We in the industrialised world have so many attractive choices open to us. The desperately poor have very few choices open to them, which is why the choices they do make are sometimes desperate ones. It is also why enforcement is expected to be so difficult: without an increase in more attractive options, the demand for buyers of children and for suppliers of dangerous ferry rides will remain high despite their illegality.

          If poverty is at the root of these problems, then we must ask two further questions: Why are these people so poor? and how can they become wealthy?

          These are complicated questions, of course, exercising the minds of economists the world over, but a few hours of internet research provides some clues.

          Although Ghana is relatively rich in natural resources, its recent history has been an unstable and violent one. The country is on its fifth constitution in less than fifty years. The first post-independence government, that of Kwame Nkrumah, destroyed much wealth through ill-conceived investments in monumental public works projects and mismanaged state schemes in agriculture and industry. A series of coups failed for a long time to improve the situation, leading instead to long-discredited protectionist measures such as self-reliance in food production. (While 'self-reliance' has a nice ring, it amounts to restrictions on imports, which lead to less competition, which in turn leads inevitably to less-than-optimal use of resources, and therefore to less wealth creation.)

          There is some room for optimism, though. The most recent republic, a constitutional democracy, has lasted since 1992 and is engaged in such salutary measures as the privatisation of inefficient state enterprises and the lifting of import restrictions. Still, the road out of poverty is a long one. Not easily forgotten are the superstitions of pre-colonial culture, the inferiority complex inherited from colonialism, and the authoritarian control and abuse of Ghanaians by Ghanaians. They comprise a hobbling, three-tiered legacy, which a local pastor recently urged the country's journalists to address more openly and constructively.

          Bangladesh has also had a tumultuous recent history. It was a part of British India until its independence in 1947, whereupon it suffered under Pakistani rule until finally fighting a war for its own independence in 1971. There too, as in Ghana, the first post-independence governments destroyed much wealth, in this case by nationalising much of the country's industrial sector. A series of coups followed, keeping the country destabilised for the next twenty years, so that it was 1990 before they at last achieved a parliamentary democracy.

          If there is cause for optimism in Bangladesh, it is, as in Ghana, due to recent political stability and to market reforms such as privatisation and reduced restrictions on international trade. The garment industry in particular has benefited from the increased access to world markets, and interestingly, has apparently managed to eliminate the use of child labour in recent years. Still, overall reforms are slow, and to make matters worse, Bangladesh consistently ranks as the most corrupt country in the world according to Transparency International's yearly reports. (Ghana fares better, but still not well.) It is often said that if you give a man a fish, you feed him for a day; if you teach a man to fish, you feed him for a lifetime. But clearly, it is not enough to teach a man to fish. We must also teach him about economics.

          When people are allowed to make their own decisions about what to buy and sell on the open market, they will by and large make their decisions based on the most efficient use of resources, and wealth will grow. When property rights are protected and people are allowed to keep the product of their efforts, they will have an incentive to work harder and smarter, and again, wealth will grow.

          When we teach enough men about the benefits of economic freedom, they will demand these benefits for themselves, and in so doing, they will liberate the productive energies of whole nations of men so that they can lift themselves out of poverty and stop worrying about just feeding themselves!

          If the IOM can save a few hundred children in Ghana over the course of two and a half years, they are certainly deserving of praise. If some albeit spotty enforcement of laws can save a few hundred more, all the better. Likewise, if safety regulations can have some positive effect in Bangladesh, it will be a small step in the right direction.

          More significant progress, though, is only likely to occur when these countries finally make the climb out of dire poverty. As much as we agitate for social justice in these places, it is even more important to agitate for the private property rights, access to world markets, and overall economic freedom that underpin the creation and accumulation of wealth. Only when the poorer people or the world have become less desperate will slavery and reckless endangerment be as unthinkable to them as it is to us.