Defining Child Labour a Controversial Debate

Oxfam GB

Defining Child Labour: A Controversial DebateAuthor(s): Augendra BhukuthSource: Development in Practice, Vol. 18, No. 3 (Jun., 2008), pp. 385-394Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. on behalf of Oxfam GBStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/27751932 .

Accessed: 15/10/2014 03:50

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Taylor & Francis, Ltd. and Oxfam GB are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toDevelopment in Practice.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 147.91.173.31 on Wed, 15 Oct 2014 03:50:30 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=taylorfrancis

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ogb

http://www.jstor.org/stable/27751932?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


Development in Practice, Volume 18, Number 3, June 2008 p Routiedge i\ lavier ^a^Gro,

Defining child labour: a controversial debate

Augendra Bhukuth

While it is internationally agreed that the worst forms of child labour should be eliminated in order to promote children \s welfare, the consensus breaks down when trying to define what con

stitutes 'light work'. This article seeks to show why it is difficult to get everyone to agree on this

issue, focusing on the definition of child labour proposed by the International Labour Organ ization (ILO).

Key Words: Social Sector; Governance and Public Policy

What is child labour?

In order to understand the phenomenon of child labour, it is first necessary to define what is meant by it. According to Schlemmer (1997), the term 'child labour' is pernicious because it

depends on a definition of both 'work' and 'childhood', thus complicating the task of reaching a precise definition. Child labour is also linked to issues of socialisation: where does socialisa tion through work end and socialisation through domestic chores within the family unit begin, creating (as such work does) a conflict with the child's education, formation, and development

(Schlemmer 1997)? At what point, in relation to what activity, does one cease to be considered a child? The issue of child labour relates, therefore, to definitions of work and of childhood.

There is widespread agreement that paying wages exposes children to exploitation, but the ILO recognises categories of work that could harm the child's physical and mental development and those that do not. The distinction, however, is ambiguous. This article concentrates on the ILO definition in order to show the complexity of the problem of child labour. It draws attention to the ILO's change of direction in response to the reality on the ground, in that the ILO now focuses its sights essentially on the worst forms of child labour.

The conceptual definition of child labour

The economic definition

In defining child labour, the ILO (2002) refers to the System of National Accounts (SNA), which defines work in terms of economic activity. Economic activity encompasses all types of production for the market (paid work) and certain types of work carried out 'off market'

ISSN 0961-4524 Print/ISSN 1364-9213 Online 030385-10 c 2008 Oxfam GB

Routiedge Publishing DOT. 10.1080/09614520802030466

385



Augendra Bhukuth

(domestic chores).1 The definition of child labour takes into account all activities whose

production is intended for the market, but also includes those goods manufactured for personal consumption. In the same way, children engaged in unpaid activity and whose production is destined for the market are considered to be economically active. A child can be economically active both inside (unpaid work) and outside the family, provided that the product manufactured is destined for the market. This is the case of children hired as household servants, and in par ticular of girls taken on as maids-of-all-work by an employer (homeworking), who are con

sidered economically active to the extent that this work generates an income. On the other

hand, children carrying out domestic tasks (housework) in the family home are not treated as

economically active (this work being classed as non-market activity). Thus, they are not

deemed to be child workers, or at least are not accounted for as such. It follows from this defi

nition, therefore, that 'work' (of whatever nature) must generate an income, even if the child

does not benefit directly (as is the case of the maids, whose wages are collected by their

parents or agents or are pledged to the employer in order to constitute 'savings').

The different categories of child worker

This definition of child labour allows us to distinguish between several categories of children. The ILO (2002) distinguishes three categories:

children with worker status, i.e., who work full-time;

those who combine work and education, by working to pay for their own schooling or for the education of other children in the household; those who are neither at school nor at work.

This third category is what the ILO (2002) calls the nowhere child. The status of the nowhere child is not very well defined. The ILO definition includes those children who are engaged in domestic activity in the family, as well as those whose physical or mental incapacity precludes their attending school or carrying out paid work. Apprentices are part of this category (ILO 2002). Thus children who carry out domestic work within the family and who are also 'nowhere children' are not accounted for in the child labour statistics.

Not taking account of children employed in family domestic work is problematic, since the failure to regard unpaid domestic work as an economic activity is tantamount to ignoring the fact that such children are denied their basic right to education.2 Among girls, it is difficult to distinguish between paid and unpaid domestic work (i.e. to make the distinction between homework3 and housework). In African countries where child 'fostering' is commonplace (Vandermesh 1999), girls are often taken on as 'little maids' but are not paid for their work. In the case of children fostered through an agent, these children seldom receive any salary directly from their employer. Either the intermediaries are paid and, after deducting their com

mission, they pass their wages on to the parents, or the parents collect the children's wages themselves. In this case, the child gets no financial benefit from the work. In the same way, chil dren engaged in family domestic chores free up working time for the adults: this means that by doing the household chores, children enable adults to take on paid work. In this way, children are contributing indirectly to the household income.

It is for this reason that Fukui (1996: 181) defines work as 'any kind of activity of which the direct or indirect aim is to assume responsibility for one 's life. Where this responsibility rests on the child, the issue is one of child labour.' The NGO Save the Children tends to follow Fukui on this and has adopted a similar definition for work as 'activities children undertake to contribute to their own or family economy.' Thus these wider definitions of work enable the domestic

386 Development in Practice, Volume 18, Number 3, June 2008



Defining child labour

activity of children (in particular 'nowhere children' and those engaged in unlawful activities) to be taken into account.

Lieten (2002) likens children's work to a kichree4 in that child labour includes many and varied forms of work and status. Child labour is not a homogeneous phenomenon. Unicef

takes a similar line in accepting that children aged 12 years or more may carry out light work, in line with ILO Convention no. 138. According to Unicef (1997), work can even be an enriching experience, provided that it does not jeopardise the child's health and development or prevent the child from attending school. However, Unicef condemns hazardous work or the worst forms of child labour. Lieten (2002), quoting Stern and Davies (1940), defines child labour as any work that interferes with the child's full physical development, the opportunities for a desired minimum of education, and leisure needs. This definition makes a distinction between the different types of work: those that are harmful to the physical and moral develop ment of the child, and those that are beneficial.

In English-language writings, the use of the terms child work and child labour enables a distinc tion to be drawn between what is dangerous and intolerable and what is not. The use of these terms

is, however, far from neutral: indeed, child work is defined as an activity that does not harm a child's

physical and mental development, whereas child labour refers to activities considered dangerous to a child's welfare. Child work refers to work that does not interfere with a child's schooling, as

opposed to child labour. The notion of child labour is therefore associated with exploitation. In French-language publications, there is no such distinction between work and labour, gen

erally because they are subsumed within the single word "le travail'. Thus, the premise is that all work is injurious to the child, since it interferes with schooling and hence jeopardises a child's education. Implicitly, this assumes that a child's natural place is at school and not at work. It is argued, moreover, that a child whose time is divided between education and work

(market or non-market activity) generally under-performs at school and is a poor achiever

(Akabayashi and Psacharopoulos 1999). In French studies on this issue, it is taken for

granted that a child's time ought to be divided between education and leisure.

The ILO conventions The ILO distinguishes between harmful and non-harmful work, on the basis of which it has for mulated conventions and recommendations. From 1919 to 1971, all the conventions related to

industrial activities and did not include domestic work. Convention No. 5 (1919-1932) set the minimum age for formal employment at 14 years; subsequently, this was raised to 15 years in 1936-1937. In 1965, convention No. 123 defined the minimum age for admission of children to

employment as 18 years for those industries judged hazardous to children's health, because they placed a child's moral and physical development at risk. Thus, work considered stressful and

presenting high risks of exposure to radiation (convention No. 115, 1960) and hazardous chemi cal substances (convention No. 136, 1971) fell into the category of work that was harmful to a child's mental and physical development. These conventions related to industries that were

judged hazardous. But work within the family unit escaped all these forms of regulation. In order to close that loophole, a new convention was adopted in which the scope was enlarged to cover work within a domestic setting. Thus convention No. 138 (1973) was adopted in order to improve the instruments available for combating child labour and afford better protec tion to children, and to bring the measures into line with national legislation. This convention was not focused solely on the industrial sector, but on all types of work carried out by children.

Any state ratifying this convention agrees to implement a national policy aimed at abolishing child labour and at gradually raising the minimum age for admission to employment. This

Development in Practice, Volume 18, Number 3, June 2008 387



Augendra Bhukuth

convention leaves states party free to fix this minimum age. According to the ILO, however, the

legal minimum working age must not be below the legal school-leaving age. The peculiarity of convention No. 138 is that it distinguishes between light work and hazar

dous work. Thus although the benchmark minimum working age is 15 years, this could very well be as low as 13 or 12 years of age in countries where the level of development is very low. The benchmark responds to the need for labour in developing countries by taking account of the economic and financial circumstances of the household. The legal minimum

age for working in hazardous activities is fixed at 18 years, whatever the economic situation in the country. However, an exception is made for those households that are economically dis

advantaged, where the permitted limit is lowered to 16 years. The concept of child labour is thus intimately linked to exploitation. Paid work implies child

exploitation, whereas unpaid work is tolerated because it is performed within the family unit.

Combating the worst forms of child labour: the regulatory framework

On 1 June 1999, the Director-General of the ILO used the term 'decent work' in his address to a

conference on combating the worst forms of labour. In other words, decent work improves working conditions in developing countries by enabling wages to be raised for the least well off in the 'informal' economy. The other objective of the programme for decent work is to elim inate the worst forms of work. In 1999 the ILO adopted a regulatory tool to combat the worst forms of child labour.

Convention C182 and its implications

Convention C182 (1999) sets down the bases for a policy to combat the worst forms of child labour by re-enacting the previous conventions but in addition targeting all business judged hazardous that puts a child's health and moral welfare at risk.

Convention Cl 82 specifies what constitutes 'worst forms of work': hence article 3 of the con vention states that the term 'worst forms of work' applies to (a) all forms of slavery or practices similar to slavery, such as the sale and trafficking of children, debt bondage and serfdom, and forced or compulsory labour, including forced or compulsory recruitment of children for use in armed conflict; (b) the use, procuring, or offering of a child for prostitution, for the production of pornography or for pornographic performances; (c) the use, procuring, or offering of a child for illicit activities, in particular for the production and trafficking of drugs as defined in the rel evant international treaties; (d) work which, by its nature or the circumstances in which it is carried out, is likely to harm the health, safety, or moral welfare of children.

This convention complements article 32 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which states:

States Parties recognize the right of the child to be protected from economic exploitation and from performing any work that is likely to be hazardous or to interfere with the child's

education, or to be harmful to the child's health or physical, mental, spiritual, moral or

social development.

The ILO has made a number of concessions on certain points (including the age of admission to

employment). This is a marked weakness in the fight to eliminate child labour. In effect, the

conventions, and more particularly Convention 138, tolerate so-called 'light work': this is not subject to any ban, and eradicating it is not on the agenda. The ILO developed its convention on the premise that poverty is the essential underlying factor that decides whether a child works or not. Thus, 'work' constitutes a means of survival for the poor household (Edmonds 2005).





Because of this, a certain number of activities are tolerated, and only those that jeopardise a child's physical or mental health and development are to be completely eliminated. The activi ties tolerated by the ILO are those performed within the context of a family enterprise. This assumes that families are not in the business of exploiting children, and that the work is

judged not to be hazardous to their physical, mental, or moral health. Yet exploitation in such production units is not to be ruled out (Bhukuth 2005).

The ILO's basic premise is that poverty is the principal factor driving child labour. A large number of households survive thanks to the financial contribution made by children's work;

consequently, banning such support would risk rendering the financial circumstances of the household even more precarious.5 Hence Convention 182 takes household poverty, which is viewed as an unavoidable reality, into consideration, and assumes that the work that children

perform within their family production unit or micro-enterprise is basically 'light work'. The ILO is convinced that eradicating child labour can be achieved only by eradicating poverty; and that poverty (and thus child labour) can be eradicated only by sustainable economic

growth (ILO 1999).

Child labour in the informal economy

As we have seen above, the principal target in the fight against child labour is the 'worst forms of work'. This covers only a limited number of private companies, whereas family enterprises, domestic work, and artisan work all fall outside the regulatory framework of anti-child labour

policies. Yet children work mainly in the unregulated sector, in family and artisanal businesses. Children work as family helps, apprentices, or casual labour. Children perform their duties in the informal economy, which has its own set of operating rules;6 in this case, it is difficult to

protect them effectively. The exploitation of children in the employment market depends on their legal status. Some efforts have been made in this direction, to protect the status of a child as a person in her or his own right, and the basic right of the child is defended in this

respect. However, the law does not recognise a child as having the status of worker. The child worker, being by definition a minor, has no place in the job market. This situation leaves the door wide open to abuse. It is impossible to tackle any issue properly when it is deemed not to exist. Because of their status as minors, children are not entitled to form or

join any kind of trade union and thus they cannot make their voices heard.7 The status of chil dren on the job market does not enable them to enjoy the same rights as those guaranteed to adult workers. Thus, although they are participating in the labour force, they cannot claim their rights and demand better working conditions. In many cases, they work in family businesses where it is even more difficult to ensure the application of labour legislation.

Convention 182 thus encapsulates the ILO's powerlessness to eradicate child work. This is one reason why its priority is to eliminate the worst forms of child labour.

The ILO places the emphasis on two objectives: the elimination of poverty and the provision of universal education, which, in time, will gradually eliminate child labour. Poverty will be eradicated by improved working conditions within the informal economy. However, the achievement of these goals remains remote: poverty is hardly receding, and the level of edu cation has barely improved. The fight against poverty and aspirations for the adoption of a clear and comprehensive education policy are linked: you cannot have one without the other. Thus child work will not be eliminated unless growth gives the economy the boost of energy that it needs. Failing this, it will be the unofficial economy that expands, and child labour with it (Ballet and Bhukuth 2005).




Augendra Bhukuth

Society's perception of child labour

What does 'child' mean?

The French word for child (Venfant) comes from the Latin infans, meaning 'one who does not

speak' - an infant. A child is not entitled to speak when parental decisions are being made.

Indeed, in France a child is often told to 'Be good and be quiet' (Sois sage et tais-toi): in other words, a child is presumed to be a passive individual who puts up with what its parents do. By contrast, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC),

adopted in 1990, regards the child as a person in his or her own right, who enjoys rights and has something to say in the decisions taken by the parents.

The UNCRC applies the following definition: 'a child means every human being below the

age of eighteen years unless under the law applicable to the child, majority is attained earlier'. This allows the States Parties a large measure of flexibility to fix the age of majority. However, the States Parties are bound to protect children under the age of 18 years against the worst forms of work, even if under-18s are not legally defined as children in their country.

This convention supports the principle that children, as human beings, enjoy human rights that it is the duty of States Parties to ensure are respected, along with their right to their own

time, which should be devoted to education and to leisure.

Childhood and work: two opposing concepts

Childhood is a transitory phase on the way to adulthood. The issue is how this transition is handled. Is work an effective means to attain adulthood, a matter of promoting the child's devel

opment so that he or she becomes an accomplished adult? With the spread of schooling, childhood

began to be conceived differently. Sociologists still do not agree among themselves on what child hood is. According to Aries, childhood is a recent concept (cited by James and James 2001) and is a transitional stage common to all children, characterised by a series of physical changes. But if childhood is a path common to every child, it is not the same for all children, but varies consider

ably across and between cultures and generations (James and James 2001). It also varies in regard to the concepts of a child's specific needs; the competences that are defined in law and social

policy; and the everyday social interaction that takes place between adults and children (James and James 2001). According to Punch (2003), depending on their social background, even chil dren within the same country do not experience childhood in the same way. These definitions of childhood enable us to assess it against local social context rather than in global terms: so we have to concentrate on the local diversities and cultural variables.

While no two children have identical childhoods, the UN regulatory framework nonetheless sets universal standards for what constitutes childhood. All children must benefit from the same

conditions, in that a child should go to school to acquire an education, and spend her or his free time in leisure. In countries where children are working, governments must offer children these services. The UNESCO programme 'Education for All' is designed to further the UN and the ILO conventions.

The distinction between childhood and the adult world is socially defined. While in the West

age marks the threshold between childhood and adulthood, in other countries (sub-Saharan Africa in particular) it is rites of passage that mark the moment when the child crosses from one stage to another (Fyfe 1989). Thus, in countries in sub-Saharan Africa, from the age of seven onwards

boys and girls are separated, girls going with their mothers and boys their fathers. Then when a certain age has been reached (12 or 13 years, or sometimes as young as ten), the rites of

passage - in the form of certain tasks that must be performed

- define the moment of entry into the adult world. These activities are considered as being of benefit to the child. According





to Punch (2003), work can be combined with leisure: the child can derive pleasure from working. For example, where children are set to scare birds off the crops in their fields, they do so quite happily because this activity is connected with chasing the birds and running around. In Punch's study, the children spent only a short time on bird-scaring duty. But if we were to

imagine that the children had to spend their whole time doing this, bird scaring would quickly become a chore. The simplest tasks become hard to put up with when there is no variation, and this can be the case for children engaged in work, whether market or non-market work.

Our perceptions of children determine their place in society. In the traditional societies of sub Saharan Africa, children would receive attention from everyone in the adult community. Children were considered an asset (Ravololomanga and Schlemmer 1996), 'belonging' not only to their

parents but to the whole group to which they were related. The child received a traditional edu cation in which there was a relationship of authority between the educators and the educated.

Knowledge and skills were acquired by experience and through contact with older people, and chil dren learned to accept pre-established rules and system of authority. If they challenged the pre established order, they were excluded from society or from the community. The elders assigned a child its place and its role. This collective perception of the role of the child has been overturned

by economic and social crises (Toto 1996). The monetarisation of the economy and growing urbanisation have not only upset the family and social structure, but also disrupted the rites and

myths of the child. This tendency has implied a shift from a collective, community structure for the socialisation of children to a private affair, confined to the nuclear family.

The point is that every society perceives children differently, which makes it difficult to har monise and apply international laws in relation to child labour. This explains why the conven tions on child labour leave the signatories such a lot of room for manoeuvre. The ILO is not

trying to put an end to the problem, but rather to establish universal standards (Gendreau 1996).

International conventions in the national context

Some states tolerate child labour because they are not in a position to improve the lot of those households involved in it. Banning children from working would mean having to take respon sibility for poor families, whereas at present they manage to survive without the help of the state. According to Unicef (1997), 'the adoption and implementation of laws are not of them selves sufficient to eliminate such work, but without them there would be no chance of doing so'. Applying the ILO conventions is a question not only of resources, but also of political will. At the end of 1997, of 174 Member States 133 had ratified eleven ILO conventions, and 53 countries have ratified Convention No. 138. The difficulty, both ethically and

morally, in getting conventions ratified highlights a problem regarding international legal con sensus on ratification and application where economic and socio-cultural issues are at stake.

According to Myers (2001), developed countries are attempting to impose their perception of childhood on developing countries, hence the latters' reluctance to ratify this particular conven

tion, whereas the conventions on the worst forms of child labour and on the rights of the child have been very widely ratified.

In relation to the elimination of child labour, the Indian government has made enormous efforts

by enacting the conventions on child labour into national law. This illustrates the willingness of the Indian government to do away with the problem of child labour. In particular, it supports the idea that in terms of development, the rights of the child (and particularly its economic, social, and cultural rights) can be achieved only gradually within the limits of available resources and com

pliance with international regulations. The Indian constitution prohibits children under the age of 14 years from working in factories and mines, and in other hazardous activities. However, imple

menting these laws is difficult, so embedded in Indian society is the phenomenon of the working




Augendra Bhukuth

child. While outsiders may well be shocked, in India the sight of children working seems a per fectly natural part of daily life. Profit prevails over human rights.

In December 1996, the Supreme Court of India ordered that a foundation for the welfare of children be set up in every state in the federal republic. Every employer engaging children in hazardous activities was supposed to contribute Rs 20,000 per child towards the fund.

However, in reality, such a measure has proved difficult to apply. In 1989, conscious of its

powerlessness in effectively combating child labour, the Indian government introduced a

policy intended to give underprivileged children equal opportunity of access to schooling as

part of its efforts to eliminate poverty. Two thousand specialised schools were set up to offer formal education to all children in need.

In Africa, the laws relating to child labour relate essentially to large corporations in the formal economy, a sector which hires hardly any children at all, whereas the agricultural sector, a prime supplier of child labourers, is unregulated.

Children before labour legislation

Child labour raises an issue from the point of view of the law on child workers. Conventions and national laws forbid child labour, but they do not always take account of the rights of children who are working. Indeed, it is plainly the case that children work but are not protected by the

legislation. The legislators believe that banning child labour will make the problem go away -

but that is not the case, and so what becomes of these child workers? This absence of rights allows them to be exploited.

Because a child is a minor and the responsibility of his or her parents, he or she cannot freely negotiate the terms of a contract of employment, nor indeed sign it. According to Ramanathan

(1996), children's minority reinforces their vulnerability. The legal precariousness of children resides in the fact that they have no economic weight (Morice 1996). In Indian legislation (Children Act, 1933), it is the parent who has sole capacity to agree to a child going out to

work, and this is so until that child reaches the age of majority at 18 years (Ramanathan 1996). In most developing countries, the minimum legal working age is 14 years; below that age, no child has the legal status of worker. His or her work is clandestine and illegal (Siddiqi and Patrinos 1996), and this very secrecy further reinforces a child's vulnerability.

The legislators tolerate child labour by concerning themselves only with the question of elim

inating or abolishing legal recognition of the worst forms of child labour. Given the inability of the legislators to provide for the status of child workers, child workers enter the labour market

without any trade-union protection.

Conclusion

Child labour is not a homogeneous phenomenon. The strictly economic definition given by the ILO does not encompass all forms of child labour, but it does enable a distinction to be made between light work and hazardous work.

Light work is tolerated by the international organisations because it does not compromise the

physical or moral development of the child. It may even be a beneficial experience in the tran sition from childhood to adulthood. This acceptance of light work can be explained by the fact that, taking account of the socio-economic reality of developing countries, a policy of comple tely eradicating child labour is all but unattainable. Light work has a dual impact: it enables the standard of living for households to be sustained, and it facilitates access to the adult world.

Consequently, the international organisations are focusing their attention on combating the





worst forms of child labour. The move from Convention No. 138 to Convention 182 marks a

policy U-turn in the fight against child labour. Hazardous work must be eliminated, because it jeopardises the passage from childhood to

adulthood by damaging the physical and moral development of the child. Eliminating such work is very much on the agenda. However, if poverty is taken as the benchmark, as is the case for light work, then children who are engaged in hazardous activities are still contributing to the survival of their households. These children are generally from the most marginalised backgrounds, living in extreme poverty; this is the case for debt bondage, for example (Bhukuth 2005). Would removing this financial prop from such households serve only to inten

sify their marginalisation? The question we should be asking is how can we free children from these forms of work without making their family finances more precarious in so doing?

Notes 1. A distinction must be made between 'homeworking' and 'housework'. The former refers to work

carried out by children both inside and outside the family context for which they are paid directly or

indirectly, whereas housework refers to doing domestic chores and is carried out within the family home and is unpaid; the product of such work is not intended for the market.

2. This article does not address the harmful aspects of domestic work undertaken by girls, nor examine

this type of child labour in any depth. Nor do we conceal the fact that there is mistreatment of children

engaged in these types of activity. The point is simply that not taking girls' domestic work into account

is problematic. For a study of the mistreatment of child domestic labour, see Unicef (2000). 3. Unicef (2000) distinguishes two sorts of child worker outside the family context: those living in their

employer's home and those living with their parents. In the first case, children may be subjected to

physical hardship and even sexual abuse.

4. Kichree is an Indian dish consisting of rice, lentils, and onion. Lieten (2002) makes the analogy between child labour and a kichree to show the complexity and diversity of the phenomenon.

5. For a conceptual analysis of the relationship between poverty and child labour, see Basu and Van (1998). 6. For example, there are no rules for dismissal; entrepreneurs can fire their workers easily because they

are not unionised. Hence the principle of decent work enacted by the ILO to improve working con

ditions in the informal economy. This principle consists of imposing formal rules on informal

businesses, such as the adoption of a minimum wage close to that in the formal economy, and the

recognition of the right to form or join a trade union.

7. With the encouragement of the NGO END A, children have organised themselves to claim their rights as

workers and to get their voices heard. For more information, see Embassy of India's Policy Statement on

Child Labour and India, available at www.indianembassy.org/policy/Child_Labor/childlabor.htm (retrieved 7 March 2007).

References

Akabayashi, H. and Gorge Psacharopoulos (1999) The trade-off between child labour and human

capital formation: a Tanzanian case study', Journal of Development Studies 35(5): 120-40.

Ballet, Jerome et Augendra Bhukuth (2005) 'Travail des Enfants Versus l'Education: Une Revue

Critique de la Litterature', paper presented at the 21st Day of Association Tiers Monde, Formation,

Emploi et Developpement, Marrakech, 22-23 April.

Basu, Kaushik and Phan Van (1998) 'The economics of child labor', American Economic Review 88:

412-27.

Bhukuth, Augendra (2005) 'Child labour and debt bondage: a case study of brick kilns workers in Southeast

India', Journal of Asian and African Studies 40(4): 287-302.

Edmonds, Erick V. (2005) 'Understanding child labor: patterns, types and causes', E-Journals USA:

Economic Perspectives, available at http://usinfo.state.gov/journals/ites/0505/ijee/edmonds (retrieved

7 March 2007).




Augendra Bhukuth

ENDA (1999) Voix des Enfants dAfrique, Dakar: Enda Tiers Monde.

Fukui, Lia (1996) 'Pourquoi le travail des enfants est-il tolere? Le cas du Bresil', in B. Schlemmer (ed.) 1996.

Fyfe, Alec (ed.) (1989) Child Labour, Cambridge: Polity Press.

Gendreau, Francis (1996) 'Travail des enfants, societe civile et politiques publiques' in B. Schlemmer

(ed.) 1996.

ILO (1999) 'C182 Worst Forms of Child Labour Convention, 1999\ Geneva: ILO.

ILO (2002) 'Every Child Counts: New Global Estimates on Child Labour', ILO/IPEC/SIMPOC, Geneva: ILO.

James, Allison and Adrian James (2001) 'Childhood: toward a theory of continuity and change', The

Annals of American Academy and Political Social Science 575(1): 25-37.

Lieten, G. K. (2002) 'Child labour in India: disentangling essence and solutions', Economic and Political

Weekly, 28 December.

Morice, Alain (1996) 'Le paternalisme, rapport de domination adapte ? l'exploitation des enfants', in

B. Schlemmer (ed.) 1996.

Myers, William E. (2001) 'The right rights? Child labor in a globalizing world', The Annals of American

Academy and Political Social Science 575(1): 38-55.

Punch, Samantha (2003) 'Childhood in the majority world: miniature adults or tribal children?',

Sociology 37(2): 277-95.

Ramanathan, Usha (1996) 'Le travail des enfants et la loi en Inde', in B. Schlemmer (ed.) 1996.

Ravololomanga, Bado and Bernard Schlemmer (1996) 'Une mise au travail ?inexploitee?. La situation

transitoire de Madagascar', in B. Schlemmer (ed.) 1996.

Save the Children (2003) 'Save the Children's Position on Children and Work', Save the Children

Report, London, March.

Schlemmer, Bernard (ed.) (1996) VEnfant explode, oppression, mise au travail, proletarisation, Paris:

Karthala.

Schlemmer, Bernard (1997) 'Proposition de recherche sur l'exploitation des enfants au travail, fakes aux

sciences sociales, qui, en France, ignore encore la question ...', Recherches Internationales 50: 67-88.

Siddiqi, Faraaz and Harry A. Patrinos (1996) Child Labor: Issues, Causes and Intervention, Human

Capital and Development Operations Policy, HCO Working Papers 56, Washington, DC: World Bank.

Stern, E. and J. Davies (eds.) (1940) Labor Problem in America: New York, NY: Farraer and Richer.

Toto, Jean Paul (1996) 'Travail des enfants et transition demographique en Afrique. Vers des voies nouvelles au Congo', in B. Schlemmer (ed.) 1996.

Unicef (1997) The State of the World's Children, 1997, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Unicef (2000) 'Les enfants domestiques', Innocenti Digest, Florence: Unicef.

Vandermech, Cecile (1999) 'Permanences et Changements dans les Determinants Matrimoniaux de la

Pratique des Enfants au Senegal: Une Analyse Secondaire des Donnees DHS/EDS 1986, 1992-93 et

1997', paper presented at the Third African Population Conference, Population Africaine au 2Ie siecle,

Durban, South Africa, 6-10 December.

The author

Augendra Bhukuth is an economist at the University of Versailles in France. His research and

publications cover the issues of child labour and debt bondage, as well as street children. Contact details: Universite de Versailles Saint-Quentin en Yvelines, Centre d'Economie d'Ethique pour TEnvir onnement et le Developpement (C3ED), UMR IRD-C3ED, 47, Bd Vauban, 78047 Guyancourt Cedex, France. <[email protected]>

Editor's note: translated from French by Caroline Beaumont. The original version is available

on request and will be posted as a pre-print on the journal's website at www.developmentin

practice.org




Defining Child Labour a Controversial Debate

Documents

Transcript of Defining Child Labour a Controversial Debate