(2 of 2)
What about the argument--beloved by students, labor activists and many Democrats--that we should conclude trade agreements with only those countries that commit themselves to acceptable labor standards? In the developing world that is seen for what it is--a thinly disguised form of rich-world protection. If a rich country imposes trade sanctions against a poor one because it uses child labor, for instance, the immediate impact will be a reduction of family income and hence more child labor. But, as Bhagwati argues, that doesn't absolve free-trade advocates from coming up with nonprotectionist proposals that do in fact improve labor standards.
The model here is the International Labor Organization's program for the eradication of child labor. Under the ILO scheme, NGOs, aid donors, local governments and companies work together, for example, by providing funds for children to remain in school. (The ILO's excellent website--www.ilo.org--has many examples of successful programs around the world.) So here is something that my young friend in New Jersey and his schoolmates can do: shame companies into adopting ILO guidelines, support NGOs that provide health and education to poor children and women and--hope springs eternal--lobby Congress for an increase in the abysmal level of foreign aid the U.S. sends to the poorest of the poor. But let free trade work its magic.