Many small shops go out of business simply because they're not very good
Peter Wilby calls for the return of the small local shop, "driven out by the supermarkets" (It's not just our communities they kill, but free markets too, 4 May). He notes that in 2008 the Competition Commission wrote that "consumers like the low prices, range of goods and quality offered by supermarkets", though he implies that this is "the standard political response".
While the commission cannot be completely immune to political considerations, it is an independent body. The fact is that supermarkets have grown because they supply what customers want. The reason many small shops have gone out of business is that they weren't very good. Those that are well run and offer something consistently satisfying to customers – quality, service, friendliness, whatever – continue to thrive.
The decline of many British high streets is a concern, certainly, as Andrew Seth and I have noted in the successive editions of our book, The Grocers: the Rise and Rise of the Supermarket Chains. One major difficulty is that during the Thatcher years, supermarket development was allowed to let rip; now planning guidelines have been tightened, but local planning authorities are still constrained by what they can and cannot consider. It is also true that, in disputes, the supermarket is normally able to command expert advice and lawyers' fees that are beyond small groups of protesters.
Ironically, perhaps, there is already a move back to the high street and to smaller shops. The growth of farmers' markets and the revival of some town centres are indications that consumers may not be as docile as they seem.
Wilby further questions whether " 'what the consumer wants' should close down the argument", and points out that consumers are also members of the community. The problem is that we all have different goals and want many – often conflicting – things. There have to be trade-offs: that is what the political process is for. Wilby is right that politicians have not so far taken a great deal of interest, but I hope that the supermarkets do not "clearly terrify them"; surely it is simply not high on their agenda, especially given the verdicts of the Competition Commission.
There is no question that the balance of buying power has shifted over the last 40 years, from manufacturers of consumer goods to retailers; some smaller suppliers do need protection. But many suppliers have developed good relationships with supermarket buyers: it is a tough game, but both sides, working together, can benefit.
As to Wilby's claim, quoting American evidence, that the arrival of a big supermarket means that "participation in local charities, churches, campaign groups and even voting declines sharply", I am sceptical. In the USA, the big arrival is likely to be Wal-Mart, which builds enormous stores (more than 200,000 sq ft) that really do destroy everything in their path.
In addition, there are many reasons for the loosening of community bonds: the scattering of families, pressures of two working parents, greatly expanded leisure opportunities and so on. In ascribing the cause of major social change to supermarkets alone, Wilby gives a one-eyed view.