> Nike used to be a target of anti-imperialist agit-prop on Net, so long
> as it sourced its supplies from Indonesia. Now that Nike has largely
> shifted its production bases to China and Vietnam, we don't frequently
> hear about Nike's obnoxious policies.
I don't think it's the change in production that made the difference. Nike has always produced in Asia and its factory conditions in China have been criticized since 1991 at least. I think rather the Indonesia story loomed large from 1998-2000 because there happened to be an inspired activist who had resources -- Jeff Ballinger in the AFL-CIO office in Jakarta. My impression from listmember Liza Featherstone's book (_Students Against Sweatshops_ -- a small book which I recommend as both smart and pleasurable) is that the anti-sweatshop movement is stronger, more mature and more sophisticated than it was in 1998-2000. But that its methods have evolved and its targets and aims have changed. What they want now is not for Nike to be demonized (which would result in people not buying its products), or to shut down such factories, but rather to improve working conditions in those factories. To this end they agitate for their universities to stop buying Nike products (the collegiate apparel market is worth $2.5 billion) until they publicly list their factories, allow outside inspectors, and improve conditions in response to bad reports. And Nike has made a series of concessions that are working themselves out. Also it's not just Nike anymore they're fighting.
In short, there is less hue and cry now because hue and cry was kind of a blunt instrument that has evolved.
Also, to the extent that hue and cry is useful, as a general publicity stunt attracting attention to the issue (rather than helping particular workers), it seems to work best if you keep it fresh and attach it to individual celebrities so it gets more free news. So the now is people like Kathy Lee and Puff Daddy that get blindsided at their press conferences.
Michael