Child labor is a pervasive problem throughout the global economy, especially in the markets of developing countries. With over 90% of the total child labor market employed in the rural areas of Asia and Africa largely due to lack of enforcement, it is argued that something has to be done. Although the majority of people are ethically appalled by child labor, and against the exploitation of children, is the worldwide eradication of the worst forms of child labor really a feasible alternative? To answer this question people have to take into account a variety of factors involving both the economic and social costs, as well as have a firm understanding of the situations people are faced with in these underdeveloped countries.
The International Labor Organization estimated that there were over 211 million working children between the ages of 5 and 14 in the year 2000, with over 73 million under the age of ten. When most people think of child labor, they visualize children working in sweatshops under poor conditions, for little pay. When in reality almost 80% of child laborers are employed in agricultural jobs. Regardless of the type of labor these children are performing, they are usually underpaid, overworked, and forced to work in unsafe environments. The exploitation of children and the social costs that are involved are considered highly immoral, especially by the general public in industrialized nations. But why is a practice that is condemned by so many, so rampant among impoverished nations? Industrialized countries have been asking third world nations to impose regulations and ban the practices of child labor for decades. This is ironic considering that countries such as the United States and the United Kingdom both became industrialized first world nations based on the premise of child labor. With a vast amount of resources and huge demand for finished goods, child labor including the worst forms of bonded labor were used in both the US and UK to produce goods at the lowest possible cost. So to tell governments of impoverished nations to ban the practices that helped make industrialized nations what they are today is counterintuitive. For the US and the UK as well as others have relied on the use of child labor during their time of industrial development. This is a large reason why some third world governments are willing to turn a blind eye to some of the practices going on in their countries. Because there is hope that they too will develop industry by attracting foreign investment with the lure of cheap labor, and one day be able to emerge as an industrialized nation as did the US and the UK. So how does child labor help increase investment, and make children better off?
This is a very strong argument for the proponents of child labor. The governments of these countries understand that a child working 14 hours a day in a factory isn’t what is best for that child. But when you consider the alternatives, is working in a factory for less than a dollar a day really making a child or their future worse off? Some would argue no. Primarily because of the economic advantages that can be gained by luring investment with the promise of high profits due to a cheap labor market. Krugman outlines many of the benefits that can come from child labor in his paper, In Praise of Cheap Labor. It is argued that by creating more jobs in industry, you take a lot of child labor out of the agricultural sector which is where the majority of child laborers are in a weak economy, and you move them into jobs which typically pay more, making them immediately better off. As more industry is built up because of cheap labor costs, per capita income becomes higher for both adults and children, and the percentage of GDP derived from agriculture become less. This is a good thing because a strong predictor of child labor is an economy in which the majority of the GDP is accrued through agriculture. By increasing people opportunity to earn money, and lowering the demand for agricultural labor you actually allow people a better opportunity to send their children to school instead of work. Much like industrialized nations today, this is expected to create a market where skilled workers are needed and education will become more common place.
This graph illustrates how increasing GDP reduces the child labor population, which supports that industry investment makes children better off.
Although both sides agree that education is the key to a country’s future, how they get educated is a major difference between the two groups. People who are against child labor completely contest that children work, and instead should be educated so that they can break the cycle of poverty. However there is a fatal flaw to this idea, regardless of its good intentions, and widespread popularity. The flaw is that these children have to work in order for their families to survive. Many argue child labor is bad for the kids, and children should be able to go to school, but the reality is that many of these kids have no other choice but to work in a low paying job, rather than attend school. Although the argument may be morally right on, it is economically unfeasible as described in the following passage.
“Poverty is the greatest single force which creates the flow of children into the workplace…(Acute need) makes it nearly impossible for households to invest in their children’s education (and) the price of education can be very high (as) most ‘free’ public education is in fact very expensive for a poor family…Poor households tend to have more children (and large family size) has been statistically shown to be associated not only with higher likelihood that children work, but also lower school attendance and competition”(ILO 1996)
Poverty and child labor are positively correlated. In most underdeveloped nations it is estimated that 35% of the population is living below poverty, which is why many children choose to work, or are forced to by their parents. At this point it is all about survival, for they are living well below poverty, and there really are no alternatives.
Companies are criticized for capitalizing on the plight of others, and exploiting children in these nations. However, if half the kids working for these companies did not show up to work, the firms would still make large profits as they normally do. However the children would suffer a lot more from the loss of income which they depend on to simply survive. So is it right to blame these companies for trying to minimize costs, by seeking cheap labor such as children who are wanting to work so that they have a chance of survival? It is a moral dilemma which is very hard to answer. Because the only reason the companies are there in the first place is to minimize costs. Banning child labor all together would be catastrophic for an impoverished nation. The main reason being is that these companies will be forced to raise wages because the supply of labor will be lower, which may cause them to invest all the money and jobs that these kids parents depend into other countries who will supply a labor force that is willing to work for less.
There is no simple solution to the problem of child labor. Absolute banning of child labor could work because it would take a lot of labor out of the market causing wages to rise for the adults, which would allow them to send their kids to school. As long as it was a worldwide ban, companies would not necessarily relocate their firms, unless there is some other lower cost mechanism such as resources. But the major problem with this idea is enforcement, due to the fact that there is too much corruption to contend with. There is always going to be an incentive to cheat, and break the law, which is why we have many of the problems we have today.
Subsidizing is maybe one of the best alternatives that can be offered. By offering meals or subsidies to families who send their children to school, this could give families an option to send their kids to school, because some of the burden has been relieved. Now there is more incentive for education, and families are still able to survive without the additional income. Irwin suggests that governments should subsidize agriculture in developing countries because it would raise wages, allowing children to go to school instead of work, because their parent’s incomes will be higher and they will not be required to work as much. This will also help many kids who are in the worst forms of child labor. Mostly because agriculture has some of the highest instances of bonded labor, and because the work is located in rural areas, enforcement of labor laws is often time very tough and costly. By reducing the need to work, you take kids out of the labor force and create a skilled labor force which will help the GDP of the country grow. The main issue with this solution is getting the governments of these poor nations to be able to fund such subsidies, because they often don’t have it. One alternative is to loan it to them, but enforcement to make sure they spend that money correctly would be very difficult.
Another solution that is being implemented is No. 182 which is sponsored and promoted by the ILO. As of May 5, 2004 theses are the results of countries ratifying the standards set forth by the ILO.
———————————–
Convention Ratifications
(as of 05/2004) 138182
———————————–
Africa4347
Americas2630
Arab States711
Asia 1418
Europe4444
Total134150
————————————
What this is designed to do is clearly define child labor and require committed countries to Achieve the goals of the Conventions, by raising awareness, law enforcement, labor inspection, educational support, support for children and their families, and cooperation with international initiatives. These of course do not mean anything without enforcement, which is why the Member States ratifying ILO Conventions are under obligation to report regularly. As Convention No. 182 is a fundamental ILO
Convention, its application is reported every two years. Employers’ and workers’ organizations should be consulted in the preparation.
Of national reports and may make their own observations independently if they wish. Reports are subsequently reviewed both by a committee of experts and a committee comprised of representatives of the ILO’s tripartite membership during the annual
International Labour Conference.
The best alternative is for countries to step up the enforcement of labor laws that are designed to protect children. By creating a standard set of labor laws, and following through with them, the worst kinds of child labor can at least be abolished, and children who work, can have some chance to work in a safer work environment.
Works Cited
International Labor Organization, 2000.World Labor Report. Geneva: International Labor Organization
Faraaz Siddiqi/Harry Partrinos, Child Labor: Issues, Causes, and Interventions, 1996
Douglas A. Irwin, Free Trade Under Fire, Chapter 6, 2002
Kaushik Basu, Child Labor: Cause, Consequence, and Cure, with Remarks on International Labor Standards, 1999
Krugman Paul, In Praise of Cheap Labor, 1997
The Department of Labor Bureau of International Labor Affairs, 2001 Findings of the Worst Forms of Child Labor, 2002
International Labor Organization, International Programme on the Elimination of Child Labour: 2000
Mehra-Kerpelman, K. 1996. Children at work: How many and where? World of Work 15:8-9.