Well we'll have to look at the actual study I cited in Journal of Economic Issues, Dec 1999.
> Now I am just flat out confused on what your position is on all the social
> clause debates and trade. You had argued before that labor was promoting
> them as a form of protectionism, yet you now seem to be objecting to this
> program because it has led to expansion of exports (possibly because of
> speculative behind-the-scene concessions?)
You are confusing yourself. I think these exports are largely non competing with US production; the threat of protection is used to win concessions and protect the ones already achieved through the WTO--which I quite non confusingly argued in my last post. And I don't support such bans even when used as a form of protection as long as all forms of liberalization are being forced on the third world.
> Speculation is useful for thinking about followup research, but the evidence
> presented in the WSJ article was that the ILO had found a signficant drop in
> child labor. And that many of the children were now going to school
> instead.
No, it didn't find that. It found a drop off in child labor in the factories it inspected. It does not speak to whether these children are employed underground or in the informal sector--in more dangerous conditions. And it seems that in the case of Cambodia the finding of the use of child labor in at least 10% of the factories (how big was the sample size?) would have been enough to kill increase in quota. Why did it not prevent quota increase in case of Bangladesh? Moreover, above study criticizes the education these children are receiving as often totally useless. A cosmetic reform. Again, it seems that many other children are thrust into even more dangerous working conditions. The severance pay the released child workers received after Harkin Bill was less $8 (I believe), which was a great hardship on them and the families dependent on their income.
Yours, Rakesh