The Economics of Consumer Actions against Products with Child Labor Content

Public opinion polls in high income countries regularly document near universal condemnation of child labor in low income countries. Calls for consumer boycotts against products with child labor content are ubiquitous in America's universities. This essay assumes that this concern about child labor is motivated by a genuine concern for the welfare of working children. Can consumer boycotts and product labeling campaigns against products with child labor content make affected children better off? Restrictions on choice are generally not welfare improving. If an agent can freely choose between A and B and subsequently chooses A, the agent is not better off when choice A is eliminated. Put another way, children are working in a particular job, because it is perceived as better than the other jobs or activities in which they might participate. If that job is eliminated, what will the child do? If nothing happens to eliminate the factors that cause the child to work, the child switches to a less preferred job or activity, perhaps for less income or in worse conditions. This essay looks at this revealed preference argument in depth. The argument relies on several assumptions. The agent making decisions about the child has the child's best interest at heart. There is free choice over activities at the time of employment and full information about all the amenities associated with all of the choices open to the child. The restriction is effective at eliminating the job. The restriction does not otherwise alter the options available to the child nor does it fundamentally eliminate the factors that cause children to work in the first place. This essay examines these assumptions in detail.