William E. Myers

Visiting Scholar, Department of Human and Community Development, University of California, Davis, USA.

A presentation during the symposium

"Child Labor & the Globalizing Economy: Lessons from Asia/Pacific Countries"

Stanford University, California

February 7 – 9, 2001

child1 labour, others value it as a rich lode of possibilities that can be mined for more effective ideas and practices. Without meaning to dismiss the dangers of obstructive factionalism, the following discussion defends this second position. It argues that the current multiplicity of perspectives on child1 labor is a natural consequence of society’s pursuit of multiple social goals, all of which are legitimate and desirable, and that no one point of view is by itself adequate to define and encompass child1 labor policy.  It also suggests that diversity of viewpoints should be encouraged, and that the creative tension between them can, if constructively managed, generate more effective action and cooperation against abuse of children in and through their work.                                             

            Important differences of perspective on child1 labor begin with defining it, for there is no common concept that unites everyone discussing the

problem. As a result the term ‘child1 labour’ has become severely devalued and problematic. It is now used to signify so many different things that it is

almost useless except as an emotion-laden slogan useful for mobilizing public indignation and action. Even in the technical literature,  a single publication

often will use ‘child1 labour’ in more than one sense. One day several years ago I randomly picked a dozen or so books and articles from the bookshelf 

and began a list of the different explicit or implicit definitions I found in them. In perhaps only a half hour, and but a little way through the pile, I accumulated the following ten definitions of ‘child1 labour’, and surely would have encountered still others had I continued the search:

       *   All work of any kind performed by children;

       *   Economic participation by children;      

       *   Full-time work performed by children;

       *   Work that is harmful to children;

       *   Work that interferes with schooling;

       *   All remunerated work;

       *   Wage employment;

       *   Work that exploits children;

       *   Work that violates national child1 labour laws;

       *   Work that violates international standards.

            This sampling of recent definitions does not describe a single phenomenon. The different definitions imply quite dissimilar notions about just what is problematic about ‘child1 labour’, and they of course lead to divergent policies and activities for addressing the issue. For example, a strategy to halt all work by children would not necessarily resemble one seeking to discourage only wage employment, or only work that is harmful to children.  Disagreement over definitions, and consequently over problem identification, policy objectives, and programme strategies, has not only frustrated

intelligent national and international discussion of ‘child1 labour’, but has on occasion led to unfortunate acrimony as well.

            The lack of a common concept of ‘child1 labour’ has provoked so much chaos and misunderstanding in current international debates about child1 labour that some have gone so far as to suggest the term should be avoided as much as possible, using instead the more value-neutral term ‘work’, adding an appropriate modifier when a judgment about the work is wanted --e.g., hazardous work, socializing work, exploitative work, etc. (Boyden et. al.,1998; Miljeteig, 2000). Another solution would be for everyone to agree on a single definition, and in fact some have perceived a quickening  trend toward conceiving of child1 labour as that work which is detrimental to children (Myers, 1999). However, neither of these are likely to be a realistic option for the near future. The term ‘child1 labour’ is so ubiquitous and habitual that it probably cannot be abolished or circumvented. A natural drift toward consensus, even if real, is slowed by the fact that the variety of definitions has by now been thoroughly institutionalized--organizations base

their ‘child1 labour’ activities upon whatever particular interpretation they give the term--and changing definitions would imply the need to change

policies and programmes as well, a reform not easily or quickly accomplished.

            If we can neither stop using the term ‘child1 labour’ nor standardize its meaning, are we necessarily stuck with chaos?  I think not, if we understand that there are perfectly valid reasons why divergent ideas do and should exist,  if we appreciate that each viewpoint has a contribution to make, and if we harness differences of perspective to better illuminate the facts, to facilitate more profound discussion of the issues, and even to produce more agreement and cooperation in practical action than now exists. I would further like to suggest that there is in the present diversity more

pattern and logic than at first meets the eye. Although there are various ways of categorizing approaches to ‘child1 labour’, it seems to me that most

current thought and action can be usefully described in terms of four general perspectives, each of which starts from important concerns and leads to unique insights and social applications. When these four perspectives are framed as ‘ideal types’--a tool I will use here to facilitate the discussion--each is seen to be internally coherent, having its own hierarchy of values, internal logic, public discourse, and prescriptions for action. Each also implies a particular view of children, of work, and of the role of education in addressing ‘child1 labour’. In addition, it is easy to match each perspective with

important institutional actors, even after allowing for the fact that real-life organizations are rather more messy and laden with inconsistencies than are

ideal types. 

            A review of the ‘child1 labour’ literature and experience reveals four highly generalized lines of thinking that can be thought of as:  (1) a labour market perspective, (2) a human capital perspective, (3) a social responsibility perspective, and (4) a child-centred perspective. I suggest that each of the most important positions now encountered in current national and international discussion of  ‘child1 labour’ tend to fit into one of these perspectives more easily than any of the others, and can be profitably understood in that context. It might be noted in passing that the first two perspectives are of an economic orientation, while the latter two tend to emphasize social and cultural factors.  Let us now consider each perspective in turn.

The labour market perspective 

            This perspective,  the dominant international paradigm of government child1 labour intervention for nearly a century, is fundamentally driven by a mostly North cultural notions of childhood as properly a work-free period and by anxiety about the potential impact of child1 workers on adult labour markets. While concern about workplace hazards on children’s health and development has also been a factor, and has even been emphasized in political rhetoric, policies and programmes generated under this conceptual framework have been designed primarily to separate children from work until at least mid-adolescence, rather than to make their workplace safer or more conducive to their development. A policy of discouraging economic participation by children and younger adolescents is also intended to protect adult employment and wages against the labor competition of children, which purpose is historically rooted in late eighteenth and early nineteenth century fears, beginning in Britain, that child1 labour would supplant adult workers, saddle society with a combination of adult unemployment and child1 servitude, hinder worker organization, and deepen working class poverty.

This prospect not only alarmed the emerging trade union movement of the time, but also offended the sensibilities of many intellectuals who, owing in part to changing ideas of childhood based on the influence of the Romantic Movement in literature and morals, believed the workplace substitution of adults by children to violate the very order of nature (Cunningham, 1991 and 1999). Many trade unions,  industry and employer

associations,  and public and private sector allies such as consumer groups have ever since defined ‘child1 labour’ at least in part as the participation of 

‘underage’ children in economic activity. They maintain that it should be the responsibility of the State to keep children out of the workplace, typically

until mid-adolescence, usually through a combination of minimum age and compulsory education laws. Many have noted that, under this perspective, one important purpose of schooling is to warehouse children until they are of working age, an objective that leaves many educators uneasy. The centrality of the exclusionary objective is revealed by the reluctance of its advocates to support strategies that would make work safe or even beneficial for pre-adolescent children rather than remove them from it altogether. For example, the internal International Labour Organization (ILO) policy established to guide its large and important  International Programme for the Elimination of Child Labour (IPEC) stipulates that such activities sanitizing work for children are acceptable only as an interim measure toward the longer term objective of separating children from the labour market.         

            This ‘abolitionist’ agenda had prevailed in Europe by around the beginning of the twentieth century, and was soon carried to other parts of the world through the colonial system. It was further extended through the ILO when it was founded in 1919, with strong trade union support, to promote international economic justice and prevent the exploitation of workers through, among other things, encouraging the international adoption of progressive labour practices. Child labour was at the time a high priority social concern, and since it was generally regarded as a labour market issue, it

seemed only natural to make it the responsibility of the ILO and of national labour market policy and ministries of labour. There it has remained, both conceptually and institutionally, in most of the world and up to this day.

            The ‘labour market perspective’ takes a particular view of children, envisaging them as  essentially innocent, ignorant of the world and incompetent to fend off its evils or even to recognize their own best interests. They are depicted as helpless victims, or potential victims, dependent on protection and rescue by adults. This is primarily a modern Western notion of childhood that is historically and anthropologically unusual not only for the radical division it draws between childhood and adulthood, but also for valuing children’s helplessness rather than usefulness, and artificially extending their dependency to an advanced age by deliberately delaying instruction in certain life skills essential to survive, make one’s living, or raise a family (Zelizer, 1985; Boyden, 1997; Boyden et. al, 1998). Such a view of childhood leaves children free of  responsibility and obliges adults to take decisions on behalf of the young that children, owing to their incompetence by definition, are deemed unqualified to take for themselves. There also is a built-in assumption that what is best for adults probably is good for their children as well. For instance, excluding children from work and forcing them to attend school is assumed to happily benefit both children and adult workers, and this article of faith has now become enshrined as a ‘universal’ children’s right despite its questionable provenance and the troubling question of whether foreclosing children’s opportunity to choose can legitimately be considered a right at all.  

            The ‘labour market perspective’ has recently been subjected to new scrutiny that reveals both strengths and weaknesses. On the positive side, there is no question that, through its polemic, it has called much needed attention to the severe abuses that huge numbers of children suffer in their work. It has successfully made child1 labour an important social issue, and over its long history has done  more than any other approach to galvanize national and international effort to address the workplace abuse of children. All who care about working children are deeply indebted to it. It also has provided the State that it has an interest and responsibility in helping prevent the workplace abuse of children.

            That recognized, new thinking and experience tend to undermine some advocacy  positions and practical interventions traditionally promoted under this conceptual framework.  There is little empirical reason to believe that work is, per se, harmful for children and that excluding them from it will, as a rule, help them to develop more fully than do children of similar circumstances who do not work. In fact, non-abusive work may stimulate the early acquisition of essential life knowledge and skills, promote resilience, and under the right circumstances may even enhance school persistence and performance (Brofenbrenner, 1979; Gardner 1991; Woodhead, 1999, Boyden et al., 1998; Nunes, 1993; Mortimer and Johnson, 1998; Entwistle et. al, 2000). Nor is there reason to assume that children’s interests coincide with those of adults, and that labour policies benefiting adult workers will also serve the welfare of children (Anker, 1999). Similarly, the body of empirical evidence does not support the proposition that, as a general rule, the economic participation of children threatens adult employment or wages or perpetuates poverty. Although there certainly are instances where this occurs, the catch is that in many other cases, such as in family farms and businesses, the work of children helps create and stabilize adult employment and income (ILO, 1996), and there is evidence that the economic contribution of children in many cases forestalls or alleviates family poverty. Moreover, recent analysis suggests that children’s attachment to labor markets may be more volatile and intermittent than that of adults, which would

be expected to weaken job competition effects (e.g. Levison, et.al., 2000).  And, strange as it may seem after so many years,  we still do not even have a decently fleshed-out theory of why children’s economic participation would produce a negative macroeconomic impact.  Only now are economists trying to develop one (e.g., Basu, 1999; Basu and Van, 1998), and even if a well-developed theory did exist, we do not have adequate data by which to test it.

            On the practical side, experience seems to suggest that the policies and activities conventionally recommended under the  ‘labour market perspective’ do not generally succeed in the objective of separating children from work, although they may have reduced their participation in the formal sector. Even in Britain, where and for which these policies orginaly were invented, it appears that their effect has been only to marginalize children’s work rather than to eliminate it, (Hobbs and McKechnie, 1997; Lavalette 1999). There also is a great deal of doubt about whether the elimination objective is necessarily a good one for children, even where it can be realized. While it may benefit children in some situations, attempts to remove children from work have in other cases seriously harmed the children involved (e.g. Boyden and Myers, 1995; Badry Zalami, 1998).  The policy point to be taken is that "one size does not fit all".  Moreover, child1 rights advocates point out that the ‘labour market perspective’ can itself be a threat

to children when it places adult worker interests before children’s, when it too narrowly focuses on child1 work as a labour market violation and ignores children’s situational reality, and when it does not take into consideration the panoply of children’s rights now recognized by most of the world (International Working Group on Child Labour, 1998; Boyden et.al., 1998; White, 1996). For all these  reasons, there seems to be a growing consensus that child1 labour is not adequately encompassed as a labour issue--although it is of course that in part--and that the traditional international standards and national child1 labor policies based predominantly on a labour market perspective may be too narrowly conceived to offer effective protection for children in today’s world.  The issue demands a far more comprehensive policy framework, and indeed the three perspectives yet to be discussed below suggest important elements one might include. There is also mounting feeling that national responsibility for child1 labour may need to be implemented

through intersectoral mechanisms rather than through the usual labour ministries. The ILO’s use of national ‘steering committees’ to oversee IPEC activities may be helpfully suggestive. 

            This approach views the work of children through the lens of national economic development. It regards child1 labour as a product of economic underdevelopment, and suggests that the remedy is to eliminate poverty and its causes. At the macroeconomic level this entails raising the Gross National Product, and at the microeconomic providing enhanced income options for the poor. It conceives of the child1 labour problem in terms of work and working conditions that undermine children’s eventual contribution as adults to national economic development and their own economic progress, and makes no objection to children’s work, per se. However, a "human capital perspective" would worry about work that stands in the way of children receiving an education, and for this reason economists and others working within it have produced a considerable literature looking at the relationships between children’s work, education, and lifetime earnings. The interpretation of findings from literature, which appear ambiguous, is

currently a matter of intense discussion. This perspective promotes policies and activities to develop in children the skills, attitudes and other capacities--the ‘human capital’--they need to contribute to economic development and become prosperous adults. It judges children’s work according to whether it contributes to or detracts from this objective, opposing work that deprives children of education, for example, but approving apprenticeships

or other work arrangements that transmit skills.

            ‘Human capital’ advocates tend to mistrust coercive policies such as blanket minimum age prohibitions on work, preferring instead to modify social behaviour through the use of  incentives. A recent variant conceives of development as the creation of freedom to choose and the expansion of options to choose from, especially for the poor (Sen, 1999). It would be a step backward, according to this manner of thinking, to legally prohibit people from undertaking work they feel is necessary to survive, further contracting rather than expanding the already limited options of the poor.

Accordingly, ‘human capital’ advocates recommend policies that increase viable opportunities for children and their families, including the creation of

work-study arrangements, subsidization of school expenses for poor children, the improvement of school quality, extension of health and education services to the poor, provision of income-generating tools such as microcredit,  and establishment of more direct links between education and the skill needs of the economy  (e.g. Anker and Melkas, 1996; Grootaert and Kanbur, 1995; Grootaert and Patrinos, 1999; Fallon and Tzannatos, 1998). In sum, child1 labour is seen to be  a symptom of underlying economic problems, and the proper way to combat it, according to this perspective, is to reduce the

problems that generate it and create more accessible paths out of misery. That is primarily the job of economic development policy and programmes, working as much as possible through the private sector. This point of view is especially associated with the World Bank, the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), national ministries of planning and economic development, various employer associations, and many economists and educationalists. 

            The ‘human capital’ perspective views childhood as preparation for adulthood, and children in terms of their potential to become economically productive adults, which potential must be protected and nurtured. While it emphasizes the need for literacy and other skills, it also values attitudes, such as initiative and entrepreneurship, that help promote economic growth. It does not much engage in the language of children’s rights, but it is adamant that all children should receive a decent education. Although ‘education’ in this context does not always mean formal schooling, ‘human capital’ advocates have been leading champions of school expansion.  They contend that primary and secondary education is the catalytic factor in raising individual and national prosperity in poor countries, and some claim that primary education, especially for girls, yields a higher return on investment than does any other development strategy (e.g. Psacharopoulos, 1985 and 1999).

            Although hints of a ‘human capital’ argument emphasizing the value of skills and education go back to Adam Smith in the eighteenth century, today’s version of the doctrine emerged from economic thought of the 1960s (e.g. Shultz, 1961; Becker, 1964; Harbison and Myers, 1964). After years of inhabiting the margins of child1 labour debate, this conceptual framework for considering child1 work is now so prominent that one occasionally hears speculation that governments could abandon conventional policies based on the ‘labour market perspective’ in favour of a ‘human capital’ approach.

Recent intellectual and programmatic initiatives by the World Bank, which address child1 labour from this perspective, could hasten such a shift. 

            There is no question that the ‘human capital perspective’ already has made a huge contribution to international child1 labour debate by focusing more positive attention on working children as unrealized potential for economic development--potential worth investing in--rather than merely as victims, labour law violators and employment threats. It draws attention to the advantages that can be gained by investing in children, rather than just to the  problems that can be avoided. At the same time, it also has been criticised for certain shortcomings as a framework for addressing child1 labour. Some economists and researchers feel that its faith in education and its claims for the economic return on schooling may be excessive, especially for the poor, who often face other barriers that prevent them from making use of education even when they receive it,  and it is still uncertain whether education expansion more often catalyzes economic growth or follows it (Anker, 1999; United States Department of Labor, 2000; Benavot, 1992; 

Rubinson and Fuller, 1992). In addition, the claim by economists that education advances social and economic mobility for the poor has been rejected by some sociologists who claim that school systems, especially in developing countries, are at least as likely to act as subtle screening and sorting mechanisms that freeze status quo stratification in place by providing educational advantage to existing elites and allocating school graduates into a class-structured hierarchy of jobs (Fuller, 1991; Carnoy and Levin, 1985; Durkheim, 1956).

Experience also suggests that growing national or regional prosperity does not necessarily reduce the number of children working, or even those working in deleterious situations.  In fact, children of small business or farm owners, and children in more prosperous regions, are in various parts of the world more likely to work than are children from poorer families and regions (Grootaert and Patrinos, 1999; Boyden, et.al., 1998). It is also the case that, in some of the richest industrialized countries, children from about twelve years of age are more likely to be employed than are children in most developing countries, and that in those countries middle class children  are more likely to be employed than are children of the poor. Many educators and child1 rights advocates in both industrialized and developing countries also raise the important question of whether education and the development of children should be oriented primarily to economic development goals (e.g.Tomasevski, 1999). 

            This perspective regards the work of children in the context of social rather than economic development. It arises out of concern about social inequality, many types of discrimination, unjust concentrations and use of economic and political power, cultural alienation, dysfunctional family and community relationships, social irresponsibility, and the deterioration of values and moral fibre. The central concern is with the ‘exclusion’ of

disadvantaged groups from full participation in the protection, benefits and opportunities of society, and the proposed remedy is greater social inclusion of those being excluded or marginalized. The child1 labour problem is in this context defined primarily as work that exploits, alienates, or oppresses children and separates them from society’s normal protections.  Such exclusion is seen to result from inadequate social compassion and

responsibility, as typically witnessed in government neglect of the poor, the repressive selfishness of elites,  the lack of solidarity among the poor and working classes, and the breakdown of supportive family structure and obligations. Children also can be trapped in abusive work by the inflexibility of traditional societies unable to evolve in response to changing times, conditions and technology. Child labour is understood to be a situation in which children are left vulnerable to greed and exploitation because they are not properly connected to society, especially their families and  communities. A particularly famous (and controversial) analysis from this perspective argues that child1 labour in India results less from national poverty, per se, than from an exploitative caste system that systematically oppresses large parts of the population, that discourages the education of children from the lower castes,  and that is supported by religious conservatism and an indifferent, self-aggrandizing political elite (Weiner, 1991). 

            The fact that children work, or that they come from poverty, is regarded as less a problem than are the processes of discrimination and exclusion that separate them from protection and essential services that empower them in society. By this token, safe part-time work may be acceptable, but work that keeps children from receiving the decent education needed to prepare them for full citizenship is anathema. According to the ‘social responsibility perspective’, the solution to the problem of children in abusive work lies not so much in the reduction of poverty or elimination of  children from economic participation as in better connecting them to the protective and enabling elements of society. This protective mobilization of society is typically promoted through reinforcement of families, targeted  programmes for working children and their families, improved basic services (such as health, non-formal education and microcredit), community monitoring of workplaces to discover and remedy abuses, organization of children to defend their own interests,  and political mobilization to make government more responsive or responsible. It is especially interesting to note that, in various parts of the world, interventions based on this model have tended to emphasize ‘grass-roots’ initiatives and democratic procedures and the participation of children not only in their own protection, but in the advancement of their community and society (Swift, 1997 and 1999). 

            The social responsibility perspective’ has emerged primarily from two sources. The first is ideological, usually a critique of social inequality and injustice made by non-governmental organizations, particularly groups oriented by religious or political values that emphasize human rights, democratic values, and social solidarity in defense of the poor and oppressed. Such a critique linking child1 labour to social neglect of children can be traced back to at least the turn of the nineteenth century in Europe, but its present manifestations are mostly in developing countries and are connected to ideological movements current there. In Latin America, for example, this perspective has been notably associated with a socially activist Christian religious current known as ‘liberation theology’, which approach intervenes by inculcating values of social justice and by organizing and reinforcing mutual-support ties among the poor, and even among working children themselves.  A second line of thinking, more common among academics and economic development agencies,  stems from the recently fashionable concept of ‘social capital’.  This idea first appeared in North America and Europe, and it highlights the importance of informal social structure,  trustful social relationships, and civil society organization for achieving social and economic development  (Coleman, 1988 and 1990; Hulme, 1998; Putnam et. al, 1993; Putnam, 2000).  Both these streams of thought emphasize that development progress depends at least as much on improving the extent and quality of collective human relationships as it does on enhancing  individual human resources and expanding income.  

            This approach emphasizes the importance of changing cultural values in order to promote greater social concern for and solidarity with excluded groups, in this case children in abusive work. Groups espousing a ‘social responsibility’ view of development have in some countries generated elaborate critiques of the situation of children living in poverty, and working and street children have been among those most in focus. They regard children as both a social product and a social project; the development of children is ultimately dependent on the moral development of their society, and a moral society would care for all its children. A saying said to be African--"It takes a village to raise a child1"--is lately much cited in illustration of this perspective. A recent book on ‘social capital’ opens a chapter on education by saying, "Child development is powerfully shaped by social capital. A considerable body of research dating back at least fifty years has demonstrated that trust, networks, and norms of reciprocity within a child1’s family,

school, peer group, and larger community have wide-ranging effects on the child1’s opportunities and choices and, hence, on his behavior and development" (Putnam, 2000). At-risk children  are thought best nurtured and protected by broadening social responsibility for, and solidarity with, them. This line of thinking supports notions of child1 rights, and it tends to judge society in terms of how well it meets its obligations to meet children’s basic needs and incorporate them into economic, political and cultural life as fully enfranchised citizens.

            This highly social and cultural view of society and children’s place in it has spawned some of the most innovative non-formal education programmes that reach working children, most famously so-called ‘street-education’, in which specially recruited and trained ‘street educators’ aggressively reach out to children in streets and other workplaces in order to link them to networks of personal concern and social support. Other successful education innovations have included programmes mobilizing and educating working children to undertake their own initiatives, community-run schools and projects, work-study arrangements that incorporate work as a form of learning, and various forms of citizenship education.

            A great contribution of the ‘social responsibility perspective’ has been to demonstrate the importance of mobilizing a whole society to attack the workplace abuse of children and to call attention to the critical role of social values as a determinant of children’s welfare.  It has convincingly made the point that child1 labour problems cannot be finally solved merely through ‘technological fixes’, such as improving education and other government services, as undeniably important as those measures may be. Child labour has a collective moral dimension that must also be taken into consideration, and groups working from this perspective have in some cases dramatically sensitized the broader society and led it to take substantive measures on children’s behalf. But there also are problems with the approach. This line of thinking is, first of all, not easily conducive to validation through research, and there is even some serious questioning of whether such a thing as ‘social capital’ really exists (Harriss and de Renzio, 1998). Also, its argument for the primacy of values and social processes does not always jibe with evidence from economists that economic variables sometimes explain more than

social ones. Research trying to link child1 labour to family structure and dynamics has produced ambiguous results (Bachman, 2000, Boyden et. al., 1998). From the more practical side, it is not always clear what practical interventions can be successful against huge problems, such as the entrenchment of

elites and discrimination against the poor, claimed by the critique to generate child1 labour. It can appear that one has to change the world to change anything at all, and the many small community-level programmes this ideology sparks  through its call for broad social engagement are at some level inconsistent with its sweeping diagnosis of the root problems.        

            Unlike the other conceptual frameworks discussed above, ‘child-centred’ interventions in child1 work have children as their primary clientele,  putting their interests first and foremost without filtering them through prior adult agenda. Unsurprisingly, this perspective is most associated with organizations for the defence of children. It is prominently represented at the international level by UNICEF and international child1 rights organizations such as the Save the Children Alliance, and at the national level by a huge number of non-governmental and community organizations promoting children’s rights and welfare. It is driven by concern about conditions that impair children’s growth and violate their rights. Accordingly, it conceives of child1 labour as that work which undermines children’s well-being and individual and social development, and it judges the appropriateness of any work according to its effect on a child. Work is broadly defined to include much more than economic participation; for instance, girls working in their homes are included in the focus. The purpose of intervention in children’s work is to guarantee their rights, welfare and development. 

            Although this perspective is traceable to the beginning of the 20th century, it has in recent years become closely tied to the notion of children’s rights, and especially to the 1989 U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), which presents a  compendium of diverse rights described in nearly forty articles. One of them (Article 32) deals with child1 work, and its main clause guarantees children the right to be protected against work that exploits them or is detrimental to their health and physical and psychosocial development. The Convention is intended to promote a holistic view of children, and therefore its other articles have to be taken into consideration as well. One of the CRC’s most fundamental provisions (Article 3) requires that "in all actions concerning children . . . the best interests of the child1 shall be a primary consideration".  This principle is at the very heart of the child-centred perspective. At least another dozen or so rights articulated by the CRC are relevant to child1 labour concerns. They include, for example, the right to not be discriminated against (Article 2), the right of children to have their voice and opinion heard in all official actions concerning them (Article 12), the right to freedom of association (Article 15), the right to freedom from violence and abuse (Article 19), the right to an adequate standard of living (Article 27), the right to free and relevant schooling that effectively develops a child1’s potential  (Articles 28 and 29), and the right to rest and play (Article 31), among others. In addition, the new convention of the ILO (No. 182) against the ‘worst forms of child1 labour’ is written in such a way that it, too, can be seen to express a right of children to be protected from dangerous work situations. 

            The ‘child-centred perspective’ makes the shift from rights to action by focusing on child1 development rather than child1 rescue objectives. Even short-term assistance intends in this context to serve a longer-term child1 welfare and development purpose.  One also notices among programmes following this perspective a marked sense of  moral accountability to the children involved; an action that does not leave children better off is not considered a success even if it achieves its other goals. It has been noted (Myers and Boyden, 1998; Miljeteig 1999)  that ‘child-centred’ programmes and activities tend to be characterized by at least three essential elements: 

                   *  Action is based on a solid understanding of children, including their development, and the particulars of their situation. Usually this entails careful field research as an initial step, and activities are targeted and planned largely on the basis of this information.

                   *   The operational focus is on the best interests of the children involved, and  action is planned and evaluated according to that criterion.

                   *   Working children participate in defining and addressing child1 labour problems, and may even themselves assume the initiative.

            The ‘child-centred perspective is especially influenced by modern ideas of human rights and human development. It understands children to be resilient as well as vulnerable, to be capable and well as inexperienced, to be characterized by knowledge as well as ignorance, to have a variety of intelligences as well as learning needs, and to be active rather than passive agents in their development. It also appreciates that children learn best through personal engagement in life activities, and that crucial self-esteem comes in part from a sense of efficacy in the world. This view contrasts with perspectives that represent children more passively as present or potential victims, as blank slates to be written on by schools and other institutions, or as mere products and expressions of their culture. In this context, it is interesting to note that CRC Article 12, which is one of the Convention’s most fundamental provisions and which mandates children’s participation in decisions concerning them, is now being pushed further and more innovatively (and sometimes controversially) in the child1 labour area than in virtually any other. The idea of children as agents of their own development and transformation of the society around them has been given tangible, institutional expression through an intercontinental movement of working children that seems, from casual observation, to be still expanding.

            The major contribution of the ‘child-centred perspective’ has been to refocus primary attention on children and their welfare. It has in effect made national policy and other child1 labour action more accountable to children. This is a needed corrective to child1 labour debates and prescriptions that tend to become so concerned with abstracted situations such as labour markets, poverty, or social justice that they neglect to take sufficient note of what actually happens to children. Assertive introjection of the ‘child-centred perspective’ into international debate already has turned the ‘best

interests’ provision of the CRC into a central criterion that all parties in the discussion must address in order to maintain their credibility.

            As with the other three perspectives, however, there are problems as well as advantages.   Although its intellectual and organizational influence seems to be growing rapidly in academia and NGOs, the ‘child-centred perspective’ remains surprisingly marginalized in official national policy and programmes guiding child1 labour action. Why is that? One might expect from virtually universal ratification of the CRC that a child-centred view of child1 labour would have by now become more present in official child1 labour policy. That it has not may reflect not only political and institutional inertia but also the fact that application of the CRC to child1 labour presents some sticky implementation issues. It is not always clear how to turn its rights language into practical action. This can be glimpsed by citing two problem areas. First, there is the problem of the Article 3 ‘best interests’ principle, which though high-minded is too vague to be applied directly without great interpretation. But who gets to define children’s ‘best interests’, and according to what criterion?  How is it possible to avoid distortion by the political, social or economic agenda of whomever gets to do the defining?  The CRC ‘best interests’ standard explicitly recognizes that adult and child1 interests may diverge, and it demands favouring child1 over adult welfare when the two conflict. In child1 labour issues, the divergence of adults’ and children’s interests is often real and impossible to ignore (Anker 1999; Myers and Boyden, 1998), but how can a proper balance be ensured when adults, with their interests, are in charge of defending the children?. The Article 12 right of children to be heard on their own behalf is here helpful, but does not resolve the issue.  

            Second, how can policy makers deal with the full plethora of rights contained in the Convention, realizing that at least a dozen of them are pertinent to child1 labour concerns and that all are of supposedly equal validity and importance?  A labour ministry can make a policy or take a decision about labour law violations, but who in a government can oversee a child1 labour approach that may demand intervention in several sectors at once? While this challenge may not be insoluble, getting to a solution could demand large investments of time and effort that governments may feel are better merited by problems other than child1 labour. As some have shown, it is a complicated matter to think one’s way through just the ‘best interests’ standard, let alone deal with all the other CRC provisions relevant to child1 labour (Boyden et. al., 1998). Work is still needed to make the holistic ‘child-centred perspective’ more readily implementable.

            It is worth noting that critics sometimes confuse the ‘child-centred perspective’ with a naïve emphasis on services directly to children and relative neglect of  changes needed in children’s social and economic environment. While so narrow a focus is indeed problematic where it occurs, it in no way inheres in the ‘child-centred perspective’, which in fact stresses the importance of intervening in broader social and economic problems in order to adequately protect the welfare and rights of children.

            There are important areas in which some or all of the above approaches can and do manage to agree. For example, all easily agree that education must be a central element in any successful attack on child1 labour. However, they support that conclusion for rather different reasons, and they certainly bring to the table a diversity of opinion regarding how education should be organized and what should be its priorities. The interplay between their different ideas, if properly managed, promises more educational innovation and progress than does the narrower vision of any one perspective. Similarly, organizations rooted in one perspective commonly adopt ideas from others. For example, trade unions and others coming from a strong ‘labour market’ perspective have also long supported certain positions identified with the ‘human resources’ and ‘social responsibility’ points of

view.   The areas of current or potential agreement are substantial.       

            That said, these four child1 labour perspectives, which serve quite different social and economic development aspirations, are not always fully compatible with each other, especially when translated into action. They respond to different notions of the good which cannot be simultaneously maximized in practice any more than can, say, the complementary but also competing democratic values of freedom and equality. There are very important points of policy on which the ‘labour-market’, ‘human resources’, ‘social responsibility’, and child-centred approaches cannot agree and maintain their integrity. It would be both impractical and socially counterproductive to force them and the other perspectives into a common conceptual, policy or programme mold, even for such laudable purposes as the international campaign against child1 labour.  Among the international organizations, for example, is it sensible to expect that the ILO, which is mandated to pursue economic justice, should agree on a single "best" child1 labour programme with the World Bank, whose brief is to promote economic growth? The ILO promotes minimum age laws while Bank economists advise against them, preferring non-coercive incentives, and each position legitimately reflects a broader social purpose of the particular institution involved. Which should surrender its cause, and its official mandate, to the other?  Should UNICEF be asked to serve labor markets and GNP growth as assiduously as it does the best interests of children?  The answer, of course, is that we need institutionally specialized attention to the big social goals, and we also need the different perspectives on child1 labour that issue from it. We should recognize and get comfortable with the fact that, for the foreseeable future, the current ideological and institutional environment for working in child1 labour will be pluralistic from its very roots, which means that some competition between values, objectives, priorities and programmes of action will be always present and inescapable. The challenge at hand is not to quash such pluralism but to manage it constructively.

            How can this be done? What is involved in managing pluralism in such a way that it will feed innovation rather than factionalism?  I would suggest four critical questions for which answers must yet be sought:   

1.  How can the climate for debate, constructive criticism and new ideas be kept open, receptive and respectful?  

2.  How can ideas and information be more widely shared in such a way as to generate common learning from diverse experience and research?

3.  What institutional arrangements are necessary to facilitate more pluralistic, democratic, multi-sectoral approaches to child1 labour policy and activity, both nationally and internationally?

4.  How should the rights of children, as defined under the CRC, be related to other important social objectives (e.g. economic justice, economic development, social development) when it appears that child1 and adult interests may not coincide? 

How these four questions are eventually answered will greatly influence the world’s ability to mobilize and make use of the full richness of conceptual and practical tools now being made available for protecting and empowering children against abuse in and of their work.   

REFERENCES

Anker, R. (1999) ‘Conceptual and Research Framework for the Economics of Child Labour and  Its Elimination’, unpublished, IREWOK

Workshop on Children, Work and Education,  Amsterdam, 15-17 November 1999.

Anker, R. and H. Melkas (1996) Economic Incentives for Children and Families to Eliminate or    Reduce Child Labour. Geneva: International

Labour Office.

Bachman, S (2000) ‘A New Economics of Child Labor: Searching for Answers Behind the  Headlines’, Journal of International Affairs, 53 (2):

545-572.

Badry Zalami (1998) Forgotten on the Pyjama Trail: A Case Study of Young Garment Workers     in Meknes Dismissed from Their Jobs Following

Foreign Media Attention. Amsterdam:            Defense for Children International.

Basu, K. (1999) ‘International Labor Standards and Child Labor’, Challenge, 42 (5): 80-93

Basu, K and P.H. Van (1998) ‘The Economics of Child Labor’, American Economic Review, 88 (3): 412-427..

Becker, G. (1964) Human Capital. New York: Columbia University Press.

Benavot, A. (1992) ‘Educational Expansion and Economic Growth in the Modern World, 1913-1985', in Fuller, B. and R. Rubinson, The

Political Construction of Education: The State,   School Expansion, and Economic Change, pp. 117-134, New York: Praeger.

Boyden, J. (1990) ‘Childhood and the Policy Makers; A Comparative Perspective on the Globalization of Childhood’, Chapter 9, in James,

A and A. Prout (eds.), Constructing and Deconstructing Childhood; Contemporary Issues in the Sociological Study of Childhood.  London: The Falmer Press.

Boyden, J., B. Ling and W. Myers (1998) What Works for Working Children. Stockholm: Radda  Barnen and UNICEF.

Boyden, J. and W. Myers (1995) Exploring Alternative Approaches to Combating Chlild   Labour: Case Studies from Developing Countries,

Innocenti Occasional Papers, CRS 8.      Florence: UNICEF International Child Development Centre.

Carnoy, M. and H. Levin (1985) Schooling and Work in the Democratic State. Stanford:  Stanford University Press.

Coleman, J. (1990) Foundations of Social Theory. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Coleman, J. (1988) ‘Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital’, American Journal of     Sociology, 94: S95-120.

Cunningham, H. (1999) ‘The Rights of the Child and the Wrongs of Child Labour: An Historical  Perspective’, unpublished, IREWOK Workshop

on Children, Work and Education, Amsterdam, 15-17 November 1999.

Cunningham, H. (1991) Children of the Poor. Oxford: Blackwells.

Durkheim, E. (1956) Education and Sociology. Glencoe: Free Press.

Entwisle, D. R., K.L.Alexander, and L.S. Olsen (2000). ‘Early Work Histories of Urban Youth’,  in American Sociological Review, 65 (2),

279-297.

Fallon, P. and Z. Tzannatos (1998) Child Labor: Issues and Directions for the World Bank. Washington, D.C.: The World Bank.

Fuller, B. (1991) Growing-up Modern: The Western State Builds Third-World Schools. New York: Routledge

Gardner, H. (1991) The Unschooled Mind: How Children Think and How Schools Should Teach.   New York: Basic Books.

Grootaert, C. and H. Patrinos (1999) The Policy Analysis of Child Labor: A Comparative Study,     New York: St. Martin’s Press.

Grootaert, C. and R. Kanbur (1995) ‘Child Labour: An Economic Perspective’, International Labour Review, 134 (6): 187-203.

Harbison, F. and C. Myers, eds. (1964) Education, Manpower and Economic Growth: Strategies   of Human Resource Development, New York: McGraw-Hill.

Harriss, J. and P. De Renzio (1998) Missing Link or Analytically Missing? The Concept of Social    Capital. Development Studies Institute. London: London School of Economics.

Haspels, N., F. De los Angeles Bautista, P. Boonpala, and C. Bose (1999) Action Against Child Labour: Strategies in Education. Geneva, ILO

Hobbs, S. and J. McKechnie (1997) Child Employment in Britain: A Social and Psychological Analysis. Edinburgh, The Stationery Office.

Hulme, D. (1998) Protecting and Strengthening Social Capital in order to Produce Desirable Development Outcomes. Social Development

Theme Paper 4.  London, DFID.

ILO (March 1996) Second Item on the Agenda: Date, Place and Agenda of the 86th (1998) Session of the International Labour Conference, paper prepared for the Governing Body. Geneva: International Labour Office.

International Working Group on Child Labour (1998) Working Children: Reconsidering the   Debates, Report of the International Working Group

on Child Labour.  Amsterdam: Defence for Children International.

Lavalette, M. (1999) ‘The Changing Form of Child Labour circa 1880-1918' in Lavalette, M.   (ed.) A Thing of the Past?  Child Labour in Britain in the Nineteenth and            Twentieth Centuries, pp. 118-138.  Liverpool: Liverpool University Press.

Levison, D., S. Duryea, S. Hoek, and D. Lam (2000) In and Out: Forays into the Labor Force: Evidence from Panel Data for Urban Brazil, unpublished paper.

Miljeteig, P. (2000) Creating Partnerships With Working Children and Youth. SP Discussion Paper No. 0021. Washington, D.C.: World Bank.

Miljeteig, P. (1999) ‘Introduction: Understanding Child Labour’, Childhood, 6 (1):5-12.

Mortimer, J. and M. Johnson (1998) ‘Adolescents’ Part-time Work and Educational       Achievement’, in K.Borman and B. Schneider (Eds.),

The Adolescent Years: Social  Influences and Educational Challenges: Ninety-seventh Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of

Education,pp. 183-206.  Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Myers, W. (1999) ‘Considering Child Labour: Changing Terms, Issues and Actors at the International Level’, Childhood 6 (1): 13-26.

Myers, W. and J. Boyden (1998) Child Labour: Promoting the Best Interests of Working Children. London: Save the Children Alliance.

Nardinelli, C (1990) Child Labor and the Industrial Revolution. Bloomington: University of   Indiana Press.

Nunes, Teresina, A. D. Schiemann and D.W. Carraher (1993) Street Mathematics and School Mathematics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Psacharopoulos, G. (1985) ‘Returns to Education: Cross National Evidence’, Economics of     Education Review, 20: 583-597.

Psacharopoulos, G. (1999) The Opportunity Cost of Child Labour: A Review of the Benefits of Education. Bureau of International Labor Affairs.

Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Labor.

Putnam, R. (2000) Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New  York: Simon and Schustrer. 

Putnam, R., with R. Leonardi and R. Nanetti (1993) Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Rubinson, R. and B. Fuller (1992) ‘Specifying the Effects of Education on National Economic    Growth’, in Fuller, B. and R. Rubinson, The Political

Construction of Education: The State, School Expansion, and Economic Change, pp.101-115. New York: Praeger.

Shultz, T (1961) ‘Investment in Human Capital’, American Economic Review, 51: 1-16.

Sen, A. (1999) Development as Freedom. New York: Borzoi Books.

Swift, A. (1999) Working Children Get Organised: An Introduction to Working Children’s Organizations. London: Save the Children Alliance.

Swift, A. (1997) Children for Social Change: Education for Citizenship of Street and Working      Children in Brazil. Nottingham: Educational Heretics Press.

Tomasevski, K. (1999) Progress Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Right to Education   (unedited version). Geneva: Office of the High

Commissioner for Human Rights.

UNICEF (1999) The State of the World’s Children. New York: UNICEF.

UNICEF (1997) The State of the World’s Children. New York: UNICEF.

United States Department of Labor (2000) By the Sweat and Toil of Children: Volume VI; An Economic Consideration of Child Labor. Washington, D.C.: Bureau of International     Labor Affairs, U.S. Department of Labor.

Weiner, M. (1991) The Child and the State in India. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

White, B. (1999) ‘Defining the Intolerable: Child Work, Global Standards and Cultural   Relativism’ in Childhood, 6 (1): 133-144.

White, B. (1996) Children, Work and ‘Child Labour’: Changing Responses to the Employment  of Children. Inaugural address as Professor of

Rural Sociology. The Hague: Institute of Social Studies. 

Woodhead, M. (1999) Is There a Place for Work in Child Development?. Stockholm: Radda  Barnen.

Woodhead, M. (1998) Children’s Perspectives on Their Working Lives: A Participatory Study in Bangladesh, Ethiopia, The Philippines, Guatemala,

El Salvador and Nicaragua.   Stockholm: Radda Barnen.

Zelizer, V.A. (1985) Pricing the Priceless Child. New York: Basic Books Inc.