Fast fashion lifted some countries out of poverty. What happens when Americans stop buying? – vox.com

Report on the Impact of US Tariffs on Sustainable Development in Textile Manufacturing Nations

Executive Summary

Recent implementation of significant tariffs by the United States on goods from key textile-producing nations, including India, Vietnam, and Lesotho, poses a substantial threat to global development progress. These protectionist trade policies are disrupting established supply chains and risk reversing decades of advancements toward the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). This report analyzes the specific impacts on these nations, with a focus on SDG 1 (No Poverty), SDG 5 (Gender Equality), SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth), and SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities).

Case Study: India

Economic Disruption and Setbacks to SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth)

India, the world’s second-largest textile manufacturer, has experienced severe economic repercussions following the imposition of a 50% tariff on its goods. This has directly undermined progress on SDG 8.

• Export-heavy factories have come to a standstill.
• Garment workers are facing rationed shifts and reduced income.
• Indian exports to the US plunged by 40% in the four months following the tariff implementation.
• Major apparel brands have halted shipments, costing the industry significant revenue and threatening the livelihoods of 45 million workers.

Repercussions for SDG 1 (No Poverty) and SDG 2 (Zero Hunger)

The economic shock has had a direct impact on poverty and food security, jeopardizing progress on SDG 1 and SDG 2.

• The disruption threatens to reverse decades of progress that lifted millions out of extreme poverty.
• Rising suicide rates have been reported among cotton farmers who supply raw materials to factories, indicating extreme economic distress and a crisis in food security at the household level.

Undermining Social Progress (SDG 3, 4, 5, 6)

The tariffs disproportionately affect the predominantly female workforce in the garment industry, creating setbacks for several social development goals.

1. SDG 5 (Gender Equality): Lost income for female workers reduces their economic independence and household stability.
2. SDG 3 & 4 (Good Health and Well-being & Quality Education): Reduced family income compromises the ability to afford healthcare and education for children.
3. SDG 2 & 6 (Zero Hunger & Clean Water and Sanitation): The loss of wages threatens access to basic necessities, including food, shelter, and clean water.

Case Study: Vietnam

Jeopardizing Economic Stability and SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth)

Vietnam’s export-driven economy, which has fueled remarkable growth, is now vulnerable due to new US tariffs. A 20% blanket tariff, with a potential 40% fee on transshipments, threatens the nation’s economic foundation and progress on SDG 8.

• The United Nations estimates a potential loss of $25 billion in exports to the US, representing a nearly 20% drop.
• Footwear exports to the US plunged by 27% and textile exports by 20% in September.
• The World Bank has cut its GDP forecast for the country, citing the tariffs as a primary factor.

Threatening Progress on SDG 1 (No Poverty) and SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals)

The tariffs risk unraveling one of the world’s most successful poverty reduction stories and highlight the fragility of global partnerships.

• Vietnam successfully reduced its extreme poverty rate from over 50% to just over 1% through global trade integration. This achievement is now at risk.
• The country’s heavy economic dependence on a single export market demonstrates a vulnerability that challenges the stability sought under SDG 17.

Case Study: Lesotho

Severe Impact on a Fragile Economy (SDG 1, SDG 8, SDG 10)

The landlocked nation of Lesotho, one of the world’s poorest countries, faces catastrophic consequences from a newly imposed 15% US tariff. This action directly challenges multiple SDGs.

• The tariff threatens the viability of the nation’s textile sector, which employs approximately 30,000 people and is a cornerstone of the economy.
• The economic shock disproportionately harms a developing nation, exacerbating global inequalities and undermining SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities).
• The potential collapse of this key industry represents a direct threat to SDG 1 (No Poverty) and SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth).

Implications for Human Development and Gender Equality (SDG 2, 3, 5)

The impact on Lesotho’s garment industry has profound implications for social well-being, particularly for women.

1. SDG 5 (Gender Equality): The workforce is composed mostly of women, whose livelihoods are now in jeopardy.
2. SDG 2 (Zero Hunger) & SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being): The tariffs threaten a country where nearly one-third of children suffer from chronic hunger and life expectancy is low, compounding existing development challenges.

Undermining International Cooperation (SDG 17)

The tariffs conflict with established international development frameworks designed to support the world’s least developed countries.

• The policy undermines the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA), a program that provided duty-free access to the US market and was a key partnership for development under SDG 17.
• This unilateral action weakens trust in international trade agreements as a tool for sustainable development.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

The article highlights several issues that are directly connected to a range of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The central theme of the article is the impact of US trade tariffs on the textile and garment industries in developing countries like India, Vietnam, and Lesotho, which affects economic growth, employment, poverty levels, and overall human development. The following SDGs are addressed:

• SDG 1: No Poverty – The article extensively discusses how export-driven industries have lifted “hundreds of millions of people out of poverty” and how tariffs threaten this progress, potentially causing families to “slip back into poverty.”
• SDG 2: Zero Hunger – The text links economic stability to food security. It mentions rising suicide rates among cotton farmers in India due to economic distress, the risk to basics like “food” for garment workers’ families, and chronic hunger in Lesotho where “almost one-third of kids are so chronically hungry that they never fully grow.”
• SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being – The article connects economic progress to health outcomes, noting that in India, a child is “11 times less likely to die from hunger” than a few decades ago. It also touches on mental health by mentioning that “suicide rates are rising” among cotton farmers in India.
• SDG 4: Quality Education – The ability of workers to “send their kids to school depends on the often meager wages they earn.” The article also quantifies progress by stating a child in India is “nearly three times more likely to finish high school” due to economic development.
• SDG 5: Gender Equality – The article specifies that the garment industry workforce is “mostly female” in India and that the textile sector in Lesotho employs around 30,000 people, “most of them women,” highlighting the disproportionate impact of industry disruptions on women’s economic empowerment.
• SDG 6: Clean Water and Sanitation – Progress in human development linked to economic growth is shown by the fact that a child in India is “over five times more likely to have basic plumbing.”
• SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth – This is a core theme. The article discusses job creation (e.g., “45 million textile workers live in India”), wages (“$2 per day” in India, “$40 per week” in Lesotho), exploitative working conditions (“forced to work overtime in unsanitary conditions,” “employing children”), and the role of exports in driving GDP growth. The tariffs directly threaten this economic model.
• SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities – The article points out that tariffs are “gerrymandered against the global poor” and that the benefits of trade “have not been evenly distributed,” highlighting inequalities between and within countries.
• SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals – The entire article revolves around global trade policies, tariffs, and international partnerships like the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA). It critiques protectionist policies that undermine a “rules-based, open, non-discriminatory and equitable multilateral trading system.”

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

Based on the issues discussed, several specific SDG targets can be identified:

1. Target 1.1: By 2030, eradicate extreme poverty for all people everywhere. The article directly addresses this by describing how trade has “collectively lifted hundreds of millions of people out of poverty” in countries like India and Vietnam, and how tariffs now threaten this progress.
2. Target 2.1: By 2030, end hunger and ensure access by all people, in particular the poor and people in vulnerable situations, including infants, to safe, nutritious and sufficient food all year round. This is relevant to the discussion of rising suicide rates among Indian cotton farmers and the fact that garment workers’ wages are essential for “basics like food.”
3. Target 4.1: By 2030, ensure that all girls and boys complete free, equitable and quality primary and secondary education. The article links workers’ wages directly to their ability to “send their kids to school” and notes the increased likelihood of a child in India finishing high school as a result of economic development.
4. Target 5.5: Ensure women’s full and effective participation and equal opportunities for leadership at all levels of decision-making in political, economic and public life. The article’s focus on the “mostly female” workforce in the garment industry connects the economic disruption directly to women’s economic participation and livelihoods.
5. Target 8.1: Sustain per capita economic growth in accordance with national circumstances and, in particular, at least 7 per cent gross domestic product growth per annum in the least developed countries. The article discusses the high growth of Indian exports (“an annual pace of 26 percent in 2006”) and how tariffs are causing a “10 percent drop in revenue” and a cut in Vietnam’s GDP forecast.
6. Target 8.5: By 2030, achieve full and productive employment and decent work for all women and men, including for young people and persons with disabilities, and equal pay for work of equal value. The article discusses the creation of millions of jobs but also highlights the lack of “decent work” through mentions of low wages, exploitative conditions, and job insecurity caused by tariffs.
7. Target 8.7: Take immediate and effective measures to eradicate forced labour, end modern slavery and human trafficking and secure the prohibition and elimination of the worst forms of child labour. The article explicitly mentions that in India, subcontractors paid workers, “some of them children,” and that Nike came under fire for “employing children as young as 14” in Vietnam.
8. Target 17.12: Realize timely implementation of duty-free and quota-free market access on a lasting basis for all least developed countries. The discussion of the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA), which allowed countries like Lesotho to “trade duty-free with the US,” and the subsequent imposition of tariffs directly relates to this target.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

Yes, the article contains numerous quantitative and qualitative indicators that can be used to measure progress:

• Poverty Rate: The article provides specific figures, such as “more than half of Vietnam’s population lived on less than $3 per day” three decades ago, which fell to “just over 1 in 100 people” living in extreme poverty today. This directly measures progress towards Target 1.1.
• Export Volume and Value: Figures like Indian exports to the US plunging by “40 percent,” Lesotho exporting “$237 million worth of goods,” and Vietnam facing a potential loss of “$25 billion in lost exports” are clear indicators of economic performance and trade health (Target 8.1).
• GDP Growth/Forecasts: The mention that the World Bank “cut its GDP forecast” for Vietnam due to tariffs is an indicator for Target 8.1.
• Employment Numbers: The article states there are “45 million textile workers” in India, Nike employs “nearly 450,000 workers” in Vietnam, and the textile sector in Lesotho employs “around 30,000 people.” Changes in these numbers would indicate progress on employment (Target 8.5).
• Wage Levels: Specific wages are mentioned, such as “$2 per day” in India in the mid-2000s and “less than roughly $40 per week” for workers in Lesotho. These figures serve as indicators for decent work (Target 8.5).
• Education Completion Rate: The statement that a child in India is “nearly three times more likely to finish high school” is a direct indicator for Target 4.1.
• Access to Basic Services: The fact that an Indian child is “over five times more likely to have basic plumbing” is an indicator for SDG 6.
• Health Statistics: Mentions of “rising” suicide rates, a child being “11 times less likely to die from hunger,” and “almost one-third of kids” in Lesotho being chronically hungry are indicators for SDGs 2 and 3.
• Tariff Rates: The specific tariff percentages mentioned (“50 percent on Indian goods,” “20 percent” on Vietnam, “15 percent” on Lesotho) are indicators of trade policy and barriers, relevant to SDG 17.

4. Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: vox.com