Child labour is a troubling phenomenon and the focus of an
intense political and policy debate, with proposals ranging from legislative
bans and schooling subsidies in poor countries to trade sanctions against
countries where child labour exists. Now an NBER Working Paper by Rajeev
Dehejia and Roberta Gatti draws attention to the relationship between child
labour in poor countries and the availability of credit. In Child Labour: The
role of income Variability and Access to Credit across Countries (NBER Working
paper No.9018), the researchers suggest that extending access to borrowing may
be an effective way of reducing child labour in poor countries.
In 1995, according to data from the International Labour
Organization (ILO), there were 120 million children engaged in full-time paid
work. The incidence of child labour was 2.3 percent of the work force among
countries in the upper quartile of GDP per capita and 34 percent among countries
in the lowest quartile of GDP per capita.Clearly; there is an established link
between child labour and poverty. However, Dehejia and Gatti ask whether
specific policy proposals might help to combat child poverty, independent of
the more complicated challenge of promoting higher economic growth rates.
They begin with the theoretical link between child labour
and financial development. Putting children to work raises current family
income, but by interfering with the development of human capital among
children, it reduces families’ future income. The child cam makes an immediate
contribution to household income, but this comes with a long-term cost. In
addition to schooling, the researchers note, time spent at play contributes to
a child’s cognitive development (and thus is an investment in the child’s
future.)
The key economic variable that allows households to make the
optimal trade –off between current and future income is access to credit. If
households can borrow against future income, they can smooth earnings shocks
without sending their children to work. If they cannot borrow, parents may
choose an inefficiently high level of labour for their children.
Dehejia and Gatti proceed to conduct a cross-country
comparison, using the degree of development of financial markets in a country
as a measure of the credit constraints that households face. (The proxy for
credit constraints is the ratio of private credit issued by deposit banks to
GDP. This isolates credit issued to the private sector, excluding the
government and public).
They measure the extent of child labour as the percentage of
the population aged 10-14 that is working, using ILO data for 172 countries
since 1962. “Working” includes work for a wage/salary in cash or in kind, as
well as unpaid family work. The ILO data does not distinguish between light
work and full-time work that would interfere with human capital accumulation.
However, because it relies on internationally accepted definitions, it allows
cross – country comparisons.
The results confirm that as the availability of credit
increases the prevalence of child labour decreases. The magnitude of the
estimated coefficient is small for the full sample, relative to income.
However, the relationship is particularly large in the sample of poor countries
that have both less developed financial markets and a higher proportion of
child labour- and therefore are of the most policy interest. In poor countries,
a move from the 25th to the 75th percentile of access to
credit is associated with a 4.2 percentage point decrease in child labour.
Thus, access to credit plays a significant role in
explaining child labour. Dehejia and Gatti also look at the question of income
shocks: that is, whether families send their children to work to help them cope
with negative income shocks. If credit was widely available and households
could borrow to smooth income variability, then they might not disrupt their
children’s education or leisure time. Splitting the sample into those countries
where credit is widely available and those countries where it is not, the
authors find that income variability in the low credit group enters the
specification significantly and the magnitude of the coefficient is
substantial. In the high-credit group of countries, the effect of income
volatility on child labour is very close to zero. This confirms that household
access to credit dampens the impact of income variability on child labour.
7.
According to the author, there is a relationship
between
A.
Child labour and availability of credit in poor
countries
B.
Poverty levels and child labour
C.
GDP and child labour
D.
All the above
8.
Putting children to work
A.
Raises current family income
B.
Raises future family income
C.
Is good for the development of the child
D.
None of the above
Answers and Explanations
7.
D in
the second paragraph, the author mentions that there is a clear link between
child labour and poverty and child labour and GDP. The entire passage is about
a study that establishes a link between child labour and access to credit. So,
all three are mentioned.
8.
A Choice A is clearly mentioned in the passage
as the prime reason for child labour in poorer countries.
No comments:
Post a Comment