Is globalization to be blamed for child labour

Posted on

This paper addresses an issue that appears to be on the addition worldwide ; Child Labour. Recent ILO estimates province that every 7th kid in the universe is engaged in working activities. Because of their household ‘s fiscal troubles these kids are forced to give up their hereafter in footings of instruction, wellness and leisure. This emphasises the importance to transport out farther research and analysis on the phenomenon of child labor every bit good as come up with effectual policy innovations in order to extinguish child labor. Harmonizing to Basu ( 1999 ) planing policies should be based on careful analysis and research alternatively of implicit in emotions or feelings towards child labor.

It is highly of import to see the precise definition of child labor before continuing. There is huge heterogeneousness in specifying child labor as different groups view it otherwise. For illustration harmonizing to Ashagrie ( 1993 ) a kid is categorised as “ laborer ” if the kid is “ economically active ” . Then once more we need to come to an understanding on what age group being a “ kid ” consists of. Most surveies nevertheless follow the ILO ‘s convention No.138 and handle a individual under 15 old ages old as a “ kid ” and gauge kid labor by detecting economic activity of kids under the age of 15.

For the intent of our survey we will be looking at kids between the ages 0-14.

The purpose of this paper is to detect the impact globalization has had and is holding on child labor. As globalisation is a wide subject, I will be concentrating specifically on trade liberalisation, which plays an indispensable function within the globalisation procedure. Liberalised trade had been the engine of capitalistic growing from colonial times ; nevertheless globalisation has led to a alteration in this form. Under colonialism, land conquest operated as a pre-condition andA ( foreign ) capital and ( foreign ) labour converged on land to bring forth goods for trade ( e.g. plantation production ) . But, with globalisation, capital is seeking investing mercantile establishments globally, where, besides selling chances, A cheap labor is a cardinal determiner. This has resulted in big scale foreign direct investing ( FDI ) with multi national corporations giving the necessary structural alteration. LEDCs are acute to have FDI and have gone to the extent of making a suited environment for such capital overlooking societal issues.A The policy had been contributing for inexpensive labor in the signifier of kids and adult females ( e.g. garment industries within the FTZ in Sri Lanka ) .

Economists argue that international trade is good in footings of increasing the income of the state every bit good as making occupation chances in the state. It is besides one of the of import beginnings of gross for a underdeveloped state. But there is no denying that there may be also-rans from international trade excessively ; for illustration the imports of inexpensive goods produced by low skilled workers may non merely cut down the demand for those goods but besides reduces employment chances for low skilled workers. Although trade can convey some disadvantages to a state ‘s economic system, it is necessary that it does non consequence the younger population who will find the hereafter of the economic system.

This paper investigates whether trade liberalisation increases the incidence of child labor. Since our concern is working kids, who are prevailing in the underdeveloped universe, my focal point will be on developing states specifically on India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal and Sri Lanka. The chief ground for why it is interesting to see these South Asiatic states is due to the high proportion ( 40 % ) of the universe ‘s child labor emerging from these states every bit good as the rapid export growing monitored in these states. One would anticipate a positive relationship between trade openness and child labour as more trade means more exports, which in bend means an addition in demand for labor ; hence, kids enter the labor market. However this is an highly generalized statement, the following subdivision presents what the economic theory says about this affair. This survey looks at a panel of 50 developing states over a period of 4 decennaries to in order to detect the consequence of trade on child labor. Another ground for the usage of panel informations is due to the fact that child labor is non a recent issue, it has been go oning for several decennaries now, therefore it is interesting to see if there has been a tendency over clip. It besides makes sense to detect the effects of globalization over clip as there has been a rapid, uninterrupted advancement in information and engineering which extremely contributes to merchandise liberalisation ( Krugman 1995 ) , particularly in the 1980s when globalization got in its pace.

In order to prove the consequence of trade liberalisation on kid labor, a multiple arrested development analysis will be carried out utilizing economic activity rate of kids between 10-14 as the index for child labor and the state ‘s imports and exports ( % GDP ) as the step of trade openness. In add-on control variables such as GDP per capita and proportion of kids between 0-14 every bit good as regional silent persons are added to the arrested development. Datas are chiefly collected from the World Bank and UN common database.

The study returns as follows. Chapter 2 reviews the theory of trade and how it is likely to impact child labor. The methods used to transport out the empirical analysis along with the description of the informations used is described in chapter 3. The consequences and findings are presented in chapter 4 followed by the decisions and possible policy recommendations in chapter 5.


Parents make the determinations sing whether to direct their kids to school ; they make these determinations by comparing benefits and costs of instruction as good the chance cost of clip spent in instruction instead than working. Ranjan ( 1999 ) says that recognition market imperfectnesss are the ground for the being of borrowing restraints. Therefore when parents can non borrow against their kids ‘s future net incomes, the deep poorness forces them to direct their kids to work. When the state opens to merchandise in an unskilled labor abundant state ( i.e. developing state ) this may impact child labors in two ways. First, the demand consequence due to the addition in pay of the unskilled workers which in bend reduces the returns to skilled workers. Looking at it in this position makes it more likely that parents would direct their kids to work instead than to school. Another position is that families with unskilled workers become better off as they receive higher rewards ; hence there is less of a demand to direct the kids to work. The overall result will depend on which of these effects dominates ( Ranjan 2001 ) . However it is of import to observe that the impact of trade liberalisation on kid labor will be varied in different states depending on the factor gifts of the state. Developing states are comparatively abundant in unskilled labor hence trade growing may non hold a important impact on kid labor.

Krueger ( 1996 ) says that trade between two states is determined by comparative advantage. A state has a comparative advantage in bring forthing a good if the chance cost of bring forthing that good is smaller in that state compared to other states. The state with a comparative advantage besides uses its resources most expeditiously in the production of that good. So for illustration if developing states specialize in goods that make usage of unskilled labor, more of those goods are produced. The state additions from trade due to its specialisation in the merchandises that uses its resources more expeditiously. This in bend brings more income to the state which can so be used to purchase the goods and services the state desires. Domestic workers besides benefit from this as the household ‘s existent income additions from bring forthing the good the state specializes in. This theory can be linked with the two possible deductions trade has on kid labor as discussed by Ranjan ; income consequence reduces child labour as the extra income helps parents cut down the work burden of their kids or the higher income to households may besides intend parents would instead direct their kids to work. However Cigno et Al ( 2002 ) found a negative relationship between trade and the incidence of child labors in their cross state survey. The jobs utilizing a cross state survey is that informations aggregation methods in different states may change ; hence consequences may be less dependable when comparing. Besides cross sectionalA surveies are carried out at one peculiar point in clip or over a short period of clip, therefore it ‘s merely a snapshot. The consequences may be different if the survey had been carried out in a different period. Findingss of Shelbourne ( 2002 ) besides supports the consequences derived from the survey carried out by Cigno et Al. Her logical thinking was that the economic system expands due to international trade which in bend additions per capita GDP cut downing the demand for child laborers. This is non needfully true as an addition in the volume of production within the state might intend there is higher demand for inexpensive labor in order to maximise net incomes.

The Heckscher-Ohlin theory explains trade through differences in resources. For illustration let us now take a expression at a simple model where capital and labor are the factors of production. Under this model a state will hold comparative advantage in bring forthing goods which intensively uses the factor with which they are copiously endowed. Harmonizing to this theory openness to merchandise additions demand for the good produced by the abundant factor which indirectly increases the demand for the abundant factor itself. This besides increases the monetary value of the abundant factor. In other words, states that have a comparatively high proportion of labor ( labour intensifier ) , which are chiefly the developing states will be given to export labour intensive goods and states which are good endowed in footings of capital will export capital intensive goods. ( criticize )

Brown ( 2000 ) and Dixit ( 2000 ) believe that when states involve in trade the rewards are determined by the monetary values of the merchandises. In concurrence with Heckscher-Ohlin ‘s theoretical account, this means the addition in monetary value of the export merchandises can really cut down the incidence of child labor as grownup rewards rise. However harmonizing to Maskus ( 1997 ) the demand for child labour depends on the demand for export goods. In other words the higher the demand for export goods the higher the demand for child workers through higher equilibrium rewards. His theory, nevertheless contradicts with Stolper Samuelson ‘s theorem, which states that the enlargement of the export sector increases big rewards and therefore it reduces the supply of child labor. These are two beliing positions as the enlargement in the export sector can either increase or diminish child labor. However, all these theories are entirely based on income and how child labor is affected due to the income effects triggered by trade. Possibly other factors such as poorness and public assistance benefits should be taken in to account. It is by and large accepted that liberalisation under globalisation has led to a maldistribution of income, which has created comparative poorness. The worst affected has been the LEDCs. It is besides true that certainA LEDCs, the least developed 1s, are besides affected by absolute poorness. When households are threatened to beA below poorness lines, child labour becomes a convenient means to heighten household incomes.

Furthermore portion of the liberalized programme under globalisation has been a decrease in public assistance activities both in the development and developed universe. World Bank and IMF impose on LDCs public assistance decrease as a pre-requisite for capital and any other signifier of aid. It has led to denationalization in particularly wellness and instruction driving a batch of households to take down income degrees, finally, climaxing in denial of proper educational facilitiesA and the creative activity of child labor.

Overall, the reappraisal of theory plants seems to be more supportive towards a negative relationship between trade openness and child labor chiefly due to the positive income consequence trade brings to the state. We will now take a expression at some empirical grounds to see if they support these theories.

Empirical grounds

The empirical grounds already found on the relationship between trade openness and child labor does non give us a clear image. Most cross-sectional surveies tend to demo a negative relationship between trade betterment and the incidence of child labor. In fact in the panel survey carried out by Cigno et Al. ( 2002 ) there were no important relationship between the two variables. The overall consequence of trade liberalisation on kid labor seems to differ across states. Kis-Katos ( 2007 ) carried out an empirical survey utilizing a panel of 91 states mensurating variables every decennary from 1960-2000. However she merely included the states that reported a positive value of child labor ; one needs to take into consideration that non all states let out information about issues such as child labor and besides states tend to underreport work by kids, hence her consequences may hold been different if these ‘secretive ‘ states were besides included. She found an overall addition in trade openness over the decennaries every bit good as a steady lessening in the incidence of child labor. However the dependability of the informations should be taken into history as illegal work or family work carried out by kids may non be reported, which affect the dependability of the consequences. Furthermore in developing states economic nose counts are rare and the ILO frequently makes accommodations such as intrapolating or generalizing informations in order to acquire estimations. This means the existent values may be over or under estimated than the true value.

Cigno et Al. ( 2002 ) found no empirical grounds that international trade raises child labor. In fact their cross state survey shows that trade liberalization really decreases child labor. One of the indexs they used to mensurate child labor was primary school non-attendance rate. It is of import to observe that kid non go toing school does non needfully intend the kid is prosecuting in economic activity. It may for illustration be the instance that the household can non afford to direct the kid to school or even that the kid has wellness jobs. Therefore utilizing primary school non attending rate is non every bit appropriate as an index. The other index used was economic activity of kids between ages 10-14, which clearly excludes kids younger the 10 who are more of a cause of concern. However sing there are merely limited informations available on kid labor, these indexs do give us a wide coppice image of the development of child labor. Issues with the dependability of informations are the same as those discussed for Kis-Katos ‘s empirical survey supra. As we have seen, most of the empirical findings are consistent with the theoretical considerations we discussed antecedently. In other words empirical work carried out so far chiefly find a negative relationship between trade openness and child labour back uping most of the theories.


Our empirical work is aimed at understanding whether the panel informations grounds suggests a nexus between trade and child labor and whether there is any grounds to back up our hypothesis of trade liberalisation exercising an upward force per unit area of child labor.

Data and variables

In order to turn to the research inquiry which is to detect whether trade liberalisation increases child labor, a panel of 50 developing states are used, where the variables are measured every ten old ages between 1960-2000. The focal point of the arrested development is to detect child labor over clip maintaining in head the current moving ridge of globalization progressed quickly around the 1980s. However by looking at the information it is of import to observe that non all states have experienced an addition in trade over each decennary. There are a sum of 250 observations for each variable considered over the old ages 1960, 1970, 1980, 1990 and 2000.

A panel information method has been carried out for this analysis for several grounds. First the usage of panel informations increases the figure of observations. For illustration in our instance utilizing informations over 5 different clip periods has increased the sample size by 5 times which will assist increase the preciseness of the arrested development estimates. It besides increases the grades of freedom and reduces the collinearity among explanatory variables, once more increasing the preciseness of the estimations. Furthermore it allows us to analyze of import economic inquiries which can non be addressed utilizing cross sectional analysis entirely. For illustration in our instance utilizing a cross sectional analysis will non be appropriate as we are interested in detecting a tendency over clip.

Data was taken from the World Bank development indexs ( mention ) and the United Nation common database. The dependant variable used is the economic activity rate of kids between the ages 10-14 taken from the ILO estimations. Using this variable as an index for kid labor has two chief jobs. First kids under the age of 10 who may be involved in child labors are excluded. Second this index does non include kids working within the family, or kids involved in illegal work such as harlotry. In developing states economic nose counts are rare and the ILO frequently makes accommodations such as intrapolating or generalizing informations in order to acquire estimations. This means the existent values may be over or under estimated than the true value, which besides have an impact on the consequences. However sing the deficiency of informations available on child labor and comparing with other indexs present, this index serves best available placeholder for mensurating child labor.

As we are looking at the impact of trade on kid labour the chief explanatory variable used in our analysis is trade ( % GDP ) . The trade variable gives the amount of exports and imports of goods and services measured as a portion of gross domestic merchandise. In add-on to this two other control variables have been included. The control variables are GDP per capita growing ( % ) and the age group 0-14 as a per centum of the whole population. The ground for the usage of control variables is to see if there is really a relationship between trade and child labour given that these control variables which besides affect the dependant variable are kept changeless. It would hold been desirable to command for variables such as poorness and differences in income distribution, but the informations available was non sufficiently consistent across the states and old ages we are sing.

GDP per capita is used as a control variable because it controls for mean income effects caused by trade liberalisation. As we mentioned earlier addition in trade agencies states gain new production chances which in bend additions GDP per capita. This positive income consequence is most likely to cut down child labor. Therefore it is indispensable to command this variable. The other control variable used is age group 0-14 as a per centum of the whole population. This variable allows us to detect whether the addition in figure of kids in that given age group over the old ages affects child labor. The impression behind this is that the larger the households the higher the demand for income hence a higher opportunity of kids come ining the labour force.

As my chief focal point is on South Asiatic states a regional silent person variable has been added to the arrested development which takes a value of 1 if the state is in South Asia and a value of 0 if non. This regional silent person helps to capture the alteration in child labor in the south Asiatic states which is known to hold a high prevalence of child labor.


By looking at the information for every 10 old ages from 1960 to 2000, we can see a general addition in trade openness over clip every bit good as a steady lessening in economic activity rates. We begin our analysis by sing the association between volume of trade ( openness ) and child labor for the old ages 1960, 1980 and 2000. This allows us to hold a unsmooth overview of how the relationship has changed ( if any ) before and after globalization ( sing globalization occurred around the 1980s ) .


This figure shows a spread secret plan of the information for 1980 for the variables trade and child labor. A point on this spread secret plan represents the volume of trade in 1980 and the economic activity rate of kids between 10-14 in 1980 for a given state. The OLS arrested development line obtained by regressing these two variables is besides plotted on the figure, which shows a somewhat negative relationship ; the estimated arrested development line is:

CL = 26.6601794934 – 0.0149024702066*TRADE ( 1980 information )

Because we have informations for more than one twelvemonth, we can re-examine this relation for another twelvemonth. The spread secret plans for the old ages 1960 and 2000 are given below.

CL = 36.3205247048 – 0.119594768169*TRADE ( 1960 information )

CL = 26.0540622351 – 0.109873185356*TRADE ( 2000 information )

All three scatter secret plans show a negative relation between trade and child labors although twelvemonth 2000 has the highest coefficient on trade implying that the decrease in child labor was greater in the twelvemonth 2000 compared to 1960 and 1980. Keeping in head that globalisation took its pace in the 1980s, these scatter secret plans show that globalisation has in fact reduced child labour farther. However these secret plans merely show what happened in that specific twelvemonth, there may hold been fluctuations between the old ages ( i.e between 1980 and 1990 ) and besides we can non state the tendency over clip utilizing these single secret plans.

A better manner of gauging the relationship is a arrested development attack that takes into history both the clip and the cross subdivision.

Appraisal scheme

The appraisal equation is of the undermentioned signifier:

CLit = degree Fahrenheit ( Tradeit, GDPit, Population 0-14it, Regional silent person for South Asiait ) ,

Where i= state x and t= clip ( decennary T ) .

More officially:

Yit = I?1i + I?2X2it + I?3X3it + I?4X4it + I? ( SAit ) + Iµit.

The awaited marks of the coefficients:

The coefficient of trade ( I?2 ) which is what we are most interested in could either be positive or negative, although harmonizing to theory it is most likely to be negative. Coefficient of GDP ( I?3 ) is expected to be negative as the higher the GDP per capita the lower the incidence of child labors due to the positive income consequence. The coefficient of the figure of kids aged 0-14 ( I?4 ) is expected to be positive as the larger the figure of kids per household the higher the demand for income in order to back up the household. As south Asia has a high incidence of kid labor, the coefficient of the silent person variable is expected to be positive and big.

Dependent Variable: Chlorine

Method: Panel Least Squares

Date: 03/21/10 Time: 16:24

Sample: 1 5

Time periods included: 5

Cross-sections included: 50

Entire panel ( balanced ) observations: 250



Std. Mistake


Prob.A A




























A A A A Mean dependant volt-ampere


Adjusted R-squared


A A A A S.D. dependant volt-ampere


S.E. of arrested development


A A A A Akaike info standard


Sum squared resid


A A A A Schwarz standard


Log likeliness


A A A A Hannan-Quinn criter.




A A A A Durbin-Watson stat


Prob ( F-statistic )


CL = -1.32606116682 – 0.103053628312*TRADE – 0.448464386734*GDP + 0.778479521915*POP + 6.0239606613*SA

The consequences show the coefficients of I?2, I?3, I?4 are as expected. For a given state I, when trade liberalisation varies across clip by one unit, child labour lessenings by 0.103 units. Similarly when GDP and population vary across clip by one unit child labour lessenings by 0.448 and additions by 0.778 severally. Looking at the consequences it is clear that trade liberalisation does non hold much of an impact on child labor as indicated by a really little coefficient, which we may even construe as there being no impact of trade on child labor. It is of import to observe that being a South Asiatic state is associated with child labor that is 6.02 units higher, everything else held changeless. This was besides expected as we found out before that a big proportion of child labor comes from South Asiatic states. Our old theory treatment implied that the relationship between openness and child labor could be either positive or negative. Our consequences suggest that greater openness is associated with somewhat less child labor or even no consequence on kid labor. In order to prove the significance of the coefficients, t-tests have been carried for each variable:


H0: I?2 a‰? 0 ( there is no relationship or a positive relationship between trade openness and child labor )

H1: I?2 & lt ; 0 ( there is a negative relationship between trade openness and child labor )

T = b2 = -3.313

Se ( b2 )

Under the 5 % significance degree the critical t-value is t ( 0.05,246 ) = -1.651.

Since -3.313 & lt ; -1.651, we reject H0: I?2 a‰? 0 and reason that H1 is more compatible with the informations. The sample grounds supports our anticipation that trade liberalisation really decrease the incidence of child labor.

Gross domestic products:

H0: I?3 a‰? 0 ( there is no relationship or a positive relationship between GDP and child labor )

H1: I?3 & lt ; 0 ( there is a negative relationship between GDP and child labor )

T = b3 = -2.404

Se ( b3 )

Since -2.404 & lt ; -1.651, we once more rejects H0 and conclude that addition in GDP per capita decreases child labor. This can besides be seen by looking at the p-value: 0.000 & lt ; 0.05, which besides yields the same decision.

Number of kids between 0-14:

H0: I?4 = 0 ( there is no relationship between figure of kids and child labor )

H1: I?4 a‰ 0 ( there is a negative relationship between figure of kids and child labor )

T = b4 = 4.77

Se ( b4 )

Since 4.77 & gt ; 1.651 we do non reject H0. In this instance there is deficient grounds in our sample to reason that there is a relationship between figure of kids between 0-14 and child labor. Therefore we can non be confident that this variable is really has an impact on kid labor. Possibly farther research into this will be utile.

Estimating the arrested development excepting the population variable outputs similar coefficients for the trade and GDP variables nevertheless the silent person variable for south Asia has a much smaller coefficient compared to when population was included. This shows that population is an of import variable when sing South Asiatic states and excepting it leads to an omitted variable prejudice particularly when south Asiatic states are involved. This is true as states like India have a really big population therefore the proportion of kids between 0-14 is likely to be high. As discussed earlier big figure of kids per family means excess income is required to back up the household, which may take to a necessity for kids to work. Although population is an of import variable, regressing it with child labors may non give highly dependable consequences in our instance. This is because we are merely taking into history kids between the ages 10-14 as a step of kid labor, which is excepting the age group 0-9, whereas the population variables includes all ages between 0-14. This implies that the coefficient is likely to be much higher if we were to include economic activity rate of kids between 0-14 as our dependant variable, which was non possible due to limited handiness of informations. This may be a ground why the coefficient of the population variable was undistinguished as we found when transporting out the t-test.

These consequences interpreted above nevertheless did non command for the features of the states.

Fixed consequence attack

An advantage of panel informations is that we are able to keep changeless person differences which allow us to concentrate on fringy effects of the independent variables considered. It is sensible to into include the fixed effects theoretical account in our analysis as the information complies with the 2 basic demands of utilizing the fixed effects theoretical account ; foremost dependent variable must be measured for each state for at least 2 periods and secondly the independent variable must alter in value across the periods. There is no demand to add the silent person variable in this instance as the fixed effects are already commanding for location. Having the cross subdivision as ‘fixed ‘ output the undermentioned consequences:

As we can see from the tabular array the coefficient of trade is more or less the same as before, nevertheless GDP now has a somewhat positive coefficient. The arrested development R2 jumps from 0.0705 to 0.9097 when fixed effects are included. This shows that the state fixed effects account for a big sum of fluctuation in the information. Although fixed consequence attack has an attractive characteristic that allows commanding for the variables that have non or can non be measured, they merely take into history within state differences flinging any information about differences between states.

An F-test can be carried out to see if there is single differences and it if is of import to include transverse subdivision fixed effects in the theoretical account.

Holmium: I?11=I?12=I?13aˆ¦ . =I?1N ( no fixed consequence differences )

H1: the I?1i are non all equal

F = ( SSER – SSEU ) /J = 38.63

SSEU/ ( NT-N- ( K-1 ) )

Where the grades of freedom J = N-1 = 50-1 = 49 and NT-N- ( K-1 ) = ( 50x 5 ) -50- ( 3-1 ) = 198.

Under the 5 % important degree the critical value is Fc = 1.419

We reject Ho if F a‰? Fc, since 38.63 a‰?1.419 we reject the void hypothesis of no fixed consequence differences between these states, therefore it is good to include fixed effects in the theoretical account.

Overall, alterations in trade over the decennaries had no impact or really small ( lessening ) consequence on kid labor. The other explanatory variables GDP and population besides had the expected marks on the coefficients although under the fixed effects GDP had a little but positive coefficient. ( what does this intend? ) These happening are consistent with the theory we discussed antecedently.

Policy intercessions

What can the Government do to cut down child labor?

Some of the old surveies carried out on this subject have chiefly mentioned betterments in schooling installations as one of the chief policy recommendations for battling child labor. For illustration Basu ( 0000 ) says that handiness of good schools and proviso of free repasts for the kids would be a manner to cut down the figure of kids working. However, developing states are by and large poorer due to the deficiency of financess ; therefore it may non be executable to put a batch on schooling. Furthermore, go toing school is merely traveling to diminish full clip work, whereas kids could still be involved in parttime work after school. This shows that it is really hard to get rid of child labour wholly by alterations in schooling policy. Basu besides mentions that a entire prohibition on child labor may be a better option as a big graduated table of backdown of child labor is more likely to do in addition in the grownup equilibrium wages instead than individual parents retreating their kids. Again the best manner to implement this would besides be through mandatory schooling for kids like in most developed states. But, in many developing states schooling is non wholly ‘free ‘ , the cost comes in footings of installations fees ; hence minimising school fees would be a start to promote parents to direct their kids to school.

In some instances it is merely impossible to censor child labour wholly as their households survive on their kids ‘s income. In these state of affairss some possible solutions include flexible proviso of instruction ; for illustration, holding eventide or weekend categories or holding schools near work topographic points. Governments must besides extinguish favoritism against misss, which seems to be the instance in some poorer states. In add-on kids could be awarded pecuniary wagess for exceeding public presentation which give them more of an inducement to go to school. Furthermore, limitations on the maximal hours of work per twenty-four hours could be imposed and implementing a charge if the employers fail to stay by the regulations.

However, Kis-Katos ( 0000 ) believes that “ a policy intercession can merely be successful if it is raises the current income of the hapless ” by agencies of redistributing income or by implementing some kind of a public assistance plan to back up the less fortunate households. A possible manner of cut downing poorness may affect increasing entree to recognition by leting through public assistance benefits and bank loans. Kis-Katos besides argues that trade countenances is extremely unwanted as it reduces the existent income of the hapless households and harm the households who rely on the kid ‘s income to last. In add-on to this Cigno and Rosati ( 0000 ) suggests that authorities investing in public wellness may indirectly impact kid labor through reduced birthrate. Reflecting back on our explanatory variable ‘number of kids between 0-14 ‘ , which had a positive consequence on kid labor, doing such a policy desirable.

In add-on to the policy suggestions already been made, it is of import to recognize that if grownups have chances for stable employment, households do non necessitate to trust on their kids to last. Another variable that we were unable to analyze but has a major consequence on kid labor is poverty. It is indispensable for the authoritiess to come up with poorness relief programmes which will automatically cut down a big proportion of child labor.

Finally, in some underdeveloped states child labor has been predominating in the signifier of forced enlisting of kids as soldiers in armed struggles. For illustration, in Sri Lanka “ it is estimated that 2,000 kids have been involved in the armed struggle as kid soldiers, and face troubles readapting to ordinary life ” ( IPEC 2009 ) . Therefore peace is besides another of import factor that may impact child labor.

Although, implementing statute laws to censor child labour wholly seems to be the best possible solution, the job with this is that these states do non wish to acknowledge such issues, therefore doing a famine of involvement groups to back up such a policy ( Grootaert, C & A ; Kanbur, R 1994 ) . Therefore, a combination of statute law and economic inducements need to be used to come up with effectual policies, although it is improbable that one attack will win everyplace.

What can developed states do to assist cut down child labor?

First and most significantly, consumers in developed states should larn to shop ‘ethically ‘ . For illustration, in the instance of Primark which was utilizing child laborers to do their garments, were exposed on BBC Panorama programme which led to the cancellation of contracts of Primark ‘s three Indian providers because they were found out to be utilizing child laborers to complete their merchandises. As Freeman ( 1994 ) argues, “ consumers are frequently willing to pay more for merchandises that are made in a socially responsible manner ” . This attitude from the importation states would decidedly lend to the decrease of child labor. Second, as mentioned by Cigno and Rosati ( 0000 ) developed states can assist the less developed states finance their educational and wellness policies.

Due to the limited financess available in developing states it is of import for authoritiess from all over the universe to supply particular aid and significant fiscal support to the states where there is a high prevalence of child labor. Although rapid riddance of child labor is unachievable for many developing states, gradual lessening through effectual policy intercessions is extremely possible.

Kis-Katos, K. ( 2007 ) . Does Globalization Reduce Child Labour? . J.Int.Trade & A ; Economic Development. 16 ( 1 ) , 71-92.

Basu, K. ( 1999 ) . Child Labor: Cause, Consequence and Cure, with comments on International Labor Standards. Journal of Economic Literature. 38: 1083-1119.

Dinopoulos, E. & A ; Zhao, L. ( 2007 ) . Child Labor and Globalization. Journal of Labor Economics. 25 ( 3 ) .

Sharma, K. & A ; Herath, G. eds. , ( 2007 ) . Child labor in South Asia. England: Ashgate.

Cigno, A. Rosati, F.C, Guarcello.L ( 2002 ) Does Globalization increase child labour? World development 30 ( 9 ) , 1579-1589.

Hill, R.C. Griffiths, W.E. & A ; Lim, C.G eds. , 2007 Principles of econometrics 3rd erectile dysfunction. United States of America: John Wiley & A ; Sons, Inc.

Edmonds, E.V. Pavcnik, N ( 2004 ) International trade and child labour:

Cross-country Evidence, Working paper 10317 no. 1579-1589, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge.

Basu, K. , & A ; Van, P.H. ( 1998 ) . The economic sciences of child labor. American Economic Review, 88, 412-427.

Edmonds, E. 2007 “ Child Labor, ” in T. P. Schultz and J. Strauss, eds. , Handbook of Development Economics Volume 4.

Krugman, P. ( 2006 ) International Economicss: Theory and Policy 7th erectile dysfunction. London: Addison-Wesley.