As I dug deeper into my research on fast fashion, I couldn’t help but think about the promises of capitalism and how they play out in this industry. At its core, capitalism claims to drive innovation, boost economic growth and offer consumers a wide range of choices, all while operating under the idea that competition leads to efficiency and progress. But as I examined these ideals through the lens of the fast fashion industry, I realised that these promises often come with some harsh trade-offs.

One of the big ideas I kept coming back to is the concept of the “invisible hand,” which I learned about when studying Adam Smith in my economics lessons. Smith argued that individuals and businesses acting in their own self-interest would unintentionally promote the public good through competition and innovation. In the fast fashion world, this seems to play out in how brands like Zara and H&M constantly churn out new designs, making the latest trends affordable and accessible to everyone. It’s like they’ve mastered the art of giving people what they want before they even know they want it.

However, while this seems like a win for consumers, there’s a darker side to these supposed benefits of capitalism. The fast fashion industry’s obsession with speed and low costs means they often cut corners when it comes to ethical considerations. Factories in countries like Bangladesh and Vietnam are known for their poor working conditions and low wages, which directly contradicts the ideal that capitalism should benefit everyone involved. It’s like Smith’s invisible hand works to keep the prices low for Western consumers but doesn’t quite reach the garment workers who are left behind in the process.

Another promise of capitalism that stands out is the belief in market efficiency — the idea that free markets will naturally allocate resources in the most optimal way. Fast fashion brands have taken this idea to heart, creating a business model that responds almost instantly to changing trends and consumer demand. This means they can produce massive amounts of clothing quickly and at incredibly low costs, keeping shelves stocked with the latest looks.

But my research has shown that this efficiency comes at a huge cost to both people and the planet. The industry’s focus on rapid production cycles leads to enormous waste, with clothes designed to be discarded after just a few wears. The environmental impact is massive, from the use of toxic dyes that pollute waterways to the huge amounts of textile waste that end up in landfills.

This brings me back to Smith’s idea that markets left unchecked can lead to exploitation — a concern that he raised more than two centuries ago. Fast fashion has turned into a perfect example of what happens when the drive for profits outweighs the consideration of human and environmental costs. It’s made me question whether the promises of capitalism are really as beneficial as they seem, or if they need to be reevaluated in the context of our modern, globalised economy.

One of the ideas I found most thought-provoking was the convergence theory, which suggests that as countries become more integrated into the global economy, they will eventually catch up with developed nations in terms of wages and living standards. Fast fashion seems to support this idea on the surface, creating jobs and economic opportunities in developing countries where garment production is concentrated. It’s easy to see this as a success story for globalisation—more jobs, more growth, and a path out of poverty for millions of workers.

But the reality is far more complicated. While these countries have seen some economic growth, my research has shown that the promised benefits of convergence haven’t materialised evenly. Wages in garment factories remain shockingly low, and working conditions often fall far below acceptable standards. The wealth generated by the fast fashion industry still mostly flows to multinational corporations and consumers in wealthier countries, while the workers who make the clothes struggle to improve their own economic situations. It’s a stark reminder that the global economy isn’t as level a playing field as convergence theory might suggest.

One thing that really drove this point home for me was learning about the controversial memo by Lawrence Summers, which suggested that underdeveloped countries should accept polluting industries because the relative cost to their economies was lower. This idea reflects a brutal kind of economic logic that treats some communities as more disposable than others—a mindset that seems to be at the heart of fast fashion’s global supply chain. It made me think about how often the promises of capitalism are used to justify practices that would be unacceptable in a more equitable world.

Exploring the promises of capitalism through the lens of fast fashion has made me rethink a lot of what I thought I knew about economic growth and consumer choice. On the one hand, fast fashion undeniably delivers on some of capitalism’s promises: it drives innovation, creates jobs, and makes fashion accessible to more people. But on the other hand, these gains seem hollow when they come at such a high cost to the environment and the dignity of workers in developing countries.

It’s clear to me now that the fast fashion industry has pushed the limits of what capitalism can offer without considering the broader consequences. The industry’s focus on short-term gains, constant growth, and market efficiency has led to a system that prioritises profits over people and sustainability. As I move forward with my research, I’m more convinced than ever that we need a new approach to how we think about economic models—one that values ethical considerations and long-term well-being as much as it does innovation and consumer choice.

This part of my research has left me wondering: Can the promises of capitalism be redefined to better serve a world that demands not just economic growth but also fairness, sustainability, and human dignity?