Where maple syrup meets global economics

The recent upheaval in Western democracies has several causes, but perhaps the greatest is this: How are they coming to terms with their shifting role in the global economy?

Alfredo Sosa/Staff
The Green Mountain Audubon Center in Huntington, Vt.

Vermont maple syrup, it turns out, can tell us a surprising amount about surprising things. Before reading Stephanie Hanes’s cover story this week, I might not have thought that merquén-infused maple syrup would offer insights into the sense of uncertainty that has gripped so many workers in the West. Or that it would elegantly trace the arc of opportunity and caution for free market economies in the 21st century. But it does.

The recent upheaval in Western democracies has several causes, but perhaps the greatest is this: How are they coming to terms with their shifting role in the global economy? The answer generally has been that globalization has brought huge net benefits, yet it has created a clear class of people for whom the benefits have been sharply lower. These are the Western working classes. The jobs they once did are now being automated or done elsewhere, and in the United States in particular, workers have been left almost completely unprepared for the transition.

Now, what does this have to do with maple syrup? The Vermont maple syrup industry is showing us, in real time, how this happens – and, perhaps, a different way to look at it. 

One rule of free markets is that technology and collaboration drive growth. Technology is perpetually revolutionizing how we do things. Inexorably, processes become more efficient and profitable. Collaboration creates bigger markets and a bigger positive feedback loop for innovation. In other words, it’s always better to have a billion consumers and problem-solvers than a million.

In Vermont, technology has revolutionized sugaring. A decade ago, the main characters in Stephanie’s story started a sugaring operation with 28,000 taps – a number considered delusional by local farmers. By 2015, a hedge fund firm started an operation to tap 200,000 trees. Technology had changed the game, expanding the economic opportunity by orders of magnitude.

But what happened? New players – like the hedge fund firm – jumped into the game. The farmers who had previously defined the Vermont industry were significantly overshadowed, almost overnight. They should have been the new “losers.”

But here’s where the story gets interesting. So far, no group of producers has had to close its sugar shacks. Why? Because the giant of the global maple syrup industry – Quebec – essentially runs a maple syrup cartel that often forces Quebec producers to produce less to keep prices stable. This wouldn’t happen in a truly free market. The result: The system has spread benefits among many maple sugarmakers, even those in Vermont. The losers in this scenario have been the consumers, who pay more.

Does this suggest the Quebec maple syrup federation is a model? No. But even the staunchest supporters of globalization have begun to realize that the pendulum might have swung too far toward unfettered markets with too little thought for the consequences. What Stephanie’s story shows is that economies can do different things depending on how they’re shaped. The real question is this: What do we want to shape our economies to do?

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.