スポンサーサイト 

上記の広告は1ヶ月以上更新のないブログに表示されています。
新しい記事を書く事で広告が消せます。

有害な労働搾取工場への賞賛 

NY timesの記事
In Praise of the Maligned Sweatshop
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
http://select.nytimes.com/gst/tsc.html?URI=http://select.nytimes.com/2006/06/06/opinion/06kristof.html&OQ=_rQ3D1&OP=3408cd4fQ2FDq_xDQ26mP33Q26DQ27Q2BQ2BQ3FDQ2BQ3FDQ2BQ3FD3BHgH3gDQ2BQ3FYPHmQ263ZynQ26Q3Dk

NY Timesのコラムニストの記事です.
貧困と闘うために本当に必要なものは何かを考えさせられます.
以下,記事.

Well-meaning American university students regularly campaign against sweatshops. But instead, anyone who cares about fighting poverty should campaign in favor of sweatshops, demanding that companies set up factories in Africa. If Africa could establish a clothing export industry, that would fight poverty far more effectively than any foreign aid program....

The problem is that it's still costly to manufacture in Africa. The headaches across much of the continent include red tape, corruption, political instability, unreliable electricity and ports, and an inexperienced labor force that leads to low productivity and quality. The anti-sweatshop movement isn't a prime obstacle, but it's one more reason not to manufacture in Africa.

Imagine that a Nike vice president proposed manufacturing cheap T-shirts in Ethiopia: ''Look, boss, it would be tough to operate there, but a factory would be a godsend to one of the poorest countries in the world. And if we kept a tight eye on costs and paid 25 cents an hour, we might be able to make a go of it.''

The boss would reply: ''You're crazy! We'd be boycotted on every campus in the country.''

So companies like Nike, itself once a target of sweatshop critics, tend not to have highly labor-intensive factories in the very poorest countries, but rather more capital-intensive factories (in which machines do more of the work) in better-off nations like Malaysia or Indonesia. And the real losers are the world's poorest people.

Some of those who campaign against sweatshops respond to my arguments by noting that they aren't against factories in Africa, but only demand a ''living wage'' in them. After all, if labor costs amount to only $1 per shirt, then doubling wages would barely make a difference in the final cost.

One problem -- as the closure of the Namibian factories suggests -- is that it already isn't profitable to pay respectable salaries, and so any pressure to raise them becomes one more reason to avoid Africa altogether.

以上.


偽善的な援助よりも,冷徹な労働搾取工場の方がよほど貧困に
悩む人々にとって,意味があることなのかもしれません.
単なる援助は一時的なものでしかなく,受ける側も受動的でしかない.
たとえ低賃金の労働であろうと,働くことは人間の尊厳を保つことでもあって,
働いて糧を得るというあたりまえのことをできることが援助よりも
長期的に見て貧困への対策として望ましいように思います.

コメント

コメントの投稿















管理者にだけ表示を許可する

トラックバック

この記事のトラックバックURL
http://kerso.blog52.fc2.com/tb.php/105-1c897602

上記広告は1ヶ月以上更新のないブログに表示されています。新しい記事を書くことで広告を消せます。