Supporting children in their working lives: obstacles and opportunities within the international policy environment

Journal of International Development

J[ Int[ Dev[ 01\ 420Ð437 "1999#

Copyright Þ 1999 John Wiley + Sons\ Ltd[

SUPPORTING CHILDREN IN THEIRWORKING LIVES] OBSTACLES AND

OPPORTUNITIES WITHIN THEINTERNATIONAL POLICY

ENVIRONMENT�

KAREN MOORE$

Mahbub Ul Haq Centre for Human Development\ Islamabad\ Pakistan

Abstract] In this paper\ the international policy environment surrounding child work is

reviewed\ in order to locate the emerging opportunities and persistent obstacles faced

by development practitioners who consider working children as active agents\ rather

than subjects\ of development\ and aim to support the economic livelihoods of this

population[ Shifts in the child workÐchild labour debate are examined in light of the

ways in which {childhood| and {work| have been constructed\ and in the context of

current understandings of the causes and consequences of child work[ Copyright

Þ 1999 John Wiley + Sons\ Ltd[

Children have long been a priority of development e}orts[ Their health and educationstatus has come\ in large measure\ to de_ne a region|s level of development\ andprojects to improve these indicators have attracted a signi_cant proportion of donorfunds and professional expertise\ as well as public sympathy[ There are\ of course\good reasons for this[ Endeavours to improve the well!being of children can bringabout signi_cant positive changes in their present lives[ They are also likely to improvethe chances that children will grow into adults who are physically and mentallycapable of making positive contributions to the economic and social development oftheir household\ community and country[ In economic terms\ sustainable devel!opment relies on the development of human capital[ And\ as more than half thepopulation of many developing countries is under eighteen\ both the short! and long!term status of a population may rely on such child!targeted initiatives[ Further\ asGunn and Ostos "0881\ p[ 533# suggest\ it can be much more di.cult to change an

� The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily re~ect those of theMahbub Ul Haq Centre for Human Development[$ Correspondence to] Karen Moore\ Mahbub Ul Haq Centre for Human Development\ 31 Embassy Road\G!5:2\ Islamabad\ Pakistan[ E!mail] moorekarenjÝyahoo[co[uk

421 K[ Moore

Copyright Þ 1999 John Wiley + Sons\ Ltd[ J[ Int[ Dev[ 01\ 420Ð437 "1999#

adult|s {habits of a lifetime| than to in~uence the beliefs and behaviour of children[For these reasons\ Thornley "0885# labels a child!centred approach to development{at once realistic and wise\ pragmatic and visionary\ humane and sustainable|[

At the same time\ within the development industry the traditional conception ofthe child has been one of bene_ciary or victim\ dependent on exogenous processesdetermined by arguably well!intentioned adults and adult!led institutions[ Based onperceptions of their special needs\ projects aimed at the improvement of the lives andfuture prospects of children have been framed primarily as e}orts to provide for andprotect[

As part of a gradual shift in focus towards participatory approaches undergone bydevelopment discourse and practice over the last decade\ and a concurrent shift innational and international law towards recognizing children|s rights as well as specialneeds\ organizations and researchers concerned with the position of children withindeveloping countries are increasingly declaring a commitment to children|s par!ticipation in the development process[ While a highly contested and problematicconcept\ participatory development can be broadly de_ned as people|s involvement indevelopment processes that concern their lives and their community[ As a process ofinclusion and facilitation of previously suppressed voices\ participatory developmentnecessarily requires that the positions and perspectives of children\ as part of nearlyevery community\ are taken into consideration at every stage[ Edwards "0885\ p[ 707#neatly summarizes the on!going transition]

Traditional welfare approaches based on sentimentalising children and Westernmodels of childhood have given way to arguments about children|s central rolein development\ though couched mainly in terms of good economic sense [ [ [rather than political participation[ The next stage in the evolution of agencyapproaches is to incorporate the challenge of treating children as social actors[

An important and particularly controversial example of the {child agency| approachis provided by the small but signi_cant number of organizations that actively promotethe protection and support of children within the context of their workin` lives[While this type of work entails a broad range of interventions "e[g[ advocacy\ serviceprovision or group facilitation#\ targeted at several di}erent groups "e[g[ children\families\ employers or consumers#\ three main characteristics are common]

0[ Stopping children from working is not the primary goal of the intervention[1[ A child!centred approach\ whereby understanding the role of work in children|s

lives and their experience of it\ is paramount "Ennew\ 0886^ Myers and Boyden\0887#[

2[ An objective of the intervention is to facilitate children|s income!generatingcapacity and:or the security of income sources\ in the short! and:or long!term[0

These types of interventions are based on both a recognition of children as activeeconomic agents and children|s work as a persistent and even viable livelihood strat!egy\ as well as on a commitment to work for the elimination of the most exploitativeforms and structures of labour[ However\ the majority of practitioners working in

0 See Moore "0888# for a typology of typoligies of projects to support children in their working lives\ aswell as a discussion of the practical implications of the nature of the target group for this type ofintervention[


Supportin` Children in their Workin` Lives 422

the small! and microenterprise development and micro_nance _eld tend not to workwith working children\ and few who work with working children are conversant withthe world of micro_nance and SME support[ Both groups tend to view economicinterventions as something to be targeted towards adults for the bene_t of children^rarely are children considered economic agents in their own right[

This paper comprises a review of the manner in which working children and youthare conceptualized within international policy discourse\ in an attempt to identify theemerging opportunities and persistent obstacles faced by organizations involved insupporting their livelihood strategies[ After a critical introduction to the issue\ thereader is provided with a brief history of international law regarding the rights ofchildren\ with a particular focus on the working child[ The discussion then turns tothe social construction of childhood and child labour*international agreements havebeen based upon a speci_c cultural and historical understanding of these concepts\with important and persistent implications for practice[ There have been recent shiftsin the policy environment\ however\ culminating in the 0889 United Nations Con!

vention on the Ri`hts of Children "CRC# and the 0888 International Labour Oràn!

ization "ILO# Worst Forms of Child Labour Convention "C071#[ The internationalstandards established by these new agreements o}er new opportunities in terms ofsupporting children|s working lives[

CHILD LABOUR AND CHILD WORK*A CRITICAL INTRODUCTION

Before the late 0879s\ most writing on the issue of child labour and child work emergedfrom the abolitionist movement as represented in social justice literature and thepopular press[ Anthropological studies on child work and labour\ on the other hand\have found their mainstay in examinations of children|s reproductive and productivecontributions to the rural household[ In an early cross!disciplinary study\ Rodgersand Standing "0870# established a general typology of children|s activities] school\idleness\ leisure\ reproductive activities "e[g[ sleep\ personal maintenance#\ domesticwork\ non!domestic non!monetary work\ bonded labour\ wage labour\ appren!ticeships\ and marginal economic activities "e[g[ street work#[ While the inter!activityboundaries are contestable and intra!category variety masked\ through the typologythe authors illustrated a signi_cant yet often ignored fact] the lives of children arerarely made up only of school and play[

It is di.cult if not impossible to obtain reliable and comparable statistics for thenumber of working children\ because {child labour| is illegal throughout the world\ yetde_ned di}erently in terms of the ages and activities included[ Further\ like much ofthe work women do\ unremunerated work by children is often not counted in nationalstatistics "Marcus and Harper\ 0886#[ For this reason\ the ILO recognizes that even itsown data\ which show more working boys than girls\ are likely to be inaccurate[ Indeed\Ennew "0886\ p[ 21# feels that the majority of _gures in circulation {have no validity orbasis in fact|\ and are used primarily to generate public outrage[ Nevertheless\ currentestimates by the ILO\ based on research in four countries\ suggest that there are at least019 million children between the ages of 4 and 03 who are fully at work\ and at leasttwice that number if those for whom work is a secondary activity "i[e[ who also attendschool# are included[ While Asia has the largest absolute number of child workers "50

423 K[ Moore


per cent of the world total#\ Africa has the highest incidence "30[3 per cent of childrenaged 4Ð03\ compared with the global average of 14 per cent#[

Thus\ despite the existence of increasingly stringent international conventionsagainst child labour^ despite social labelling schemes\ boycotts\ and the {rescue| ofchild labourers from sweatshops around the world^ and despite decades of on!goingpressure for universal and compulsory primary education\ children continue to work[Indeed\ whereas movements to abolish child labour have focused primarily uponexport!oriented factories and plantations\ {the vast majority of child workers areunpaid family workers employed in small production units of the urban informalsector and the rural traditional sector|[ Also\ children around the world*girls inparticular*are involved in domestic work in both their own homes and those ofothers^ and child {entrepreneurs| are a familiar sight on streets in cities and townsthroughout the developing world[ Further\ {more than 2:3 of all child labour occursin rural areas where\ on average\ 8:09 working children are engaged in agriculture orrelated activities|\ indicating that over 1:2 of working children are in the agriculturallabour force "Lansky\ 0886\ pp[ 130Ð132^ ILO\ 0887#[ Work by Hobbs et al[ "0885în Marcus and Harper\ 0886# and Morrow "0885# also suggest that the extent of childwork in the so!called developed world is underestimated in o.cial _gures[

CHILD WORK\ CHILD LABOUR AND THE INTERNATIONAL POLICY

ENVIRONMENT

Boyden et al[ "0887#*in what promises to become a principal text on the theory andpractice of child labour interventions*note that while globalization and internationalmarket liberalization are increasingly making child labour a highly visible and con!troversial issue\ the appropriate international fora for dealing with it have yet to beagreed upon[ In terms of international law\ the International Labour Organization"ILO# and United Nations General Assembly have emerged throughout this centuryas the primary institutions dealing with the issue[ The _rst ILO convention dealingwith child labour was tabled in 0808 "C4#\ and set the minimum age for working inthe industrial sector at fourteen[ In addition to those conventions focusing on relatedissues such as forced labour "C18 in 0829#\ subsequent conventions dealing with childlabour have built upon the standard set in 0808\ primarily through the extension ofsectoral coverage[ The process culminated in the 0862 Minimum Aè Convention

"C027# which superseded all prior instruments applicable to limited economic sectorsand categories of work[

Perhaps the most notable characteristic of C027 is the allowance of lower minimumages and the possibility of excluding certain sectors and categories of work\ forcountries in which the {economic and educational facilities are insu.cientlydeveloped|[ On one hand\ this policy indicates recognition that the socioeconomiccontext of a country can be an important determinant of how its citizens experiencechildhood[ However\ on the other hand\ it suggests a linear\ modernization!basedperspective on development that does not allow for cultural di}erence in perceptionssurrounding child work\ but at the same time condemns those children from the so!called developing world to sub!optimal protection[1

1 See Noguchi "0887# for a discussion of cultural pluralism as it relates to international child labourstandards[



The series of United Nations Declarations on the Ri`hts of the Child\ culminating inthe convention rati_ed in 0889\ have also taken into account the speci_c issue of theworking child[ The labour!oriented clause of the initial child rights declaration of0813 sought to protect all children from economic exploitation\ while at the sametime stating that {the child must be put in a position to earn a livelihood|[ Whileeach consecutive ILO agreement included a greater proportion of workers within itsrestrictive clauses\ the child rights declarations have progressively become more liketheir ILO counterparts\ in terms of mentioning minimum ages and inappropriatetypes of work[ The International Covenant on Economic\ Social and Cultural Ri`hts\adopted in 0855 and entered into force a decade later\ contained a similar clause\ withthe interesting addition that only paid employment should be prohibited[

The emergence of this body of international agreements has been based on twomajor trends\ the origins of which can be located in 08th century Europe] a sense ofpity and moral censure towards the {children without childhoods|^ and the growthof unionized labour representing the interests of adult workers in industrializedeconomies[2 The international arena thus became dominated by an abolitionist move!ment\ and child labour became broadly conceived as a problem to be eradicatedthrough national and international legislation "focusing on the establishment of mini!mum ages# and compulsory primary education\ as well as child {rescue|\ productboycotts and social labelling schemes[

Despite the recent shifts in the international policy environment discussed below\these trends continue to in~uence thought and action surrounding child labour\creating signi_cant obstacles for those who wish to support children within theirworking lives[ Indeed\ the book by Boyden et al[ "0887\ pp[ 09Ð1231# is premisedupon the proposition that {the most vexing problems of dealing with child work inpractice spring from serious conceptual errors| regarding the basic dynamics of childdevelopment\ the nature and causes of child work\ the relationship between children|swork and their development and the ways in which di}erent interventions can protectagainst workplace abuse\ as well as a {precarious understanding| of issues such aschildÐadult labour substitutability[

{CHILDREN WITHOUT CHILDHOODS|*THE SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION

OF CHILDHOOD AND CHILD LABOUR

There are several ways in which beliefs about the nature of childhood and child workdetermine the nature of interventions to confront child labour\ including the ages andindustries targeted^ the objectives of the intervention "to stop children from working\to provide health or education services to working children\ and:or to support theireconomic livelihoods#^ and the extent to which the children themselves are involvedin decision!making surrounding the intervention[

The CRC de_nes a child as {every human being below the age of 07 years unless\under the law applicable to the child\ majority is achieved earlier|[ However\ this

2 While the relationship between trade unions and the anti!child labour movement is not the focus of thispaper\ it is important to note that in general the trade union movement has remained in opposition to anyguarantee of the rights of children as workers[ At the same time\ however\ there is some evidence ofincreasing trade union ~exibility and innovation in terms of their child labour activities "see Myrstad\0886#[

425 K[ Moore


legalistic approach does not mirror an equally straightforward reality[ First\ in manycountries people achieve the age of majority earlier or later than eighteen\ and oftenthere is a range of ages during which legal restrictions are gradually lifted[ Second\ asFyfe "0882\ p[ 5# reminds us\ in many countries\ {in the absence of an e}ective agerecord system\ even applying an agreed legal de_nition becomes highly problematic|[This pragmatic concern points to the broader issue of why\ in many societies\ birthdates and ages are considered approximate benchmarks rather than precise indicatorsof child development "Boyden et al[\ 0887#[

Like household\ community and society\ the term childhood has remained\ untilrecently\ a relatively uncontested concept in both the social sciences and developmentpractice[ Yet\ when asked to distinguish a child from an infant\ toddler\ youth oradult "or the equivalent terms in a local language#\ it is often the case that theboundaries drawn depend on the cultural background of the respondent\ the particularperson in question and the context in which s:he lives[ In this way\ rather than aperiod bounded by two ages\ childhood is a socially constructed phenomenon] one isconsidered a child when the characteristics attributed to her:him coincide with localperceptions of childhood[ These characteristics often include age\ but are as likely toinclude factors such as sex\3 biological events "i[e[ puberty\ child birth#\ marital status\birth order\ and kin relationships\ as well as competency to understand and undertakecertain roles "Nieuwenhuys\ 0882^ Blanchet\ 0885\ in Lovell\ 0886^ Boyden et al[\ 0887^James\ 0884\ in O|Kane\ 0887#[

While some level of dependence of children on older people is both undeniable andunavoidable\ due to di}erentials in physical\ mental and social competencies\ Morrow"0885# makes the important point that physical dependency decreases as a child agesand is replaced by a socially!determined level of dependence[ And\ while it is widelyacknowledged that children have rights and adults have duties in relation to theserights\ it is also the case that many young people are also regarded as having responsi!bilities to their families and societies[4 Further\ when non!age factors such as com!petency contribute to de_nitions of childhood\ the extent to which a person isconsidered a child is in~uenced by the social\ political and economic context[ Flekko�yet al[ "0886\ p[ 03# ask the question

[ [ [ whether or not children who must support themselves [ [ [ \ or children whohave children themselves\ or children who are active soldiers at the age of twelveshould still be considered children [ [ [ Perhaps {childhood| is really de_ned bycircumstances or by the level of responsibility the person must assume for himself\not by level of maturity\ [ [ [ age or physical size[

Despite the culturally and contextually variable nature of childhood*and\ indeed\ ofparenthood* a Western model of the {developing child| has assumed universal status[Emergent from a speci_c set of historical processes and an urban\ middle class

3 While the necessity to disaggregate so!called gender!neutral terms such as {people| and {farmers| intogender!speci_c language is increasingly recognized\ it is surprising how often even feminist scholars discuss{men\ women and children| "White\ 0883#[ In this paper\ {children| refers to young people of both sexes\and the term is disaggregated by gender when relevant[4 Ennew "0885# cites the African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the African child in this regard\ butthe perception of a child with responsibilities can be extended to many other cultures and societies[ Seealso the study of children|s work in the Zambezi Valley by Reynolds "0880#\ in which she describes childrenwith signi_cant autonomy in terms of managing money\ experimenting with agriculture\ contributinglabour and strategically building relationships to enhance their future security[



experience of life\ this view of {childhood| is characterized as a period in which ayoung person is engaged solely in play and schooling\ while dependent on his "nuclear#family for every need[ The archetypal child "gender!neutral# has few political rights\many behavioural restrictions\ and is perceived as passive and without any meaningfulresponsibilities other than to develop into an adult "Boyden et al[\ 0887^ Ennew\ 0886^Johnson et al[\ 0887^ Marcus and Harper\ 0886^ White\ 0883^ 0885#[ Yet\ in actualitymany children neither attend school nor have much time for leisure\ and manychildren work[ Woodhead "0887\ p[ 015# is highly critical of how the working child_ts into the hegemonic model of childhood]

The consequence of expert myopia is that particular cultural constructions ofchildhood masquerade as scienti_c knowledge about children|s {nature|\ their{normal| development and their {universal| needs [ [ [ Working children are atbest rendered invisible\ at worst pathologised as living outside the de_nition ofchildhood[

Rather than being considered as capable\ responsible\ resourceful and hard!workingpeople\ working children tend to be pitied because they are not enjoying a proper"Western\ middle!class# {childhood|\ or stigmatized and excluded if they partake in{adult| habits like smoking\ drinking\ sex or moving freely alone\ or in certain formsof work which are perceived as {labour| "Ennew\ 0886#[5

The commonly!made distinction between {acceptable| child work and {unacceptable|child labour is problematic[ With its origins in 08th century Europe\ the child labourÐchild work dichotomy still tends to be perceived as one between industrial and non!industrial forms of economic activity\ although other factors are also important deter!minants of whether a task is considered {labour| or merely {work|[ These include whetherthe task is home!based\ reproductive\ small!scale\ allowing for school attendance ando}ering no direct remuneration for the child^ or productive\ large!scale and withsome level of remuneration but no opportunity for education[ The former is generallyconsidered harmless or bene_cial to a developing child while the latter is exploitativeand dangerous[ However\ this dichotomy does not represent a realistic division ofchildren|s economic activities\ particularly in terms of the compatibility of work withschool[ Further\ it tends to be based upon the {shock value| of highly visible street orfactory work o}ensive to middle class sensibilities[ Implicit even in Rodgers and Stand!ing|s typology\ the distinction relies on the unfounded proposition that working withoutpay for one|s family is necessarily or generally less exploitative than working for non!kin[ In fact\ {invisible| child workers in rural areas or within household con_nes areoften more exploited\ often because the tasks they undertake are not considered work"Boyden et al[\ 0887^ Morrow\ 0885^ Nieuwenhuys\ 0882^ White\ 0883#[

THE NATURE OF CHILD WORK*CAUSES AND CONSEQUENCES

In many ways\ to consider {child labour| as a coherent concept with de_nitive bound!aries and equivalent policy implications is as problematic as leaving {work| in general

5 Eighty per cent of respondents to a Ra�dda Barnen survey of NGOs which work with working childrena.rmed that childhood should be dedicated primarily to play and school rather than work\ but a highproportion also recognized that children often are forced to work in order to avoid greater poverty andful_l family obligations "Boyden et al[\ 0887#[ See also the survey conducted by Anti!Slavery International"0887#[

427 K[ Moore


undi}erentiated[ The group {child labourers| is made up of both boys and girls of allages from both urban and rural environments\ who manifest a range of competencies\socioeconomic statuses\ and cultural backgrounds[ The reasons that children work\the types and legality of activities undertaken\ the institutions within which theseactivities are undertaken\ and whether the activity is paid are also extremely variable\as is the extent to which a child is allowed to participate in decision!making sur!rounding her or his work[

An interaction of context and cultural values creates the supply and demandconditions that cause children to be involved in {work|\ {labour|\ or*as it has beencalled in the developed world*\ {out of school employment| "Lavalette\ 0883 in A[F[ P[\ 0884#[ On the supply side\ there is much evidence to support the widespreadbelief that household poverty is an important determinant of children|s income gen!erating work[ It is clear\ however\ that poverty is by no means the only factor[Expectations based upon cultural perceptions of accepted gender and age!roles alsoplay a major role in determining whether and when a child will work "Delap\ 0887^Marcus and Harper\ 0886#[ In their excellent summary of the determinants of childlabour\ Grootaert and Kanbur "0884# consider the following factors as also important]the size and structure of the household^ household landholdings^ parental educationând social expenditure by the state\ including on education[ Systematic shifts inhousehold size and structure due to war and the HIV:AIDS pandemic\ particularlyin Africa\ play an important role in determining the extent and nature of child work\especially through the creation of increasing numbers of child!headed households"ILO:UNICEF\ 0886#[

In the urban Bangladeshi context\ Delap "0887# reports that while there is a sig!ni_cant association between low household income and children|s workforce par!ticipation\ in many cases children worked although their contribution was notabsolutely essential to household survival[ In some cases\ children|s income!generatinge}orts were valued as a means to make important social investments[ Grootaert andKanbur "0884# note that child labour is often a household strategy to deal with risk\through the diversi_cation of income sources "see also Boyden et al[\ 0887#[ In thiscase\ the amount of income provided by a child may not be as important as theadditional security that it o}ers[ Further\ children|s "often girls|# housework con!tributes not only to the maintenance and development of household members\ butalso to the household|s income!generating capacity through the freeing up of women|slabour for outside employment "Delap\ 0887#[ Finally\ White "0885# notes that theprocesses which have globalized both marketing and media portrayals of children inmany cases have increased children|s own perceived need for cash[ Undesirable andinaccessible education is often another important supply!side factor[

The structure of the labour market is the chief demand side factor[ Employmentand wage levels\ technology\ and the level of formalization and government regulationof economic institutions all in~uence adultÐchild substitutability in the labour market[Arguments that child workers are an economically sensible choice in certain indus!tries\ such as carpet!weaving\ due to their small frames and nimble _ngers are slowlybeing eroded "Boyden et al[\ 0887#\ and replaced with the observation that whilechildren are generally neither faster nor more accurate workers\ they tend to be moresubmissive and vulnerable to exploitation[

Boyden et al[ "0887# criticize this traditional approach of describing the causes ofchild labour in terms of supply and demand factors\ because it does not consider



di}erential e}ects of work on children[ Rather than limiting analysis to why childrenenter work\ the authors believe that the causes of children|s exploitation within workmerit greater attention and have more signi_cant policy implications[ One can locatethe reasons that a child endures a hazardous or harmful working situation at variouslevels of analysis] the ignorance or apathy of the child\ her family\ employer orgovernment^ a lack of employment or educational alternatives^ discrimination on thebasis of gender or class^ and broader socioeconomic structures[ The importance oftaking into account children|s own perspectives regarding why they work and whichwork they prefer is also emphasized "Boyden et al[\ 0887^ Johnson et al[\ 0884#[Children often mention the pleasure\ excitement and companionship they derive fromtheir work\ for instance "Boyden and Myers\ 0884^ Harper\ 0887#[ At the same time\most developing country children feel they work in order to help their families\entering work at the {encouragement\ request or command of the family| "Boyden et

al[\ 0887\ p[ 002#[ Both factors can hinder the enforcement of child labour laws\ andboth are important considerations when developing intervention strategies[

Many children are indeed involved in dangerous\ hazardous or exploitative work\but so are many adults\ and in situations of poverty and extreme hierarchy it is oftenunclear whether they\ by the virtue of being adults\ really have a signi_cantly greaterlevel of choice[ Nevertheless\ in terms of physical hazards\ it is important to take achild!centred perspective of occupational safety "Bequele and Myers\ 0884#[ Due totheir stage of physiological development\ children tend to be particularly vulnerableto toxins\ disease\ long hours and physical strain\ as well as to the dangers of usingoversized machinery[ Further\ while children are generally aware of negative short!term e}ects of work\ they may not have the resources to identify and avoid longer!term health e}ects "Woodhead\ 0887#[

However\ except for the most severe abuses\ it is less straightforward to identifyworkplace conditions that are potentially hazardous to children|s mental\ emotional\social or spiritual development[ While it is often suggested that children are morevulnerable than adults to both the short! and long!term e}ects of tedium\ isolationor abuse\ the level of vulnerability depends on the resilience of the particular childand her or his support system\ as well as the precise nature of the hazard or risk[Indeed\ it is often not the nature of the task itself which can have negative e}ects\ butthe relative powerlessness of the child "Marcus and Harper\ 0886^ Boyden et al[\ 0887#[As White "0883\ p[ 740# suggests\

it is not that the involvement of children in work "including paid work# is in itselfnecessarily problematic or objectionable^ the real problems of child and juvenilelabour lie not so much in the age of young workers\ as in the fact that youngworkers are often subject to exaggerated forms of labour control and exploitationover and above those faced by adult workers\ because of the way society classi_esand treats persons of young age[

Equally\ the assumption that the younger child\ the greater the potential for abuse"ILO\ 0887# may in some cases be inaccurate[ While the range of coping strategiesavailable to a child may increase with age\ it may also be the case that not as much isexpected from a younger child\ and in some cases their cognitive and experientiallimitations may shield them from the e}ects of more subtle forms of harm "Boydenet al[\ 0887#[

For many\ however\ the primary and most serious impact of work is on a child|s

439 K[ Moore


long!term prospects\ through its e}ect on his or her ability to attend and progressthrough schooling[ It is often assumed that working children are not in school\ and\conversely\ that if they stop working they will attend school[ It is further assumedthat if a working child does attend school\ that s:he is often too tired to concentrateor study\ and is at risk of dropping out[ While in many cases these assumptions arebroadly accurate\ it is becoming increasingly clear that in order to fully understandthe relationship between work and schooling\ one must investigate the quality\ typeand accessibility of primary education\ as well as the ability of many children tocombine work and school[ Heady|s "0888# recent study of the impact of work oneducational achievement in Ghana re~ects a phenomenon apparent throughout theworld "Boyden et al[\ 0887#] of those respondents between the ages of 8 and 07 whoworked\ almost three!quarters combined work with school[

Further\ if education is of poor quality and irrelevant content^ if parents believeeducation to be wasted on girls^ if fees\ books and uniforms are too expensive^ and ifthe time and place of class are inaccessible to poor children\ then the perceived costsof schooling may outweigh the bene_ts[ But an education system that is ~exible\accessible\ a}ordable\ and o}ers a curriculum appropriate to the needs of low!incomechildren will be in demand "Johnson et al[\ 0884#[ As Boyden and Myers "0884# note\Kerala|s success in terms of making primary education compulsory is based in largemeasure upon the system|s ~exibility in terms of allowing for children to work*while education does discourage full!time\ bonded and work!site living situations forchildren\ it does not\ and need not\ discourage work in toto[

Further\ the idea that work can have signi_cant and positive educational anddevelopmental impacts on children is also growing in acceptance[6 Indeed\ in manycultures\ {middle childhood| "between the approximate ages of 5 and 01# is perceivedas the major period during which a child|s participation in work contributes to her orhis development "Boyden et al[\ 0887#[ In terms of work outside the home\ not onlydo many children enter the economy in order to fund their own education and thatof their siblings\ but some types of work can also foster the development of cognitiveand vocational skills through experiential learning[ Work can also facilitate soc!ialization into the social and leadership roles valued in society and the economy[ Achild|s work can also be her:his only source of income\ or make a signi_cant con!tribution to the household economy\ in either case potentially mitigating the e}ectsof poverty on a child "ESMA\ 0887#[ Finally\ if a child|s work is valued by thehousehold and community\ it can also contribute to her or his sense of self!esteem\responsibility\ autonomy and belonging "Boyden et al[\ 0887^ Lovell\ 0886^ Marcus\0887#[

It is not the case\ therefore\ that all work that children do is necessarily harmful[Children also cope with potentially harmful work in di}erent ways[ The extent towhich a child worker has links to his or her family or other social support groups\including those made up of other working children\ is of particular relevance to thelevel of exploitation to which s:he is exposed[ For instance\ children such as thoseengaged in domestic work in the homes of others tend to be isolated from otherworking children as well as their families\ increasing the likelihood that they will beunable to deal with a stressful work environment "Eade and Williams\ 0884#[

6 This is still not the dominant belief\ however[ Over one!quarter of respondents to the Ra�dda Barnensurvey felt that there are no or minimal bene_ts from children|s work\ and others said that any bene_tswere outweighed by costs[



The strength of a child|s links to support is also the basis for the commonly madedistinction between children on the street and children of the street "Copping\ 0887#[7

The former group consists of those children who spend a signi_cant portion of theirtime working or socializing on the street\ but return periodically*nightly\ monthly\seasonally*to some form of home[ For the latter children\ the street is home[ Whilethis distinction does hold in some contexts\ particularly in Latin America upon whichthe dichotomy was originally based\ in many cases it does not accurately representchildren|s lives or the issues that are of most importance to them "Ennew\ 0886#[Indeed\ this heterogeneity can make targeting or organizing working childrendi.cult[

The method and level of remuneration rely not only on a child|s relationship withher or his employer "Grootaert and Kanbur\ 0884#\ but also on the strength and typeof links with her or his family[ A high proportion of working children give their entireincome to their families "UNICEF\ 0886#\ while those {of the street| without familylinkages can spend their income themselves but may have to pass a signi_cant pro!portion on to those who supply goods or control their working territory "Ennew\0886#[ Some child workers never see their earnings\ which are paid directly to theirparents\ while the wages of bonded labourers*both children and adults*go directlyto paying o} debts to the employer[ The increasing amount of research drawingupon the views of working children has made it apparent that absent or inadequateremuneration in cash or in kind is considered as exploitative by children as by adults"Boyden et al[\ 0887#[ Equally\ a child|s actual and perceived autonomy and controlin terms of choosing work and managing the earnings can a}ect the extent to whichthe work is exploitative "Boyden et al[\ 0887#[

Child!focused organizations are thus increasingly accepting White|s "in Boyden et

al[\ 0887# continuum of best!to!worst forms of work for children[ This typology notonly counterbalances work that is inherently hazardous with work that is harmlessor even bene_cial[ In between is work that is not inherently harmful but could pose arisk if carried out by certain children or within a particular working environment\and work which could lead to a child taking up a riskier job[ As UNICEF "0886\ p[13# has stated\ {to treat all work by children as equally unacceptable is to confuse andtrivialise the issue and to make it more di.cult to end the abuses|[

Thus\ in order to determine which types of economic activity are actually det!rimental to which children\ it is necessary to take a much broader perspective of boththe potential hazards and actual impacts of di}erent types of work\ and a more preciseconsideration of the relation between work and education[ Children|s work is highlyvariable in ways other than the nature of the task^ there is a range of reasons whychildren work and whether and why they are exploited^ and children|s vulnerabilityto workplace hazards is mediated by several factors other than the type of work andthe age of the child[ Boyden et al[ "0887\ p[ 37# identify six main factors that helpdetermine children|s vulnerability]

0[ the child|s personal traits^1[ the continuity of emotional support from family or others^2[ the e.cacy of wider social support networks^

7 The question of what constitutes {home| and {street| is also pertinent^ a discussion can be found in Ennew"0886#[

431 K[ Moore


3[ shared cultural meanings surrounding stressful events^4[ the nature of the task^ and5[ the sense of personal control which a child feels[

In this framework\ children and children|s work are considered within the multiplesocial\ cultural and economic contexts in which they exist[ In many cultural settings\the domestic group\ organized on the basis of gender and seniority with young childrenand girls at the bottom of the hierarchy\ is the primary site of both children|s andwomen|s socioeconomic relations and activities[ Indeed\ throughout the world theeconomic roles of women and children are strongly interdependent "Schildkrout\0881#\ forming what Grootaert and Kanbur "0884# have called the {childÐwomannexus|[ At the same time\ household decision!making does not occur independentlyfrom broader social and economic forces and relations[ In her excellent study ofworking girls and boys in rural Kerala\ Nieuwenhuys "0883# employs a theoreticalframework that places children|s economic activities within the context of the inter!action between household\ society and market[ In particular\ Nieuwenhuys drawsupon Marxist tradition in order to locate children|s work in {the di}erent sets of classrelations by which the mode ðof productionŁ is reproduced| "Nieuwenhuys\ 0883\ p[10#[

In many ways\ Nieuwenhuys| approach is mirrored in Wood|s "0888# {InstitutionalResponsibility Square|*an attempt to model the {deep structures| in which relation!ships between and among individuals and institutions are embedded\ and whichfacilitate and constrain their activities in line with societal norms[ Wood suggests thatthrough the formalization of both individual rights and institutional responsibilities\the inegalitarian nature of many transactions can be confronted[ Based on theirinnovative participatory study of Nepali children|s role in the household\ Johnson et

al[ "0884# have developed a model that includes environmental change as an importantdeterminant of the shifting of {gendered and aged| economic roles within the house!hold[ Informed by a rights discourse and this multi!level\ multi!sectoral approachto socioeconomic structures and processes\ the child workÐchild labour debate istransformed into a broader debate surrounding\ on the one hand\ issues of par!ticipation and power\ and on the other\ the nature of interventions intended tofacilitate the {de!clientelization| process[

A NEW APPROACH*THE ILO AND UN TARGET THE {INTOLERABLE|

During the last decade there have been some changes in the child labour discourseaway from strict abolitionism and towards a more pragmatic\ ~exible and {multi!pronged| approach[ Recognizing the persistence of child labour and that {child labourcannot be legislated out of existence overnight| "Fyfe\ 0882\ p[ 8#\ the ILO hasproposed a new convention "C071^ not yet rati_ed# which invites signatories to committo the elimination of the worst forms of child labour[ The ILO|s technical co!operationprogramme IPEC "International Programme on the Elimination of Child Labour#\initiated in 0881\ also has a mandate to focus on extreme forms of child labour andparticularly vulnerable working children[ It is hoped that like the conventions onforced labour\ C071 will attract a greater number of rati_cations than C027\ viewed



by many developing countries as neither practical nor culturally acceptable[ C071 hasbeen promoted as focusing on the elimination of forms of child labour which areuniversally condemned[

Article 21 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child "CRC#\ which wasadopted in 0878 by the General Assembly and is now the most widely rati_ed inter!national human rights agreement\ similarly emphasizes {the right of the child to beprotected from economic exploitation and from performing any work that is likely tobe hazardous\ [ [ [ interfere with the child|s education\ or to be harmful|[

This focus on hazardous and harmful forms of child labour can be seen as bothobstacle and opportunity to those wishing to support children in their working lives[Boyden et al[ "0887# feel that implicit in the new pieces of legislation is the belief thatall child work is harmful[ Thus\ the aim of most interventions will continue to be theeradication of child labour[ They rightly point out that while some work done bychildren is harmful*including much work traditionally ignored by abolitionists andlegislators*other work can be safe if properly monitored and some can be bene_cial[Neither piece of international legislation explicitly recognizes potentially bene_cialchild work\ nor mandates that children in some instances should be supported withinthe context of their working lives[

However\ in another view\ by committing itself to the eradication of hazardous andharmful forms of child labour\ the international community has tacitly accepted that]"i# there are forms and systems of work which are not harmful and can be bene_cialto children in some circumstances^ and therefore\ "ii# there may be some scope forsupporting children in non!harmful work\ in particular as a means of keeping themfrom entering more dangerous activities[ Further\ C071 speci_cally mandates therehabilitation and social integration of those children who have been removed fromhazardous work\ and that the needs of these children and their families must beaddressed[ Boyden et al[ "0887# consider this a positive step in the recognition ofchildren|s rights and needs[ And\ in an earlier study\ Bequele and Myers "0884\ p[ 15#suggest three main reasons for focusing on the most serious and imminent threats tochildren]

0[ focussing scarce resources on the most urgent cases is both logical and humane^1[ focussing on the most {socially repugnant| form of child labour helps to maintain

a broader commitment for abolition^ and2[ while {policies and programmes designed to reach the children in most need are

also likely to bene_t other working children [ [ [ the reverse is not true|[

Other than forced labour\ sex work and illegal activities\ neither C071 nor the CRCspeci_cally de_ne what could be meant by work that is hazardous or harmful\ appar!ently leaving this open to interpretation by national bodies[ The recommendationaccompanying C071 "R089#\ however\ does attempt to provide {guidance| regardingwhich tasks should be de_ned as hazardous or harmful[ Some proposals have beenexcluded or modi_ed in the _nal draft of the recommendations[ {Work by very youngchildren|\ for instance\ has been dropped in the _nal description of hazardous work\with {younger children| instead listed among groups to which special attention shouldbe paid[ {Work which does not allow children to return home at night| has beenreplaced with {work under particularly di.cult conditions such as work for longhours or during the night or work where the child is unreasonably con_ned to the

433 K[ Moore


premises of the employer|[ {Work that interferes with a child|s schooling| has alsobeen excluded[

Bequele and Myers "0884# suggest that while it may be di.cult in theory to rankchild labour on the basis of risk and hazard in order to {target the intolerable|\ thatin practice coming to an agreement is generally straightforward[ However\ experiencesuggests that the types of work considered hazardous and harmful within the frame!work of the convention and recommendation do not always correspond to the per!spectives of working children[8 Indeed\ as in C027\ any speci_c mention of the workthat most children do*domestic work in their own homes\ and work on familyfarms*is noticeably absent[ Yet many children prefer {outside| work as a}ordingthem more freedom and remuneration than work for the family[ In this regard\ it isespecially important that the recommendation also mandates that the views of childrenwho undertake so!called hazardous and harmful work\ and those of their families\are taken into consideration[

The overwhelmingly dominant theme of much recent work by those involved withworking children is that a great number of these children have the capacity toparticipate e}ectively in their own social and economic development\ and thereforeare the most important resource in any intervention[ While working children arecertainly physically\ mentally\ and socially {developing|\ their competencies have beenlong underestimated[ Often from a young age\ working children develop and manifesta level of responsibility\ resilience and resourcefulness uncommon in adults[ They canoften o}er enthusiasm\ motivation and commitment to projects that they considerrelevant to their needs and responsive to their wishes[ With levels of energy andidealism often eroded by adulthood\ children and youths can be highly e}ectivecatalysts of change[ They tend to be eager to learn and to put new ideas into practice\if the appropriate support is available for them to do so[ Thus\ at both the internationalpolicy level and the project level\ adult perceptions of working children|s capabilitiescan be a more signi_cant obstacle to successful interventions than children|s actual

capabilities[Further\ as impressively documented in Steppin` Forward "Johnson et al[\ 0887#

and Listenin` to Smaller Voices "Johnson et al[\ 0884#\ children are capable of express!ing their views and aspirations\ and can plan\ research\ evaluate and make importantdecisions\ if the methods used are appropriate to their age\ sex\ culture\ level ofliteracy and numeracy\ experiences and abilities[ Often noted as more open andstraightforward than their adult counterparts\ children are not only the bestinterpreters of their own lives and experiences\ but may also have insights into thesituations and conditions of their households and communities\ as well as creativeproblem!solving ideas[ Yet\ while the CRC has facilitated an increase in child!orientedresearch "Delap\ 0887\ p[ 3#\ there is still a great deal of work to be done concerningchildren|s perceptions and roles\ in the context of speci_c households\ communities\markets and states[

Wood|s "0888# framework for mapping the relationship between an individual andthe household\ community\ market and state suggests that a process of formalization

8 Delap\ personal communication "0888#[ See also Anti!Slavery International "0887# survey results\ whichsuggest that while there is general support for the ILO convention among NGOs\ there is a signi_cantminority which feel that de_nitions established could not accurately re~ect children|s perspectives or thedi}erent contexts in which they live[



of both individual rights and institutional responsibility is required to begin to breakdown unequal informal relationships based on socially constructed hierarchies of ageand gender as well as class\ ethnicity\ religion and other socioeconomic factors[ Therecognition of the rights of children to participate\ as well as the responsibility ofinstitutions to protect and provide for children\ is a signi_cant step towards thisprocess of de!clientelization[ Patronizing beliefs about the proper nature and roleof children persist in both the international policy environment*in the form of auniversalized Western model of childhood*and in communities around the world[However\ this paper has argued that formalization of children|s rights in the CRC\and the implicit sanction of the validity of children|s economic needs and choices inC071\ will help to create a context in which the {best interests of the child| are neitherignored nor taken for granted[ The shift both {acknowledges multiple stakeholders inthe child!work debate [ [ [ and recognises that children are the principle stakeholders|"Woodhead\ 0887\ p[ 015#[ While the remnants of Western bias remain\ the for!malization of rights and responsibilities has the potential to create a context in whichchildren are universally protected\ provided for\ and allowed to participate\ withintheir own cultural and experiential context[ And\ if the majority of working childrenindeed feel that they have both the right to work\ as well as the right to be protectedfrom potentially adverse e}ects of harmful and exploitative work\ then responsivepolicy interventions will increasingly be required to include those which supportchildren in their working lives[ As Woodhead "0887\ p[ 015# states\

A cultural\ contextual approach to child development does not undermine stra!tegies to reduce child poverty\ increase educational opportunities and promotesocial justice\ nor does it challenge international e}orts to combat child labourin circumstances of exploitation and hazard[ What it may do is alter the characterof those interventions and the images of childhood that sustain them [ [ [

While there are a growing number of child!oriented organizations involved in sup!porting children in their working lives\ very few SME support or micro_nance organ!izations have begun to include or actively target this population[ Indeed\ the extentto which SME and micro_nance interventions inadvertently a}ect children|s work byin~uencing the relative domestic workload within households is only beginning to berecognized "Gunn and Ostos\ 0881^ Johnson et al[\ 0884^ Marcus\ 0888#[ Further\many smaller child!oriented agencies are highly specialized "Gunn and Ostos\ 0881#and do not have the capacity to shift easily from provision of basic needs\ for instance\to the facilitation of children|s socioeconomic roles[ Thus\ inter!organizational learn!ing\ adaptation and\ importantly\ networking "Ennew\ 0886\ p[ 010# remain a sig!ni_cant challenge to the development and expansion of interventions to support theworking lives of children and youths[

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The paper presented at the September 0888 DSA Conference forms part of theauthor|s MSc dissertation\ submitted to the University of Bath in October 0888under the title {Supporting children and youth in their working lives] obstacles andopportunities|[ Many people supported this paper through sharing ideas and experi!ences^ acknowledgements are particularly due to the author|s supervisor\ Professor

435 K[ Moore


Geof Wood\ for the time and enthusiasm he gave to this project\ and to one anony!mous reviewer for her:his comments[

REFERENCES

A[ F[ P[ 0884[ Review of Lavalette M[ 0883[ Child employment in the capitalist labour market[

International Labour Review 023] 168Ð179[

Anti!Slavery International[ 0887[ Survey Of NGO Views] New ILO Convention On Child Labour[

http]::www[crin[org:wilonew:survey[htm

Bequele A\ Myers WE[ 0884[ First Thin`s First in Child Labour] Eliminatin` Work Detrimental

to Children[ ILO] Geneva[

Boyden J\ Ling B\ Myers W[ 0887[ What Works for Workin` Children[ UNICEF International

Child Development Centre:Ra�dda Barnen] Florence:Stockholm[

Boyden J\ Myers W[ 0884[ Exploring alternative approaches to combating child labour] case

studies from developing countries[ Child Rights Series\ No[ 7[ Innocenti Occasional Papers\

Florence[

Copping P[ 0887[ Workin` With Street Youth Where They Are] The Experience of Street Kids

International[ http]::www[streetkids[org:youth[html:

Delap E[ 0887[ The determinants and e}ects of children|s income generating work in urban

Bangladesh[ Unpublished draft[

Eade D\ Williams S[ 0884[ The Oxfam Handbook of Development and Relief\ Vol[ 0[ Oxfam]

Oxford[

Edwards M[ 0885[ New approaches to children and development] introduction and overview

to policy arena] children in developing countries[ Journal of International Development 7]

702Ð716[

Egyptian Small and Micro!Enterprise Association[ 0887[ Children working in small and micro

enterprises[ ESMA Discussion Paper[

Ennew J[ 0886[ Street and Workin` Children] A Guide to Plannin`[ Development Manual No[

3[ Save the Children] London[

Flekko�y MG\ Kaufman NH[ 0886[ The Participation Ri`hts of the Child] Ri`hts and Responsi!

bilities in Family and Society[ Jessica Kingsley Publishers] London:Bristol\ PA[

Fyfe A[ 0882[ Child Labour] A Guide to Project Desi`n[ International Labour O.ce] Geneva[

Grootaert C\ Kanbur R[ 0884[ Child labour] an economic perspective[ International Labour

Review 021] 076Ð193[

Gunn SE\ Ostos Z[ 0881[ Dilemmas in tackling child labour] the case of scavenger children in

the Philippines[ International Labour Review 002] 518Ð535[

Harper M[ 0887[ The prevention of child labour*ASSEFA in southern India[ Small Enterprise

Development 8"2#] 36Ð49[

Heady C[ 0888[ The e}ects of child work on educational achievement[ First draft of paper

presented at Annual Development Studies Association Conference\ University of Bath\

September 0888[

International Labour O.ce[ 0887[ Factsheets] Abolishin` Extreme Forms of Labour Information

Kit[ ILO] Geneva[

International Labour Organization[ 0887[ Child Labour] targeting the intolerable[ International

Labour Conference\ 71nd Session[ Report VI"0#[

International Labour Organization:United Nations Children|s Fund[ 0887[ Strategies for eli!

minating child labour] prevention\ removal and rehabilitation[ International Conference on



Child Labour "Oslo\ 16Ð29 October 0886# synthesis document[ ILO:UNICEF\ Geneva:

Washington[

Johnson V\ Hill J\ Ivan!Smith E[ 0884[ Listenin` to Smaller Voices] Children in an Environment

of Chanè[ ACTIONAID] London[

Johnson V\ Ivan!Smith E\ Gordon G\ Pridmore P\ Scott P[ "eds#[ 0887[ Steppin` Forward]

Children and Youn` People|s Participation in the Development Process[ Intermediate Tech!

nology Publications] London[

Lansky M[ 0886[ Child labour] how the challenge is being met[ International Labour Review

025] 122Ð146[

Lovell E[ 0886[ How does a universal theory of basic human needs contribute to debates on

children|s work< MSc Development Studies Dissertation\ University of Bath[

Marcus R[ 0888[ Money Matters] understanding micro_nance[ Save the Children Working

Paper 08[ Save the Children] London[

Marcus R\ Harper C[ 0886[ Small hands] children in the working world[ Save the Children

Working Paper 05[ Save the Children] London[

Marshall K[ 0886[ Children|s Ri`hts in the Balance] The ParticipationÐProtection Debate[ The

Stationery O.ce Limited] Edinburgh[

Moore K[ 0888[ Supporting children and youth in their working lives] obstacles and oppor!

tunities[ MSc Development Studies Dissertation\ University of Bath[

Morrow V[ 0885[ Rethinking childhood dependency] children|s contribution to the domestic

economy[ Socioloìcal Review 33"0#] 47Ð66[

Myers W\ Boyden J[ 0887[ Child Labour] Promotin` the Best Interests of Workin` Children\

1nd edn[ Save the Children] London[

Myrstad G[ 0886[ What can trade unions do to combat child labour< Paper presented at the

Urban Childhood Conference\ Trondheim\ Norway\ June 0886[ ILO Bureau for Workers|

Activities "ACTRAV#[

Nieuwenhuys O[ 0882[ Children|s Lifeworlds] Gender\ Welfare and Labour in the Developin`

World[ Routledge] London[

Noguchi Y[ 0887[ Review of Freeman M[ 0886[ The moral status of children] essays on the

rights of the child[ International Labour Review 026"0#] 098[

O|Kane C[ 0887[ Children and decision!making] ethical considerations[ In Steppin` Forward]

Children and Youn` People|s Participation in the Development Process\ Johnson et al[ "eds#[

Intermediate Technology Publications] London^ 25Ð30[

Reynolds P[ 0880[ {Dance\ Civet Cat|] Child Labour in the Zambezi Valley[ Ohio University

Press] Ohio:Zed Books\ London[

Rodgers G\ Standing G[ "eds#[ 0870[ Child Work\ Poverty and Underdevelopment[ International

Labour O.ce] Geneva[

Schildkrout E[ 0880[ Children as entrepreneurs] case studies from Kano\ Nigeria[ In Under!

standin` Economic Process\ Ortiz Z\ Lees S[ "eds#[ Monographs in Economic Anthropology\

No[ 09[ University Press of America] Lanham^ 084Ð112[

Thornley A[ 0885[ Children and development[ Development Express[ International Devel!

opment Information Centre\ Hull\ QC\ No[ 8 http]::www[acdi!cida[gc[ca:xpress:dex:

dex8598[htm

UNICEF[ 0886[ State of the World|s Children] Child Labour[ Oxford University Press for

UNICEF] Oxford:New York[

White B[ 0883[ Children\ work and child labour] changing responses to the employment of

children[ Development and Chanè 14] 738Ð767[

White B[ 0885[ Globalization and the child labour problem[ Journal of International Devel!

opment 7] 718Ð728[

437 K[ Moore


Wood G[ 0888[ Prisoners and escapees] towards improving public institutional performance in

Bangladesh[ Paper presented at the Annual Development Studies Association Conference\

University of Bath\ September 03[

Woodhead M[ 0887[ Child work and child development in cultural context] a study of children|s

perspective in selected countries in Asia\ Africa and Central America[ In Steppin` Forward]

Children and Youn` People|s Participation in the Development Process\ Johnson et al[ "eds#[

Intermediate Technology Publications] London^ 013Ð017[

Documents

Supporting children in their working lives: obstacles and opportunities within the international policy environment