Child Labor Ban vs. Economic Sustenance

How would you decide which is more just:-

_________________

THOUGHT: Should there be an outright ban on child labor based on the notion that it is unfair to the child because it exploits the child as a means to advance the parent’s economic interest?

THESIS: No, there should not be an outright ban on child labor based on this notion because an outright ban would disallow an important economic instance where it would be fair to the child for the parent to subject the child to labor:

Where the child’s interest in economic sustenance or survival aligns with an unskilled parent’s interest in economic sustenance and the child’s nation provides no public schooling.

INTRODUCTION: Many international groups have suggested that international labor laws be imposed on developing countries to ban child labor outright because child labor is unfair to children.[1] In describing why child labor is unfair, these groups point to the dangerous working conditions, low wages, unreasonably long hours, and lack of education that has plagued many child laborers historically and plagues many more presently.[2] I agree that these are all valid examples of what is unfair about child labor, but is an outright ban the best way to deal with these problems? It is widely accepted that the common link between problems arising from child labor is that the child laborer was used or is being used as a means to advance another party’s interest.[3] If that’s the case, wouldn’t an outright ban also disallow those instances in which the child is not simply being treated as a means but at the same time as an end? For example, consider how beneficial the system of apprenticeship was to families in the Middle Ages; many of these benefits especially as it relates to the establishment of educational opportunities for less privileged children are still around today.[4] How can an instance of child labor be unfair to the child if the child’s best interest aligns with that of his legal guardian?

To meaningfully explore these questions in light of the common link between child labor problems, we must first agree on one concept of fairness, “a child should not be treated simply as a means but always at the same time as an end”. Agreeing on one concept of fairness enables us to distribute justice in a world of limited resources in such a way that such distribution always takes into account the interest in survival of the most economically dependent citizens – children. Second, we must base international labor laws regulating child labor on this concept of fairness. In so doing, we will find that a parent’s act of subjecting her child to labor would be fair in one important economic instance in which the parent places the child’s interest in economic sustenance in the best position possible. As such, we will discover that an outright ban on child labor cannot be justified based on the notion that it is unfair to the child.

BASIC MODEL OF ECONOMIC INSTANCES INVOLVING CHILD LABOR:

There is a relationship between the interests of the child, parent, and nation in a variety of economic instances where the parent contemplates whether or not to subject her child to labor.

There are primary and secondary parties implicated in any instance of child labor. The primary parties include the child C, parent P, and nation N. The secondary parties include members of the international community outside the child’s nation M, and adults inside the child’s nation who are not parents X. All of these parties except for C can be an employer E; E is not a party per se but a role that can be occupied by any of the parties except C. Each party has its unique set of interests that may or may not align with the interests of the other parties. Our exploration will mostly focus on the primary parties and their interests.

Each primary party’s interest for economic sustenance will be evaluated in two stages and divided across two generations since the international community is populated by both adults and children. In the first stage, C is a child and is dependent on his P to negotiate the terms of his economic sustenance. In the second stage, C becomes either a skilled or unskilled adult. In the first stage, P is legally responsible for negotiating the terms of C’s economic sustenance. In the second stage, P is no longer legally responsible for negotiating the terms of C’s economic sustenance and need only worry about her own economic sustenance. In the first stage, N has a given size of economic pie to split among all the persons in its jurisdiction. In the second stage, the size of the economic pie increases or decreases based on whether N provides schooling for children in the first stage or based on the amount of labor input from P, C, and other persons in the first stage.

N can either provide schooling (government funded primary schooling e.g. K-12) for all children or no children. Assuming the labor input of P’s and X‘s are constant across both the first

and second stage, if N provides schooling for all C’s, N would halve its economic pie in the first stage but double its economic pie from its original size in the second stage because the C’s would have grown into skilled P’s. If N provides no schooling for C’s, the size of its pie in the second stage would be wholly dependent on labor input in the first stage. Labor input flows as

follows: Again assuming the labor input of P’s and X‘s are constant across both the first and second stage, if C’s perform labor in the first stage, N would increase its economic pie in the first stage commensurate with the amount of C’s that performed labor; but in the second stage, the pie would stay the same because the C’s that performed labor in the first stage would now be unskilled P’s in the second stage. If C’s go to private school (not government funded) in the first

stage, the economic pie would stay the same; but the pie would increase in the second stage because the C’s that went to school in the first stage would now be skilled P’s in the second stage.

C can either perform labor or go to school (public or private). If C goes to school, there would be a cost to P in the first stage.

P is either skilled or unskilled. Each P, whether skilled or unskilled, is able to reasonably negotiate the terms of at least one C. However, a skilled P is in a better position than an unskilled P to manage the cost of C going to private school if N does not provide schooling.

If N does not provide schooling, then for each C that an unskilled P sends to private school, she would need to have another C she subjects to labor in order to sustain herself and both of her children economically. As a result, unskilled P’s tend to have more children than skilled P’s especially if public schools are unavailable.[5]

There are two key determinants of what is in C’s best interest: one, whether N provides schooling for all C’s or no C’s; and two, whether P is skilled or unskilled.

A CHILD SHOULD NOT BE TREATED SIMPLY AS A MEANS BUT AT THE SAME TIME AS AN END: I use this concept of fairness to evaluate a parent’s act of subjecting her child to labor in light of what is in the child’s best interest.

Before I outline my concept of fairness, I’d like to define certain terms and lay out six postulations to set the parameters of our exploration. By “labor”, I mean an honest kind of productive activity done for the sake of economic sustenance or survival; prostitution does not fit under this definition. By “child or C”, I mean a person not legally responsible to negotiate the terms of his or her economic sustenance. By “parent/parents/guardian or P”, I mean a person that is legally responsible to negotiate the terms of a child’s economic sustenance e.g. the child’s natural or adoptive parent.

By “economic sustenance”, I mean the whole process of promoting a person’s livelihood from birth to death. My use of “economic sustenance” should be distinguished from “economic gain” which is an upward shift in a person’s relative economic position from one point in time to another during a specific period of the person’s life. The value of this distinction is demonstrated in child custody battles between parents. A court generally awards custody of the child to the parent that can best promote the child’s wellbeing i.e. sustenance. The parent awarded custody of the child may not necessarily be the parent that has more money and can take the child to a higher position economically speaking. In this sense, economic sustenance involves a more comprehensive calculation about what is fair to the child than mere economic gain.

By “nation or N”, I mean an organization of P’s, X‘s and C’s sharing one economic pie under a given jurisdiction. By “act of subjecting”, I mean the implied or expressed agreement to cause another person to undergo a certain experience.

In spelling out each of these definitions, my hope is to save us the hassle of exploring situations that would fall outside the scope of my concept of fairness or any reasonable concept of fairness for that matter:

For example, if X subjects C to labor without the consent of P, such a situation would be unfair to C because C would be at the mercy of a party who is not legally responsible to negotiate the terms of C’s economic sustenance. Thus, such situations would generally fall outside the scope of my concept of fairness. One exception is when X subjects C to labor without P’s consent because P is an abusive parent. This particular situation would not fall outside the scope of my concept of fairness because X is in effect negotiating the terms of C’s economic sustenance by helping C deal with the abusive parent and X has assumed some legal responsibility for C by subjecting C to labor without the abusive parent’s consent.
Another example that falls outside the scope of my concept of fairness is if P implicitly or expressly agrees to cause C to work under fatal conditions; this situation would undoubtedly violate the terms of C’s economic sustenance. P’s act in such a situation is analogous to overfeeding a hungry child and most reasonable people would find that to be unfair to the child.
Also, if P subjected C to prostitution, this would be unfair to C because prostitution is not an honest kind of productive activity for a child even though some economic gain may be derived from it.

All in all, these definitions are meant to focus our exploration on a parent’s act of subjecting her child to labor and the calculation of fairness involved in that act.

I use the concept of fairness as a guide for our exploration for a couple of reasons: one, it helps us to focus on what is fair and who it is fair to; and two, most people value the basic idea of fairness in deciding how they should treat others.[6] Our exploration is solely concerned with what is fair to the child. My concept of fairness is realized when the parent’s act of subjecting

her child to labor does not simply treat the child as a means but at the same time as an end. A parent’s treatment of a child as an end happens when a parent does what is in the best interest of the child i.e. P places C in the best position to promote C’s economic sustenance or survival. My concept of fairness has a Kantian foundation but it also captures the spirit of a variety of contemporary justice theories. At a basic level, Miller and Nozick, who are on different ends of the spectrum of distributive justice, would agree that a child should be treated not simply as a means but also as an end. Distributive justice theorists are concerned with how the benefits of a given society should be allocated to its citizens and my concept of fairness focuses on allocating benefits to society’s most economically dependent citizens – children.

Miller would agree with my concept of fairness based on the outcomes it generates while Nozick would agree with it based on the process.

For example, Miller’s needs principle is one of the primary principles of his expansive social justice theory which is mainly concerned with outcomes. In defining his needs principle, he separates instrumental needs from categorical needs: on one hand, a child’s instrumental need is met if he is given the $3 he needs as an instrument to buy a hamburger he desires; on the other hand, a child’s categorical need is met if he has a stable relationship with at least one adult who is concerned about his well-being, a relationship that all children need to have. A categorical need, by definition, implies that persons in a position of power must see to it that these needs are met i.e. P must treat C as an end so that the best outcome is realized – – P puts C in the best position to not be harmed by a lack of C’s categorical need.
In contrast, Nozick’s entitlement theory is based on a much less expansive state and is mainly concerned with procedure. Nozick posits that no entity is justified in setting up a system that stops a person from pursuing what is in the person’s interest i.e. what the person is entitled to. Calculating the entitlement of each person implies that persons should be treated as ends – – P must treat C as an end by creating the best process for C to get what he is justly entitled to get.

Before we explore one important economic instance where it would be beneficial to subject a child to labor, there are six postulations worth making about such an instance:

First, I postulate that the parent can identify what productive activity is in the child’s best interest for economic sustenance based on a “similarly situated child standard” i.e. what a child of similar age, intelligence, and experience is capable of contributing. This postulation is needed on three fronts: one, to show that the parent values the child’s education; two, to show that the parent is aware of the working conditions before subjecting her child to labor; and three, to ensure that all children in the international community are guaranteed the equal protection of the international labor laws.

Second, I postulate that the international labor laws are applied in an international community with international trade agreements that have been set up by nations N’s at different levels economically and culturally. This postulation is needed on two fronts: one, to describe a world that is a realistic representation of our world now and in the foreseeable future; and two, to avoid theorizing about whether the act of subjecting a child to labor would be fair in a world of economic and cultural uniformity.

Third, I postulate that there’s one economic pie within a given nation N that is measurable and limited i.e. N has a public bank account of resources where each person’s labor within N contributes to the account and enables withdrawals from the account for personal sustenance. This postulation is needed on two fronts: one, to demonstrate that if N provides schooling for C’s, most P’s will likely send their C’s to school because the costs are being shared across N; and two, to delimit the “piece of economic pie” each person can get.

Fourth, I postulate that basic schooling produces skilled laborers. This postulation is needed one two fronts: one, to illustrate that skilled laborers can negotiate better terms of economic sustenance than unskilled laborers; and two, to avoid the hassle of theorizing about

school performance matters which are outside the scope of my paper e.g. impact of high school dropouts, home schooling etc.

Fifth, I postulate that all nations N’s in the international community have adopted or will be willing to adopt the international labor laws based on a concept of fairness. This postulation is needed on two fronts: one, it is needed to quiet concerns about what other political considerations may be at play when the parent is calculating whether or not to subject her child to labor; and two, it is needed to demonstrate that parents in the international community will be conducting the same fairness calculation.

Sixth, I postulate that there are some disincentives in place for a parent who chooses to violate the international labor laws,[7] and subjects her child to labor simply as a means. These disincentives could be in different forms:

For example, members of the international community M (persons not in N) could boycott certain child-labor sponsored products from N if they find out that a number of P’s in N subject their C’s to labor unnecessarily (e.g. P can afford private school but subjects her C to labor nonetheless). This boycott would in turn reduce N’s pie and thus provide a disincentive for P to subject C to labor. In other words, P may decide that the cost of accessing a reduced pie outweighs the benefit of subjecting C to labor when she can afford to send C to private school which would increase the pie she can access in the long run.
Another example could be if the international community has an administrative regime set up to monitor compliance with the laws. This regime need not have any enforcement or coercive power over parents. A parent may basically be required to report when she decides to subject her child to labor simply as a means. P may decide that the transaction costs of reporting to the regime outweighs the benefit of subjecting C to labor simply as a means to some end she has in mind for herself – perhaps a new outfit.
A third example could be if P places some idiosyncratic value on being able to provide for C. It could be emotionally expensive – damaging to P’s reputation or sense of self-worth if she decides to subject C to labor simply as a means. P

may decide that her reputation is more important than any benefit she’ll derive from subjecting C to labor simply as a means.

All in all, I point out these examples to show that there are disincentives in place but further discussion about how these disincentives take shape in the parent’s decision making process is outside the scope of this paper. This postulation is merely needed to show that the parent has internalized the risk of violation i.e. P has taken into account the costs associated with not putting C in the best position possible for C’s economic sustenance.

ECONOMIC INSTANCE THAT WOULD BE DISALLOWED IF THERE WERE AN OUTRIGHT BAN ON CHILD LABOR: Where the child’s interest in economic sustenance aligns with that of an unskilled parent and the child’s nation provides no public schooling.

One key instance in which it would be fair for P to subject C to labor is if N provides no schooling for C (no government funded school), and P is unskilled. In this instance, the best position for one out of every two C’s is to be subjected to labor. The unskilled parent’s act of subjecting one of her children to labor does not simply treat the child as a means but treats the child at the same time as an end. P places C in the best position to promote C’s own economic survival, albeit, P’s economic survival is promoted as well.

In a world where child labor is banned outright, an unskilled P’s ability to negotiate the terms of both of her children’s economic sustenance will be severely handicapped because the necessary option of subjecting one of them to labor in order to send the other one to private school would be disallowed. In effect, an outright ban would punish the child of an unskilled parent by ensuring that he will either have to starve or be subjected to labor illegally in order for his sibling to go to private school. This would also be the case for his sibling if, instead of his sibling, he was the one sent to private school.

Unless proponents of an outright ban are willing to convert unskilled parents to skilled parents at no cost to the parents or unless these proponents are willing to bankroll free schooling in developing nations, nay, pay children to go to school in some cases,[8] the call for an outright ban is premature at best.

COUNTERARGUMENTS: Why counterarguments to my concept of fairness fail.

As a result of my postulation that all nations N’s in the international community have adopted or will be willing to adopt international labor laws regulating child labor based on one concept of fairness,[9] the arguments against the adoption of my concept of fairness can only fall into two categories: process-based and outcome-based. If all nations are willing to adopt one concept of fairness, then the only bone of contention left is about which concept of fairness offers the best process and outcome. As such, I will address arguments against my concept of fairness based on these two categories as follows:

Process-based Counterarguments

Some may argue that an outright ban is fair because it factors out the process of using a child as a means altogether which is what is particularly unfair to the child. In other words, my process of calculating fairness accepts that children must be used as means. For example, in the one economic instance I point out, the child would still be treated as a means, albeit, also as an end. On the other hand, an outright ban would not tolerate any instances where children are treated as means. This argument fails because it promotes a procedure that would be counterproductive. By sacrificing even one instance in which child labor is fair to the child, an

outright ban itself treats the child simply as a means to some end – stopping all child labor. This end may not always be in line with what is fair to a given child. The process of realizing fairness

in my thesis treats each child and parent as individuals in their own right by taking into account a wide variety of instances where a parent has to calculate whether to subject her child to labor or not. Moreover, I assume that P can identify what’s in C’s best interest and has internalized the cost of not doing what’s in C’s best interest; as such, if P simply treats C as a means then she’ll be in violation of the laws based on my concept of fairness. Finally, it is unavoidable that persons will be used as means to access resources in a nation of limited resources; my concept of fairness demands that such persons must also be treated as ends in and of themselves.

Another process-based counter to my thesis is that it promotes a procedure that would be unfair to a child because it factors out prostitution when such an activity may be the only type of activity that the child can be subjected to for economic sustenance in a given nation.[10]

This argument fails because it distorts the point at issue. An outright ban on all forms of child labor is different from an outright ban on specific forms of activities that a child can partake in for some economic gain. Also, economic sustenance is different from economic gain.

Prostitution is a specific form of activity that a child can partake in for economic gain; but the physical and psychological damage that the child is exposed to under such an activity undermines the child’s sustenance. As such, prostitution cannot be a form of labor that a child can be subjected to for economic sustenance. This argument also fails because prostitution is recognized globally as a dishonest activity for a child. The evidence shows that while the legality of adult prostitution varies from country to country, child prostitution is an illegal activity in all

countries.[11] It is worth conceding here that if there were a form of child prostitution that was made legal in a given nation, then such an activity may not necessarily be factored out of my model. Nevertheless, factoring out an activity like child prostitution promotes a fair procedure to each child by depicting the world as it is now and as it will be in the foreseeable future.

Others may argue that an outright ban is a fairer process because it factors in the interests

of adults in the labor force who have no children X‘s. For example, an outright ban would ensure that unskilled X‘s are not being replaced by child laborers. In other words, my process for calculating fairness only takes into account the alignment of interests between the parent P and child C to the detriment of others (like X) who also have to share in the same economic pie.

This argument fails because it promotes a procedure that would treat a partial solution to a problem of child labor as though it were a complete solution. It may be true that factoring in the interests of X would tend to lead to a fairer process for more adults in the workforce; however, the process should be about what is fair to each child and not what is fair to more adults. In addition, X is not legally responsible for negotiating the terms of C’s economic sustenance and whether her interest aligns with that of C or not should not be factored in. The process of realizing fairness in my model affords P the cleanest path to negotiate the terms of C’s economic sustenance by focusing on her responsibility to C. An outright ban that factors in the interests of X would muddy this path.

Nozick would agree with my concept of fairness based on its process. To him, an outright ban procedure would be analogous to setting up a system that stops a person from pursuing what is in the person’s interest i.e. what the person is entitled to. On the other hand, a parent’s freedom

to negotiate the terms of her child’s economic sustenance allows for a just system of accessing entitlements. In a nation of limited resources where public schooling is not provided, an unskilled parent can subject her child to labor if that creates the best process for her child to get what he is justly entitled to get.

Outcome-based Counterarguments

One outcome-based counterargument to my thesis is that it would produce results that are not fair to a child that has to work in order for his sibling to go to school assuming both are children of an unskilled parent.

This argument fails because it presupposes that fair procedures always produce just outcomes. As Miller argues, there are multiple factors that can affect why a set of procedures and outcomes may fall apart. One factor is that no parent is perfect. It is possible that an unskilled parent may subject the wrong child to labor and send the wrong child to private school. It is also very possible that some background conditions outside of my fairness procedure may have an effect on the child’s change in position from the first to the second stage e.g. loss of both parents or giving birth to his own child. An outright ban fairs no better in producing just outcomes – it purports to produce a just outcome for both children by disallowing an unskilled P to subject one C to labor in order to send the other to school. In effect, this would actually produce an unjust outcome for both children as their unskilled parent would be in an even worse position to manage the attendant costs.

Another outcome-based counter to my thesis is that it would incentivize a nation, N, to not provide schooling for all children and instead rely solely on labor input to maximize its pie size, thus increasing instances of child labor.[12]

This argument fails because N is actually incentivized to provide schooling in order to maximize its pie size in the long run. While it holds that N can probably increase its pie size commensurate with the number of C’s that are subjected to labor in the short term (first stage) and more C’s will be subjected to labor if there were no public schools, N cannot keep increasing its pie solely on labor input because the more C’s that perform labor in the first stage, the more unskilled P’s that N has to deal with in the second stage. Moreover, unskilled P’s are less likely to manage the costs of private schools and more likely to have more C’s; so under my thesis, N is better off providing schooling in order to produce more skilled P’s in the second stage and in turn maintain or increase its pie size in the long run. Thus, there will be fewer instances of child labor if N acts in line with its long term interests.

One other outcome-based counter to my thesis is that it would perpetuate the unfairness to a child by providing a disincentive for an unskilled parent to advance her skills. This argument fails because it treats something that is possible as though it were definite. While it may be possible that an unskilled parent may not want to advance her skills if she can subject her child to labor, it is more likely that an unskilled P cannot advance her skills or is not advantaged with the opportunity to advance her skills. An outright ban would disallow an important option that an unskilled P would have at her disposal – subjecting her child to labor – and would definitely perpetuate unfairness to the child by compromising the terms of the child’s economic sustenance.

In this regard, Miller would agree with the outcome of my concept of fairness because, unlike an outright ban, it captures the child’s categorical need for economic sustenance. If P puts C in the best position to not be harmed by a lack of sustenance, then such an outcome is fair to C.

CONCLUSION:

I believe that a parent’s act of subjecting her child to labor would be fair in one important economic instance whereby the parent places the child’s interest in economic sustenance in the best position possible. An example of such an instance is where the child’s interest in economic sustenance aligns with that of an unskilled parent and the child’s country provides no public schooling.

In such an instance, my concept of fairness is realized because the parent’s act of subjecting her child to labor does not simply treat the child as a means but at the same time as an end i.e. P places C in the best position to promote C’s economic sustenance or survival. In light of this instance, an outright ban on child labor cannot be justified based on the notion that child labor is unfair to the child.

[1] International human rights and labor conventions (such as the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and

International Labor Organization standards) have called for the severe limitation or outright ban of many forms of child labor.

[2] E. P. Thompson, The Making of the English Working Class, (Penguin, 1968), pp. 366-7

[3] The United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) describes the overriding problem in child labor as basically one of exploitation.

[4] On January 18, 2005, President Jacques Chirac of France pledged to further develop apprenticeships as a path to success from school to employment, based on the success of this pledge, 80% of young French people were able to complete an apprenticeship that led to full employment by the end of 2006.

[5] Consider that child labor on the farm during the summer months is one rationale put forward for why public schools follow an Agrarian Calendar structure.

[6] For example, in an American study, 78 % of respondents agreed that “under a fair economic system, people with

more ability would earn higher salaries…” Miller, David, Principles of Social Justice, Ch. 4 What the People Think, p.68

[7] See International Labour Organization standards,

https://www.ilo.org/global/What_we_do/InternationalLabourStandards/ApplyingandpromotingInternationalLabourSt

andards/lang–en/index.htm

[8] https://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/talking_point/675961.stm (students paid to go to school in an attempt to reduce

absenteeism).

[9] This postulation is not too far-fetched especially when you consider the International Labour Organization standards.

[10] Brandon Moseberry brought up this counter in our class discussion.

[11] https://www.un.org/rights/dpi1765e.htm

[12] Michael McStay brought up this counter in our class discussion

Child Labor Ban vs. Economic Sustenance

Related Posts