The Arguments Against The Use of Sweatshops in Developing Countries

To most of the opponents of using sweatshops in developing countries, the use of the sweatshops exemplifies the manner in which the developed countries exploit the developing countries. According to them, this is also a terrific way to openness to how the developed countries hurt the developing economies. Additionally, in regard to globalization, this is a transition from a more regulated economy to one that is not regulated. The permanently fixed and superior mobility of capital from the developed countries means that there is a fundamental alteration in bargaining power that the companies from developed countries have over the individuals working in the sweatshops. 

The Case Against the International Sweatshops

The ability of the companies from the developed country to shift their sweatshops from on location to the other location. As a result, the administrations of the unindustrialized countries are locked in bidding wars so as to attract the companies in the developed countries to set up shop in their countries. In some instances, the companies from the developed countries may blackmail the governments in the developing countries in terms of threats to withdraw their investments if they are not given better deals or withhold the investments that they have made in the developing countries. This enables the large multinational corporations to lead the developing counters into bidding wars whereby they aim to offer the ‘best’ conditions for these large companies to operate in. the end result is that is the workers in the developing countries that suffer from low wages and working conditions. Some countries such as Indonesia deliberately hold down the wages of the individuals working in the sweat shops so that they can make their country favorable to the big business setting up the sweatshops. The end results of this method are that the living conditions, labor standards, and wages have spiraled to rock bottom. Furthermore, there is an increasing decline in the real incomes of the individuals working in the sweatshops and an increasing or widening gap that has arisen between the poor and the rich.

The other argument that the opposers of the use of sweatshops bring are that the companies that is operating in the developing countries bring about slave wages. The wage level that these companies have considered as being appropriate if far from what is considered as the acceptable wage standards of the world. They argue that these workers have to be paid enough money to support a decent living standard and their families. To some extent, the individuals working in these sweatshops should be in a position that they are better off than being worse off even after working. The central claim that they have been that it is the companies that actually immiserate the workers in the developing countries. According to Skarbek et al. (2012), if the rationale of the policies that are implemented in the developing countries to improve does not benefit the individual workers in the sweatshops but instead benefit some few persons who are ranked higher in the economies of the developing countries, then the rationale for having such companies to work there has been lost.

It is also not morally permissible for companies to continue operating in the developing countries if the gap between the poor and the rich continues to widen. It is not only the workers who are working in these sweatshops that are constantly being exploited but the trade between the developed and the developing countries that is continuously creating an inequality. The large companies should be able to set up structures that enable the gap between the poor and the rich to narrow and not to widen as is the case currently. In this format of trade between the developed and the developing countries, it is the workers in the sweatshops who are mostly vulnerable that are continuously being exploited. Critics argue that there seems to be a tacit allegiance between the elites in the developed world and the elites in the developing world that enable the exploitation of the poor so that they can maintain elite lifestyles (Cooney, 2004).

The other argument that can be brought for is that some of the developing countries collude with the top management of the companies that wants to set up sweatshops in the developing countries. Most of these nations such as Indonesia and Pakistan have stepped up their oppression tactics to the labors. Some of these countries have failed even to enforce some of the most basic labor standards that they purport to support. These countries have constantly used the police and the military to ensure that any instances of strikes when workers are articulating for their rights are broken down and repressed. The leaders of these developing countries have used tactics that stifle any political dissent. This means that they are able to hold on to power for as long as they want and thereby creating an environment that the companies from the developed countries feel that is favorable to them. This means that some companies such as Nike are benefiting from the political oppression of individuals where they have set up shop (Heintz, 2004)..