How non-Walmart America fights retail giants
24 Oct 2012 10:05 PM GMT
US or ‘America’ is as much an idea as it is a swathe of land with people. It lives in different forms in minds of people all over the world, beyond the US. A serious number of non-poor urban youth from the Indian subcontinent have grown up with American sitcoms. Now they partly live that reality, fired by ‘onsite’ assignments and contract-labour opportunities in IT of the last two decades. This first-hand experience by the prodigal children of the middle class also comes with second hand experiences of America in the extended families and friends, back in India. Visiting parents lodged for a few weeks in the suburban homes of their children see the America of the malls – a place where anything one thinks one might need (or not) exists, the warehouse of Santa Claus. The ease of the pushcart, the smooth and snappy non-bargaining retail experience is an important part of the legend that is relayed back. In the pantheon of these multi-brand retail palaces, Walmart is the unquestionable Indra. Almost all of what it sells is also sold by others, and is indeed, made by others, mostly Chinese.
In the east coast of the US, stand two famous cities – New York City (with over eight million people) and Boston (Metro Boston’s population being upwards of three million). Together, they are home to more than three per cent of Americans. Both are iconic and enduring symbols of America to the world. But there are no Walmarts. I live in the Boston area. As I do not have a car and locally travel on a bicycle or by public transport, I simply do not encounter a Walmart.
This is peculiar as America has nearly 4,000 different stores all across the nation, with presence in every state and multiple stores in many major cities like Houston and Philadelphia. The absence of Walmart in my neighbouring areas and the preponderance of such stores all over the nation is a phenomenon that needs to be explained. I slowly started finding a clue among the ‘No Walmart’ signs that started popping up in my neighbouring towns – Watertown and Somerville. None of these two cities had any Walmarts, but on inquiry, I found that it had plans to set up shop there. Many people from the area had been organising against Walmart. These are but everyday people who do like low prices. But many of them feel that they would pay a very high price in other aspects of life in their community if they bite Walmart’s ‘low price’ bait. A moneyed entity like Walmart left no stone unturned in its public relations offensive to make people see the ‘benefits’. The civic opposition gathered steam. Their elected representatives in the municipal council, many of whom were supportive of Walmart, started feeling the heat. This year Walmart announced that they were suspending plans of setting up shop in these two areas citing profitability issues. The reasons might have been something else.
These towns too were divided on the issue, but the current was clearly on the side of the opposers. Much north of Boston is the picturesque state of Vermont. In the town of St Albans, Vermont, residents have been debating whether to let Walmart in, for 19 years now. With the lowest number of Walmart stores among all the states, Vermont has been an especially tough nut to crack. If St Albans falls, it will open up newer markets in northern Vermont to Walmart. That has not happened, yet.
These clearly are not stories of every town and urban community – the huge number of Walmart stores all across the USA is a testament to that. But towns that have successfully blocked Walmart are not just a handful either. From Hercules (California), St Albans (Vermont), Hood River (Oregon), Damariscotta (Maine), Skaneateles (New York), Taos (New Mexico) and many others. Join the dots and the contours of the United States of non-Walmart America emerges. That too is America, if we care to look. How exactly can a town or a municipality oppose the entry of a perfectly legal business? Democratic deepening is an important feature that can be seen in the governance of these towns by which they can veto or oppose many kinds of decisions that they deem inimical to the interest of the local community. This includes railways, roads and other ‘development’ projects. Walmart and other such retail giants profit and outcompete many partly by having huge warehouses and stupendous variety – a question of scale. This requires the availability of a large amount of floor area.
Rather than target one specific big-box store company (that is what Walmart type of stores are called because of their shape and size), which is not legally tenable, the city councils opposing the entry of such stores effectively ban such stores by setting an upper limit to the floor area of the shops they allow in their jurisdiction. This favours small and medium size, largely local stores over super-size big-box stores. In this way, people’s opinion matter in policy – what they want and what they do not want.
This right to host a Walmart is what the Union government in India has used in its framing of the Walmart debate. They ask why states, which want Walmarts should not be allowed to have them? The core appeal of this logic is of democratic justice –if a fraction of the people want something for themselves, others should not be able to deny them that. The union government untiringly tom-toms its purported advances in promoting local governance, does not have the courage to give municipalities and village councils the right to embrace or veto Walmart or other projects that might affect them. Singing paeans to democracy and people’s will is one thing, taking democratic empowerment and devolution seriously is another matter. More Nandigrams and Kudankulams can be avoided if local government becomes real government and not an elected but powerless charade under bureaucrats who take orders from the top.
Attitudes and aspirations differ between states and within states too. If people of Walmart’s home country have a greater say on where Walmart can or cannot be, why should brown folks settle for any less? They may choose to embrace Walmart or block it. But it is important that they make the choice directly. [IPA]
In the east coast of the US, stand two famous cities – New York City (with over eight million people) and Boston (Metro Boston’s population being upwards of three million). Together, they are home to more than three per cent of Americans. Both are iconic and enduring symbols of America to the world. But there are no Walmarts. I live in the Boston area. As I do not have a car and locally travel on a bicycle or by public transport, I simply do not encounter a Walmart.
This is peculiar as America has nearly 4,000 different stores all across the nation, with presence in every state and multiple stores in many major cities like Houston and Philadelphia. The absence of Walmart in my neighbouring areas and the preponderance of such stores all over the nation is a phenomenon that needs to be explained. I slowly started finding a clue among the ‘No Walmart’ signs that started popping up in my neighbouring towns – Watertown and Somerville. None of these two cities had any Walmarts, but on inquiry, I found that it had plans to set up shop there. Many people from the area had been organising against Walmart. These are but everyday people who do like low prices. But many of them feel that they would pay a very high price in other aspects of life in their community if they bite Walmart’s ‘low price’ bait. A moneyed entity like Walmart left no stone unturned in its public relations offensive to make people see the ‘benefits’. The civic opposition gathered steam. Their elected representatives in the municipal council, many of whom were supportive of Walmart, started feeling the heat. This year Walmart announced that they were suspending plans of setting up shop in these two areas citing profitability issues. The reasons might have been something else.
These towns too were divided on the issue, but the current was clearly on the side of the opposers. Much north of Boston is the picturesque state of Vermont. In the town of St Albans, Vermont, residents have been debating whether to let Walmart in, for 19 years now. With the lowest number of Walmart stores among all the states, Vermont has been an especially tough nut to crack. If St Albans falls, it will open up newer markets in northern Vermont to Walmart. That has not happened, yet.
These clearly are not stories of every town and urban community – the huge number of Walmart stores all across the USA is a testament to that. But towns that have successfully blocked Walmart are not just a handful either. From Hercules (California), St Albans (Vermont), Hood River (Oregon), Damariscotta (Maine), Skaneateles (New York), Taos (New Mexico) and many others. Join the dots and the contours of the United States of non-Walmart America emerges. That too is America, if we care to look. How exactly can a town or a municipality oppose the entry of a perfectly legal business? Democratic deepening is an important feature that can be seen in the governance of these towns by which they can veto or oppose many kinds of decisions that they deem inimical to the interest of the local community. This includes railways, roads and other ‘development’ projects. Walmart and other such retail giants profit and outcompete many partly by having huge warehouses and stupendous variety – a question of scale. This requires the availability of a large amount of floor area.
Rather than target one specific big-box store company (that is what Walmart type of stores are called because of their shape and size), which is not legally tenable, the city councils opposing the entry of such stores effectively ban such stores by setting an upper limit to the floor area of the shops they allow in their jurisdiction. This favours small and medium size, largely local stores over super-size big-box stores. In this way, people’s opinion matter in policy – what they want and what they do not want.
This right to host a Walmart is what the Union government in India has used in its framing of the Walmart debate. They ask why states, which want Walmarts should not be allowed to have them? The core appeal of this logic is of democratic justice –if a fraction of the people want something for themselves, others should not be able to deny them that. The union government untiringly tom-toms its purported advances in promoting local governance, does not have the courage to give municipalities and village councils the right to embrace or veto Walmart or other projects that might affect them. Singing paeans to democracy and people’s will is one thing, taking democratic empowerment and devolution seriously is another matter. More Nandigrams and Kudankulams can be avoided if local government becomes real government and not an elected but powerless charade under bureaucrats who take orders from the top.
Attitudes and aspirations differ between states and within states too. If people of Walmart’s home country have a greater say on where Walmart can or cannot be, why should brown folks settle for any less? They may choose to embrace Walmart or block it. But it is important that they make the choice directly. [IPA]
Next Story
