Get Active!

The case of Bangladesh in the 1990s (garment industry) comes up regularly. Children would be worse off leaving the working place after a boycott than they were while working. Criticising boycotts is, however, not very strongly supported from one example taken from one-and-a-half decade earlier. Furthermore, why other countries and other industries did not react in the same way is usually not commented upon, so the status of the example is not fully understood. Thus based on the Bangladesh example, a negative advice on boycotts is sometimes given. But this in its turn leads to a curiosity, for we would then be obliged to protest against initiatives such as of the FIFA to use child labour free footballs. The background of this is that the consumers decide what products they buy, although they are not always aware of the circumstances in which the products are made. A boycott makes manifest the realisation that initially products made by child labour have been purchased earlier. Thus in the Bangladesh case the question is not only what happens with the children after a boycott is (intended to be) implemented, but also how they ended up in the garment industry in the first place: because there was a demand for the product. Moreover, if it is really true that most children ended up much worse (the magnitude can be questioned), it only indicates that the children had been given no choice from the start, something a boycott cannot be blamed for. Such a situation does, however, indicate that there are two sides on the child labour problem: a boycott is the consumers’ mirror image of the producers’ side that child labour will not be used. The alternative for the children is not worse work but education. A theoretical question of interest is whether CB, and specifically the Bangladesh example, does not assume a “situation of full employment” of children in the “not-worst forms” industries. If the children end up worse after a boycott of a product (e.g. garments), it must be because they cannot find something equivalent in another industry. So either all (poor) children are at work, or some children are not at work and do not profit from the “advantages” that the work offers. Since the first of these two possibilities is false, we must conclude that CB leaves out much relevant information on what happens (or does not happen) to children in a developing country, specifically on how children turn from non-workers into workers. An example of how a boycott could have helped is found with Credit-Suisse , where a boycott failed to be implemented and village children were induced in making footballs. Living in the village, would not have been gone into prostitution if a boycott would have been effectuated. Even if granted that some boycotts would be counterproductive, one cannot categorically conclude (as happens) that “Boycotts are not helpful” . Boycotts at the demand side of products alone may not be sufficient, but combined with other measures they may be effective. See also http://anthropology.punt.nl/index.php#475235