Poverty and other determinants of child labor in Bangladesh.

AuthorAmin, Shahina
  1. Introduction

    Americans have demonstrated strong disapproval of child labor through their own history and in current movements to boycott imports from countries employing child labor. (1) Wasserman (2000) demonstrated the parallels between the historical pattern of the decline in child labor in the United States and situations today in developing countries. She relied heavily on the notion that the greater the extent of poverty in a country, the greater the amount of child labor. She noted that this relationship holds within a country over time as well as across countries at a given point in time. Though poverty may be a determinant of child labor, it cannot be examined in the absence of cultural and social factors, such as education, culture, and urbanization.

    Why should we care if poverty is a determinant of child labor in a developing country such as Bangladesh? As researchers have noted, boycotting exports of goods produced by children may actually worsen the welfare and well-being of those children and their families, first by lowering their living standards and second by pushing children into dangerous work endeavors, such as begging and prostitution (Bissell and Sobhan 1996; Wasserman 2000). Measures such as the Child Labor Deterrence Act (the Harkin Bill), which would ban imports of products that children help produce, may be well meaning (Harkin 1999) but may not be in the best interests of those they are attempting to help (Bissell and Sobhan 1996; Rahman, Khanam, and Absar 1999). (2)

    In this research we examine poverty (as measured by income) and other child and family characteristics as determinants of child labor in Bangladesh. If we can understand the dynamics of poverty, education, and child labor, we may be in a position to create more effective ways of eliminating child labor through education and economic development efforts. First, however, we must understand the nature of child labor in Bangladesh and establish the connections that exist among child labor, poverty, education, and other socioeconomic factors.

  2. Background: Child Labor in Bangladesh

    Why Do Children Work?

    Child labor is pervasive in Bangladesh. According to reported statistics, as many as 19% of children ages 5 through 14 are in the labor force (Rahman, Khanam, and Absar 1999). As these authors state, "Child labor is deeply rooted in poverty and social customs" (p. 999). Thus, one reason for such high labor force participation is that working children are from impoverished families (Basu and Van 1998; Basu 1999).

    There are also social and cultural explanations for widespread child labor in Bangladesh. Delap (2001) concluded from a survey of families in three Dhaka slums that purely economic explanations for child labor are not adequate to explain the phenomenon. One cultural factor motivating families to send their children to work is a fear that the children will be idle if they do not work. Delap reported that the majority of parents in a survey of the urban poor indicated that the income of working children was not critical to the family's survival, but the children worked because "it was improper for children, especially older children, to do nothing" (Delap 2001, p. 15). Idleness was deemed especially harmful to poor urban boys, whom parents feared would become involved in criminal activities.

    Not only is idleness to be avoided, but children's work is also viewed favorably as a means of preparing young people for work as adults. They can begin to learn the skills of farming or a trade. Rahman, Khanam, and Absar (1999) offered the example of employment in an engineering workshop that provides an opportunity for boys to learn an employable skill. For many girls, serving as maids in households prepares them for their future as wives and mothers.

    Schooling does not necessarily limit child's work as it does in industrialized countries. Ravallion and Wodon (2000) examined the work and schooling choices of rural Bangladeshi children to determine whether an enrollment subsidy plan was effective in limiting child labor. Because rural schools are open only part of the year and only part of the day, the authors contended that the time children spend in school would not necessarily limit time they would have spent working. The enrollment subsidy program did increase schooling of those offered the plan, but child labor did not decrease comparably. Rahman, Khanam, and Absar (1999) underscored these findings in noting that, for many children displaced from garment factories, school was not an option. Instead, these children found work in the informal sector of the economy where jobs on the street are less secure, more poorly paid, and sometimes dangerous.

    What Work Do Children Do?

    The answer to this question depends on the age and gender of the child and whether the child lives in a rural or urban area. Table 1 shows the distribution of younger (ages 5-11) and older (ages 12-14) urban and rural boys and girls by general occupational category, based on answers to the 1995-96 Household Expenditure Survey (HES) of Bangladesh, the data source for our empirical study. These two age-groups are chosen for three reasons. First, by 12 years of age, girls have entered puberty, and secluding them from the public is important. Second, age 12 is a point where children may make a decision to continue with their education. Third, an examination of our empirical data shows a substantial increase in the proportion of children working at age 12. The reported percentages are calculated on the basis of the number of working children who indicated an occupation.

    Some occupations shown in Table 1 are mostly urban (e.g., transport and communications workers), while some are mostly or completely rural (such as agricultural occupations). Likewise, some are mostly or completely boys' jobs (salesmen/businessman, transport and communications worker, and day laborer). No major occupational categories shown represent completely girls' jobs, though specific employment within these occupations may be gender specific. Most urban boys are in the category of salesman/businessman. These boys work as shop assistants, street vendors, and tea and food vendors. Urban boys may also work as assistants in match, biscuit, shrimp, cigarette, and salt processing factories as well as in tanneries. Some boys also work in garment, hosiery, and small engineering factories (Rahman, Khanam, and Absar 1999). They also work in smaller numbers as porters, cycle rickshaw pullers, ticket sellers (transport workers), servants, and day laborers. Additional employment for boys in the informal sector of the urban economy includes stone crushing and firewood collection. Rural boys' jobs are largely agricultural, with some rural boys selling items and some younger rural boys working as servants.

    Delap (2001) emphasized the importance of the practice of seclusion, or purdah, in explaining girls' jobs in Bangladesh. Urban girls aged 12 or older are restricted to jobs in which they are secluded from men. Table 1 shows two major occupations for girls: working in production, especially in garment factories where workers are primarily women or younger boys, and working as maids and domestic servants. Rural girls primarily work as domestic servants and maids. Some girls, especially older girls, work in the agricultural sector, and a few rural girls work as vendors or in production jobs.

    Is Poverty a Determinant of Child Labor in Developing Countries?

    In examining factors that affect child labor in Bangladesh, we place special emphasis on poverty. Our interest in the role of poverty is attributed to Basu and Van's seminal article in which they proposed a "luxury axiom" of child labor stating, "A family will send the children to the labor market only if the family's income from non-child-labor sources drops very low" (Basu and Van 1998, p. 416). In other words, a child's leisure or nonwork is a luxury that these poor families cannot afford. Thus, the "luxury good" is a child at home rather than in the workforce. As family income increases, "consumption" of this luxury good would increase. This translates into a lower probability that a child would work for families above some minimum poverty level.

    There are many challenges that researchers face in attempting to test the luxury axiom of child labor. First is to interpret what Basu and Van mean when they say that a "poor" household cannot afford to consume the luxury good of children's leisure. The luxury axiom itself defines poor in terms of "the family's income" (Basu and Van 1998, p. 416). Yet elsewhere, the authors expand their concept of poverty when they say, "More generally, all we want is to give primacy to the household or family wealth as a determinant of child labor" (p. 415). Thus, we must consider both income and wealth as dimensions of poverty.

    A second challenge is to determine what level of income or wealth triggers sending a child into the workforce or removing a child from work. Basu and Van state that "a poor household cannot afford to consume this good [children's nonwork] but it does so as soon as the household income rises sufficiently" (Basu and Van 1998, p. 415). How low must income fall before a child works? Must the family exhaust all assets and have insufficient income to meet current period needs in order to send their child to work? How would the presence of a social safety net in a country affect the income requirements of families and their decisions concerning child labor?

    Given the multidimensional aspect of poverty, a third challenge in examining Basu and Van's luxury axiom is to acquire both income and asset data, preferably over time. Finding such data for developing countries is particularly difficult given severely limited data sources. Our information sources for Bangladesh limit us to income data for members of the household and do not provide adequate information on family assets or income from...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT