"Food Fresh is the only grocery store
in a rural stretch of southeastern Georgia. It has many five-star Google
reviews touting its freshly butchered meats, tomato bar and friendly service.
Yet it faces a threat to its survival that no amount of management skill can
overcome. Big retailers like Walmart and Kroger “have a handle on suppliers
that I can’t touch,” said Food Fresh’s owner, Michael Gay. The chains wrest
deep discounts from suppliers, making it impossible for the store to come close
to matching their prices.
To understand why grocery prices are
way up, we need to look past the headlines about inflation and reconsider
long-held ideas about the benefits of corporate bigness.
Like other independent grocers, Food
Fresh buys through large national wholesalers that purchase goods by the
truckload, achieving the same volume efficiencies the big chains do.
What accounts for the difference in price is not efficiency but raw market
power. Major grocery suppliers, including Kraft Heinz, General Mills and
Clorox, rely on Walmart for more than 20 percent of their sales. So when
Walmart demands special deals, suppliers can’t say no. And as suppliers cut
special deals for Walmart and other large chains, they make up for the lost
revenue by charging smaller retailers even more, something economists refer to
as the water bed effect.
This isn’t competition. It’s big
retailers exploiting their financial control over suppliers to hobble smaller
competitors. Our failure to put a stop to it has warped our entire food system.
It has driven independent grocers out of business and created food deserts. It
has spurred consolidation among food processors, which has slashed the share of
food dollars going to farmers and created dangerous bottlenecks in the
production of meat and other essentials. And in a perverse twist, it has raised
food prices for everyone, no matter where you shop.
A level playing field was long a
tenet of U.S. antitrust policy. In the 19th century, Congress barred railroads
from favoring some shippers over others. It applied this principle to retailing
in 1936 with the Robinson-Patman Act,
which mandates that suppliers offer the same terms to all retailers. The act
allows large retailers to claim discounts based on actual volume efficiencies
but blocks them from extracting deals that aren’t also made available to their
competitors. For roughly four decades, the Federal Trade Commission vigorously
enforced the act. From 1954 to 1965, the agency issued 81
cease-and-desist orders to stop suppliers of milk, tea, oatmeal, candy and
other foods from giving preferential prices to the largest grocery chains.
As a result, the grocery retailing
sector was enviable by today’s standards. Independent grocery stores
flourished, accounting for more than half of food sales
in 1958. Supermarket chains like Safeway and Kroger also thrived. This dynamism
fed a broad prosperity. Even the smallest towns and poorest neighborhoods could
generally count on having a grocery store. And the industry’s diffuse structure
ensured that its fruits were widely distributed. Of the nearly nine million
people working in retailing overall in the mid-1950s, nearly two million owned or co-owned
the store where they worked. There were more Black-owned grocery stores in 1969
than there are today.
Then, amid the economic chaos and
inflation of the late 1970s, the law fell into disfavor with regulators, who had come
to believe that allowing large retailers to flex more muscle over suppliers
would lower consumer prices. For the most part, the law hasn’t been enforced since. As
a top Reagan administration official explained in 1981, antitrust was no longer
“concerned with fairness to smaller competitors.”
This was a serious miscalculation.
Walmart, which seized the opening and soon became notorious for strong-arming suppliers
and undercutting local businesses, now
captures one in four dollars Americans spend on groceries. Its rise spurred a
cascade of supermarket mergers, as other chains sought to match its leverage
over suppliers. If the latest of these mergers — Kroger’s bid to buy Albertsons
— goes through, just five retailers will control about 55 percent of
grocery sales. Food processors in turn sought to counterbalance the
retailers by merging. Supermarket aisles may seem to brim with variety, but
most of the brands you see are made by just a few
conglomerates.
These food giants are now the
dominant buyers of crops and livestock. The lack of competition has contributed
to the decline in farmers’ share of the consumer
grocery dollar, which has fallen by more than half
since the 1980s. In the absence of rivals, food conglomerates have over time
increasingly been able to raise prices and as a
result have reported soaring profits
over the past two years. Inflation gives them a cover story, but
it’s the lack of competition that allows them to get away with it.
Meat prices surged last year among the four companies that control most
pork, beef and poultry processing. Companies like PepsiCo and General Mills have
also jacked up prices without seeing any loss of sales — a sure sign of
uncontested market power.
This has resulted in an
ever-worsening cycle: As a system dominated by a few retailers lifts prices
across the board — even at Walmart —
consumers head to those retailers because of their ability to wrest relatively
lower prices or simply because they’re the only options left. Walmart’s share
of grocery sales swelled last year
as more people flocked to its
stores.
Meanwhile, the decline of
independent grocers, which disproportionately serve rural small towns
and Black and Latino neighborhoods, has
left debilitating gaps in our food system. If Food Fresh were to close,
residents of Evans County, where the store is, would have to subsist on the
limited range of packaged foods sold at a local dollar store or drive about 25
minutes to reach a Walmart. (Nearly a quarter of Evans County residents live in
poverty.) Living without a grocery store nearby imposes a daily hardship on
people and could lead to an increased risk of
diabetes, heart disease and other diet-related illnesses.
Losing small retailers also stifles
innovation. New food companies rely on independent retailers to introduce
products. But as this diversity of retailers gives way to a monocrop of big
chains, start-ups have fewer avenues to success. This results in diminished
selection for shoppers, who find store shelves stocked with only what the big
food conglomerates choose to produce.
We need to stop big retailers from
using their enormous financial leverage over suppliers to tilt the playing
field. By resurrecting the Robinson-Patman Act, we could begin to put an end to
decades of misguided antitrust policy in which regulators abandoned fair
competition in favor of ever-greater corporate scale. There is promising
momentum. Last year an unusual coalition of Democratic and Republican lawmakers
sent a letter to the F.T.C. urging it to dust off
Robinson-Patman. The agency began a broad inquiry in late
2021 into grocery supply issues, which could uncover evidence of price
discrimination. This year the agency opened
investigations into soft drink and alcohol suppliers for possible violations of
the act.
These moves are already drawing fire
from an old guard locked in bigger-is-always-better thinking. Jason Furman, a
Harvard economist who served as a top adviser to President Barack Obama, tweeted recently
that some of the views calling for a reset of our antitrust policies often seem
“grounded less in consumer welfare and more in a view that everyone should be
shopping at expensive craft boutiques.” But that’s not the story in places like
Evans County. In the early days of the pandemic, as Walmart and Amazon compelled
manufacturers to steer scarce supplies their way and worsened shortages at
local grocers, Mr. Gay worked long days hustling to find alternate sources.
“My meat is fresher,” he said. “My
produce is fresher. My customer service is better. Imagine if you made the
playing field level. Imagine what I could do.”
Stacy Mitchell is an executive
director of the Institute for Local Self-Reliance and the author of “Big-Box Swindle.”"
Komentarų nėra:
Rašyti komentarą