[nmilo]

> The donated shoes that ended up in Indonesia have added to a flood of illegal second-hand clothing pouring into that developing country, according to a senior government official there, who said such cast-offs pose a public health risk, undercut its local textile industry and often pile more waste into its already bulging landfills.

Do they even understand the words coming out on the page? I'm sorry but if people can't afford to clothe themselves then fuck the "local textile industry," aka forcing people to spend money on clothes they probably cannot afford. Wearing shoes should be a human right (God knows there's probably enough shoes for everyone on Earth) and saying we should stop sending second-hand clothes to places for the purposes of job creation is just breaking windows to make jobs for window repairmen.

[stainablesteel]

this used to be the take until people tried it and realized it only destroyed local industry and created a sense of perpetual widespread poverty in parts of africa

when local economies are forming its usually fabric based products like clothes and shoes that start to get made and sold first, without a spark like this its hard to get anything else off the ground

if you constantly give them a supply of it then they have no motivation to make their own

[opportune]

I’m not a huge fan of this kind of talk economically speaking because there are plenty of other things that Africans and other developing countries need and can do for themselves still. It also does not preclude making textiles for export. Rejecting free clothing seems like a broken window fallacy.

Of course, clothing is lower on the value chain and is a great way for countries to begin industrializing/to enter the global economy in manufacturing. But there are other ways to get in on manufacturing than just clothing - and to be clear we are talking about things like flooding the market with tennis shoes and tshirts here, not suits and other formalwear, rugs, nice dresses. Since those are less mechanized even in products consumed by developed countries they seem like better export candidates (easier to compete on the global market without extensive capital or machinery) than tshirts anyway IMO.

Now, for things like food this is a bit different because that is what typically the vast majority of the population is engaged in economically already (but also is harder to distribute than clothes, since food is perishable and requires a more constant supply than clothing), and it doesn’t make sense for imported grains to price out local farmers from selling to the local market because the imported grains are free.

[vondur]

They will never have a local textile industry if you have to compete with free.

[Scoundreller]

There pretty much won't ever be a local textile industry unless you have incredibly cheap labour.

Except with protectionism, which is what gives most countries their local textile industry, but that comes at a cost - either higher prices, or wealth drained from other sectors in their economy.

Banning/disincentivizing 2nd hand imports won't create a local industry in most places, unless you do the same with 1st hand.

[vkou]

Poor countries have local textile industries, where do you think all the clothes we wear are made?

If you have a problem with who owns those textile factories, well, that's an entirely different conversation.

[opportune]

Free secondhand clothing doesn’t prevent local textile production for export or for higher quality than you get with secondhand.

[Ekaros]

But it will certain lower the demand. And might push it below what is needed for sustainable industry and supply chain. And I would guess for viable export you need first at least some skills in own market.