Experiments in Living --

* a defeat for a generation lost in a world with no taste

Child Labour.. *from a third world perspective

Context: In many regions, even in situations where both parents work it can still be an enourmous struggle to afford to provide for their family. This article will argue that it is important to understand child labour in this context, i.e as something which allows some of the most impoverished families in the world a small improvement in their lives, and to understand that eradicating child labour will actually leave many families worse off.

Education: Aid on its own doesn't work. Even if foreign donors invest in education, and set up schools, parents wont allow their children to go to them. It is only after the basic survival needs of the family have been met, that things like education will actually start to be seen as relevant.

Capitalism Rocks: Every capitalist country since the end of World War 2 has got richer. The only exceptions to this are in Sub-Saharan Africa and then it's the result of bad governance rather then any flaw in market systems. Capitalism allows for any country, to generate wealth, so long as it is able to find a type of goods or a service that it is able to offer to the rest of the world at a competitive price... and if you are in a country where there hasn't been any real type of education system then that means the only route out of poverty, because there aren't any people with higher level skills, is working in secondary or primary industry, and relying on the fact that you can work for cheaper rates then people in the west can.

Exploitation: This isn't exploitation, because the individuals working see their quality of life improve, they may be earning very little, but its enough for them to be able to afford what they need based on the way their local currency system works. It simply wouldn't make sense to pay them western rates.

Individual and the State: It's true that individuals whilst better of aren't going to be able to live the kind of lifestyles that people in the west live, but this is about looking at things from a more long-term view. Even if by western standards, the amount an individual earns is substantially less, in terms of total tax revenue that can be collected, it amounts to a much larger sum when viewed as a collective, and the state will also be collecting tax revenue from the foreign business's themselves.

The Link to Development: This means that the state has more money which it can use to invest in projects geared towards moving the country to tertiary and quaternary industry, and it means that the local economy booms, because now workers are being paid wages, they have more money to spend on locally produced goods, this is significant because if the local economy starts to take off, and if as a result adults are able to earn more, you get to a point where it is no longer necessary for the children to have to work at all.

Empowering the Child: They get to work in an environment where they are surrounded by and interact with other children. They get to learn new skills. Their health improves (diet linked to income) They get to be inside... and it is also worth noting that many of the companies that activists presently criticise, have actually set up after work schools for the children that they employ so they get an education aswell.

Child Safety: The children who work, are often safer then they would be if they weren't employed. It keeps them of the street which means they are less likely to get involved in crime and because they are now earning, their parents who in many circumstances are desperate for income, are less likely to sell their children to child smugglers for example or to encourage them into illegal areas of the economy which adversely affect all (prostitution / the drugs industry).

Childhood as a Concept: You can't miss something if you have no prior conception of it. And that's the reality, working for a living, whether its on a farm or in a factory is the only lifestyle that the children who work in these places have ever known. This is important because it means that from the point of view of the ' tragic element ' it's a western idea, that we are superimposing onto other cultures when we assume that our concept of childhood should be universal.

Working conditions: It is true that a lot of children find themselves working in unsafe environments and it's true that some children are beaten whilst at work... But it's also true that there is a trend among western consumers to be ' ethical buyers ' and companies that are known to use child labour, will find that works against them, unless they can prove that the children are looked after. I.e. there is an economic incentive for companies to improve the conditions and it is possible for many of the large multinationals involved to do this without compromising on their profits in the long term.

Double Standards: When Britain developed, post the industrial revolution. It did so by relying on new technologies and on cheap labour. Including child labour. So effectively the message being sent out by saying no is one of double standards. The only difference between that situation and the present is that whereas the products of the industrial revolution were often forced onto Britain's colonies regardless of whether they wanted them or not. In this case the products being produced are actually wanted by consumers in the west. We benefit from cheaper prices, and they benefit from full employment, and being helped out of poverty.

Article by Sheraz Qureshi