I don't believe the displacement of local business idea. Let's say Toms didn't shoe drop. Fast forward ten years. How is the local, artisanal shoe maker going to compete with the chinese shoes that are now in the market? By sending shoes in to these locations it is equally acting as a signal that this is not a market worth trying to capture and their best efforts are spent entrepreneurially in other directions.

"How is the local, artisanal shoe maker going to compete with the chinese shoes that are now in the market?"

In ten years, yes. It might be hard for the local shoe maker to compete. But I am talking about today. If today the local shoe store owner woke up and his entire neighborhood was wearing free shoes, what type of effect does it have on his business?

Also by dropping 10,000 shoes into a country they bypassing the local market vendors who would normally supply these families shoes.

I can only speak to Cambodia, but looking at their giving report, they do send shoes here. The other issue is culture, Cambodians don't typically wear western shoes and the TOMS shoes are all fabric. Most Cambodians wear sandals or flip-flops, something that can handle the water. The shoes they are dropping here don't seem very practical.

I guess the biggest issue I see here is that the families end up selling them or trading them to the market, which doesn't help the issue the TOMS is trying to prevent.

I also find the entire idea disingenuous. Do these "artisan shoe makers" actually exist? Or is the author just creating a crappy straw man?

If they do exist, why haven't the poor people in their area purchased their wares? It's not like TOMS is giving shoes out to people who have them. They're probably not wearing them because it's not economically feasible. So, the author thinks that the vast majority of the population in their area should be shoeless so that one person can keep a probably struggling business afloat? Makes no sense.

Even further, it seems having shoes would lead to positive economic effects. The recipients will probably be able walk further, stay healthier, and generally lead better lives. That seems like a longer term net positive than someone's small shoe shop that may or may not exist and may or may not have actually been impacted by this.

Yes. Toms did not come up with the designs for their original shoes. They are called espadrilles and are a Latin American tradition. He got the idea when he was on vacation in Argentina I believe.

These shoes are made in Argentina, for example. http://www.paezshoes.com

I realize that alpargatas and espadrilles are a thing (I own some higher end ones myself! :)). I meant are these "artisan shoe makers" actually in the communities where they're sending shoes and are being actively hurt by their actions. I believe the answer is no, but I'm definitely open to being proven wrong.

They are a Catalan tradition, spread then to South America

agreed on the positive economic effects, at the risk of getting political, it seems to me like there is this 'meta-paternalism', selectively applied depending on the political stance of the speaker: When the person is against government subsidies or government welfare, the argument is the recipient will be dependent on the state. When the person is against private charity or private welfare, the argument is that the recipient will not be able to be economically self-sufficient. Both arguments which are very similar and both somewhat disingenuous.

> How is the local, artisanal shoe maker going to compete with the chinese shoes that are now in the market?

It seems pretty obvous to me that a local shoemaker earning $1-2/hr stands a fair chance of competing with imported chinese shoes at $5/pair... but not with free shoes.

Ten years from now, after earning a decent living wage for 10 years and acquiring experience and reputation, the same shoemaker could add a bit of mechanisation and still compete with $5 chinese shoes.

I also believe based on much observation that the difference between $1-2/hr and $<<1/hr that the out-of-work shoemaker in poor countries might be earning is enormous... literally the future of your children.

Actually, the more I think about this, you're right. The reality is that the displacement probably isn't that large.

Still, I would like to understand the effectiveness of these drops. How do you get the kids/families keep the shoes on their feet?