Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose Trade liberalization could either exacerbate or ameliorate the incidence of child labour. This paper aims to examine the effect of trade liberalization through membership in the GATT/WTO on the incidence of child labour across countries and over time. The authors examine child labour force participation data and WTO membership for 94 countries between 1980 and 1999. They find that membership in the WTO is negatively correlated with child labour. However, they do not find a statistically significant relationship between openness and child labour and therefore rule out the trade‐expanding channel of WTO membership on child labour. Design/methodology/approach The authors' regression equations examine the effect of GATT or WTO membership on the incidence of child labour. They examine data from 94 countries from 1980 and 1999 and employ a fixed‐effects regression. They estimate different models taking different variables as control variables. They find a statistically significant effect negative of WTO membership on the incidence of child labour. They do not find a statistically significant effect of openness on child labour. Findings The authors find that membership in the WTO did reduce child labour. They do not find a statistically significant effect of openness on child labour. Research limitations/implications WTO membership does not increase the incidence of child labour as some critics claim. Membership itself is associated with reduced child labour so it may not be necessary to expand trade through international agreements in order to impact the incidence of child labour. Practical implications Contrary to critics of the WTO, membership does not exacerbate the problem of child labour. Originality/value This paper presents new data on child labour in a panel across countries over time. It is the first paper to systematically estimate the impact of international agreements on the incidence of child labour.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".