide the means for locally-based development projects (for
example, garment-sewing, road maintenance, warehouses, etc.).”
29
Nevertheless, “it is true that the clothing support does not always match local
consumption patterns. This is so mostly for women in rural areas. The traditional
‘capulanas’ are especially in great demand. Due to a lack of availability, women cut up
dresses and skirts and turn them into capulanas. Even men partly adjust clothing to
local requirements. This is especially true for trousers which are cut into shorts more
suitable for agricultural work.”
30
While we have seen similar “restyling” behavior in
descriptions of the commercial markets in Rwanda and Zambia, in the current case this
may also indicate that markets have been by-passed at one or more stages in the
distribution process, with resulting inefficiency.
It is asserted with apparent approval that “the [collecting] organizations have ‘eliminated’
competition from commercial enterprises which collect clothing for sale on the world
market.”
31
There is also the following somewhat limited discussion of alternative
sources: “Another alternative to Swedish clothing support is the importation of second-
hand clothing from the USA on a commercial basis. This alternative is, however, more
expensive. Commercially imported second-hand clothing is also of somewhat lower
quality.”
32
But in fact, data reported to the UN (shown in Table 11, below) shows that,
during the period in question, there were a great number of used-clothes suppliers to
Mozambique, at a great range of prices. While it is true that reported values (and thus
calculated prices) may have been assigned somewhat arbitrarily in some cases
Report of a study for Sida
30
(assuming that some of the clothes were donated, not sold), we nevertheless have to
assume that there is a wide variety of actual market values indicated as well. It is not
clear that equal value could not have been gotten for similar (or less) cost elsewhere.
7DEOHDQGXVHGFORWKHVH[SRUWVWR0R]DPELTXHE\SULFH
reported reported average reported reported average
to Mozambique value weight price to Mozambique value weight price
ranked by price (US dollars) (kilograms) (US$/kg) ranked by price (US dollars) (kilograms) (US$/kg)
Finland $142,000 42,000 $3.38 United Kingdom $295,000 57,000 $5.18
W. Germany $164,000 65,000 $2.52 Portugal $60,000 19,000 $3.16
Netherlands $164,000 154,000 $1.06 W. Germany $179,000 59,000 $3.03
Zimbabwe $1,000 1,000 $1.00 Denmark $662,000 261,000 $2.54
Italy $18,000 21,000 $0.86 Finland $252,000 106,000 $2.38
USA $346,000 405,000 $0.85 USA $2,145,000 1,020,000 $2.10
Sweden $119,000 148,000 $0.80 Austria $11,000 8,000 $1.38
United Kingdom $6,000 11,000 $0.55 Belgium-Luxembourg $48,000 36,000 $1.33
Denmark $7,000 75,000 $0.09 Netherlands $175,000 166,000 $1.05
1986 total $967,000 922,000 $1.05 Sweden $408,000 439,000 $0.93
Italy $36,000 68,000 $0.53
France, Monaco $2,000 7,000 $0.29
Norway $2,000 10,000 $0.20
Australia $1,000 8,000 $0.13
1987 total $4,276,000 2,264,000 $1.89
Source: Derived from SITC1 data obtained from the United Nations Statistical Division, International Trade Statistics Branch.
Notes: This is partner data, which reports f.o.b. values not including freight and insurance. The weights reported here for Swedish
exports do not correlate well with the data reported in the study under discussion, which reported 800 tons of used clothes
exported to Mozambique from Sweden in 1985/86, 930 tons in 1986/87, and 1230 tons in 1987/88 (English version, p. 5).
It is recognized that “Women prefer traditional, brightly colored so-called capulanas.
Another step must be… complementing the clothing support with purchase of
capulanas. This would reduce the rural areas’ need for dresses and skirts, which could
advantageously be sold to urban populations. In order to improve sorting and to tailor it
to each target group, the Swedish NGOs should… examine conditions for establishing
local sorting centres in Mozambique… In order to avoid negative competition for
domestic textile production in the cities, the recipient [organizations] should make the
selling of second-hand clothing more selective and directly aimed at intended groups.
This could be done by making sales at places of work and in residential areas… The
recipients should generally make a thorough analysis of the current pricing system…
[because] the very low prices of second-hand clothing can in the long run create
expectations and patterns regarding consumption which would aggravate the future
sales and development of domestic textile production. Despite low prices, profit margins
for businessmen are currently also considerable, which may negatively influence the
sound distribution of income.”
33
Thus there seems to have been a mix of methods called for—sometimes using markets,
other times trying to distribute goods and income to the target groups more directly—
and it is not clear that the choices were being made based on an adequate theory of
poverty and a thorough understanding of markets.
Practical Solidarity’s policy and practice have changed considerably in the years since
this study (we will consider UFF further separately, below). Apart from refugee aid such
as continues to be needed in Angola, “the clothes themselves are no longer the means
for fulfilling our goals (in Mozambique and Nicaragua), but [rather] the cash that they
can give to the projects we are supporting there.”
34
Used Clothes As Development Aid
31
$QRWKHUVOLJKWO\RXWRIGDWHH[DPSOHWKH6ZHGLVK5HG&URVV
Like PS, the Swedish Red Cross has also changed its used-clothes distribution
methods considerably in the last few years.
35
In the late 1980s the Red Cross had a
surplus of used clothes—in other words, more than were needed for refugee and other
emergency needs—and on the other hand, it wanted to assist the organization-building
processes of local Red Cross organizations in various LDCs. Consequently, the practice
developed of allowing the local organizations to sell large quantities of used clothes,
either in bulk to commercial distributors, or as individual garments in self-run thrift
shops. However, after two studies commissioned by the SRC specifically to study used-
clothes sales in LDCs (Swedish Red Cross, April and May 1992), the SRC decided that
this was essentially a bad policy, and changed its practice. Some of the reasons for the
change were:
• Introducing western clothing styles via subsidized sales was not the SRC’s intention
or desire.
• It was costly, as there was a risk of corruption (many bales of used clothes had
simply disappeared), and much better monitoring was required.
• There was often a bigger benefit if the clothes were sold in Sweden, and the
proceeds used to support Red Cross activities in LDCs.
• Thus, if used-clothes sales were to be a viable income-generating project for local
organizations, it would be better if they initiated the projects themselves without being
dependent on the SRC for supplies.
• With the rising tide of refugee needs due to regional conflicts after the end of the
Cold War, the SRC’s used-clothes collections have been required elsewhere.
Only about 10% of the SRC’s assistance for LDCs is in the form of used clothes, and
nowadays only about 5% of the clothes exported are for sale. The latter amounts are
only in fulfillment of old contracts with local organizations, which are being allowed to
expire without renewal. Other than those contracts, all used clothes currently exported
are in response to emergency appeals, for disaster relief, by either the International
Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) or the International Federation of the Red Cross
(IFRC).
In 1992, 30-50 countries were receiving used clothes primarily for distribution to
refugees, but the two studies focused on Uganda, Zimbabwe, Mozambique, Sierra
Leone, Vietnam, and Poland, which were the countries involved in selling used clothes.
Although the reports are now somewhat out of date because policies and practices
have changed, we have reviewed and discussed them a bit more fully in Appendix 7,
because it may still be instructive, especially in view of some of the generalizations
about NGO attitudes and behavior made in the Riddell report, to understand some of
the situations and problems that were encountered with SRC used-clothes distribution
activities at that time.
a
The report on second-hand clothing for Uganda, Zimbabwe, Mozambique, Sierra Leone
and Vietnam pointed out that: “Clothing consignments are not used primarily for disaster
relief or disaster preparedness… Experience from disaster areas in other countries has
shown that clothes are not a priority in the event of disasters [and may even get in the
way], but… can be valuable… for relief assistance [for instance, after disaster areas
have become ‘normalized’].” The report goes on to say that: “The guidelines treat the
a
The Swedish Red Cross has been exceedingly helpful in the preparation of this report, and is to be
commended for commissioning and distributing the studies which brought the following problems to light.
Report of a study for Sida
32
sale of clothes as marginal in comparison with other use. In reality, the sale of clothes
has perhaps become the most important activity. Between 25-80% of the clothes are
sold” in those particular countries.
Thus in some countries almost all of the used clothes were being sold, but proper
monitoring and reporting was often lacking. Many entire bales of used clothes—each
worth perhaps two months’ local salary or more—were simply missing. There was rather
arbitrary pricing of and arbitrary access to used clothes, including by local Red Cross
employees, who were sometimes known to misuse the privilege of buying under-priced
used clothes on credit, including for resale. There was also organizational tax
avoidance, since clothes which were allowed to be imported without customs duty—on
condition that they be given away free—were in fact sold. Thus in apparent confirmation
of two major aspects of the Riddell study, many of the imported used clothes were not
going to the very poor, but were being sold on the market, although sound business
practices and market understanding were not much in evidence.
Whereas the Abrahamsson study reviewed above recommended increased sorting
activities to be done in the LDC (in that case, Mozambique), the SRC studies repeatedly
pointed out
36
that “sorting and choice of clothes can be better suited to the needs of the
recipients… [if] the Swedish Red Cross is able to gain a proper insight into the special
needs, the climate and the culture prevailing in the various countries.
a
Systematic and
regular monitoring of the clothing consignments make it possible to increase the degree
to which the clothes are suited to the recipients and ultimately to establish an
‘experience register’ for each country.”
Given that this was basically a commercial operation in the LDCs and showed so many
problems which had almost nothing to do directly with disaster preparedness or
response, and even relatively little to do with relief assistance or development, the SRC
was doubtful about getting further involved. It read these reports in 1992 and decided to
change policies. It prefers now to stick more closely to its core mission, which may
include selling used clothes in Sweden (possibly including bulk sales to export
wholesalers) in order to fund its activities, and sending used clothes abroad if requested
for emergency purposes by the International Red Cross, but probably not selling used
clothes in LDCs itself, nor trying to use them for development purposes directly.
&RPELQLQJFRPPHUFLDOXVHGFORWKHVVDOHVZLWKGHYHORSPHQWSURMHFWV8))
UFF (known in English as Development Aid from People to People), a private
development organization associated with Humana organizations throughout much of
Europe, seems to have evolved a somewhat similar strategy, at least insofar as it
primarily does not attempt to do development work via used clothes directly,
b
but rather
usually sells the clothes for the maximum price obtainable on the market, and then uses
the funds for development purposes. A big difference, however, is that UFF has gone
a
For instance: “Some of the clothes sent are too warm (coats and winter jackets); some bales contain torn
and worn-out clothes which are unusable and have to be discarded; some bales contain underwear and
thick long johns, which are unsuitable; high-heeled shoes or winter boots are not required.”—p. 14,
regarding Uganda. Regarding Zimbabwe, the same comments, plus “trousers for women cannot be
used.”—p. 19. Regarding Sierra Leone, similar comments, plus “do not send clogs or the like, it is
impossible to sell them.”—p. 30. Regarding Mozambique and Vietnam, similar comments, but for the
latter: “Long trousers for women are appreciated;” many clothes and shoes were also too large for
Vietnamese to wear.—p. 35.
b
Except insofar as Africans may be trained in sales and other aspects of the business in UFF’s used-
clothes sales operations in Africa.
Used Clothes As Development Aid
33
into commercial selling of used clothes in LDCs in a big way; it has taken a lot of
criticism for not giving the clothes away for free, as well as for other reasons. We have
reviewed two studies of UFF’s used-clothes activities, which came to rather different
conclusions.
The first study (Interconsult 1990) came to the conclusion that UFF did not need Sida
freight subsidies for used clothes because it was selling the clothes commercially in any
case,
a
and the commercial proceeds would cover the freight costs. Consequently, Sida
freight subsidies amounted to indirect funding of other UFF activities, which Sida had
already chosen not to fund, at least partly because UFF chose not to open its books
regarding all its international activities to Sida scrutiny, and perhaps partly to do with
management style and expense.
b
The second study (Denconsult 1993), addressed the effects of UFF’s used-clothes
sales. With regard to Zambia, the report says: “The total effect of [UFF’s] work—clothes
sales as well as development aid work—is actually very positive.”
37
It goes on:
38
“The
positive effects of [UFF’s] total activities in Zimbabwe at present exceed by far the few
negative effects of the trade in second-hand clothes… The actual analysis of [UFF’s]
trade in second-hand clothes in Africa shows that the present positive effects by far
surpass the negative ones. This tendency is naturally strengthened by the fact that the
profit from [UFF’s] trade in second-hand clothes finances a large part of [UFF’s]
development aid activities in the countries…
“In spite of [UFF’s] being a rather new private development aid organization, impressive
results have already been obtained… After a learning period of about 20 years where
experiments, mistakes, and a number of corrections were made, [UFF] in Zambia and
Zimbabwe appears today as a relatively effective private aid organization capable of
reaching the poor part of the population with relatively cost-effective and viable projects
within the fields of education, health, water and sanitation, agro-forestry and tree-
planting. This assessment is shared by a number of international development aid
organizations such as the European Development Fund, the World Bank and UNICEF,
and can be derived from the fact that these organizations use [UFF] as an
implementation tool for their emergency aid and poverty programmes in Zambia as well
as in Angola.
“It is worth noting that this result has mainly been obtained through efforts of voluntary
labor from [UFF’s] permanent staff—among them a large number of young African
[UFF] employees, and a large group of solidarity workers who have spent six months
each on a development project. Unlike the main part of the other Scandinavian private
development aid organizations, [UFF] has not received large contributions financed by
the public tax-payers for its development aid work. Second-hand clothes are [UFF’s]
most important source for financing the development aid work in Africa.”
a
Based on 1994 figures for Angola, and confirmed by Merete Schiøler of the UFF federation, UFF seems
to give away approximately 1% of the clothes it exports, and sells the rest.
b
Those criticisms—and the extent to which they may or may not be valid—do not concern us here (and we
know nothing substantive about them), except to point out that the distinction between for-profit and not-
for-profit organizations can be a slim one, given that there are often no legal limits on the allowable
management costs of non-profit organizations. “For-profit” organizations exist because human beings
tend to operate a good portion of the time on a “for-profit” basis. Calling an organization “non-profit” does
not eliminate that motivation or that behavior, although it can at times contribute to less clear and efficient
operations.
Report of a study for Sida
34
Thus this study came to the emphatic conclusion that, on the whole, there would be
negative consequences for the African economies studied if UFF were prohibited from
collecting or exporting used clothes. And apparently large segments of the public agree:
Despite negative publicity attached, among other things, to the fact that UFF sells
almost all of its collected clothes either here in Sweden or in African LDCs, it continues
to be the single biggest collector and exporter in the Swedish used-clothes market.
The importance of involving the Swedish people in development work is frequently cited
as an important reason for subsidizing used-clothes exports, but UFF shows that it is
possible to successfully combine charitable used-clothes collection and commercial
sales with useful development projects. UFF’s Annual Report
39
is of course a public
relations document, so it shows how UFF would like the public to understand these
issues:
“Some of the collected clothes are sold in the UFF shops [in Denmark (and Sweden)].
The proceeds from the sale are used in full for people to people projects in Africa. After
sorting, about 60% of the collected clothes are shipped to people to people projects in
Africa. The clothes are sold in local [UFF]-shops and in market places in rural areas.
There is a great shortage of clothes in Africa. Thus the second-hand clothes meet an
important need for many poor people, who cannot afford, nor have the opportunity to
buy, new clothes. African market economy is often characterized by a scarcity of
merchandise. In this situation, the second-hand clothes function as a generator on the
market and help induce production and trade. Importing, transporting, sorting, packing
and selling second-hand clothes create many jobs in Africa… The proceeds from selling
clothes in Africa are used to start and/or operate schools, enterprises, health
programmes, AIDS-campaigns, child aid and environmental programs. The second-
hand clothes are an important source for funding the work in Africa.”
40
In both Europe and Africa, the UFF second-hand shops aim to produce “a good surplus
for development aid”.
41
Some used-clothes are also distributed free—in Angola, less
than 1% in 1994 (which was still over 11 tons).
42
The purposes of the “fund-raising” (used-clothes sales) activities in Africa are very clear:
“The first is to generate funds for [UFF] projects…; the second is to provide good quality
second-hand clothes, at a reasonable price [note: QRW a subsidized price], to the
population… particularly in the rural areas… It means a lot to these poor people to be
able to buy cheap, second-hand clothes and perhaps save some of their meager
income to buy other needed commodities… The selling of second-hand clothes also
stimulates the local market economy in these countries… [People] are encouraged to
produce something and/or to sell something in the market in order to make money to
buy the clothes…
a
The small dealers benefit from the project because, by buying and
then selling the clothes, they are able to run a small business, thereby making a living
for their families.”
43
In Mozambique, “By initiating a credit system, the project made it possible for many new
vendors to start selling second-hand clothing. The credits are given with preference to
those from remote areas… Many of the clients do not have the basic business
knowledge necessary to run a small business. In order to help the growth of their
enterprises, the project has started giving courses in ‘Small Business Management’.”
44
a
This point was also made strongly in Abrahamsson’s report on Mozambique; we see here that it seems to
apply equally well when the clothes are not subsidized.
Used Clothes As Development Aid
35
“To be a customer in an [UFF] shop means more than just buying an item of second-
hand clothing. It is an experience in how clothing, donated by people in Europe, is
transformed into a well-liked commodity and into development aid, helping children…”
45
“UFF and HUMANA have contributed to emergency aid programmes in various ways.
[They] have developed an emergency aid package… containing QHZ FORWKHV suited for
one person. All is packed into a bag with the size and sex marked on it. There is a pair
of solid shoes, underwear, other clothes needed and a blanket. [They] have distributed
thousands of emergency packages, in particular to refugees in war-stricken areas.”
46
There is a note that UFF “also distributes packages with second-hand clothing in areas
with a particular need of emergency aid”, but as we have noted, it seems to be a quite
insignificant share of total used clothes exported.
Thus UFF, a non-profit NGO, is very actively involved in commercial sale of used
clothes. We will shortly examine a slightly opposite possibility, which is that for-profit
companies can be directly involved in the collection of used clothes for NGOs. But first
we will finish our review of NGOs themselves by taking a quick look at the attitudes of
some of the major non-Swedish and international NGOs.
1RQ6ZHGLVKDQGLQWHUQDWLRQDO1*2DWWLWXGHVWRZDUGVXVHGFORWKHVH[SRUWV
The Salvation Army in the U.S. and Canada, and Oxfam in Britain, have expressed
concern about the subsequent effects on LDC producers when they sell surplus used
clothes to wholesalers on the world market. A number of international NGOs also
express rather strong reservations even about utilizing second-hand clothes in
emergency situations.
a
The International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies states that “all
used clothing distributed through Federation programs is destined for victims of natural
or man-made disasters… [and even then] only on an exceptional basis.”
47
As we have
just noted, the Swedish Red Cross now exports used clothes almost solely in response
to requests from the International Red Cross.
Oxfam America cautions:
48
“As with emergency food… it is [generally] more appropriate
for international agencies to provide funding so that products can be bought locally, or
at least within the region—[unless] local supplies are not adequate or accessible, and
imports are [thus] warranted.” (Food aid has a forty-year history and has been debated
thoroughly in the economic literature; a sampling of that debate, illustrating the issues
involved, is included as Appendix 8.
b
)
The British Overseas Development Administration also believes:
49
“In emergency
situations, available funds are more effectively used in support of international
coordinating agencies, such as UNHCR
c
, the UN Department of Humanitarian Affairs,
and the International Committee of the Red Cross. It is essential to respond in disaster
a
In addition to those quoted here, the Südwind Institut of Siegburg, Germany, which is itself strongly
opposed to used-clothes exports, notes that “Brot für die Welt (Bread for the World) and Caritas
International do not collect clothes at all. They say that even in the case of emergencies it is better to buy
clothes in the region than to pay all the money for transport: It is often cheaper, faster, and helps the local
economy.”
b
Steve Juniper also notes that “Food First and others have considered the [effects] of food aid shipments.
In the real world, how it is handled is at least as important as what is handled. Food (or clothing) aid can
be disruptive, with long-term net negative results. Sensitively and wisely administered, either can be very
helpful. ‘The devil is in the details.’” Personal communication, April 1995.
c
The UN High Commission for Refugees.
Report of a study for Sida
36
situations to the precise, and sometimes changing, needs of the victims, which is done
through close coordination with these international agencies and… charities, to ensure
that the right items are supplied to the right people at the right time. There have been
instances in the past where donated goods were not suitable for the people for whom
they were directed.
a
There is also the danger that the recipients will resent the donation
of second-hand clothes (a practice banned in some countries).”
&RPPHUFLDO³IRUSURILW´LQYROYHPHQWLQXVHGFORWKHVFROOHFWLRQDQGGLVWULEXWLRQ
We have noted the involvement of several NGOs (specifically PS, the SRC, and UFF) in
commercial sales of used clothes in LDCs, and have discussed both problems and
opportunities occasioned by such practices. Another interesting possibility, which has
provoked controversy in the U.S., is the involvement of commercial “for-profit”
companies in used-clothes redistribution activities within the source (industrial) country,
including collection, sorting, and operation of second-hand “thrift shops”. It works like
this:
50
“A key element in the formula is the relationship between local charities and [‘for-profit’]
thrift store chains. [For the chain], this means finding a local charity, supplying it with
trucks and teaching it how to phone bank
b
and collect donated items. [The chain] then
contracts to buy truckloads of merchandise that the charity collects locally… The
charities say they like the thrift store partnership because it enables them to raise a lot
of money…”
The Council of Better Business Bureaus’ Philanthropic Advisory Service (in the U.S.)
clarifies the field by distinguishing three types of charity thrift shops:
51
1. “One is self-contained and program-related. The charity fully controls all aspects of
the operation of the shop. Running the shop is actually part of the mission of the
organization. The shop’s secondary purpose is to raise money to pump back into the
charity’s program fund.
2. The second type of shop is controlled entirely by a nonprofit organization, but exists
strictly as a fund raiser, not as a program service.
3. The third type is a charity thrift shop with a for-profit connection. Solicitations for
second-hand goods are made on behalf of the charity, but typically a for-profit
business owns and operates the shop itself. Some of the value of the donated goods
goes to the charity, and the rest goes to the owner-operator.”
There are obvious reasons why an NGO might want to run a shop in either of the first
two modes, but why would they choose the third? They can perhaps “raise a lot of
a
In this regard, Mike Conroy of the Ford Foundation recalls his experience with the donation of surplus
pharmaceuticals to Nicaragua in the 1980s: “Ultimately the Ministry of Health began to discourage the
practice, for several reasons: a) The medicines were often unknown to the clinic personnel; b) they never
came with Spanish language instructions, warnings, or explanations of side effects; c) they were almost
always in lots and batches too small to manage efficiently; d) they were less valuable to a fundamentally
preventive health system than the very simple medicines more frequently prescribed, which were also in
short supply, but which did not generally come [in the] loads of medicines brought in by well-meaning
‘brigades’ from the U.S., Europe and Latin America.” Film-maker David Springbett of Asterisk
Productions, who specializes in Third World issues, also says: “The problems with imported technologies
are legion, they often do not do the job the donors intend; often the technology is inappropriate, or it is
obsolete—but the key problem is invariably maintenance. Where do the spare parts come from?”—
personal communications, April 1995.
b
“To phone bank” refers to the practice of having a “bank” of volunteer or paid staff make systematic
phone calls to private residences soliciting used clothes, to be picked up by appointment.
Used Clothes As Development Aid
37
money”,
a
but cannot they do that in the first two ways also? Maybe, but maybe not. If
they are well organized and have lots of volunteers, then presumably they can make
money in those modes, but even then, besides the drain on the volunteers and on the
NGO’s organizational capacity, there may also be a substantial capital investment to set
up the operation.
The Council of Better Business Bureaus notes: “Many of the charities raising money
through these arrangements argue that they are getting great returns for the use of their
name. First, they do not have to put up the capital (US$100,000-300,000, by one charity
representative’s estimation) to open the shop. ‘If you tie up that $150,000 in a thrift
shop, you will not have it for the programs you are trying to run.’” Another charity
agreed, saying: “What people do not understand is the tremendous infusion of capital
that these (for-profit) operators put into the thrift shops.” Thus, “for no financial risks and
for very few headaches, the charity can earn a sizable portion of its total yearly budget
by signing on the dotted line…”
Some people feel that the percentage that is given to the charity—often in the range of
7-10% of gross revenues—is too small. But “as a financial manager of a veterans’
organization said, even if you own and operate your own shop, ‘there is no guarantee
you can make 8% (profit or surplus) your first year. There is better return on your own
thrift shop if you own it and operate it efficiently, but that is LI you can operate it
efficiently. It is not easy to do that.’” One organization “has approximately 200 thrift
stores across the country, half run by the charity and half managed by for-profit
entrepreneurs… [An executive] said that the professionally-run stores are a better deal
for his charity. [The] wholly owned and operated stores ‘do a lot worse’ financially than
the professionally managed ones…”
6XPPDU\DQGFRQFOXVLRQV
0DQ\XVHGFORWKHVVROGRQWKHPDUNHWQRWJLYHQWRWKHYHU\SRRU1*2VPD\
ODFNSRYHUW\XQGHUVWDQGLQJDQGPDUNHWDQDO\VLVVRPHGRXEWDERXWXWLOL]LQJ
VHFRQGKDQGFORWKHVHYHQIRUHPHUJHQF\UHOLHI³IRUSURILW´LQYROYHPHQWPD\EH
EHQHILFLDOLQVRPHVLWXDWLRQV
The studies we have reviewed of Swedish NGO used-clothes distribution activities in
LDCs are a little out of date, because historical conditions and organizational practices
have both changed since the studies were done. Nevertheless, they seem to bear out
many of the points made in the Riddell study of Swedish NGOs in general: For instance,
at least at the time of the studies, there often seemed to be an arbitrary mix of market
and non-market methods employed; understanding of markets and of market analysis
seemed limited; and there seemed to be a tendency for concentration of power, with
resultant possibilities for corruption. Often the used clothes exported did not seem to
benefit the poorest of the poor.
However, the problems seem to have been recognized and practices changed. PS and
the SRC report rationalizing their sales operations in order to concentrate on
development or relief projects, and UFF continues to do the same.
Many non-Swedish and international NGOs seem quite cautious even about utilizing
second-hand clothes for emergency relief, and seem quite concerned about contributing
a
“Perhaps”, because it depends, among other things, on the nature of the specific contract agreed
between the charity and the operator.
Report of a study for Sida
38
to the international used-clothes trade via bulk sales of surplus used clothes to
commercial wholesalers, although many of them do it.
UFF demonstrates an apparently successful model of an NGO heavily involved in direct
commercial selling of used clothes in LDCs, while a controversial model of for-profit
involvement in the collection process has been demonstrated in the U.S. The fact that
UFF seems to continue to enjoy widespread public support, despite heavy negative
publicity, may indicate that the people of Sweden do not insist upon direct subsidized
distribution of used clothes to the very poor, but perhaps understand to some extent the
intermediating power of markets to increase the benefit provided by the clothes to the
poor.
Used Clothes As Development Aid
39
3DUW,,$$QDO\VLVRIWKH(IIHFWVRIWKH8VHG&ORWKHV7UDGHLQ*HQHUDO
&KDSWHU7KHRUHWLFDO :HOIDUH(IIHFWVRI8QVXEVLGL]HG ,P SRUWV
In Part I we saw that there is a large worldwide trade in used clothes, and that there are
strong negative feelings towards this trade, especially on the part of LDC clothing
producers and workers; that national governments for the most part are fairly tolerant of
the trade; and that many NGOs have reservations about it but also participate in it in
various ways. Now we will analyze the theoretical impact of used-clothes imports on
economic welfare in a small LDC. The theoretical analysis we will present is rather
simple, but it is important to notice carefully exactly how we do it.
To begin with, we might imagine what we take to be a fairly realistic situation in a small
less-developed country. There might be:
a) masses of people too poor to buy domestically-produced clothes; or even
b) no domestic textile production; or
c) no legal commercial import of used clothes.
There might also be:
d) poorly functioning factor markets resulting in massive unemployment;
e) and an uncompetitive industry that is unable to export domestically-produced clothes;
f ) but there might also be positive external benefits associated with actual or potential
industrial production in the early stages of industrialization—the infant industry
argument.
Basically, we want to know:
1. What would be the effects on such an economy of allowing used-clothes imports?
2. What would be the effects of subsidizing (and thus presumably increasing) those
imports?
But this is not the situation we will begin by analyzing; this is far too complex to start
with. We will start with a simple, “ideal” model, and then we will consider the
implications of changing various assumptions to make the situation more realistic (and
complex).
,QLWLDODVVXPSWLRQV3HUIHFWPDUNHWVIXOOHPSOR\PHQWRIUHVRXUFHVIUHHWUDGH
For instance, we initially assume perfectly functioning markets, so that there are no
unemployed resources (including labor), and there are no distortions (including
externalities). We assume that the country does have a domestic clothing industry, but
that there is no clothes export. We assume that the country allows free importation of
both new and used clothes, and we assume that the economy is in external balance.
Thus we initially explicitly contradict four of our six “realistic” conditions above (b, c, d,
and f). We will simply ignore one point for awhile (a: poor people), and we will actually
accept (initially) only one of the conditions above (e: no exports).
We assume of course that domestic and imported new clothes and used clothes are all
substitutes for each other, but not perfect substitutes. We consider these three markets
separately: domestic new clothes will be designated with subscript
d
, imported new
clothes with subscript
i
, and imported used clothes with subscript
u
; while all other goods
Report of a study for Sida
40
and services are aggregated into a single sector (subscript
o
). We do not try to show the
impact on the latter sector (all other goods and services) in our diagrams.
The first set of diagrams (Diagrams 1
d
, 1
i
, and 1
u
) show the situations in our three
separate but interrelated clothes markets when the economy is in initial equilibrium. In
Diagram 1
d
, the demand curve for domestic new clothes (D
d
) is downward sloping, as it
is for the corresponding goods in the following diagrams. Domestic supply of new
clothes (S
d
) increases with price. The market has price p
d
and quantity q
d
. (For the
moment, ignore the shifted supply and demand curves in the diagrams, and the
corresponding prices and quantities, all of which are indicated by prime (’); we will come
back to them several pages further on.)
'LDJUDP 'RPHVWLFQHZFORWKHVZLWKSURGXFWLRQVXEVLG\
S
d
S
d
’
p
d
p
d
’
D
d
q
d
q
d
’
Q
P
The next diagram (1
i
) represents the market for imported new clothes. Since we
assume that the country in question is small, the price of imports (p
i
) is independent of
the level of domestic demand. We thus get a horizontal supply curve (S
i
).
'LDJUDP ,PSRUWHGQHZFORWKHVZLWKGRPHVWLFSURGXFWLRQVXEVLG\
p
i
S
i
D
i
D
i
’
q
i
’
q
i
Q
P
Used Clothes As Development Aid
41
The third market is for imported used clothes (Diagram 1
u
). It has essentially the same
characteristics as the previous one, that is, a given world market price (p
u
) and a
horizontal supply curve (S
u
).
'LDJUDP ,PSRUWHGXVHGFORWKHVZLWKGRPHVWLFSURGXFWLRQVXEVLG\
p
u
S
u
D
u
D
u
’
q
u
’
q
u
Q
P
The rest of the economy (the all other goods and services sector) consists of a mixture
of non-tradables and tradables: The market for non-tradables clears domestically by
definition, while the price in the tradables sector is set on the world market, adjusted for
trade taxes; we do not need to go into details about this sector for the analysis
undertaken here.
As we have assumed initially that there are no distortions in the markets (including in
factor markets such as labor), the allocation reflected in the diagrams above—including
the presence of used-clothes imports—can be shown to be welfare-maximizing.
:K\DUHXVHGFORWKHVLPSRUWVZHOIDUHPD[LPL]LQJ"5HDOJRRGVDUHUHDOLQFRPH
In these simple “ideal” conditions, importing used clothes is welfare-maximizing
because, on the one hand (as indicated by the downward-sloping demand curve for
used clothes), some people would have been willing to pay considerably more for the
used clothes they got, so that there is “consumer surplus” when they are able to buy
used clothes for less; and, on the other hand (as indicated by the upward-sloping supply
curve for domestic new clothes), producing more new clothes domestically instead
would have cost relatively more.
Another way to look at it is that, since clothes, even used clothes, clearly have value in
the marketplace, they constitute real wealth, or real income to those who receive them.
Simply discarding this wealth must therefore result in a net worldwide loss, while re-
using it must result in net worldwide gains. The land otherwise engaged in fiber
production, the labor and capital otherwise involved in textile production, can all be put
to higher and better uses than re-creating clothes which already exist, thus generating
increased real income. And this is true even before considering any possible gains to
the environment from having less overall production required to produce the same level
of income and wealth.
Report of a study for Sida
42
2XUDQDO\WLFVWUDWHJ\
However, two types of realistic conditions which we noted above (d and f) might cause
less than optimal resource allocation, and would thus imply less than maximum welfare.
One of these is unemployment due to poorly functioning factor markets—which also
make resource reallocation difficult—and the other is positive externalities associated
with clothes production. We want to consider the effects of used-clothes imports under
these two conditions. If there are negative effects, we want to consider how to counter
them.
But it is not really the direct effects of used-clothes imports that we are mostly
concerned with. The used-clothes imports themselves create jobs and income, and
provide consumers with usable goods at cheap prices. So far, so good.
But what we are mostly concerned with are the indirect effects of used-clothes imports
on other sectors of the economy—on domestic new clothes production, for instance.
Since used clothes are at least a partial substitute for new clothes, allowing cheaper
used-clothes imports will reduce demand for domestically-produced new clothes,
causing decreased domestic production, employment, and income, at least in that
sector. If we should want to counter these negative effects, to maintain production of
domestic new clothes in the face of imports of competitive (used) clothes—or to
increase production, or to reduce the decrease in production—we could do so either
directly, with a production subsidy, or indirectly, by restricting the competing imports.
The natural order might seem to be to consider the economy with no used-clothes
imports—due perhaps to a prohibitive tariff, or to an outright ban, or even to a simple
lack of supply—and then to consider the change in welfare when imports come in.
However, we will do the opposite. We have already constructed a hypothetical welfare-
maximizing situation with open borders. We can now imagine closing the borders
(restricting imports) in order to support domestic production. We can compare this
indirect method of supporting domestic production with the more direct method of a
production subsidy. Because the more direct production subsidy results in a cleaner,
simpler analysis, we will actually do that first.
As for the reasons why we might wish to support domestic clothes production, while the
first distorting condition (poorly-functioning factor markets resulting in unemployment) is
the more obvious and perhaps the bigger problem, it is also the more complicated and
perhaps the more intractable one, so we will look at the second condition (positive
externalities) first.
Thus, to summarize our strategy, we will first analyze the results of a hypothetical
production subsidy to capture a positive externality associated with clothes production,
and then we will examine the effects of such a subsidy if there is unemployment. Then
we will analyze the results of the alternative support mechanism—an import restriction
(tariff or ban) intended to capture the same externality—and then we will again examine
its effects if there is unemployment. Finally (in Chapter 8), once we understand the
effects of used-clothes imports in general, we will consider the effects if we not only
allow, but subsidize, used-clothes imports.
*RYHUQPHQWVXSSRUWYLDSURGXFWLRQVXEVLG\WRFDSWXUHSRVLWLYHH[WHUQDOLW\
It is often argued that there is a positive externality associated with industrial production
in the early stages of industrialization—the basic infant industry argument. This implies
that there are grounds for supporting the domestic clothes industry to increase
production. The direct avenue to deal with this distortion would be to give production
Used Clothes As Development Aid
43
subsidies to the domestic clothing industry directly. If we do this, we shift S
d
to S
d
’ in
Diagram 1
d
, giving us a lower domestic market price (p
d
’) for domestically-produced new
clothes, and increased output as desired (q
d
’). This causes increased employment in
the domestic clothing industry, and more learning by doing. If such a positive externality
really exists, then this intervention is welfare enhancing.
The magnitude of the impact of such a production subsidy on the other sectors will vary
with the relevant elasticities. There should be some reduction in demand for imported
new clothes, reducing clothes imports to q
i
’. Since we assume perfect markets, this is
not going to lead to a trade balance surplus, but the different effects of changing relative
prices will balance external trade.
Demand for used clothes should decline somewhat, although one may assume that the
degree of substitutability between new clothes and used clothes is less than that
between domestic new clothes and imported new clothes. The shift in D
u
should be
downwards, but not so much.
Finally, what happens to the rest of the economy is hard to tell: Supply should be
reduced somewhat if the domestic textile sector attracts more resources. On the other
hand, the used-clothes handling and distribution sector, and the imported new-clothes
sector, should both shed some labor. We cannot tell D SULRUL which effect would
dominate. Still, there is going to be a restructuring of the economy under the impact of
the production subsidy. Since we assume full employment of resources initially,
employment levels would not change, but since the production subsidy eliminates a
distortion, real income would increase over time, due to productivity increases resulting
from increased industrial experience.
2WKHUDUJXPHQWVIRUSURWHFWLRQRILQIDQWLQGXVWULHV
We have seen that a large share of clothing imports into industrial countries themselves
originate in LDCs, but it may be difficult for new LDCs to enter the export market unless
they have a secure domestic base on which to build. Given the differences required in
style, and perhaps in quality as well, this does not seem absolutely necessary, as the
example of multi-national manufacturing for export demonstrates.
Still, it may be that certain countries or regions, which would be capable of supporting
textile and clothes production once they got started, and which might have comparative
advantages in such production, nevertheless have not developed those industries due
to accidents of history and perhaps the incidence of power, and may not be able to do
so now or in the future without temporary protection or support.
52
This could be the
case, for example, if there are scale advantages which an entrant in the field could not
take sufficient advantage of soon enough to be able to compete with lower-cost imports,
and would thus be forced out of business before establishing itself. This is essentially a
strategic trade argument, which might call for some form of government support to
develop a new industry.
3URGXFWLRQVXEVLG\HIIHFWVRQH[SRUWLQJDQGEHQHILWV
If the domestic industry were producing already for foreign markets, then a production
subsidy would also stimulate exports. Much recent research suggests that exporting by
itself has a positive externality effect on growth, by exposing the economy to an
Report of a study for Sida
44
international and more competitive environment. Thus such a subsidy could have a
doubly-positive effect.
a
/HVVWKDQIXOO\IXQFWLRQLQJPDUNHWV8QHPSOR\PHQW
If there were unemployment, the results of a production subsidy would be less clear-cut.
The employment effect would depend on the combined price and income effects.
Employment would obviously increase in the domestic new clothes sector. However,
despite existing unemployment, it might be that the increased competition for labor due
to subsidized production would have some increasing effect on wages, which would
tend to reduce employment outside the subsidized sector. It might also be the case that
the shrinking used-clothes sector is more labor intensive than the expanding clothing
industry, which in itself would tend to depress employment. In the end, the employment
effect of a production subsidy would be uncertain, and might depend on whether a
positive income effect (due to capturing positive externalities in clothing production)
could compensate for other losses.
*RYHUQPHQWVXSSRUWYLDLPSRUWWDULIIV
What about a tariff on imported clothes to support the domestic clothing industry,
instead of a production subsidy? A tariff on used clothes would shift the used-clothes
supply curve (S
u
, in Diagram 1
u
above) up. Exactly what would happen to the demand
curve would depend on the general equilibrium effects of this price change, but the end
result would be a reduced quantity of imported used clothes at a higher price than
before.
b
This would lead to some increase in the demand for domestic new clothes, giving us a
higher domestic price, and a larger quantity, as desired. There would also perhaps be
some increase in the demand for imported new clothes, unless it were also controlled
via trade policy intervention, such as a tariff.
7KHQHJDWLYHVLGHHIIHFWRIWDULIIV
What type of welfare effect would we have in this case? There would be increased
production in the domestic clothing sector, beyond the original market-determined
equilibrium level. This would draw resources from the rest of the economy, where they
were more productively employed at the original relative prices. But would this not be
welfare improving, when there is a positive externality associated with this production?
If the positive externality is sufficiently large, this would be the case, but here, differently
from the subsidy case, we cannot be sure that the overall welfare effect would be
positive. The difference between the previous case and the present one is that we now
not only correct the production distortion, but we also introduce a consumption
distortion. This is a negative side-effect. Now consumers are optimizing against a price
a
However, it is possible that importing gives the same effect of exposing the economy to a more
competitive environment. If so, and if government support to increase production also reduced imports,
then the net effect would be less than it would have been, and could even be negative rather than
positive. But if government production support which increased exports were coupled with liberalization of
imports, there might be a WULSOH benefit, by capturing the externalities of production, exporting, and
importing. One might also imagine that the experience and training of relatively poor people in operating
repair, restyling and distribution businesses—in short, the development of small-scale entrepreneurs—
might be an added benefit of the used-clothes redistribution process.
b
In the extreme, of course, there could be a prohibitive tariff or an outright ban, such that no used clothes
came in legally, at any price.
Used Clothes As Development Aid
45
for imported clothes (the world market price plus the tariff) that is different from the
alternative cost to the economy to import them (the world market price). Therefore, this
is not an optimal intervention, although we cannot say for sure that it is welfare-
reducing.
A tariff on imported new clothes would give the same consumption distortion. The
positive effect on domestic clothes production might be larger, but this would be an
empirical matter.
Tariffs such as these are a common result of efforts to implement a strategic trade
policy in support of infant industries. But as Paul Krugman (1994) points out:
53
“Concepts such as strategic trade policy can all too easily be used to rationalize good
old-fashioned protectionism.” And as the head of the new World Trade Organization,
Renato Ruggiero, says: “Governments may try to preserve some jobs in uncompetitive
industries by using trade barriers, but they will do so at the cost of jobs in the efficient
export sectors. Studies… indicate that the annual cost of protecting a job by import
barriers is typically anywhere from three to eight times the annual wage of that job…
Protection… costs jobs in unprotected industries, although we never see these job
losses directly reported. It is a fallacy to believe that the only effects of protection are
the visible effects—jobs apparently saved in protected industries. The jobs ORVW in other
industries are just as real. Protection increases costs, reduces sales (because it taxes
consumers), and leads to fewer jobs in unprotected industries.”
54
It has also been argued by some that, in some rural areas where markets barely exist at
all, reducing the availability to consumers of a major category of important and
affordable goods (used clothes) would reduce their willingness to produce goods for the
market themselves, as producers—or vice versa, that encouraging availability of such
consumer goods can increase their willingness to produce for the market (whereby they
can earn the income to buy the consumer goods)—thus having a major impact on
economic development.
55
/HVVWKDQIXOO\IXQFWLRQLQJPDUNHWV8QHPSOR\PHQWDJDLQ
What if there are distortions in factor markets, so that it is not so easy for resources to
shift, and there is unemployment? And what if we pose the question the other way, as
whether to remove an existing tariff or ban? In this case, although removing the import
restriction would decrease one distortion, so that consumers were now facing the world
market price in the used-clothes market, it would possibly increase unemployment, at
least in the short run. The net short-run effect might well be welfare-reducing, although
gains would be possible in the longer run through improving the functioning of factor
markets.
Our conclusions here are thus the standard ones: If there are distortions (such as a
positive externality, factor-market rigidities causing unemployment, or an import tariff or
ban), one should try to remove them without creating new distortions. (We will discover
a similar result when we turn to the issue of whether one should subsidize the import of
used clothes.)
&RQFOXVLRQV
*LYHQSRVLWLYHH[WHUQDOLWLHVDQGRUXQHPSOR\PHQWLPSRUWVFDQEHGDPDJLQJDW
OHDVWLQWKHVKRUWUXQDQ\SURWHFWLYHPHDVXUHVVKRXOGEHOLPLWHGDQGWHPSRUDU\
The case for outright banning of used-clothes imports seems rather slim, but it is not
clear that there are no negative consequences of such imports at all. Indeed, like any
Report of a study for Sida
46
other import-substituting industries, textile and clothes production may be hard hit when
import rules are liberalized. There may be a difficult period of restructuring, perhaps
aggravated if such changes are made quickly, and national governments may want to
make special efforts to help displaced workers find new employment. As we have seen,
they may also come under intense pressure from domestic industries seeking
protection, and they may find themselves politically required to accommodate those
pressures with tariffs for awhile. Protective measures should be temporary, however,
and every reasonable effort should be made to help factor markets function more
smoothly and affected industries restructure towards increased productivity, perhaps for
the export market directly.
a
Such a strategy takes advantage of the increased real
income which used-clothes imports can undoubtedly allow in the long run.
a
Chris Adam of the Centre for the Study of African Economies at Oxford suggests that countries like
Zambia and Zimbabwe have a comparative advantage in high quality yarn and other unfinished goods,
rather than in garment-production (which, at world prices, may actually be value-reducing), and thus it is
possible that they could benefit from combining greater imports of used clothes with greater exports of
unfinished goods. There would presumably be smaller externalities to capture with a production subsidy
in such a case, however.
Used Clothes As Development Aid
47
&KDSWHU(P SLULFDO :HOIDUH(IIHFWVRI8QVXEVLGL ]HG, PSRUWV
What are the actual, practical effects of all these imports in reality? Do used-clothes
imports in fact disrupt or depress markets in Third World countries to such an extent,
with resultant losses of jobs and income, that protection for domestic industry against
cheap imports is necessary? Or, even if there are direct disincentive effects, are those
effects outweighed by income gains to consumers, by distributional gains to the poor, by
employment gains in related or unrelated industries, by productivity gains in restructured
industries, by revenue gains to the government, by environmental gains worldwide, or
by any combination of these?
In terms of empirical market analysis, these questions are at the heart of the matter. If
imports cause overall damage, clearly their negative effects should not be increased via
subsidies. However, we will see that, at least in the case of Rwanda, the damage is not
so obvious; in fact, a case can be made that there are net benefits from used-clothes
imports. It is true that Rwanda is a special case, but it is nevertheless a very interesting
one. It is also the only one for which we have a good prior empirical study of economic
effects.
+DJJEODGH¶VDQDO\VLVRIWKHHFRQRPLFHIIHFWVRIXVHGFORWKHVLPSRUWVLQ5ZDQGD
Unfortunately, there is almost no literature thoroughly researching the true economic
effects of used-clothes imports. The best study which exists is economist Steven
Haggblade’s 1990 article “The Flip Side of Fashion: Used Clothing Exports to the Third
World”, based primarily on his research in Rwanda before its recent civil war.
a
Haggblade found that, at least in a country like Rwanda
b
with no domestic textile or
ready-made apparel industries, employment gains in handling, cleaning, repairing,
restyling, and distributing used clothes came very close to offsetting the related
employment losses in tailoring and/or distributing new clothes. Further, comparing equal
values purchased of used clothes, ready-made clothes, and tailored clothes, national
income was highest with used clothes, due to higher value added domestically. Still
further, these income gains meant that the relatively poor handlers, cleaners, repairers,
restylers, and distributors of used clothes could earn roughly equal incomes in less time
than the tailors who were (partly) displaced by used-clothing sales—in other words,
there were “higher returns to labor in used-clothing distribution”.
56
At the same time, the government reaped higher revenues (due to higher tariffs on used
clothes than on imported cloth),
c
while the relatively rich used-clothes wholesalers also
benefited. Low-income consumers also gained from the availability of cheaper, used
clothes, as they were able to purchase more clothes for the same expenditure, or to buy
the same quantity of clothes plus something else. Since it is mostly the rural poor who
buy used clothes, it was mostly they who benefited as consumers. It short, it was found
that “used clothing generates maximum income per unit of sales, supplies consumers at
a
Another study that makes a serious attempt to calculate all the gains and losses related to the used-
clothes trade is Densonsult (1993).
b
“A small, land-locked country in the hilly highlands of Central Africa… [at that time] the world’s fifth largest
net importer of used clothing, by value, and by quantity, the eleventh”—Haggblade, p. 511.
c
Haggblade points out that if these tariffs were reduced, the other beneficiaries of used clothing sales would
benefit still more.
Report of a study for Sida
48
the lowest cost, benefits the poorest consumers most directly, and generates nearly as
much employment as small-scale tailoring.”
57
As Haggblade pointed out, all of his meticulous calculations concerned only first-round
effects; “they do not take into account the multiplier effects of increased real income
among used-clothes consumers and suppliers.”
58
In other words, income gains may
lead to better-clothed, better-fed, even better-housed and better-educated families,
resulting in productivity gains for the future. How is all of this possible? Can we
understand these results intuitively, in real terms?
Used clothes are real goods. If they were received for free, they would constitute real
income without labor, which would not be a totally unenviable state, especially if one’s
time and labor were left free for other pursuits, whether income-generating or not. In the
case of Rwanda in Haggblade’s study, there is certainly some cost to the nation as a
whole, in terms of the purchase price of used-clothes bales imported from industrial
countries by wholesale importers, and the corresponding potential transfer of real goods
or services out of the country to finance the purchases. But there is no domestic textile
industry in Rwanda, and thus no textile production displaced. The costs of importing
used clothes are apparently less than the cost of equivalent textile imports, and thus
there is a net saving with the import of used clothes. Wearable clothes are produced at
less cost, and in fact are largely produced by poor people, as well. Thus poor people
can better afford to clothe themselves, while retaining part of their erstwhile clothing
expenditure for other purposes.
*OREDOH[WHQVLRQVRI+DJJEODGH¶VDQDO\VLVLQFOXGLQJDPXOWLPDUNHWPRGHO
However, we are not, and cannot be, simply concerned with any single country. It is
possible that the fiber or textile production displaced by used-clothes exports to Rwanda
is displaced in fiber- or textile-producing LDCs, either elsewhere in Africa, or elsewhere
in the world. And, what is essentially the same thing, we must also consider used-
clothes exports from industrial countries directly to those fiber- or textile-producing less-
developed countries.
a
If employment losses in manufacturing and distribution of new
clothes in Rwanda were barely offset by employment generated with used clothes, it is
clear that the overall global employment losses, including those in fiber and textile
production, must be larger than the employment generated by redistributing used
clothes. Unfortunately, we have found little information which would enable us to
accurately estimate these losses. Empirical work might be required to rectify this lack.
A related question concerns the fact that Haggblade’s estimates are based on equal
values of used clothes, tailored clothes, and ready-made clothes. But the price ratios he
reports for these categories are roughly 1:4:10. In other words, a used article of clothing
a
Peter de Valk (1992, p. 259) reports about Tanzania, for instance, “the inability of domestic textile
manufacturers to compete with imported second-hand textile products has meant the erosion of the
domestic market base for domestic producers. Given the small market size (effective demand), increases
in prices (e.g. to accommodate rising costs of production) are certainly going to shrink the market further.
Given the availability of cheap alternatives, domestic manufacturing is likely to collapse… [I]mported
textile products (especially second-hand clothes) are offered at prices far below the price of locally
manufactured textile products for the following reasons:
(a) Under-declaration of value or complete evasion of import duties reduce duties paid.
(b) The cost of producing second-hand clothes is almost nil, as most of these have been worn and
discarded. The price charged domestically corresponds only to freight cost and the trader’s margin.
(c) Products channelled through charity organizations are exempted from duties… These goods enter the
country at zero cost (except for shipping costs, which are cheap and may even be subsidized).”
Used Clothes As Development Aid
49
could generally be purchased in Rwanda for roughly one-fourth the cost of a newly
tailored article, or for one-tenth the cost of an imported ready-made article.
a
Presumably, with the introduction of cheaper used-clothes imports, the entire budget
previously devoted to tailored and ready-made clothes would not continue to be devoted
to clothing. The fall in the average price of clothing and the increased purchasing power
available would probably lead to more of all categories of clothing being purchased,
b
but
the income effect of cheaper clothes would also lead to increased purchase of other
goods and services. Some of the previous clothing budget would now be shifted to
those other goods and services. How much employment and income would be
generated in those other industries?
c
This is the type of analysis we have already undertaken in the previous chapter, in a
totally abstract, theoretical way. In order to properly evaluate these effects in practice,
we would need to construct a multi-market model, with price and income elasticities for
used clothes, for new clothes, and for all other goods and services on the consumption
side, and with employment and value-added in each of these categories on the
production side. If such a social accounting matrix could be constructed with relevant
weighted global average values, we could evaluate the net global changes in income
and employment from recycling used clothes. As we saw in our previous theoretical
discussion, we should also consider externalities and the degree to which markets are
functioning, the flexibility of resources. This is theoretically possible, but it would be a
daunting task in practice, and we certainly do not have the data available to attempt it
now.
d
&RQFOXVLRQ
1HWSRVLWLYHRUQHJDWLYHHIIHFWVDUHQRWFOHDUHPSLULFDOO\
If we had a clear and strong case for damage resulting from imports, we could rule out
subsidizing imports in any situation which would likely add to that damage. But in the
case of Rwanda, it is not obvious that there is damage from imported used clothes—
perhaps there are rather small employment losses—while in fact it appears that there
are actual gains in productivity, income, and distribution, and this is only on the first
round, without considering multiplier effects.
But Rwanda is a special case, without domestic textile or ready-made garment
production, and empirical analysis has not considered potential losses from the loss of
positive externalities possibly associated with such production. On a global scale, while
ideally we believe that there must be gains from re-using still serviceable goods, in fact
the results might depend on the level of externalities and the degree to which markets
are functioning, or not. Thus we cannot conclude positively that that there is or is not
overall damage from importing used clothes.
a
In 1995, an imported used shirt cost about $5 in Uganda, while an imported new one cost about $60. The
domestically-produced models usually use simpler materials than what is used in imported (new or used),
which reduces their comparability. The textile industry is lobbying for higher protection against both new
and used imports—personal observations by Arne Bigsten.
b
Including ready-made and tailored clothing, and thus generating some additional employment there.
c
Thus, for example, because the Zimbabwe Clothing Council job-loss estimate discussed in Chapter 3
does not take into account additional employment generated in the used-clothes sector (mostly the price
effect) or by additional purchases of other goods and services (most of the income effect), we cannot
consider it accurate, but only a very rough first approximation.
d
In the Introduction we listed nine questions which would provide a good start for empirical work.
Report of a study for Sida
50
Used Clothes As Development Aid
51
&KDSWHU$%ULHI+LVWRU\DQG6RFLRORJ\RIWKH8VHG&ORWKHV7UDGH
We have discussed the theoretical possibility that used-clothes imports (in the presence
of poorly-functioning factor markets and/or positive externalities) may cause net
damage at least in the short run, but we have not been able to document that damage
from the only careful, thorough empirical study available. We now take a look more
broadly at the effects of re-using second-hand clothes, historically and sociologically.
/'&V+DQVHQ¶VVWXG\RIXVHGFORWKHVLQPRGHUQ=DPELD
Anthropologist Karen Tranberg Hansen, who has studied the distribution and re-use of
second-hand clothes extensively in Africa (in Chapter 2 we quoted her description of the
distribution of used clothes in Zambia), believes that “the master narrative that regards
Lusaka’s booming secondhand clothes markets as just another example of exchange
relations that continue to link countries like Zambia to the West in dependency terms is
inadequate. It reduces all that is African, and in this case Zambian and local, to mass
capitulation to western-type consumption and trivializes the active engagement between
people and clothing into a warped imitation of the West… Recommodified at the point of
resale, the transformation of the West’s cast-off clothes into ‘new’ garments in Zambia
involves distribution and sales practices in local markets and subsequent incorporations
into clothing practices that reflect and engage everyday experiences in spite of the
recognizable western imprint of the garments.”
59
Hansen goes on
60
to report that “this trade is not new but its present scale is
unprecedented. By the inter-war years [~1920-40], if not before, the used clothing trade
reached Zambia from Zaire… The name of Mokambo, a busy Zambia-Zaire crossing
point, became a common term for the clothes and the traders. It had a negative
connotation [at that time] and people did their best to hide that they were wearing
PRNDPER« Today, Zambians have no qualms about buying salaula;
a
they will stop you
on the street to ask if your skirt is ‘from salaula or from the shops’.”
Hansen continues later:
61
“Customers demand a wide selection of new salaula items…
b
The desire to be smartly turned out, even if the garments are shabby, makes clothes-
conscious Zambians insist on immaculate ensembles whose elements are laundered
and ironed. Thus, detailed care for clothing helps to transform old clothes into new
ensembles.
“Customers, traders, and tailors work hard to make salaula into their own creation…
The overall combination of the ensemble’s elements is always in process. In the very
act of appropriating them into ‘the latest’, Zambians undercut their western imprint…
“The rapid increase of salaula since the late 1980s has made affordable clothing
available to a broad spectrum of people. This contributes toward satisfying the need for
clothing and the desire for style. The wide range of salaula gives shoppers a welcome
opportunity to browse and choose…
“Throughout the 1980s, urban and rural Zambians increasingly relied on saluala… The
growing availability and acceptability of used clothing was the theme of a 1988 record,
a
6DODXOD “means ‘to select from a pile’ in Bemba”; another term used is “NDXQM LND which means ‘to pick’ in
Nyanja”—Hansen 1994, p. 506.
b
Here Hansen gives a description of the current style preferences of various categories of consumers.
Report of a study for Sida
52
‘Salaula’, by popular singer Teddy Chilambe. The lyrics told of the time now past when
the salaula market was only for the household servant and maid. Now even the most
fashionable office workers wear secondhand suits. The song praised Zaireans for
bringing salaula to Zambia, and blamed those who shunned it for wasting money they
should use to feed their children. Zambians no longer look down on salaula or hide the
fact that they wear it. Few traders or shoppers… had questions or concerns about why
or how the West’s discarded clothing ends up as a desirable commodity in Zambia…
What they most cared about was the availability of affordable clothing.”
Hansen concludes that: “A world-systems, dependency-thesis interpretation of unilineal
transfer and blame is clearly out of tune with popular Zambian sensibilities and
reactions. These reactions… celebrate salaula. &KRNDNR :HND means ‘move yourself’
in Nyanja. Written on the sign of the Caroussel Botique,
a
it captures some of the
popular attractions of salaula in Zambia. Salaula implies progress; the ability to dress
tells of improvement. In the popular view, after years of standing in queues and ending
up empty handed, when people had little money, and clothing was not piled up waiting
to be bought, salaula means that ordinary people can now afford to wear clothes rather
than rags. It also means that more consumers than ever before can make choices in a
booming clothing market. The salaula trade offers work and therefore hope about new
opportunities to young women and men who might not find formal jobs.
“Salaula is celebrated in urban and rural areas alike. Rural areas, which used to be
characterized with statements like ‘there is nothing there—they don’t know sugar, tea,
bread, clothes, what it is like,’ were described in 1992 with some optimism: ‘There is
even salaula now.’ After the long, hard years of the Kaunda regime’s austerity programs
and deteriorating terms of trade both between rural and urban areas and between
Zambia and the world economy, commentaries on the recent rapid increase in salaula
availability and consumption express not only disenchantment with the previous
government and its state, but also the attainability of future hopes and aspirations.”
7KHUHXVHRIVHFRQGKDQGJRRGVLQPRGHUQLQGXVWULDOFRXQWULHV
The practice of re-using second-hand clothes (and other used goods) has by no means
died out in industrial countries. The used clothes which are donated to charities in
Sweden, in the U.S., and presumably in many other industrial countries, are first sorted
for those suitable for resale locally. “Thrift shops” and “second-hand stores” selling used
clothes at prices far below those for new clothes are by no means uncommon; some (as
we discussed in Chapter 4) are even run by professional management companies
operating on a for-profit basis. “Flea-markets” and other mechanisms for redistributing
used clothes and other used goods are also rather common.
b
Many families acquire
large portions of their wardrobes through such mechanisms, while children are known to
pass clothes down as they grow older, thus reusing clothes within families as well.
/HPLUH¶VVWXG\RIWKHXVHGFORWKHVWUDGHLQHLJKWHHQWKFHQWXU\%ULWDLQ
Used clothes (and other used goods) have been re-used extensively in many societies
over long periods of time, without any obvious psychological harm, and seemingly with
economic benefit. Some fascinating examples come from Beverly Lemire’s 1991 book
a
Described in Chapter 2.
b
There is an extensive popular literature referring also to rummage sales, backyard and garage sales,
auctions, swap meets, vintage and consignment shops, surplus and salvage stores and the sale and
purchase of “trash” and “junk” in order to “turn discards into dollars”, “convert the clutter in your closets
into cash in your pocket”, and “buy more, spend less, live better”.
Used Clothes As Development Aid
53
“Fashion’s Favourite: The Cotton Trade and the Consumer in Britain, 1660-1800”, which
we quote extensively in Appendix 9. Lemire concludes:
“The trade in clothes and the movement of items of dress through society and through
the market was a salient feature of pre-industrial and early industrial Britain, providing
an element of choice to a greater portion of the population than has been recognized to
date. Pawnbrokers, clothes salesmen, and dealers of a general sort worked in rural and
urban settings, buying, trading, and selling clothes of all sorts, but looking in particular
for the type of clothing they knew would be most in demand by their customers… The
second-hand trade was a critical factor enabling a large portion of the population to buy
more apparel. The percentage of income spent on clothing would be more flexible when
a part of the cost of a suit of clothes, a gown, or accessories could be recouped from
the resale of old clothes. Thus a proportionately greater access to relatively more-
fashionable clothes was possible, modifying dress as the mood or the style demanded.”
8VHGFORWKHVIRUGLVDVWHUUHOLHI
Clearly there are also circumstances in which the charitable provision of used clothes
internationally is accepted and very much needed and appreciated. Even the well-
known private development agency Oxfam, which has raised serious questions about
the disincentive effects of food aid, for instance, and which almost never ships used
clothes overseas, occasionally has special projects in which they do so, such as its
current “‘Cold Front’ appeal for winter coats for Bosnia and the Transcaucasus, and T-
shirts into Renamo controlled areas of Mozambique.”
62
We saw in Chapter 4 that
Swedish NGOs are also involved in relief efforts of this sort.
&RQFOXVLRQV
5HXVHRIVHFRQGKDQGJRRGVLVDZLGHVSUHDGSKHQRPHQRQQRKLVWRULFDORU
VRFLRORJLFDOEDVLVLVIRXQGIRUEDQQLQJXVHGFORWKHVLPSRUWV
Based on historical and sociological evidence, it seems clear that we cannot conclude
that the export of used clothes to LDCs is categorically bad, and should perhaps be
banned, but never subsidized. The re-use of second-hand clothes seem to have a
variety of benefits in many times, places, and situations. To answer whether used-
clothes imports should ever be subsidized, and if so, under what circumstances, we will
have to consider the specific effects of subsidizing used-clothes imports.
Report of a study for Sida
54
Used Clothes As Development Aid
55
3DUW,,%$QDO\VLVRIWKH(IIHFWVRI6XEVLGL]LQJ8VHG&ORWKHV,PSRUWV
&KDSWHU7KHRUHWLFDO:HOIDUH(IIHFWVRI6XEVLGL]HG,PSRUWV
The usual case that can be made for a subsidy, other than simply to put cash in
someone’s pocket or to allow someone to do something that they like to do, is that there
is some public good which is not being provided because of a market failure which can
be remedied via the subsidy. For instance, one could argue regarding used clothes that
there is a public good in having a better-clothed and more productive workforce, better-
clothed and healthier mothers and children, etc., and that in LDCs the lack of adequate
clothing may be particularly acute, thus justifying subsidized development projects to
provide used clothes. It might also be thought that the incidence of power has created a
very unequal income distribution, causing a market failure—in that particular groups of
potential consumers have no access to the market—and thus requiring remediation by
subsidy.
In Chapter 5 we analyzed theoretically the effects of used-clothes imports in general,
first under simple “ideal” conditions, and then with a variety of more realistic
complications. We will now consider the specific effects of subsidizing used-clothes
imports. We will start with the same set of markets (domestic new clothes, imported
new clothes, imported used clothes, and all other goods and services) and the same set
of original conditions as before (perfect markets and free trade). Thus we assume that
no production subsidies are in place, and that there are no import tariffs or bans. We
start from the same assumed equilibrium as before.
,QWURGXFWLRQRIDIUHLJKWVXEVLG\
What happens if we introduce a freight subsidy for used clothes? As seen in Diagram
2
u
, this will lower the domestic price of used clothes by the amount of the subsidy (s),
from p
u
to p
u
'. Quantity will increase from q
u
to q
u
'.
'LDJUDP ,PSRUWHGXVHGFORWKHVVKRZLQJZHOIDUHJDLQZLWKIUHLJKWVXEVLG\
DQGLWVFRVW
WG
u
C D
p
u
S
u
s
p
u
’ S
u
’
BA
D
u
q
u
q
u
’
Q
P
Report of a study for Sida
56
Because more used clothes are now available more cheaply than before, there should
be a reduction in demand for both domestic and imported new clothes, although there
will be a positive income effect that would tend to counteract this tendency.
a
The size of
the negative demand shifts for domestic and imported new clothes (in Diagrams 2
d
and
2
i
below) will depend on the relevant elasticities—which describe how demand for new
clothes changes when the price of used clothes changes—but the shifts will in any case
be in the negative direction, downward and to the left, to D
d
' and D
i
'; and quantities sold
will shift from q
d
to q
d
' and from q
i
to q
i
'.
'LDJUDP 'RPHVWLFQHZFORWKHVVKRZLQJZHOIDUHORVVZLWKXVHGFORWKHV
IUHLJKWVXEVLG\
WL
d
S
d
p
d
p
d
’
D
d
D
d
’
q
d
’ q
d
Q
P
'LDJUDP ,PSRUWHGQHZFORWKHVVKRZLQJZHOIDUHORVVZLWKXVHGFORWKHVIUHLJKW
VXEVLG\
WL
i
p
i
S
i
D
i
D
i
’
q
i
’ q
i
Q
P
a
Lower used-clothes prices mean higher purchasing power, or higher real income; with higher real income,
there will be an increased tendency to purchase new clothes, or whatever.
Used Clothes As Development Aid
57
What the effect would be on the rest of the economy is hard to work out: It depends on
how much of the resources released from the new-clothes sectors is absorbed in the
used-clothes sector; one may assume that the other goods and services sector will get
some extra resources, when employment in the new-clothing sectors falls.
The welfare effect in the used-clothes market (Diagram 2
u
above) is clearly positive:
Consumer surplus
a
increases by the shaded area, and there is thus a welfare gain
labeled WG
u
. The domestic clothing industry (Diagram 2
d
above) faces a fall in demand,
which leads to a lowering of price from p
d
to p
d
’, and a smaller quantity sold, q
d
’ rather
than q
d
. This implies a reduction in consumer surplus, and a reduction in producer
surplus as well,
b
for a net welfare loss equal to the shaded area labeled WL
d
. In the
imported new-clothes sector (Diagram 2
i
above), there is also a fall in demand, and
therefore also a fall in consumer surplus of the shaded area, a welfare loss labeled WL
i
.
Finally, the other goods and services sector may absorb the production factors (labor,
capital, etc.) released by the domestic clothing industry, thereby increasing production
and generating some increase in consumer as well as producer surplus (WG
o
, not
shown).
What does this add up to then? Assuming (as we have done) that there are no
distortions in the domestic economy, and that factor markets are fully functioning, then
market prices would properly reflect social scarcities. The total welfare effect on the
economy of the freight subsidy on used clothes is then equal to +WG
u
-WL
d
-WL
i
+WG
o
,
which must be positive overall: The recipient economy gets goods coming in which are
cheaper than before and, with working markets and in the absence of distortions, this
must be good. That is, under these assumptions, although there is some restructuring
required, a freight subsidy definitely helps the recipient.
7KHSRVLWLYHH[WHUQDOLW\LQIDQWLQGXVWU\DUJXPHQWDJDLQ
However, we have already noted that there may be a plausible infant industry argument
based on possible positive externalities associated with clothes production. The
negative welfare effect that is measured in our analysis for the domestically-produced
clothes market (WL
d
in Diagram 2
d
) would then understate the loss to society of out-
competing part of the sector with second-hand imports. Instead of rectifying the
distortion, we have aggravated it. If these externalities are significant, the overall effect
on the economy of subsidized used-clothes imports might be negative.
/HVVWKDQIXOO\IXQFWLRQLQJPDUNHWV8QHPSOR\PHQW\HWDJDLQ
Similarly, if factor markets are not functioning, so that it is difficult for resources
(including labor) to find alternative employment, then the negative effect measured in
a
Consumer surplus measures the difference between what the first person who buys something would
have been willing to pay for it (how much they valued it), less the market price that they actually paid for it;
plus the difference between what the next person who buys one would have been willing to pay for it, less
the market price for it; etc. At the margin, the last person would not have been willing to pay any more,
but those before would have been willing to pay more, which is why the demand curve slopes downwards
to the right.
b
If there are scale advantages in domestic clothing production, a subsidy on competing used-clothes imports
that further reduces the scale of domestic production would obviously have further negative effects on
productivity.
Report of a study for Sida
58
our analysis would again understate the true loss.
a
Once again, instead of rectifying the
distortion, we have aggravated it.
'LVWULEXWLRQDOHIIHFWV%HQHILWLQJWKHSRRU
But are there no other externalities that should be considered? Yes, it is often argued
that there are positive distributional effects associated with the sale of used clothes—
that it primarily benefits the poor. This could be the case, and it would strengthen the
argument for subsidizing imports of used clothes. In fact, if used clothes are exclusively
(or primarily) purchased by people who could not afford to enter the market for new
clothes
b
—or if subsidized used clothes were given away exclusively to such people—
then the last three terms of our welfare formula would drop out, so that +WG
u
-WL
d
-WL
i
+WG
o
would become just +WG
u
, an obvious gain.
c
In addition, there might be positive
externality (distributional) effects, in that, for instance, reducing income inequalities
might reduce social tensions and the risk of political instability, or raising the incomes of
the poorest population segments might significantly improve their productive capacity.
,PSRUWVXEVLG\HIIHFWVRQH[SRUWLQJDQGEHQHILWV
For simplicity in the discussion of subsidized imports of used-clothes, we have so far
assumed that domestically-produced clothes are non-tradable, that is, that the domestic
clothing industry does not export. How would the argument change if domestically-
produced clothes were exported, and prices were thus set on the world market?
Diagrams 2
i
and 2
u
(for imported new and used clothes, respectively) would be
unchanged, of course, but Diagram 2
d
(domestic new clothes) would have to be
replaced by Diagram 3
d
, below. Here, domestic demand for domestically-produced
clothes is D
d
, and the quantity purchased domestically at price p
d
is q
d
d
. However, we
now assume that we have comparative advantages in this sector, and are able to
produce a total of q
d
t
, given the world market price p
w
= p
d
. The difference between
domestic supply and domestic demand (q
d
t
-q
d
d
) is then sold on the international
market.
d
In this case, a subsidy on used-clothes imports would still reduce demand for
domestically-produced clothes from D
d
to D
d
', but this would not affect production.
Instead, exports would increase by the amount (q
d
d
-q
d
d’
). The negative effect of the
subsidy would therefore be less. We have now assumed that international demand for
the exported clothes is infinitely elastic—that is, that the international market can and
will absorb whatever excess production remains after domestic demand is satisfied.
This may be too extreme an assumption, so it may well be that there would be some
negative effects on production even in the case where there are exports. But just as we
saw in the analysis of used-clothes imports in general, exporting ameliorates any
negative effects.
a
Stated another way, if the resources involved in domestic clothes production become unemployed rather
than shifting into production of other goods and services, then any potential welfare gain in that sector
(WG
o
) disappears.
b
The “separate markets” argument; see, for instance, Abrahamsson (1988) and Denconsult (1993).
c
WG
o
drops out because it depended on a shift of resources from new-clothes production and import to
other goods and services. If there is no impact on the new-clothes sectors, there is no shift of resources.
Of course if there were unemployment to start with, there may be some shift of unemployed labor into
production of other goods and services in response to the increased real income provided by subsidized
used-clothes imports, and then our formula would become +WG
u
+WG
o
, a larger gain.
d
We assume that domestic demand is satisfied first, and that the remainder can then be exported.
Used Clothes As Development Aid
59
'LDJUDP 'RPHVWLFQHZFORWKHVZLWKH[SRUWVDQGXVHGFORWKHVIUHLJKW
VXEVLG\
S
d
p
d
p
w
D
d
D
d
’
q
d
d
’
q
d
d
q
d
t
Q
P
,IWKHUHLVQRGRPHVWLFFORWKHVSURGXFWLRQ
If there does not exist any domestic clothes production at all,
a
we would obviously not
see a cutback in the production of that sector due to imports of cheap used clothes, and
the negative secondary effects would thus be less. However, the introduction of
subsidized imported used clothes would still constitute a problem for potential future
development of the sector. This sector is recognized as one where many LDCs may be
competitive, and where relatively little capital is required to get started. For instance,
Toyne (1984) notes
63
that “textiles is one of the first internationally competitive
industries generally developed by developing countries.” Subsidizing used-clothes
imports could therefore have negative long-term effects on development by precluding
or limiting potential future development of domestic production.
'XPSLQJDQGRWKHUFDXWLRQVUHJDUGLQJZKRJHWVWKHVXEVLG\DQGKRZ
Subsidies can take a number of forms and operate in a number of ways, which we need
to look at. Who is helped by freight subsidies for used-clothes imports? Is it clear who is
getting the benefit, and are they getting the maximum benefit possible? And is the
subsidy legal?
If the clothes are being provided to individuals below market cost, then of course those
individuals benefit. The International Textiles and Clothing Bureau in Geneva points out
that such subsidized sales constitute dumping, and that “a subsidy to exports of used
clothing for commercial purposes [is probably not] consistent with the Agreement on
Subsidies and Countervailing Measures of the Uruguay Round” of GATT, because it
represents unfair competition.
64
Dumping itself (apart from the question of its legality) is
not necessarily anything to be worried about: If someone wants to sell us goods at
prices lower than costs, it is generally to our advantage, provided that we can use our
resources fully in other activities, and provided that the dumping is not a temporary
move to knock out our industries, to be followed later by higher prices. While the latter
possibility is not so likely in the case we are considering here, it may be difficult—as we
a
Or perhaps more realistically—since at least small-scale clothes production is almost universal in less-
developed countries—if there is no domestic WH[WLOH production, or no ODUJHVFDOH clothes production.
Report of a study for Sida
60
have discussed—for a typical LDC to find good alternative uses of resources, so that
there may be substantial unemployment.
If the used clothes are sold on the market directly by the NGO, then that NGO’s other
projects or overhead get the benefit. If the clothes are sold on the market by some
governmental, quasi-governmental, or local counterpart organization, then that
organization gets the benefit. In any case, clarity of accounting and of understanding
would be increased if the funds were allocated directly to the NGO or its other projects,
or to the other organization involved. The used clothes can be shipped without subsidy,
and the sales receipts will cover the costs. Given likely inefficiencies in sorting and
handling, greater benefits may be possible if the used clothes are thus handled in a
more business-like way. Providing them via subsidized freight may also lead to greater
quantities being imported, and sold more cheaply, than would have otherwise been the
case, which again constitutes dumping.
If the clothes are simply misappropriated somewhere along the way, then of course
someone still benefits, but not the intended targets, and the resulting unbusiness-like
environment is clearly not desirable either.
&RQFOXVLRQV
6XEVLGLHVFDQSURYLGHEHQHILWVDQGFDXVHKDUPKDUPPD\EHDPHOLRUDWHGLI
GRPHVWLFSURGXFWLRQLVH[SRUWHGVXEVLGLHVPD\EHLOOHJDOQHYHUWKHOHVV
In ideal conditions, any subsidy which provides useful goods cheaper than before is a
good thing in itself; but under more complex conditions—with positive externalities
and/or unemployment, for instance—subsidies tend to aggravate rather than correct
distortions. Cheap used clothes that primarily benefit the poor might give positive
distributional effects, however. If domestic clothes production is being exported, any
damages from used-clothes imports would be ameliorated. On the other hand, if there is
no domestic clothes production, one cannot assume that there is no damage, because
cheap competing imports may preclude future development. Practically speaking,
subsidies which result in goods being sold below normal market price constitute
dumping, which is illegal under international agreements. Subsidies may also constitute
indirect funding support for various organizations or projects, or even for individuals who
may misappropriate the goods. If the results are intended, it is probably better to effect
them directly.
Used Clothes As Development Aid
61
&KDSWHU$OWHUQDWLY H &RVWVDQG%HVW8VHRI&DVKDQG&ORWKHV
Even if there is extreme concern for poverty, and a freight subsidy for used clothes
would have a tremendous impact on poverty, this would not necessarily imply that
freight subsidies should be given: One must obviously consider the alternative uses of
the money and, for that matter, of the clothes.
It may be helpful to reexamine our basic problem at this point. We have been asked
whether used-clothes exports to less-developed countries should be subsidized. This
question makes two basic assumptions, and thus we might separate the question into
two more basic ones:
1. There is an assumption that used clothes exist in industrial countries and are
available for subsidized export. One question we might ask is, what is the best use of
these clothes?
2. There is also an assumption that development funds exist in industrial countries
which might be available for subsidizing used-clothes exports, because industrial
countries have a desire to help—and an interest in helping—less-developed
countries develop. An obvious question we might ask is, what is the best use of these
funds? What is the best way that industrial countries can help LDCs develop?
There is an obvious, simple complementarity to the two conditions (the existence of
used clothes in industrial countries; and the existence of a desire on the part of people
in industrial countries to help the development process in LDCs), which is to use
available development funds to send available used clothes from industrial countries to
LDCs. But is this the best use of the clothes, or of the development funds? These are
two separate questions. Let us consider the use of the funds first.
7KHFRVWRIWKHIUHLJKWVXEVLG\
So far, we have looked at the effects of subsidized used-clothes imports only on the
recipient country, without comparing these effects with the cost to the donor, or with the
alternative cost to the recipient. In Diagram 2
u
(in the previous chapter) we showed the
cost of the subsidy: If we subsidize the transport of each unit of used clothes by s = p
u
-
p
u
', and the total quantity is q
u
', then the total cost of the subsidy (s
*
q
u
') is equal to the
rectangular area ABCD.
a
7KHDOWHUQDWLYHFRVWRIWKHIUHLJKWVXEVLG\&DVK
The cost of the freight subsidy (ABCD) is clearly larger than the total increase in
consumer surplus in the used-clothes market (+WG
u
), much (but perhaps not all) of
which would accrue to the poor.
b
We also remember the two other directly negative
welfare effects, -WL
d
and -WL
i
(in Diagrams 2
d
and 2
i
, respectively), and also the loss of
the positive externality that might be associated with clothes production, and the
likelihood of increased unemployment resulting from subsidized used-clothes imports.
a
If we imagine a project which not only reduces the cost of used-clothes imports generally, but also targets
particular groups of poor people and sorts the clothes very thoroughly for their individual needs, then the
total project implementation cost would probably be very much larger.
b
This is probably still true, even if there is also some small welfare gain due to a shift of unemployed
resources into production of other goods and services in response to increased real income. Any other
efficient use of the funds for development purposes would likely have the same or larger income effect on
production of other goods and services.
Report of a study for Sida
62
%HVWXVHRIWKHFDVK
It would therefore be better to put the used-clothes subsidy funds directly in the hands
of the poor, and then let them use the money as they see fit, rather than subsidizing
used-clothes imports. Such transfers would have all of the distributional benefits of (or
more than) subsidizing used-clothes imports, without the loss of efficiency implied by
the fact that the cost exceeds the consumer surplus gain. If such cash transfers are not
feasible, one could use the money for efficient projects that benefit the poor.
a
A freight subsidy does not eliminate a market distortion, but rather introduces one, in
the form of distorted prices for used clothes.
b
It should imply some benefit for the
recipient country, but even without any possible negative secondary effects, it will not
increase aggregate welfare as much as a direct transfer of money, which would allow
the import of whatever is most wanted and needed. This conclusion does not change
when distributional effects are considered. There are certainly better ways to help the
poor directly, rather than doing it indirectly, via the used-clothes market.
%HVWXVHRIWKHFORWKHV
If it is clear that available development funds can be put to better use than for freight
subsidies for used clothes, then it follows that the used clothes themselves can also be
put to better use. As we have seen, commercial markets worldwide are willing to convert
used clothes into cash, and the cash can then be put to good use in development
projects.
6LWXDWLRQVZKHUHIUHLJKWVXEVLGLHVZRXOGEHZDUUDQWHG&DWDVWURSKHVQRVXSSO\
Are there any situations where freight subsidies would be warranted? What about a
catastrophe situation, where there is no alternative local supply, either of domestically-
produced new clothes, or of imported new or used clothes? In this case, the negative
side effects of cheap used-clothes imports would not exist. Thus it is possible that there
are in fact market failures which NGO projects could help to remedy with Sida-
subsidized used-clothes exports.
Analytically, assume we have the situation as depicted in Diagram 4
u
, below: There is a
demand curve for used clothes, but initially no supply.
c
However, assume now that we
were to give such a large freight subsidy that prices in the market go to zero: Then the
consumer surplus gain would equal the whole triangle ABE. The cost is again equal to
the rectangle ABCD, but now this may be considerably less than the gain, though this,
of course, depends on the costs of transporting the goods to the country in question.
The difference between this and the former case (Diagram 2
u
in the previous chapter) is
a
We are not actually suggesting cash transfers as a practical alternative, but only note it as a theoretical
possibility; income-generating projects, as suggested by the Riddell report, would seem more
appropriate.
b
This may be seen as the other side of the dual analysis suggested above: What is the best use of the
clothes? Market economics suggests that the best use is to sell them to the people who value them the
most, and commercial markets exist for doing so, as we have seen. To sell them at subsidized prices, or
to give them away, suggests that someone will obtain each article of clothing who probably values that
particular article less than the person who would have purchased it in the market. In the market, the
clothes will tend to be thoroughly sifted until just the right shirt, dress or pair of pants finds just the right
buyer. That kind of matching cannot be obtained without a market. If instead the clothes were “sold to the
highest bidder” and WKH IXQGV were distributed to the poor, they would be enabled to buy the clothes, or
other items, which they themselves valued most.
c
While world supply S
u
exists at the price level p
u
, actual supply within the country has been interrupted by
a catastrophe.
Used Clothes As Development Aid
63
that now there is no initial commercial supply of used clothes at all. Before, the subsidy
only changed the DPRXQW of consumer surplus; now the subsidy accounts for all of it,
because the existence of any supply at all is conditional upon it. Since we assume that
this is a crisis situation where goods would not be available if they were not delivered by
the donor, the money transfer option would not exist as an effective alternative. Thus, in
such a case, the subsidy would be warranted, basically for humanitarian reasons.
'LDJUDP ,PSRUWHGXVHGFORWKHVFDWDVWURSKH QRVXSSO\²VKRZLQJZHOIDUH
JDLQDQGLWVFRVW
E
D
u
CD
p
u
S
u
s
B A
q
u
q
u
’
Q
P
The demand curve here is taken to show what people would be willing to pay for
different quantities. In the case of a complete disaster, of course, people may be
destitute, and there would not be any market demand in spite of great need. The
conclusion that transfers in kind would be called for would still seem valid, although we
would then have to assign some value to the utility to the population of the clothes
transferred.
Disaster relief is thus an example in which people in desperate need of clothing may
have no capacity to enter the market to satisfy those needs, not because they
themselves are poor (although they may be destitute), but because the markets and the
production supporting them have disappeared. However, we have noted that many
major international NGOs generally prefer not to utilize second-hand clothes as part of
emergency relief, and even the Swedish Red Cross notes that used clothes are not and
should not be an important part of emergency planning. There can be a need for clothes
as part of relief assistance, perhaps after a catastrophe situation has “normalized”, but
in such situations it is noteworthy that UFF—which has been severely criticized in the
media for selling used clothes commercially in Africa—nevertheless generally gives
away QHZ clothes when it comes to relief assistance. It seems that used clothes should
be used if and when it can be demonstrated that the need is urgent and cannot
reasonably be met from other sources, and that the supply is most appropriate to the
need.
Report of a study for Sida
64
&RQFOXVLRQV
6XEVLGLHVJHQHUDOO\KHOSOHVVWKDQWKH\FRVWDQGPD\LQIDFWFDXVHKDUP
DOWKRXJKWKH\PD\EHQHFHVVDU\LQUHVSRQGLQJWRFDWDVWURSKHV
What do we conclude from this theoretical exercise with regard to freight subsidies? We
conclude that subsidies help LDCs get imports at lower prices, which suggests that they
are welfare-enhancing. Secondly, however, we note that the aggregate welfare gain is
less than the cost of the freight subsidy. It would therefore be better to use the money
for direct transfers, or for more efficient projects. This applies even in the case where
there is no domestic clothing industry that is negatively affected. And it may actually be
easier to target the impact of other types of interventions on the poor.
Moreover, if there are positive externalities associated with domestic clothes production,
then the effect of a used-clothes freight subsidy on this sector will tend to negate the
welfare gain of the transfer itself, unless the unemployed resources find as good a use
in other industries. However, they may be transferred to sectors with less positive
external effects, or—if factor markets are less than fully functioning—they may even
remain unemployed, and then the negative effect is compounded.
The policy conclusion that can be drawn from this theoretical review is thus that, under
normal circumstances, Sida should cease giving freight subsidies for used-clothes
exports: This is a costly way to help the poor; the money can be put to better use. The
only time where such subsidies might be warranted is in catastrophes, where markets
collapse, and the population requires transfers in kind. Freight subsidies should thus
only be used within the framework of catastrophe aid.
Used Clothes As Development Aid
65
3DUW,,,6XPPDU\DQG3ROLF\5HFRPPHQGDWLRQV
6XPPDU\
World trade in used clothes is large and growing rapidly, but is still rather small (and
constant) compared to overall trade in textiles and clothing (much of which originates in
Third World countries). Used clothes are not a homogeneous good: Many industrial
countries import as well as export used clothes, and many LDCs export as well as
import, but the preponderance of exports winds up in Third World countries.
Producer organizations and labor unions are vociferous in protest against such “unfair”
competition, but most countries have no exceptional restrictions against used-clothes
imports. Swedish NGOs exporting used clothes have in the past sometimes attempted
to target “the poorest of the poor”, and other times have allowed used clothes to be sold
somewhat arbitrarily, but now most organizations are using the market to maximize the
return on used-clothes sales, and are using the proceeds for development purposes.
Under simple “ideal” conditions, used-clothes imports into LDCs should theoretically
allow an increase in real income. However, the loss of possible positive externalities
associated with textile or clothing production, or increased unemployment of labor and
capital if factor markets are not functioning well, could cause net welfare losses.
Empirical analysis of results would require rather complex study; the one actual detailed
study which exists shows net gains from used-clothes imports, but is based on a special
case (a country with no domestic textile production). Popular attitudes in LDCs seem
generally positive, as cheap and “stylish” goods are made available, and much
employment is generated in cleaning, repair, restyling, and distribution. Clothes and
other goods have of course been much re-used throughout history in many parts of the
world, including now in the industrial countries.
Subsidizing used-clothes exports (and thus increasing the volume of such exports)
would increase any resulting damages, unless there were no effective demand (people
too poor to enter the market), or no supply (as might happen during wartime, for
instance). If people are too poor to enter the market, they need many things, so
probably they could be better served by income-generating development projects
(perhaps funded at least partly by unsubsidized used-clothes sales), rather than by
subsidized used-clothes distribution, which is expensive and inefficient. There may be a
role for subsidized used-clothes exports in disaster relief, although many international
NGOs are somewhat skeptical about their value even here.
Thus we believe—and evidence supports—that re-using second-hand clothes is in
general a good thing, and probably has economic benefits. Nevertheless, theoretical
analysis—somewhat supported by empirical evidence—shows that in the real world
situations encountered in most LDCs, used-clothes imports may cause economic
damage. Subsidizing imports of used clothes for aid projects would increase this
damage.
Even in the case of targeting “the poorest of the poor”, who have no effective demand,
more effective, better-targeted aid projects are possible. In catastrophe situations,
where supply and/or distribution have broken down, there may be a need for subsidized
imports of used clothes (although cheap new clothes may be more appropriate and
more efficient for the purpose).
Report of a study for Sida
66
3ROLF\5HFRPPHQGDWLRQV
Thus we recommend the following policies regarding Sida subsidies for NGO export of
used clothes:
1. In general, no subsidies should be given for export of used clothes, particularly if the
clothes are to be sold on the market. If the organizations or projects which would
have benefited financially are judged worthy of support, such support should be given
directly.
2. In the case of targeting particular population groups—“the poorest of the poor”—more
effective, better-targeted projects should be encouraged.
a. NGOs should be encouraged to sell their surplus used-clothes stocks into the
commercial “rag merchant” network—as is widely done in most other industrial
countries.
b. The proceeds, plus whatever subsidies Sida might have given for used-clothes
exports, should be devoted to projects.
3. In catastrophe situations, freight subsidies for used-clothes exports should be given
only as a last resort—if no better and more immediate source of supply is available.
NGOs should be encouraged to find supplies as close to the scene as possible; the
use of cheap new clothes should be explored for this purpose.
4. In any cases in which subsidies for used-clothes exports are given, plans should be
scrutinized, and results monitored, with the following questions in mind:
a. In catastrophe situations, how has it been ascertained that local production and
other closer sources are insufficient to meet the need?
b. Have other alternatives been explored—such as importing from neighboring
countries, commercial imports of used clothes, etc.?
c. If used-clothes are to be used for project aid with “the poorest of the poor”, how are
the target groups to be selected? How will distribution be monitored to be sure that
they are in fact the recipients?
d. How has it been determined that they in fact have no presence in the market?
e. How were their needs ascertained? Is their highest priority used clothes? Or, for
example, would they rather have the cash? If so, is there any other project
possible—perhaps an income-generating project—which could more effectively
use the financial resources and volunteer effort available?
f. How will the clothes be sorted to make sure that they match local needs?
g. Will the recipients be monitored to discover if there is any resale activity?
a
5. Any changes from current policy should be made in a carefully planned manner, so
as not to lose the benefits which undoubtedly do accrue from subsidized charitable
exports of used clothes, and which might be lost without compensating gains if policy
changes are made precipitously.
a
Not that they should be forbidden from reselling, but reselling indicates a) that the clothes were not what
they needed most, and b) that there is in fact an impact on the market.
Used Clothes As Development Aid
$33(1',&( 6
$SSHQGL[7HUPVRI5HIHUHQFHIRUWKH6WXG\
D
Lumpens Politiska Ekonomi —
begagnade varor som bistånd
b
%$&.*5281'
For a long time Sida’s NGO division has subsidized freight and related costs of
transporting used goods to the Third World, as well as providing support of various
kinds to the volunteer organizations involved. This “freight aid” has been given, both as
a part of larger projects, and to organizations whose main activity is collection and
distribution of used goods.
Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) aiming to collect, transport and distribute used
goods have been created by the Swedish people as a manifestation of solidarity with
people in less-developed countries. The work in Sweden is mostly done by volunteers,
and the organizations usually have limited budgets and limited other operations.
Sida has no clear policy for “freight aid”. An organization’s chances of receiving state
aid are mainly dependent, first, on Sida’s knowledge of its activity, and then on Sida’s
judgment of its capacity and competence.
A number of studies (listed in the appendix) have been done of these activities, but they
have not analyzed the effects of the aid to any great extent.
385326(
The government has asked Sida to evaluate “freight aid” in order to improve the
efficiency of Swedish development assistance in general. Based on the present study,
Sida intends to adopt a suitable policy for “freight aid”.
0($16
Sida wants to know more about the development effects of “freight aid”—on income
distribution, employment, institutional structure, environment, etc.
7+(7$6.
The task consists of survey and documentation, analysis, and recommendations, as
follows:
6XUYH\DQGGRFXPHQWDWLRQ
• The extent of international flows of used goods, commercial as well as charitable.
The largest exporting countries and the largest importing (receiving) countries. The
dominant kinds of goods. [The extent of commercial flows of used clothes worldwide
is fully documented in the text, and data regarding private charitable flows of all types
a
Translated,
abbreviated, and annotated.
b
The political economy of rags — used goods as aid.
Report of a study for Sida
A-2
of goods from the U.S. is also given; international data is not kept on flows of other
used goods, but a list of their known categories is included. International data
collection does not distinguish charitable from commercial shipments.]
• The quality and remaining life of the products. Maintenance of received materials.
[These questions, specifically with reference to used clothes, are discussed at length
in the text. There is an extensive literature on the use of second-hand equipment in
development, but as these are producer goods rather than consumer goods, and
thus raise quite different issues, we have chosen to focus at this time on used
clothes, and suggest a separate project if further study is desired in this area.]
• The distribution chain in the receiving countries. Price-setting—how are prices set?
[These questions, specifically with reference to used clothes, are discussed at length
in the text.]
• Organizations active in this field using Swedish aid. Volumes and current trends, both
by types of goods and by countries receiving the goods. [We have not been
encouraged to seek current information about specific projects or NGOs receiving
such subsidies, but we present data on Swedish organizations active in collection
and export of used clothes, and information on recent recipient countries.]
$QDO\VLV
• The value to the receiver, and effects on demand: Is the activity demand- or supply-
driven? [These questions are discussed at length in the text, primarily for used
clothes, but briefly regarding other goods as well.]
• Effects on supply in receiving countries: Are the imported goods a complement to, or
a substitute for, existing resources? [These questions, primarily with reference to
used clothes, are discussed at length in the text.]
• Effects on employment and income distribution. [These questions, specifically with
reference to used clothes, are discussed at length in the text.]
• Growth effects and other long-term effects on production and the production
structure. [These questions, specifically with reference to used clothes, are discussed
at length in the text.]
• What role does the charitable operation play in relation to the commercial operation?
[This question, specifically with reference to used clothes, is discussed in the text.]
• What role does Sida’s “freight aid” play? How are volumes, costs, and prices
affected? [Empirical answers to these questions would require detailed analysis of
the current circumstances and methodology of particular projects, which we have not
been encouraged to pursue. Nevertheless, some theoretical answers, specifically
with reference to used clothes, are provided in the text.]
• Other questions that might come up during the course of the work and that might
seem relevant; for example, the activity’s effect on the environment. [In addition to
the environment, other related questions such as political realities in less-developed
countries and solidarity motives in Sweden have been briefly discussed.]
5HFRPPHQGDWLRQV
What should Sida’s policy on “freight aid” be? Discuss if a field study is needed in order
to answer the questions above satisfactorily. If so, what form should this study take?
*
[Recommendations regarding Sida’s policy on “freight aid” are made in the text. No field
*
Sida’s footnote: This task does not include any field study; any possible field study will be done as an
added task, or as a new report separately from this study.
Used Clothes As Development Aid
A-3
study is thought to be generally necessary, although if Sida provides freight aid for
used-clothes exports in the future, careful monitoring of its effects is suggested. A
thorough analysis of the efficacy of used clothes as opposed to new clothes in disaster
relief might also prove useful. If there is sufficient interest, a separate study could also
be undertaken focusing more specifically on used equipment.]
0(7+2'
It is expected that the task will be accomplished through:
1. study of existing reports and documents, including international statistics, and
through
2. interviews with charitable organizations, aid agencies, and possibly with other
relevant agencies or organizations.
5(3257
A written report in English is expected.
$33(1',;5HIHUHQFHOLVW
Following is a list of studies of used-clothes exports to less-developed countries, and
related materials:
1. The Naked Truth: Swedish private organizations’ clothing aid to Mozambique and its
effects on local textile production. Area Forecasting Institute, Hans Abrahamsson,
Göteborg, 1988.
2. Klädfrakt för projektbistånd—Studie av Sidas fraktbidrag till föreningen U-landshjälp
från folk till folk i Sverige (UFF) [Clothing freight as project aid—a study of Sida’s
freight aid to the Swedish organization “Development Aid from People to People
(DAPP)”]. Interconsult Sweden AB, 1990.
3. Effektivare klädbistånd för större oberoende—en organisationsstudie av Praktisk
Solidaritet [More effective clothing aid for greater independence—a study of the
organization Practical Solidarity]. Interconsult Sweden AB, 1990.
4. In Need of Clothes: Second-hand clothing for Uganda, Zimbabwe, Mozambique,
Sierra Leone and Vietnam. Swedish Red Cross, 1992.
5. Effects of Second-Hand Clothes Sales in Developing Countries. Denconsult, 1993.
6. Miscellaneous data and newspaper articles.
Report of a study for Sida
A-4
Used Clothes As Development Aid
A-5
$SSHQGL[6WDWLVWLFDO7DEOHV
7DEOH$7ZHQW\IRXUQHWXVHGFORWKHVH[SRUWLQJFRXQWULHV¶
rank exporting country total value (US$) share of total
1 USA, Puerto Rico, & Virgin Is. $1,197,019,000 38.3%
2 Germany (W. Germany before 1991) $571,653,000 18.3%
3 Belgium-Luxembourg $344,818,000 11.0%
4 Netherlands $319,143,000 10.2%
5 Japan $167,701,000 5.4%
6 United Kingdom $151,259,000 4.8%
7 Italy $98,693,000 3.2%
8 Australia $62,067,000 2.0%
9 Canada $59,744,000 1.9%
10 Mexico $34,930,000 1.1%
11 Denmark $34,106,000 1.1%
12 Sweden $27,020,000 0.9%
13 Switzerland, Liechtenstein $19,952,000 0.6%
14 Austria $11,157,000 0.4%
15 Portugal $8,254,000 0.26%
16 Finland $7,863,000 0.25%
17 Norway, Svalbard & Jan Mayen $3,365,000 0.11%
18 Panama $2,426,000 0.08%
19 Iceland $851,000 0.03%
20 China $220,000 0.007%
21 Nepal $179,000 0.006%
22 Morocco $67,000 0.002%
23 Colombia $38,000 0.001%
24 Oman $6,000 0.0002%
Source: Derived from SITC2 data obtained from the United Nations Statistical Division, International Trade Statistics Branch.
Note: Total value for each country for the period is simply the sum of uncorrected annual figures; correcting annual figures for
inflation should have little effect on rank or share.
Report of a study for Sida
A-6
7DEOH$6RPHXVHGFORWKHVH[SRUWHUVDQGLPSRUWHUVZLWKQHW
ZHLJKWVDQGYDOXHVDQGDYHUDJHSULFHVUDQNHGE\QHWYDOXHRIH[SRUWV
RULPSRUWV
rank
by
net
value
some 1984 used-clothes
exporters and importers
export
weight
(1000
kgs)
export
value
(US$
1000s)
average
export
price
(US$/kg)
import
weight
(1000
kgs)
import
value
(US$
1000s)
average
import
price
(US$/kg)
net
weight
(1000
kgs)
net
value
(US$
1000s)
1 USA, Puerto Rico, Virgin Is. 98,857 76,714 $0.78 -98,857 76,714
2 West Germany 54,639 26,534 $0.49 2,526 2,341 $0.93 -52,113 24,193
3 Japan 41,028 20,046 $0.49 222 1,586 $7.14 -40,806 18,460
4 Belgium-Luxembourg 50,400 35,114 $0.70 46,952 17,522 $0.37 -3,448 17,592
5 Netherlands 38,947 25,108 $0.64 31,597 9,867 $0.31 -7,350 15,241
6 Australia 5,784 5,231 $0.90 - 460 ? ? 4,771
7 United Kingdom 6,461 8,985 $1.39 2,641 5,193 $1.97 -3,820 3,792
8 Sweden 3,670 2,505 $0.68 113 277 $2.45 -3,557 2,228
9 Denmark 4,729 2,277 $0.48 114 311 $2.73 -4,615 1,966
10 Italy 10,276 6,378 $0.62 9,794 4,463 $0.46 -482 1,915
11 Switzerland, Liechtenstein 1,500 785 $0.52 79 107 $1.35 -1,421 678
12 South Korea 1,332 2,368 $1.78 1,191 1,857 $1.56 -141 511
13 Spain 491 535 $1.09 284 121 $0.43 -207 414
14 Norway, Svalbard, Jan Mayen 502 384 $0.76 46 105 $2.28 -456 279
15 Iceland 257 262 $1.02 - 1 ? ? 261
16 Finland 444 174 $0.39 37 114 $3.08 -407 60
17 Trinidad and Tobago 1 7 $7.00 - 1 ? ? 6
18 New Zealand 8 9 $1.13 1 6 $6.00 -7 3
19 Colombia 80 4 $0.05 - 3 ? ? 1
51 Seychelles - 1 ? ? -1
50 Faeroe Islands 1 1 $1.00 1 2 $2.00 0 -1
49 Peru -2? ?-2
48 French Guiana 1 2 $2.00 1 -2
47 Qatar 5 2 $0.40 5 -2
46 Macau 2 3 $1.50 2 -3
45 Greenland 2 4 $2.00 2 -4
44 Cyprus - 4 ? ? -4
43 Martinique 3 12 $4.00 3 -12
42 Bolivia 21 19 $0.90 21 -19
41 Grenada 48 20 $0.42 48 -20
40 Reunion 3 24 $8.00 3 -24
39 Guadeloupe 4 28 $7.00 4 -28
38 Zimbabwe 3 12 $4.00 46 63 $1.37 43 -51
37 Barbados - 74 ? ? -74
36 Vanuatu - 80 ? ? -80
35 Jamaica 70 103 $1.47 70 -103
34 Kenya 277 155 $0.56 277 -155
33 Sri Lanka - 156 ? ? -156
32 Austria 1,728 396 $0.23 925 585 $0.63 -803 -189
31 Greece 13 6 $0.46 154 291 $1.89 141 -285
30 Solomon Islands - 327 ? ? -327
29 Israel - 29 ? - 371 ? ? -342
28 Fiji 277 455 $1.64 277 -455
27 Paraguay 222 506 $2.28 222 -506
26 Liberia 373 560 $1.50 373 -560
25 Portugal 80 129 $1.61 619 698 $1.13 539 -569
24 Congo - 1 ? 576 672 $1.17 ? -671
Used Clothes As Development Aid
A-7
rank
by
net
value
some 1984 used-clothes
exporters and importers
export
weight
(1000
kgs)
export
value
(US$
1000s)
average
export
price
(US$/kg)
import
weight
(1000
kgs)
import
value
(US$
1000s)
average
import
price
(US$/kg)
net
weight
(1000
kgs)
net
value
(US$
1000s)
23 Madagascar 364 719 $1.98 364 -719
22 Saudi Arabia 699 762 $1.09 699 -762
21 Ireland 60 194 $3.23 311 1,011 $3.25 251 -817
20 Djibouti 1,062 1,158 $1.09 1,062 -1,158
19 Thailand 440 1,198 $2.72 440 -1,198
18 Sierra Leone 2,394 1,211 $0.51 2,394 -1,211
17 Ethiopia 143 67 $0.47 834 1,683 $2.02 691 -1,616
16 Singapore 5,912 6,433 $1.09 8,339 8,450 $1.01 2,427 -2,017
15 Syria - 1 ? 3,101 2,071 $0.67 ? -2,070
14 India 3 5 $1.67 638 2,245 $3.52 635 -2,240
13 Malawi - 2,281 ? ? -2,281
12 Papua New Guinea 1,226 2,296 $1.87 1,226 -2,296
11 Chile 1,975 2,393 $1.21 1,975 -2,393
10 Brazil 848 2,960 $3.49 848 -2,960
9 South African Customs Union - 22 ? - 3,332 ? ? -3,310
8 Indonesia - 37 ? 603 4,304 $7.14 ? -4,267
7 Hong Kong 3,405 1,101 $0.32 7,403 7,725 $1.04 3,998 -6,624
6 Jordan 1 1 $1.00 6,420 6,908 $1.08 6,419 -6,907
5 Tunisia 721 577 $0.80 15,348 7,655 $0.50 14,627 -7,078
4 Malaysia 548 207 $0.38 6,990 7,679 $1.10 6,442 -7,472
3 Bangladesh - 7,915 ? ? -7,915
2 France, Monaco 11,545 7,019 $0.61 16,787 15,086 $0.90 5,242 -8,067
1 Pakistan 54 77 $1.43 55,308 29,646 $0.54 55,254 -29,569
count: 34 39 54 69
1984 totals: 343,623 229,735 $0.67 230,316 170,242 $0.67
percentage accounted for: 67% 74% unacctd. for: 113,307 59,493
reported weight: 99.96% by value 91% by value
Source: Derived from SITC2 data obtained from the United Nations Statistical Division, International Trade Statistics Branch.
Notes: Reflecting flows of real goods, and in order to clearly distinguish net exports from net imports, net weights are negative for
net exports, positive for net imports. Similarly, reflecting financial flows, net values are positive for net exports, negative for
net imports. For countries with both imports and exports, if either weight is missing, no net weight is given. Total average
export and import prices are based only on those values for which weights are reported. Extreme export or import prices may
indicate some problem in the data, such as partial missing weights. The absence of a listing for a particular country does not
necessarily indicate that no trade occurred. For instance, countries still reporting on SITC1, or not reporting at all, do not
show up. More complete data (covering more countries, and including weights per capita) is provided in Tables A3-A5 and
A11-A13.
Report of a study for Sida
A-8
7DEOH$ZRUOGXVHGFORWKHVJURVVH[SRUWHUVUDQNHGE\YDOXHZLWK
UHSRUWHGDQGLPSXWHGZHLJKWVYDOXHDQGZHLJKWVKDUHVRIWRWDO
ZHLJKWVSHUFDSLWDDQGDYHUDJHSULFHV
rank by 1990 exporters of reported value share reported wt. imputed wt. share kilograms avg. price
value used clothes (US dollars) of total (kilograms) (kilograms) of total per capita (US$/kg)
1 USA, Puerto Rico, Virgin Is. $124,774,000 25.4% 133,063,000 137,114,286 24.4% 0.55 $0.91*
2 West Germany $74,732,000 15.2% 117,881,000 117,881,000 21.0% 1.9 $0.63
3 Belgium-Luxembourg $71,816,000 14.6% 65,778,000 65,778,000 11.7% 6.6 $1.09
4 Netherlands $59,927,000 12.2% 53,924,000 53,924,000 9.6% 3.6 $1.11
5 Japan $35,345,000 7.2% 45,245,000 45,245,000 8.1% 0.37 $0.78
6 France, Monaco $24,225,000 4.9% 26,335,000 26,620,879 4.7% 0.47 $0.91
7 Italy $22,597,000 4.6% 23,008,000 23,008,000 4.1% 0.40 $0.98
8 United Kingdom $21,288,000 4.3% 14,417,000 14,417,000 2.6% 0.25 $1.48
9 Canada $9,149,000 1.9% 22,084,477 3.9% 0.79 $0.41*
10 Australia $6,634,000 1.3% 5,285,000 5,285,000 0.94% 0.31 $1.26
11 Switzerland, Liechtenstein* $5,503,000 1.1% 7,223,000 7,223,000 1.3% 1.1 $0.76
12 Sweden $5,210,000 1.1% 3,647,000 3,669,014 0.65% 0.43 $1.42
13 Denmark $4,839,000 1.0% 7,651,000 7,651,000 1.4% 1.5 $0.63
14 Malaysia $2,998,000 0.61% 3,079,000 3,079,000 0.55% 0.17 $0.97
15 Austria $2,721,000 0.55% 9,994,000 9,994,000 1.8% 1.3 $0.27
16 Finland $2,044,000 0.42% 1,586,000 1,586,000 0.28% 0.32 $1.29
17 Singapore* $1,981,000 0.40% 1,788,000 1,784,685 0.32% 0.66 $1.11
18 Unspecific* $1,921,000 0.39% 941,000 951,990 0.17% $2.02
19 Panama $1,673,000 0.34% 651,000 651,000 0.12% 0.27 $2.57
20 East Germany* $1,326,000 0.27% 2,773,000 2,773,000 0.49% 0.17 $0.48
21 Tunisia $1,299,000 0.26% 1,427,000 1,427,000 0.25% 0.18 $0.91
22 Asia Unspecific* $753,000 0.15% 728,000 745,545 0.13% $1.01
23 Mexico* $639,000 0.13% 1,235,000 1,252,941 0.22% 0.015 $0.51
24 Hong Kong* $633,000 0.13% 403,000 419,205 0.075% 0.073 $1.51
25 Norway, Svalbard, Jan Mayen $560,000 0.11% 1,185,000 1,185,000 0.21% 0.28 $0.47
26 Chile* $537,000 0.11% 538,000 538,000 0.10% 0.041 $1.00
27 Poland* $485,000 0.10% 404,000 404,167 0.072% 0.011 $1.20
28 South Korea* $482,000 0.10% 162,000 175,912 0.031% 0.0041 $2.74
29 India $381,000 0.077% 72,000 74,706 0.013% 0.00009 $5.10
30 Pakistan* $377,000 0.077% 158,000 164,629 0.029% 0.0014 $2.29
31 Spain* $375,000 0.076% 375,000 378,788 0.068% 0.010 $0.99
32 Portugal $375,000 0.076% 143,000 144,788 0.026% 0.015 $2.59
33 China* $322,000 0.065% 172,000 172,000 0.031% 0.0002 $1.87
34 Ireland* $269,000 0.055% 409,000 409,000 0.073% 0.12 $0.66
35 Yugoslavia* $214,000 0.044% 17,000 17,079 0.0030% 0.0017 $12.53
36 Saudi Arabia* $202,000 0.041% 335,000 335,000 0.060% 0.021 $0.60
37 Benin* $190,000 0.039% 128,000 128,000 0.023% 0.028 $1.48
38 New Zealand* $171,000 0.035% 121,000 126,667 0.023% 0.038 $1.35
39 Argentina* $163,000 0.033% 52,000 52,000 0.0093% 0.0016 $3.13
40 Thailand* $153,000 0.031% 77,000 81,383 0.015% 0.0015 $1.88
41 Honduras $132,000 0.027% 28,000 28,000 0.0050% 0.0057 $4.71
42 Brazil* $130,000 0.026% 30,000 30,233 0.0054% 0.0002 $4.30
43 USSR* $128,000 0.026% 185,000 191,045 0.034% 0.0007 $0.67
44 Greece* $115,000 0.023% 68,000 70,988 0.013% 0.0069 $1.62
45 Israel* $107,000 0.022% 7,000 7,000 0.0012% 0.0015 $15.29
46 South African Cust. Union* $105,000 0.021% 60,000 66,456 0.012% 0.0018 $1.58
47 Indonesia $103,000 0.021% 37,000 37,729 0.0067% 0.0002 $2.73
48 Philippines* $98,000 0.020% 91,000 96,078 0.017% 0.0016 $1.02
49 Morocco* $92,000 0.019% 49,000 50,549 0.0090% 0.0021 $1.82
50 Colombia* $87,000 0.018% 31,000 31,000 0.0055% 0.0010 $2.81
Used Clothes As Development Aid
A-9
rank by 1990 exporters of reported value share reported wt. imputed wt. share kilograms avg. price
value used clothes (US dollars) of total (kilograms) (kilograms) of total per capita (US$/kg)
51 Hungary* $68,000 0.014% 45,000 61,261 0.011% 0.0059 $1.11
52 Burma (Myanmar)* $68,000 0.014% 3,000 3,000 0.0005% 0.00007 $22.67
53 Togo $66,000 0.013% 60,000 60,000 0.011% 0.017 $1.10
54 United Arab Emirates* $66,000 0.013% 30,000 38,824 0.0069% 0.023 $1.70
55 Niger* $62,000 0.013% 7,000 7,000 0.0012% 0.0009 $8.86
56 Peru* $58,000 0.012% 28,000 29,000 0.0052% 0.0013 $2.00
57 Czechoslovakia* $54,000 0.011% 55,000 56,250 0.010% 0.0036 $0.96
58 El Salvador* $52,000 0.011% 5,000 5,000 0.0009% 0.0010 $10.20
59 Guatemala* $46,000 0.0094% 39,000 58,228 0.010% 0.0063 $0.79
60 Ethiopia $41,000 0.0083% 8,000 7,551 0.0013% 0.0002 $5.43
61 Bangladesh* $40,000 0.0081% 15,000 15,000 0.0027% 0.0001 $2.67
62 Venezuela* $39,000 0.0079% 6,000 6,321 0.0011% 0.0003 $6.17
63 Iceland $36,000 0.0073% 46,000 46,000 0.0082% 0.18 $0.78
64 Egypt* $33,000 0.0067% 28,000 34,375 0.0061% 0.0006 $0.96
65 Turkey* $33,000 0.0067% 22,000 22,000 0.0039% 0.0004 $1.50
66 Viet Nam* $33,000 0.0067% 15,000 15,000 0.0027% 0.0002 $2.20
67 Ecuador* $33,000 0.0067% 9,000 9,000 0.0016% 0.0009 $3.67
68 Somalia* $33,000 0.0067% 4,000 4,000 0.0007% 0.0005 $8.25
69 Costa Rica* $31,000 0.0063% 24,000 24,000 0.0043% 0.0079 $1.29
70 Africa Unspecific* $31,000 0.0063% 4,000 4,000 0.0007% $7.75
71 Ghana* $30,000 0.0061% 34,000 37,975 0.0068% 0.0025 $0.79
72 Zimbabwe* $29,000 0.0059% 8,000 8,000 0.0014% 0.0008 $3.63
73 Madagascar $27,000 0.0055% 3,000 3,000 0.0005% 0.0002 $9.00
74 Mali $24,000 0.0049% 645,000 645,000 0.11% 0.070 $0.04
75 Uruguay* $24,000 0.0049% 8,000 8,000 0.0014% 0.0026 $3.00
76 Djibouti* $23,000 0.0047% 28,000 28,000 0.0050% 0.054 $0.82
77 Sri Lanka $22,000 0.0045% 6,000 0.0011% 0.0003 $3.67
78 St. Pierre & Miquelon* $18,000 0.0037% 18,000 18,000 0.0032% 3.0 $1.00
79 Kuwait* $18,000 0.0037% 8,000 11,043 0.0020% 0.0052 $1.63
80 Faeroe Islands* $17,000 0.0035% 5,000 5,000 0.0009% 0.11 $3.40
81 Kenya* $16,000 0.0033% 4,000 4,571 0.0008% 0.0002 $3.50
82 Jordan* $15,000 0.0031% 10,000 10,000 0.0018% 0.0023 $1.50
83 Trinidad and Tobago* $13,000 0.0026% 8,000 34,211 0.0061% 0.028 $0.38
84 Bulgaria* $13,000 0.0026% 5,000 5,000 0.0009% 0.0006 $2.60
85 Netherlands Antilles* $12,000 0.0024%
86 Sierra Leone* $12,000 0.0024%
87 Cote D’Ivoire* $9,000 0.0018% 7,000 7,895 0.0014% 0.0007 $1.14
88 Nicaragua* $8,000 0.0016% 2,000 16,000 0.0029% 0.0044 $0.50
89 North Korea* $8,000 0.0016% 3,000 3,000 0.0005% 0.0001 $2.67
90 Iran* $7,000 0.0014% 3,000 10,448 0.0019% 0.0002 $0.67
91 Afghanistan* $7,000 0.0014% 2,000 4,667 0.0008% 0.0003 $1.50
92 Paraguay* $7,000 0.0014% 4,000 4,000 0.0007% 0.0009 $1.75
93 Liberia* $7,000 0.0014%
94 Romania* $6,000 0.0012% 5,000 7,500 0.0013% 0.0003 $0.80
95 Albania* $6,000 0.0012% 2,000 2,000 0.0004% 0.0006 $3.00
96 Guyana* $6,000 0.0012%
97 Nauru* $5,000 0.0010% 19,000 19,000 0.0034% 1.9 $0.26
98 Laos* $5,000 0.0010% 6,000 6,000 0.0011% 0.0014 $0.83
99 Algeria* $5,000 0.0010% 3,000 3,000 0.0005% 0.0001 $1.67
100 Bolivia* $5,000 0.0010% 2,000 2,500 0.0004% 0.0004 $2.00
101 Oman* $5,000 0.0010% 1,000 1,000 0.0002% 0.0006 $5.00
102 Zambia* $5,000 0.0010%
103 Comoros* $5,000 0.0010%
Report of a study for Sida
A-10
rank by 1990 exporters of reported value share reported wt. imputed wt. share kilograms avg. price
value used clothes (US dollars) of total (kilograms) (kilograms) of total per capita (US$/kg)
104 Gambia* $4,000 0.0008% 8,000 8,000 0.0014% 0.0087 $0.50
105 Free Zones* $4,000 0.0008% 5,000 6,667 0.0012% $0.60
106 Tanzania* $4,000 0.0008% 6,000 6,000 0.0011% 0.0002 $0.67
107 Malta* $4,000 0.0008% 5,000 5,000 0.0009% 0.014 $0.80
108 Papua New Guinea* $4,000 0.0008% 1,000 1,000 0.0002% 0.0003 $4.00
109 Cyprus* $3,000 0.0006% 2,000 3,000 0.0005% 0.0043 $1.00
110 Dominican Republic* $3,000 0.0006% 2,000 2,000 0.0004% 0.0003 $1.50
111 Cambodia* $3,000 0.0006%
112 Americas Unspecific* $2,000 0.0004% 5,000 5,000 0.0009% $0.40
113 Gibraltar* $2,000 0.0004% 4,000 4,000 0.0007% 0.14 $0.50
114 Macau $2,000 0.0004% 4,000 4,000 0.0007% 0.012 $0.50
115 Barbados $2,000 0.0004% 2,000 2,000 0.0004% 0.0078 $1.00
116 Lebanon* $2,000 0.0004% 2,000 2,000 0.0004% 0.0008 $1.00
117 Nigeria* $2,000 0.0004% 2,000 2,000 0.0004% 0.00002 $1.00
118 Cameroon* $2,000 0.0004% 1,000 1,000 0.0002% 0.00009 $2.00
119 Wallis & Futuna* $2,000 0.0004%
120 Cuba* $1,000 0.0002% 3,000 3,000 0.0005% 0.0003 $0.33
121 Antigua Barbuda* $1,000 0.0002% 1,000 1,000 0.0002% 0.016 $1.00
122 Bahrain* $1,000 0.0002% 1,000 1,000 0.0002% 0.0020 $1.00
123 Mauritius $1,000 0.0002%
124 Nepal* $1,000 0.0002%
125 Congo* $1,000 0.0002%
126 Reunion $1,000 0.0002%
127 Syria* $1,000 0.0002%
total $491,775,000 561,034,501 $0.88
Source: Derived from SITC1 data obtained from the United Nations Statistical Division, International Trade Statistics Branch.
Notes: An asterisk (*) at the end of a country name indicates that the entire line is derived from partner data rather than from data
reported by the country directly. An asterisk (*) at the end of an average price indicates that the price (only) was taken from
partner data, due to lack of weights in reported data. Average prices are based only on those partner transactions for which
weights are reported; thus imputed weights (based on those prices) may be higher than reported weights. Extreme average
prices may still indicate some problem in the data, such as partial missing weights partner transactions. The absence
of a listing for a particular country does not necessarily indicate that no trade occurred.
Used Clothes As Development Aid
A-11
7DEOH$ZRUOGXVHGFORWKHVJURVVH[SRUWHUVUDQNHGE\ZHLJKWSHU
FDSLWDZLWKYDOXHVUHSRUWHGDQGLPSXWHGZHLJKWVYDOXHDQGZHLJKW
VKDUHVRIWRWDODQGDYHUDJHSULFHV
rank per 1990 exporters of reported value share reported wt. imputed wt. share kilograms avg. price
capita used clothes (US dollars) of total (kilograms) (kilograms) of total per capita (US$/kg)
1 Belgium-Luxembourg $71,816,000 14.6% 65,778,000 65,778,000 11.7% 6.6 $1.09
2 Netherlands $59,927,000 12.2% 53,924,000 53,924,000 9.6% 3.6 $1.11
3 St. Pierre & Miquelon* $18,000 0.0037% 18,000 18,000 0.0032% 3.0 $1.00
4 West Germany $74,732,000 15.2% 117,881,000 117,881,000 21.0% 1.9 $0.63
5 Nauru* $5,000 0.0010% 19,000 19,000 0.0034% 1.9 $0.26
6 Denmark $4,839,000 1.0% 7,651,000 7,651,000 1.4% 1.5 $0.63
7 Austria $2,721,000 0.55% 9,994,000 9,994,000 1.8% 1.3 $0.27
8 Switzerland, Liechtenstein* $5,503,000 1.1% 7,223,000 7,223,000 1.3% 1.1 $0.76
9 Canada $9,149,000 1.9% 22,084,477 3.9% 0.79 $0.41*
10 Singapore* $1,981,000 0.40% 1,788,000 1,784,685 0.32% 0.66 $1.11
11 USA, Puerto Rico, Virgin Is. $124,774,000 25.4% 133,063,000 137,114,286 24.4% 0.55 $0.91*
12 France, Monaco $24,225,000 4.9% 26,335,000 26,620,879 4.7% 0.47 $0.91
13 Sweden $5,210,000 1.1% 3,647,000 3,669,014 0.65% 0.43 $1.42
14 Italy $22,597,000 4.6% 23,008,000 23,008,000 4.1% 0.40 $0.98
15 Japan $35,345,000 7.2% 45,245,000 45,245,000 8.1% 0.37 $0.78
16 Finland $2,044,000 0.42% 1,586,000 1,586,000 0.28% 0.32 $1.29
17 Australia $6,634,000 1.3% 5,285,000 5,285,000 0.94% 0.31 $1.26
18 Norway, Svalbard, Jan Mayen $560,000 0.11% 1,185,000 1,185,000 0.21% 0.28 $0.47
19 Panama $1,673,000 0.34% 651,000 651,000 0.12% 0.27 $2.57
20 United Kingdom $21,288,000 4.3% 14,417,000 14,417,000 2.6% 0.25 $1.48
21 Iceland $36,000 0.0073% 46,000 46,000 0.0082% 0.18 $0.78
22 Tunisia $1,299,000 0.26% 1,427,000 1,427,000 0.25% 0.18 $0.91
23 Malaysia $2,998,000 0.61% 3,079,000 3,079,000 0.55% 0.17 $0.97
24 East Germany* $1,326,000 0.27% 2,773,000 2,773,000 0.49% 0.17 $0.48
25 Gibraltar* $2,000 0.0004% 4,000 4,000 0.0007% 0.14 $0.50
26 Ireland* $269,000 0.055% 409,000 409,000 0.073% 0.12 $0.66
27 Faeroe Islands* $17,000 0.0035% 5,000 5,000 0.0009% 0.11 $3.40
28 Hong Kong* $633,000 0.13% 403,000 419,205 0.075% 0.073 $1.51
29 Mali $24,000 0.0049% 645,000 645,000 0.11% 0.070 $0.04
30 Djibouti* $23,000 0.0047% 28,000 28,000 0.0050% 0.054 $0.82
31 Chile* $537,000 0.11% 538,000 538,000 0.10% 0.041 $1.00
32 New Zealand* $171,000 0.035% 121,000 126,667 0.023% 0.038 $1.35
33 Benin* $190,000 0.039% 128,000 128,000 0.023% 0.028 $1.48
34 Trinidad and Tobago* $13,000 0.0026% 8,000 34,211 0.0061% 0.028 $0.38
35 United Arab Emirates* $66,000 0.013% 30,000 38,824 0.0069% 0.023 $1.70
36 Saudi Arabia* $202,000 0.041% 335,000 335,000 0.060% 0.021 $0.60
37 Togo $66,000 0.013% 60,000 60,000 0.011% 0.017 $1.10
38 Antigua Barbuda* $1,000 0.0002% 1,000 1,000 0.0002% 0.016 $1.00
39 Mexico* $639,000 0.13% 1,235,000 1,252,941 0.22% 0.015 $0.51
40 Portugal $375,000 0.076% 143,000 144,788 0.026% 0.015 $2.59
41 Malta* $4,000 0.0008% 5,000 5,000 0.0009% 0.014 $0.80
42 Macau $2,000 0.0004% 4,000 4,000 0.0007% 0.012 $0.50
43 Poland* $485,000 0.10% 404,000 404,167 0.072% 0.011 $1.20
44 Spain* $375,000 0.076% 375,000 378,788 0.068% 0.010 $0.99
45 Gambia* $4,000 0.0008% 8,000 8,000 0.0014% 0.0087 $0.50
46 Costa Rica* $31,000 0.0063% 24,000 24,000 0.0043% 0.0079 $1.29
47 Barbados $2,000 0.0004% 2,000 2,000 0.0004% 0.0078 $1.00
48 Greece* $115,000 0.023% 68,000 70,988 0.013% 0.0069 $1.62
49 Guatemala* $46,000 0.0094% 39,000 58,228 0.010% 0.0063 $0.79
50 Hungary* $68,000 0.014% 45,000 61,261 0.011% 0.0059 $1.11
Report of a study for Sida
A-12
rank per 1990 exporters of reported value share reported wt. imputed wt. share kilograms avg. price
capita used clothes (US dollars) of total (kilograms) (kilograms) of total per capita (US$/kg)
51 Honduras $132,000 0.027% 28,000 28,000 0.0050% 0.0057 $4.71
52 Kuwait* $18,000 0.0037% 8,000 11,043 0.0020% 0.0052 $1.63
53 Nicaragua* $8,000 0.0016% 2,000 16,000 0.0029% 0.0044 $0.50
54 Cyprus* $3,000 0.0006% 2,000 3,000 0.0005% 0.0043 $1.00
55 South Korea* $482,000 0.10% 162,000 175,912 0.031% 0.0041 $2.74
56 Czechoslovakia* $54,000 0.011% 55,000 56,250 0.010% 0.0036 $0.96
57 Uruguay* $24,000 0.0049% 8,000 8,000 0.0014% 0.0026 $3.00
58 Ghana* $30,000 0.0061% 34,000 37,975 0.0068% 0.0025 $0.79
59 Jordan* $15,000 0.0031% 10,000 10,000 0.0018% 0.0023 $1.50
60 Morocco* $92,000 0.019% 49,000 50,549 0.0090% 0.0021 $1.82
61 Bahrain* $1,000 0.0002% 1,000 1,000 0.0002% 0.0020 $1.00
62 South African Cust. Union* $105,000 0.021% 60,000 66,456 0.012% 0.0018 $1.58
63 Yugoslavia* $214,000 0.044% 17,000 17,079 0.0030% 0.0017 $12.53
64 Argentina* $163,000 0.033% 52,000 52,000 0.0093% 0.0016 $3.13
65 Philippines* $98,000 0.020% 91,000 96,078 0.017% 0.0016 $1.02
66 Israel* $107,000 0.022% 7,000 7,000 0.0012% 0.0015 $15.29
67 Thailand* $153,000 0.031% 77,000 81,383 0.015% 0.0015 $1.88
68 Laos* $5,000 0.0010% 6,000 6,000 0.0011% 0.0014 $0.83
69 Pakistan* $377,000 0.077% 158,000 164,629 0.029% 0.0014 $2.29
70 Peru* $58,000 0.012% 28,000 29,000 0.0052% 0.0013 $2.00
71 El Salvador* $52,000 0.011% 5,000 5,000 0.0009% 0.0010 $10.20
72 Colombia* $87,000 0.018% 31,000 31,000 0.0055% 0.0010 $2.81
73 Paraguay* $7,000 0.0014% 4,000 4,000 0.0007% 0.0009 $1.75
74 Niger* $62,000 0.013% 7,000 7,000 0.0012% 0.0009 $8.86
75 Ecuador* $33,000 0.0067% 9,000 9,000 0.0016% 0.0009 $3.67
76 Zimbabwe* $29,000 0.0059% 8,000 8,000 0.0014% 0.0008 $3.63
77 Lebanon* $2,000 0.0004% 2,000 2,000 0.0004% 0.0008 $1.00
78 USSR* $128,000 0.026% 185,000 191,045 0.034% 0.0007 $0.67
79 Cote D’Ivoire* $9,000 0.0018% 7,000 7,895 0.0014% 0.0007 $1.14
80 Egypt* $33,000 0.0067% 28,000 34,375 0.0061% 0.0006 $0.96
81 Albania* $6,000 0.0012% 2,000 2,000 0.0004% 0.0006 $3.00
82 Oman* $5,000 0.0010% 1,000 1,000 0.0002% 0.0006 $5.00
83 Bulgaria* $13,000 0.0026% 5,000 5,000 0.0009% 0.0006 $2.60
84 Somalia* $33,000 0.0067% 4,000 4,000 0.0007% 0.0005 $8.25
85 Turkey* $33,000 0.0067% 22,000 22,000 0.0039% 0.0004 $1.50
86 Bolivia* $5,000 0.0010% 2,000 2,500 0.0004% 0.0004 $2.00
87 Sri Lanka $22,000 0.0045% 6,000 0.0011% 0.0003 $3.67
88 Venezuela* $39,000 0.0079% 6,000 6,321 0.0011% 0.0003 $6.17
89 Romania* $6,000 0.0012% 5,000 7,500 0.0013% 0.0003 $0.80
90 Afghanistan* $7,000 0.0014% 2,000 4,667 0.0008% 0.0003 $1.50
91 Cuba* $1,000 0.0002% 3,000 3,000 0.0005% 0.0003 $0.33
92 Dominican Republic* $3,000 0.0006% 2,000 2,000 0.0004% 0.0003 $1.50
93 Papua New Guinea* $4,000 0.0008% 1,000 1,000 0.0002% 0.0003 $4.00
94 Madagascar $27,000 0.0055% 3,000 3,000 0.0005% 0.0002 $9.00
95 Tanzania* $4,000 0.0008% 6,000 6,000 0.0011% 0.0002 $0.67
96 Viet Nam* $33,000 0.0067% 15,000 15,000 0.0027% 0.0002 $2.20
97 Indonesia $103,000 0.021% 37,000 37,729 0.0067% 0.0002 $2.73
98 Brazil* $130,000 0.026% 30,000 30,233 0.0054% 0.0002 $4.30
99 Kenya* $16,000 0.0033% 4,000 4,571 0.0008% 0.0002 $3.50
100 Iran* $7,000 0.0014% 3,000 10,448 0.0019% 0.0002 $0.67
101 China* $322,000 0.065% 172,000 172,000 0.031% 0.0002 $1.87
102 Ethiopia $41,000 0.0083% 8,000 7,551 0.0013% 0.0002 $5.43
103 Bangladesh* $40,000 0.0081% 15,000 15,000 0.0027% 0.0001 $2.67
Used Clothes As Development Aid
A-13
rank per 1990 exporters of reported value share reported wt. imputed wt. share kilograms avg. price
capita used clothes (US dollars) of total (kilograms) (kilograms) of total per capita (US$/kg)
104 North Korea* $8,000 0.0016% 3,000 3,000 0.0005% 0.0001 $2.67
105 Algeria* $5,000 0.0010% 3,000 3,000 0.0005% 0.0001 $1.67
106 India $381,000 0.077% 72,000 74,706 0.013% 0.00009 $5.10
107 Cameroon* $2,000 0.0004% 1,000 1,000 0.0002% 0.00009 $2.00
108 Burma (Myanmar)* $68,000 0.014% 3,000 3,000 0.0005% 0.00007 $22.67
109 Nigeria* $2,000 0.0004% 2,000 2,000 0.0004% 0.00002 $1.00
110 Unspecific* $1,921,000 0.39% 941,000 951,990 0.17% $2.02
111 Asia Unspecific* $753,000 0.15% 728,000 745,545 0.13% $1.01
112 Africa Unspecific* $31,000 0.0063% 4,000 4,000 0.0007% $7.75
113 Netherlands Antilles* $12,000 0.0024%
114 Sierra Leone* $12,000 0.0024%
115 Liberia* $7,000 0.0014%
116 Guyana* $6,000 0.0012%
117 Zambia* $5,000 0.0010%
118 Comoros* $5,000 0.0010%
119 Free Zones* $4,000 0.0008% 5,000 6,667 0.0012% $0.60
120 Cambodia* $3,000 0.0006%
121 Americas Unspecific* $2,000 0.0004% 5,000 5,000 0.0009% $0.40
122 Wallis & Futuna* $2,000 0.0004%
123 Mauritius $1,000 0.0002%
124 Nepal* $1,000 0.0002%
125 Congo* $1,000 0.0002%
126 Reunion $1,000 0.0002%
127 Syria* $1,000 0.0002%
total $491,775,000 561,034,501 $0.88
Source: Derived from SITC1 data obtained from the United Nations Statistical Division, International Trade Statistics Branch.
Notes: An asterisk (*) at the end of a country name indicates that the entire line is derived from partner data rather than from data
reported by the country directly. An asterisk (*) at the end of an average price indicates that the price (only) was taken from
partner data, due to lack of weights in reported data. Average prices are based only on those partner transactions for which
weights are reported; thus imputed weights (based on those prices) may be higher than reported weights. Extreme average
prices may still indicate some problem in the data, such as partial missing weights partner transactions. The absence
of a listing for a particular country does not necessarily indicate that no trade occurred.
Report of a study for Sida
A-14
7DEOH$ZRUOGXVHGFORWKHVJURVVH[SRUWHUVUDQNHGE\DYHUDJHSULFH
ZLWKYDOXHVUHSRUWHGDQGLPSXWHGZHLJKWVYDOXHDQGZHLJKWVKDUHVRI
WRWDODQGZHLJKWVSHUFDSLWD
rank by 1990 exporters of reported value share reported wt. imputed wt. share kilograms avg. price
price used clothes (US dollars) of total (kilograms) (kilograms) of total per capita (US$/kg)
1 Burma (Myanmar)* $68,000 0.014% 3,000 3,000 0.0005% 0.00007 $22.67
2 Israel* $107,000 0.022% 7,000 7,000 0.0012% 0.0015 $15.29
3 Yugoslavia* $214,000 0.044% 17,000 17,079 0.0030% 0.0017 $12.53
4 El Salvador* $52,000 0.011% 5,000 5,000 0.0009% 0.0010 $10.20
5 Madagascar $27,000 0.0055% 3,000 3,000 0.0005% 0.0002 $9.00
6 Niger* $62,000 0.013% 7,000 7,000 0.0012% 0.0009 $8.86
7 Somalia* $33,000 0.0067% 4,000 4,000 0.0007% 0.0005 $8.25
8 Africa Unspecific* $31,000 0.0063% 4,000 4,000 0.0007% $7.75
9 Venezuela* $39,000 0.0079% 6,000 6,321 0.0011% 0.0003 $6.17
10 Ethiopia $41,000 0.0083% 8,000 7,551 0.0013% 0.0002 $5.43
11 India $381,000 0.077% 72,000 74,706 0.013% 0.00009 $5.10
12 Oman* $5,000 0.0010% 1,000 1,000 0.0002% 0.0006 $5.00
13 Honduras $132,000 0.027% 28,000 28,000 0.0050% 0.0057 $4.71
14 Brazil* $130,000 0.026% 30,000 30,233 0.0054% 0.0002 $4.30
15 Papua New Guinea* $4,000 0.0008% 1,000 1,000 0.0002% 0.0003 $4.00
16 Ecuador* $33,000 0.0067% 9,000 9,000 0.0016% 0.0009 $3.67
17 Sri Lanka $22,000 0.0045% 6,000 0.0011% 0.0003 $3.67
18 Zimbabwe* $29,000 0.0059% 8,000 8,000 0.0014% 0.0008 $3.63
19 Kenya* $16,000 0.0033% 4,000 4,571 0.0008% 0.0002 $3.50
20 Faeroe Islands* $17,000 0.0035% 5,000 5,000 0.0009% 0.11 $3.40
21 Argentina* $163,000 0.033% 52,000 52,000 0.0093% 0.0016 $3.13
22 Uruguay* $24,000 0.0049% 8,000 8,000 0.0014% 0.0026 $3.00
23 Albania* $6,000 0.0012% 2,000 2,000 0.0004% 0.0006 $3.00
24 Colombia* $87,000 0.018% 31,000 31,000 0.0055% 0.0010 $2.81
25 South Korea* $482,000 0.10% 162,000 175,912 0.031% 0.0041 $2.74
26 Indonesia $103,000 0.021% 37,000 37,729 0.0067% 0.0002 $2.73
27 Bangladesh* $40,000 0.0081% 15,000 15,000 0.0027% 0.0001 $2.67
28 North Korea* $8,000 0.0016% 3,000 3,000 0.0005% 0.0001 $2.67
29 Bulgaria* $13,000 0.0026% 5,000 5,000 0.0009% 0.0006 $2.60
30 Portugal $375,000 0.076% 143,000 144,788 0.026% 0.015 $2.59
31 Panama $1,673,000 0.34% 651,000 651,000 0.12% 0.27 $2.57
32 Pakistan* $377,000 0.077% 158,000 164,629 0.029% 0.0014 $2.29
33 Viet Nam* $33,000 0.0067% 15,000 15,000 0.0027% 0.0002 $2.20
34 Unspecific* $1,921,000 0.39% 941,000 951,990 0.17% $2.02
35 Peru* $58,000 0.012% 28,000 29,000 0.0052% 0.0013 $2.00
36 Bolivia* $5,000 0.0010% 2,000 2,500 0.0004% 0.0004 $2.00
37 Cameroon* $2,000 0.0004% 1,000 1,000 0.0002% 0.00009 $2.00
38 Thailand* $153,000 0.031% 77,000 81,383 0.015% 0.0015 $1.88
39 China* $322,000 0.065% 172,000 172,000 0.031% 0.0002 $1.87
40 Morocco* $92,000 0.019% 49,000 50,549 0.0090% 0.0021 $1.82
41 Paraguay* $7,000 0.0014% 4,000 4,000 0.0007% 0.0009 $1.75
42 United Arab Emirates* $66,000 0.013% 30,000 38,824 0.0069% 0.023 $1.70
43 Algeria* $5,000 0.0010% 3,000 3,000 0.0005% 0.0001 $1.67
44 Kuwait* $18,000 0.0037% 8,000 11,043 0.0020% 0.0052 $1.63
45 Greece* $115,000 0.023% 68,000 70,988 0.013% 0.0069 $1.62
46 South African Cust. Union* $105,000 0.021% 60,000 66,456 0.012% 0.0018 $1.58
47 Hong Kong* $633,000 0.13% 403,000 419,205 0.075% 0.073 $1.51
48 Jordan* $15,000 0.0031% 10,000 10,000 0.0018% 0.0023 $1.50
49 Turkey* $33,000 0.0067% 22,000 22,000 0.0039% 0.0004 $1.50
50 Afghanistan* $7,000 0.0014% 2,000 4,667 0.0008% 0.0003 $1.50
Used Clothes As Development Aid
A-15
rank by 1990 exporters of reported value share reported wt. imputed wt. share kilograms avg. price
price used clothes (US dollars) of total (kilograms) (kilograms) of total per capita (US$/kg)
51 Dominican Republic* $3,000 0.0006% 2,000 2,000 0.0004% 0.0003 $1.50
52 Benin* $190,000 0.039% 128,000 128,000 0.023% 0.028 $1.48
53 United Kingdom $21,288,000 4.3% 14,417,000 14,417,000 2.6% 0.25 $1.48
54 Sweden $5,210,000 1.1% 3,647,000 3,669,014 0.65% 0.43 $1.42
55 New Zealand* $171,000 0.035% 121,000 126,667 0.023% 0.038 $1.35
56 Costa Rica* $31,000 0.0063% 24,000 24,000 0.0043% 0.0079 $1.29
57 Finland $2,044,000 0.42% 1,586,000 1,586,000 0.28% 0.32 $1.29
58 Australia $6,634,000 1.3% 5,285,000 5,285,000 0.94% 0.31 $1.26
59 Poland* $485,000 0.10% 404,000 404,167 0.072% 0.011 $1.20
60 Cote D’Ivoire* $9,000 0.0018% 7,000 7,895 0.0014% 0.0007 $1.14
61 Netherlands $59,927,000 12.2% 53,924,000 53,924,000 9.6% 3.6 $1.11
62 Singapore* $1,981,000 0.40% 1,788,000 1,784,685 0.32% 0.66 $1.11
63 Hungary* $68,000 0.014% 45,000 61,261 0.011% 0.0059 $1.11
64 Togo $66,000 0.013% 60,000 60,000 0.011% 0.017 $1.10
65 Belgium-Luxembourg $71,816,000 14.6% 65,778,000 65,778,000 11.7% 6.6 $1.09
66 Philippines* $98,000 0.020% 91,000 96,078 0.017% 0.0016 $1.02
67 Asia Unspecific* $753,000 0.15% 728,000 745,545 0.13% $1.01
68 St. Pierre & Miquelon* $18,000 0.0037% 18,000 18,000 0.0032% 3.0 $1.00
69 Antigua Barbuda* $1,000 0.0002% 1,000 1,000 0.0002% 0.016 $1.00
70 Barbados $2,000 0.0004% 2,000 2,000 0.0004% 0.0078 $1.00
71 Cyprus* $3,000 0.0006% 2,000 3,000 0.0005% 0.0043 $1.00
72 Bahrain* $1,000 0.0002% 1,000 1,000 0.0002% 0.0020 $1.00
73 Lebanon* $2,000 0.0004% 2,000 2,000 0.0004% 0.0008 $1.00
74 Nigeria* $2,000 0.0004% 2,000 2,000 0.0004% 0.00002 $1.00
75 Chile* $537,000 0.11% 538,000 538,000 0.10% 0.041 $1.00
76 Spain* $375,000 0.076% 375,000 378,788 0.068% 0.010 $0.99
77 Italy $22,597,000 4.6% 23,008,000 23,008,000 4.1% 0.40 $0.98
78 Malaysia $2,998,000 0.61% 3,079,000 3,079,000 0.55% 0.17 $0.97
79 Czechoslovakia* $54,000 0.011% 55,000 56,250 0.010% 0.0036 $0.96
80 Egypt* $33,000 0.0067% 28,000 34,375 0.0061% 0.0006 $0.96
81 USA, Puerto Rico, Virgin Is. $124,774,000 25.4% 133,063,000 137,114,286 24.4% 0.55 $0.91*
82 Tunisia $1,299,000 0.26% 1,427,000 1,427,000 0.25% 0.18 $0.91
83 France, Monaco $24,225,000 4.9% 26,335,000 26,620,879 4.7% 0.47 $0.91
84 Laos* $5,000 0.0010% 6,000 6,000 0.0011% 0.0014 $0.83
85 Djibouti* $23,000 0.0047% 28,000 28,000 0.0050% 0.054 $0.82
86 Malta* $4,000 0.0008% 5,000 5,000 0.0009% 0.014 $0.80
87 Romania* $6,000 0.0012% 5,000 7,500 0.0013% 0.0003 $0.80
88 Guatemala* $46,000 0.0094% 39,000 58,228 0.010% 0.0063 $0.79
89 Ghana* $30,000 0.0061% 34,000 37,975 0.0068% 0.0025 $0.79
90 Iceland $36,000 0.0073% 46,000 46,000 0.0082% 0.18 $0.78
91 Japan $35,345,000 7.2% 45,245,000 45,245,000 8.1% 0.37 $0.78
92 Switzerland, Liechtenstein* $5,503,000 1.1% 7,223,000 7,223,000 1.3% 1.1 $0.76
93 USSR* $128,000 0.026% 185,000 191,045 0.034% 0.0007 $0.67
94 Iran* $7,000 0.0014% 3,000 10,448 0.0019% 0.0002 $0.67
95 Tanzania* $4,000 0.0008% 6,000 6,000 0.0011% 0.0002 $0.67
96 Ireland* $269,000 0.055% 409,000 409,000 0.073% 0.12 $0.66
97 West Germany $74,732,000 15.2% 117,881,000 117,881,000 21.0% 1.9 $0.63
98 Denmark $4,839,000 1.0% 7,651,000 7,651,000 1.4% 1.5 $0.63
99 Saudi Arabia* $202,000 0.041% 335,000 335,000 0.060% 0.021 $0.60
100 Free Zones* $4,000 0.0008% 5,000 6,667 0.0012% $0.60
101 Mexico* $639,000 0.13% 1,235,000 1,252,941 0.22% 0.015 $0.51
102 Gibraltar* $2,000 0.0004% 4,000 4,000 0.0007% 0.14 $0.50
103 Macau $2,000 0.0004% 4,000 4,000 0.0007% 0.012 $0.50
Report of a study for Sida
A-16
rank by 1990 exporters of reported value share reported wt. imputed wt. share kilograms avg. price
price used clothes (US dollars) of total (kilograms) (kilograms) of total per capita (US$/kg)
104 Gambia* $4,000 0.0008% 8,000 8,000 0.0014% 0.0087 $0.50
105 Nicaragua* $8,000 0.0016% 2,000 16,000 0.0029% 0.0044 $0.50
106 East Germany* $1,326,000 0.27% 2,773,000 2,773,000 0.49% 0.17 $0.48
107 Norway, Svalbard, Jan Mayen $560,000 0.11% 1,185,000 1,185,000 0.21% 0.28 $0.47
108 Canada $9,149,000 1.9% 22,084,477 3.9% 0.79 $0.41*
109 Americas Unspecific* $2,000 0.0004% 5,000 5,000 0.0009% $0.40
110 Trinidad and Tobago* $13,000 0.0026% 8,000 34,211 0.0061% 0.028 $0.38
111 Cuba* $1,000 0.0002% 3,000 3,000 0.0005% 0.0003 $0.33
112 Austria $2,721,000 0.55% 9,994,000 9,994,000 1.8% 1.3 $0.27
113 Nauru* $5,000 0.0010% 19,000 19,000 0.0034% 1.9 $0.26
114 Mali $24,000 0.0049% 645,000 645,000 0.11% 0.070 $0.04
115 Netherlands Antilles* $12,000 0.0024%
116 Sierra Leone* $12,000 0.0024%
117 Liberia* $7,000 0.0014%
118 Guyana* $6,000 0.0012%
119 Zambia* $5,000 0.0010%
120 Comoros* $5,000 0.0010%
121 Cambodia* $3,000 0.0006%
122 Wallis & Futuna* $2,000 0.0004%
123 Mauritius $1,000 0.0002%
124 Nepal* $1,000 0.0002%
125 Congo* $1,000 0.0002%
126 Reunion $1,000 0.0002%
127 Syria* $1,000 0.0002%
total $491,775,000 561,034,501 $0.88
Source: Derived from SITC1 data obtained from the United Nations Statistical Division, International Trade Statistics Branch.
Notes: An asterisk (*) at the end of a country name indicates that the entire line is derived from partner data rather than from data
reported by the country directly. An asterisk (*) at the end of an average price indicates that the price (only) was taken from
partner data, due to lack of weights in reported data. Average prices are based only on those partner transactions for which
weights are reported; thus imputed weights (based on those prices) may be higher than reported weights. Extreme average
prices may still indicate some problem in the data, such as partial missing weights partner transactions. The absence
of a listing for a particular country does not necessarily indicate that no trade occurred.
Used Clothes As Development Aid
A-17
Report of a study for Sida
A-18
7DEOH$UHFLSLHQWVRI6ZHGLVKXVHGFORWKHVH[SRUWVUDQNHGE\
ZHLJKWZLWKYDOXHVSULFHVDQGZHLJKWVKDUHV
rank
by
weight
1994 recipients
of Swedish
used-clothes exports
reported
value
(US$1000s)
reported
weight
(1000 kgs)
share
of
total
average
price
(US$/kg)
1 Estonia 568 1,875 15.8% $0.30
2 Latvia 486 1,764 14.9% $0.28
3 Mozambique 170 1,090 9.2% $0.16
4 Yugoslavia 352 1,021 8.6% $0.34
5 Russia 408 821 6.9% $0.50
6 Lithuania 187 566 4.8% $0.33
7 Angola 201 523 4.4% $0.38
8 Poland 210 399 3.4% $0.53
9 Finland 190 310 2.6% $0.61
10 Croatia 227 308 2.6% $0.74
11 Nicaragua 589 228 1.9% $2.58
12 Iraq 29 225 1.9% $0.13
13 Ukraine 170 201 1.7% $0.85
14 Romania 110 186 1.6% $0.59
15 Tanzania 107 173 1.5% $0.62
16 Benin 12 139 1.2% $0.09
17 Rwanda 72 133 1.1% $0.54
18 Ethiopia 114 127 1.1% $0.90
19 Denmark 178 108 0.91% $1.65
20 Germany 212 100 0.85% $2.12
21 Hungary 44 88 0.74% $0.50
22 Netherlands 68 85 0.72% $0.80
23 United Kingdom 105 82 0.69% $1.28
24 Brunei 28 78 0.66% $0.36
25 Syria 39 76 0.64% $0.51
26 USA, Puerto Rico, Virgin Is. 265 65 0.55% $4.08
27 Albania 21 59 0.50% $0.36
28 Niger 7 49 0.41% $0.14
29 South African Customs Union 29 45 0.38% $0.64
30 Zambia 1 42 0.35% $0.02
31 Lebanon 31 39 0.33% $0.79
32 Liberia 11 35 0.30% $0.31
33 Honduras 193 34 0.29% $5.68
34 Slovakia 9 34 0.29% $0.26
35 El Salvador 174 31 0.26% $5.61
36 France, Monaco 98 31 0.26% $3.16
37 Belgium-Luxembourg 3 29 0.25% $0.10
38 Zaire 22 27 0.23% $0.81
39 Czech Rep. 6 26 0.22% $0.23
40 Norway, Svalbard & Jan Mayen 98 25 0.21% $3.92
41 Austria 6 25 0.21% $0.24
42 Moldova 2 24 0.20% $0.08
43 Guinea Bissau 5 21 0.18% $0.24
44 Argentina 7 19 0.16% $0.37
45 Ghana 3 19 0.16% $0.16
46 Greece 5 18 0.15% $0.28
47 Egypt 7 16 0.14% $0.44
48 Azerbaijan 4 14 0.12% $0.29
49 Georgia 4 14 0.12% $0.29
Used Clothes As Development Aid
A-19
rank
by
weight
1994 recipients
of Swedish
used-clothes exports
reported
value
(US$1000s)
reported
weight
(1000 kgs)
share
of
total
average
price
(US$/kg)
50 Ecuador 4 14 0.12% $0.29
51 Jordan 4 14 0.12% $0.29
52 Mexico 4 14 0.12% $0.29
53 Paraguay 4 14 0.12% $0.29
54 Bosnia Herzegovina 6 12 0.10% $0.50
55 Sudan 6 12 0.10% $0.50
56 Belarus 2 12 0.10% $0.17
57 Burundi 8 11 0.093% $0.73
58 Portugal 2 11 0.093% $0.18
59 Switzerland, Liechtenstein 11 10 0.085% $1.10
60 Guinea 6 10 0.085% $0.60
61 Sierra Leone 9 8 0.068% $1.13
62 Chile 3 8 0.068% $0.38
63 Tunisia 2 7 0.059% $0.29
64 Bolivia 27 6 0.051% $4.50
65 Uruguay 14 6 0.051% $2.33
66 Morocco 2 6 0.051% $0.33
67 Bulgaria 1 6 0.051% $0.17
68 Saudi Arabia 9 5 0.042% $1.80
69 Armenia 3 4 0.034% $0.75
70 Brazil 3 4 0.034% $0.75
71 Cyprus 46 3 0.025% $15.33
72 India 23 3 0.025% $7.67
73 Canada 43 2 0.017% $21.50
74 Australia 49 1 0.008% $49.00
75 China 7 1 0.008% $7.00
76 Hong Kong 7 1 0.008% $7.00
77 Ethiopia 6 1 0.008% $6.00
78 Japan 3 1 0.008% $3.00
79 Turkey 9 - ? ?
80 United Arab Emirates 7 - ? ?
81 Nepal 4 - ? ?
82 Singapore 4 - ? ?
83 New Zealand 3 - ? ?
84 Iran 2 - ? ?
85 Kuwait 2 - ? ?
86 South Korea 2 - ? ?
87 Ireland 1 - ? ?
88 Spain 1 - ? ?
89 Thailand 1 - ? ?
total 6,237 11,831 $0.53
Source: Derived from SITC1 data obtained from the United Nations Statistical Division, International Trade Statistics Branch.
Note: Zero weights in the data appear to indicate actual small values (less than 500 kgs), rounded-off to zero.
Report of a study for Sida
A-20
7DEOH$UHFLSLHQWVRI6ZHGLVKXVHGFORWKHVH[SRUWVUDQNHGE\YDOXH
ZLWKZHLJKWVSULFHVDQGYDOXHVKDUHV
rank
by
value
1994 recipients
of Swedish
used-clothes exports
reported
value
(US$1000s)
share
of
total
reported
weight
(1000 kgs)
average
price
(US$/kg)
1 Nicaragua 589 9.4% 228 $2.58
2 Estonia 568 9.1% 1,875 $0.30
3 Latvia 486 7.8% 1,764 $0.28
4 Russia 408 6.5% 821 $0.50
5 Yugoslavia 352 5.6% 1,021 $0.34
6 USA, Puerto Rico, Virgin Is. 265 4.2% 65 $4.08
7 Croatia 227 3.6% 308 $0.74
8 Germany 212 3.4% 100 $2.12
9 Poland 210 3.4% 399 $0.53
10 Angola 201 3.2% 523 $0.38
11 Honduras 193 3.1% 34 $5.68
12 Finland 190 3.0% 310 $0.61
13 Lithuania 187 3.0% 566 $0.33
14 Denmark 178 2.9% 108 $1.65
15 El Salvador 174 2.8% 31 $5.61
16 Ukraine 170 2.7% 201 $0.85
17 Mozambique 170 2.7% 1,090 $0.16
18 Ethiopia 114 1.8% 127 $0.90
19 Romania 110 1.8% 186 $0.59
20 Tanzania 107 1.7% 173 $0.62
21 United Kingdom 105 1.7% 82 $1.28
22 Norway, Svalbard & Jan Mayen 98 1.6% 25 $3.92
23 France, Monaco 98 1.6% 31 $3.16
24 Rwanda 72 1.2% 133 $0.54
25 Netherlands 68 1.1% 85 $0.80
26 Australia 49 0.79% 1 $49.00
27 Cyprus 46 0.74% 3 $15.33
28 Hungary 44 0.71% 88 $0.50
29 Canada 43 0.69% 2 $21.50
30 Syria 39 0.63% 76 $0.51
31 Lebanon 31 0.50% 39 $0.79
32 South African Customs Union 29 0.46% 45 $0.64
33 Iraq 29 0.46% 225 $0.13
34 Brunei 28 0.45% 78 $0.36
35 Bolivia 27 0.43% 6 $4.50
36 India 23 0.37% 3 $7.67
37 Zaire 22 0.35% 27 $0.81
38 Albania 21 0.34% 59 $0.36
39 Uruguay 14 0.22% 6 $2.33
40 Benin 12 0.19% 139 $0.09
41 Switzerland, Liechtenstein 11 0.18% 10 $1.10
42 Liberia 11 0.18% 35 $0.31
43 Turkey 9 0.14% 0 ?
44 Saudi Arabia 9 0.14% 5 $1.80
45 Sierra Leone 9 0.14% 8 $1.13
46 Slovakia 9 0.14% 34 $0.26
47 Burundi 8 0.13% 11 $0.73
48 United Arab Emirates 7 0.11% 0 ?
49 China 7 0.11% 1 $7.00
Used Clothes As Development Aid
A-21
rank
by
value
1994 recipients
of Swedish
used-clothes exports
reported
value
(US$1000s)
share
of
total
reported
weight
(1000 kgs)
average
price
(US$/kg)
50 Hong Kong 7 0.11% 1 $7.00
51 Egypt 7 0.11% 16 $0.44
52 Argentina 7 0.11% 19 $0.37
53 Niger 7 0.11% 49 $0.14
54 Ethiopia 6 0.10% 1 $6.00
55 Guinea 6 0.10% 10 $0.60
56 Bosnia Herzegovina 6 0.10% 12 $0.50
57 Sudan 6 0.10% 12 $0.50
58 Austria 6 0.10% 25 $0.24
59 Czech Rep. 6 0.10% 26 $0.23
60 Greece 5 0.080% 18 $0.28
61 Guinea Bissau 5 0.080% 21 $0.24
62 Nepal 4 0.064% 0 ?
63 Singapore 4 0.064% 0 ?
64 Azerbaijan 4 0.064% 14 $0.29
65 Georgia 4 0.064% 14 $0.29
66 Ecuador 4 0.064% 14 $0.29
67 Jordan 4 0.064% 14 $0.29
68 Mexico 4 0.064% 14 $0.29
69 Paraguay 4 0.064% 14 $0.29
70 New Zealand 3 0.048% 0 ?
71 Japan 3 0.048% 1 $3.00
72 Armenia 3 0.048% 4 $0.75
73 Brazil 3 0.048% 4 $0.75
74 Chile 3 0.048% 8 $0.38
75 Ghana 3 0.048% 19 $0.16
76 Belgium-Luxembourg 3 0.048% 29 $0.10
77 Iran 2 0.032% 0 ?
78 Kuwait 2 0.032% 0 ?
79 South Korea 2 0.032% 0 ?
80 Morocco 2 0.032% 6 $0.33
81 Tunisia 2 0.032% 7 $0.29
82 Portugal 2 0.032% 11 $0.18
83 Belarus 2 0.032% 12 $0.17
84 Moldova 2 0.032% 24 $0.08
85 Ireland 1 0.016% 0 ?
86 Spain 1 0.016% 0 ?
87 Thailand 1 0.016% 0 ?
88 Bulgaria 1 0.016% 6 $0.17
89 Zambia 1 0.016% 42 $0.02
total 6,237 11,831 $0.53
Source: Derived from SITC1 data obtained from the United Nations Statistical Division, International Trade Statistics Branch.
Note: Zero weights in the data appear to indicate actual small values (less than 500 kgs), rounded-off to zero.
Report of a study for Sida
A-22
7DEOH$UHFLSLHQWVRI6ZHGLVKXVHGFORWKHVH[SRUWVUDQNHG
E\SULFHZLWKYDOXHVDQGZHLJKWV
rank
by
price
1994 recipients
of Swedish
used-clothes exports
reported
value
(US$1000s)
reported
weight
(1000 kgs)
average
price
(US$/kg)
1 Australia 49 1 $49.00
2 Canada 43 2 $21.50
3 Cyprus 46 3 $15.33
4 India 23 3 $7.67
5 China 7 1 $7.00
6 Hong Kong 7 1 $7.00
7 Ethiopia 6 1 $6.00
8 Honduras 193 34 $5.68
9 El Salvador 174 31 $5.61
10 Bolivia 27 6 $4.50
11 USA, Puerto Rico, Virgin Is. 265 65 $4.08
12 Norway, Svalbard & Jan Mayen 98 25 $3.92
13 France, Monaco 98 31 $3.16
14 Japan 3 1 $3.00
15 Nicaragua 589 228 $2.58
16 Uruguay 14 6 $2.33
17 Germany 212 100 $2.12
18 Saudi Arabia 9 5 $1.80
19 Denmark 178 108 $1.65
20 United Kingdom 105 82 $1.28
21 Sierra Leone 9 8 $1.13
22 Switzerland, Liechtenstein 11 10 $1.10
23 Ethiopia 114 127 $0.90
24 Ukraine 170 201 $0.85
25 Zaire 22 27 $0.81
26 Netherlands 68 85 $0.80
27 Lebanon 31 39 $0.79
28 Armenia 3 4 $0.75
29 Brazil 3 4 $0.75
30 Croatia 227 308 $0.74
31 Burundi 8 11 $0.73
32 South African Customs Union 29 45 $0.64
33 Tanzania 107 173 $0.62
34 Finland 190 310 $0.61
35 Guinea 6 10 $0.60
36 Romania 110 186 $0.59
37 Rwanda 72 133 $0.54
38 Poland 210 399 $0.53
39 Syria 39 76 $0.51
40 Hungary 44 88 $0.50
41 Bosnia Herzegovina 6 12 $0.50
42 Sudan 6 12 $0.50
43 Russia 408 821 $0.50
44 Egypt 7 16 $0.44
45 Angola 201 523 $0.38
46 Chile 3 8 $0.38
47 Argentina 7 19 $0.37
48 Brunei 28 78 $0.36
49 Albania 21 59 $0.36
Used Clothes As Development Aid
A-23
rank
by
price
1994 recipients
of Swedish
used-clothes exports
reported
value
(US$1000s)
reported
weight
(1000 kgs)
average
price
(US$/kg)
50 Yugoslavia 352 1,021 $0.34
51 Morocco 2 6 $0.33
52 Lithuania 187 566 $0.33
53 Liberia 11 35 $0.31
54 Estonia 568 1,875 $0.30
55 Azerbaijan 4 14 $0.29
56 Georgia 4 14 $0.29
57 Ecuador 4 14 $0.29
58 Jordan 4 14 $0.29
59 Mexico 4 14 $0.29
60 Paraguay 4 14 $0.29
61 Tunisia 2 7 $0.29
62 Greece 5 18 $0.28
63 Latvia 486 1,764 $0.28
64 Slovakia 9 34 $0.26
65 Austria 6 25 $0.24
66 Guinea Bissau 5 21 $0.24
67 Czech Rep. 6 26 $0.23
68 Portugal 2 11 $0.18
69 Belarus 2 12 $0.17
70 Bulgaria 1 6 $0.17
71 Ghana 3 19 $0.16
72 Mozambique 170 1,090 $0.16
73 Niger 7 49 $0.14
74 Iraq 29 225 $0.13
75 Belgium-Luxembourg 3 29 $0.10
76 Benin 12 139 $0.09
77 Moldova 2 24 $0.08
78 Zambia 1 42 $0.02
79 Turkey 9 - ?
80 United Arab Emirates 7 - ?
81 Nepal 4 - ?
82 Singapore 4 - ?
83 New Zealand 3 - ?
84 Iran 2 - ?
85 Kuwait 2 - ?
86 South Korea 2 - ?
87 Ireland 1 - ?
88 Spain 1 - ?
89 Thailand 1 - ?
total 6,237 11,831 $0.53
Source: Derived from SITC1 data obtained from the United Nations Statistical Division, International Trade Statistics
Branch.
Note: Zero weights in the data appear to indicate actual small values (less than 500 kgs), rounded-off to zero.
Report of a study for Sida
A-24
Used Clothes As Development Aid
A-25
7DEOH$VRXUFHVRI6ZHGLVKXVHGFORWKHVLPSRUWVUDQNHGE\YDOXH
ZLWKZHLJKWVSULFHVDQGYDOXHVKDUHV
rank
by
value
1994 sources
of Swedish
used-clothes imports
reported
value
(US$1000s)
share
of
total
reported
weight
(1000 kgs)
average
price
(US$/kg)
1 Germany 200 29.9% 93 $2.15
2 Netherlands 117 17.5% 129 $0.91
3 Poland 96 14.3% 89 $1.08
4 Denmark 65 9.7% 99 $0.66
5 USA, Puerto Rico, Virgin Is. 53 7.9% 7 $7.57
6 Norway, Svalbard & Jan Mayen 51 7.6% 91 $0.56
7 France, Monaco 40 6.0% 9 $4.44
8 United Kingdom 15 2.2% 3 $5.00
9 Indonesia 8 1.2% - ?
10 China 7 1.0% - ?
11 Austria 5 0.75
%
10 $0.50
12 Finland 4 0.60
%
-?
13 Canada 3 0.45
%
1 $3.00
14 Hong Kong 3 0.45
%
-?
15 Saudi Arabia 1 0.15
%
-?
16 Singapore 1 0.15
%
-?
total 669 532 $1.21
Source: Derived from SITC1 data obtained from the United Nations Statistical Division, International Trade Statistics Branch.
Note: Zero weights in the data appear to indicate actual small values (less than 500 kgs), rounded-off to zero.
Report of a study for Sida
A-26
7DEOH$1LQHW\QHWXVHGFORWKHVLPSRUWLQJFRXQWULHV¶
rank importing country total value (US$) share of total
1 Pakistan $250,133,000 16.8%
2 Hong Kong $170,204,000 11.4%
3 Tunisia $141,910,000 9.5%
4 Chile $97,812,000 6.6%
5 Indonesia $92,726,000 6.2%
6 Malaysia $91,581,000 6.2%
7 Jordan $83,696,000 5.6%
8 France, Monaco $74,278,000 5.0%
9 Spain $55,072,000 3.7%
10 Bangladesh $38,090,000 2.6%
11 Poland $29,379,000 2.0%
12 Djibouti $29,054,000 2.0%
13 Ethiopia $25,708,000 1.7%
14 Senegal $24,443,000 1.6%
15 Papua New Guinea $21,188,000 1.4%
16 Ghana $18,175,000 1.2%
17 Bolivia $17,197,000 1.2%
18 Togo $16,459,000 1.1%
19 Hungary $16,393,000 1.1%
20 Singapore $14,714,000 0.99%
21 Brazil $13,225,000 0.89%
22 Nicaragua $11,695,000 0.79%
23 India $11,476,000 0.77%
24 Syria $11,313,000 0.76%
25 South African Customs Union $11,160,000 0.75%
26 Guatemala $9,832,000 0.66%
27 South Korea $9,381,000 0.63%
28 Malawi $8,644,000 0.58%
29 Thailand $7,216,000 0.48%
30 Honduras $7,186,000 0.48%
31 Greece $6,156,000 0.41%
32 Fiji $5,756,000 0.39%
33 Romania $5,682,000 0.38%
34 Paraguay $5,127,000 0.34%
35 El Salvador $4,593,000 0.31%
36 Argentina $4,441,000 0.30%
37 Costa Rica $4,190,000 0.28%
38 Philippines $3,788,000 0.25%
39 Mali $3,738,000 0.25%
40 New Zealand $3,689,000 0.25%
41 Peru $3,017,000 0.20%
42 Madagascar $2,992,000 0.20%
43 Reunion $2,516,000 0.17%
44 Congo $2,243,000 0.15%
45 Israel $1,972,000 0.13%
46 Saudi Arabia $1,936,000 0.13%
47 Ireland $1,413,000 0.095%
48 Kenya $1,341,000 0.090%
Used Clothes As Development Aid
A-27
rank importing country total value (US$) share of total
49 Ecuador $1,322,000 0.089%
50 Sri Lanka $1,275,000 0.086%
51 Sierra Leone $1,211,000 0.081%
52 Zimbabwe $1,104,000 0.074%
53 Central African Republic $1,063,000 0.071%
54 Solomon Islands $1,035,000 0.070%
55 Croatia $708,000 0.048%
56 Jamaica $690,000 0.046%
57 Liberia $560,000 0.038%
58 Venezuela $473,000 0.032%
59 Barbados $413,000 0.028%
60 Bulgaria $376,000 0.025%
61 Martinique $359,000 0.024%
62 Belize $315,000 0.021%
63 Guadeloupe $307,000 0.021%
64 St. Pierre and Miquelon $304,000 0.020%
65 Macau $301,000 0.020%
66 Kuwait $242,000 0.016%
67 Grenada $221,000 0.015%
68 Faeroe Islands $213,000 0.014%
69 Slovenia $209,000 0.014%
70 Trinidad and Tobago $198,000 0.013%
71 Brunei $196,000 0.013%
72 Kiribati $182,000 0.012%
73 Benin $164,000 0.011%
74 Qatar $164,000 0.011%
75 St. Lucia $158,000 0.011%
76 Uruguay $126,000 0.0085%
77 Mauritius $124,000 0.0083%
78 French Guiana $116,000 0.0078%
79 Vanuatu $80,000 0.0054%
80 Cyprus $72,000 0.0048%
81 Turkey $69,000 0.0046%
82 Yugoslavia $50,000 0.0034%
83 Egypt $44,000 0.0030%
84 Seychelles $27,000 0.0018%
85 Cameroon $20,000 0.0013%
86 Algeria $17,000 0.0011%
87 Greenland $11,000 0.0007%
88 Malta $10,000 0.0007%
89 Niue $1,000 0.0001%
90 St. Kitts-Nevis $1,000 0.0001%
Source: Derived from SITC2 data obtained from the United Nations Statistical Division, International Trade Statistics Branch.
Note: Total value for each country for the period is simply the sum of uncorrected annual figures; correcting annual figures for
inflation should have little effect on rank or share.
Report of a study for Sida
A-28
7DEOH$ZRUOGXVHGFORWKHVJURVVLPSRUWHUVUDQNHGE\YDOXHZLWK
UHSRUWHGDQGLPSXWHGZHLJKWVYDOXHDQGZHLJKWVKDUHVRIWRWDO
ZHLJKWVSHUFDSLWDDQGDYHUDJHSULFHV
rank by world importers of reported value share reported wt. imputed wt. share kilograms avg. price
value used clothes, 1990 (US dollars) of total (kilograms) (kilograms) of total per capita (US$/kg)
1 France, Monaco $33,646,000 6.3% 34,285,000 34,285,000 5.8% 0.60 $0.98
2 Belgium-Luxembourg* $29,917,000 5.6% 49,983,000 54,394,545 9.2% 5.5 $0.55
3 Pakistan $28,609,000 5.3% 74,730,000 74,730,000 12.7% 0.61 $0.38
4 Netherlands $25,004,000 4.7% 62,373,000 62,373,000 10.6% 4.2 $0.40
5 Tunisia $21,082,000 3.9% 27,433,000 27,433,000 4.7% 3.4 $0.77
6 Hong Kong $20,995,000 3.9% 17,288,000 17,288,000 2.9% 3.0 $1.21
7 Togo* $19,449,000 3.6% 9,739,000 13,506,250 2.3% 3.8 $1.44
8 Benin* $18,166,000 3.4% 8,236,000 8,236,000 1.4% 3.6 $1.10
9 Singapore* $15,689,000 2.9% 11,378,000 17,432,222 3.0% 6.4 $0.90
10 Zaire* $15,566,000 2.9% 7,998,000 16,215,000 2.8% 0.43 $0.96
11 Ghana* $12,606,000 2.3% 7,215,000 10,166,129 1.7% 0.68 $1.24
12 Malaysia $11,186,000 2.1% 12,106,000 12,106,000 2.1% 0.68 $0.92
13 Nigeria* $10,865,000 2.0% 6,855,000 7,391,156 1.3% 0.077 $1.47
14 Italy* $10,812,000 2.0% 18,610,000 21,200,000 3.6% 0.37 $0.51
15 Chile $10,310,000 1.9% 7,678,000 7,678,000 1.3% 0.58 $1.34
16 United Kingdom $9,980,000 1.9% 3,268,000 3,268,000 0.56% 0.057 $3.05
17 Poland* $9,782,000 1.8% 6,007,000 9,880,808 1.7% 0.26 $0.99
18 Tanzania* $9,719,000 1.8% 5,312,000 9,256,190 1.6% 0.36 $1.05
19 Japan $9,631,000 1.8% 1,021,000 1,021,000 0.17% 0.0083 $9.43
20 West Germany* $9,566,000 1.8% 3,836,000 7,138,806 1.2% 0.12 $1.34
21 Hungary* $9,443,000 1.8% 7,847,000 7,935,294 1.3% 0.77 $1.19
22 Jordan $9,138,000 1.7% 7,291,000 7,291,000 1.2% 1.7 $1.25
23 Indonesia $9,035,000 1.7% 3,555,000 3,555,000 0.60% 0.019 $2.54
24 Spain $8,700,000 1.6% 8,211,000 8,211,000 1.4% 0.21 $1.06
25 Senegal* $8,471,000 1.6% 2,598,000 5,196,933 0.88% 0.71 $1.63
26 India* $7,509,000 1.4% 4,093,000 14,723,529 2.5% 0.017 $0.51
27 Kenya* $7,403,000 1.4% 4,089,000 7,403,000 1.3% 0.31 $1.00
28 South African Cust. Union* $6,494,000 1.2% 5,499,000 6,429,703 1.1% 0.17 $1.01
29 Haiti* $6,379,000 1.2% 1,000 2,126,333 0.36% 0.33 $3.00
30 USA, Puerto Rico, Virgin Is.* $5,888,000 1.1% 1,851,000 2,073,239 0.35% 0.0083 $2.84
31 Guinea* $5,799,000 1.1% 4,808,000 5,369,444 0.91% 0.93 $1.08
32 Lebanon* $5,100,000 0.95% 3,681,000 4,080,000 0.69% 1.6 $1.25
33 Djibouti $4,890,000 0.91% 5,749,000 5,749,000 0.98% 11.1 $0.85
34 Mozambique* $4,462,000 0.83% 1,967,000 3,513,386 0.60% 0.25 $1.27
35 Mexico* $3,880,000 0.72% 48,000 3,803,922 0.65% 0.045 $1.02
36 Bangladesh* $3,841,000 0.71% 8,334,000 9,368,293 1.6% 0.087 $0.41
37 Ethiopia $3,756,000 0.70% 740,000 742,292 0.13% 0.015 $5.06
38 Saudi Arabia $3,542,000 0.66% 3,801,000 3,801,000 0.65% 0.24 $0.93
39 Angola* $3,492,000 0.65% 1,520,000 2,666,000 0.45% 0.29 $1.31
40 Papua New Guinea $3,426,000 0.64% 1,543,000 1,550,226 0.26% 0.40 $2.21
41 Uganda* $3,359,000 0.62% 1,361,000 2,687,200 0.46% 0.15 $1.25
42 Philippines* $3,338,000 0.62% 2,745,000 3,371,717 0.57% 0.055 $0.99
43 Equatorial Guinea* $3,300,000 0.61% 2,089,000 2,102,000 0.36% 6.0 $1.57
44 Rwanda* $3,249,000 0.60% 3,550,000 3,692,045 0.63% 0.53 $0.88
45 Gabon* $3,006,000 0.56% 1,519,000 1,534,000 0.26% 1.3 $1.96
46 Canada* $2,899,000 0.54% 129,000 751,036 0.13% 0.027 $3.86
47 Bolivia $2,661,000 0.49% 3,048,000 3,094,186 0.53% 0.47 $0.86
48 Egypt* $2,434,000 0.45% 3,543,000 3,990,164 0.68% 0.071 $0.61
49 Sierra Leone* $2,245,000 0.42% 708,000 1,615,108 0.27% 0.40 $1.39
50 Greece* $2,241,000 0.42% 139,000 1,052,113 0.18% 0.10 $2.13
Used Clothes As Development Aid
A-29
rank by world importers of reported value share reported wt. imputed wt. share kilograms avg. price
value used clothes, 1990 (US dollars) of total (kilograms) (kilograms) of total per capita (US$/kg)
51 Afghanistan* $2,239,000 0.42% 2,027,000 3,611,290 0.61% 0.24 $0.62
52 Burundi* $2,071,000 0.39% 2,922,000 3,046,000 0.52% 0.55 $0.68
53 Sweden* $1,997,000 0.37% 347,000 482,367 0.082% 0.056 $4.14
54 Central African Republic* $1,914,000 0.36% 1,198,000 1,198,000 0.20% 0.41 $1.60
55 South Korea $1,889,000 0.35% 1,947,423 0.33% 0.045 $0.97*
56 Burkina Faso* $1,878,000 0.35% 1,171,000 1,467,188 0.25% 0.16 $1.28
57 Mali $1,787,000 0.33% 1,672,000 1,672,000 0.28% 0.18 $1.07
58 Australia* $1,747,000 0.32% 167,000 360,206 0.061% 0.021 $4.85
59 Romania* $1,699,000 0.32% 935,000 999,412 0.17% 0.043 $1.70
60 Costa Rica $1,561,000 0.29% 940,000 940,000 0.16% 0.31 $1.66
61 Nicaragua $1,532,000 0.28% 1,536,000 1,536,000 0.26% 0.42 $1.00
62 Cote D’Ivoire* $1,458,000 0.27% 926,000 2,390,164 0.41% 0.20 $0.61
63 Honduras $1,446,000 0.27% 1,689,000 1,689,000 0.29% 0.35 $0.86
64 Congo* $1,419,000 0.26% 675,000 713,000 0.12% 0.32 $1.99
65 Ireland* $1,280,000 0.24% 285,000 361,582 0.061% 0.10 $3.54
66 Cameroon* $1,258,000 0.23% 674,000 691,209 0.12% 0.060 $1.82
67 Gambia* $1,195,000 0.22% 676,000 742,236 0.13% 0.80 $1.61
68 New Zealand* $1,161,000 0.22% 381,000 446,538 0.076% 0.13 $2.60
69 Switzerland, Liechtenstein* $1,099,000 0.20% 1,037,000 1,277,907 0.22% 0.19 $0.86
70 Liberia* $1,059,000 0.20% 346,000 756,429 0.13% 0.29 $1.40
71 Denmark* $1,053,000 0.20% 594,000 731,250 0.12% 0.14 $1.44
72 Sudan* $1,024,000 0.19% 486,000 644,025 0.11% 0.026 $1.59
73 Brazil $1,004,000 0.19% 1,300,000 1,300,000 0.22% 0.0088 $0.77
74 Austria* $947,000 0.18% 449,000 506,417 0.086% 0.066 $1.87
75 Fiji $940,000 0.17% 450,000 450,000 0.076% 0.62 $2.09
76 Guatemala $867,000 0.16% 1,264,000 1,275,000 0.22% 0.14 $0.68
77 El Salvador $855,000 0.16% 918,000 918,000 0.16% 0.18 $0.93
78 USSR* $805,000 0.15% 372,000 417,098 0.071% 0.0014 $1.93
79 Zambia* $775,000 0.14% 229,000 610,236 0.10% 0.075 $1.27
80 Sao Tome & Principe* $758,000 0.14% 371,000 371,000 0.063% 3.1 $2.04
81 Paraguay $754,000 0.14% 831,000 847,191 0.14% 0.20 $0.89
82 Mauritania* $731,000 0.14% 453,000 477,778 0.081% 0.24 $1.53
83 Niger* $673,000 0.13% 121,000 506,015 0.086% 0.065 $1.33
84 Bahamas* $644,000 0.12% 94,000 95,691 0.016% 0.37 $6.73
85 Reunion* $542,000 0.10% 93,000 93,000 0.016% 0.15 $5.83
86 Madagascar* $446,000 0.083% 298,000 299,329 0.051% 0.024 $1.49
87 Yugoslavia* $437,000 0.081% 125,000 145,183 0.025% 0.014 $3.01
88 Asia Unspecific* $419,000 0.078% 69,000 145,486 0.025% $2.88
89 Thailand* $412,000 0.077% 152,000 215,707 0.037% 0.0039 $1.91
90 Panama $408,000 0.076% 73,000 77,127 0.013% 0.032 $5.29
91 Chad* $406,000 0.076% 145,000 229,000 0.039% 0.041 $1.77
92 Israel* $400,000 0.074% 55,000 99,502 0.017% 0.021 $4.02
93 United Arab Emirates* $357,000 0.066% 104,000 230,323 0.039% 0.14 $1.55
94 Uruguay* $355,000 0.066% 95,000 344,660 0.059% 0.11 $1.03
95 Portugal* $355,000 0.066% 266,000 288,618 0.049% 0.029 $1.23
96 Peru* $354,000 0.066% 180,000 215,854 0.037% 0.010 $1.64
97 Norway, Svalbard & Jan Mayen* $336,000 0.062% 129,000 207,407 0.035% 0.049 $1.62
98 Argentina* $331,000 0.062% 174,000 192,442 0.033% 0.0059 $1.72
99 Finland* $325,000 0.060% 53,000 171,958 0.029% 0.034 $1.89
100 Solomon Islands* $309,000 0.057% 119,000 119,000 0.020% 0.37 $2.60
101 Yemen* $303,000 0.056% 247,000 312,371 0.053% 0.028 $0.97
102 Cyprus* $291,000 0.054% 195,000 196,622 0.033% 0.28 $1.48
103 Dominican Republic* $289,000 0.054% 20,000 152,105 0.026% 0.021 $1.90
Report of a study for Sida
A-30
rank by world importers of reported value share reported wt. imputed wt. share kilograms avg. price
value used clothes, 1990 (US dollars) of total (kilograms) (kilograms) of total per capita (US$/kg)
104 Zimbabwe $272,000 0.051% 427,000 438,710 0.075% 0.044 $0.62
105 Morocco* $243,000 0.045% 206,000 694,286 0.12% 0.029 $0.35
106 Netherlands Antilles* $224,000 0.042% 59,000 70,000 0.012% 0.37 $3.20
107 Guadeloupe* $202,000 0.038% 22,000 22,222 0.0038% 0.057 $9.09
108 Venezuela $197,000 0.037% 139,000 140,714 0.024% 0.0072 $1.40
109 Czechoslovakia* $194,000 0.036% 333,000 346,429 0.059% 0.022 $0.56
110 Turkey* $193,000 0.036% 113,000 250,649 0.043% 0.0045 $0.77
111 Guinea Bissau* $192,000 0.036% 91,000 101,587 0.017% 0.11 $1.89
112 Brunei* $164,000 0.031% 138,000 140,171 0.024% 0.55 $1.17
113 Malawi* $156,000 0.029% 37,000 37,000 0.0063% 0.0040 $4.22
114 Ecuador* $151,000 0.028% 22,000 54,513 0.0093% 0.0053 $2.77
115 Macau $137,000 0.025% 413,000 413,000 0.070% 1.2 $0.33
116 Colombia* $133,000 0.025% 16,000 29,167 0.0050% 0.0009 $4.56
117 Malta* $131,000 0.024% 5,000 26,200 0.0045% 0.074 $5.00
118 Belize $119,000 0.022% 237,000 237,000 0.040% 1.3 $0.50
119 Comoros* $112,000 0.021% 62,000 62,000 0.011% 0.11 $1.81
120 Libya* $100,000 0.019% 47,000 47,000 0.0080% 0.010 $2.13
121 Bahrain* $100,000 0.019% 1,000 3,333 0.0006% 0.0068 $30.00
122 Martinique* $98,000 0.018% 23,000 23,000 0.0039% 0.064 $4.26
123 Kuwait $95,000 0.018% 153,000 153,000 0.026% 0.071 $0.62
124 Unspecific* $95,000 0.018% 141,000 142,000 0.024% $0.67
125 China* $90,000 0.017% 101,000 125,000 0.021% 0.0001 $0.72
126 Burma (Myanmar)* $89,000 0.017% 87,000 89,899 0.015% 0.0022 $0.99
127 Suriname* $89,000 0.017% 12,000 12,000 0.0020% 0.030 $7.42
128 Iran* $82,000 0.015% 38,000 141,379 0.024% 0.0024 $0.58
129 Algeria* $70,000 0.013% 38,000 39,106 0.0066% 0.0016 $1.79
130 Kiribati* $69,000 0.013% 43,000 43,000 0.0073% 0.60 $1.60
131 Syria $69,000 0.013% 19,000 21,296 0.0036% 0.0017 $3.24
132 Cambodia* $63,000 0.012% 20,000 20,000 0.0034% 0.0023 $3.15
133 Sri Lanka* $62,000 0.012% 87,000 88,571 0.015% 0.0051 $0.70
134 Samoa $60,000 0.011% 27,273 0.0046% 0.17 $2.20*
135 Iceland* $56,000 0.010% 16,000 18,667 0.0032% 0.073 $3.00
136 Somalia* $55,000 0.010% 60,000 78,571 0.013% 0.0091 $0.70
137 Middle East Unspecific* $51,000 0.0095% 61,000 61,000 0.010% $0.84
138 Dominica* $51,000 0.0095% 23,000 23,000 0.0039% 0.32 $2.22
139 Aruba* $50,000 0.0093%
140 Vanuatu* $49,000 0.0091% 23,000 23,000 0.0039% 0.15 $2.13
141 Seychelles* $45,000 0.0084% 45,000 45,000 0.0076% 0.64 $1.00
142 St. Helena* $44,000 0.0082% 23,000 23,000 0.0039% 3.8 $1.91
143 Faeroe Islands $44,000 0.0082% 17,000 17,000 0.0029% 0.36 $2.59
144 Cuba* $40,000 0.0074% 12,000 14,981 0.0025% 0.0014 $2.67
145 New Caledonia* $40,000 0.0074% 4,000 6,667 0.0011% 0.040 $6.00
146 East Germany* $38,000 0.0071% 44,000 44,000 0.0075% 0.0027 $0.86
147 Bulgaria* $36,000 0.0067% 21,000 21,557 0.0037% 0.0024 $1.67
148 Grenada $33,000 0.0061% 73,000 75,000 0.013% 0.82 $0.44
149 Mauritius* $33,000 0.0061% 34,000 43,421 0.0074% 0.041 $0.76
150 Barbados $32,000 0.0060%
151 Tonga* $32,000 0.0060%
152 Antigua Barbuda* $31,000 0.0058%
153 Viet Nam* $24,000 0.0045% 42,000 42,000 0.0071% 0.0006 $0.57
154 Gibraltar* $24,000 0.0045% 2,000 2,286 0.0004% 0.082 $10.50
155 Pacific Islands* $23,000 0.0043%
156 Oman* $20,000 0.0037% 1,000 1,333 0.0002% 0.0008 $15.00
Used Clothes As Development Aid
A-31
rank by world importers of reported value share reported wt. imputed wt. share kilograms avg. price
value used clothes, 1990 (US dollars) of total (kilograms) (kilograms) of total per capita (US$/kg)
157 Bermuda* $16,000 0.0030% 10,000 10,000 0.0017% 0.16 $1.60
158 Qatar* $15,000 0.0028% 8,000 8,000 0.0014% 0.016 $1.88
159 Nepal* $12,000 0.0022% 32,000 32,000 0.0054% 0.0017 $0.38
160 Albania* $11,000 0.0020% 2,000 3,667 0.0006% 0.0011 $3.00
161 Nauru* $10,000 0.0019% 5,000 5,000 0.0008% 0.50 $2.00
162 Guyana* $10,000 0.0019%
163 Br. Indian Ocean Terr.* $10,000 0.0019%
164 St. Vincent & Grenada* $9,000 0.0017% 4,000 6,000 0.0010% 0.056 $1.50
165 French Polynesia* $9,000 0.0017% 2,000 3,600 0.0006% 0.018 $2.50
166 Trinidad and Tobago $8,000 0.0015% 6,000 6,667 0.0011% 0.0054 $1.20
167 Montserrat* $8,000 0.0015% 4,000 4,000 0.0007% 0.36 $2.00
168 St. Lucia $8,000 0.0015% 3,000 3,000 0.0005% 0.023 $2.67
169 Andorra* $8,000 0.0015%
170 American Samoa* $7,000 0.0013% 3,000 3,000 0.0005% 0.064 $2.33
171 French Guiana* $7,000 0.0013%
172 Laos* $5,000 0.0009% 10,000 10,000 0.0017% 0.0024 $0.50
173 Guam* $5,000 0.0009% 2,000 2,000 0.0003% 0.015 $2.50
174 Tuvalu* $5,000 0.0009% 1,000 1,000 0.0002% 0.11 $5.00
175 North Korea* $4,000 0.0007% 1,000 1,000 0.0002% 0.00005 $4.00
176 Cape Verde* $3,000 0.0006%
177 Greenland $3,000 0.0006%
178 Niue* $2,000 0.0004% 2,000 2,000 0.0003% 1.0 $1.00
179 Cayman Islands* $2,000 0.0004%
180 Norfolk Island* $2,000 0.0004%
181 St. Pierre & Miquelon* $2,000 0.0004%
total $537,637,000 588,371,539 $0.91
Source: Derived from SITC1 data obtained from the United Nations Statistical Division, International Trade Statistics Branch.
Notes: An asterisk (*) at the end of a country name indicates that the entire line is derived from partner data rather than from data
reported by the country directly. An asterisk (*) at the end of an average price indicates that the price (only) was taken from
partner data, due to lack of weights in reported data. Average prices are based only on those partner transactions for which
weights are reported; thus imputed weights (based on those prices) may be higher than reported weights. Extreme average
prices may still indicate some problem in the data, such as partial missing weights partner transactions. The absence
of a listing for a particular country does not necessarily indicate that no trade occurred.
Report of a study for Sida
A-32
7DEOH$ZRUOGXVHGFORWKHVJURVVLPSRUWHUVUDQNHGE\ZHLJKWSHU
FDSLWDZLWKYDOXHVUHSRUWHGDQGLPSXWHGZHLJKWVYDOXHDQGZHLJKW
VKDUHVRIWRWDODQGDYHUDJHSULFHV
rank per world importers of reported value share reported wt. imputed wt. share kilograms avg. price
capita used clothes, 1990 (US dollars) of total (kilograms) (kilograms) of total per capita (US$/kg)
1 Djibouti $4,890,000 0.91% 5,749,000 5,749,000 0.98% 11.1 $0.85
2 Singapore* $15,689,000 2.9% 11,378,000 17,432,222 3.0% 6.4 $0.90
3 Equatorial Guinea* $3,300,000 0.61% 2,089,000 2,102,000 0.36% 6.0 $1.57
4 Belgium-Luxembourg* $29,917,000 5.6% 49,983,000 54,394,545 9.2% 5.5 $0.55
5 Netherlands $25,004,000 4.7% 62,373,000 62,373,000 10.6% 4.2 $0.40
6 St. Helena* $44,000 0.0082% 23,000 23,000 0.0039% 3.8 $1.91
7 Togo* $19,449,000 3.6% 9,739,000 13,506,250 2.3% 3.8 $1.44
8 Benin* $18,166,000 3.4% 8,236,000 8,236,000 1.4% 3.6 $1.10
9 Tunisia $21,082,000 3.9% 27,433,000 27,433,000 4.7% 3.4 $0.77
10 Sao Tome & Principe* $758,000 0.14% 371,000 371,000 0.063% 3.1 $2.04
11 Hong Kong $20,995,000 3.9% 17,288,000 17,288,000 2.9% 3.0 $1.21
12 Jordan $9,138,000 1.7% 7,291,000 7,291,000 1.2% 1.7 $1.25
13 Lebanon* $5,100,000 0.95% 3,681,000 4,080,000 0.69% 1.6 $1.25
14 Gabon* $3,006,000 0.56% 1,519,000 1,534,000 0.26% 1.3 $1.96
15 Belize $119,000 0.022% 237,000 237,000 0.040% 1.3 $0.50
16 Macau $137,000 0.025% 413,000 413,000 0.070% 1.2 $0.33
17 Niue* $2,000 0.0004% 2,000 2,000 0.0003% 1.0 $1.00
18 Guinea* $5,799,000 1.1% 4,808,000 5,369,444 0.91% 0.93 $1.08
19 Grenada $33,000 0.0061% 73,000 75,000 0.013% 0.82 $0.44
20 Gambia* $1,195,000 0.22% 676,000 742,236 0.13% 0.80 $1.61
21 Hungary* $9,443,000 1.8% 7,847,000 7,935,294 1.3% 0.77 $1.19
22 Senegal* $8,471,000 1.6% 2,598,000 5,196,933 0.88% 0.71 $1.63
23 Ghana* $12,606,000 2.3% 7,215,000 10,166,129 1.7% 0.68 $1.24
24 Malaysia $11,186,000 2.1% 12,106,000 12,106,000 2.1% 0.68 $0.92
25 Seychelles* $45,000 0.0084% 45,000 45,000 0.0076% 0.64 $1.00
26 Fiji $940,000 0.17% 450,000 450,000 0.076% 0.62 $2.09
27 Pakistan $28,609,000 5.3% 74,730,000 74,730,000 12.7% 0.61 $0.38
28 France, Monaco $33,646,000 6.3% 34,285,000 34,285,000 5.8% 0.60 $0.98
29 Kiribati* $69,000 0.013% 43,000 43,000 0.0073% 0.60 $1.60
30 Chile $10,310,000 1.9% 7,678,000 7,678,000 1.3% 0.58 $1.34
31 Burundi* $2,071,000 0.39% 2,922,000 3,046,000 0.52% 0.55 $0.68
32 Brunei* $164,000 0.031% 138,000 140,171 0.024% 0.55 $1.17
33 Rwanda* $3,249,000 0.60% 3,550,000 3,692,045 0.63% 0.53 $0.88
34 Nauru* $10,000 0.0019% 5,000 5,000 0.0008% 0.50 $2.00
35 Bolivia $2,661,000 0.49% 3,048,000 3,094,186 0.53% 0.47 $0.86
36 Zaire* $15,566,000 2.9% 7,998,000 16,215,000 2.8% 0.43 $0.96
37 Nicaragua $1,532,000 0.28% 1,536,000 1,536,000 0.26% 0.42 $1.00
38 Central African Republic* $1,914,000 0.36% 1,198,000 1,198,000 0.20% 0.41 $1.60
39 Sierra Leone* $2,245,000 0.42% 708,000 1,615,108 0.27% 0.40 $1.39
40 Papua New Guinea $3,426,000 0.64% 1,543,000 1,550,226 0.26% 0.40 $2.21
41 Bahamas* $644,000 0.12% 94,000 95,691 0.016% 0.37 $6.73
42 Solomon Islands* $309,000 0.057% 119,000 119,000 0.020% 0.37 $2.60
43 Italy* $10,812,000 2.0% 18,610,000 21,200,000 3.6% 0.37 $0.51
44 Netherlands Antilles* $224,000 0.042% 59,000 70,000 0.012% 0.37 $3.20
45 Montserrat* $8,000 0.0015% 4,000 4,000 0.0007% 0.36 $2.00
46 Faeroe Islands $44,000 0.0082% 17,000 17,000 0.0029% 0.36 $2.59
47 Tanzania* $9,719,000 1.8% 5,312,000 9,256,190 1.6% 0.36 $1.05
48 Honduras $1,446,000 0.27% 1,689,000 1,689,000 0.29% 0.35 $0.86
49 Haiti* $6,379,000 1.2% 1,000 2,126,333 0.36% 0.33 $3.00
50 Dominica* $51,000 0.0095% 23,000 23,000 0.0039% 0.32 $2.22
Used Clothes As Development Aid
A-33
rank per world importers of reported value share reported wt. imputed wt. share kilograms avg. price
capita used clothes, 1990 (US dollars) of total (kilograms) (kilograms) of total per capita (US$/kg)
51 Congo* $1,419,000 0.26% 675,000 713,000 0.12% 0.32 $1.99
52 Kenya* $7,403,000 1.4% 4,089,000 7,403,000 1.3% 0.31 $1.00
53 Costa Rica $1,561,000 0.29% 940,000 940,000 0.16% 0.31 $1.66
54 Liberia* $1,059,000 0.20% 346,000 756,429 0.13% 0.29 $1.40
55 Angola* $3,492,000 0.65% 1,520,000 2,666,000 0.45% 0.29 $1.31
56 Cyprus* $291,000 0.054% 195,000 196,622 0.033% 0.28 $1.48
57 Poland* $9,782,000 1.8% 6,007,000 9,880,808 1.7% 0.26 $0.99
58 Mozambique* $4,462,000 0.83% 1,967,000 3,513,386 0.60% 0.25 $1.27
59 Afghanistan* $2,239,000 0.42% 2,027,000 3,611,290 0.61% 0.24 $0.62
60 Mauritania* $731,000 0.14% 453,000 477,778 0.081% 0.24 $1.53
61 Saudi Arabia $3,542,000 0.66% 3,801,000 3,801,000 0.65% 0.24 $0.93
62 Spain $8,700,000 1.6% 8,211,000 8,211,000 1.4% 0.21 $1.06
63 Cote D’Ivoire* $1,458,000 0.27% 926,000 2,390,164 0.41% 0.20 $0.61
64 Paraguay $754,000 0.14% 831,000 847,191 0.14% 0.20 $0.89
65 Switzerland, Liechtenstein* $1,099,000 0.20% 1,037,000 1,277,907 0.22% 0.19 $0.86
66 Mali $1,787,000 0.33% 1,672,000 1,672,000 0.28% 0.18 $1.07
67 El Salvador $855,000 0.16% 918,000 918,000 0.16% 0.18 $0.93
68 South African Cust. Union* $6,494,000 1.2% 5,499,000 6,429,703 1.1% 0.17 $1.01
69 Samoa $60,000 0.011% 27,273 0.0046% 0.17 $2.20*
70 Bermuda* $16,000 0.0030% 10,000 10,000 0.0017% 0.16 $1.60
71 Burkina Faso* $1,878,000 0.35% 1,171,000 1,467,188 0.25% 0.16 $1.28
72 Vanuatu* $49,000 0.0091% 23,000 23,000 0.0039% 0.15 $2.13
73 Reunion* $542,000 0.10% 93,000 93,000 0.016% 0.15 $5.83
74 Uganda* $3,359,000 0.62% 1,361,000 2,687,200 0.46% 0.15 $1.25
75 Denmark* $1,053,000 0.20% 594,000 731,250 0.12% 0.14 $1.44
76 Guatemala $867,000 0.16% 1,264,000 1,275,000 0.22% 0.14 $0.68
77 United Arab Emirates* $357,000 0.066% 104,000 230,323 0.039% 0.14 $1.55
78 New Zealand* $1,161,000 0.22% 381,000 446,538 0.076% 0.13 $2.60
79 West Germany* $9,566,000 1.8% 3,836,000 7,138,806 1.2% 0.12 $1.34
80 Comoros* $112,000 0.021% 62,000 62,000 0.011% 0.11 $1.81
81 Uruguay* $355,000 0.066% 95,000 344,660 0.059% 0.11 $1.03
82 Tuvalu* $5,000 0.0009% 1,000 1,000 0.0002% 0.11 $5.00
83 Guinea Bissau* $192,000 0.036% 91,000 101,587 0.017% 0.11 $1.89
84 Ireland* $1,280,000 0.24% 285,000 361,582 0.061% 0.10 $3.54
85 Greece* $2,241,000 0.42% 139,000 1,052,113 0.18% 0.10 $2.13
86 Bangladesh* $3,841,000 0.71% 8,334,000 9,368,293 1.6% 0.087 $0.41
87 Gibraltar* $24,000 0.0045% 2,000 2,286 0.0004% 0.082 $10.50
88 Nigeria* $10,865,000 2.0% 6,855,000 7,391,156 1.3% 0.077 $1.47
89 Zambia* $775,000 0.14% 229,000 610,236 0.10% 0.075 $1.27
90 Malta* $131,000 0.024% 5,000 26,200 0.0045% 0.074 $5.00
91 Iceland* $56,000 0.010% 16,000 18,667 0.0032% 0.073 $3.00
92 Kuwait $95,000 0.018% 153,000 153,000 0.026% 0.071 $0.62
93 Egypt* $2,434,000 0.45% 3,543,000 3,990,164 0.68% 0.071 $0.61
94 Austria* $947,000 0.18% 449,000 506,417 0.086% 0.066 $1.87
95 Niger* $673,000 0.13% 121,000 506,015 0.086% 0.065 $1.33
96 Martinique* $98,000 0.018% 23,000 23,000 0.0039% 0.064 $4.26
97 American Samoa* $7,000 0.0013% 3,000 3,000 0.0005% 0.064 $2.33
98 Cameroon* $1,258,000 0.23% 674,000 691,209 0.12% 0.060 $1.82
99 Guadeloupe* $202,000 0.038% 22,000 22,222 0.0038% 0.057 $9.09
100 United Kingdom $9,980,000 1.9% 3,268,000 3,268,000 0.56% 0.057 $3.05
101 Sweden* $1,997,000 0.37% 347,000 482,367 0.082% 0.056 $4.14
102 St. Vincent & Grenada* $9,000 0.0017% 4,000 6,000 0.0010% 0.056 $1.50
103 Philippines* $3,338,000 0.62% 2,745,000 3,371,717 0.57% 0.055 $0.99
Report of a study for Sida
A-34
rank per world importers of reported value share reported wt. imputed wt. share kilograms avg. price
capita used clothes, 1990 (US dollars) of total (kilograms) (kilograms) of total per capita (US$/kg)
104 Norway, Svalbard & Jan Mayen* $336,000 0.062% 129,000 207,407 0.035% 0.049 $1.62
105 South Korea $1,889,000 0.35% 1,947,423 0.33% 0.045 $0.97*
106 Mexico* $3,880,000 0.72% 48,000 3,803,922 0.65% 0.045 $1.02
107 Zimbabwe $272,000 0.051% 427,000 438,710 0.075% 0.044 $0.62
108 Romania* $1,699,000 0.32% 935,000 999,412 0.17% 0.043 $1.70
109 Chad* $406,000 0.076% 145,000 229,000 0.039% 0.041 $1.77
110 Mauritius* $33,000 0.0061% 34,000 43,421 0.0074% 0.041 $0.76
111 New Caledonia* $40,000 0.0074% 4,000 6,667 0.0011% 0.040 $6.00
112 Finland* $325,000 0.060% 53,000 171,958 0.029% 0.034 $1.89
113 Panama $408,000 0.076% 73,000 77,127 0.013% 0.032 $5.29
114 Suriname* $89,000 0.017% 12,000 12,000 0.0020% 0.030 $7.42
115 Portugal* $355,000 0.066% 266,000 288,618 0.049% 0.029 $1.23
116 Morocco* $243,000 0.045% 206,000 694,286 0.12% 0.029 $0.35
117 Yemen* $303,000 0.056% 247,000 312,371 0.053% 0.028 $0.97
118 Canada* $2,899,000 0.54% 129,000 751,036 0.13% 0.027 $3.86
119 Sudan* $1,024,000 0.19% 486,000 644,025 0.11% 0.026 $1.59
120 Madagascar* $446,000 0.083% 298,000 299,329 0.051% 0.024 $1.49
121 St. Lucia $8,000 0.0015% 3,000 3,000 0.0005% 0.023 $2.67
122 Czechoslovakia* $194,000 0.036% 333,000 346,429 0.059% 0.022 $0.56
123 Dominican Republic* $289,000 0.054% 20,000 152,105 0.026% 0.021 $1.90
124 Israel* $400,000 0.074% 55,000 99,502 0.017% 0.021 $4.02
125 Australia* $1,747,000 0.32% 167,000 360,206 0.061% 0.021 $4.85
126 Indonesia $9,035,000 1.7% 3,555,000 3,555,000 0.60% 0.019 $2.54
127 French Polynesia* $9,000 0.0017% 2,000 3,600 0.0006% 0.018 $2.50
128 India* $7,509,000 1.4% 4,093,000 14,723,529 2.5% 0.017 $0.51
129 Qatar* $15,000 0.0028% 8,000 8,000 0.0014% 0.016 $1.88
130 Guam* $5,000 0.0009% 2,000 2,000 0.0003% 0.015 $2.50
131 Ethiopia $3,756,000 0.70% 740,000 742,292 0.13% 0.015 $5.06
132 Yugoslavia* $437,000 0.081% 125,000 145,183 0.025% 0.014 $3.01
133 Libya* $100,000 0.019% 47,000 47,000 0.0080% 0.010 $2.13
134 Peru* $354,000 0.066% 180,000 215,854 0.037% 0.010 $1.64
135 Somalia* $55,000 0.010% 60,000 78,571 0.013% 0.0091 $0.70
136 Brazil $1,004,000 0.19% 1,300,000 1,300,000 0.22% 0.0088 $0.77
137 USA, Puerto Rico, Virgin Is.* $5,888,000 1.1% 1,851,000 2,073,239 0.35% 0.0083 $2.84
138 Japan $9,631,000 1.8% 1,021,000 1,021,000 0.17% 0.0083 $9.43
139 Venezuela $197,000 0.037% 139,000 140,714 0.024% 0.0072 $1.40
140 Bahrain* $100,000 0.019% 1,000 3,333 0.0006% 0.0068 $30.00
141 Argentina* $331,000 0.062% 174,000 192,442 0.033% 0.0059 $1.72
142 Trinidad and Tobago $8,000 0.0015% 6,000 6,667 0.0011% 0.0054 $1.20
143 Ecuador* $151,000 0.028% 22,000 54,513 0.0093% 0.0053 $2.77
144 Sri Lanka* $62,000 0.012% 87,000 88,571 0.015% 0.0051 $0.70
145 Turkey* $193,000 0.036% 113,000 250,649 0.043% 0.0045 $0.77
146 Malawi* $156,000 0.029% 37,000 37,000 0.0063% 0.0040 $4.22
147 Thailand* $412,000 0.077% 152,000 215,707 0.037% 0.0039 $1.91
148 East Germany* $38,000 0.0071% 44,000 44,000 0.0075% 0.0027 $0.86
149 Iran* $82,000 0.015% 38,000 141,379 0.024% 0.0024 $0.58
150 Bulgaria* $36,000 0.0067% 21,000 21,557 0.0037% 0.0024 $1.67
151 Laos* $5,000 0.0009% 10,000 10,000 0.0017% 0.0024 $0.50
152 Cambodia* $63,000 0.012% 20,000 20,000 0.0034% 0.0023 $3.15
153 Burma (Myanmar)* $89,000 0.017% 87,000 89,899 0.015% 0.0022 $0.99
154 Syria $69,000 0.013% 19,000 21,296 0.0036% 0.0017 $3.24
155 Nepal* $12,000 0.0022% 32,000 32,000 0.0054% 0.0017 $0.38
156 Algeria* $70,000 0.013% 38,000 39,106 0.0066% 0.0016 $1.79
Used Clothes As Development Aid
A-35
rank per world importers of reported value share reported wt. imputed wt. share kilograms avg. price
capita used clothes, 1990 (US dollars) of total (kilograms) (kilograms) of total per capita (US$/kg)
157 USSR* $805,000 0.15% 372,000 417,098 0.071% 0.0014 $1.93
158 Cuba* $40,000 0.0074% 12,000 14,981 0.0025% 0.0014 $2.67
159 Albania* $11,000 0.0020% 2,000 3,667 0.0006% 0.0011 $3.00
160 Colombia* $133,000 0.025% 16,000 29,167 0.0050% 0.0009 $4.56
161 Oman* $20,000 0.0037% 1,000 1,333 0.0002% 0.0008 $15.00
162 Viet Nam* $24,000 0.0045% 42,000 42,000 0.0071% 0.0006 $0.57
163 China* $90,000 0.017% 101,000 125,000 0.021% 0.0001 $0.72
164 North Korea* $4,000 0.0007% 1,000 1,000 0.0002% 0.00005 $4.00
165 Asia Unspecific* $419,000 0.078% 69,000 145,486 0.025% $2.88
166 Unspecific* $95,000 0.018% 141,000 142,000 0.024% $0.67
167 Middle East Unspecific* $51,000 0.0095% 61,000 61,000 0.010% $0.84
168 Aruba* $50,000 0.0093%
169 Barbados $32,000 0.0060%
170 Tonga* $32,000 0.0060%
171 Antigua Barbuda* $31,000 0.0058%
172 Pacific Islands* $23,000 0.0043%
173 Guyana* $10,000 0.0019%
174 Br. Indian Ocean Terr.* $10,000 0.0019%
175 Andorra* $8,000 0.0015%
176 French Guiana* $7,000 0.0013%
177 Cape Verde* $3,000 0.0006%
178 Greenland $3,000 0.0006%
179 Cayman Islands* $2,000 0.0004%
180 Norfolk Island* $2,000 0.0004%
181 St. Pierre & Miquelon* $2,000 0.0004%
total $537,637,000 588,371,539 $0.91
Source: Derived from SITC1 data obtained from the United Nations Statistical Division, International Trade Statistics Branch.
Notes: An asterisk (*) at the end of a country name indicates that the entire line is derived from partner data rather than from data
reported by the country directly. An asterisk (*) at the end of an average price indicates that the price (only) was taken from
partner data, due to lack of weights in reported data. Average prices are based only on those partner transactions for which
weights are reported; thus imputed weights (based on those prices) may be higher than reported weights. Extreme average
prices may still indicate some problem in the data, such as partial missing weights partner transactions. The absence
of a listing for a particular country does not necessarily indicate that no trade occurred.
Report of a study for Sida
A-36
7DEOH$ZRUOGXVHGFORWKHVJURVVLPSRUWHUVUDQNHGE\DYHUDJH
SULFHZLWKYDOXHVUHSRUWHGDQGLPSXWHGZHLJKWVYDOXHDQGZHLJKW
VKDUHVRIWRWDODQGZHLJKWVSHUFDSLWD
rank by world importers of reported value share reported wt. imputed wt. share kilograms avg. price
price used clothes, 1990 (US dollars) of total (kilograms) (kilograms) of total per capita (US$/kg)
1 Bahrain* $100,000 0.019% 1,000 3,333 0.0006% 0.0068 $30.00
2 Oman* $20,000 0.0037% 1,000 1,333 0.0002% 0.0008 $15.00
3 Gibraltar* $24,000 0.0045% 2,000 2,286 0.0004% 0.082 $10.50
4 Japan $9,631,000 1.8% 1,021,000 1,021,000 0.17% 0.0083 $9.43
5 Guadeloupe* $202,000 0.038% 22,000 22,222 0.0038% 0.057 $9.09
6 Suriname* $89,000 0.017% 12,000 12,000 0.0020% 0.030 $7.42
7 Bahamas* $644,000 0.12% 94,000 95,691 0.016% 0.37 $6.73
8 New Caledonia* $40,000 0.0074% 4,000 6,667 0.0011% 0.040 $6.00
9 Reunion* $542,000 0.10% 93,000 93,000 0.016% 0.15 $5.83
10 Panama $408,000 0.076% 73,000 77,127 0.013% 0.032 $5.29
11 Ethiopia $3,756,000 0.70% 740,000 742,292 0.13% 0.015 $5.06
12 Tuvalu* $5,000 0.0009% 1,000 1,000 0.0002% 0.11 $5.00
13 Malta* $131,000 0.024% 5,000 26,200 0.0045% 0.074 $5.00
14 Australia* $1,747,000 0.32% 167,000 360,206 0.061% 0.021 $4.85
15 Colombia* $133,000 0.025% 16,000 29,167 0.0050% 0.0009 $4.56
16 Martinique* $98,000 0.018% 23,000 23,000 0.0039% 0.064 $4.26
17 Malawi* $156,000 0.029% 37,000 37,000 0.0063% 0.0040 $4.22
18 Sweden* $1,997,000 0.37% 347,000 482,367 0.082% 0.056 $4.14
19 Israel* $400,000 0.074% 55,000 99,502 0.017% 0.021 $4.02
20 North Korea* $4,000 0.0007% 1,000 1,000 0.0002% 0.00005 $4.00
21 Canada* $2,899,000 0.54% 129,000 751,036 0.13% 0.027 $3.86
22 Ireland* $1,280,000 0.24% 285,000 361,582 0.061% 0.10 $3.54
23 Syria $69,000 0.013% 19,000 21,296 0.0036% 0.0017 $3.24
24 Netherlands Antilles* $224,000 0.042% 59,000 70,000 0.012% 0.37 $3.20
25 Cambodia* $63,000 0.012% 20,000 20,000 0.0034% 0.0023 $3.15
26 United Kingdom $9,980,000 1.9% 3,268,000 3,268,000 0.56% 0.057 $3.05
27 Yugoslavia* $437,000 0.081% 125,000 145,183 0.025% 0.014 $3.01
28 Haiti* $6,379,000 1.2% 1,000 2,126,333 0.36% 0.33 $3.00
29 Iceland* $56,000 0.010% 16,000 18,667 0.0032% 0.073 $3.00
30 Albania* $11,000 0.0020% 2,000 3,667 0.0006% 0.0011 $3.00
31 Asia Unspecific* $419,000 0.078% 69,000 145,486 0.025% $2.88
32 USA, Puerto Rico, Virgin Is.* $5,888,000 1.1% 1,851,000 2,073,239 0.35% 0.0083 $2.84
33 Ecuador* $151,000 0.028% 22,000 54,513 0.0093% 0.0053 $2.77
34 Cuba* $40,000 0.0074% 12,000 14,981 0.0025% 0.0014 $2.67
35 St. Lucia $8,000 0.0015% 3,000 3,000 0.0005% 0.023 $2.67
36 New Zealand* $1,161,000 0.22% 381,000 446,538 0.076% 0.13 $2.60
37 Solomon Islands* $309,000 0.057% 119,000 119,000 0.020% 0.37 $2.60
38 Faeroe Islands $44,000 0.0082% 17,000 17,000 0.0029% 0.36 $2.59
39 Indonesia $9,035,000 1.7% 3,555,000 3,555,000 0.60% 0.019 $2.54
40 French Polynesia* $9,000 0.0017% 2,000 3,600 0.0006% 0.018 $2.50
41 Guam* $5,000 0.0009% 2,000 2,000 0.0003% 0.015 $2.50
42 American Samoa* $7,000 0.0013% 3,000 3,000 0.0005% 0.064 $2.33
43 Dominica* $51,000 0.0095% 23,000 23,000 0.0039% 0.32 $2.22
44 Papua New Guinea $3,426,000 0.64% 1,543,000 1,550,226 0.26% 0.40 $2.21
45 Samoa $60,000 0.011% 27,273 0.0046% 0.17 $2.20*
46 Vanuatu* $49,000 0.0091% 23,000 23,000 0.0039% 0.15 $2.13
47 Greece* $2,241,000 0.42% 139,000 1,052,113 0.18% 0.10 $2.13
48 Libya* $100,000 0.019% 47,000 47,000 0.0080% 0.010 $2.13
49 Fiji $940,000 0.17% 450,000 450,000 0.076% 0.62 $2.09
50 Sao Tome & Principe* $758,000 0.14% 371,000 371,000 0.063% 3.1 $2.04
Used Clothes As Development Aid
A-37
rank by world importers of reported value share reported wt. imputed wt. share kilograms avg. price
price used clothes, 1990 (US dollars) of total (kilograms) (kilograms) of total per capita (US$/kg)
51 Nauru* $10,000 0.0019% 5,000 5,000 0.0008% 0.50 $2.00
52 Montserrat* $8,000 0.0015% 4,000 4,000 0.0007% 0.36 $2.00
53 Congo* $1,419,000 0.26% 675,000 713,000 0.12% 0.32 $1.99
54 Gabon* $3,006,000 0.56% 1,519,000 1,534,000 0.26% 1.3 $1.96
55 USSR* $805,000 0.15% 372,000 417,098 0.071% 0.0014 $1.93
56 St. Helena* $44,000 0.0082% 23,000 23,000 0.0039% 3.8 $1.91
57 Thailand* $412,000 0.077% 152,000 215,707 0.037% 0.0039 $1.91
58 Dominican Republic* $289,000 0.054% 20,000 152,105 0.026% 0.021 $1.90
59 Guinea Bissau* $192,000 0.036% 91,000 101,587 0.017% 0.11 $1.89
60 Finland* $325,000 0.060% 53,000 171,958 0.029% 0.034 $1.89
61 Qatar* $15,000 0.0028% 8,000 8,000 0.0014% 0.016 $1.88
62 Austria* $947,000 0.18% 449,000 506,417 0.086% 0.066 $1.87
63 Cameroon* $1,258,000 0.23% 674,000 691,209 0.12% 0.060 $1.82
64 Comoros* $112,000 0.021% 62,000 62,000 0.011% 0.11 $1.81
65 Algeria* $70,000 0.013% 38,000 39,106 0.0066% 0.0016 $1.79
66 Chad* $406,000 0.076% 145,000 229,000 0.039% 0.041 $1.77
67 Argentina* $331,000 0.062% 174,000 192,442 0.033% 0.0059 $1.72
68 Romania* $1,699,000 0.32% 935,000 999,412 0.17% 0.043 $1.70
69 Bulgaria* $36,000 0.0067% 21,000 21,557 0.0037% 0.0024 $1.67
70 Costa Rica $1,561,000 0.29% 940,000 940,000 0.16% 0.31 $1.66
71 Peru* $354,000 0.066% 180,000 215,854 0.037% 0.010 $1.64
72 Senegal* $8,471,000 1.6% 2,598,000 5,196,933 0.88% 0.71 $1.63
73 Norway, Svalbard & Jan Mayen* $336,000 0.062% 129,000 207,407 0.035% 0.049 $1.62
74 Gambia* $1,195,000 0.22% 676,000 742,236 0.13% 0.80 $1.61
75 Kiribati* $69,000 0.013% 43,000 43,000 0.0073% 0.60 $1.60
76 Central African Republic* $1,914,000 0.36% 1,198,000 1,198,000 0.20% 0.41 $1.60
77 Bermuda* $16,000 0.0030% 10,000 10,000 0.0017% 0.16 $1.60
78 Sudan* $1,024,000 0.19% 486,000 644,025 0.11% 0.026 $1.59
79 Equatorial Guinea* $3,300,000 0.61% 2,089,000 2,102,000 0.36% 6.0 $1.57
80 United Arab Emirates* $357,000 0.066% 104,000 230,323 0.039% 0.14 $1.55
81 Mauritania* $731,000 0.14% 453,000 477,778 0.081% 0.24 $1.53
82 St. Vincent & Grenada* $9,000 0.0017% 4,000 6,000 0.0010% 0.056 $1.50
83 Madagascar* $446,000 0.083% 298,000 299,329 0.051% 0.024 $1.49
84 Cyprus* $291,000 0.054% 195,000 196,622 0.033% 0.28 $1.48
85 Nigeria* $10,865,000 2.0% 6,855,000 7,391,156 1.3% 0.077 $1.47
86 Togo* $19,449,000 3.6% 9,739,000 13,506,250 2.3% 3.8 $1.44
87 Denmark* $1,053,000 0.20% 594,000 731,250 0.12% 0.14 $1.44
88 Liberia* $1,059,000 0.20% 346,000 756,429 0.13% 0.29 $1.40
89 Venezuela $197,000 0.037% 139,000 140,714 0.024% 0.0072 $1.40
90 Sierra Leone* $2,245,000 0.42% 708,000 1,615,108 0.27% 0.40 $1.39
91 Chile $10,310,000 1.9% 7,678,000 7,678,000 1.3% 0.58 $1.34
92 West Germany* $9,566,000 1.8% 3,836,000 7,138,806 1.2% 0.12 $1.34
93 Niger* $673,000 0.13% 121,000 506,015 0.086% 0.065 $1.33
94 Angola* $3,492,000 0.65% 1,520,000 2,666,000 0.45% 0.29 $1.31
95 Burkina Faso* $1,878,000 0.35% 1,171,000 1,467,188 0.25% 0.16 $1.28
96 Mozambique* $4,462,000 0.83% 1,967,000 3,513,386 0.60% 0.25 $1.27
97 Zambia* $775,000 0.14% 229,000 610,236 0.10% 0.075 $1.27
98 Jordan $9,138,000 1.7% 7,291,000 7,291,000 1.2% 1.7 $1.25
99 Lebanon* $5,100,000 0.95% 3,681,000 4,080,000 0.69% 1.6 $1.25
100 Uganda* $3,359,000 0.62% 1,361,000 2,687,200 0.46% 0.15 $1.25
101 Ghana* $12,606,000 2.3% 7,215,000 10,166,129 1.7% 0.68 $1.24
102 Portugal* $355,000 0.066% 266,000 288,618 0.049% 0.029 $1.23
103 Hong Kong $20,995,000 3.9% 17,288,000 17,288,000 2.9% 3.0 $1.21
Report of a study for Sida
A-38
rank by world importers of reported value share reported wt. imputed wt. share kilograms avg. price
price used clothes, 1990 (US dollars) of total (kilograms) (kilograms) of total per capita (US$/kg)
104 Trinidad and Tobago $8,000 0.0015% 6,000 6,667 0.0011% 0.0054 $1.20
105 Hungary* $9,443,000 1.8% 7,847,000 7,935,294 1.3% 0.77 $1.19
106 Brunei* $164,000 0.031% 138,000 140,171 0.024% 0.55 $1.17
107 Benin* $18,166,000 3.4% 8,236,000 8,236,000 1.4% 3.6 $1.10
108 Guinea* $5,799,000 1.1% 4,808,000 5,369,444 0.91% 0.93 $1.08
109 Mali $1,787,000 0.33% 1,672,000 1,672,000 0.28% 0.18 $1.07
110 Spain $8,700,000 1.6% 8,211,000 8,211,000 1.4% 0.21 $1.06
111 Tanzania* $9,719,000 1.8% 5,312,000 9,256,190 1.6% 0.36 $1.05
112 Uruguay* $355,000 0.066% 95,000 344,660 0.059% 0.11 $1.03
113 Mexico* $3,880,000 0.72% 48,000 3,803,922 0.65% 0.045 $1.02
114 South African Cust. Union* $6,494,000 1.2% 5,499,000 6,429,703 1.1% 0.17 $1.01
115 Niue* $2,000 0.0004% 2,000 2,000 0.0003% 1.0 $1.00
116 Seychelles* $45,000 0.0084% 45,000 45,000 0.0076% 0.64 $1.00
117 Kenya* $7,403,000 1.4% 4,089,000 7,403,000 1.3% 0.31 $1.00
118 Nicaragua $1,532,000 0.28% 1,536,000 1,536,000 0.26% 0.42 $1.00
119 Poland* $9,782,000 1.8% 6,007,000 9,880,808 1.7% 0.26 $0.99
120 Philippines* $3,338,000 0.62% 2,745,000 3,371,717 0.57% 0.055 $0.99
121 Burma (Myanmar)* $89,000 0.017% 87,000 89,899 0.015% 0.0022 $0.99
122 France, Monaco $33,646,000 6.3% 34,285,000 34,285,000 5.8% 0.60 $0.98
123 Yemen* $303,000 0.056% 247,000 312,371 0.053% 0.028 $0.97
124 South Korea $1,889,000 0.35% 1,947,423 0.33% 0.045 $0.97*
125 Zaire* $15,566,000 2.9% 7,998,000 16,215,000 2.8% 0.43 $0.96
126 Saudi Arabia $3,542,000 0.66% 3,801,000 3,801,000 0.65% 0.24 $0.93
127 El Salvador $855,000 0.16% 918,000 918,000 0.16% 0.18 $0.93
128 Malaysia $11,186,000 2.1% 12,106,000 12,106,000 2.1% 0.68 $0.92
129 Singapore* $15,689,000 2.9% 11,378,000 17,432,222 3.0% 6.4 $0.90
130 Paraguay $754,000 0.14% 831,000 847,191 0.14% 0.20 $0.89
131 Rwanda* $3,249,000 0.60% 3,550,000 3,692,045 0.63% 0.53 $0.88
132 East Germany* $38,000 0.0071% 44,000 44,000 0.0075% 0.0027 $0.86
133 Bolivia $2,661,000 0.49% 3,048,000 3,094,186 0.53% 0.47 $0.86
134 Switzerland, Liechtenstein* $1,099,000 0.20% 1,037,000 1,277,907 0.22% 0.19 $0.86
135 Honduras $1,446,000 0.27% 1,689,000 1,689,000 0.29% 0.35 $0.86
136 Djibouti $4,890,000 0.91% 5,749,000 5,749,000 0.98% 11.1 $0.85
137 Middle East Unspecific* $51,000 0.0095% 61,000 61,000 0.010% $0.84
138 Brazil $1,004,000 0.19% 1,300,000 1,300,000 0.22% 0.0088 $0.77
139 Turkey* $193,000 0.036% 113,000 250,649 0.043% 0.0045 $0.77
140 Tunisia $21,082,000 3.9% 27,433,000 27,433,000 4.7% 3.4 $0.77
141 Mauritius* $33,000 0.0061% 34,000 43,421 0.0074% 0.041 $0.76
142 China* $90,000 0.017% 101,000 125,000 0.021% 0.0001 $0.72
143 Somalia* $55,000 0.010% 60,000 78,571 0.013% 0.0091 $0.70
144 Sri Lanka* $62,000 0.012% 87,000 88,571 0.015% 0.0051 $0.70
145 Burundi* $2,071,000 0.39% 2,922,000 3,046,000 0.52% 0.55 $0.68
146 Guatemala $867,000 0.16% 1,264,000 1,275,000 0.22% 0.14 $0.68
147 Unspecific* $95,000 0.018% 141,000 142,000 0.024% $0.67
148 Kuwait $95,000 0.018% 153,000 153,000 0.026% 0.071 $0.62
149 Afghanistan* $2,239,000 0.42% 2,027,000 3,611,290 0.61% 0.24 $0.62
150 Zimbabwe $272,000 0.051% 427,000 438,710 0.075% 0.044 $0.62
151 Cote D’Ivoire* $1,458,000 0.27% 926,000 2,390,164 0.41% 0.20 $0.61
152 Egypt* $2,434,000 0.45% 3,543,000 3,990,164 0.68% 0.071 $0.61
153 Iran* $82,000 0.015% 38,000 141,379 0.024% 0.0024 $0.58
154 Viet Nam* $24,000 0.0045% 42,000 42,000 0.0071% 0.0006 $0.57
155 Czechoslovakia* $194,000 0.036% 333,000 346,429 0.059% 0.022 $0.56
156 Belgium-Luxembourg* $29,917,000 5.6% 49,983,000 54,394,545 9.2% 5.5 $0.55
Used Clothes As Development Aid
A-39
rank by world importers of reported value share reported wt. imputed wt. share kilograms avg. price
price used clothes, 1990 (US dollars) of total (kilograms) (kilograms) of total per capita (US$/kg)
157 Italy* $10,812,000 2.0% 18,610,000 21,200,000 3.6% 0.37 $0.51
158 India* $7,509,000 1.4% 4,093,000 14,723,529 2.5% 0.017 $0.51
159 Belize $119,000 0.022% 237,000 237,000 0.040% 1.3 $0.50
160 Laos* $5,000 0.0009% 10,000 10,000 0.0017% 0.0024 $0.50
161 Grenada $33,000 0.0061% 73,000 75,000 0.013% 0.82 $0.44
162 Bangladesh* $3,841,000 0.71% 8,334,000 9,368,293 1.6% 0.087 $0.41
163 Netherlands $25,004,000 4.7% 62,373,000 62,373,000 10.6% 4.2 $0.40
164 Pakistan $28,609,000 5.3% 74,730,000 74,730,000 12.7% 0.61 $0.38
165 Nepal* $12,000 0.0022% 32,000 32,000 0.0054% 0.0017 $0.38
166 Morocco* $243,000 0.045% 206,000 694,286 0.12% 0.029 $0.35
167 Macau $137,000 0.025% 413,000 413,000 0.070% 1.2 $0.33
168 Aruba* $50,000 0.0093%
169 Barbados $32,000 0.0060%
170 Tonga* $32,000 0.0060%
171 Antigua Barbuda* $31,000 0.0058%
172 Pacific Islands* $23,000 0.0043%
173 Guyana* $10,000 0.0019%
174 Br. Indian Ocean Terr.* $10,000 0.0019%
175 Andorra* $8,000 0.0015%
176 French Guiana* $7,000 0.0013%
177 Cape Verde* $3,000 0.0006%
178 Greenland $3,000 0.0006%
179 Cayman Islands* $2,000 0.0004%
180 Norfolk Island* $2,000 0.0004%
181 St. Pierre & Miquelon* $2,000 0.0004%
total $537,637,000 588,371,539 $0.91
Source: Derived from SITC1 data obtained from the United Nations Statistical Division, International Trade Statistics Branch.
Notes: An asterisk (*) at the end of a country name indicates that the entire line is derived from partner data rather than from data
reported by the country directly. An asterisk (*) at the end of an average price indicates that the price (only) was taken from
partner data, due to lack of weights in reported data. Average prices are based only on those partner transactions for which
weights are reported; thus imputed weights (based on those prices) may be higher than reported weights. Extreme average
prices may still indicate some problem in the data, such as partial missing weights partner transactions. The absence
of a listing for a particular country does not necessarily indicate that no trade occurred.
Report of a study for Sida
A-40
Used Clothes As Development Aid
A-41
$SSHQGL[1RWHVRQ 6WDWLVWLFDO3UREO HPVDQG 7KHLU ,PSO LFDWL RQV
The following notes relate specifically to the discussion in Chapter 1.
7KHSUDFWLFHRIQHWWLQJLPSRUWVDQGH[SRUWVDQGFRUUHODWLRQRISULFHV
Net exports are shown in Table A2 (in Appendix 2) because some countries, notably
Belgium-Luxembourg and the Netherlands, import as well as export large quantities of
used clothes, probably due to their historical involvement in recycling textiles and textile
fibers. Thus they are presumably large-scale re-exporters of used clothes, and counting
their gross exports would overstate their real contribution to world trade flows.
However, net figures can also obscure the true extent of world used-clothes trade. The
practice of netting exports (or imports)—subtracting one from the other for any given
country, as was done in preparing both Table A2 and Table 4 (in Chapter 1), to get the
number of net exporting countries and their total net export values—is somewhat
misleading, because closer analysis reveals that imported used clothes and exported
used clothes are frequently not the same commodity, as judged by import and export
prices. Thus a country which exports a lot and imports a little (or vice-versa) is still an
importer (or exporter), not just a net exporter (or net importer).
The prices of used clothes imported into a given country, and of used clothes exported
from the same country in the same year, are quite different, and the difference generally
does not seem to indicate value-added that might be characteristic of re-exports.
Comparing these differences across countries, export prices show no general tendency
to be proportionally higher (or lower) than import prices (see Table A14, below). In fact,
there is almost no correlation at all between import and export prices in the decade
under study.
7DEOH$&RUUHODWLRQRILPSRUWDQGH[SRUWSULFHV¶
average average
1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1984-‘93 1984-‘92
0.07 0.07 0.18 0.00 -0.01 -0.03 -0.07 -0.12 0.03 0.69 0.08 0.01
Source: Derived from SITC2 data obtained from the United Nations Statistical Division, International Trade Statistics Branch.
Correlation of import and export prices during the period is quite low—in some years, it
is actually negative. Leaving out 1993 as an outlier (and probably incomplete), average
correlation for the previous nine years is virtually zero.
This relationship—or lack thereof—can also be seen in the following 1987 data (in
Table A15 below), chosen because correlation of import and export prices in that year
was in fact actually zero. The trading countries are ordered in the table according to
their import/export price ratio, so that those with low import and high export prices
(possible re-exporters) appear first, followed by those with high import and low export
prices. A dashed line in the middle indicates equal import and export prices.
Report of a study for Sida
A-42
7DEOH$&RPSDULVRQRILPSRUWDQGH[SRUWSULFHVE\FRXQWU\86NJ
import export import/export
trading country price price price ratio
Mexico 0.24 8.18 0.03
Mali 0.72 9.00 0.08
India 0.57 5.23 0.11
China 0.25 2.04 0.12
Portugal 0.55 3.23 0.17
Sri Lanka 0.001 0.006 0.19
Guatemala 2.78 9.00 0.31
Netherlands 0.38 0.98 0.38
Indonesia 4.92 12.75 0.39
Chile 1.25 3.00 0.42
Belgium-Luxembourg 0.46 0.93 0.50
South Korea 1.32 2.37 0.56
Pakistan 0.43 0.75 0.57
Spain 0.83 1.33 0.62
Kuwait 0.65 1.00 0.65
Syria 1.00 1.50 0.67
Malaysia 0.95 1.39 0.68
Italy 0.64 0.93 0.69
Togo 0.53 0.74 0.72
Senegal 0.73 0.82 0.89
Tunisia 0.68 0.71 0.96
France, Monaco 0.96 0.97 0.99
Singapore 1.12 0.87 1.29
Switzerland, Liechtenstein 1.06 0.79 1.35
United Kingdom 1.93 1.29 1.50
Sweden 1.19 0.78 1.53
Thailand 3.60 2.29 1.57
Ireland 3.77 2.28 1.65
West Germany 1.46 0.68 2.13
Finland 2.37 0.99 2.40
New Zealand 4.50 1.50 3.00
Norway, Svalbard & Jan Mayen 1.74 0.54 3.22
Denmark 4.22 1.21 3.48
Hong Kong 1.23 0.31 3.90
El Salvador 1.99 0.50 3.97
Ethiopia 3.19 0.30 10.47
Japan 6.24 0.58 10.72
Austria 2.72 0.18 15.38
Iceland 25.00 0.96 25.96
import/export price correlation: 0.00
Source: Derived from SITC2 data obtained from the United Nations Statistical Division, International Trade Statistics Branch.
Note: The U.S. and Canada, among others, do not show up in this table because of missing weight data, which meant that we
could not calculate prices.
Only a few countries have import and export prices roughly equal (in the center of the
table, around the horizontal dividing line). The remainder diverge very quickly from this
point: roughly half the countries have import prices lower (often very much lower) than
Used Clothes As Development Aid
A-43
export prices, while the other half have import prices higher (often very much higher).
a
Leaving aside re-exporters (whom we would expect to find in the first group), we can
hypothesize that less-developed countries might have one pattern (lower import prices if
they are importing lots of low-quality clothes for very poor people, on the one hand, but
on the other hand they might be exporting some exotic and expensive traditional
costumes, for example); and that industrial countries might have the reverse pattern
(lower export prices if they are exporting large quantities of low-quality clothes to LDCs,
but they might be importing limited quantities of high-quality used clothes for domestic
use, either from LDCs, or from other industrial countries).
But the patterns actually seem rather mixed: It is true that our two major presumed re-
exporters, the Netherlands and Belgium-Luxembourg, are found in the first group, but
so are Portugal, South Korea, Spain, Kuwait, Italy, and France. The rest of the first
group (with import/export ratios lower than 1) might be considered LDCs, and perhaps
they are following the pattern suggested (large quantities of cheap imports, and small
quantities of exotic exports), or perhaps some of them are re-exporting as well. But the
second group (with import/export prices ratios higher than 1) is even more startling:
While it contains many industrial countries which we might expect to be following the
second suggested pattern (large quantities of cheap exports, and small quantities of
exotic imports), it also includes Thailand, El Salvador, and Ethiopia.
0LVFHOODQHRXVPLQRUSUREOHPV
Great variation in prices was apparent in Table A15 above. Unfortunately, some of this
variation (at least on the high side) may have been caused by statistical errors due to
missing weights in some transactions. Using data broken down by partner-transactions,
as we do for the gross export and import tables in Appendix 2, allows us at least to
eliminate, for any given country, partner transaction totals with missing weights. Thus
we have been able to calculate average export and import prices based only on those
partner transaction totals in which weights were reported to the UN.
b
This does not
guarantee that the resulting prices are correct, because the partner transaction totals
themselves may have been made up of more than one actual transaction, and some of
those weights may have been missing; whether this is the case, or not, is not apparent
from the data available to us.
Another problem is that, in an attempt to correct for possibly misreported data, we have
inadvertently introduced another source of error, by occasionally using partner-reported
a
The range of absolute prices is also quite startling, ranging from a low of $0.001 (Sri Lanka) to a high of
$25 (Iceland)! One may be entitled to wonder whether values have been misstated for tariff reasons, at
least at the low end. Peter de Valk (1992, p. 259) comments that “the most common way [to improve
one’s chances of making a living during hard times] is through under-declaration of quantity, and hence
evasion of import duty and sales tax. Intercepted falsely declared or under-declared containers of textiles
bear witness to this fact. In February 1988 the Tanzanian Daily News reported that between June and
December 1987 collected customs import duty and sales tax averaged about 400 million shillings per
month, but when collection procedures were strengthened in January 1988 an average of 1.5 billion
shillings per month were collected. Strengthening procedures included suspending and/or transferring
some customs officials. Goods covered included new and second-hand clothes as well as khanga.”
Another explanation in some cases (at the high end) may simply be that, for one reason or another,
weights were not reported for particular transactions, resulting in total weights that are too low, and
calculated average prices that are too high.
b
Using the resulting prices, we then calculated imputed weights; for those cases in which some partner
transactions in our data were missing weights, this resulted in an imputed total export or import weight
higher than the reported weight. We then used the imputed weight, not the reported weight, in calculating
weight per capita.
Report of a study for Sida
A-44
data in place of directly-reported data. The problem is that export data is reported free-
on-board (f.o.b.), whereas the partner country’s corresponding import data would be
reported cost-insurance-freight (c.i.f.); that is, reported export values would naturally be
lower than the corresponding import values reported by the partner country (and vice-
versa: reported import values would naturally be higher than the corresponding export
values reported by the partner country), because of additional insurance and freight
costs.
a
Thus when, in an attempt to correct for misreported data, we occasionally used
the higher partner-reported import value in lieu of the lower directly-reported export
value, we introduced an upward bias into our export figures; but in the reverse situation,
if partner country export figures were higher than directly-reported import figures, then in
substituting the higher export values we may have been at least partially correcting for
misreported import values, without introducing any new bias. Whether we corrected
more overall, or introduced more new bias, is unknown, but in any event such
substitutions affected only a few countries.
b
a
Yeats (1995) points out a number of other reasons why using partner data is often unreliable as an
approximation for missing trade data, including: intentional or unintentional misclassification of products;
financial incentives to purposely falsify trade data; problems associated with exchange-rate changes; and
problems in reporting or processing data.
b
In the gross export and import tables in Appendix 2, partner-reported data is indicated by an asterisk after
the country name. In the majority of these cases, the country did not report directly at all, so that partner-
reported data was the only way to get any data on that country’s trade. But in a few cases, such as
industrial countries known to be reporting trade data to the UN, substitution of higher partner-reported
import data for lower directly-reported export data may have been inappropriate.
Used Clothes As Development Aid
A-45
$SSHQGL[6 RPH3KLO RVRSKLFDO 1RWHV
The following notes relate specifically to the discussion in the first half of Chapter 3.
7KHRULJLQRIPDUNHWVDQGWKHLUVRFLDODQGSROLWLFDOFRQWH[W
The modes of distribution of goods and services can generally be classified in three
ways: They can be taken by force or threat of force (for instance, “Pay your taxes, or
else!”); they can be exchanged (“I will do this for you if you will do that for me”); or they
can be given willingly (for instance, “I provide for you because I identify with you as part
of my family”).
65
Understanding the first and third of these modes involves one primarily in an analysis of
politics and sociology, respectively, while exchange and resulting markets are the
primary province of economics. According to evidence from primitive and peasant
economies, markets appear very early in economic development—in response to social
scarcities—with goods markets generally appearing first, then labor and credit markets,
and finally land and land rental markets.
66
Many people are quite skeptical about
markets, however, and prefer social and/or political modes of distribution instead.
Market exchange must also find its place in the social and political world, of course. For
instance, tastes and preferences (which determine demand for various goods and
services) are not formed in the marketplace, but are brought from one’s experiences in
the social world; and the market itself could not exist—certainly not the complicated
market structures we know today—without the regulatory and enforcement mechanisms
provided through social mores and political processes.
In any event, one’s basic predisposition towards markets may largely determine how
one views evidence regarding the effects of used-clothes imports into less-developed
countries (LDCs). If one prefers political and social modes of distribution, for instance,
one may consider it quite natural to construct rules governing who may purchase used
clothes under what circumstances, how they may be used (whether they may be
resold), etc., whereas economic analysis may wonder whether a market could achieve
the same or similar ends more efficiently.
'RXEWVDERXWWKH³HYLOV´RIWKHXVHGFORWKHVWUDGHDQGDERXWSURSRVHGVROXWLRQV
In much of the literature on the evils of the used-clothes trade, there seems to be an
obsession with the idea that one should always be able to purchase the product of
one’s own work, as though a diamond cutter or the manufacturer of a jumbo jet might
not rather be content to ride occasionally on the jumbo jet, perhaps even to wear fake
diamonds, and then to use most of the purchasing power acquired from producing the
diamonds or the jet for something more important.
a
In this literature, few if any identify the textile industries in less-developed countries as
working “for profit”, though of course they are; and one can call what the factory worker
takes home at the end of the day “profits” as easily as one can use that epithet for what
the used-clothes seller takes home; perhaps even the union “profits” when it has more
members or higher wages, and has “losses” when it loses members.
a
If the concern is simply that garment workers are poor, then that is exactly the problem we have been
asked to study: What is the most efficient way to help poor people? It is not clear that the categorical
assertion that they “should” be able to buy “the products of their own labor” is really going to help them.
Report of a study for Sida
A-46
It is naturally an employer association’s job to act on behalf of its member firms, and a
union’s job to act on behalf of its worker members, but one is perhaps entitled to
wonder if it is really the entire country that is suffering because of used-clothes imports,
or whether it is just the garment industry. There is a striking lack of awareness of, and
lack of analysis of the effects of, providing cheaper goods for consumers, which may
cause increased employment and increased production in other industries.
Nevertheless, there may be a strong theoretical argument in favor of protecting the
garment industry as instrumental in the development process; we examine this issue
carefully in Chapter 5.
Regarding the suggestion that all used clothes should be distributed free to the poorest
of the poor, it is not clear ZKHUH it is being proposed that this should happen. Although
there is certainly some demand for used clothes in industrial countries, supply
undoubtedly far exceeds that demand. In any event, as we have seen, LDCs export
vast quantities of new clothes to industrial countries, so the mere fact of some of them
coming back as used clothes should not be objectionable in itself (except possibly for
cultural reasons).
But if we assume that the proposal on the table is to “distribute free of charge” LQ OHVV
GHYHORSHG FRXQWULHV much of the used clothes collected in industrial ones, then we are
talking about major subsidies indeed.
a
We not only have to get the clothes there, but we
have to get them cleaned, sorted, repaired, even restyled, and then perhaps the biggest
job: We have to find needy recipients and match the clothes to their needs.
Now one might think that it is easy to find needy recipients, because we are talking
about poor countries, so almost everyone is relatively poor, and we can just give clothes
to almost anyone. But we cannot do so, because many of those people would have
bought new clothes from the domestic manufacturers, and now if we have given them
suitable used clothes, they do not need new clothes, so they will not buy new clothes, or
at least not as much as before. So we cannot protect jobs that way.
It is true that people will still have in their pockets whatever money they had there
before, and not only that, they may feel richer now for having clothes as well, so they
may be even more willing than before to spend some of what they have. But it likely will
not be for clothes, it will be for something else. So we will have a restructuring, where
garment industry jobs are lost, while new jobs are created, producing other goods and
services. But the garment workers’ union probably is not too interested in creating jobs
in RWKHU industries, even if the whole country is getting richer in the process.
But suppose that we can find those proverbial individuals who are “too poor to enter the
market”, and we give the clothes to them. Now we may think that we have not affected
demand for local production, because they would not have bought any clothes anyway.
But then suppose, for instance, that they need food more than they need clothes. There
is an active market in used clothes (or, if it has stopped temporarily because we have
cut off the commercial supply, it will soon exist again). So will they not sell their clothes?
Steven Haggblade reports that this is often exactly what happens, even with most food-
for-work—it is usually exchanged for something else, perhaps for some RWKHU food,
maybe even for clothes!
b
When used clothes are thus available on the market, we have
a
Of course distributing in industrial countries would also require a massive distribution effort which would
have to be “funded” from somewhere, even if it were via a massive volunteer effort.
b
“Because an enormous private distribution network exists in most African countries, any imported used
clothes will probably end up sold at market price—as is the case with most food aid, incidentally, even the
Used Clothes As Development Aid
A-47
negatively affected demand for local production, so to that extent we have not protected
jobs.
This is not to say that free distribution to the poor would be an inherently bad thing to
do. It would result in a large transfer of real wealth to less-developed countries, first in
the used clothes themselves, and then magnified (at least to some extent) by the
subsidy required. In Chapter 9 we will look at whether this would be the most efficient
way to help the poor. In the current era of fiscal restraint, it is difficult to imagine it
happening, however.
in-kind food-for-work I have recently been studying in Bangladesh.”—in a personal communication, July
1995.
Report of a study for Sida
A-48
Used Clothes As Development Aid
A-49
$SSHQGL[6RPH/DERUDQG0DVV0HGLD9LHZV
The following items relate specifically to the discussion in the first half of Chapter 3.
,/2GUDIWUHVROXWLRQRQLQFUHDVLQJZRUOGWUDGHLQFORWKLQJH[FHSWXVHGFORWKLQJ
“Considering the importance of the clothing industry to employment in manufacturing in
many developed and developing countries, and in particular its role in overall economic
and social development,
“6WUHVVLQJWKHVLJQLILFDQFHRIWUDGHWRWKHFORWKLQJLQGXVWU\
“Believing that the industrialized world must do justice to its particular responsibility to
developing nations E\ VXSSRUWLQJ WKH H[SDQVLRQ RI ZRUOG WUDGH SDUWLFXODUO\ LQ FORWKLQJ
LWHPV under fair social conditions for all parties as a meaningful development policy,
“Further believing that trade has to take place on the basis of respect for workers’ rights
and that agreements on trade matters and particularly on the clothing trade should
include provisions guaranteeing minimum social standards… including the right of
freedom of association, the right to organize and bargain collectively…
“5HMHFWLQJDOOIRUPVRIWUDGHSURWHFWLRQLVP«
“Noting with concern the development of an extensive market in used clothing—
originally donated for charitable purposes—particularly in developing countries, which is
leading to a downturn in the domestic clothing industry in these countries, with a
consequent loss of employment…
“[the meeting requests the ILO] WR FDOO RQ PHPEHU 6WDWHV ZKLFK DUH FORWKLQJH[SRUWLQJ
FRXQWULHV WR WDNH VWHSV WR FRRSHUDWH VR DV WR HQVXUH D EHWWHU UHWXUQ IRU WKHLU FORWKLQJ
H[SRUWV and to ensure that the workers concerned share the increased wealth thus
created which would OHDG WR WKH H[SDQVLRQ RI GRPHVWLF PDUNHWV WR LPSURYHGHFRQRPLF
DQG VRFLDO FRQGLWLRQV LQ WKHVH FRXQWULHV DQG WR IXUWKHU JURZWK LQ ZRUOG WUDGH LQ
FORWKLQJ«
“and UHTXHVWV WKH 'LUHFWRU*HQHUDO WR FDUU\ RXW DQ LQYHVWLJDWLRQ RQ WKH LPSDFW RQ
HPSOR\PHQW LQGHYHORSLQJFRXQWULHVRIWKHWUDGHLQXVHGFORWKLQJ RULJLQDOO\GRQDWHG IRU
FKDULWDEOHSXUSRVHVLQ WKH LQGXVWULDOL]HG ZRUOG and to convey the results to the major
international charities concerned and to the governments of all member States.”
$ODERUPHGLD)UHH/DERXU:RUOGLPDJHRIWKHXVHGFORWKHVWUDGH
“The mid-day Zambian sun is hot! Eunice holds up one hand to try to protect herself as
she sits on a Kitwe pavement tending a pile of peanuts with the other. Her two babies
play at her feet. She knows she must attract some customers for all three now depend
on the few cents such sales will bring. Life was different before. Until three months ago,
Eunice was a sewing machinist in a local factory producing clothing for the Zambian
market. Now the factory is closed—shut down for a number of reasons but principally
because of a dramatic upsurge in imports of second-hand clothing from Europe and the
U.S.… [E]very… second-hand item on sale here and elsewhere in the developing world
is destroying desperately needed local jobs. Zambia, for example, has lost 8,500 textile
and clothing jobs in the past year.
a
Neighbouring Zimbabwe has lost nearly 12,000. The
a
Anthropologist Karen Hansen studied Zambia about the same time and came to quite different
conclusions: It is true that “Zambia is getting inundated by commercial imports of used clothing,” but also
by “cheap ready-made clothes from South Africa, China and Taiwan”. She explains, however, that “the
manufacturing costs of the domestic clothing factories are too high and the quality too low to compete…
Report of a study for Sida
A-50
livelihoods of as many as 150,000 people have disappeared… The local textile and
clothing industry has been devastated by large scale importation of second-hand
clothes, mainly sourced from developed countries and resold locally at dumped prices…
“Zimbabwe has taken steps to curb second-hand clothing imports, so too has South
Africa. A number of other African countries are following suit. Pressure is growing for
action in the Americas…
a
“[S]hrewd groups of used-clothes dealers in Europe and the U.S. have turned
generosity into a multi-million dollar business. They buy tons of clothing donated to
leading charities… for perhaps 5 to 10 cents [U.S.] a kilo.
b
When sold in developing
countries these items are marked up at between 600 and 3,000% over what the
wholesalers paid for them… Used clothing exports from the U.S. earn US$150 million a
year… It is a scavenging trade, where companies get their product practically for free
before converting it into cash. In the U.S., many of the companies concerned employ
the cheapest possible labour to sort piles of clothing into a range of categories—none of
the clothing is washed or repaired, simply compacted into 50 kg bales and loaded into
containers… Few Europeans or Americans realise where their cast-offs end up. But
many know where they should. As one New Yorker said confidently, “The dresses I give
to Goodwill are distributed to the poor, free of charge, or sold in their local shop.” Little
does she know that her donation, for which she can claim a tax-rebate, ends up on a
mini-mountain of other donated clothes, now flooding the markets of the developing
world. Nor can she imagine the misery that her well-intended donation is causing to
those losing their livelihoods as a result…
“[U]nions will be increasing their campaign to ensure that used clothing donated for the
poor is used for that purpose and distributed free of charge, thus avoiding the damage
recently caused in developing countries… We must work to eradicate the international
trade in used clothing.”
While this is the perspective of a special interest—a particular union speaking for a
particular sector of industry and labor, not for consumers in LDCs, nor necessarily for
their national interest as a whole—it is nevertheless an influential view, loaded with
compelling images. Many of those images have also been picked up in the wider media.
$&DQDGLDQPHGLD2WWDZD&LWL]HQLPDJHRIWKHXVHGFORWKHVWUDGH
The following examples appeared in the Ottawa Citizen in 1993 (we also quoted briefly
from them in the Introduction). The language and the images used are again quite
powerful (some possible weaknesses in the images and arguments are footnoted):
“Used clothing is flooding… through a shadowy trading network… Well-meaning donors
provide the fuel… resold at markups of 3,000%… [Charities are quoted:] ‘We are aware
that we are selling to for-profit businesses…’ Economists say tens of thousands of
garment and textile workers have lost jobs… Extra layers of middlemen, import tariffs,
bribes to get shipments across borders…—all add to profit-taking along the way…
c
A
Clothing manufacturing had operated like a state monopoly under the previous regime, and [is now]
unable to produce at prices local people can afford.”—in a personal communication, June 1995.
a
We look at worldwide import regulations concerning used clothes in Chapter 3.
b
This appears to be an error, and probably means 5 to 10 cents per pound, which would be 11 to 22 cents
per kilo, or roughly 1 Swedish krona, or slightly more, per kilo. This of course is not the same as the
dealers’ export prices which we looked at in Chapter 1 and Appendix 3, which must include their sorting,
handling, and other costs as well.
c
These sound like costs, hardly profits, hardly a “mark-up” as frequently charged.
Used Clothes As Development Aid
A-51
continent-wide economy of dependency has been created… It has been a blow to…
pride to be driven into buying other people’s old threads…
“Almost anything is available—jeans and jackets, T-shirts, blouses, shirts, sweaters and
slacks—all well-made, all inexpensive and all from the West…
a
The clothes are shipped
thousands of kilometres and dumped in the Third World for a fraction of their original
cost…
b
The prices are so low, in fact, that economists say local industries cannot
compete… In 1990, Third World countries accounted for 53% of new clothing exports to
developed nations… but the only way sweatshop laborers can afford the items they
produce is when North Americans and Europeans pass the clothing on to charity
organizations that raise funds through bulk sales to the international scavenging trade…
The quality is first-rate… Some clothes look as though they have never been worn…
c
To buy clothing from the West, even if it is second-hand, imparts a sense of status…
d
Women and children [in less-developed countries]… churn out cheap shirts and pants
for western department store chains…; the modern garment industry, geared entirely for
export, has left most [workers] too poor to buy the wares… Prices are so low [for used-
clothes imports] that making clothes for domestic consumption makes no economic
sense… Trade liberalization, drastic social spending cuts and economic policies that
valued resource-based exports over local production ravaged industries serving the
domestic economy… cheap imports of new and hand-me-down goods were the only
things most people could still afford… The imports may be costing jobs, but the
availability of low-cost clothing has been a boon to hard-pressed consumers…
e
“[Charities] selling to big-city brokers… The clothes are later sold in the Third World for
inflated prices…
f
[A Salvation Army officer says] he is concerned the clothing may
eventually be resold in Third World countries for a pittance and undercut local
industry… Salvation Army branches… are considering ways they can ship used clothes
directly to other army agencies around the world: ‘We would like to have some control
over what happens to our products…’ [The officer] would like to ship clothes directly to
countries where local labor can set up small industries for handling and distributing
them to the poor.
g
Other local charities say they cannot yet afford to ship directly to poor
countries because the sorting, handling and shipping costs are too high.
h
‘I would
certainly prefer that because I would get more personal satisfaction from it,’ said [a local
charity manager]…
“[A charity manager says that, for lack of supply] he turns down 15 requests a week to
supply small entrepreneurs wanting to enter the game.
i
Typically, these would-be
a
More likely it was originally exported WR the West IURP a less-developed country, as we saw in earlier
chapters.
b
Although “vast profits” are being made in the process?
c
This is bad? These are “other people’s old threads”?
d
Or “a blow to pride”; the text seems contradictory.
e
Despite the “vast profits”.
f
Or at “affordable prices”, perhaps “for a pittance”.
g
But that is exactly what the commercial exporters already do, albeit for a price, and “for profit”.
h
Does this suggest that they do not think they can be as efficient as the commercial exporters? Or are they
thinking about free distribution? The latter issue is discussed in Appendix 4.
i
Potential competitors eager to enter and bid up input prices while bidding down output prices, this sounds
like the very definition of “a competitive industry” in which HF RQRP LF profits tend to be driven to zero—not
to say normal EXVLQHV V profits, which (in a competitive business) are essentially return to capital and risk
compensation. We look at the question “who puts up the capital?” in Chapter 4, where we review the
alternative of commercial involvement in charitable collections.
Report of a study for Sida
A-52
dealers are recent Asian and African expatriates hoping their family and business
connections back home can be parlayed into lucrative export-import contracts. ‘It is
really a price game, it is really a cutthroat business,’ [says the manager].
“[The] used-clothing exporter… slaps on a mark-up of 3,000% to cover bribes, pay
middlemen and generate vast profits… Remember that the process starts with Western
unwillingness to support higher wage manufacturers at home…”
a
In an effort to be balanced, an Ottawa Citizen editorial ends up by pointing out that “sale
[of used clothes] gives charities needed revenue. And profits notwithstanding,
impoverished Africans and Asians end up clothed at an affordable price.” It then
recommends that “charities must think about cutting profit-makers out of the game, and
take over the… export business themselves. That way, the profits could be plowed back
into Third World development, with an eye to combating the poverty at the heart of the
problem.”
This may be a reasonable suggestion; it is discussed in Chapter 4.
b
a
The implication seems to be that it would be better neither to import new clothes from LDCs, nor to export
used clothes to them, but this would deprive them both of jobs (and income) DQG of cheap used clothes.
b
Similarly, of course, charities could run their own accounting firms, gas stations, grocery stores, etc., so
that they would never be tainted by coming in contact with the “for-profit” world, and all businesses
(including newspapers) could be run on a similar basis—but this seems unlikely to happen, and might not
really be desirable either.
Used Clothes As Development Aid
A-53
$SSHQGL[1DWLRQDO7UDGH3ROLFLHV
The following information relates specifically to the discussion at the end of Chapter 3.
Most details here come from the U.S. Department of Commerce, and thus over-
emphasize information on specifically American exports, and American commercial
assessments and points of view, simply because the sources were readily available.
Trade policy information regarding each importer should apply to all exporters, however,
so our conclusions should apply generally.
6SDLQDQGVRPHIRUPHU6SDQLVKFRORQLHV
According to the U.S. Department of Commerce (USDOC), among the Western
European and other industrial countries, Spain is the only one which imposes any
unusual restriction on used-clothes imports: “Phytosanitary certificates are required…”
along with “prior administrative approval (import license)… [which] is generally
denied.”
67
Nevertheless, on the average, over the previous four years, about a third of a
million dollars worth of used clothes annually was imported into Spain from the U.S.
alone, and on the order of ten to thirty times as much from other—possibly EU—
sources. Spain is also a significant exporter of used clothes, over a third of a million
dollars according to partner data for 1990, for instance.
Of the few other countries worldwide which actually do impose trade restrictions on
used clothes, more than half of them are former Spanish colonies. For example, Mexico
“requires a permit from the Mexican Health Department. It is not easily granted. [If it is
granted, there is a 20% duty.] This measure was adopted [at least ostensibly] to prevent
infections.” Mexico’s import data—submitted by Mexico to the UN—when compared to
U.S. export data, understates Mexican imports by a factor of ½ to 5/6. If U.S. data is to
be believed, imports from the U.S. have increased progressively and dramatically, from
US$3.8 million in 1990, to $58 million in 1993. Mexico is also a significant exporter of
used clothes, almost two-thirds of a million dollars according to partner data for 1990,
for instance.
Even though Mexico has joined the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)—
which has as one of its explicit purposes to “progressively eliminate [all] customs duties
on originating textile and apparel goods” on internal trade between the U.S., Canada
and Mexico—nevertheless Mexico insisted upon establishment of a “Committee on
Trade in Worn Clothing… [to] assess the potential benefits and risks that may result
from the elimination of existing restrictions… A Party may maintain restrictions in effect
on the date of entry into force of this Agreement… unless the Parties agree
otherwise…”
68
This essentially provides a veto for Mexico over any change in the
current rules regarding used-clothes imports. According to the U.S. Government
Accounting Office, as of late 1994 the committee had not met; in fact, the committee is
not expected to do anything.
69
Chile is now also negotiating to join NAFTA. Currently Chile merely “levies a surcharge
on second-hand goods, such as used clothing and imports of ‘fabric seconds’.
a
The rate
is 5% above the duty applicable to new goods… All merchandise used as seconds has
a
The meaning of this term is not clear; should it be “factory seconds”, meaning quality rejects? Dinora Diaz
of the International Textiles and Clothing Bureau in Geneva notes that “governmental authorities in
developing countries in some cases have doubts whether this so-called used-clothing has ever been
used by anybody. It looks like new and it gives the impression that it is mainly factory [seconds] with
minor imperfections, and therefore cannot be put up for sale in markets where the consumers care more
about quality”—in a personal communication, June 1995.
Report of a study for Sida
A-54
to be classified and labeled in the country of origin according to quality, size, and fabric
composition…”
Several other Latin American countries have restrictions on used-clothes imports, or
have had them recently. “Venezuela has a strong local industry which has resulted from
years of prohibition on all foreign textiles,”
a
and has now “lifted all prohibitions except for
[code] HS63.10 ‘used rags, scrap twine, etc.’” Used clothes (code HS63.09) are
apparently okay.
b
Colombia, however—“to stop dumping, unfair competition, and to avoid possible
damage to a rather well-developed textile industry, and acting under pressure from one
of the most influential manufacturing sectors—has restricted imports of used clothing
and textile articles… Imports of old or used clothing; closeouts; irregulars; both new and
used rags; and scrap cordage of textile material wastes; are all subject to prior import
license approval. Licenses are valid for six months with one three-month extension.
Extension processes are complicated and expensive… Approvals of licenses are
subject to numerous considerations including availability of local substitutes, foreign
exchange, and the national interest… No tariff categories for textiles and apparel now
appear on the prohibited import list, except for used bags and sacks of vegetable fibers.
Items once prohibited are now permitted under license.” According to partner data,
Colombia imported US$133,000 and was itself the exporter of $87,000 worth of used
clothes in 1990.
According to USDOC 1995, in Ecuador “in 1992, imports of apparel experienced a large
growth over 1991 due largely to the importation of used clothing, principally from the
U.S. Large amounts of used clothing were imported in anticipation of an import
prohibition subsequently imposed… Local manufacture covers 30-40% of the national
market, while formal imports contribute 25-30%. The rest consists of contraband of
used and new clothing, mostly from the U.S. Competition from Colombia has not hurt
the U.S. share of the market [in Ecuador]. Industry leaders predict a growth in the
manufacture of apparel [in Ecuador] to fill the demand of the domestic Colombian
market neglected by Colombian manufacturers who are exporting to the U.S. and
Europe.”
The International Textiles and Clothing Bureau in Geneva also reports that “Peru has
suspended ‘the imports of products from any source, intended to meet clothing,
footwear, or cleaning needs’.”
70
According to partner data, Peru imported US$354,000
and was itself the exporter of $58,000 worth of used clothes in 1990.
Guatemala is one of many Latin American countries (and former Spanish colonies)
which have not imposed special restrictions on imports, despite the fact that “due to the
economic crisis in the country… the [used-clothes] market has shown a growth of
approximately 45% a year during the past three years,” culminating in total used-clothes
imports of US$3.3 million in 1992.
The other former Spanish colony which does maintain restrictions on used-clothes
imports is the Philippines. “The import of used clothing, remnants, and used textiles is
a
From the U.S. Department of Commerce (USDOC) Best Market Report: World Apparel, 1995. The “Best
Market Reports” series is directed to U.S. businesses and contains comments like the following:
“Australia provides a good niche market for selected apparel such as sportswear, swim wear, used Levi’s
501 jeans, casual gear, and to a lesser extent ‘grunge’ gear and western clothing.”
b
The Harmonized System (HS) is another set of commodity codes comparable to the Standard
International Trade Classification (SITC) codes; HS code 63.09 is equivalent to SITC2 code 269.01.
Used Clothes As Development Aid
A-55
banned.” Nevertheless, according to U.S. data, annual imports of used clothes from the
U.S. are growing fairly consistently, currently around a million dollars per year, and other
partner-reported data indicates total imports of generally three to six times that amount.
Total used-clothes import data reported by the Philippines to the UN ranges from a high
of more than twice the amount coming from the U.S. alone, to lows of only about 1/10
that amount. According to partner data, the Philippines itself was the exporter of
US$98,000 in 1990.
2WKHULQGXVWULDOWUDQVLWLRQDODQGQHZLQGXVWULDOHFRQRPLHV
No other industrial country besides Spain maintains any unusual restriction on the used-
clothes trade, and most have imports as well as exports (although as we have seen, it is
most likely not the same goods coming out that went in). Japan, for instance, had
annual used-clothes imports over the last few years in the neighborhood of US$10
million from the U.S. alone. Swedish imports from the U.S. ranged recently from over
US$1 million (before the recent recession) to less than $50,000 (in 1993).
Among transitional economies,
a
only Bulgaria and Hungary have unusual restrictions.
Bulgaria merely maintains a tariff rate about 60% higher than its tariffs on other fabric
and apparel, while Hungary has an unusual quota system, not just for used clothes, but
for all imports of consumer goods. Both have recently had annual used-clothes imports
from the U.S. alone in the neighborhood of US$100,000.
To mention a few other transitional economies, Poland and Russia have had annual
imports of used clothes from the U.S. in the range of US$2-10 million recently. In
Russia, “the great demand for foreign-made apparel started in the beginning of 1992,
and was soon filled by Chinese, Korean, U.S. and European (used) inexpensive
products. Later in the same year, the demand shifted to better quality European and
U.S. new clothing.”
None of the new industrial economies of East and Southeast Asia impose any unusual
restrictions on used-clothes imports in particular, although tariffs may be quite high on
apparel and related products generally. In Thailand, “the textile industry has over the
past decade become [the] most important manufacturing industry, in terms of export
earnings, employment, and contribution to gross domestic product,” and tariffs on
apparel imports run as high as 100%. The tariff on used clothes is 60%.
“Although 37% of Turkey’s total exports are comprised of textiles and apparel, the
country also imported approximately US$1 billion in this sector in 1992, about 25% [of
which] was apparel.” Very little used clothes was imported, however, despite relatively
low tariffs and no special restrictions.
2WKHUOHVVGHYHORSHGFRXQWULHV
While India has rather high tariffs on fabric and apparel products generally, the U.S.
Dept. of Commerce lists no particular restrictions on imports of used clothes, and
annual imports from the U.S. ranged from US$4-10 million recently.
b
a
The term “transitional economies” is used in economic literature to refer to former centrally-planned
economies, especially the relatively industrialized ones of Central and Eastern Europe, currently
undergoing a transition to become market-based economies.
b
A U.S. used-clothes exporter reported that India only allowed imports of used clothes if the clothes were
first mutilated to make them unusable as clothes, but so far we have found no verification for this report.
Report of a study for Sida
A-56
“Pakistan is one of the world’s largest manufacturers and exporters of apparel. The
textile industry is Pakistan’s largest industrial and revenue-earning sector,” and it is
highly protected. Imports of many textile products are banned, but used clothes are
allowed: “Imports are largely confined to worn clothing; shipments of used clothes may
not contain traveling rugs, blankets, or footwear.” According to UN data, Pakistan has
been the world’s largest net importer of used clothes during eight of the past eleven
years.
“Egypt is a net exporter of cotton yarn and cotton textiles, and most textile and garment
imports [including used clothes] are banned… In 1992 the output of Egypt’s textile
manufacturing sector reached US$2 billion [and] Egypt’s exports of [new] ready-made
garments and knitted products totalled $500 million.” Despite some leakage, actual
recent used-clothes imports from the U.S. have been trivial, although according to
partner data Egypt had total imports of US$2,434,000 in 1990, and also itself had
exports worth $33,000 that year.
Despite the fact that Israel has free trade agreements with the EU, EFTA, and the
U.S.—and is, incidentally (with Egypt), one of the largest recipients of U.S. aid (and the
U.S. is the largest single exporter of used clothes, as we have seen)—nevertheless,
“used apparel items are not allowed” there either. Nevertheless, according to partner
data, Israel imported US$400,000 in 1990, and exported $107,000.
“Used apparel is currently the eighth largest [U.S.] export to Sub-Saharan Africa. In
1992, [it] was among the top 35 U.S. exports to 28 of 47 [individual countries].
a
In
nominal terms, the trade has grown from US$35 million in 1989 to over $72 million in
1992, one of the largest relative increases.”
71
Despite that, and the fact, as we have
seen, that Zimbabwe recently imposed a high tariff on used-clothes imports, the
momentum in Africa seems to be towards greater liberalization.
It is true that in Nigeria the “import of [virtually all] textile materials, apparel and used
clothing are banned,” but nevertheless “Nigeria tolerates informal trade and smuggling.”
According to partner data, Nigeria imported US$10,865,000 in 1990, and also exported
a small amount ($2,000).
In Cameroon, “the ban on used apparel imports was lifted in late 1991. ‘Used clothing’
imports must show signs of appreciable wear and must be packaged in bulk. Exporters
are required to provide documentary proof of sterilization for each shipment… Duty
rates are approximately 85-90%…”
“In October 1992 the Chadian Chamber of Commerce reported to the U.S. Embassy
that used apparel imports were no longer prohibited… [In Cote D’Ivoire] the ban of used
clothing imports was lifted in February 1992.”
In Tanzania, “the import of various textile products (especially second-hand clothes) has
been allowed since the partial trade liberalization in 1984 and further relaxation in
1988.”
72
USDOC 1995b notes that “many importers will not accept bales that have not
been sorted… Exporters should be cautious of the widespread cheating in Tanzania.”
USDOC 1994 mentions no bans and no specific restrictions on used-clothes imports
into South Africa, but USDOC 1995b reports that “South Africa allows used-clothing
imports for charitable purposes only.” USDOC 1995c confirms this, saying that “second-
hand clothing can be imported if for charity or church organizations, and [if it is] not sold
a
That is not a very rigorous standard, but while used-clothes shares of U.S. exports to some of those
countries ranged as low as 0.3%, they also ranged over 40% for some.
Used Clothes As Development Aid
A-57
but rather given away… The South African clothing industry has been highly
protected… Locally produced clothing is generally of reasonable quality and styling, and
aimed at the middle and upper ends of the market… There is a gap in low cost
clothing… There is a definite gap in the market for good and reasonably priced clothing
for the smaller person… The market caters more for the larger women… Current retail
prices are excessive [because] clothing and textile industries do not work together to
produce lower priced products… The emerging pattern is a rapid rise in volume of lower
priced clothing imports… and vastly increased export opportunities. It appears that the
local clothing industry is poised to become a significant supplier to the middle/upper
price/quality market in many developed countries… The clothing and textile industries’
main focus should therefore be on becoming internationally competitive.”
USDOC 1995b also indicates that Kenya maintains a ban, but USDOC 1995a states
that “imports of apparel, both new and used, are assessed a 40% duty, down from
118% a few years ago. This is meant to protect the infant local textile industry… Locally
manufactured high quality apparel competes well in the local market and Kenya is
starting to export apparel to the U.S. Quality apparel from the U.S. is respected in
Kenya. Kenya is a major market for U.S. used clothing, but it is intentionally
misclassified in customs declarations, which keeps it from showing up in statistics.”
In other African countries, tariffs on used clothes generally seem to be in the range of
45-90%, and as we have noted, trade is brisk nevertheless. In the Gambia, “small
businesses constitute the vast majority of used apparel traders. Most traders purchase
their product directly while on travel to the U.S.” In Gabon, “about one-half of all import
of used apparel comes from France.” In Ghana “there is a significant and growing
demand for used clothing from the U.S., which is prized for its fashion content, good
condition, and variety of denim garments. Orders may fluctuate because of changing
credit conditions, not necessarily because of changes in demand. Requests for credit
may arise after several shipments (financed by the importer), and should be evaluated
with caution.” In Liberia, “because of the recent civil war and resulting inflation, demand
for used clothing is particularly high.” “Used clothing is the largest U.S. export to
Rwanda. The Rwandan population is predominantly agricultural workers who depend
upon used clothing as it is the most affordable… No restrictive regulations are likely to
be imposed as the government is implementing a World Bank/IMF market liberalization
program.” “Togo is an important market for used apparel, as much of their import is
trans-shipped to neighboring countries. The used-clothing sector is very fluid, with
companies being created and dissolved continually. Exporters are cautioned to arrange
payment conditions which minimize risks.”
7KHWH[WLOHLQGXVWU\LQ6HQHJDO
To conclude this section, we will look briefly (but in a bit greater depth) at the entire
textile industry in an African country (including a current U.S. government view of it)—in
this case, Senegal. USDOC 1995d comments that “the textile industry is now enjoying
competitive gains that only a coherent and cohesive industrial policy can reinforce…
Commercial opportunities exist for U.S. firms specializing in the procurement of used
equipment for open-end spinning factories… The cotton sector is dominated by… the
parastatal company which… is 70% owned by the government… The government’s
strategy of vertically integrating the textile industry is based on the development of
cotton cultivation and ginning in Eastern Senegal. This cotton is to supply the local
spinning and weaving firms which would, in turn, supply thread and raw cloth to the final
stage producers… [The parastatal] exports 90% of the fiber at US$2.40/kg, and
Report of a study for Sida
A-58
reluctantly allocates 2,000 tons each year to the local textile mills, at a subsidized price
of $1.07. Textile manufacturers complained that the quota did not cover their annual
cotton needs estimated at 3,500 tons…”
“The basic textile industry consists of factories specializing in spinning, weaving, dyeing
and finishing activities… [O]ne of the largest textile firms in Senegal… [had] a total
output of 18 million meters in 1992… Mismanagement and the spectacular rise of
smuggling and fraudulent importation led to the collapse of this empire in 1993. [It] was
bought out by an Indian group… in association with… a Senegalese bank owned by… a
French tycoon who holds important interests in Senegalese industry (sugar, wheat,
banking)… [It] has the status of a ‘free point’. This status is specifically granted by the
government to export-oriented companies that abide by special tariff regulations and
comply with on-site customs inspection procedures. To continue to benefit from this
preferential regime, [it] must export at least 60% of its production. [Its] main target
market is the U.S. Afrocentric market. Professionals in the sector argue that [the Indian]
stake… underpins a delocalisation strategy to circumvent quotas imposed by the U.S.
on the Asian textile industry…”
Another firm’s “growth strategy relies also on the acquisition of a second-hand spinning
mill to increase the factory’s spinning capacity… [Still another firm’s] objective is to
increase production through another open-end spinning factory equipped with used
machinery…”
“Knitting and garment-making firms… were first owned by Lebanese entrepreneurs and
French expatriates. The subsector knits cloth from locally spun yarn and tailors articles
such as sportswear and children’s clothes. Massive imports of second-hand clothing
and illegal textile imports by the informal sector destroyed this [market]… leading to the
collapse of the ten companies… The quota imposed on used clothes (2,000 tons
annually) and the positive effects of the devaluation constitute a gulp of air for a sector
in dire straits… A terrycloth factory which hung on by a thread, so to speak, has started
a small production…”
“Structural weaknesses of the textile industry… stem from the government’s ad-hoc
measures to overprotect the industry, from manufacturer’s loss of control over domestic
markets due to fraud and rising imports of second-hand clothes, and finally from the
industry’s uncompetitiveness. Before the liberalization of the textile sector in 1994, the
government’s overprotective policy sheltered local textile manufacturers from outside
competition, hence creating rent-seeking situations.
a
The absence of competitive
pressure on textile mills was reflected in the failure to make productivity-enhancing
investments. Failure to renew and modernize equipment made the textile industry
extremely inefficient. Much of the equipment used in the industry was purchased
second-hand in France in the 1950s. French manufacturers were replacing this
machinery precisely because it was antiquated and obsolete…”
“The rise of used clothing imports and fraud have introduced competitive pressures that
no textile mill could withstand, thus undermining the foundation of the industry. Imports
of used clothing have transformed the market for textiles and sent the knitting and
garment-making firms reeling. Used clothing provides some relief from inflation and the
general erosion of purchasing power that affects the local population. For the price of
a
“Rent-seeking” is economic jargon for a situation in which one gets paid—or seeks to get paid—some
return simply for controlling some scarce resource (including something like the right to import, for
instance), not for actually contributing actively to production.
Used Clothes As Development Aid
A-59
one meter of the simplest locally-produced cloth, a man can outfit himself completely,
and for the same price three children can be dressed in imported used clothes. Textile
manufacturers sounded the alarm in 1983, which led the government to reduce the
quota from 6,000 tons in 1984 to 2,000 tons in the early nineties.”
The “president of the Senegalese Federation of Textile Mills summarized prospects for
the sector in two concepts: vertical integration using the cotton fiber produced locally,
and reconquest of the local market.”
a
a
This strategy seems to continue dependence on government support: It counts on subsidized prices for
cotton (vertical integration), and focuses on “reconquest of the local market”, which could well be a
slogan for protection, rather than on increasing international competitiveness and exporting.
Report of a study for Sida
A-60
Used Clothes As Development Aid
A-61
$SSHQGL[ 6 Z HGL VK 1*2V
The following reviews relate specifically to the discussion in Chapter 4; the studies
reviewed are also summarized briefly there.
$UH6ZHGLVK1*2VHIIHFWLYHO\WDUJHWLQJ³WKHSRRUHVWRIWKHSRRU´"
The Riddell study (Promoting Development by Proxy: The Development Impact of
Government Support to Swedish NGOs) quotes an earlier study (Albinson and
Åhlström) to the effect that: “A major reason to increase NGO aid is the ability of the
organisations to reach the real target groups of Swedish aid—the poorest people in the
poorest countries—and to build up mutual cooperation.” However, the Riddell report
comments that: “This statement was not based on analysis or scrutiny. It was merely a
boldly stated assumption.”
73
After extensive field evaluations, the Riddell report concluded that Swedish NGOs often
(naturally) tend to work with similar organizations in less-developed countries. The
organized at home tend to work with the similarly organized overseas—that is, Swedish
churches tend to work with overseas churches, labor unions with labor unions,
consumer cooperatives with their counterparts, etc.—and thus only rarely are the
poorest of the poor actually targeted effectively. The poorest of the poor are not
organized, and are thus inherently difficult to reach and work with.
This is not to say that Swedish NGO projects with such overseas counterpart
organizations may not be quite useful and even worthy of Sida support, but it does call
into question the appropriateness specifically of Sida subsidies for used-clothes exports
as part of such projects, since one of the main justifications for such subsidized exports
is usually that they are reaching the poorest of the poor. Given the relative status of the
probable targets of most such projects, used clothes, while certainly of value and
probably salable on the market, are probably not really what they need most. And, if the
clothes are going to end up on the market anyway, such subsidies are not generally
necessary, given functioning domestic used-clothes markets in LDCs as we have seen.
The Riddell report did not specifically review any projects involving distribution or sale of
used-clothes, and without much greater knowledge of the current use of Sida freight
subsidies (going much further into the details of receiving organizations and projects),
we do not know which aspects of that report may be most relevant to this study.
Nevertheless we would like to call attention to certain parts that we believe may be most
relevant, and suggest that Sida and the relevant NGOs themselves consider them
carefully in this regard, if they have not done so already.
To cite some examples, the report concludes that “insufficient attention is placed by
many Swedish NGOs on thinking VWUDWHJLFDOO\ DQG UHDOLVWLFDOO\ about the development
opportunities in the areas in which they are working… The NGO projects often did not
reach the poorest, and not even necessarily the very poor. It was quite common for the
NGOs to DVVXPH that they were working with the very poor.”
74
If we applied this
approach to used clothes, it could perhaps be characterized as, “the country is poor,
VRPHRQH must get benefit from the clothes”—and that would undoubtedly be true, but it
does not answer the question whether someone else might be harmed, or whether the
used clothes and subsidy funds might be used in a more efficient way.
a
a
This is reminiscent of a comment made repeatedly in the Swedish Red Cross studies (cited in Chapter 4,
and below) that often the SRC was perceived by the local organizations as not caring what happened
Report of a study for Sida
A-62
The Riddell report goes on to say that: “All the case studies conclude that there is little
evidence to suggest that the work of Swedish NGOs has made much of an impact on
poverty. In many ways this is because many Swedish NGO projects do not begin from a
conceptualisation of poverty: of what it is, of what causes it, and of how to address it.
Without a theory of poverty, it is largely going to be a hit and miss affair as to whether a
project will address poverty… NGO impact on poverty tends to be greater where the
state is strong. Similarly, it is likely to be greater where the regional economy is
dynamic. This implies that when NGOs work in areas of economic decline and
stagnation, then their work is likely to be focused mainly on alleviating poverty and
easing some of the pains of economic transition. Their work is only likely to have a
sustained development impact in areas where the economy is relatively dynamic. Thus,
one’s expectations of NGO poverty impact should not be exaggerated, certainly not as
exaggerated as they sometimes are. By the same token, NGOs should not claim to
have the degree of poverty impact that they often claim to have—in most cases, they
simply do not have this impact.”
75
The report goes on: “There are many reasons for the state of affairs just described…
[T]hey reflect a situation common not only among Swedish NGOs but elsewhere too.
Quite simply, the staff and experience of Swedish NGOs do not equip them well, nor
predispose them, to focus on analytic issues related to income and employment
generation, or markets and market analysis… The challenge of generating income and
employment in stagnant economies where markets are weak or absent surpasses the
resources and capacities of many Swedish NGOs.”
76
So, how do Swedish NGOs deal
with poverty? They “respond to its symptoms rather than to its causes.”
77
“The case
studies suggest that NGO work is most likely to have an impact when it directly
addresses the social relationships that underlie poverty—such as land-holding
relationships, territorial conflicts, or having greater power to influence the distribution of
profits—and which increases the organisational, political and entrepreneurial capacities
of the poor to tackle these relationships for themselves… Conversely, service delivery
programmes [perhaps including distribution of used-clothes] are not likely to make much
of a difference, although they are easier to implement, less politically charged, and are
more visible in the field… They are also easier to monitor: Bureaucratically they are
more attractive projects to support, but developmentally their potential contribution is
likely to be far more limited.”
78
The report also comments on “the tendency of Swedish funds to lead to a centralisation
of authority, either at headquarters or, more narrowly, in the power of one or two
individuals… Such trends are the very opposite of participation.”
79
Similarly, one may
wonder about the effects of shipments of used clothes, the power to decide who may
buy or sell them, and how, for what purpose, etc.
Thus it is not necessarily the case that NGOs—by the fact of good intentions, for
instance, or even considerable knowledge and experience—know best how to use
resources such as used clothes and freight subsidies to effectively reach and help the
very poor.
7ZRVWXGLHVRI6ZHGLVK5HG&URVVXVHGFORWKHVSUDFWLFHV
In 1992, 30-50 countries were receiving used clothes primarily for distribution to
refugees, but the two studies focused on Uganda, Zimbabwe, Mozambique, Sierra
once the clothes arrived in-country: The SRC seemed happy just to know that the used clothes had
arrived.
Used Clothes As Development Aid
A-63
Leone, Vietnam, and Poland, which were the countries involved in selling used clothes.
The reports are now somewhat out of date because policies and practices have
changed, but we review and discuss them here because it may still be instructive,
especially in view of some of the generalizations about NGO attitudes and behavior
made in the Riddell report, to understand some of the situations and problems that were
encountered with SRC used-clothes distribution activities at that time.
a
The report on second-hand clothing for Uganda, Zimbabwe, Mozambique, Sierra Leone
and Vietnam points out that “proper monitoring and reporting” of clothing assistance is
important,
80
and it reports an IFRC recommendation that “it is important to have clear
guidelines for how the clothes are to be used so as to reduce the risk of misuse.”
81
The
Zimbabwe Red Cross Society (one of the recipient organizations) was aware of this
need: the stated goal of its policy statement
82
was to create “a system which ensures
that employees do not misuse the privilege of buying clothes on credit from source,” and
it states: “With proper record-keeping for individual employees, it is hoped that this
system will close all loopholes.” It is explained that “initially, employees were allowed to
purchase clothes not exceeding one-quarter of their salaries,” but now “all staff
members [will] be allowed to purchase clothes worth Z$500 per quarter regardless of
different salary levels.”
That was section 2.1 of the Zimbabwe policy. We have previously suggested the
likelihood that subsidized used-clothes distributions will be resold; but point 2.9
addressed that issue, stating clearly that “All clothes purchased are strictly not for
resale.”
The local Red Cross societies often priced the used-clothes rather generously, “30-40%
cheaper than market prices” in Sierra Leone, for instance.
83
“The reason for this is to
enable the poorer sections of the community to buy clothes. It also creates a certain
amount of goodwill towards the Red Cross.” But it may have also created good
opportunities for resale, including by employees who had first pick. Resale by
employees may create an appearance of corruption (theft) to outsiders, or it may give
the impression (whether true or not) that employees are being paid “in kind”, which is
not historically unprecedented—as witness the history of 18
th
century Britain in
Appendix 9—but it is generally frowned upon nowadays.
This was a commercial operation which was not being run commercially, and which was
thus opening itself up to distractions and to various forms of corruption. The report
comments that in Mozambique the “MRCS is allowed to import second-hand clothes
without paying customs duty, provided they are not sold. The sale which nevertheless
takes place is regarded as ‘fund-raising’.” The report comments
84
that in Uganda, “if
exemption [from tax] has been granted for a consignment of second-hand clothes, it is
difficult to sell them immediately at fixed prices at permanent sales outlets. URCS would
in that case risk being ‘discovered’ and having to pay customs duty and tax. At present
some of the clothes are [nevertheless] used for fund-raising purposes, and in this way
the Red Cross is able to generate a certain amount of income without needing to pay
tax.”
85
Often entire bales of used clothes or other apparel were simply missing or unaccounted
for. A bale is generally worth more than one month’s salary for a local employee,
b
so it
a
The Swedish Red Cross has been exceedingly helpful in the preparation of this report, and is to be
commended for commissioning and distributing the studies which brought the following problems to light.
b
In Vietnam, “two months’ salary for a doctor”—p. 32.
Report of a study for Sida
A-64
could represent a sizable temptation, either to employees or others, especially if the
goods were perceived as “free” and “surplus” and were thus not tracked very carefully.
For instance: “It is not known whether 96 bales of shoes [in Sierra Leone] were
distributed free or sold.” Seven bales of clothes “disappeared”.
86
In Zimbabwe, “the
handling of second-hand clothes was problematic until the end of 1990, and it was
difficult to obtain detailed information regarding the use of clothing bales during the
period 1987-1990… 21.80 tonnes sent in 1989 and 18.79 tonnes of the 1990
consignment are missing from the general records of clothing received.” Each ton is
more than 20 bales, so this represented more than 800 salary-months. In Mozambique:
“It has not been easy to obtain reliable statistics as to how clothing consignments have
been used, particularly for the period 1982-1989.”
a
Given that these activities were not being handled as commercial operations, it may not
be surprising that the relation of value to price was not well understood. The reports
seek to establish “the value of the clothes themselves”,
87
as though clothes (or anything
else) have any economic value apart from their value to someone, which means their
value relative to something else that someone is willing to give up.
b
It was first asserted
that the SRC’s costs (including monetized volunteer collection and sorting efforts)
amounted to only SEK 7.50/kg to get the clothes shipped, and then it arbitrarily ascribed
a true value of SEK 50/kg to the clothes.
c
But the SRC’s figures showed that the
average sale price in LDCs in the period 1987-’91 was SEK 11.45/kg,
88
and in Poland it
was only SEK 6.50/kg,
89
and of course both of these prices had to cover many
additional distribution costs in those countries. Then the question was asked: “What
would the alternative be if these clothes were not available… Buying new clothes?”
There was no mention of the commercial used-clothes market as an alternative, despite
the fact that it was frequently mentioned as part of background information for the
various countries. In an open market, used clothes sent by the SRC could not be valued
(priced) any higher than similar products brought in commercially, and in fact most used
clothes are sold in the market far below SEK 50/kg.
d
There was a lot of concern expressed in the reports for how the funds received from the
sale of used clothes were used, but relatively little concern was paid to each Red Cross
society’s overall budget, agenda, menu of projects, investment schedule, etc. Funding is
fungible, so it makes very little difference whether an organization says it is using this
money for that and that money for this, or vice versa; the results can be tailored to
please the reviewer.
a
P. 22. The report continues that “the accounting and finance department was closed at the time of our
visit due to internal problems. Possible embezzlement was being investigated.” Whether this
embezzlement involved used-clothes bales or cash directly was not made clear, but of course
embezzlement of cash is also always a possibility. One could argue that it is harder to steal a bale of
clothes, but on the other hand, people may tend to pay less attention to it, thus making theft easier.
b
Part of the confusion may be that some items we purchase (including both new and used clothes)
sometimes seem to have more “value” than what we actually pay for them, resulting in what is technically
called “consumer surplus”. Consumer surplus is discussed and dealt with analytically in Chapters 5 and
8.
c
SEK is the designation for Swedish kronor: Over the last decade, the exchange rate has generally
fluctuated between SEK 5-8 per U.S. dollar.
d
In the example cited, market analysis might have suggested sending used clothes to Zimbabwe (where
they were reportedly selling at SEK 29.40/kg) rather than to Poland, and then sending some of the funds
to Poland instead.
Used Clothes As Development Aid
A-65
Going into the review process, the reviewer reported a lot of concern that perhaps the
recipients found used-clothes shipments demeaning.
90
But, as was quickly pointed out
by recipients, re-using items previously used by others is as common as sleeping in a
hotel, where the sheets have certainly been used before. What PLJKW be demeaning,
however, is giving used clothes as aid, and putting guidelines and restrictions on how
they can be used. As an Indian NGO commented in the Riddell report, “when you are at
the receiving end, you cannot be an equal partner…”
91
There was a lot of concern for giving clothes to those most in need, but little awareness
of whether used clothes were what they needed most. It LV pointed out that, when
clothes were sold in Poland, sales receipts were often used to fund soup kitchens, for
instance, and the report raises the question, “What is most important, money for… soup
kitchens, or clothes for the needy?”
92
But the report did not provide an answer; it merely
comments that funding social programs from sales of Swedish used clothes makes the
social programs dependent on Swedish clothing assistance—although distribution of
Swedish used clothes to the needy could perhaps be considered equally dependent.
Report of a study for Sida
A-66
Used Clothes As Development Aid
A-67
$SSHQGL[)RRG$LGDVDQ ([DPSO HRI &RPPRGLW\$L G
Food is similar to clothes in many ways. Both are primary consumer goods, yet both
food and [used] clothes are resources that can be used as inputs in the production of
more refined goods (for instance, repaired and restyled—or even remanufactured—
clothes). Both food and clothes can be produced in a decentralized manner; both are
normally produced to some extent and in some form or fashion in all countries.
a
And
there are frequently stocks of both commodities in industrial countries, available as
possible aid at little additional cost: food, in the form of surplus mountains and lakes
which have been purchased by governments to raise prices and rural incomes, and
whose production has thus been subsidized; and clothes, in the form of used clothes
which have been donated to charitable organizations.
bc
If these goods are shipped overseas as parts of development projects, the subsidies
embodied in them can have effect in a number of ways, depending on how the goods
are subsequently distributed. The extensive food aid literature classifies these possible
distribution modes, along with carefully thought out arguments for and against such aid,
a great deal of thoroughly debated analysis of effects, and some guidelines for use.
What follows is a brief look at some of the products of this food aid debate. We want to
stress that the food aid literature is voluminous, and what follows is in the nature of a
somewhat random sample.
3RVVLEOHW\SHVRIIRRGDLGRUXVHGFORWKHVDLG
In the mid-1970s, food aid was most frequently simply sold on the market as “program
aid” (about 66% of the time), to extend supplies and generate funds for other
developmental purposes. Other uses included emergency relief (7%), and project aid:
food for work (16%), and supplementary feeding programs (11%). By 1994 the
proportions had changed significantly: Program aid was now only 41%, and emergency
relief was 35%, while project aid remained about the same.
94
Used clothes can of course be used in all the same ways: Between the extremes of
simply selling them on the market to increase supplies, or giving them away in a
disaster situation where supply has ceased or where insurance or emergency stocks
are inadequate, they can also be given away—either for free, or in return for work, or at
a
Steven Haggblade points out, however, that used clothes and new clothes are not obvious close
substitutes in the way that imported wheat and domestic wheat are; the price and income elasticities of
used clothes and new clothes are quite dissimilar—in a personal communication, July 1995.
b
Donations possibly—in the U.S., for instance—encouraged by tax deductions which are also a subsidy in
the original supply process, both to the charitable organization receiving the donation, and to the donor,
who may thus be encouraged to buy more clothes. Comparing tax regulations across U.S. states, Ribar
and Wilhelm (1994) note that “States which permit charitable [tax] deductions contribute more to
[charities] than do states which do not permit deductions… [A] high price elasticity [of donations to
charities, especially to international charities] implies that, at the margin, tax breaks reduce government
revenues by less than the amount of the gifts themselves.”
c
A very important difference between surplus food and used clothes, however, is that food is almost
always available for use as commodity-aid only because it has been previously purchased by
governments to raise market prices and rural incomes, which means that it cannot be sold on the open
world market again without depressing those prices; thus it can only be used as aid (where there is still a
risk of depressing prices, as we will see), or destroyed. Used clothes available to NGOs in Sweden, on
the other hand, can be traded freely on the world market without much price effect, because Sweden
represents a relatively small part of world supply (0.9%); in any event, any price effect will have no
consequence for government policy in industrial countries, which have no particular interest in
maintaining the price of used clothes.
Report of a study for Sida
A-68
some below-market price—to those who are particularly in need at any given time, and
are perhaps without employment.
$UJXPHQWVIRUDQGDJDLQVWIRRGDLG
In favor of such aid, it is said that it can:
1. Provide real resources for growth and development (output)
2. Improve the employment and income of disadvantaged groups (distribution)
3. Provide extra aid that otherwise would not have been given (additional)
4. Aid vulnerable groups in an emergency (disaster relief)
5. Provide support for restructuring (safety-net)
Against such aid, it is said that it:
1. Reduces prices, production and employment (disincentives)
2. Is supply-driven rather than demand-driven (misallocation)
3. Distorts consumption patterns (increasing dependency)
4. Undermines efforts to mobilize domestic resources (fiscal imbalance)
5. Is second-best, bureaucratic and irregular, often inappropriate (inferiority)
$QHPSLULFDOVWXG\RIIRRGIRUZRUNLQ.HQ\D
As one can see from the arguments pro and con, food aid is a complex topic, and the
results are not at all clear. We will look next at a few studies which develop some of
these arguments in greater depth. In considering similar arguments for and against
used-clothes aid, one may want to bear in mind that, even without the further subsidy of
freight aid, used-clothes imports—even commercial imports—already represent very
cheap goods, comparable to surplus food.
A recent empirical study of “Food Aid Impacts in Rural Kenya” (Bezuneh, Deaton, and
Norton, 1988) begins by asserting that “evidence to substantiate [many various] claims
[such as the arguments for and against, given above] is uneven and inconclusive. Policy
measures used to avoid the most severe negative effects and to encourage economic
development have rarely been identified. They likely are specific to social and political
conditions in individual countries. The effectiveness of food aid in promoting
development clearly depends on the conditions under which it is disseminated and
administered.”
Nevertheless, this study ends by concluding that “food for work (FFW) in the study area
increased agricultural production, income, capital investment, employment (including
hired labor), and marketable surplus. It caused a production shift from the more
nutritious maize to higher-priced millet. This suggests that food aid may increase food
security sufficiently to alter the market orientation of the farmers.”
“Participants in FFW increased own-farm production in year 2 compared to year 1,
reducing the hours devoted to FFW activities. This decline may continue in future years
as the opportunity cost of their time increases with the generation of additional capital
for farm investments. Accordingly, the FFW program may encourage a transition from
FFW dependence to greater own-farm production.”
“On the consumption side, FFW increased the food demand of participants. Much of
this increase is simply the consumption of those items received in compensation for
labor provided to FFW projects. The estimated effects on quantity and quality of food
consumed indicate that the program had positive nutritional implications.”
“The FFW program helped households meet their minimum nutritional requirements,
improved food security, and increased their response to market price changes. The
Used Clothes As Development Aid
A-69
majority of participants [were] from low-income strata in the population, which implies
that the program also may be narrowing the income gap between participants and
nonparticipants.”
“The results indicate that FFW can contribute positively to local development efforts in
terms of both employment and nutrition, and it can lead to longer-term income growth
through facilitating own-farm investment. Other potential effects [are] longer-term
nutrition and on-the-job training benefits,” as well as returns on public capital investment
funded in part by FFW. “Better nutrition can lead to higher quality of life generally and to
improved quality of the labor force, as can the skills acquired on FFW projects.”
These results sound quite positive, and it is not difficult to imagine that it might be
possible to get similar results with used-clothes aid, albeit on a much smaller scale due
to the much lower quantity of clothes normally consumed, compared to food. This much
smaller scale may itself be a problem, however, because the effort required to identify
and enroll targeted individuals may be about the same for programs incorporating food
or used clothes as project aid, but the return effort that can be elicited for the clothes
must be relatively much smaller.
a
'LVLQFHQWLYHHIIHFWVRIIRRGDLG
The study above focused only on the immediate effects, and did not explore the
possibility of broader disincentive effects on local production.
b
An earlier study which did
address this issue directly (Isenman and Singer, 1977) asserts, somewhat surprisingly,
that “the disincentive risk of food aid is far more complex, and location and time specific,
than some analyses have suggested. Even where there is an observed or likely
disincentive effect, food aid should not necessarily be reduced until these costs are
weighed against the employment, nutritional, export, or other benefits… To ask only ‘Is
there a (risk of a) disincentive effect?’ is to consider any drop in production to be an
infinite cost, and to ignore entirely other benefits.”
96
This study goes on
97
to assert that “most of the issues… are, with only minor
modifications, relevant to all forms of aid, not just food aid. While the disincentive risks
of non-food aid are more dispersed, and hence less readily apparent, all financial aid
ultimately could (FHWHULV SDULEXV) have theoretical negative effects on the prices of
capital and foreign exchange and on savings and trade policies. But… the FHWHULV
SDULEXV assumption is entirely hypothetical. For non-food aid, as for food aid, it is up to
recipient and donor to ensure that any disincentive risk is offset by using the aid as a
basis for additional output and employment… In any event, to single out food aid for
criticism on disincentive grounds seems a case of the fallacy of misplaced
concreteness.”
Further,
98
“in several ways the distorting effects of food aid are more acceptable… than
those of other forms of aid, when looking at the demand side rather than just the supply
side. This point is clearly brought out when comparing food aid with non-food aid, which
results in the import of additional capital and intermediate goods (i.e., the usual and
conventional case of aid designed to lead to increased investment). Where non-food aid
a
Alternatively of course one could interpret these passages with reference not to subsidized used-clothes
aid but simply to possible benefits to be gained from used-clothes imports in general, in which individuals
enroll themselves via the market.
b
This may be an unfair conclusion, given that the subsistence farmers in the program were largely out of
the market to start with. Perhaps FFW did not displace any local production, but instead increased both
consumption and production.
Report of a study for Sida
A-70
reduces the price of capital and foreign exchange, there is an incentive for more capital-
intensive and import-intensive methods of production. Where supplies of food are
increased, and as a result food prices are lowered, this makes it possible to attain a
given level of real wages at a lower level of money wages. Thus, there is an incentive
for more labor-intensive methods of production or composition of output. Also, unlike aid
for capital equipment, food is not tied to the particular (generally highly capital-intensive)
technologies embodied in equipment imported from developed countries. In the
interests of employment policies… it seems clear that the ‘distortion’ introduced by food
aid is in some respects less undesirable than that of conventional financial aid.”
“A related point is that the lowering of food prices is likely to benefit the poorer sections
of the population, both urban and rural… A lowering of the price of capital goods, on the
other hand, will improve the relative position of the upper-income groups. Hence food
aid—assuming the same degree of ‘incentive’ impact of food aid and financial aid—is
likely to lead to more equal income distribution as well as to greater employment.”
This study summarizes
99
by saying that “food aid, balanced with non-food aid, [can]
contribute to increases in investment, employment, and output.” We may remark again
that, in general and on a necessarily smaller scale, it seems possible to read these
arguments as they could apply to used-clothes aid, or indeed, to the commercial import
of cheap used clothes.
$QRWKHUSRLQWRIYLHZRQIRRGDLG
Another study (Dawson 1985), interestingly titled “In defence of food aid: Some answers
to its critics”, nevertheless points out many of the problems with food aid—and by
extension, of used-clothes aid—starting with emergencies:
100
“The first problem with
food aid is its bulk… Where food is needed in a hurry, e.g. for emergency relief, it is too
costly for most donors to send it by air… Much food aid arrives (by surface) far too late
to be of help in emergencies, and it is often more by luck than by design if its arrival
coincides with a remaining need for food associated with rehabilitation works.”
This study also compares project food aid (such as food for work, or by analogy, clothes
targeted towards “the poorest of the poor”) with bulk supply food aid (or perhaps, by
analogy, with commercial used-clothes imports). The latter “seems less open to criticism
than project food aid in terms of bulk and perishability
a
because it is handled by much
the same distribution and marketing facilities as normal commercial supplies, with more
or less comparable efficiency. Project food aid has to be carried to project sites far and
wide, through non-commercial, less experienced channels, and distributed under
administrative control to specified beneficiaries, rather than through the market to any
buyer.”
This study later
101
describes “another problem with food aid, which applies particularly
to project aid, what might be called the ‘surplus disposal mentality’. It is tempting to think
that a surplus product…has little value of any kind and can be treated as such… This
attitude can be seen all the way down from the project manager who loses his copy of
the project agreement to the warehouseman or dockworker who handles cans of meat
roughly, considering that if they are dented or punctured there is little loss because they
are ‘free’. Another manifestation of the surplus disposal mentality is that projects
prepared simply in response to the availability of food aid are generally weaker in
conception, design and execution than are projects prepared in response to the
a
Or what may be the equivalent for used clothes, theft and pilferage.
Used Clothes As Development Aid
A-71
availability of financial aid. The effectiveness of project food aid can therefore be
enhanced as a rule if it is more frequently combined with financial aid.”
This study lucidly describes how disincentive effects from food aid can be avoided or
mitigated, however,
102
and with some imagination one can understand a similar
argument with regard to used-clothes aid, or even commercial used-clothes imports:
a
“Any factor lowering prices, or rendering them unstable, will be most discouraging to
marginal [producers]—those with above-average production costs and least resources.
They will not, however, readily give up farming [or tailoring] unless they have some
other source of livelihood to turn to; they may be able to switch to other [products] not
competing with the [imported] commodities in the market. Of course, they may seek
employment in… other sectors receiving higher priority for investment… If other sectors
are expanding, the employees there will increase their demand… and help to keep up
prices; it is when the proceeds from [the imported] commodity sales have not been
invested in employment-expanding ways that [imports] can have their most injurious
effect on local [production].”
The study concludes
103
with “a grave note of warning…in regard to pure relief
distribution of food aid commodities in emergency situations without charge to the
recipient. Such humanitarian aid is vital to the poor who are very young, old or infirm, to
widows with young families, and to the able-bodied whose chances of earning a living
are temporarily dislocated by the emergency. But if aid is provided on a long-term basis
in situations which are not urgent but chronic, and is channelled through governments
that FRXOG make their economies less vulnerable… the incentive to individuals and
governments to make a maximum effort to provide for themselves will be dangerously
blunted. Free distribution of food without a TXLG SUR TXR should be minimized and
provided for short periods following exceptional, serious and non-chronic disasters. All
other food aid commodities should either be sold to fill food deficits and alleviate
balance-of-payments and financial problems, or be distributed free only in return for
some effort which is the best the recipient can make.”
6RPHVXJJHVWHGJXLGHOLQHVIRUIRRGDLG
While the studies above are far from totally negative, they show an awareness of
widespread criticism and of many potential problems even beyond those that they
especially highlight. Thus, at best, we can conclude that food aid is troublesome,
requiring very careful planning and implementation in the best of circumstances. Some
previously suggested guidelines for the use of food aid include the following:
104
1. Is there a great need for food relative to other development needs, such that food is a
constraint on growth or on a more equal income distribution?
2. Is the food substitutable for commercial imports, thus releasing foreign exchange for
other purposes?
3. Is it incorporated in a poverty-reducing, production-increasing development plan?
4. Is continued availability guaranteed?
5. Is it complemented with other aid, such as financial aid and technical assistance?
6. Does it provide normal products for the indigenous diet?
7. Are sales receipts available for development?
8. Is there high income-transfer efficiency, that is, is there a high ratio of the value to the
recipient to the total acquisition and delivery cost?
105
a
This passage has been edited to make the analogy to used clothes even easier to imagine.
Report of a study for Sida
A-72
The evidence from analogy with food aid should probably cast some doubt on the
advisability of subsidized used-clothes aid. Food is a generally higher value commodity
(per volume or weight) than used clothes, is more homogeneous and exchangeable, is
consumed in larger quantities, and is thus of even more basic use. If it is not clear that
food aid is useful in most circumstances, how much less so must used-clothes aid be,
given that administrative costs must be similar?
Used Clothes As Development Aid
A-73
$SSHQGL[7KH8VHG&ORWKHV7UDGHLQ(LJKWHHQWK&HQWXU\%ULWDLQ
Lemire’s book extracted here
106
is also summarized briefly in Chapter 7.
“The demand for new clothing, textiles, pottery, metal-ware, and other consumer goods
extant in Britain [in 1700] was not the total sum of the consumer impulse. An equally
powerful market-demand was manifested not through the purchase of new
commodities, but through the sale, trade, and purchase of second-hand merchandise…
British men and women routinely assuaged their needs and wants with the purchase of
used merchandise. Demand was two-tiered. At the top was the open and apparent
consumer demand… Beneath this lay the most numerous of Britain’s families, with an
income of less than… £50 per annum.., the minimum that would enable intermittent
participation as a consumer… Throughout Britain there [was] a well-established,
organized system of redistribution, founded on the demand of those in more straitened
circumstances. The trade existed because the needs of the whole population could not
yet be met within the existing structure of production… The second-hand trade was a
key intermediate trade, using barter as well as cash sales, in the movement of goods
through the nation… The influence of this largely hidden trade and of those who
sustained it are fundamental factors at work in the development of the cotton industry
and in the diversification of its products to meet the needs of the whole of Britain’s
population.
“Undoubtedly the second-hand trade existed, at least in major centres, for generations
or even centuries before it came to the notice of commentators… The second-hand
trade developed as a source of substitutes, enabling millions of lesser folk to make do
with second-hand as long as the cost of new materials kept those items out of their
reach. The scope of the second-hand trade was dependent on the time it took for
industrialized production to lower costs sufficiently to offer fashionable new clothing to
the mass of the population at prices they could afford…
“The second-hand trade was a commonplace to people of the eighteenth century,
requiring no explanation, accepted as a familiar component of everyday life… Used
apparel was frequently the most practical alternative, providing the poor with cheap
covering and offering the ambitious or the more prosperous with the opportunity to
dress in clothes that bespoke a higher station.
“The appearance of clothing [was] important.., as too [was] the cost of a garment; both
requirements could be met through the purchase of a second-hand article from a
clothes-broker, pawnbroker, itinerant hawker, or local salesman.
a
Second-hand clothing
was sold by specialist dealers, as well as by many other traders large and small… The
latest London dress was not always appropriate in rural communities, but clothes a year
or two old would not offend. Thus, clothes outmoded by the calculations of one group
would be in demand and thought desirable by another…
“Much of the trade in used clothing remains uncharted, though some points of this
process are well known and well documented, such as the making of routine gifts of
[used] clothing and linens to servants, and the lively clothing trade along Monmouth
Street, Rosemary Lane, and Petticoat Lane in London… It was a vital conduit for the
people of this era, both as an avenue through which they could barter or sell their used
a
Lemire footnotes that “‘Salesman’ was a term routinely used to describe someone who traded in clothing,
usually used, though new goods could also be found in their inventory… Other terms used to describe
tradesmen of similar interests were sometimes peculiar to geographic regions: for example, in Cheshire a
dealer or broker in household goods implied also a trade in clothing a furnishings…”
Report of a study for Sida
A-74
items and as a source of inexpensive garments of every sort, at every price. The
mountains of gowns, jackets, aprons, stockings, and breeches brought to the salesmen
or brokers, were not seen as valueless, fit only for charity, but as articles of varying
worth that would bring a profit to the trader and add to the assortment of clothing
available to the consumer. The trade in used clothing and textile items developed
precisely because of the value and utility of these items… and the high level of demand
at all levels of society… This trade operated on the fringe of the textile and clothing
industries and began where the involvement of all first-phase manufacture and sale
ended, after the consumer had bought and worn… new clothing and then, for whatever
reason, decided to sell it. When fashions changed, when fortunes waned, or when new
clothes became imperative, tradesmen were ready to buy the soiled, shabby, or SDVVp
redistributing them in a trading network that spanned Britain, her colonies, and Europe.
“Britain was well served by retail tradesmen, whether they were chapmen or
shopkeepers, while many fairs and markets continued to function as additional centres
of commerce throughout this period… [Various authors] have uncovered the extensive
interwoven grid of middlemen that operated in the early modern period, wherein
chapmen, retail shops, and fairs all served to distribute goods among tradesmen as well
as carry goods directly to consumers… As retail distribution spread throughout Britain,
so too would tradesmen profit from the unwanted articles of an increasingly prosperous
society, redirecting apparel to satisfy the demand of a less affluent segment of the
population.
“… aside from the sporadic sale of used apparel, shopkeepers in the provinces may
also have participated in the collection of used textiles from their consumers… The
London and national market as a whole exerted a strong demand for used clothing…
tradesmen operat[ed] nationally, buying and selling wardrobes and used clothing. The
gentry and middling ranks bought clothes for reasons other than necessity, and when
no longer needed these clothes found their way back on to the market.
a
“…crockery sellers… exchange[d] new goods for old, a process as old as the tale of
Aladdin’s lamp. The crockery sellers walked their routes around London and its
environs, crying ‘any old clothes to sell or exchange’—a cry that had been familiar to
residents of London for centuries…
“… customers were offered the opportunity to buy new… textiles through cash
payments or the exchange of old goods… for new… The exchange of new for old
persisted through the Industrial Revolution as a remnant of an older barter system; an
antique appendix to a rapidly changing economic structure, but still of use in this
intermediary period.
b
The persistence of this method, like the non-cash payments and
a
Here Lemire quotes an advertisement of the time: “John Matthews, Salesman from London, buys Ladies
and Gentlemans cast-off Cloaths, either laced, embroidered, or brocaded, full-trimmed, or not, of every
Colour and Sort, and will give the most Money for any: As I can deal for London, the Country, and
Abroad, nothing can be out of my Way, according to the Price and if any Person has any thing to dispose
of and will favour me with the Sight of it, they may depend on having the full Value of their Goods… I
likewise buy all Sorts of old Linnens, Gold and Silver Lace, burnt or unburnt, School Boys Cloaths and
Servants Liveries.”
b
Similar to the examples from Britain in the 1700s, at least one up-market company in the U.S. today
offers credit towards new purchases for used clothes returned. The Hanna Andersson company of
Portland, Oregon, advertises “Swedish quality” clothes, and says: “Hannadowns are a great way to teach
children about sharing. Saving money is one great reason to use our Hannadowns program. But even
better is the good it does for children. When your kids outgrow their Hanna clothes, send them back in
good condition and we will reserve your credit for 20% of the purchase price. That is a real head start on
your next order! Meanwhile, we will donate your clothes to kids in need, where they will become favorites
Used Clothes As Development Aid
A-75
perquisites among employees,
a
extended the capacity of the common people to
participate in this advancing consumer society… The hawkers, peripatetic dealers in
rags, and the like, bridged the cash-based system that was becoming the norm and
brought a greater range of products within the reach of common people, putting a
significant level of purchasing-power within their grasp.
“Tailors regularly sold their client’s superfluous garments and with the proceeds
produced new goods at reduced cost for the customer…
b
The nature of a tailor’s
business would require some channel to dispose of used or unsatisfactory garments,
bringing some sort of earnings back to the business. Thus, discounts on new items
were probably available through tailors in towns and cities throughout Britain, simply
because a return on the used garments was so assured, whether the tailor resold the
goods locally or to the passing wholesalers who toured the country. The refund granted
customers on their old clothes encouraged the purchase of new clothing and
contributed to the stock of used apparel that would then circulate through the lower
levels of society.
[Thus] “middlemen… traveled through Britain buying goods as they went, peddlers
exchanged new items for old clothes, rag-gatherers and local shopkeepers played their
part in the accumulation of stocks of second-hand clothes, and tailors accepted old
suites of clothing in part-payment. In addition to these measures, pawnbrokers operated
as buyers of used clothing…
c
Laborers, artisans, and servants usually owned few items
that could more readily be turned into cash than their clothing. Pawnshops offered small
sums at times essential for a family budget; in exchange for a coat, bonnet, or shawl, a
vital sixpence might be loaned the customer…
“Shopkeepers, pawnbrokers, chapmen and tradesmen all contributed to the collection
of second-hand clothing, at the same time providing cash or goods in exchange. Some
of the merchandise accumulated would have been transported to London, the heart of
the British trading network in used clothes, while the rest would have been dispersed
through local or regional distributive networks… Through circuitous or direct routes, vast
stocks of second-hand clothes circulated, a great portion of which were brought to
London to be sorted, graded, and resold yet again in a further specialization of the rag
trade.
“The retail portion of the second-hand trade was equally diverse, and it was in this
segment that the traders obtained their [ultimate] profits. The sale of [used] gowns,
all over again. My grandmother, the original Hanna Andersson, would have loved this program. ‘Never
waste,’ she said.”
a
Here Lemire footnotes that “non-cash payments not only freed wages for purchases in the market-place
by supplementing income, but they could also be translated into cash. The payment of the foreman of the
tailors… [was] two-and-a-half guineas per week, plus his clothes and other unspecified perquisites… But
it must be remembered that… the payment in kind to the foreman did not only have value in its use; all
these items could be turned into cash and were themselves almost a currency, in the way certain
commodities still are today.”
b
Here Lemire quotes the advertisement of a tailor: “Any Gentleman that chuses to favour me with their
Commands, may save a considerable Sum in the Yer, and on the other hand have three times the
Choice… [If they do not know] how to dispose of those Cloaths they never intend to wear more, this will
be a Means of preventing any Loss to them.” Lemire notes that the used clothes would probably have
been passed on to a clothes-broker at a profit.
c
Lemire quotes the advertisement of one such pawnbroker: “Most Money given for rich and plain Cloaths.
Whoever may have any to dispose of, by directing a letter to… shall be waited on within ten miles of
London… Secrecy may be depended upon.” She also notes another pawnbroker who had clothing
displayed prominently on his trade-card.
Report of a study for Sida
A-76
breeches, aprons, waistcoats, and caps, repeated thousands of times over, at market-
stalls or tailor’s shops, salesmen’s stores or London’s Rag Fair, was a constituent part
of the clothing trade in this period—public demand met by second-hand merchandise…
Advertisements for auctions appeared with some regularity in eighteenth-century
London newspapers, auctions both for unclaimed pawned apparel [frequently including
clothes] and for entire wardrobes…
a
[In 1843 came] the formal establishment of an Old
Clothes Exchange.
“Among those who came to London to supplement their stocks of used apparel were
clothes-brokers or salesmen from provincial towns and cities.
b
Unlike their London
confederates operating shops and stalls in the metropolis, they did not have access [in
the countryside] to the wholesale supplies of used garments available in London. Thus,
some with an expanding trade would look to the London second-hand market to supply
those goods in greatest demand. Whether provincial dealers in second-hand clothes
relied on local supplies or obtained stock from London, they ensured that used apparel
could be bought throughout Britain. Shopkeepers designated as dealers in old clothes,
salesmen, clothes-brokers, slop-sellers, and old-clothes men could be found in ports,
industrial centres, and market-towns large and small throughout Britain.
“Aside from the unknown numbers of anonymous dealers in second-hand clothes, there
were hundreds [of larger dealers] listed in the many directories of the late eighteenth
century. Over 250 shopkeepers and traders were catalogued as dealers in second-hand
clothes in the four-volume Universal British Directory; in addition, almost 330
pawnbrokers were listed in that and other contemporary directories…
“The sale and exchange of used clothing appears as an intermediary trade
characteristic of a society in the throes of expanding production, wherein volume and
variety are increasing, but productive techniques do not yet allow prices to fall [or wages
to rise] to the level that permits generalized access to new goods. As a result of this
flourishing commerce, patterns of buying were altered: The poorer segments of the
population could become accustomed to more frequent buying and selling as a
consequence of this trade. The challenge for the cotton industry was to manufacture
greater numbers of inexpensive, even cheap textiles, to tap the second tier of demand,
to bring the majority of British society into the interplay of production and consumption
that would come to characterize industrial Britain.”
a
Sometimes of the deceased, including occasionally the entire stock-in-trade of a deceased pawnbroker.
b
Lemire notes that “overseas traders came as well to deal in used clothing.”
Used Clothes As Development Aid
A-77
5HIHUHQFHV
Abrahamsson, Hans, 7KH 1DNHG 7UXWK 6ZHGLVK SULYDWH RUJDQL]DWLRQ¶V FORWKLQJ DLG WR
0R]DPELTXH DQG LWV HIIHFWV RQ ORFDO WH[WLOH SURGXFWLRQ Area Forecasting Institute,
Göteborg, 1988.
Bagchi, Sanjoy, ³7KH,QWHJUDWLRQRIWKH7H[WLOH7UDGHLQWR*$77´ in the Journal of World
Trade 28(6), December 1994, pp. 31-42.
Bezuneh, Mesfin, Brady J. Deaton and George W. Norton, ³)RRG $LG ,PSDFWV LQ5XUDO
.HQ\D´ in the American Journal of Agricultural Economics 70(1), February 1988, pp.
181-91.
Boulding, Kenneth, 7KH :RUOG DV D 7RWDO 6\VWHP Sage Publications, Beverly Hills,
California, 1985.
Dawson, Anthony, ³,Q GHIHQFH RI IRRG DLG 6RPH DQVZHUV WR LWV FULWLFV´ in the
International Labor Review 124(1), January-February 1985, pp. 17-30.
Denconsult, (IIHFWV RI 6HFRQG+DQG &ORWKHV 6DOHV LQ 'HYHORSLQJ &RXQWULHV
Copenhagen, 1993.
de Valk, Peter, $ *HQHUDO )UDPHZRUN IRU (YDOXDWLQJ WKH 3HUIRUPDQFH RI 7H[WLOH
(QWHUSULVHV LQ /'&V ZLWK DQ $SSOLFDWLRQ WR 7DQ]DQLD XQGHU 6WUXFWXUDO $GMXVWPHQW
Institute of Social Studies, Den Haag, 1992.
'HYHORSPHQW$LGIURP3HRSOHWR3HRSOH (DAPP) [U-landshjælp fra folk til folk i Danmark
(UFF)], $QQXDO5HSRUW Ballerup (Denmark), 1994.
Farzin, Y. Hossein, ³)RRG $LG 3RVLWLYH RU 1HJDWLYH (FRQRPLF (IIHFWV LQ 6RPDOLD"´ in
Journal of Developing Areas 25(2), January 1991, p. 261-82.
Financial Gazette, Harare, Zimbabwe, July 28, 1995, in particular, ³6HFRQGKDQG
FORWKHVVWLOODWKUHDW´ by Njabulo Ncube, August 3, 1995, p. 2.
)RRG$LG0RQLWRU World Food Program, Rome, April 1995.
Haggblade, Steven, 5HYLHZ RI 5ZDQGD¶V WH[WLOH FORWKLQJ VXEVHFWRU U.S. Agency for
International Development, Employment and enterprise policy analysis discussion paper
No. 24, Washington, D.C., February 1989.
Haggblade, Steven, ³7KH )OLS 6LGH RI )DVKLRQ 8VHG &ORWKLQJ ([SRUWV WR WKH 7KLUG
:RUOG´ in the Journal of Development Studies 26 (3), April 1990, pp. 505-521.
Hansen, Karen Tranberg, ³'HDOLQJ ZLWK 8VHG &ORWKLQJ 6DODXOD DQG WKH &RQVWUXFWLRQ RI
,GHQWLW\LQ=DPELD¶V7KLUG5HSXEOLF´ in Public Culture (6), June 1994, pp. 503-523.
Hislop, Donna Hartley, ³2QH 'RQRU¶V 7UDVK²$ &KDULW\¶V 7UHDVXUH $ /RRN DW &KDULW\
7KULIW6KRSV3DUW,´ and ³&RQWURYHUVLDO ,VVXHV 6XUURXQGLQJ WKH&KDULW\%XVLQHVV7KULIW
6KRS &RQQHFWLRQ $ /RRN DW &KDULW\ 7KULIW 6KRSV 3DUW ,,´ Insight on Philanthropy
Issues 1 and 2, 1992, Council of Better Business Bureaus’ Philanthropic Advisory
Service, Arlington, Virginia.
Interconsult Sweden AB, Klädfrakt för projektbistånd—Studie av Sidas fraktbidrag till
föreningen U-landshjälp från folk till folk i Sverige (UFF) >&ORWKLQJ IUHLJKW DV SURMHFW
Report of a study for Sida
A-78
DLG²D VWXG\ RI 6LGD¶V IUHLJKW DLG WR WKH 6ZHGLVK RUJDQL]DWLRQ ³'HYHORSPHQW $LG IURP
3HRSOHWR3HRSOH'$33´@ Stockholm, 1990a.
Interconsult Sweden AB, Effektivare klädbistånd för större oberoende—en
organisationsstudie av Praktisk Solidaritet >0RUH HIIHFWLYH FORWKLQJ DLG IRU JUHDWHU
LQGHSHQGHQFH²DVWXG\RIWKHRUJDQL]DWLRQ3UDFWLFDO6ROLGDULW\@ Stockholm, 1990b.
International Labour Organization (ILO), 'UDIW 5HVROXWLRQ FRQFHUQLQJ WKH HPSOR\PHQW
LPSOLFDWLRQV RI LQWHUQDWLRQDO WUDGH LQ WKH FORWKLQJ LQGXVWU\ submitted by the Workers’
group to the Fourth Tripartite Technical Meeting for the Clothing Industry, Geneva, 1-9
February, 1995a.
International Labour Organization (ILO), 5HFHQWGHYHORSPHQWV LQWKH FORWKLQJLQGXVWU\
Geneva, 1995b.
,QWHUQDWLRQDO 7H[WLOH *DUPHQW DQG /HDWKHU :RUNHUV¶ )HGHUDWLRQ Resolution No. 19;
adopted at the Sixth World Congress in Espinho, Portugal, 26-30 October 1992.
Isenman, Paul J., and H. W. Singer, ³)RRG $LG 'LVLQFHQWLYH (IIHFWV DQG 7KHLU 3ROLF\
,PSOLFDWLRQV´ in Economic Development and Cultural Change 25(2), January 1977, pp.
205-37.
Kearney, Neil, ³:LWKRXWFKDULW\´ in Free Labour World of the International Confederation
of Free Trade Unions, June 1993.
Krugman, Paul, *HRJUDSK\ DQG 7UDGH MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, and
London, 1991.
Krugman, Paul, 3HGGOLQJ 3URVSHULW\ (FRQRPLF 6HQVH DQG 1RQVHQVH LQ WKH $JH RI
'LPLQLVKHG([SHFWDWLRQV W. W. Norton & Company, New York and London, 1994.
Latinamerica Press, San Jose, Costa Rica, June 10, 1993, ³8VHG JRRGV DUH ELJ
EXVLQHVVLQ/DWLQ$PHULFD´ by Carlos Castillo.
Lemire, Beverly, )DVKLRQ¶V )DYRXULWH 7KH FRWWRQ WUDGH DQG WKH FRQVXPHU LQ %ULWDLQ
Oxford University Press, 1991.
Maxwell, S. J., and H. W. Singer, ³)RRG $LG WR 'HYHORSLQJ &RXQWULHV $ 6XUYH\´ in
World Development 7(3), March 1979, pp. 225-246.
1DWLRQDO3XEOLF5DGLR860RUQLQJ(GLWLRQ Segment #16, February 15, 1993.
1RUWK $PHULFDQ )UHH 7UDGH $JUHHPHQW 1$)7$ 7UHDW\ Chapter 20, Institutional
Arrangements and Dispute Settlement Procedures, and Annex 300B, 7H[WLOH DQG
$SSDUHO*RRGV
Ottawa Citizen, November 13 and 14, 1993: ³5DJVEHFRPHULFKHV´ and ³%DUJDLQSULFHV
KLJKTXDOLW\OXUHGHDOHUVWR7RURQWR´ both by Dave Todd; ³5DJV WR ULFKHV LQ WKH 7KLUG
:RUOG´ by Peter Maser and Dave Todd; ³2WWDZD¶VFORWKHVHQG XSRYHUVHDV´ by Sherri
Davis-Barron; and ³,IWKHVKLUWILWV´ editorial.
Pryor, Frederic L., 7KH 2ULJLQV RIWKH(FRQRP\$ &RPSDUDWLYH6WXG\RI'LVWULEXWLRQ LQ
3ULPLWLYHDQG3HDVDQW(FRQRPLHV Academic Press, New York, 1977.
Reutlinger, Shlomo, ³)RRG $LGDQG(TXLWDEOH *URZWK ,QFRPH7UDQVIHU (IILFLHQF\ )LUVW´
in World Development 12(9), September 1984, pp. 901-11.
Ribar, David C., and Mark O. Wilhelm, &KDULWDEOH &RQWULEXWLRQV WR ,QWHUQDWLRQDO 5HOLHI
DQG'HYHORSPHQW Working Paper No. 1-93-1, Dept. of Economics, Pennsylvania State
University, 1994.
Used Clothes As Development Aid
A-79
Riddell, Roger C., Anthony Bebbington and Lennart Peck, 3URPRWLQJ 'HYHORSPHQW E\
3UR[\ 7KH 'HYHORSPHQW ,PSDFW RI *RYHUQPHQW 6XSSRUW WR 6ZHGLVK 1*2V the
Overseas Development Institute, London, 1994.
Statens Naturvårdsverk, Textilier: Rapport till Kretsloppsdelegationen 7H[WLOHV 5HSRUW
WRWKH(FRF\FOH&RPPLVVLRQ Stockholm, 1995.
Südwind Institut für Ökonomie und Ökumene, Der Deutschen alte Kleider: Schaden
Kleider-Spenden der Zweidrittel-Welt? *HUPDQ 2OG &ORWKHV 'R &ORWKHV 'RQDWLRQV
+XUWWKH6HFRQGDQG7KLUG:RUOGV" Siegburg (Germany), 1994.
Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, &ORVLQJWKH(FRF\FOH Stockholm, 1995.
Swedish Red Cross, ,Q 1HHG RI &ORWKHV 6HFRQGKDQG FORWKLQJ IRU 8JDQGD=LPEDEZH
0R]DPELTXH6LHUUD/HRQHDQG9LHWQDP Stockholm, April 1992.
Swedish Red Cross, ,Q 1HHG RI &ORWKHV 6HFRQGKDQG FORWKLQJ IRU 3RODQG Stockholm,
May 1992.
Toyne, Brian, et al., 7KH*OREDO7H[WLOH,QGXVWU\ George Allen & Unwin, London, 1984.
United Nations Centre on Transnational Corporations, 7UDQVQDWLRQDO&RUSRUDWLRQVLQWKH
0DQPDGH)LEUH7H[WLOHDQG&ORWKLQJ,QGXVWULHV New York, 1987.
United Nations Statistical Division,,QWHUQDWLRQDO7UDGH6WDWLVWLFV%UDQFK New York.
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Foreign Trade Division,
&RPPRGLW\$QDO\VLV%UDQFK Washington, D.C.
U.S. Department of Commerce (USDOC), International Trade Administration, )RUHLJQ
5HJXODWLRQV$IIHFWLQJ867H[WLOHDQG$SSDUHO([SRUWV Washington, D.C., 1994.
U.S. Department of Commerce (USDOC), International Trade Administration, %HVW
0DUNHW5HSRUW:RUOG$SSDUHO Washington, D.C., 1995a.
U.S. Department of Commerce (USDOC), International Trade Administration, 0DUNHW
5HVHDUFK5HSRUW$IULFD²8VHG&ORWKLQJ0DUNHW3URILOH Washington, D.C., 1995b.
U.S. Department of Commerce (USDOC), International Trade Administration, 0DUNHW
5HVHDUFK5HSRUW7KH$SSDUHO0DUNHWLQ6RXWK$IULFD Washington, D.C., 1995c.
U.S. Department of Commerce (USDOC), International Trade Administration,
,QWHUQDWLRQDO 0DUNHW ,QVLJKWV 6HQHJDO 7H[WLOH ,QGXVWU\ 2XWORRN Washington, D.C.,
1995d.
U.S. Government Accounting Office (GAO), 1$)7$ 6WUXFWXUH DQG 6WDWXV RI
,PSOHPHQWLQJ2UJDQL]DWLRQV Briefing Report, Washington, D.C., 10/07/1994.
WTO Focus, the 1HZVOHWWHURIWKH:RUOG7UDGH2UJDQL]DWLRQ Geneva, various.
Yeats, Alexander J., $UH 3DUWQHU&RXQWU\ 6WDWLVWLFV 8VHIXO IRU (VWLPDWLQJ ³0LVVLQJ´
7UDGH'DWD" Policy Research Working Paper 1501, World Bank, 1995.
Report of a study for Sida
A-80
6RXUFH1RWHVQXPEHUHG
1
Quoted in the Ottawa Citizen (1993), p. A2.
2
Quoted in the Ottawa Citizen (1993), p. A2.
3
“Third Rock from the Sun,” by John Richard Greenebaum, Anthony Jerome Martin, and Sterling L.
Whipple, published by Rio Bravo Music, Stroudacaster Music, and Baby Mae Music, 1994.
4
ILO (1995b), p. 18.
5
ILO (1995b), p. 19.
6
See, for instance, Hislop (1992).
7
Haggblade (1990), p. 511.
8
Per Ed Stubin, president of a U.S. exporting firm and chairman of the Council for Textile Recycling—in a
personal communication, June 1995.
9
Haggblade (1990), p. 511.
10
Swedish Environmental Protection Agency (1995), p. 55.
11
Statens Naturvårdsverk (1995), p. 17.
12
P. 22.
13
Statens Naturvårdsverk (1995), Appendix 3.
14
P. 23
15
Haggblade (1990), p.508.
16
P. 509.
17
Pp. 513-514.
18
Pp. 510-518.
19
Haggblade (1990), pp. 517-18.
20
From the terms of reference.
21
See, for instance, Bagchi (1994).
22
Per Peter Johnston, chairman of the ZCC, in a personal communication, June 1995.
23
Latinamerica Press (1993).
24
Aug. 3, 1995.
25
Pp. 109-10.
26
P. 78.
27
According to Göran Larsson, chairman of PS, personal communication, September 1995.
28
Abrahamsson (1988), translated from the Swedish version, p. 17.
29
Abrahamsson (1988), English version, p. 7.
30
Pp. 9-10.
31
P. 4.
32
P. 18.
33
Pp. 21-22.
34
According to Göran Larsson, chairman of PS, personal communication, October 1995.
35
The information in the next three paragraphs comes primarily from Eva von Oelreich, head of the Africa
Section of the SRC, in personal communications, October 1995.
36
Pp. 4-5.
37
P. 92.
38
Pp. 94-95.
39
Development Aid from People to People (1994).
40
P. 6.
41
P. 7.
42
P. 13.
43
P. 19.
44
P. 26.
45
P. 28.
46
P. 36.
47
Per Martin Zak of the IFRC & RCS, Geneva, in a personal communication, April 1995.
48
Per Laura Renshaw, policy analyst for Oxfam America, in a personal communication, April 1995.
49
Per I. H. Woods (AESD) of that agency, in a personal communication, April 1995.
50
National Public Radio (1993).
51
Hislop (1992).
52
See, for example, Krugman (1991), especially Part 3 on Regions and Nations.
Used Clothes As Development Aid
A-81
53
P. 244.
54
WTO Focus No. 3 (May-June 1995), pp. 14-15.
55
See Abrahamsson (1988), p. 6; Denconsult (1993), p. 28; and Development Aid from People to People
(1994), p. 6.
56
P. 515.
57
From the USAID summary of Haggblade (1989).
58
P. 516.
59
Hansen (1994), pp. 503-504.
60
P. 509.
61
Pp. 518-21.
62
Per Rona Alexander, head of communications for Oxfam, in a personal communication, May 1995.
63
P. 4.
64
Per Dinora Diaz of that agency, in a personal communication, June 1995.
65
See, for example, Boulding (1985).
66
Pryor (1977).
67
This and following country references are from U.S. Department of Commerce (USDOC 1994 or 1995a
or b), unless otherwise indicated.
68
NAFTA Treaty, Chapter 20, Annex 2001.2, and Annex 300-B, Section 9.
69
Per Martin Walsh, U.S. representative on the committee, in a personal communication, August 1995.
70
Per Dinora Diaz of that agency, in a personal communication, June 1995.
71
This and most of the following quotes regarding African countries are from U.S. Department of
Commerce (USDOC) Market Research Report: Africa—Used Clothing Market Profile (1995).
72
de Valk (1992), p. 259.
73
P. 47.
74
Pp. x-xi.
75
Riddell (1994), pp. xi-xii.
76
P. 78.
77
P. 79.
78
P. 80.
79
P. 82.
80
P. 3.
81
P. 9.
82
Included as Appendix 4 in Swedish Red Cross (April 1992).
83
P. 28.
84
P. 11.
85
P. 21.
86
P. 28.
87
SRC (April 1992), p. 7, and (May 1992), p. 6.
88
SRC (April 1992), p. 7.
89
SRC (May 1992), p. 6.
90
P. 4.
91
P. 82.
92
P. 6.
93
Taken from Maxwell and Singer (1979), p. 226.
94
Food Aid Monitor (1995).
95
Taken from Farzin (1991), p. 261, and from Maxwell and Singer (1979), p. 226.
96
P. 219.
97
P. 221.
98
P. 222.
99
P. 223.
100
P. 20.
101
P. 26.
102
P. 22.
103
P. 30.
104
Taken primarily from Maxwell and Singer (1979), p. 225 and p. 235.
105
This concept is suggested in Reutlinger (1984).
106
Lemire (1991), pp. 61-76.
