Articles » All work and no play

Themes

Article summary

Overall, there has been a steady decline in child labour. Consumer boycotts have had mixed effects. The ILO and many NGOs argue that all child... read more

The International Labour Organization

The ILO is a tripartite organization, representing governments trade unions and employers. It relies on national governments to implement its recom... read more

India has the largest child labour force in the world. Efforts are being made to send them to school.

All work and no play

Child labour versus child work

Kristoffel Lieten | October 07, 2008

The struggle against child labour is showing results. But the consensus is now being attacked from two sides: abolish all child labour versus there is nothing wrong with child work.

Child labour policies remain high on the development agenda. Most major NGOs in the West have policies on and support projects related to child labour in developing countries. There is increasing focus on the issue in corporate social responsibility discussions prompted by activist groups that have launched campaigns boycotting products manufactured by child labourers. Multinational corporations have become very sensitive to the presence of child labourers in their production chains. Even governments get entangled in consumer boycotts. In June 2008 the EC adopted a proposal initiated by the Dutch government to study the possibility of using trade-related measures against import products manufactured by child labourers.

A steady decline

In many developing countries, children account for one third to one half of the population. They should all be able to attend school and enjoy a proper childhood, as those born to wealthier families are more likely to do. Many studies have shown that child labour is mainly a problem for poor, vulnerable and crisis-stricken families in the most impoverished countries.

There has been progress in the struggle against child labour. The International Labour Organization (ILO) has been particularly active in establishing an international standard to create a world-wide understanding of what child labour is and which forms of it need to be abolished. Within the ILO, the International Program on the Elimination of Child Labour (IPEC) and the Statistical Information Monitoring Programme on Child Labour (SIMPOC) have produced a vast array of country-wide data and studies. These have provided important indicators of the issues involved and of the progress that has been made.

In its latest global report on child labour, the ILO announced that ‘the end of child labour is within reach’. It calculated that the total number of child labourers had fallen by 11%, to 218 million, between 2000 and 2004. This figure includes all working children, even those in the 14–17 age range who are doing harmful work. The incidence of children in the so-called ‘worst forms’ of labour has witnessed an even sharper decline. It dropped by 26% to 126 million; 74 million children below 14 years are involved in the worst forms of child labour.

Overall there has been an unmistakable decline in child labour. However in some countries it has only been slight and in other countries conditions have worsened. Consumer boycotts may have been one of the factors in this decline, but labourers in export-oriented industries are only a small segment of the total child labour force. The problem remains serious in South Asia and in Sub-Sahara Africa, where poverty and malfunctioning education systems force millions of children into labour.

Negative effects

Consumer boycotts in specific cases may have had negative effects. Boycotts destroy the livelihoods of working children without providing alternative sources of income. What happens to child labourers who are sacked from their workplaces in the wake of a consumer boycott or because of restrictions imposed by Western governments? Unfortunately many children end up in worse conditions after losing their jobs. This is one of the reasons why mainstream organizations have pleaded for a balanced and contextual approach that involves all the partners in the field.

However, the boycott campaigns have indirectly helped raise awareness of the child labour issue. Economic development, technological changes, a better educational infrastructure, government policy initiatives and the gradual changing of the standards in civil society have all played a part. Globalization may also be helping, not due to improving economic conditions, but because of the dissemination of a new childhood standard across the globe.

One effect of the ILO Convention 182, adopted in 1999, is that official sanction has been given to the idea that not all work done by children needs to be eradicated. Not all the work children perform is necessarily negative. In reality, children can do a variety of jobs under widely divergent conditions.

Child labour takes place along a continuum. At one end, it is beneficial and promotes or enhances a child’s physical, mental, spiritual, moral or social development without interfering with school, recreation or rest. At the other extreme, the work is destructive and exploitative. A more precise delineation of what child labour is can be determined by a combination of Convention 138 (setting the age standards) and Convention 182 (setting the harm standards). This is the general line along which governments have been working.

Disagreements

Not everyone accepts this distinction. Some scholars and NGOs claim that nothing is wrong with child labour. They actually avoid using the term and instead talk in terms of ‘child work’. Governments, rather than taking measures against child labour, should introduce measures that secure the right of children to work and then protect the working child.

The international Movement for Working Children, which resists the eradication of child labour, has emerged over the last decade. The movement consists of several national networks of working children organizations from Asia, Africa, Latin America and Europe. ‘Yes to Child Work, No to Exploitation’ is their slogan.

According to Manfred Liebel, one of the ideologues behind this movement, children should be regarded as independent individuals who can judge and design their lives themselves. This idea of participation in the Latin American context is referred to as protagonismo. It refers to the capacity to participate in society and to transform it. Liebel argues that the ILO ‘is deaf to the concrete interests of working children’ and ‘should be recommended to ask exactly what could help to improve the situation of these children – while actually listening to working children and their organizations, and beginning a serious dialogue marked by mutual respect’.

The ILO focuses on the worst forms of child labour in combination with Convention 138. Some organizations and alliances consider this a soft and compromising option. They argue that all forms of child labour should be abolished on a priority basis. Organizations and action committees, such as Stop Child Labour Now, regard all forms of work done by children as child labour. They also consider any child who is not in school to be a child labourer.

In the case of India, for example, Stop Child Labour Now has come up with a figure of between 50 million and 100 million child labourers, much higher than the official figure of 11 million. The organization also argues that child labour is far more a cause than an effect of poverty, and that it can be eradicated without ending poverty first. Getting all children into school is their approach, and as such they reject the prioritization of the worst forms. The organization advocates that, instead, the ILO should address the elimination of all forms of child labour. The focus on worst forms is bad policy ‘leading to piecemeal ad hoc solutions and creating an obstacle to a sustainable comprehensive strategy towards the elimination of all forms of child labour’.

Complicated practise

There has been a lot of progress in the struggle against child labour. Above all, a normative framework has been established that sets an international standard for policy making and monitoring.

This framework is under contention. It is considered too soft by some because it does not address all forms of child labour, and too strict by others. Quite often, however, discussions are conducted within the confines of a paradigmatic understanding. Ideological positions tend to keep reality at length.

For example, a recent study of the child labour organizations in a number of countries concluded that the children usually did not fall under the child labour definition of the ILO. They did only light work if they did any work at all, and by and large were adolescents.

On the other hand, organizations that are against child labour and in favour of universal elementary education, such as Plan International, Terre des Hommes and even the ILO in some cases, have been intervening in such a way that the children can continue working while getting some measure of education and protection. Given the financial constraints, it is as far as one can go.

Policies are in place, financial resources are available and public opinion is sensitive to the issue. Yet the problem continues. Ending child labour and achieving universal primary education is the target, but it remains elusive in an environment of deprivation and unfathomable misery.

References

Bourdillon, M., Myers, W. and White B. (2008) Re-assessing minimum-age standards for children’s work. The International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, Special issue on children and work.

Boyden, J. et al (Eds.) (1998) What Works for Working Children. Rädda Barnen and UNICEF.

Develtere P. and Huybrechts, A. (2006) The Movement for the Abolition of Child Labour: Example of a Transnational Network Movement. Leuven Interdisciplinary Research Group on International Agreements and Sustainable Development. Working Paper No 15.

Fyfe, A. (1998) Child Labour. Polity Press.

Fyfe, A. (2007) The Worldwide Movement against Child Labour. Progress And Future Directions. ILO.

Grootaert C. and Patrinos, H.A. (Eds.) (1999) The Policy Analysis of Child Labor. Macmillan.

ILO. (2006) Global Child Labour Trends, 2000 to 2004.

IPEC. (2006) Investing in Every Child: An Economic Study of the Costs and Benefits of Eliminating Child Labour. ILO.

IPEC. (2007) Modern Policy and Legislative Responses to Child Labour. ILO.

Kolk, A. and van Tulder, R. (2002) Child labor and multinational conduct: A comparison of international business and stakeholder codes. Journal of Business Ethics, 36(3):291-301.

Liebel, M. (2004) A Will of Their Own: Cross-cultural Perspectives on Working Children. Zed-Books.

Liebel, M. (2004) Opinion, Dialogue, Review. The new ILO report on child labour: a success story, or the ILO still at a loss? Childhood, 18(2):279-84.

Lieten, G. K. and White, B. (Eds.) (2001) Child Labour: Policy Perspectives. Aksant.

Nielsen, M. (2008) The Politics of Corporate Responsibility and Child Labour in the Bangladesh Garment Industry. International Affairs, 81(3)559-80.

Stop Child Labour (2008) Child Labour, Basic Education and International Donor Policies. A Challenge to Conventional Wisdom.

Van den Berge, M. (2007) Working Children’s Movements in Peru. IREWOC.

Weston, B. (Ed.) (2005) Child Labor and Human Rights. Lynne Reinner.

Comments

Child labour

Response to ‘ALL WORK AND NO PLAY’ BY K. LIETEN,
THE BROKER ONLINE, 7 OCTOBER 2008

André van Dokkum [theory.anthropology@gmail.com]
Foundation for Theoretical Research in Anthropology, Leiden the Netherlands

The Broker Online is to be thanked for drawing the attention of readers to the important topic of child labour. I believe K. Lieten’s article on the state of affairs concerning the issue in The Broker of 7 October 2008 merits some comments.

As Lieten points out, the distinction between ‘work’ and ‘labour’ is employed by some scholars and NGOs, where ‘work’ refers to jobs that would not harm, or would even ‘benefit’ children. The resulting terminological confusion apparently leads these scholars and NGOs to claim that ‘nothing is wrong with child labour’, and simultaneously assists them in avoiding the use of the term ‘child labour’, so that even if child labour would not be wrong, there would be no need to mention the term in analyses of working children anyhow.

This conceptual difficulty has major practical consequences. Lieten writes that the ILO convention 182 (C182; on the elimination of the worst forms of child labour; 1999) ‘[has given official sanction] to the idea that not all work done by children needs to be eradicated’. Taken literally, this statement is pointless, for the ILO Convention 138 (C138; on the minimum age for admission to employment; 1973) does not deny that children may work, formulating several minimum ages below 18 for certain types of work, sometimes in combination with a reference concerning completed schooling.

What Lieten seems to intend, however, is that C182 would somehow soften the requirements set by C138 concerning minimum ages for work not characterized as ‘worst forms’. If so, this is factually false, as can be read in the preamble of C182 that refers to C138 as remaining a fundamental instrument on child labour. C182 commits itself to ‘immediate and comprehensive action’ to the indicated ‘worst forms’. It complements rather than repeals the earlier general commitments of C138.

This may be illustrated by the ratification behaviour of ILO-members concerning the two conventions. As of 2 December 2008, 20 member states had ratified C182 but not C138 after 17 June 1999, the date of adoption of C182. However, 26 member states ratified C138 some time after C182, 24 member states both on the same date, and 24 actually ratified C138 before C182 after the date of adoption of C182. The last category includes developing countries. So theoretically as well as empirically it cannot be maintained that ‘official sanction’ would have been given to the idea that by virtue of C182, eradication of certain types of child labour would no longer be necessary as they were before 17 June 1999.

Confusion is further compounded by Lieten when he describes ‘Stop Child Labour Now’ as an ‘organization’. Judging from a footnote, he intends to deal with ‘Stop Child Labour’, which is not an organization but a campaign of several different organizations. Characterizing the campaign as a singular organization does not do justice to the wider institutional and social movement base the campaign and its ideas have.

A result of these confusions is that the reader is left with the dual impression that the condoning of child labour indicated as unwanted in C138 is getting wider acceptance, but nevertheless remains associated with, as Lieten acknowledges in the final sentence, deprivation and unfathomable misery. In addition it must also be remarked that non-governmental activity (scholarly as well as activist) in developing countries is absent in Lieten’s story; only organizations of working children are mentioned. Initiatives of people from several countries that aim at eradication of child labour in line of C138 are not given due attention.

To conclude, eradicating child labour as defined in C138 is not just an idea of some Western NGOs, but a political desire and vision of numerous individuals, governments, scholars, social movements and NGOs in developing countries themselves, who have certain visions on the economy of their countries and the place of children therein, as I myself learnt from activists and scientists in South Asia. It is time to learn more from them about child labour and its eradication. High on the agenda of social change for a more equal world is the implementation of the fundamental right to education and providing the labouring children of people living in poverty free quality education. While for those of us who can privilege an intellectual enquiry into the distinctions between ‘work’ and ‘labour’ without too much loss, it is another story for those children, who in contrast with their peers are forced to labour because of severe economic inequality and State inertia, losing the equal opportunities of education and capability building.

André van Dokkum | December 13, 2008 | Respond