Pietra Rivoli, The Travels of a T-Shirt in the Global Economy: An Economist Examines the Markets, Power and Politics of World Trade (Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons, 2005).

How can anyone explain a process as complicated as globalization? Even today, in the age of PowerPoint presentations and YouTube videos, a good teacher knows that few techniques work better than a story. And fortunately for readers, Pietra Rivoli is a good teacher. In her book, Travels of a T-Shirt, Rivoli manages to make globalization comprehensible, even exciting, by explaining it through the stories of ordinary people: the men and women who guide a simple T-shirt from its birth in the cotton fields of west Texas to its afterlife in the second-hand clothing markets of Africa. As readers follow Rivoli along this continent-spanning journey, they learn about how ever-changing technology, markets, and laws shape what goes into their closets and sock-drawers.

While there’s much to praise about Rivoli’s book, I was impressed by her thoughtful analysis of the moral questions surrounding globalization and the apparel industry. Rivoli avoids giving readers any easy answers or clear villains; instead, she highlights moments of moral ambiguity. Take, for instance, Rivoli’s discussion of China’s migrant workers, who often end up working in the textile industry with little or no government oversight or protection. Rivoli documents all of the hardships these workers face, but she also reminds readers that many of these workers, especially women, see grueling sweatshop work as a welcome alternative to life in China’s rural countryside. Rather than trying to stop the market-driven race to the bottom, Rivoli cautions, human rights activists and other reformers might be better served “changing the nature of the bottom itself,” ensuring that workers receive their full legal rights and are protected from exploitation.

Throughout the book, Rivoli shows readers that globalization is not a new phenomenon, and that many of the questions surrounding the textile and apparel industries were just as pertinent two hundred years ago. Rivoli places letters from modern Chinese textile workers side by side with letters from their British and American mill girls and seamstress from the 19th century, letting readers discover the similarities between these aspiring women workers. With American Enterprise, we hope to give visitors opportunities to make similar comparisons, seeing how a number of themes have shaped the American economy since the colonial era.

Dr. Pietra Rivoli, author

This past month, Pietra Rivoli was kind enough to visit our offices at the National Museum of American History and talk further about the questions raised in her book. One of the major takeaways from our conversation was that, even at a basic neurological level, human beings subscribe to the notion of “fair play.” Most of us accept that every game, system, or enterprise should have set rules and parameters, and we are frustrated when people break them. Perhaps most interestingly, this belief in “fair play” differs from the idea of total equality; many people will accept some level of inequality if they feel it occurs in an otherwise predictable and stable system. In the months ahead, we hope to get a better sense of how fair play and appeals to the common good have shaped the behavior of consumers and producers throughout American history. Dr. Rivoli has graciously offered to stay involved with the exhibition, creating opportunities for more discussion and collaborative work with her students.

On June 16th, the Museum hosted a symposium of business leaders, the first of its kind, that gave curators the opportunity to “pick the brains” of a number of American thought leaders—a group that’s involved in the business world and interested in history. Just like me!

We were fortunate to have symposium participants who represented all of the sectors that will be highlighted in the exhibition: Agriculture, Retail and Service, Finance, IT and Communication, and Manufacturing. The participants discussed three forces that have shaped American business in the last few decades: the global marketplace, competition, and innovation.

David Allison, Associate Director of Curatorial Affairs, gives symposium participants an overview of the American Enterprise exhibition.

Alan Murray of the Wall Street Journal led the discussion on the global marketplace. Murray’s opening thoughts challenged participants to consider what has changed in the nature of goods and services in the last 30 years to create the super-charged global commerce that we experience today.

Participants considered causes such as changes in global politics following World War II, improved communication capabilities, and ease of access to financing. When considering the types of objects to represent the “global marketplace,” participants suggested dual time zone watches, a simple glass globe, and cell phones.

The second case, which focused on competition in the business environment, was led by Dean C. Oestreich of Pioneer Hi-Bred. The discussion brought up the interesting idea of exhibiting the concept of competition by considering companies that have not survived the competitive environment. For example, they discussed how cassette tapes failed to stay competitive with the advent of CDs and companies like Hollywood Video have been struggling because they did not anticipate changes in consumer preference (i.e., receiving movies by mail or instantly online).

The final discussion of the day examined innovation in American business. Vint Cerf of Google—considered one of “the fathers of the internet”—facilitated the conversation. Cerf asked everyone to consider whether innovation leads to a throwaway culture in America. There is a great deal of emphasis put on having the newest gadget or latest media device; if you do not have it, you feel as if you are lacking in some way.

Director Brent Glass, Vint Cerf, and Bram Bluestein discuss ideas for American Enterprise.

Participants also discussed the important role of failure on the road to innovation. The American ethos expects people to work hard, but it is forgiving if one fails. The road to creating the “next big thing” is always littered with failed ideas. At the end of the day, participants reached the consensus that companies in today’s global marketplace have to be innovative to compete and survive, a point that nicely ties together the themes of the symposium and of the entire American Enterprise exhibition.

Following the afternoon case discussions, Aneesh Chopra, Chief Technology Officer of the United States, addressed the participants. He discussed furthering a culture of innovation by democratizing government data, encouraging market transparency, creating a capacity for innovation, and cultivating innovative ecosystems.

The symposium has given the exhibition team many ideas to consider as it continues to develop the show. The symposium participants have generously offered to continue to work with the Museum as we create this exciting new exhibition. Before American Enterprise opens, we plan on engaging them in another event to facilitate their continued input.

Please share your thoughts about the global marketplace, competition, and innovation with us!

Symposium Participants
John Adams, Jr. (The Martin Agency), Steve Bartlett (The Financial Services Roundtable), Bram Bluestein (McNally Capital), Vint Cerf (Google), Pete Claussen (Gulf & Ohio Railways), Sharon Covert (Covert Farms), Kathryn Fessler (Altria Group), Jodelle French (Intel Corporation), Bruce Gates (Altria Group), Jennifer Goldston (Pioneer Hi-Bred International), Michelle Gowdy (Pioneer Hi-Bred International), Sarah Knakmus (Altria Group), Abby McCloskey (The Financial Services Roundtable), Phil Mooney (The Coca-Cola Company), Alan Murray (The Wall Street Journal), Dean Oestreich (Pioneer Hi-Bred International), Robert Uhler (MWH Global Inc.) and the American Enterprise exhibition team.

The popularity of buying American often spreads nationally through Presidential campaigns. Benjamin Harrison, Warren G. Harding, and Woodrow Wilson are just a few of the presidents elected to the White House because of their “America First” campaigns.

Protecting American-made products and manufacturing is not a new idea. In fact, self-sufficiency was much discussed as the nation was formed. The Buy American movement started in 1764 when 50 Boston merchants, tired of British constraints, agreed to give up items imported from England. Their actions went on to inspire entire towns, cities, and influential leaders to do the same. Before you knew it, Bostonians were throwing tea into the harbor and the American Revolution forged ahead.

Another famous Buy American campaign materialized in response to the Great Depression. William Randolph Hearst, Jr. used the front pages of his 27 daily newspapers to promote a Buy American campaign in the 1930s. His yellow journalism not only stirred domestic economic growth but also degrading sentiments towards non-Americans. Eventually, buying American became so popular that President Hoover signed it into law as the Buy American Act of 1933. With growing demands for domestic apparel and a 25 percent drop in imports, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) started regulating the industry with the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939. The FTC went on to create the Fur Products Labeling Act (1952) and eventually the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act (1960). As an individual allergic to angora, I’m thankful for the FTC and all their hard work. Because of them, I can expertly avoid hives and can say that my 65-percent polyester and 35-percent cotton sweater was made in Vietnam.

Beginning in 1886, the National Consumers’ League promoted a label to combat cheap sweatshop labor. Although the location of the manufacturer is not indicated on the label, it does represent American-made goods since the National Consumer’s League issued the labels as they worked directly with the factory. In a way, this was an early unpublicized "Made in America" label.

Traditionally, the standard for “Made in U.S.A.” as written by the FTC was “all or virtually all” of production had to be done in the United States.  The standard was challenged in the 1990s when the Crafted With Pride in U.S.A. Council instigated another Buy American trend. This particular campaign was not as successful as previous crusades. NBC’s Dateline exposed Wal-Mart for increasing overseas imports, and the FTC reviewed New Balance’s Buy American campaign and found them to be deceiving the public with products not “Made in U.S.A.”. Since New Balance saw a 25-percent increase in sales thanks to its Buy American campaign, it asked the FTC to loosen the requirements. The FTC announced in 1997 its plan to revise the “Made in the U.S.A.” standard to 75 percent of production from the United States. The Made in U.S.A. Coalition, formed by the National Consumers’ League, the AFL-CIO, and various other interest groups, responded with heavy congressional lobbying against the modification. The FTC dropped revision efforts and retained the “all or virtually all” standard that is held today.

In the end, it usually boils down to money. Retailers look for a competitive edge and manufactures look for protection. Of course, nationalism and cultural trends are also at play. Historian Dana Frank accurately captured the 1930s movement in her book, Buy America: the Untold Story of Economic Nationalism: “the Buy American movement of the 1930s, by diverting its charges at foreigners, cleverly sought to divert Americans’ frustration, fears, and anger away from corporate power or the structured inequalities of capitalism.”

Made in America is a complicated issue with a long history. I say congratulations to those who can overlook the more moderately priced t-shirt in favor of the expensive “Made in U.S.A.” version. Your purchase will help some Americans…maybe not the ones shown in the television ads but Americans nonetheless. Moreover, congratulations to those who do not buy American. You, like me, can take pride in the fact that you are becoming economically self-sufficient like our founding fathers by avoiding student loans and debt.

As the Wordle image above illustrates, when asked about economic marketplaces, many of you thought of Wall Street. Stocks and the NYSE, were popular responses, and exchange is certainly at the heart of enterprise. But the term also brought to mind bigger concepts like capitalism, globalization, consumerism, and more human ones like dreams, risks, wealth and poverty, winners and losers. The curators were excited to see all of the terms we tossed around in meetings surfaced in the survey. And we take seriously the charge to portray the positive and not-so positive consequences of the marketplace. It’s clear that we’re on the same page with the majority of readers of this blog. We were particularly delighted to see responses that related to people and places, and to key concepts we’ve discussed at length, like innovation.

What will we do with what we learned? We will use the results of this survey to help build a lively exhibition that explores how the American marketplace writ large has changed over time and how it reveals the dynamic interactions among all sorts of producers, inventors, entrepreneurs, sellers, buyers, advocates and critics whose lives and activities defined American enterprise.

Marketplaces are now the organizing concept for the exhibition. This is a quickly evolving process, but let me give you a snapshot of where we are. The curators liked the idea of marketplaces as a way to describe the history of business in the United States as encompassing many people in a lot of different roles coming together to make, sell, and buy things. In our minds, marketplaces are not just the stock exchange, but also the seaport, the farmer’s market, the department store, the auto dealership, the shopping mall, and the internet, to name a few. The exhibition, which is beginning to take shape, has four marketplaces that capture American enterprise at certain points in time. These marketplaces will both immerse visitors in that time period and also let them explore concepts and objects that interest them.

If you’re wondering how the exhibition is changing, then stay tuned. We’ll be overhauling the Explore section of this website in the next few weeks to reflect the new organization and design of the exhibition. And, of course, we’d like your feedback.