In defense of “Sweatshops”
June 3, 2008
Benjamin Powell is Assistant Professor of Economics at Suffolk University and Senior Economist with the Beacon Hill Institute. In his recently published article on the Library of Economics and Liberty website, he talks about Sweatshops in third-world countries and the evil repercussions of closing them down.
Economists across the political spectrum have pointed out that for many sweatshop workers the alternatives are much, much worse. In one famous 1993 case U.S. senator Tom Harkin proposed banning imports from countries that employed children in sweatshops. In response a factory in Bangladesh laid off 50,000 children. What was their next best alternative? According to the British charity Oxfam a large number of them became prostitutes.
The human rights claptrap is propaganda directed by politicians to promote sourcing of jobs within America rather than genuine concern for the economically backward.
June 3, 2008 at 2:44 pm
In a hurry now, so some very quick comments which I’ll substantiate later.
Sounds suspiciously like the justifications for slavery. “They’ll be worse off as hired labour. We at least take good care of them, since they have more value to us than to those who rent their labour.”
There is always a worse alternative. There are always unintended consequences. The way forward is not to throw up hands saying, “We don’t want them to become prostitutes, do we?” The way forward is to ensure they get to schools. Is that paternalism? Is that anti-parent and anti-market? Sure it is. But those who espouse liberal ideals cannot but take upon themselves the odious burden of paternalism.
Legalistic solutions (of which a “ban” is an instance) cannot be ends in themselves. They are facilitators. (For istance, “banning” murder doesn’t solve any problem.) Social, political, and economic changes are necessary. It won’t do to say that such changes are not possible. It is our duty to put in place such systemic changes to ensure that globalisation is meaningful. It doesn’t suffice to say that the sweatshop kids earn more than their parents, and that their conditions are therefore better off because of globalisation.
Anti-HR “claptrap”, to use your language, needs firmer foundations than GDP (richer nations aren’t necessarily better off in all respects than poorer ones.. Quality of life, levels of inequality, etc., all have a role to play too) and simplistic calculations of economic benefit. (As does the Cultural Relativism attack against HR, but that’s for another day.)
Will substantiate in a more coherent fashion later.
June 3, 2008 at 3:17 pm
Mr Powell’s contention can be better understood by a thorough review of the article linked above.
Thank you for your comment. (-: