In July 2014 the Bolivian government approved, within the Bolivian Children and Adolescents Code, allowing children as young as 10-12 to work independently and those 12-14 years old to work under an employment contract provided certain protective guidelines are followed. García Linera, temporarily presiding over Bolivia in Evo Morale’s absence, stated that the law “was difficult to craft, because policy-makers had to contend with a set of international conventions that the state had signed and the reality in Bolivia, which posed questions about an appropriate conceptualization of what work is and the situation of children and adolescents in the country.”
From the moment the legislation was introduced, it became hotly debated inside and outside of Bolivia. Debates and criticism over the “child labor legislation” provide great insight into the tensions involved in creating youth-centered policy in developing contexts. Understanding the realm of stakeholders supporting and opposing this legislation, where the criticism is emanating from, what is the substance of the criticism, and whether it is relevant to the Bolivian context is critical in assessing the soundness of the new law. Too often the international community assesses the soundness of policy-making in developing contexts without fully analyzing or understanding the context within which the policy was created. Laws and regulations are litmus tested as they compare to international standards that are, unfortunately, completely disconnected from the realities of some national contexts. While this is not an argument supporting cultural relativism in the application of human rights norms—a plethora of authors have addressed this issue—it is an argument for a more critical approach to people-centered, and in this case, youth-centered policy-making and policy analysis that touch on human rights issues or concerns. If the field of development is to successfully defend against the criticism that it is another form of imperialism, those in the field, particularly those in the policy sphere, must be conscientious in both their policy recommendations and criticism as well as in their engagement with policy-creating and enacting institutions.
In the case of Bolivia’s new law, for example, critics, such as well-regarded Human Rights Watch and others, express concern about the detrimental potential of the law, which, among other things, lowers the minimum age of employment, in terms of its potential for trapping children in a cycle of poverty. Critics also worry that the number of inspectors that are tasked with ensuring monitoring and regulation of child laborers is insufficient, thus exposing child laborers to possible trafficking, violence, and forced labor. These are valid concerns. Critics, however, give little consideration to the reason why many child workers themselves, through the Union of Child and Adolescent Workers, advocated for the law; lack of regulation exposes child workers, many of whom have no choice but to contribute to the family’s economy, to exploitation, abuse, and mistreatment from employers while leaving them with little recourse. Critics have also not addressed research into possible impacts of child labor regulation. In India, for example, research has demonstrated, using consumption and expenditure data, that, based on measurements of critical indicators like asset holding and calorie intake, households are worst off after India’s Child Labor (Prohibition and Regulation) Act of 1986. While, after considering these facts, international stake-holders might still come down against Bolivia’s new law, lack of public discourse around these issues is problematic because it obscures a set of very important contextual realities that the law has been tasked with addressing. Furthermore, lack of transparent discourse into the context-specific nuances prevents dialogue around the underlying problems the law seeks to address that may be better addressed otherwise, such as creating adequate employment for adults, but that a country may not be able to undertake immediately.
So, where does this leave stake-holders seeking to enact or propose youth-related policies in developing country contexts? What norms should be applied that are both, sufficiently protective and adequately rights engendering? I argue that those seeking to recommend policies, particularly in the context of a development framework, must be exceptionally calculated in their recommendations and must, at times, acknowledge that, while broad frameworks can create a point of departure, local stake-holders, particularly youth themselves and groups that work closely with youth, might be better positioned to craft context-specific policies that strike the necessary balance between rights and protections.
