Rethinking Child Labor

Recently there's been an upsurge in visible activism on campus with the successful Sweat-Free Rally in the yard, and indications that the University might introduce a fair labor practices code for its licensees. As the focus now shifts from a consensus on the need to do something about sweatshops in principle, to the methods for translating these principles into better conditions for workers in reality, we should carefully consider the various implications that any regulations adopted might have. Of paramount importance should be the consideration that our pursuit of fair labor principle does not unintentionally make workers worse off. We can illustrate the many quandaries of developing world labor practices by considering perhaps the most vulnerable workers in sector of society, child laborers.

Third World child labor is perhaps one of the most strongly condemned and despised labor practices in the Western mass consciousness today. The typical, and virtually universal, Western response to issues relating to child labor is advocating a blanket ban on such practices. Unfortunately, such a reaction, while completely understandable and certainly well intentioned, often overlooks the complexity of the underlying issues which govern labor market conditions in poorer countries. In fact, these bans are counterproductive to the extent that they may harm the very segments of society which they aim to protect: The trouble with a blanket ban on the use of child labor, for example, is that it will never make the problem go away, and may possibly even exacerbate it by shifting the focus away from the issue.

After all, what is the first thing that happens when you ban a company producing sneakers for Nike in Thailand from hiring child workers? You put children out of jobs. And while in principle the idea of children working long hours under questionable conditions might seem unacceptable to Western sensibilities, the alternative of surviving without even an exploitative job for support is much worse. Most of these kids work because they have to, and will continue to do so whether Western firms hire them or not.

The answer to child labor is not to ban Western companies from hiring kids, for a variety of reasons. For one, if the Nike factory doesn't hire them, some other probably more exploitative local manufacturer (over whom Western public opinion holds little sway) will...if they're lucky. If not, then they'll probably just try to survive by begging or rummaging through rubbish heaps--too many kids are forced to do this already.

By imposing a blanket ban on child labor, we're effectively giving up any leverage that we might have to influence these kids in positive ways. If children are working anyway, it is preferable that they be hired by companies answerable to people in the West instead of the myriad domestic slave factories that currently thrive. With multinational companies, some method of responsibility could be worked out by which working conditions for children could be strictly monitored, their wages raised, and, most important of all, arrangements made for providing them with some form of education.

Education is the only way to break the poverty cycle in which such people are trapped. Many of them, however, would never go to school even if it were free--the opportunity cost in the short term of lost wages would be far too great. However, a program which linked education with employment could certainly succeed: kids go to work for multinational companies, work seven to eight hours a day and then study--at company expense with possible government or other donor subsidy--for another four or five hours in the factory where they work. Such a plan where the benefits of education don't come at the expense of wages is one of the most promising options for kids trapped in the child labor racket.

Which companies would institute such programs? The same ones which would be prepared to stop hiring children in response to consumer pressure: those influenced by Western public opinion. But public opinion has to favor responsible employment of kids before Western firms will ever acknowledge hiring them. In the meantime, they and their subcontractors continue to employ kids, while denying it publicly, and since by their denials they become unaccountable, they are at times as exploitative as local employers.

The argument can be made that we could ban child labor by simultaneously implementing a living wage requirement for adults. Such a living wage would then allow parents to provide for their families without having the children go out and work. While attractive, this proposal ignores the fact that there would still be no incentive for children to get an education under a living wage scenario, even assuming that such a wage is sufficient to allow two adults to enroll their 4.5 kids in schools. The poorest classes in developing countries might not fully realize the long-run value of an education, and even if they did, the regions concerned might not have acceptable schools, if any at all. Only by attaching an economic incentive to schooling, and by imparting that schooling in carefully monitored settings, can we be sure of giving many of these kids their best shot of escaping the poverty trap.

Of course, advocating child labor is a radical step in the Western world. Perhaps it would be easier just to ban our companies from indulging in it, and sit back and relax, safe in the knowledge that the sweatshirt that we're wearing wasn't ever touched by underage hands--no matter that the underage hands which never touched this sweatshirt are probably at that very moment rummaging through a garbage heap somewhere since their employer threw them out due to our forceful campaigning. But then, our conscience is clear...

Clearly there are many more gray areas associated with developing country labor issues than may be evident at first glance. This certainly doesn't imply, however, that nothing should be done about problems like child labor or conditions in sweatshop factories. Rather, more, not less, proactive steps are needed to combat the problem of sweatshop labor. Simply deciding that Western companies will have no involvement in exploiting laborers is not enough; if we're going to dictate worker's job opportunities by depriving them of relatively desirable jobs in sneaker factories, then we must also put our money where our mouth is and provide them with opportunities by depriving them of relatively desirable jobs in sneaker factories, then we must also put our money where our mouth is and provide them with opportunities for advancement. Simple banning or pulling out is not enough. To really contribute, we need to get involved and lead by example.

Ali Ahsan '99 is an economics concentrator in Quincy House.