Nexus between Poverty and Child Labour: Measuring the Impact of Poverty Alleviation on child labour

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

[email protected]

between Poverty & Child Labour: Measuring the Impact

of Poverty Alleviation on Child Labour

Research Report 2012

Authored By: Zahid Aqil


Tehsil Road, Kot Ghulam Muhammad Khan, Kasur (Punjab) Tel: 049-2009890, 2774196

[email protected] www.gtopak.org

of 27

Measuring the Impact


2009890, 2774196

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.

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

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

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pocket

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

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

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

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

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.

Nexus between Poverty and Child Labour: Measuring the Impact of Poverty Alleviation on child labour

Documents

Transcript of Nexus between Poverty and Child Labour: Measuring the Impact of Poverty Alleviation on child labour