Before answering how, people in EA tend to first ask if. I.e. is the cause area of improving working conditions really a better use of our resources than something else (e.g. tackling poverty). To assess this, we could use the ITN framework. To illustrate this extremely quickly (i.e. without doing the analysis justice)
Importance: Poverty appears to be a bigger issue than working conditions in the developing world.
Tractability: At least some forms of tackling poverty are tractable, notably cash transfers. Improving working conditions does not appear tractable.
Neglectedness: I don’t know how much work is happening on tackling working conditions, but I would be surprised if it were neglected, given how much attention there has been on this topic. After all, it affects clothing and items that those of us in the rich world buy, which raises its profile much more than extreme poverty.
Indeed, some economists (e.g. Jeffrey Sachs) have suggested that we shouldwantmoresweatshops, as they are a valuable step in economic development.
I haven’t looked carefully at the question of whether tackling working conditions in the developing world is high impact, but as the above illustrates, I would guess it probably isn’t.
--
However, what I’ve said thus far risks sounding unhelpful. You didn’t ask for challenge on the premise of your question, you asked for how to go about making things better for workers.
Again, I haven’t thought about this carefully, but some thoughts off the top of my head:
With this outcome (as with many others) it’s easy to think of things that sound relevant, but likely hard to find ones where the intervention actually has evidence of working
A full assessment should consider unintended consequences. For example, if you successfully improve working conditions for one group of people in the short term, other outcomes (either in the longer term or for other people) include:
Firms may decide that if they are offering a higher wage, they should demand more qualifications, which may exclude the poorest people, for whom access to qualifications may be harder.
Firms may decided that the purpose of locating their facilities in that country is no longer applicable, and may move (future) factories/offices elsewhere, potentially depriving the poorest people of job opportunities.
I guess if I were tasked with turning a substantial amount of philanthropic money into better outcomes for workers in the developing world, my first step would be to commission further research.
If I were really pressed to come up with an answer without researching it further, I guess I would suggest GiveDirectly. I don’t think it directly solves the problem, and recipients of cash transfers may still end up working in sweatshops, but it’s at least easier to decide whether you want to put up with it if you have savings.
Hello Sanjay, thank you for your response. I understand that improving working conditions in low-income countries is much harder to achieve than reducing extreme poverty, but that on its own doesn’t imply that there are no effective relevant interventions possible whatsoever. I can definitely believe that more research would be needed to understand which interventions (if any) could be effective in improving working conditions in poor countries. Indeed, one big reason I made this post is to ask whether anyone on this forum is aware of relevant research or debates.
I agree with your suggestion that unconditional cash transfers have some chance of indirectly contributing to better working conditions, because one is more likely to unionize and protest for workers’ rights when one has one’s basic needs met. However, I still wonder if, other than that, there really are no other effective interventions to improve labor conditions in poor countries. That may be the case, but I am not aware of any research that conclusively demonstrates this.
Hi Maxim, welcome to the EA Forum :-)
Before answering how, people in EA tend to first ask if. I.e. is the cause area of improving working conditions really a better use of our resources than something else (e.g. tackling poverty). To assess this, we could use the ITN framework. To illustrate this extremely quickly (i.e. without doing the analysis justice)
Importance: Poverty appears to be a bigger issue than working conditions in the developing world.
Tractability: At least some forms of tackling poverty are tractable, notably cash transfers. Improving working conditions does not appear tractable.
Neglectedness: I don’t know how much work is happening on tackling working conditions, but I would be surprised if it were neglected, given how much attention there has been on this topic. After all, it affects clothing and items that those of us in the rich world buy, which raises its profile much more than extreme poverty.
Indeed, some economists (e.g. Jeffrey Sachs) have suggested that we should want more sweatshops, as they are a valuable step in economic development.
I haven’t looked carefully at the question of whether tackling working conditions in the developing world is high impact, but as the above illustrates, I would guess it probably isn’t.
--
However, what I’ve said thus far risks sounding unhelpful. You didn’t ask for challenge on the premise of your question, you asked for how to go about making things better for workers.
Again, I haven’t thought about this carefully, but some thoughts off the top of my head:
With this outcome (as with many others) it’s easy to think of things that sound relevant, but likely hard to find ones where the intervention actually has evidence of working
A full assessment should consider unintended consequences. For example, if you successfully improve working conditions for one group of people in the short term, other outcomes (either in the longer term or for other people) include:
Firms may decide that if they are offering a higher wage, they should demand more qualifications, which may exclude the poorest people, for whom access to qualifications may be harder.
Firms may decided that the purpose of locating their facilities in that country is no longer applicable, and may move (future) factories/offices elsewhere, potentially depriving the poorest people of job opportunities.
I guess if I were tasked with turning a substantial amount of philanthropic money into better outcomes for workers in the developing world, my first step would be to commission further research.
If I were really pressed to come up with an answer without researching it further, I guess I would suggest GiveDirectly. I don’t think it directly solves the problem, and recipients of cash transfers may still end up working in sweatshops, but it’s at least easier to decide whether you want to put up with it if you have savings.
Hello Sanjay, thank you for your response. I understand that improving working conditions in low-income countries is much harder to achieve than reducing extreme poverty, but that on its own doesn’t imply that there are no effective relevant interventions possible whatsoever. I can definitely believe that more research would be needed to understand which interventions (if any) could be effective in improving working conditions in poor countries. Indeed, one big reason I made this post is to ask whether anyone on this forum is aware of relevant research or debates.
I agree with your suggestion that unconditional cash transfers have some chance of indirectly contributing to better working conditions, because one is more likely to unionize and protest for workers’ rights when one has one’s basic needs met. However, I still wonder if, other than that, there really are no other effective interventions to improve labor conditions in poor countries. That may be the case, but I am not aware of any research that conclusively demonstrates this.