Should I participate in boycotting countries that allow child labor? Economists Matthias Doepke and Fabrizio Zilibotti say think before jumping to the obvious answer:
The effects of international interventions on developing countries today stand in sharp contrast to the situation in which child-labour laws were passed in Western Europe in the nineteenth century. In Europe, comprehensive child-labour restrictions were adopted precisely when children were moving from the family farm and workshop into formal employment in mills, mines, and factories, where they worked alongside adults. It was this direct competition between adult workers and children that motivated unions to oppose child labour.
International interventions in developing countries today shift working children instead from formal employment back to the informal sector, undermining prospects for political reform. Thus, international policies aimed at reducing child labour may achieve the opposite of their intended effect.
Read it all.
The economist with the Conscience of a Liberal comes to an even more shocking conclusion:
The lofty moral tone of the opponents of globalization is possible only because they have chosen not to think their position through. While fat-cat capitalists might benefit from globalization, the biggest beneficiaries are, yes, Third World workers.
…
My correspondents are not entitled to their self-righteousness. They have not thought the matter through. And when the hopes of hundreds of millions are at stake, thinking things through is not just good intellectual practice. It is a moral duty.