Child labour in the developing countries should be banned

Knowing nearly nothing about the subject at the beginning of the debate, researching and debating this was both fun and educational. In this round, I will be exploring the relationship between child labour and economics, both at a micro (family) and a macro (national) level. I will argue, that on an overall basis, illegalizing child labour would have a positive impact on both a micro and macro level. Some of my arguments will also serve as a rebuttal to Con’s points. It is universally accepted, from scholars, that child labour, on a short term basis increases household income. Cartwright (1999), for instance, demonstrates that in Colombia, child labour, on average contributes 21% of a family’s income. [1] Con rightly points out that, in many circumstances this is the difference between survival and death. However, on a long term basis, the legalization of child labour can be detrimental towards a family’s income, and is ineffective in taking the family out of poverty. This is also a well-accepted fact. Galli (2001), for instance, writes “children sent to work do not accumulate (or under-accumulate) human capital, missing the opportunity to enhance their productivity and future earnings capacity. This lowers the wage of their future families, and increases the probability of their offspring being sent to work. [2]“ Roggero et,al (2007), agree: ‘Long term, the underaccumulation of human capital caused by low school attendance and poor health is a serious negative consequence of child labor, representing a missed opportunity to enhance the productivity and future earnings capacity of the next generation. Child laborers grow up to be low-wage–earning adults; as a result, their offspring will also be compelled to work to supplement the family’s income. ” [3] But, I note that Con has somewhat dealt with this, so I move on, and critique his ideas later. I have already demonstrated, from citing multiple studies, that child labour is detrimental towards a child’s health and education. Con, however, rightly points out that child labour, on a short term basis, could be the difference between survival and death. Thus, I propose an alternative for families to earn money. A far superior method for families to earn money can be achieved through the establishment and development of trade unions. [4] There are several advantages to this. Firstly, this would ensure that adults earn a higher sum of money. This would be an excellent outcome for many adults, who are forced to work for an unacceptable amount of time, work in horrendous conditions, and earn little money for their work. Secondly, the establishment and development of trade unions would ensure improvement in working conditions for adults, meaning that they are not subjected to as much risk as before. Thirdly, trade unions can protect children’s rights, by refusing their entry to labour markets at such a young age, and promote the importance of an education. However, what is the effect of child labour on a macro (national) level? Con points out that banning child labour, especially the worst forms, can have a harmful effect on the economy as a whole. He points to Dessy & Pallage (2005) to support this claim. [5] He also argues that programmes alleviating poverty, such as the ‘Food for Education’ programme is a more suitable alternative. These arguments cannot be ignored. I do believe that programmes such as the ‘Food for Education’ programme can be beneficial, but I do not believe that my stance and programmes like that are mutually exclusive. I also note that for Con’s position to be consistent with his support for the ‘Food and Education’ programme, he must believe that child labour and education are not mutually exclusive. This sometimes is true, but not always. Child labour, in many circumstances, requires a child to move away from his original environment, where he has access to schools, to an isolated location, where he has little access to his home, or education. Con also seems to misunderstand my position. I, of course, do not support child labour. However, this does not mean that I do not support child work. There is a difference between the two. According to World Vision, ‘Not all children who work are engaged in child labour. There can be benefits for children who work, provided their schooling is not compromised and their mental and physical development is not affected. If children are above the minimum age to work, are employed for a limited number of hours in safe conditions, are paid fairly and the work does not impact on their mental, physical or social development, working may be beneficial to both themselves and their families. ’ [6] I also apologise for not making this clear in my First Round. Con also cites Dessy & Pallage’s work to support his argument. However, Dessy & Pallage’s work completely ignores hypothetical alternatives to child labour, as proposed by a number of scholars, such as McLean (1996)’s suggestion for the establishment of vocational training centres, Guha-Khasnobis et. al (1999)’s suggestion for compulsory education, and the establishment and development of trade unions. [7] On a long term basis however, there is good evidence that suggests that child labour is detrimental towards the economy. For instance, child labour could slow down both long-term growth and technological progress. This is evident, as companies and manufacturers would prefer to hire unskilled children due to a cheap price, as opposed to investing and upgrading their technology and production processes. In the long run, this can have negative effects, through a slowing down in technology and productivity. [8] I previously (somewhat) discussed the negative impact child labour would have through affecting the child’s health and education. I thought that now may be a good time to bring this issue back up again and refute some of Con’s rebuttals. On a long term basis, child labour has a negative impact on a country’s economy for two reasons. Firstly, it has a negative impact upon health. I have already demonstrated the correlation and causation between child labour and health, through citing two studies. Con has not provided an adequate response. Instead, he has asked a set of rhetorical questions, to which I will respond. Firstly, nearly all environments have detrimental effects towards children’s health. This is simply because a child has not developed to a sufficient standard. In some cases this may lead to effects such as lower heat tolerance, and greater need for food and rest. [9] Also, Con ignores that fact that death and diseases are significantly more likely to occur in places where child labour occurs. I also have demonstrated that there was a causal link between the two. Now, lets move on to the education aspect. I would agree with Con regarding his first point. However, ironically, Con provides a solution to this, when he mentions the ‘Food for Education’ programme. Also, I was not arguing that the children would do ‘well. ’ I was merely arguing that education could lead children to far more skilled jobs, which in turn would benefit the economy. Con also argues that education is a long-term solution. I agree, but do not believe that this is of any significance. One would not expect investing in renewable energy to immediately cut carbon dioxide emissions. But it does in the future. Furthermore, the positives that come with investing in education outweigh the monetary cost. Therefore, citizens with poor health and education is detrimental, long-term, to a country’s economy because this transforms into an unproductive workforce and society relies on unskilled workers to make the bulk of economic industries. I eagerly await Con’s response. [1] . http://tinyurl.com... [2], [8] . http://is.gd... [3] . http://tinyurl.com... [4], [7] . http://tinyurl.com... [5] . http://tinyurl.com... [6] . http://tinyurl.com... [9] . http://tinyurl.com...