Below is an essay responding to Clark Nardinelli's research on child labor during the Industrial Revolution. Although our impulsive response to such a system is one of disgust, such sentiments lack sympathy for nineteenth-century families and the choices they faced. Indeed, families viewed child labor with such favor that child labor laws could not be passed until 1) a regional economy no longer utilized child labor and 2) special interest groups such as unions joined forces with the relatively small romantic movement against child labor. Nardinelli's work reminds us to remember the importance of choices and how premature restriction of choice can harm families over the long-run.
______
Nearly eight decades after the passing of the Fair Labor Standards Act, public opinion sees child labor as a relic of an ignorant and archaic past. The prohibition of employing children under fourteen has been seen as a moral victory over abusive business practices proliferated in the late nineteenth century. In his history of child labor in the Industrial Revolution, Nardinelli (1990) argues that socioeconomic context is vital to judging the legitimacy of child labor (p. 35). What could children do besides working in a factory, and did those options offer a better quality of life?
The Argument
To appreciate Nardinelli’s analysis, we must remember that we value things for the commodities they provide (p. 35). An object does not have intrinsic worth, but only becomes valuable when we value what it can provide. Likewise, a family economy does not necessarily seek to maximize income, for money has no value in and of itself. Rather, a family seeks wages when money provides means to achieving one or many desired commodities. Commodities assume a variety of forms and can be achieved in several ways. Becker (1976) places all household production into one of three categories: market production, work in the home, and investment in human capital. Market production involves work outside the home, producing goods for another party in exchange for wages. Work in the home is the production of household commodities by household members. Examples include farm labor, childcare, and household chores. Investment in human capital is all work that does not directly and immediately produce household commodities, such as education and skills training. Because time and energy are scarce resources, families must decide which activities each member should perform to maximize commodity consumption.
Through this categorization, we recognize that earning wages is merely one way for a family to produce commodities. As we examine the industrial-era parent’s decision to send their children to factories, we cannot assume this parent lacked affection toward or manipulated their children. Indeed, Pollack’s research (1983) confirmed that British and American parents generally remained affectionate toward their children from the 1500s through the 1800s. We must presume industrial-era parents allowed their children to be employed for the good of all in the household, including the children’s (Nardinelli, pp. 40-41). Parents found that their children could produce more household commodities in the marketplace than at home or through investment in human capital. Children have always produced commodities for the household, and household production played a more significant role in the family economy before the Industrial Revolution than it does today, so children working rather than playing or attending school is an old concept (Nardinelli, p. 47). Occupations children undertook include agricultural labor on the family farm, assistance in the family trade, or, temporary apprenticeship or servitude outside the home (see Nardinelli, pp. 46-56). The Industrial Revolution, therefore, did not introduce or notably increase the level of work in childhoods, but rather redirected the work.
Considering commodity production is a family’s primary function, the redirection of child labor logically follows the incentives presented by the Industrial Revolution. Technological innovation allowed children’s productivity to rival that of their adult counterparts (Nardinelli, p. 59). Additionally, the agricultural industry experienced diminishing returns to labor in the years preceding the Industrial Revolution, encouraging commodity-producing children to work elsewhere to maximize efficiency (Nardinelli, p. 62).
These economic trends demonstrate that parents did not exploit their children for financial gain by sending their children to factories for wages, but that conclusion does not answer whether children were exploited at the workplace itself. If children felt exploited at the workplace, then they would migrate to other work opportunities, presuming the labor market was relatively free. Hannah (1976) found that competition was no less strong during the revolution than it was before (pp. 10-11). Workers averaged five different employers and left when they had a bad employer (Nardinelli p. 75). Empirically, the labor market was free and employees were able to leave a job they found dissatisfactory.
Child laborers were exploited neither in their homes nor in their workplace, and their quality of life was not notably worse than before the Industrial Revolution. This is not to say that work in factories was “good” or objectively desirable. The important question, however, is whether these young factory workers had better alternatives. Under Nardinelli’s analysis, the answer is no.
Historical Evidence
To support his claim, Nardinelli would need to find that child labor productivity was decreasing relative to adult labor productivity before substantial child labor reform legislation took effect. Consistently, child labor reform laws were enacted after an industrial economy was established, not during its development.
In the United States, labor laws were largely passed on the state level (Nardinelli, p. 129). While the variance complicates the study, it benefits our analysis by offering points of comparison within a single nation. “New England was the first region of the country to industrialize; states from this region were the first to regulate child labor” (Nardinelli, p. 129). Northeastern states crafted child labor legislation incrementally from the 1840s through 1885, while other states did not begin addressing child labor until the 1880s. By the turn of the century, twenty-eight states had some form of child labor legislation, and each of these states was part of the moderately or highly industrialized regions of the country (Lescohier and Brandeis 1966, pp. 404-5).
The mountainous and southern regions were the exceptions, but economic analysis predicts them. In the mountains, the population is sparse, which reduces the available supply of labor (Marans and Stimson 2011, p. 111). Firms able to centralize were in need of all available labor, and child labor laws would worsen the problem. Mountain states were consequently unwilling to pass prohibitive legislature. Industrialization in the South lagged behind the northern and midwestern economies due to the economic devastation it experienced from the Civil War. Southerners believed that labor legislation, including child labor legislation, would stem the South’s industrialization (Nardinelli, p. 130). Around World War I, when the South finally reached industrialization, southern states began passing minor child labor legislation, such as setting hour and age limits (Nardinelli p. 130).
The late passage of the legislation provides evidence that child labor was seen as economically beneficial, but it fails to prove Nardinelli’s other argument, that child labor was not exploitative. For evidence of this claim, we examine the motivations of those advocating for child labor legislation. Contrary to the popular assumption that humanitarians pushed the legislation, less altruistic forces were also at play. Teachers, for example, were strong advocates of placing limits on child labor (Nardinelli, p. 139). While we can assume at least some teachers may have been concerned with child labor itself, we cannot ignore the special interests for teachers. If children spent less time working, they may spend more time in school, which would raise the demand for teachers. Other self-interested advocates included adult male workers, who wished to restrict labor supply so their wages might rise, and certain manufacturing firms, who wished to artificially raise costs for upstart competition (Nardinelli, p. 143).
Nardinelli’s findings refute the popular notion that child labor was exploitative. While child labor occasionally allowed exploitative practices, these cases were not reflective of the system as a whole, and states did not eliminate child labor while it remained economically beneficial for both firm and families. Even when the usefulness of child labor declined, the people morally offended by child labor were too few to produce its prohibition alone; they needed the assistance of special interest groups. This chain of events could only occur if the employment of children brought forth benefits to children and their families.
Child labor in the American economy was no exception. Nardinelli extensively researched child labor in the English Industrial Revolution and found that it followed similar patterns to of the American Industrial Revolution. France, Germany, and Japan’s child labor also existed and dissipated under similar situations (Nardinelli, p. 123-125). The United States is one of several testimonies to the natural dynamics of child labor.
Policy Conclusions
While Nardinelli’s work is first and foremost a descriptive, historical analysis, some normative inferences can be made. First, resources and efforts to end mutually voluntary employment of children are misplaced and should be redirected. Over thirty different United Nations organizations and programs exist for the restriction of child labor (The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, n.d.). In 2013, the United States spent nine million dollars on anti-child labor programs in Columbia alone (CNS News 2013). Recently, India prohibited the employment of children younger than fourteen (New York Times 2015). While some of these measures focus on preventing slavery—which is effectively involuntary employment—hefty sums of money are still spent on the prohibition of consensual employment. Prematurely and artificially stemming child labor will generally harm children and their families since their most efficient means of commodity production would be stripped away. Resources spent through these labor reform organizations could be used more productively or saved.
We also cannot ignore the similarities between child labor legislation and regulatory capture. Major proponents of child labor reform campaigned out of self-interest rather than out of concern for the children, adult male workers because they wished to artificially increase their wages and manufacturers because they wished to increase the costs of their competition (Nardinelli, p. 11). While these advocates can appear generous in the public square, their motives may be more material and their claims must be taken skeptically. Today, we frequently see regulatory capture occurring through occupational licensing. For instance, in thirty-three states, regulations on makeup artists are stricter than those for emergency medical technicians (Jessen 2016). While training is reasonable prerequisite to being employed in a field, a poor EMT produces greater disasters than a poor makeup artist. If occupational regulation were wholly about protecting customers, the EMT should have greater standards to meet, but the legislation indicates that concentrated self-interests of the cosmological field have dictated otherwise. The history of child labor reminds us that altruistic rhetoric may be misleading, and we must pursue what is best for others rather than what makes us feel generous.
Synthesis and Response
The debate surrounding child labor in the Industrial Revolution reflects the broader debate overarching American economic history between protectionism and economic liberty. Economic growth can be risky. It can make us uncomfortable, nervous, or offended. But after economic growth takes its course, few are willing to exchange the benefits for the old way of life.
Economic growth soared through the Industrial Revolution as the economy “began to assume many of its modern characteristics” (Walton and Rockoff 2008, p. 298). Gains in efficiency and innovation brought forth a greater amount and wider variety of goods for Americans to select than ever before, and the strength of our economy today rests on the economic success of the Industrial Revolution. Child labor was, no doubt, a substantial component of that era and facilitated the rise in economic output. Even when we assume factory employment does not constitute the ideal childhood, the success of the Industrial Revolution combined with the natural dissolution of child labor demonstrates the problem with premature interference in market processes. If the states had prohibited child labor before their regions had industrialized, they would have curbed economic efficiency and innovation, the very forces that pushed child labor into obsolescence. Additionally, as Nardinelli’s analysis demonstrates, the child workers would be forced into less advantageous lifestyles. Because government did not interfere before industrialization, the United States economy grew and moved from child labor toward widespread education. The lesson: do not legislate a component of an ideal world before the rest of the economic ecosystem is also prepared.
Were Nardinelli to update Child Labor and the Industrial Revolution, he would do well to further research gains from education during that time. He presumes education did not offer significant returns because most children worked but lacks data to affirm this point. If education did not significantly increase an industrial-era child’s earning potential, then Nardinelli’s argument that factory labor was often a child’s best option is reaffirmed. If industrial-era schools did provide significant increases in potential earnings, Nardinelli would have to explain why. Potential explanations range from a simple information problem (parents may not have been aware of the difference in earnings potential) to a faulty assumption by Nardinelli.
Conclusion
Simply put, child labor during the Industrial Revolution was not exploitative and in fact was the best option for the total commodity production of many households. Due to its efficiency, legislatures were unwilling to prohibit child labor until it became relatively inefficient due to natural market processes. Protective measures would likely have harmed children and families instead, while manufacturing firms and adult male workers would have benefited from reduced competition. Industrial-era child labor serves as a reminder to examine opportunity costs and to be wary of rent seeking before advocating economic intervention.
______
References
Becker, G. S. (1976). The economic approach to human behavior. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Ending Child Labor in India. (2015, June 26). New York Times. Retrieved from Ending Child Labor in India. (2015, June 27). Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/27/opinion/ending-child-labor-in-india.html
Goldin, Claudia, and Kenneth Sokoloff. "Women, Children, and Industrialization in the Early Republic: Evidence from the Manufacturing Censuses." Journal of Economic History 42.4 (1981): 741-74.
Hannah, L. (1976). The rise of the corporate economy: The British experience. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Lescohier, D. D., & Brandeis, E. (1966). History of labor in the United States: 1896-1932 (Vol. 3). New York: A. M. Kelley.
List of United Nations Agencies, Programmes, NGOs and Foundations working on Contemporary Forms of Slavery. (n.d.). Retrieved April 14, 2016, from http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Slavery/UNVTFCFS/Pages/SlaveryList.aspx
Marans, Robert W., and R. J. Stimson. Investigating Quality of Urban Life: Theory, Methods and Empirical Research. Dordrecht: Springer, 2011. Print.
Nardinelli, C. (1990). Child labor and the Industrial Revolution. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
Pollock, L. A. (1983). Forgotten children: Parent-child relations from 1500 to 1900. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Walton, G. M., & Rockoff, H. (2008). History of the American Economy (11th ed.). Mason, OH: Cengage Learning.
Comments
Post a Comment