Sweatshops Revisited
(Continuation of the discussion from: “the problem with sweatshops - there are too few”)
A great article about the pros and cons of sweatshops can be found at aworldconnected.org. Radley Balko argues that, although regrettably, sweatshops are a necessary step for developing countries in becoming developed and industrialized. Those that accept it eventually succeed economically, while those that protest sweatshop-like conditions lag behind:
Kristof and Wudunn likewise point out that fifty years ago, countries like India resisted allowing foreign investment, while countries like Taiwan and South Korea accepted it — including the poor working conditions that came with it. Today, Taiwan and South Korea boast modern, well-educated, first-world economies. India has become more amenable to investment in the last several years — and its economy has shown promise in response. But for decades, India’s refusal to accept foreign “exploitation” wrought wide scale poverty and devastation.
Although it is difficult for many to accept, the fact is that sweatshops often are the best job conditions for poor areas, and oftentimes much better than the alternative. In this article, Balko cites a unicef study that showed that after an international boycott of sweatshop- produced carpet from Nepal, thousands of Nepalese girls were forced from sweatshops to prostitution. There are many similar examples. These are the reason why many anti-sweatshop organizations stopped calling for boycotts on sweatshop-produced products.
In the end, there is some common ground for both anti-sweatshops groups and pro-globalization. When groups like sweatshopwatch.org talk about sweaetshops, they are generally referring to conditions of forced slavery, or violations of human rights. Everyone unanimously agrees that sweatshops with conditions as terrible as this should not exist.
In the end, there are at least a few areas in which both free traders and anti-sweatshop crusaders can agree. Most free trade advocates agree, for example, that benefiting from slave labor is no better than theft. Sweatshop workers are often the envy of their communities — they make more money than the farmhands or beggars, for example. But it’s important that they’re working in factories of their own free will. The key to building prosperity is choice, and if workers don’t have the option to quit, or to take a job with a factory across town offering better wages, the “free” in “free trade” is a misnomer, and the benefits of globalization are tainted.
Likewise, free traders and anti-globalization activists usually agree that human rights violations should be documented, and that perpetrators of such violations should be publicized and embarrassed. If in its desire to attract foreign investment a government refuses to police a sweatshop factory where women are being forced into sexual favors, or where union organizers get beaten, it’s certainly acceptable — in fact it’s imperative — that that government be held accountable in the international community.
The final question on the debate about sweatshops, is whether or not it is fair for big, “western” companies to take advantage of cheap labor in poor countries.
[another source: nytimes.com]
(Somewhat) Similar Posts:
Jeffery Sachs , in an article in the New York Times entitled "In Principle, A Case for More Sweatshops" (Allen R. Meyerson, The New York...
March 24th, 2006 at 2:26 pm
This is interesting that someone actually advocates sweatshops. My question is: Did those people who are now very literate in Korea or Taiwan ever work in sweat shops or their parents. What actually pulled them out of poverty?
Working oneself into the ground for little pay doesn’t seem like the answer especially at the expense of education. I would argue that education and a stable political atmosphere fosters economic growth and pulling one out of poverty.
Thanks,
Samuel
March 25th, 2006 at 5:34 pm
You have to remember that, first of all, in the vast majority of sweatshops, the workers there are working on their own volition. They’re not forced to “work themselves into the ground for little pay”. In fact, oftentimes it’s just the opposite - the ’sweatshop’ jobs are the envy of the community. Just because we label outsourced production jobs as ’sweatshops’ - which carries a strong negative connotation - does not mean that the conditions are horrible, or that they are slaves to the taskmaster. This article addressed the two concerns everyone has with sweatshops: (1) that people are not forced to work at them, and (2) that there are no violation of human rights (manipulation, abuse, etc.)
Education and stable politics may foster economic growth - but when you live in a poor country how do you pay for that education, and who pays taxes to support a stable government? What we call “sweatshops” can be the first step toward financial and economic independence. We need to consider sweatshops in their demographic context, and not compare pay or working conditions in, say, the Philippines, to those in Philadelphia.