Just one of the many examples of how noble-sounding statutes backfire when faced with economic reality.
A ban on child labor sounds like a policy move that would yield nothing but favorable results. But a new paper on the fallout from such a measure in India finds that isn’t the case.The title — “Perverse Consequences of Well Intentioned Regulation: Evidence from India’s Child Labor Ban” — captures the conclusion that families’ welfare diminished rather than improved after India’s 1986 prohibition against labor by children under age 14.The authors focused on particular jobs that the ban prohibited children from doing, such as working in mines, handling toxic substances, making cigarettes or providing food at rail stations. The ban didn’t extend to agriculture or family businesses, but the legislation set forth limits on how many and which hours children could work. Penalties for flouting the law included fines or prison time.
After the ban, the authors found, child labor actually increased — while wages for children, relative to those of adults, decreased. In addition, since fewer children were being paid, families became poorer, consumed and spent less and all told, found themselves struggling more financially than they had before the ban.
The abstract of the NBER paper by Prashant Bharadwaj, Leah K. Lakdawala and Nicholas Li (bold mine)
While bans against child labor are a common policy tool, there is very little empirical evidence validating their effectiveness. In this paper, we examine the consequences of India’s landmark legislation against child labor, the Child Labor (Prohibition and Regulation) Act of 1986. Using data from employment surveys conducted before and after the ban, and using age restrictions that determined who the ban applied to, we show that child wages decrease and child labor increases after the ban. These results are consistent with a theoretical model building on the seminal work of Basu and Van (1998) and Basu (2005), where families use child labor to reach subsistence constraints and where child wages decrease in response to bans, leading poor families to utilize more child labor. The increase in child labor comes at the expense of reduced school enrollment. We also examine the effects of the ban at the household level. Using linked consumption and expenditure data, we find that along various margins of household expenditure, consumption, calorie intake and asset holdings, households are worse off after the ban
At the end of the day, arbitrary edicts intended to safeguard certain constituents end up going on the opposite direction. Such is the law of unintended consequences
