1) Globalization has increased international trade and integration of markets, allowing goods and services to reach more people around the world. However, this has not benefited all regions equally, as seen in the state of Oaxaca, Mexico. 2) The Zapotec people of Oaxaca have a strong tradition of weaving, but economic inequalities have developed as a small number of merchants control the textile industry and markets. 3) Cooperatives formed by weavers aim to gain more independence and access markets directly to receive greater benefits from their work. However, weavers still face challenges of competing globally and retaining cultural authenticity sought by international customers.

1. Renée Richardson
Travel Study- SOCIO 491
Globalization’s effects on weaving and communities in the Valley of Oaxaca
In terms of economics, globalization refers to “the inexorable integration of markets,
nation states, and technologies to a degree never witnessed before in a way that is enabling
individuals, corporations, and nation-states to reach around the world further, faster, deeper, and
cheaper than ever before (Friedman, 1999)”. In other words, the elimination of trade barriers
(subsidies, import/export licenses, tariffs, etc.), the expansion of free markets, and the exchange
of goods and services between countries is creating a world where economic prosperity and well-
being are in reach of every human being. As one author put it “We live in a world of fabulous
wealth and opportunity. There are now more people living longer, healthier, more productive
lives than at any other time in human history. And much of that is due to the extraordinary
capacity of industrial capitalism to produce the goods (Ellwood, 2001)”. Poverty is (supposed
to) becoming history! At least that is one of the goals of “trade liberalization”. In the case of
Mexico, the promise of economic growth and development (decreasing poverty and out-
migration) was one of the reasons for signing of NAFTA (North American Free Trade
Agreement) in 1994. According to the World Bank in terms of GDP, Mexico had the 13th largest
economy in 2010 (one of only two Latin American countries to be in the top 20 largest
economies).
However, not all provincial states across Mexico have experienced substantial economic
development, growth, and prosperity. Indeed there are huge regional disparities and inequalities;
such is the case of the southern Mexican state of Oaxaca. The region is best known for its

2. indigenous people (who make up almost half of the Oaxacan population) and cultures. Despite
being the 5th largest state in Mexico, ‘Oaxaca contributes to only 1.6 percent to the national GNP
and out of a population of 3.8 million, only a third is economically active (70 percent of men/27
percent of woman) (Osada, 2012)’. The other two thirds belong to the informal economy or are
not contributing to the economy at all. Half of the population lives in rural communities with
2500 people or less. It is the poorest and least developed region in Mexico. Some factors
contributing to Oaxaca’s economic “backwardness” is that the minimum wage is less than 60
pesos ($5US) a day and ninety percent of the population lives on a monthly salary of three
thousand pesos ($240US). Starting a business can be lethargic and slow; 75 percent of the
property is communal owned (one way indigenous communities maintain their identity and
traditions), private property is very expensive, and foreign investment is minimal (Osada, 2012)’.
Development and reducing poverty in Oaxaca has been described as needing a “micro-regional
approach.” Tourism account for 30 percent of the commerce sector in Oaxaca’s state economy
(Soto & Brena, 2008) but investment for tourism in Mexico typically goes to “large scale
projects (Cohen, 2001)”. There is a “disconnect (Cohen, 2001)” between what the state wants to
fund and rural, indigenous village needs. Still, even Globalization (not exactly micro-regional)
is being felt even in economically marginalized parts of the world including Oaxaca, especially
in the context of indigenous crafts. Craft production looks “rustic (Cohen, 2001)” however its
production is for modern markets and customers from predominantly Western countries.
One of the indigenous peoples of Oaxaca with a strong traditional craft production is the
Zapotec, the third largest indigenous group in Mexico. Out of a total population around 780,000-
between 300,000 and 400,000 live in Oaxaca province. Over 500,000 (64 percent) of the
Zapotec population still speaks their indigenous language (consisting of 60 dialects). This is

3. significant consider that one third of the population of Oaxaca are speakers of an indigenous
language, accounting for 53 percent of Mexico’s total indigenous language speaking population.
They are concentrated in the eastern half of Oaxaca in the central valleys region, the southern
Sierra Madres, and the Isthmus of Tehuantepec. The modern weaving production of Zapotec
textiles industry can rooted in the ideology of post-revolutionary Mexico; Mexican intellectuals
and other political thinkers were putting together a national Mexican identity where indigenous
culture was a prominent part along with the protection of “artistic activities of the indigenous
population (Wood, 2000).” One of Mexico’s foremost anthropologists during this period wrote
that the Indian was “a marvelous institution, for transforming the crudest material into beautiful
artifacts (Wood, 2000).”
The Zapotec Indian treadle loom industry is one of the best known and well documented
“artisanal traditions (Cohen, 2001)” in Oaxaca, Mexico. Zapotec textiles are featured
predominately in a set of state sponsored associations. One of the Zapotec villages that well
known for weaving is the village of Teotitlán del Valle, located 31km east of Oaxaca City. In
the early 1940’s tourism to Mexico increased; consequently textile production did as well and in
the case of Teotitlán, merchants “grew stronger as Teotitecan businesses became major conduits
through which all Zapotec textiles passed their way to market (Wood, 2000)”. Zapotec textiles
had and still have a “comparatively low-cost (verses North American Indian textiles such as the
Navajo) (Wood, 2000)” for attracting buyers. In the 1960’s and 1970’s most village families
relied on weaving as a primary source of household income. This “shift in domestic economic
strategy (Tiffany, 2004)” was in response to increased tourism and international demand for
hand-crafted commodities. Zapotec textiles incorporates and adapts ideas and designs from
many sources: “Mesoamerican motifs, carvings, and paintings, Native American designs, and

4. Spanish Colonial motifs (Tiffany, 2004)” Weavers also keep books or catalogs of U.S.
Southwestern and Zapotec textiles for “sources of ideas (Tiffany, 2004).” This “adaptability of
designs and colors to shifting tastes (Cohen, 2001)” attracted (and still does) international buyers
who were looking for “new items of decorative ethnic art (Cohen, 2001)” and foreign tourists
who were “searching for inexpensive authentic representations of peasant and Indian life (Cohen,
2001).” The tourist and export markets for Zapotec textiles increased rapidly in the 1970’s and
there was even an increasing availability of weaving labor-critical to the expansion of
production. Weaving also extended to the neighboring towns of Santa Ana and San Miguel.
Another factor in the growth of weaving during the 1970’s was an increase in the “quantity of
machine spun yarn to produce textiles (mechanization of production)” (Stephen, 2005). There
was also a niche market created for the “high end of the textile market in the United States and
Europe that called for high-spun yarn” (Stephen, 2005). Tourists, merchants, and exporters
demanded a variety of textiles from large area rugs to small place-mat sized pieces.
Some have benefited more from commercialization of textiles since the 1970’s. The
loom weavers of Teotitlán and neighboring Santa Ana fall into three broad categories or “social
classes: merchants who include gallery owners, agents and exporters; independent producers
who include families selling their handmade wares directly to consumers, merchants, and
exporters; and pieceworkers who are weavers on contract for agents for woven goods (Cohen,
2001).” During the late 1980’s and early 1990’s the poorer and middle sectors of the community
began to organize into groups of Cooperatives because of the “class stratification that relegated
them to serving as contracted laborers or pieceworkers for a few merchant families of the
community” (Stephen, 2005). These sectors also wanted to “undercut the monopoly held by
local merchants and US importers over the local textile market” (Stephen, 2005) as well as allow

5. “producers to sell their goods collectively (marketing their textiles directly to consumers)”
(Stephen, 2005). About 10 percent of Teotitlán weaving households acted as merchants or
middlemen during this time. About 6 or 7 merchant families controlled must of the textile
business. With the signing of NAFTA in 1994 this had benefited them as well because they were
buying up and controlling 90% of textiles produced in the region. Besides textiles, Merchants
earned their capital by doing work outside of textiles. In addition, they were successful because
they “either bought finished pieces from independent weavers looking for a place to sell them or
directly contracting weavers as laborers giving them materials, designs, and the dimensions of
textiles to produce” (Stephen, 2005). Contract weavers received pre-dyed yarns and design
specifications from these merchant “patrons (Cohen, 2001)” and received a set wage for
completed works. But this disavowed contract weavers because it prevented access to local
tourists and weavers still lacked “economic capital to enter the export market (Cohen, 2001)”
Being a contract weaver also hindered the ability to become independent producers or even
trying different business ventures. (Many weaving households today have a mixed-economic
strategy for making ends meet). Contracted families were also paid “less than the value of their
labor for their finished textiles and have seen few benefits or wealth generated (Cohen, 2001)”;
by the tourism boom that began in the 1970s. Weavers are still disavowed today because
merchants “conspire (Cohen, 2001)” with tour guides to establish “exclusive agreements that
limit who tourists meet and where they visit (Cohen, 2001).” Merchants will pay a percentage of
their sales to tour guides to “cement these relationships (Cohen, 2001).” They also will typically
inflate the sale prices of the goods they sell (as much as 250 to 1000%) of what they paid to the
weavers. A cooperative in neighboring Santa Ana complains of being “excluded from tours
because they did not pay Oaxaca City guides a percentage of their own sales (Cohen, 2001).”

6. Merchants also use these contracts to limit access to the export market by “the low prices paid to
contract weavers-effectively constraining the ability of these weavers to meet tourists or to afford
the costs of independent production (Cohen, 2001).” Merchants from Teotitlán even exclude
neighboring weaving villages from entering the textile market. When it comes to business
dealings, what they judge to be a “poorly executed weavings (Cohen, 2001)” they describe it as
the “product from lazy weavers in Santa Ana, Ordaz, or San Miguel (Cohen, 2001)” is not
considered sellable and discarded. These economic inequalities are “based on the control that
merchants exercise over tourism and export markets (Cohen, 2001)” as well as over goods sold
locally and exported.
Because there is no conventional aesthetic standards for these weavings, consumers may
be unaware of the quality of the works and are otherwise “persuaded by secondary explanations
presented by middlemen, vendors, and experienced collectors (Tiffany, 2004)” owing to these
merchants success. Also, in the event an independent weaver meets a buyer that asks for a
certain number of weaved textile pieces-most of the time it is not possible for the weaver to do
so; because “buyers did not contribute in any way to the product of say a wool textile, they did
not understand the costs, and time expenditures involved in producing a wool textile (Wood,
2000)”. More importantly buyers do not understand the “relationship between the artisan and the
product of one’s labor (Wood, 2000)”. Some of the other difficulties faced by independent
weavers in the 1990s included “the prices of basic goods going up while prices for textiles
remained stagnant or declined, and even US and European were importing knock-offs of Zapotec
rugs from other parts of the world such as India, China, and Ecuador” (Stephen, 2005). In
additions during the 1990’s between 20 and 40 smaller merchant businesses failed mostly
because they had “little reserve capital and were squeezed out of the market” (Stephen, 2005).

7. The capital necessary to “weather market changes and the rising cost or raw materials (Cohen,
2001)” makes it difficult to enter the local tourism and export market.
Loss of income and the decreased possibility of weavers entering the market
independently was a factor for the formation of cooperatives in the 1990s. The goals of all
cooperatives formed from then to now has been to “gain economic, political, and cultural rights
in the community, in regional artisan associations, and in relation to governmental institutions,
and in the global market as independent artisans” (Stephen, 2005). Other benefits of forming
cooperatives were “learning new decision making skills and demonstrating increased leadership
and control of productions, distribution and marketing” (Stephen, 2005) but also “developing
more direct links to markets including those of alternative trade organizations or ATOs”
(Stephen, 2005). In the Valleys of Oaxaca (centered around Oaxaca City) there are several large
federations of artisans that “mix potters, weavers, basket makers, and others” (Stephen, 2005).
Most cooperatives in Teotitlán have at one point or another received support from “governmental
institutions, small business support organizations, political parties or non-profit organizations”
(Stephen, 2005). Working with outside consultants and agencies in workshops allowed
cooperatives “how to learn new dying and weaving techniques, how to combine different
materials, how to create new designs, how to market their wares, and how to work as businesses”
(Stephen, 2005). Working with state and federal programs allows weavers (and other artisans) to
“challenge the market dominance and control of local merchants (Cohen, 2001).” The first
Women’s Weaving Cooperative in Teotitlán was established in 1986 (entitled themselves
“Women who Weave” cooperative. Most cooperatives in Teotitlán now engage in short-term
projects with outside agencies geared around specific training activities and work with Oaxaca
state agencies to promote their crafts at exhibitions and special stores. Some have chosen to join

8. larger federations of artisans that “may group up to 300 people together from 20 or more
communities who produce a wide range of crafts and folk art” (Stephen, 2005). Those who
chose to keep weaving-it has assumed greater “economic importance (Tiffany, 2004)” because
the men who circulate in and out of the in village households as migratory workers. Artisans
may also face the complications of making time to produce their products (among the everyday
duties of managing a household), getting products to market, and generally getting any
significant return on their “investment (Wood, 2000).” Cooperatives in Santa Ana have been
able to forge ties with US shop owners; the advantages being that “even the shop owners charge
less for finished textiles (Cohen, 2001)” verses being an independent producer and seller, the
“Santañeros earn a higher income by dealing directly with buyers and avoiding Teotiteco
merchants and their contracts (Cohen, 2001)” and also by “working directly with
importers/exporters, Santañeros increased their knowledge of the market, prices, and demand
(Cohen, 2001)” The local and export markets for textiles are described as becoming more
“saturated (Cohen, 2001)” as the competition between weavers, buyers, and merchants grows
more fierce. In the 2000 census 1447 people were registered as industrial manufacturers (almost
all weavers). In Teotitlán alone this accounted for “64 percent of the economically active
population” (Stephen, 2005) and the majority of Teotiteco weavers-“80 percent of active
weaving households (Cohen, 2001)” defined themselves as independent weavers or
pieceworkers.
In terms of Zapotec textiles in the global marketplace, Zapotec weavers are confronted
with “the economic challenges of mass market assimilation of indigenous motifs, as well as
contentious issues of authenticity and cultural property (Tiffany, 2004)”. As part of the weavers
marketing strategy, Zapotec textiles convey “ethnic identity to convey a message of authenticity

9. about weavers and about their goods to potential clients (Tiffany, 2004)” European and
American clients want a “culturally-authentic product (Tiffany, 2004)” and in the case of direct
sales “an accompanying narrative (Tiffany, 2004)”. Still these same clients may not be receptive
to “ethnographic narratives of translocal and transnational textiles (Tiffany, 2004)” in the global
marketplace. Also clients with “little or no firsthand knowledge of textiles in general and of
Zapotec textiles in particular, are often hesitant to purchase a weaving without a convening
narrative of indigenous culture as a social marker of the of the craft object’s authenticity
(Tiffany, 2004).” Given the consumer culture of a globalized world economy “representations of
Zapotec textiles as tourist art must be effectively contrasted to mass produced goods (Tiffany,
2004).” For clients possessing a hand woven textile “dipped in vegetal dyes symbolizes a
connection with earth-bound or agrarian cultures (Tiffany, 2004).” Other uses of Zapotec
textiles from clients include being used as a yoga mat-a “textile that represents a postmodern
vehicle for achieving harmony of mind and body, attributed to indigenous life ways, through
meditative and yogic practices (Tiffany, 2004).” Apparently the textile is perceived by its owner
as “something greater than a mere commodity in the global marketplace-transforms its possessor
(Tiffany, 2004).” As part of a marketing strategy, craft brokers (selling Zapotec textiles from
otherwise independent weavers) “affirms the authenticity of Zapotec textiles as indigenous and
as hand-crafted, as aesthetically pleasing, technically superb, and unique. This representation of
authenticity enables consumers to fashion personalized and meaningful stories about themselves
and their craft objects (Tiffany, 2004)” (using the textile as a yoga mat example). Weavers
understand the importance of authenticity as a marketing strategy in order to sell their hand-
crafted goods in the competitive sector in a global economy. Acquiring a weaving with an
accompanying narrative allows for the showcasing of “craftsmanship and beauty of such works,

10. an expression of artistic inventiveness (Wood, 2000)” in the global marketplace; as well as
“inherent qualities of the indigenous population (Wood, 2000).”
In conclusion globalization can be felt everywhere across the world even in the Oaxacan
case of weaving by the indigenous Zapotec people. Their weavings have received global
attention but the challenges of costs of production, deciding whether or not to be independent or
join cooperative, avoided the grip merchants and middlemen have on weavers, and marketing
products to tourists and buyer-exporters remain. Selling internationally and to tourists has been a
life line for weaving communities but the “industry” is a very small part of the overall economic
output in Oaxaca. Other reasons for slow economic development include poor infrastructure and
education. Only 75 percent of the population is literate; furthermore, 14 percent of the
population has no formal instruction, 62 percent has only basic education (between Pre-school
and middle school equivalent), 14 percent have completed high school with the remaining 10
percent completing a bachelor’s degree (this includes less than half a percent who have degree
above bachelor’s degree). Those with higher education typically leave the state. Migration is
also a relatively new phenomenon in Oaxaca; in 45 percent of municipalities in Oaxaca, the
population has declined because of migration (mostly internal migration within Mexico. In the
different regions of Oaxaca there are various other industries and sectors that have the potential
for development but tourism is the only sector that is growing, concentrated mainly along the
coast and central valleys. The archeological sites of Monté Alban was declared UNESCO World
Heritage site in 1987 (Mitla and Yagul in 2010). If there is to be further economic development
in otherwise undeveloped parts of the world such as Oaxaca, a bottoms-up approach would work
best so that development solutions are made and benefit the people who contribute to the
economy.

11. Works Cited
Cohen,J.H. (2001). Textile,Tourism,andCommunityDevelopent. Annalsof TourismResearch ,378-398.
Ellwood,W.(2001). The No-NonsenseGuideto Globalization. London:New InternationalistPublications
Ltd.
Friedman,T.(1999). The Lexusand theOlive Tree. New YorkCity:Farrar, Straus, andGiroux.
Osada,F. (2012, January7). BusinessClimate Situation in Oaxaca. OaxacaCity,Oaxaca,Mexico.
Soto,A. L.,& Brena,R. G. (2008). Tourismandthe Economyinthe State of Oaxaca. Tur y Des; Tourism
and Local Development ,1 (3).
Stephen,L.(2005). Women'sWeavingCooperativesinOaxaca:AnIndigenousResponse to
Neoliberalism. Critiqueof Anthropology,253-278.
Tiffany,S.W. (2004). "Frame That Rug!":Narrativesof ZapotecTextilesasArtand Ethnic Commodityin
the Global Marketplace. VisualAnthropology ,293-318.
Wood,W. W. (2000). Storiesfromthe Field:Handicraftproducation,andMexicanNational Patrimony:A
LessoninTranslocality. Ethnology ,183-203.