PERSPECTIVES ON CHILD WORK
3.5 THE WELFARE ECONOMICS OF CHILD WORK
Itis evident from the ILO's (1989) definition of child work that it must be either reduced or banned. In order to achieve this goal, interventions based on conventional welfare and economics have to be used. Welfare economics attempt to explain how to identify and arrive at socially efficient solutions to the resource problem. The available literature reveals that child work and poverty are linked in that the majority of child workers come from the poorest and most disadvantaged groups in society (UNICEF, 2000).
The question, which inevitably arises in this context, is whether child work should be tolerated until world poverty is eradicated. For those who benefit from child labour such as an employer, a customer, or a parent, the answer would be in the affirmative and a very convenient refuge. Child work and unemployment among adults are inter-related in that cheap child work takes away jobs from the more expensive adult, and this in turn perpetuates the cycle of poverty. Working children grow into adulthood trapped in unskilled and badly paid jobs.
Child work is not simply a neglected public policy issue; it is a human rights concern. Children have the right to protection from economic exploitation at
work. They also have the right to be protected from work, which interferes with their schooling, or damages their health. These rights, referred to as the
"Convention on the rights of the child", have been laid down by the United Nations (1989). There are also special international agreements about child work.
For many years the ILO has had a child work convention stipulating a minimum age of 15 years for full-time employment. However, it is stipulated that children between 13 and 15 years could be employed for fairly simple tasks, and that children from developing countries may start work as early as at the age of 14 years.
In South Africa, the Basic Conditions of Employment Act (BCEA) (1997), which outlaws the employment of children under 15, became law in 1997. About half a million children are, nevertheless, still involved in the labour market. Any child work practices that were detrimental to the child's health, morale, safety, and well-being were supposed to be eradicated (under BCEA). While the new bill wishes the minimum working age to be 15 it also provides strict protection for working children between the ages of 15 and 18. A number of arguments have been advanced on the issue of age. According to the "Network Against Child Labour ", there is a contradiction between the Constitution and the South African Schools Act (1996) on the one hand, and the Basic Conditions of Employment Bill (1997) on the other hand. The former sets a minimum voting age of 18, thereby implying that anyone younger is not adult, whilst the latter prescribes 15 as the minimum working age. The "Network Against Child Labour" views this as leading to exploitation. As Keneuoe Mosoang (Mushi, 1998), a researcher at the Farm Worker's Research and Resource Project, states:
In Europe children are prepared for the world from a very early age and are more comfortable making their decisions around 18. So if you accept the minimum age around 15, you are basically perpetuating the same system that apartheid tried and failed. You are saying to black children that they are only good enough to be educated to primary school level so
that they can become manual labourers like their parents. How do you address inequality and poverty that way? (Mushi, 1998:37)
In response to the above question, Sipho Pityana (The Director General in the Department of Labour) indicated that local children should not be treated differently from their counterparts in other countries, for this would present more disadvantages for them. He urged that children ply their skills in the job market at an early age if conditions prevent them from continuing their education (Mushi, 1998).
The Congress of South African Trade Unions (Cosatu) also disagrees with the suggested minimum age of 16. It regards child work as violating a basic human right and advocates for its banning (Mushi, 1998). Few human rights abuses are so unanimously condemned, while being so universally practiced, as is the case of child work. By any objective measure, this issue should be high on the global agenda, but in practice it is surrounded by a wall of silence and perpetuated by ignorance. One of the reasons for this conceptual opposition to child work is the failure to distinguish between child work and child labour. Those who are opposed to child labour are not opposed to the development of "world of work"
materials or to employment or pre-employment for disadvantaged teenagers and pre-teenagers. They support private and public efforts to expand entry-level jobs and summer job programs. The manufacturing, mining, domestic, and service sectors find significant short-term profit in the employment of children at sub- standard wages and without the benefits normally provided to adults.
Impoverished children and families remain silent about abuse because they fear the loss of any income that is critical to their survival. Parents play into the hands of factory owners in their desire to see their children bringing in even a small sum of money. Financially hard-pressed governments of developing countries often support the immediate benefits that are a byproduct of the availability of cheap, docile, labour of children and their underpaid officials may be bribed (Rogers &
Standing, 1981).
In addition, both m developing and developed countries, the compilation of statistics and the conduct of labour inspections are greatly impeded by the employment of many children in the informal sectors of the economy, where they are invisible. For these reasons, the government often considers it embarrassing to admit to the existence of children in the labour sector. In South Africa, when the public recently called for the eradication of children engaged in the labour market, the Department of Labour countered that if they stopped children from working immediately, it would be detrimental to their own welfare and quality of life (Byat, 2000). Laws on child work are seldom adequately implemented. One of the reasons is that they may be unrealistic with their sectional coverage, which is beyond a country's institutional and enforcement capacity. It seems important, therefore, to adopt a pragmatic approach that sets realistic and attainable goals. A low-income country should focus on sectors that exhibit vile forms of abuses of working children. Both ILO (1996; 1997) and UNICEF (1997; 2000) studies reinforce the general view that it is sensible to concentrate on urban areas first.
Legislation is likely to be effective only where there is considerable difficulty in concealing the use of children in the labour market and where relatively little advantage is to be gained from child work. Strategies for dealing with administrative and enforcement problems of child work laws need to be revised at government level if they are to be effective. Public awareness and action campaigns are preconditions.
There are two conflicting views concerning child work if one looks at street children. There are those who oppose it on the ground that it is exploitative. They maintain that not only are children neglected by parents who send them to hawk at tender ages, but that customers also exploit them, hardening them, and sometimes setting them on a course of juvenile delinquency and further deviance. Those in favour believe that it is a form of informal education, which fosters attributes such as resourcefulness, perseverance, and self-reliance in young persons who participate in it. One veteran of street trading who began to hawk at the age of 7
and is now a chief executive officer of an industry, employing thousands of workers is reported in a Sunday newspaper as claiming:
To make it in business you have to start from street hawking. This wisdom can only be acquired on streets, and not from any textbook. On the street; you learn how to avoid losing money, pick packets and to serve your customers (Myers, 199:14).
Because of the foregoing controversy, a small survey was carried out to determine the cultural, social, and economic factors responsible for children's involvement in street trading. Oloko (1988) did this survey in Lagos in 1988 and findings indicated that street trading does not constitute exploitation in the strict sense of the word, especially since children perceive that the proceeds of street trading are expended on their immediate future needs. To take an absolutist stance and say that all child work is "bad" is questionable (Myers, 1991).