A. Overview
The United States Department of Labor’s Bureau of International Labor Affairs
(ILAB) has been reporting on international child labor issues since 1993.1 This is the
sixth report in ILAB’s By the Sweat and Toil of Children series.
Each of ILAB’s reports has examined a specific aspect of child labor. This year’s
report, as requested by the Congress, examines:
the economic benefits that could be realized from the elimination of
abusive and exploitative child labor and the increased enrollment of these children in school. The study should look at the economic
benefits to individual countries and to possible global benefits, in particular U.S. trade.2
According to the International Labor Organization, approximately 250 million
children between the ages of five and 14 work, 120 million of whom work full time.3
Tens of millions of children work under harmful conditions, in circumstances that are
detrimental to their physical, moral, and intellectual development. Children work in
mines, crawling underground through small, unlit and unventilated passageways. Children, mostly girls, work long days as domestic servants and often suffer
physical and emotional abuse. They are sold as carpet weavers to repay their parents’ debts.
Children do hard labor in rock quarries, breaking and carrying heavy stones. They toil
on commercial plantations, often exposed to dangerous pesticides. Girls are sold into
the nightmare of prostitution. Many children work long hours of work, often in excess
of ten hours per day.4
Not all work is detrimental to children. In this report, the concern is
exploitative work that endangers the health and development of children and undermines
their access to educational opportunities. There is widespread agreement that the
worst forms of child labor are indefensible and need to be abolished. But even when
working children are not forced to endure harsh conditions, child labor entails sacrifice
because children give up the opportunity to be engaged in other activities. The
principal activity that children could and should be doing instead of working is going to
school. This report provides a detailed analysis of the benefits that could be gained
through having children attend school rather than work. It considers the barriers that
keep many children from realizing these benefits and initiatives intended to lower these
barriers.
Chapter II of this report provides an overview of the benefits and costs of
education. It considers empirical evidence from studies of over 90 countries and finds
that for both individuals and society, education is generally a profitable investment.
The chapter also suggests that the benefits of moving children from work to school
would go not only to countries that reduce child labor, but also to the countries with
which they trade.
Chapter III starts by noting what is at first a puzzling fact: many children still
work even though schooling is likely to be more beneficial for them, their families, and
society over the long term. The chapter identifies some of the factors that must be
overcome before working children can access the benefits of education. The chapter
groups these factors into three general classes of barriers: a poverty of resources, a
poverty of opportunities, and the availability of work for children.
Chapter IV describes policy strategies and provides examples of specific projects
aimed at eliminating child labor. The analysis shows how such initiatives can help
lower the barriers identified in Chapter III. Because of its prominence in the area
of child labor elimination, much of the discussion in this chapter focuses on program
sponsored by the International Labor Organization’s
(ILO) International Program on the Elimination of Child Labor (IPEC). Finally, Chapter V presents some
summary conclusions.
The report also contains two appendices. Appendix A is a technical companion
to Chapter II. It provides a more detailed description of the economic analysis leading
to the conclusion that education is a profitable investment.
Appendix B presents highlights of child labor data from countries for which the
ILO made data available. For two countries, tabulations of data based on World Bank
Living Standards Measurement Surveys are also presented.
The remainder of this introduction seeks to place the report’s analysis of child
labor and schooling into a global context. It includes a discussion of the worst forms of
child labor as identified in Convention No. 182, recently adopted by the
ILO, and the trade-off between work and schooling.
B. The Worst Forms of Child Labor
Child labor takes many forms, some with significantly greater costs to children
than others. Within the international community, consensus has grown that the worst
forms of child labor must be eradicated without delay. In June 1999, the 174 member
countries of the ILO unanimously adopted a new Convention (No. 182) on the Worst
Forms of Child Labor.5 The Convention defines the worst forms of child labor to
include:
(a) all forms of slavery or practices similar to slavery, such as the sale
and trafficking of children, debt bondage and serfdom and forced or compulsory
labour, including forced or compulsory recruitment of children for use in armed conflict;
(b) the use, procuring or offering of a child for prostitution, for the
production of pornography or for pornographic performances;
(c) the use, procuring or offering of a child for illicit activities, in
particular for the production and trafficking of drugs as defined in the relevant
international treaties;
(d) work which, by its nature or the circumstances in which it is carried
out, is likely to harm the health, safety or morals of children.6
Convention No. 182 commits ratifying countries to “take immediate and effective
measures to secure the prohibition and elimination of the worst forms of child labour
as a matter of urgency.”7
Addressing delegates to the International Labor Conference in Geneva on June
16, 1999, President Clinton stressed the need for urgency in addressing the worst forms
of child labor:
[W]e must wipe from the Earth the most vicious forms of abusive child
labor. Every single day tens of millions of children work in conditions that shock the conscience. There are...children handling dangerous
chemicals; children forced to work when they should be in school, preparing themselves and their countries for a better tomorrow. Each of
our nations must take responsibility.8
Speaking in support of this Convention, U.S. Labor Secretary Alexis Herman urged:
Let us agree that no child should be placed into forced or bonded labor. . . brutalized by exploitation in the
commercial sex trade . . . abducted into militias for armed conflict . . . or subjected to other harmful and
dangerous work. Through the new Convention . . ., we can help make sure that our children are nurtured not
neglected—educated not exploited—helped not harmed.9
On December 2, 1999, President Clinton signed Convention 182, calling it, “a
victory for the children of the world.”10 The President linked addressing child labor
with promoting children’s education. “If we want to slam the door shut on abusive
child labor,” he stated, “we must open the door wide to education and opportunity.
After all, nations can only reach their potential when their children can fulfill theirs.”11
As the President and Secretary both point out, the worst forms of child labor are
performed at the cost of children’s education. In addition, each stresses that these costs
are compounded by the type of work, and the conditions of work, that children involved in the worst forms of child labor must endure.
Due to limitations within the existing data and literature, studies of child labor
are typically not focused on the worst forms of child labor. To the extent that data
exists, they allow a look at child labor more generally. The working definition of child
labor employed for this report is any work that prevents a child from attending school
or leads to their obtaining insufficient schooling.12 Of course, this definition includes
the worst forms of child labor, but it is not limited to these forms. The report
shows that it can be convincingly argued that schooling yields higher benefits than child labor
for children in general. As this result holds when no distinction is made among the
forms of child labor, it must hold for the worst forms of child labor, since it is these
forms that involve the greatest costs for children.
C. The Relationship between Child Labor and Schooling
As shown in Box I-1, there is a clear inverse relationship between child labor
and school enrollment. Countries with higher incidences of child labor have lower
school enrollment rates and vice versa.
Specific evidence from several countries also suggests that children may work
instead of going to school.13
- A study in Botswana reported only 44 percent of boys seven to nine years old
enrolled in school, and among those out of school, 34 percent were found engaged in income earning activities.14
- Research in Paraguay found that although schooling is compulsory to age
thirteen, 28 percent of all twelve year olds are already out of school, and of
these, 19 percent are working in the formal labor market.15
|
B O X I - 1
School Enrollment is Higher in Countries
where Fewer Children Work
The above scatterplots show the rate of economic activity
among ten to 14 year olds in 1990 against gross enrollment rates for (A)
primary, and (B) secondary education in the same year. Each diamond represents a
country. Plot (A) includes available data for 86 countries, and plot (B)
includes available data for 81 countries.* Both graphs illustrate that there is
a strong inverse relationship between children’s rate of economic activity and
their school enrollment. Higher school enrollment in a country is associated
with lower incidence of economic activity among ten to 14 year olds.
The economically active population (EAP) data are from the
International Labour Organization, 1997, Economically Active Population
(Electronic Database, Fourth Edition, Geneva). Data on gross enrollment rates
are available from the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural
Organization (UNESCO) on the worldwide web (http://unescostat.unesco.org/Indicator/Indframe.htm). The “gross”
enrollment rate is the number of children in a country enrolled in a particular
school level (primary or secondary) over the total number of children of typical
age for that level of schooling. Ratios can exceed 100 percent if children
enrolled in a particular schooling level include children not of typical age for
that level. Both primary and secondary school enrollments were considered
because in many countries younger children in the 10-14 age range are in primary
school, while older children in this age range are in secondary school. It was
not possible to obtain data on school enrollment of 10-14 year old children per
se. Countries that did not report economic activity or gross enrollment
statistics were not included in this analysis.
* The Pearson correlation coefficient for EAP rate and gross
enrollment is -.577 at the primary level and -.817 at the secondary level. These
values are statistically significant. The Pearson coefficient measures the
linear relationship between two variables. Its values range between -1 and 1;
the closer the absolute value of the coefficient is to one the stronger the
relationship between the two variables. The sign of the coefficient indicates
the direction of the relationship (i.e., a negative coefficient means that the
higher the economically active rate, the lower the gross enrollment rate). While
causality cannot be determined from this analysis, Pearson coefficients of
between -.577 and -.817 demonstrate that high economic activity among 10-14 year
olds is strongly associated with a low gross enrollment rate.
|
-
Evidence from Bolivia suggests that children who work, on average, attend two
years less of school,16 and that boys aged seven to 13 years who do not attend
school work an average of fifty-one hours a week.17
-
In Tanzania, research based on detailed analysis of how children use their time,
found a clear trade off between the amount of time spent studying and the time
spent working.18
While it is not possible to determine the exact extent or degree of the trade off,
this evidence suggests that a trade off between work and schooling exists for many
children. This report is concerned about those children for whom this trade off is
made in favor of work, what it costs them, and in exploring ways to tip the balance in favor
of school.
D. The Value of Investing in Children
This report analyzes the benefits that accrue from withdrawing children from
work and placing them in schools. As a humanitarian concern, few in the international
community debate the need to address child labor. The recent unanimous adoption of
ILO Convention 182 on the Worst Forms of Child Labor reinforces this point.
In this report, an economic consideration of child labor is provided. The report
draws on economic data and studies that compare the costs and benefits of work as
compared to those for schooling. As the report finds, the evidence generally supports
the proposition that education is the best investment that can be made in children.
Children stand to benefit, but so do their families, society, and the world through the
mechanism of international trade. Moreover, removing children from the worst forms
of child labor, such as sexual exploitation or forced and bonded labor, stands to bring
even greater benefit given the loss suffered by children subjected to such abusive
conditions.
Despite these findings, working children continue to face formidable barriers in
moving from work to school. The report examines these barriers and considers a variety of policies and strategies aimed at addressing them. Such efforts at the
international, national, and local levels can play an important part in addressing the problem
of exploitative child labor. The report also describes IPEC projects as examples of the
kinds of targeted action that can be taken to address the various barriers faced by
working children and their families. These projects seek to help specific groups of
working children, but are also intended to serve as models to promote broader action
on child labor within countries. Since they are meant to serve as models for future
action, evaluation of these efforts is critical for ensuring that the most effective are
expanded or duplicated. IPEC is currently working with the support of the U.S.
Department of Labor to enhance its evaluation process.
1 The previous volumes are: By the Sweat & Toil of Children (Volume I): The Use of Child Labor in U.S. Manufactured
and Mined Imports (1994); By the Sweat & Toil of Children (Volume II): The Use of Child Labor in U.S. Agricultural
Imports & Forced and Bonded Child Labor (1995); The Apparel Industry and Codes of Conduct: A Solution to the
International Child Labor Problem?[Also referred to as “By the Sweat & Toil of Children (Volume III)”] (1996); By the
Sweat & Toil of Children (Volume IV): Consumer Labels and Child Labor (1997); and By the Sweat & Toil of Children
(Volume V): Efforts to Eliminate Child Labor (1998). ILAB also published Forced Labor: The Prostitution of Children
(1996), proceedings from a symposium on the prostitution of children, and Report on Labor Practices in Burma (1998), which
contains a chapter on child labor.
2 This report has been prepared in accordance with the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and
Education and Related Agencies Appropriation Bill of 1999, Senate Report No. 105-300, 105th Congress, September 8
(legislative day, August 31), 1998. Full text of S.R. 105-300 can be found at: ftp://ftp.loc.gov/pub/thomas/cp105/sr300.txt
3 Child Labour: Targeting the Intolerable (Geneva: International Labor Organization, 1996) 7.
4 Kaushik
Basu, “Child Labor: Cause, Consequence and Cure, with Remarks on International Labor Standards,” Journal of
Economic Literature 37 (1999) 1083 [hereinafter “Child Labor: Cause, Consequence, and Cure”].
5 As an international organization representing governments, employers, and workers in 174 countries, the ILO
establishes and supervises the application of international labor standards—including child labor standards.
6 “C182 Worst Forms of Child Labour Convention, 1999” (http://ilolex.ilo.ch:1567/scripts/ convde.pl?C182) Article 3.
7 Ibid. at Article 1.
8 President William J. Clinton, “Remarks by the President to the International Labor Organization Conference, United
Nations Building, Geneva, Switzerland, June 16, 1999 ,” for full text, see
www.pub.whitehouse.gov/uri-res/I2R?urn:pdi://oma.eop.gov.us/1999/6/17/1.text.1.
9 Secretary of Labor Alexis M. Herman, “Statement of Secretary of Labor Alexis M. Herman, Conference of the
International Labor Organization, Geneva” (June 15, 1999) [document on file].
10 President William J. Clinton, “Remarks by the President at signing of ILO Convention No.182, the Convention
Concerning the Prohibition and Immediate Action for Elimination of the Worst Forms of Child Labor, at Bell Harbor
International Conference Center in Seattle, Washington, December 2, 1999,” for full text, see
http://www.pub.whitehouse.gov/uri-res/I2R?urn:pdi://oma.eop.gov.us/1999/12/2/7.text.1.
11 Ibid.
12 This definition is consistent with ILO Convention No. 138 (the Minimum Age Convention), Article 7, which states, “
National laws or regulations may permit the employment of persons 13 to 15 years of age in light work which is—(a)
not likely to be harmful to their or development; and (b) not such as to prejudice their attendance at school...” ILO
Convention No. 138 permits countries whose economy and educational facilities are insufficiently developed to initially
specify a minimum working age of 14 (rather than 15), and reduce from 13 to 12 years the minimum age for light work.
Convention No. 138 defines “light work” as work that is not likely to harm children’s health or development, or
prejudice their attendance at school. The convention prohibits all children under the age of 18 from undertaking
hazardous work—that is, work that is likely to jeopardize their health, safety, or morals. See By the Sweat & Toil of
Children (Volume V): Efforts to Eliminate Child Labor (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Labor, 1998) 204.
13 It should be noted that the report is concerned not only with work that is performed instead of any schooling, but also
work that interferes with the ability of a child to take full advantage of schooling. That many children both work and go
to school is a well documented phenomenon. See, e.g., C. Grootaert and H. A. Patrinos (eds.) The Policy Analysis of
Child Labor (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1999). Some studies even suggest instances when working does not have an
effect, or a big effect, on educational enrollment. See, M. Ravallion and Q.
Wodon, “Does Child Labor Displace Schooling?” (Washington, D.C.: World Bank Human Development Network, 1999); and H. A. Patrinos and G.
Psacharopoulos, “Family Size, Schooling and Child Labor in Peru” Journal of Population Economics 10(4) (1997) as cited
in “Child Labor: Cause, Consequence and Cure” at 1093. The authors of these studies are careful to point out a number
of caveats to the interpretation of their results. Patrinos and Psacharopolous note that their conclusion likely holds only
in some cases. Basu extends this sentiment to comment that presumably it can only be the case that schooling does not
suffer because of work when children work “part time.” Ravaillon and Wodon (p. 16) note that even though enrollment
may not suffer much because of working, education may suffer in other ways, e.g., “[w]ork may well displace time for
doing homework or attending after school tutorials.” Even when children both work and go to school, their education
may still suffer because of child labor.
14 D. Chernichovsky, “Socioeconomic and Demographic Aspects of School Enrollment and Attendance in Rural
Botswana,” Economic Development and Cultural Change 32(2) (1985) 319-332. It is important to keep in mind that
income earning activities are only a subset of all activities that could be classified as “economically active” or “working.”
In less developed economies that rely heavily on barter and a high degree of home production, “income earning”
activities may be fairly uncommon.
15 H. A. Patrinos and G.
Psacharopoulos, “Educational Performance and Child Labor in Paraguay,” International Journal
of Educational Development 15(1) (1995) 47-60. Work in the formal labor market generally rules out work for which
there is not direct monetary compensation. Thus, the caution expressed in the previous footnote applies.
16 George Psacharopoulos, “Child Labor versus Educational Attainment: Some Evidence from Latin America,” Journal of
Population Economics 10 (1997) 379.
17 K. Cartwright and H. A. Patrinos, “Child Labor in Urban Bolivia,” in C. Grootaert and H. A. Patrinos (eds.) The Policy
Analysis of Child Labor: A Comparative Study, (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1999) 116.
18 H. Akabayashi and G. Psacharopoulos, “The Trade-Off Between Child Labor and Human Capital Formation: A
Tanzanian Case Study,” Journal of Development Studies (1999) forthcoming.
