The WalMart Effect

THE WALMART EFFECT

New research suggests that the company makes the communities it operates in poorer—even taking into account its famous low prices.

Two new research papers challenge that view. Using creative new methods, they find that the costs Walmart imposes in the form of not only lower earnings but also higher unemployment in the wider community outweigh the savings it provides for shoppers. On net, they conclude, Walmart makes the places it operates in poorer than they would be if it had never shown up at all. Sometimes consumer prices are an incomplete, even misleading, signal of economic well-being.
Fully assessing the impact of an entity as dominant as Walmart, however, is a complicated task. The cost savings for consumers are simple to calculate but don’t capture the company’s total effect on a community. The arrival of a Walmart ripples through a local economy, causing consumers to change their shopping habits, workers to switch jobs, competitors to shift their strategies, and suppliers to alter their output.
The two new working papers use novel methods to isolate Walmart’s economic impact—and what they find does not look like a progressive success story after all. The [first], posted in September by the social scientists Lukas Lehner and Zachary Parolin and the economists Clemente Pignatti and Rafael Pintro Schmitt, draws on a uniquely detailed [dataset] that tracks a wide range of outcomes for more than 18,000 individuals across the U.S. going back to 1968. These rich data allowed Parolin and his co-authors to create the economics equivalent of a clinical trial for medicine: They matched up two demographically comparable groups of individuals within the dataset and observed what happened when one of those groups was exposed to the “treatment” (the opening of the Walmart) and the other was not.
Their conclusion: In the 10 years after a Walmart Supercenter opened in a given community, the average household in that community experienced a 6 percent decline in yearly income—equivalent to about $5,000 a year in 2024 dollars—compared with households that didn’t have a Walmart open near them. Low-income, young, and less-educated workers suffered the largest losses.
5 Likes

It could be fallacious research. For example, do it with Costco. Tex years after a Costco opens, the community experiences a 6% increase in yearly income.

Why?

Because Costco chooses to locate their stores in places where they expect higher than average income growth (because that is their target demographic). Similarly, Walmart chooses to locate their stores in places where they expect lower than average income growth (because that is their target demographic).

7 Likes

Two very different business models.

Costco locates their stores in wealthier neighborhoods on average than Walmart, but they also pay markedly higher wages on average and a much higher percentage of their employees’ health insurance than Walmart. Walmart competes solely on price. Poverty level wages supplemented by welfare and food stamps and minimal to nonexistent health coverage enables them to pass much of their employee costs onto the surrounding community.

That has the added benefit of driving small businesses out of business after which they can offer losing small business owners and their employees poverty wage jobs and an apron.

5 Likes

I suspect the Walmart Effect of strong competition to local businesses has run its course. They are not building so many new stores in the US. Expansion now is mostly international.

They are expanding their groceries business. It brings customers to their stores more often.

And they are competing with Amazon for fast delivery of internet orders or order on line and pick up at the store. Now we see drug stores closing especially in smaller communities.