Upload
zahidaqil3
View
36
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
This study investigates the relationship between poverty and child labour. It also measures the impact of poverty alleviation on child labour. It finds that poverty breeds child labour and child labour perpetuates poverty. At the end it makes some policy recommendations to break this vicious cycle and reduce poverty and child labour.
Citation preview
Nexus between Poverty & Child Labour:
of Poverty Alleviation on Child Labour
Research Report 2012
Authored By: Zahid Aqil
Good Thinkers Organization for Human Development, Kasur
Office: Tehsil Road, Kot Ghulam Muhammad Khan, Kasur (Punjab) Tel: 049
between Poverty & Child Labour: Measuring the Impact
of Poverty Alleviation on Child Labour
Research Report 2012
Authored By: Zahid Aqil
Good Thinkers Organization for Human Development, Kasur
Tehsil Road, Kot Ghulam Muhammad Khan, Kasur (Punjab) Tel: 049-2009890, 2774196
[email protected] www.gtopak.org
Page 1 of 27
Measuring the Impact
Good Thinkers Organization for Human Development, Kasur
2009890, 2774196
Page 2 of 27
Acknowledgements
The author is grateful to Mrs. Najma Bashir, Mrs. Sumera, Mr. Mubeen, Mrs. Zobia, Mr. Zubair, Mrs.
Fouzia, Mr. Arif, Mrs. Humera and Mr. Ashfaq for their support in conducting household survey. He
is also thankful to Mr. Ahmad Nisar for administrative support, Mr. Naveed for support in conducting
FGDs and Mr. Awais Abid for his kind advice. He wishes to extend his thanks to Mr. Waqas Abid, CEO
Good Thinkers Organization, without whom encouragement and guidance this study could not have
been possible.
About the Author
The author of this study is the member board of directors of Good Thinkers Organization, Kasur.
Page 3 of 27
List of Acronyms
GTO Good Thinkers Organization
FGD Focus Group Discussion
HH Household
HHH Head of the Household
HHS Household Survey
HHSQ Household Survey Questionnaire
Q Question
UC Union Council
Page 4 of 27
Table of Contents 1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 6
2 Literature Review ............................................................................................................................ 8
2.1 Nexus between Poverty and Child Labour .............................................................................. 8
2.2 Impact of Poverty Alleviation on Child Labour ....................................................................... 9
3 Hypothesis ..................................................................................................................................... 10
4 Theoretical Framework ................................................................................................................. 10
5 Research Design ............................................................................................................................ 11
5.1 Research Problem ................................................................................................................. 11
5.2 Research Objective ............................................................................................................... 12
5.3 Literature Review .................................................................................................................. 12
5.4 Hypothesis ............................................................................................................................. 12
5.5 Theoretical Framework ......................................................................................................... 12
5.6 Data Collection Methods and Sample Design ....................................................................... 12
5.6.1 Quantitative Data Collection ......................................................................................... 12
5.6.2 Qualitative Data Collection ........................................................................................... 13
5.7 Data Collection Tools ............................................................................................................ 13
5.7.1 Quantitative Data Collection Tools ............................................................................... 13
5.7.2 Qualitative Data Collection Tools .................................................................................. 13
5.8 Team Selection ...................................................................................................................... 14
5.9 Survey Training...................................................................................................................... 14
5.10 Fieldwork Planning ................................................................................................................ 14
5.11 Fieldwork ............................................................................................................................... 14
5.12 Data Entry and Analysis ........................................................................................................ 14
6 Findings and Discussion ................................................................................................................ 15
6.1 Household Size ...................................................................................................................... 15
6.2 Age ........................................................................................................................................ 16
6.3 Education Status of Overall Population ................................................................................ 16
6.4 Early Drop Out ....................................................................................................................... 17
6.5 Educational Status of Female Head of the Household/Spouse ............................................ 17
6.6 Status of 5 to 18 Years Old Children Who Never Attended School ...................................... 18
6.6.1 Reasons for Not Attending School ................................................................................ 18
6.6.2 Work Status ................................................................................................................... 19
6.7 Status of 5 to 18 Years Old Children Who Ever Attended School ......................................... 21
6.7.1 Drop Out Children ......................................................................................................... 21
6.7.2 Children Currently Attending School ............................................................................ 22
6.8 Poverty .................................................................................................................................. 23
6.9 Family Occupation ................................................................................................................ 24
Page 5 of 27
6.10 Impact of Poverty Alleviation on Child Labour ..................................................................... 24
7 Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................... 25
8 Recommendations ........................................................................................................................ 26
9 References .................................................................................................................................... 26
Table 1: Division of UC-9 into clusters and sample Households selected from each cluster ............... 12
Table 2: Features of FGDs and Respondents ........................................................................................ 13
Figure 1: Nexus between Poverty and Child Labour ............................................................................. 10
Figure 2: Impact of Poverty Alleviation on Child Labour ...................................................................... 11
Figure 3: Household Size ....................................................................................................................... 15
Figure 4: Stratification of Population by Age Group ............................................................................. 16
Figure 5: Education Status of Overall Population ................................................................................. 16
Figure 6: Stratification of Population, Who Ever Attended School, by Level of Education Attained ... 17
Figure 7: Level of Education Attained by Female Head of the Household/Spouse .............................. 17
Figure 8: Stratification of Children into Who Ever Attended School and Who Never .......................... 18
Figure 9: Reasons for Not Attending School ......................................................................................... 18
Figure 10: Kind of Work that Children, Who Never Attended School, Do ............................................ 19
Figure 11: Daily Working Hours of Those Children Who Never Attended School ................................ 19
Figure 12: Reasons for Dissatisfaction with Job/Work among Those Children Who Never Attended
School .................................................................................................................................................... 20
Figure 13: Reasons, among Those Children Who Never Attended School, for Not Wishing to Get
Enrolled into School .............................................................................................................................. 20
Figure 14: Reasons for Drop out from School ....................................................................................... 21
Figure 15: Kind of Work That Drop out Children Do ............................................................................. 21
Figure 16: Reasons, among Drop out Children, for Dissatisfaction with Job/Work ............................. 22
Figure 17: Reasons, among School Going Children, for Doing Work after Returning from School ...... 23
Figure 18: Stratification of Population as Per Poverty Ranking Criterion of NRSP ............................... 23
Figure 19: Occupations of Adult Household Members ......................................................................... 24
Figure 20: Will Parents Send their Children to School and free them from Work if Their Income Gets
Increased? ............................................................................................................................................. 25
Page 6 of 27
1 Introduction
“The term ‘child labour’ is often defined as work that deprives children of their childhood, their
potential and their dignity, and that is harmful to physical and mental development.”1 International
conventions such as; ILO Convention 138 and 182 and UN Convention on the Rights of the Child
specifically deal with child labour and seek to abolish it within the shortest possible period.
ILO ‘Minimum Age Convention 138’ requires all of its signatories which have ratified this convention
to pursue a national policy which ensures the effective abolition of child labour and to raise
progressively the minimum age for admission to employment to a level consistent with the fullest
physical and mental development of young persons. It sets the minimum age of 18 years for
admission to any sort of employment or work which is likely to endanger the health, safety or morals
of young persons. Nonetheless, it permits the employment or work as from the age of 16 years
provided that the health, safety and morals of the young person concerned are fully protected and
that they have received adequate specific instructions or vocational training in the relevant branch
of activity. Meanwhile, it provides the exception to the member states whose economy and
educational facilities are insufficiently developed that they may initially specify a minimum age of 14
years.2
ILO ‘Worst Forms of Child Labour Convention 182’ requires each member state, which ratifies this
Convention, to take immediate and effective measures to ensure the prohibition and elimination of
the worst forms of child labour as a matter of urgency. It defines the term child as a person who is
under the age of 18. It prohibits all forms of slavery or practices similar to slavery, such as the sale
and trafficking of children, debt bondage, use of children for prostitution, for production of
pornography, their use for illicit activities and work which is likely to harm the health, safety or
morals of children.3
Even though ‘United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child’ (UNCRC) deals with all aspects of
children’s rights but there are five provisions of it which directly apply to the working children. These
include the right to be protected from abuse (article 19), the right to be protected from economic
exploitation (article 32), the right to access to primary education (article 28), the right to be
protected from all forms of harm, neglect and sexual abuse (article 34), and the right to be protected
from all forms of exploitation (article 36).4
Pakistan is a signatory of these conventions and has ratified them. It has taken legislative measures
to bring its national laws in accordance with these international conventions. After ratifying the
UNCRC in 1990 it repealed the Employment of Children Act 1938 and enacted the Employment of
Children Act 1991 which prohibits the employment of children in certain hazardous occupations. It
prepared and approved the National Plan of Action and Policy for the Elimination of Child Labour in
2000 and enacted the Abolition of Bonded Labour Act 2001 before it ratified ILO Worst Forms of
Child Labour Convention (No. 182). By ratifying ILO Convention 182 it has accepted the obligation to
enhance the age limit to 18 years in respect of worst forms of child labour, for entry into the labour
1 Organization, I. L. "What is child labour."Retrieved 19 November, 2012, from
http://www.ilo.org/ipec/facts/lang--en/index.htm. 2 Organization, I. L. (1973)."Minimum Age Convention."Retrieved 19 November, 2012, from
http://www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=NORMLEXPUB:12100:0::NO:12100:P12100_INSTRUMENT_ID:312283
:NO. 3 Organization, I. L. (1999)."Worst Forms of Child Labour Convention."Retrieved 19 November, 2012, from
http://www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=1000:12100:0::NO::P12100_INSTRUMENT_ID:312327. 4 Nations, U. (1989). "Convention on the Rights of the Child."Retrieved 19 November, 2012, from
http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/pdf/crc.pdf.
Page 7 of 27
market. Pakistan ratified ILO Convention 138 on minimum age in 2006. Under this convention
Pakistan is obliged to pursue a national policy which ensures the effective abolition of child labour
and to raise progressively the minimum age for admission to employment to a level consistent with
the fullest physical and mental development of young persons.
In spite of the international and national commitments the problem of child labour still persists.
Around the world, an estimated 215 million boys and girls aged 5–17 were engaged in child labour in
2008, 115 million of them in hazardous work.5 Based on officially available statistics, it is estimated
that there are 21.6 million children, aged between 5 and 14 years, working in south Asia out of a
total of 300 million children in this age group.6 In Pakistan out of the total number of 40 million 5-14
years old children 3.3 million are child labourers.
Children may work as rag pickers or shoe shiners, serve at tea stalls, sell cigarettes on the street, or
work in homes or factories. Many of those engaged in child labour experience its worst forms –
including forced and bonded work, illicit activities, armed combat and domestic labour. Because they
are largely invisible, these forms of child labour are the most difficult to tackle.7In Pakistan, children
below 18 years of age are employed in physically demanding and exploitative work in different
sectors including brick kilns, rag picking, mining, fishing and quarrying.8 In Pakistan, children have
been involved in agriculture as well as in industries such as bangle making, carpet weaving, sports
industry, rice mills, stone cutting, quarries, painting, welding, auto mechanical shops, and deep sea
fishing. They are working as street vendors, are involved in begging, rag picking or domestic help.9
As a consequence of child labour, children are deprived of their childhood, potential and dignity. It
endangers their health and hinders their physical and mental development. Due to early entry into
the labour force and lack of education they accumulate less human capital. Due to poor health and
less human capital accumulation their productivity remains very low. Due to lack of skills and lower
productivity they earn very less when they become adult. In this way a child inherits poverty and
child labour from his or her parents and transfers it to his or her next generation. Thus poor families
get stuck into a trap which leads to the intergenerational persistence of poverty and child labour.
The determinants of child labour are multiple. Broadly they can be categorized into two: demand
and supply side determinants of child labour. Demand side determinants of child labour include low
wages and non-resistance by child labourers against exploitation, long working hours and poor
working conditions. Supply side determinants of child labour include large family size, lack of
education and awareness among parents, child specialization, parental unemployment, low adult
market wages, family background or intergenerational persistence of child labour, traditional or
cultural factors, means of survival, perceived higher opportunity cost, market failure, fluctuations in
household income, orphan, low quality schooling, returns to schooling and most importantly
poverty.
5 UNICEF. (2012). The State of the World's Children. Retrieved from
http://www.unicef.org/sowc/files/SOWC_2012-Main_Report_EN_21Dec2011.pdf 6 ILO (2012). "Child Labour and Responses in South Asia." Retrieved 8 September, 2012, from
http://www.ilo.org/legacy/english/regions/asro/newdelhi/ipec/responses/index.htm#7. 7 UNICEF. (2012). The State of the World's Children. Retrieved from
http://www.unicef.org/sowc/files/SOWC_2012-Main_Report_EN_21Dec2011.pdf 8 SPARC. (2011). The State of Pakistan's Children. Retrieved from
http://www.sparcpk.org/SOPC/SOPC%20pdf%20final.pdf 9 The State of Bonded Labor in Pakistan. (2009). Retrieved from http://ncabl.pk/wp-
content/uploads/2011/05/State-of-Bonded-Labor-FINAL-FINAL-1-21-07.pdf
Page 8 of 27
Poverty being the most important determinant of child labour, this study attempts to explore the
link between poverty and child labour and test the hypothesis that ‘there is a nexus between
poverty and child labour and poverty alleviation may reduce child labour substantially’.
2 Literature Review
2.1 Nexus between Poverty and Child Labour
Child labour is both a cause and a consequence of poverty. Empirical evidence suggests there is a
close relation between the two. Poverty causes child labour, being a mean of survival, while child
labour perpetuates poverty because of less human capital accumulation, low productivity and low
wages.
Rena (2009) finds out that the problem of child labour is closely associated with poverty and
underdevelopment. It is often pointed out that poverty is the main cause for child labour in general.
As in all the developing countries including India, China, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Papua New
Guinea, Ethiopia, Uganda, Mozambique, Malawi, Sudan, and Chad, the prevalence of poverty is high
and therefore, child labour in these developing countries, particularly in Asia and Africa, does exist
to a larger extent.10
The World Bank (1998) reports that the labour force participation rate of children aged 10 to 14 is
highest, 30–60 percent, in countries with per capita income of $500 or less (at 1987 prices). But it
declines quite rapidly, to 10–30 percent, in countries with incomes between $500 and $1,000.11
Basu and Van (1998) offered a multiple equilibrium based explanation of child labour, in which low
income of the parents is the main cause of child labour.12
Galli (2001) finds out that poverty is the main determinant of child labour supply, and that child
labour significantly increases the income and the probability of survival of the family. This
contribution is most of the time critical since children are sent to work when parents’ earnings are
insufficient to guarantee the survival of the family, or are insecure so that child labour is used as a
mean of minimizing the impact of possible job loss, failed harvest and other shocks on the family’s
income stream.13
Several other studies (i.e.Zaidi and Beg 200414, Siddiqi and Patrinos 199515,Sen 200216,Akarro and
Mtweve 201117) also find poverty as the main determinant of child labour.
10
Rena, R. (2009). "The Child Labour in Developing Countries: A Challenge to Millennium Development Goals."
Indus Journal of Management & Social Sciences 3(1): 1-8. 11
Fallon, P. and Tzannatos, Z. (1998).“Child labor: issues and directions for the World Bank.” Washington, D.C. :
The World Bank. 12
Basu, K. and P. H. Van (1998)."The economics of child labor." American Economic Review: 412-427. Child
labour as a substitute for household’s survival –against--- the popular argument of banning the child labour 13
Galli, R. (2001). "The economic impact of child labour."Genebra: ILO Decent Work Research Programme. 14
Zaidi, H. H. and D. M. A. Beg (2004). "Baseline Survey Report on Child Labour in Kasur Tanneries."
International Labour Organization. 15
Siddiqi, F. and H. A. Patrinos (1995). Child labor: Issues, causes and interventions, World Bank Washington
DC. 16
Sen, G. (2002). "Considering the effects of poverty and schooling returns on child labour in Vietnam."MPRA. 17
Akarro, R. R. J. and N. A. Mtweve (2011). "Poverty and its association with child labour in Njombe District in
Tanzania: The case of Igima Ward." Curr. Res. J. Soc. Sci 3(3): 199-206.
Page 9 of 27
One study finds there is a trade-off between child labour and human capital accumulation.18 The
findings of another study suggest there is a substantial evidence of positive human capital effects on
relative labour productivity levels.19 Brown et al. (2002) finds that child labour makes those children,
once grown, less productive than they would have been had they gone to school.20
In this way, child labour is not only a consequence of poverty but also a cause of it. Both reinstate
each other. Thus, there exists a nexus between poverty and child labour which leads to the
intergenerational persistence of poverty and child labour.
2.2 Impact of Poverty Alleviation on Child Labour
As poverty is considered to be one of the major determinants of child labour so tackling poverty may
reduce child labour substantially.
Akarro and Mtweve (2011) argue that child labour is a reflection of poverty and therefore tackling
poverty will have a positive impact on child labour.21
Fabre and Augeraud-Veron (2004) find that under bad economic conditions parents may decide to
keep children away from school. In such a context, trade sanctions or repressive laws seem not to be
the right solution to fight against child labour. It suggests that government policies have to act
mainly on growth and poverty.22
The findings of Galli (2001) suggest that if the work of children is needed for meeting the essential
needs of the family, any effort to reduce child labour must take into account that the income of
families involved will be affected negatively and, often, they will be pushed below the survival level.
Therefore it proposes income transfers and/or subsidies for poor families with children in school for
effectiveness of child labour reduction programmes.23
Sen (2002) finds that poverty is a robust determinant of child labour. The extent of child labour
depends on the level of poverty and returns to schooling. And the hours of work drop drastically as
the child moves above the poverty line.24
Wahba (2006) finds that low adult market wages are key determinants of child labour. According to
him, a 10 percent increase in the illiterate male market wages decreases the probability of child
labour by 22 percent for boys and 13 percent for girls.25 Low adult market wages result in higher
poverty rates and increase in illiterate adult market wages increases the household budget and thus
it reduces poverty and consequently child labour.
18
FABRE, A. and E. Augeraud-Véron (2004).Education, Poverty and Child Labour.Econometric Society 2004 Far
Eastern Meetings, Econometric Society. 19
Mason, G., B. O’Leary, et al. (2007). "Revisiting the impact of human capital on productivity: new cross-
country evidence at sector level." 20
Brown, D. K., A. V. Deardorff, et al. (2002). The determinants of child labor: theory and evidence. 21
Akarro, R. R. J. and N. A. Mtweve (2011). "Poverty and its association with child labour in Njombe District in
Tanzania: The case of Igima Ward." Curr. Res. J. Soc. Sci 3(3): 199-206. 22
FABRE, A. and E. Augeraud-Véron (2004).“Education, Poverty and Child Labour.”Econometric Society 2004
Far Eastern Meetings, Econometric Society. 23
Galli, R. (2001). "The economic impact of child labour."Genebra: ILO Decent Work Research Programme. 24
Sen, G. (2002). "Considering the effects of poverty and schooling returns on child labour in Vietnam."MPRA. 25
Wahba, J. (2006). "The influence of market wages and parental history on child labour and schooling in
Egypt." Journal of Population Economics 19(4): 823-852.
Page 10 of 27
3 Hypothesis
There is a nexus between poverty and child labour and poverty alleviation may reduce child labour
substantially.
4 Theoretical Framework
Figure 1 explains how there exists a nexus between poverty and child labour. Poor families cannot
afford to send their children to school because: a) they don’t have money to afford their educational
expenditures b) their survival is at stake and they want these little hands to work and supplement
the household budget. Thus, mostly, children from poor households are forced to work instead of
attending school. Consequently, they acquire little or no education which results in lower human
capital accumulation. When these children accumulate little or no human capital, they lack
necessary skills. As a result of it they, once grown, have to do unskilled jobs and their productivity
remains low. Thus their wages or earning remains low. This reinforces poverty. In this way children
from poor families inherit poverty and child labour from their parents and transfer it to their next
generation. This cycle of poverty and child labour, in which poverty causes child labour and child
labour perpetuates poverty, continues. This leads to the intergenerational persistence of poverty
and child labour.
Figure 1: Nexus between Poverty and Child Labour
Figure 2 explains how poverty alleviation can break the cycle of poverty and child labour. Poverty
alleviation will enhance the household budget of families with child labour. This will increase their
affordability. They will be able to afford to send their children to school because: a) they will have
money to spend on their educational expenditures b) they won’t need little hands to work in order
to supplement their household budget for the survival of the family. So, they will send their children
Poverty
Cannot Afford to Send Thier
Children to School
Children are Forced to Work
Children Recieve Little or
No Education
Little or No Human Capital Accumulation
Lower Productivity
Lower Wages/Less
Earnings
Page 11 of 27
to school for their better future. Children will receive more education and accumulate more human
capital. This will help them to acquire skills which will help them to enter into and gain jobs in the
skilled labour market. This will also increase their productivity. In this way, skilled jobs and higher
productivity will lead them to higher wages/earning. Once their earning/wages get increased this
will increase their household budget, reduce poverty and enhance their affordability. Once their
household budget and affordability increases they will spend more on health, nutrition and
education of their children. In this way, the cycle of poverty and child labour will be broken and a
new cycle of poverty alleviation and child labour reduction will start.
Figure 2: Impact of Poverty Alleviation on Child Labour
5 Research Design
5.1 Research Problem
In the targeted area (UC-9 of District Kasur), mostly, factory, tannery, brick kiln and power loom
workers belong to poor or ultra-poor segment of society. Their income stream is constantly subject
to fluctuations. So, under financial pressures they take advance payments/debts from the owners
and thus get into their trap of exploitation. Due to their poor economic conditions they are not able
to return their debts so they and their children have to work there as bonded labourer. This vicious
circle of debts and bounded labour continues till generations. This makes these families and their
children vulnerable to all sorts of exploitation. On the other hand the families who run small
household enterprises are exploited by middle man (Adda Maalkan). Middle man takes contracts
from markets; provide material to these households to carry out the given assignments. He collects
these assignments/products after a week, sells them in the market, earns higher profits but against
this pays very less to these households. Due to less income and pressure by the middle man for
timely completion of assignments, these households also engage their children in work instead of
sending them to school.
Poverty Alleviation
Can Afford to Send Their Children to
School
Children are Sent to School
Children Recieve More
Education
More Human Capital
Accumulation
Higher Productivity
Higher Wages/Earning
Page 12 of 27
5.2 Research Objective
This study seeks to explore that if the poor parents of child labourers are engaged in higher income
generating activities and their household income gets increased then what impact would it have on
child labour.
5.3 Literature Review
While keeping in view the research objective, relevant literature on child labour and poverty was
reviewed. This literature review on the subject led us to the development of following hypothesis.
5.4 Hypothesis
There is a nexus between poverty and child labour and poverty alleviation may reduce child labour
substantially.
5.5 Theoretical Framework
After literature review and the development of hypothesis, theoretical framework was developed to
conceptualize the hypothesis.
5.6 Data Collection Methods and Sample Design
5.6.1 Quantitative Data Collection
Quantitative Data was planned to be collected through Household Survey. For Household Survey,
the sample size of 5% (172 Households) was taken through three stage cluster, proportional and
systematic sampling technique. 5% sample size is sufficient to provide statistically significant results
for this purpose. Nonetheless, this was selected through three stage sampling technique in order to
make the sample size more representative of the population and to reduce sampling and
enumerator bias. In three stage sampling; first UC-9 was divided into nine clusters, at the second
stage a sample of 5% households was taken from each cluster according to their proportion, at the
third stage systematic sampling technique was applied. Under systematic sampling technique, it was
decided that in each cluster every 20th Household will be interviewed.
Table 1: Division of UC-9 into clusters and sample Households selected from each cluster
S. No. Name of Cluster Total Households 5% Households
1 BastiSabri 510 25
2 ChahBulanda 396 20
3 RukanPura 391 20
4 MuftPura 351 18
5 BastiCharagh Shah 443 22
6 BhattaSohan Din 516 26
7 AbadiKarmabad 372 19
8 ChakkiPayaralaal 267 13
9 MohallahEssa Nagar 190 9
Total 3436 172
Page 13 of 27
5.6.2 Qualitative Data Collection
For qualitative data collection, 4 FGDs were planned. FGDs were planned to be separately conducted
with male child labourers (FGD Questionnaire-I), female child labourers (FGD Questionnaire-II), male
parents of child labourers (FGD Questionnaire-III) and female parents of child labourers (FGD
Questionnaire-IV).
Table 2: Features of FGDs and Respondents
FGD Date UC# Cluster # of
Respondents
Age Group of
Respondents
FGD with male child
labourers
(Questionnaire-I )
07-09-2012 9 BhattaSohan
Din
10 7-16 years
FGD with female child
labourers
(Questionnaire-II)
10-09-2012 9 ChahBulanda 12 12-18 years
FGD with male parents
of child labourers
(Questionnaire-III )
11-09-2012 9 BhattaSohan
Din
11 30-55 years
FGD with female
parents of child
labourers
(Questionnaire-IV )
12-09-2012 9 MuhallahEsa
Nagar
15 30-45 years
For qualitative data collection, relevant literature review (i.e. research articles, research reports,
policy papers and other relevant documents) was also planned.
5.7 Data Collection Tools
5.7.1 Quantitative Data Collection Tools
A Household Survey Questionnaire was designed for quantitative data collection at household level.
It consisted of a number of sections and collected information on a number of aspects related to
child labour and poverty.26
5.7.2 Qualitative Data Collection Tools
Qualitative data was planned to be collected through literature review and FGDs. For literature
review, research articles, research reports, policy papers and other relevant documents were
studied and analysed. Meanwhile, for FGDs, four questionnaires were designed: Questionnaire-I for
FGD with male child labourers, Questionnaire-II for FGD with female child labourers, Questionnaire-
III for FGD with male parents of child labourers, and Questionnaire-IV for FGD with female parents of
child labourers.27
26
See Annex-I for Household Survey Questionnaire 27
See Annex-II for FGD Questionnaires
Page 14 of 27
5.8 Team Selection
Eight enumerators and two supervisors (researchers) were recruited from the local community. They
were organized into four teams. Each team consisted of one male and one female enumerator.
Meanwhile, each of the two supervisors was responsible to oversee two teams of enumerators.
5.9 Survey Training
One day training was conducted for survey teams and supervisors. In this training the objectives of
the survey, methodology, sampling techniques and data collection tools (Household Survey
Questionnaire) were discussed in detail. Research ethics and
manners while collecting data in the community were also
discussed with them. Presentation on the survey was followed
by question and answer session. During this session participants
asked questions about what they were not clear. They also
made their comments and gave their feedback. Their comments
and feedback were incorporated into the data collection tool
(Household Survey Questionnaire). Next day, team moved to
the field for pretesting of the data collection tool (Household
Survey Questionnaire). After pretesting necessary changes were
incorporated into the questionnaire and survey teams were given orientation on those changes in a
refresher session.
5.10 Fieldwork Planning
One day before moving to the field, household survey questionnaires were got printed and
photocopied. Logistics arrangements were also made. All teams were given stationary and
household survey questionnaires. Besides these arrangements, teams planned their field activities
while taking help from map of UC-9 and senior members of Good Thinkers Organization.
5.11 Fieldwork
Teams were dropped at their given locality/cluster. They started filling the household questionnaire
from each 20th household in the cluster. In the meantime, they were being observed by their
supervisors. This took them three days to complete the household survey from the given sample of
172 households. Each day, at the end of their field work, they gathered at GTO office, discussed their
experiences of the fieldwork and planned for the next day fieldwork.
5.12 Data Entry and Analysis
Principal Investigator of the research project developed data
entry module in SPSS. Later on, three teams of GTO staff were
formed for data entry of the household survey. Each team
consisted of two persons. One assisted while the other made
entries into the given module. Each team was given the
household survey questionnaires of three clusters. After all the
entries were done, the files were taken from the teams and
merged into one file. In this way, one file containing multiple
data sets was generated on SPSS. And this was analysed by the
principal investigator using SPSS Version 16.
Teams attending survey training
Teams entering survey data
Page 15 of 27
6 Findings and Discussion
6.1 Household Size
The average household size in the targeted area is 7. The households which have the household size
of more than 8 are 24.5%. Households with large household size are more prone to poverty and
child labour.
Figure 3: Household Size
2.8%
4.9%
9.8%
14.0%
20.3%
11.9% 11.9%12.6%
7.7%
2.1% 2.1%
0.0%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
25.0%
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Household Size
Page 16 of 27
6.2 Age
Under 18 years old population in the community is 43.7% while working age (15-60 years)
population is 65.33%. As, presently, the percentage of children is high there, so, if this generation of
children is pushed into child labour and deprived of education that will substantially increase the
pool of unskilled labour, consequently, it will result in lower wages, more unemployment and higher
poverty rates while tackling child labour at this stage will reduce poverty and child labour
substantially in the future.
Figure 4: Stratification of Population by Age Group
6.3 Education Status of Overall Population
Survey findings reveal that 49.55% population in the community even never went to school. There is
only a slight difference in male and female population who never attended school (male=50.17%,
female=48.93%). This much level of illiteracy speaks volumes why they are poor and involved in child
labour. FGD findings also suggest illiteracy among parents as one of the reasons of child labour. This
indicates they are unskilled and working at very low wages which means poverty. This also means
they have lack of awareness. As a result of it they are short sighted. They see short term benefits
that child labour could yield to them. Therefore, they engage their children in labour and do not
send them to school to make better future.
Figure 5: Education Status of Overall Population
7.1%
24.7%
65.3%
3.0%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
<=4 5-14 15-60 60+
Age of Household Members
50.5%
49.55%49.83%
50.17%
51.07%
48.93%
47.5%
48.0%
48.5%
49.0%
49.5%
50.0%
50.5%
51.0%
51.5%
Ever Attended School Never Attended School
Both (male & female)
Male
Female
Page 17 of 27
6.4 Early Drop Out
Only 50.45% population ever attended school. Out of them 36.81% dropped out before even
completing their primary education, 53.22% ended up with completion of primary school or before
it, 90.24% abandoned education before or after secondary school. There is only 9.76% population
who pursued their higher secondary education. When 92.24% of those who ever attended school
abandon education before or after secondary education (metric), this means they are also adding up
to the pool of unskilled labour as it is very basic level of education. If we calculate total percentage
of unskilled labour by adding those, who ever attended school but left education before or just after
secondary school, with those who never attended school then total percentage of unskilled labour in
the community stretches to 94%. With this level of human capital accumulation and skills how a
community can be prosperous, enjoy better living standards and become free of child labour?
Figure 6: Stratification of Population, Who Ever Attended School, by Level of Education Attained
6.5 Educational Status of Female Head of the Household/Spouse
There are only 20.83% female heads of the household/spouses who had completed class 1 or higher.
This indicates the level of awareness in the household which might be the cause of low priority for
education than work.
Figure 7: Level of Education Attained by Female Head of the Household/Spouse
90.2%
9.76%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
90.0%
100.0%
<= Secondary Education >=Higher Secondary
Education
Level of Education Attained
20.8%
79.2%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
90.0%
Class 1 or Higher No or Less Than Class 1
Education Status of Female
Head of the Household/Spouse
Page 18 of 27
6.6 Status of 5 to 18 Years Old Children Who Never Attended School
22.12% 5 to 18 years old children never attended school. The percentage of male children (22.91%)
who never attended school was slightly higher than the female children (21.33%).
Figure 8: Stratification of Children into Who Ever Attended School and Who Never
6.6.1 Reasons for Not Attending School
Most (52.05%) of the children mentioned poverty as the foremost reason for not attending school.
These findings are consistent with our findings on poverty as the principal determinant of child
labour.
Figure 9: Reasons for Not Attending School
77.9%
22.1%
77.1%
22.9%
78.7%
21.3%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
90.0%
Ever Attended School Never Attended School
Both (male & female)
Male
Female
52.1%
4.1% 2.7% 2.74%
13.70% 15.07%9.59%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
Reasons for Not Attending
School
Page 19 of 27
6.6.2 Work Status
Those who never attended school mostly do Adda Work (35.82%), work at tanneries/shoe making
factories (11.94%), power looms (10.45%), at shops (7.46%) and wander (7.46%). Findings suggest
that children who never attended school are doing child labour and most of them are even involved
in hazardous jobs. FGD findings suggest that Hazardous work like work at power looms, wander and
kharad is harmful to the health of child labourers. It causes injuries, asthma, muscle contraction,
weakening of eye sight and respiratory diseases in these children. Female child labourers not only
face these problems but they are also teased and abused at work place.
Figure 10: Kind of Work that Children, Who Never Attended School, Do
49.09% of these child labourers work 8 to 10 hours a day while 34.55% work 11 to 12 hours a day.
Findings indicate that at this very young age too much work is being taken from them. It is harmful
to their proper physical and mental development. In spite of the too long working hours and
hazardous working conditions 90% of them do not earn more than 150 Rupees a day. 66% do not
earn more than 100 rupees while 25% just earn less than or equal to 50 Rupees a day.
Figure 11: Daily Working Hours of Those Children Who Never Attended School
35.8%
7.5% 7.5%10.5%
3.0% 1.5%6.0%
1.5%
11.9%14.9%
0.0%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
25.0%
30.0%
35.0%
40.0%
Kind of Work
3.6%1.8%
5.5% 5.5%
23.6%25.5%
3.6%
30.9%
0.0%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
25.0%
30.0%
35.0%
4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12
Daily Working Hours
Page 20 of 27
An overwhelming majority (56.14%) of these child labourers is not satisfied with their job/work.
Majority of the respondents mentioned underpayment (27.27%), poor working conditions (21.21%),
desire for study (18.18%), and long working hours as the main reasons for their dissatisfaction with
job.
Figure 12: Reasons for Dissatisfaction with Job/Work among Those Children Who Never Attended School
Majority (54.41%) of these child labourers were keen to get enrolled into school. 50% of the
respondents who were not interested in to get enrolled into school, mentioned poor economic
conditions as the main reason for not wishing to get enrolled into school. We may infer that they
might have expressed their desire for school enrolment had they not been so poor. This means out
of the total number of children who never attended school, 77.2% are interested in getting
education if they can afford to.
Figure 13: Reasons, among Those Children Who Never Attended School, for Not Wishing to Get Enrolled into School
3.0% 3.0%
27.3%
15.2%12.2%
6.1% 6.1%
18.2%
0.0%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
25.0%
30.0%
Reasons for Dissatisfaction with
Job/Work
50.0%
21.4%
3.6%
25.0%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
Poverty Don't Have
Interest
Parents Do
Not Permit
Other
Reasons for Not Wishing to Get
Enrolled into School
Page 21 of 27
6.7 Status of 5 to 18 Years Old Children Who Ever Attended School
6.7.1 Drop Out Children
14.12% 5 to 18 years old children who ever attended school dropped out. At the time when they
dropped out they were at the very early stages of their education. Majority of the respondents
mentioned poverty (expensive=31.58%, had to help home=7.89%, and inflation=7.89%) as the
foremost reason for drop out.
Figure 14: Reasons for Drop out from School
Most of the children who dropped out do Adda Work (35%), Stitching (10%), or work at wander
(12.50%). 21.87% of them work 8 to 10 hours a day while 40.62% work 12 to 13 hours a day.
Findings indicate that at this very young age too much work is being taken from them. It is harmful
to their proper physical and mental development. In spite of the too long working hours and
hazardous working conditions 96.66% of them do not earn more than 100 rupees a day while
53.33% of them earn just less than or equal to 50 rupees a day.
Figure 15: Kind of Work That Drop out Children Do
7.9%
31.6%
7.9%
15.8%
21.1%
15.8%
0.0%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
25.0%
30.0%
35.0%
Inflation Expensive Had to
Help
Home
No
Interest
Started
Work
Other
Reasons for Drop Out
35.0%
5.0%
12.5%10.0%
2.5% 2.5%5.0%
27.5%
0.0%5.0%
10.0%15.0%20.0%25.0%30.0%35.0%40.0%
Kind of Work That Drop Out
Children Do
Page 22 of 27
34.38% of them are not satisfied with their job/work. Those who are not satisfied with their
job/work, they mentioned underpayment (45.45%), long working hours (18.18%), and desire to
study (27.27%) as the foremost reasons for their dissatisfaction with their job/work. 58.82% of them
wish to get enrolled into school. 35.71% of those who do not wish to get enrolled into school
mentioned poverty as the main reason for not wishing to get enrolled. They might also have wished
for school enrolment if they were in better economic condition.
Figure 16: Reasons, among Drop out Children, for Dissatisfaction with Job/Work
6.7.2 Children Currently Attending School
Some of the children who are currently attending school also work after returning from school and
during vacations from school. 12.50% of school going children do Adda Work, 1.79% work part time
at shops, 8.04% work at wander and 5.35% help parents in work, business or household chores.
45.08% of those who work after returning from school have to work for equal to or more than 5
hours a day. 12.70% of them do unpaid work (i.e. helping parents in work, business or household
chores), 66.67% of them do not earn more than 50 rupees a day while 19.05% earn 51-100 rupees a
day. Due to double burden of school as well as work 14.49% children do not find enough time to do
their homework of school. 59.72% school going children do not find some time to play. This indicates
that their time for leisure and extra-curricular activities is being compromised due to child labour. It
affects not only their study but also their physical and mental development. Majority (50.77%) of
them is not satisfied with this double burden. Most (46.03%) of the respondents mentioned poverty
as the foremost reason for the double burden that they had to bear by doing work after returning
from school. Pressure by parents (12.70%) and to earn pocket money (14.29%) are also indirectly
related to poverty.
0.0%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
25.0%
30.0%
35.0%
40.0%
45.0%
50.0%
Underpaid Working
Hours too
Long
Want to Do
Some Other
Work
Want to
Study
Reasons for Dissatisfaction with
Job/Work
Page 23 of 27
Figure 17: Reasons, among School Going Children, for Doing Work after Returning from School
6.8 Poverty
Simple poverty score card and poverty ranking criterion of NRSP was used for poverty ranking in the
community. By following this poverty score card and ranking, 4.17% were ranked as chronic poor,
13.19% transitory poor, 36.81% transitory vulnerable, 35.42% transitory non-poor and 10.42% were
ranked as non-poor. However, if we divide the population into poor and non-poor then 54.17%
population is poor but at the different stages of poverty while 45.84% population is non-poor.
Transitory vulnerable and transitory non-poor are always at risk of falling into extreme poverty
under bad circumstances. At this level of poverty and vulnerability, households’ survival is constantly
at risk. As the income of most (54.17%) of the families is very less and subject to fluctuations, so, to
reduce the risk of their survival they engage the little hands (children) in labour to supplement the
household budget instead of sending them to school. FGD findings also suggest poverty as the
foremost reason of child labour. In this way, poverty is the major factor which causes child labour.
Figure 18: Stratification of Population as Per Poverty Ranking Criterion of NRSP
12.7% 14.3%9.5%
17.5%
46.0%
0.0%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
25.0%
30.0%
35.0%
40.0%
45.0%
50.0%
Pressure
by Parents
To Earn
Money
To Help
Parents in
HH Chores
To Help
Parents in
Work or
Business
Poverty
Reasons for Doing Work after
Returning from School
4.2%
13.2%
36.8%35.4%
10.4%
0.0%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
25.0%
30.0%
35.0%
40.0%
Chronic Poor Transitory
Poor
Transitory
Vulnerable
Transitory
Non Poor
Non Poor
Poverty Ranking
Page 24 of 27
6.9 Family Occupation
Most of the adult family members in poor households work at power looms (30.82%) and tanneries
(4.55%), do ‘Adda Work’ (11.36%) and stitching (6.82%), work as daily wage labourers (4.55%) and
household workers (4.55%). 11.36% of them are also unemployed. 64.86% of adult family members
from such households do not earn more than 100 rupees a day. With these unskilled elementary
occupations, income level and vulnerability, children from such households are very much
vulnerable to child labour. An overwhelming majority (81.08%) of such households is not satisfied
with their level of income. 43.75% of adult household members desire to earn 2 to 3 hundred rupees
a day while 37.5% of them desire the income level of 4 to 5 hundred rupees a day. To raise their
living standards and come out of poverty a vast majority (84.62%) of them is interested in to do
small business provided that they get training and capital for initial investment from somewhere.
They were interested in shop (30%), power looms (30%), embroidery (10%), hotel (10%) and
business of clothes. All of the respondents were of the view that small business can provide their
household a better and sustainable livelihood.
Figure 19: Occupations of Adult Household Members
6.10 Impact of Poverty Alleviation on Child Labour
In household survey, 83.33% of the respondents mentioned that if their household income gets
increased up to an adequate level they will send their children to school while 70% mentioned that
in such case they will also free their children from work. Likewise, the respondents of FGDs with
parents of child labourers mentioned that if income of the parents gets increased or poverty is
alleviated then parents won’t engage their children in labour and pay attention towards their basic
physical and educational needs. This indicates that poverty alleviation will substantially reduce child
labour in the targeted community.
2.3%4.6%
31.8%
4.6%4.6%6.8%
11.4%
2.3%2.3%
11.4%
18.2%
0.0%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
25.0%
30.0%
35.0%
Occupations of Adult Household
Members
Page 25 of 27
Figure 20: Will Parents Send their Children to School and free them from Work if Their Income Gets Increased?
7 Conclusion
The findings of the study suggest that large household size, illiteracy or lack of awareness, debt
bondage, less household income and occupation of adult household members are important
determinants of child labour. Above all, poverty is found to be the foremost important determinant
of child labour. Most of the child labourers come from poor households. This finding is consistent
with Akarro and Mtweve (2011), and Khan (2001). For poor households child labour is a means of
survival. As their household size is large and adult wages are significantly low so they cannot alone
support the large number of dependents in the household. On the other hand, their low
wages/income is also subject to fluctuations. In such situation, the survival of the families concerned
is constantly at risk. In order to minimize this risk they have to diversify the source of their
household income. For this purpose, they engage their children in labour in different occupations.
Under severe financial constraints, they have to take debt from owners. Their children have to work
there as debt bondage unless the debt is paid in cash or labour. So, under financial constraints
children are being pushed into child labour. This hampers their physical and mental development.
They are deprived of education. In this way, they accumulate less or no human capital. Due to less or
no human capital accumulation they remained unskilled. As a result of it, they, once grown as an
adult, have to do unskilled jobs and their productivity remains low. This results in lower wages and
perpetuates poverty and consequently child labour. In this way, the findings of the study suggest,
there is nexus between poverty and child labour, in which both cause and reinstate each other.
The findings of the study also suggest that an overwhelming majority of parents of child labourers
desire to send their children to school provided that their household income gets increased up to an
adequate level where their survival is not at risk. This indicates the significant impact that poverty
alleviation may have on child labour in the targeted community.
83.3%
16.7%
70.0%
30.0%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
90.0%
Yes No
Will Send their Children to
School
Will Free their Children from
Work
Page 26 of 27
Keeping in view the findings of the study, we may conclude that there is nexus between poverty and
child labour and poverty alleviation may reduce child labour substantially in the targeted
community.
8 Recommendations
While keeping in view the findings, the study proposes following solution or strategies for effective
child labour reduction program in the targeted community:
1. The provision of social safety nets under severe financial constraints may help to reduce
child labour in the targeted community.
2. Conditional cash transfers to poor households for sending their children to school may also
help to reduce child labour.
3. Along with these short term measures, long term measures like income generation
programs, employment creation, increase in unskilled adult wages and training of unskilled
adults should be taken for economic change in the condition of the concerned families. The
adequate economic change in the condition of poor families will help to reduce child labour
from the targeted community in the longer run.
4. NGOs, working for the rights of children should focus on this segment of the neglected
children. They should design campaigns to make the public, policy makers and parents
aware of the serious ramifications on child’s future once exposed to physical, sexual and
economic abuse.
Nonetheless, it is important to note that the proposed solutions are not exclusive in nature rather
they are inclusive in nature. So, any program which implies any one of these solutions may not work
better to reduce child labour. Therefore, for a successful child labour reduction program should
supplement these solutions with each other. In this way, child labour may be effectively reduced
from the targeted community.
9 References
1. Organization, I. L. "What is child labour."Retrieved 19 November, 2012, from
http://www.ilo.org/ipec/facts/lang--en/index.htm.
2. Organization, I. L. (1973)."Minimum Age Convention."Retrieved 19 November, 2012, from
http://www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=NORMLEXPUB:12100:0::NO:12100:P12100_INSTRUME
NT_ID:312283:NO.
3. Organization, I. L. (1999)."Worst Forms of Child Labour Convention."Retrieved 19 November,
2012, from
http://www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=1000:12100:0::NO::P12100_INSTRUMENT_ID:312327.
4. Nations, U. (1989). "Convention on the Rights of the Child."Retrieved 19 November, 2012, from
http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/pdf/crc.pdf.
5. UNICEF. (2012). The State of the World's Children. Retrieved from
http://www.unicef.org/sowc/files/SOWC_2012-Main_Report_EN_21Dec2011.pdf
Page 27 of 27
6. ILO (2012). "Child Labour and Responses in South Asia." Retrieved 8 September, 2012, from
http://www.ilo.org/legacy/english/regions/asro/newdelhi/ipec/responses/index.htm#7.
7. SPARC. (2011). The State of Pakistan's Children. Retrieved from
http://www.sparcpk.org/SOPC/SOPC%20pdf%20final.pdf
8. The State of Bonded Labor in Pakistan. (2009). Retrieved from http://ncabl.pk/wp-
content/uploads/2011/05/State-of-Bonded-Labor-FINAL-FINAL-1-21-07.pdf
9. Rena, R. (2009). "The Child Labour in Developing Countries: A Challenge to Millennium
Development Goals." Indus Journal of Management & Social Sciences 3(1): 1-8.
10. Fallon, P. and Tzannatos, Z. (1998).“Child labor: issues and directions for the World Bank.”
Washington, D.C. : The World Bank.
11. Basu, K. and P. H. Van (1998)."The economics of child labor." American Economic Review: 412-
427. Child labour as a substitute for household’s survival –against--- the popular argument of
banning the child labour
12. Galli, R. (2001). "The economic impact of child labour."Genebra: ILO Decent Work Research
Programme.
13. Zaidi, H. H. and D. M. A. Beg (2004). "Baseline Survey Report on Child Labour in Kasur Tanneries."
International Labour Organization.
14. Siddiqi, F. and H. A. Patrinos (1995). Child labor: Issues, causes and interventions, World Bank
Washington DC.
15. Sen, G. (2002). "Considering the effects of poverty and schooling returns on child labour in
Vietnam."MPRA.
16. Akarro, R. R. J. and N. A. Mtweve (2011). "Poverty and its association with child labour in Njombe
District in Tanzania: The case of Igima Ward." Curr. Res. J. Soc. Sci 3(3): 199-206.
17. FABRE, A. and E. Augeraud-Véron (2004).Education, Poverty and Child Labour.Econometric
Society 2004 Far Eastern Meetings, Econometric Society.
18. Mason, G., B. O’Leary, et al. (2007). "Revisiting the impact of human capital on productivity: new
cross-country evidence at sector level."
19. Brown, D. K., A. V. Deardorff, et al. (2002). The determinants of child labor: theory and evidence.
20. Wahba, J. (2006). "The influence of market wages and parental history on child labour and
schooling in Egypt." Journal of Population Economics 19(4): 823-852.