Inducements Vs. Sanctions

"What policy tools would help improve policy outcomes on the issue you care about? Would inducements be better than sanctions? "

In the case of child labor, sanctions would be more effective than inducements in that the "employers" see greater benefit in continuing to use child labor because it keeps their costs down. These regulatory tools are best used against the "employers" in that they need to receive punishment that can act as a reinforcement in not "hiring" young children. These "employers" would most likely respond well to jail-time rather than fines. If fines were placed on them they could simply pay then continue using the children and hide the illegal employment more carefully. They need to experience what it is like to have their rights infringed upon. This is the only way we can get some kind of positive response from the "employers".

As for the children, redistributive tools are necessary in that, through donations, we are able to rehabilitate these children. They require a shelter in which they can receive medical attention, undergo therapy, and learn necessary social skills to lead independent lifestyles. The children can, thus, be reintegrated into society.

In the issue of child labor, it is necessary to use both sanctions and inducements. Sanctions work to enforce not using child labor and inducements work to encourage people to donate money used to rehabilitate children. The inducements often include promoting ethical practices and triggering emotional responses.