Topic: Child Labour

Summary: Is the imposition of sanctions on states the best way to end child
labour?
Context
In the past activists have tried to encourage consumers to boycott companies using
child labour by means of negative publicity about the conditions under which
children work. The debate is partly, therefore, about whether such action (which
may be ignored) is suicient to force companies themselves to act, or whether it is
more eective to use sanctions to pressurise governments into setting up national
legal regulations (which might be avoided or repealed). !owever, there is a second
issue: whilst it is normally deemed a truism that child labour is inherently bad, a
subtler reasoning is sometimes illuminating. It is hard to see how child labour on
family farms can be avoided, when countries do not have the resources to set up
schools and to pay families a minimum income. "ltimately child labour ends up
more as a #uestion of solving poverty than a simple moral or emotional issue.$
model for a sanctions regime would need to take several details into account: both
general ones regarding sanctions cases (by whom will sanctions be imposed? $nd
to what e%tent will they be enforced?) and #uestions particular to this topic: what
age is a &child'? Is child labour inherently a issue, or is the debate really about
minimum labour standards for any employee?
pros cons
There is an international duty on
governments to uphold the dignity of
man. This can only be done with the
independence gained from education, a
good #uality of life and independent
income. (hild labour destroys the
creativity and innocence of the young,
and must be stopped.
)hilst codes of &human rights' are
eective bases for enforcing political
and legal standards, they are less
eective in dealing with social and
economic ones. It is realistic to use
sanctions to enforce rights to free
e%pression and the rule of law*
impossible to force an impoverished
state to maintain )estern standards of
education and labour laws, which did
not e%ist when the )est developed.
This use of sanctions merely lessens
their impact when used for the correct
purposes.
+anctions provide the only means of
forcing states to take action. (onsumer
pressure is too weak to do so , whilst
opinion pollsters are told their
interviewees are willing to pay more
for ethical products, very few people
put this into daily practice.
(onsumer power has proven highly
eective in the past in forcing trans,
national companies to institute ethical
practices. -oycotts of one producer
lead others to act out of fear of
negative publicity , the market takes
care of the problem itself.
.ressure on trans,national companies
is not enough. It is a fallacy to believe
that all child labour e#uals sweatshop
work for multinationals in poor
countries. There is a dierence
between this, family labour on farms
(in both developed and less developed
countries), the use and trade of child
prostitutes and countries who force
children into their armies.
/uite true , this is why sanctions, an
inherently blunt instrument, will
always fail. Imposing sanctions on
whole states is unfair as they are not
wholly responsible for the actions of
individuals within them. +hould we
impose sanctions on the "+$ because
illegal sweatshops have been found to
e%ist there?
0nding child labour will allow the
young to have greater chances of
education and development. This will
increase the human resources of a
country for the future, thus
encouraging economic growth. Their
labour will be replaced by drawing
from the large pool of underemployed
adults in most developing countries*
often these will be the parents of
current child workers, so there will be
little or no overall impact on family
income.
$ utopian vision of all previously
labouring children entering school is
belied by evidence showing many
either cannot aord to pay school fees
or continue to work at the same time.
In fact, many T1(s have now set up
after,work schools within the very
factories that activists criticise.
It is true that alternatives will need to
be found to previous employment , but
raising li#uidity by loans secured on
future earnings or micro,banking are
both possible scenarios. The
international community was able to
place human rights over the cause of
free trade in the cases of +outh $frica
and -urma , so why not here?
.lacing sanctions on some companies
will merely hide child labour
underground. 2oving children, who
have to work from poverty, into
unregulated and criminal areas of the
economy will only worsen the situation.
Is it really likely that the )T3, a
bastion of free trade, would accept the
restrictions that sanctions entail?
This is an argument for a targeted and
more sophisticated use of sanctions,
not against them in any form.
+ometimes free market economics is
simply an e%cuse for a denial of
responsibility.
+anctions harm the poorest in society ,
companies will simply move to areas
where the restrictions do not apply.
.ast e%perience has shown that
government interference with the
market does more harm than good.
motions
This !ouse believes that children should be free.
This !ouse believes that education is the best economics.
This !ouse would end child labour.
This !ouse would put sanctions on states using child labour.