Brezilya ve Türkiye'de çocuk işgücü

In recent years, working children have received considerable attention in international agenda. There is a growing empirical literature analyzing the causes, consequences and determinants of children?s work. Children represent future generations; therefore it becomes necessary to conduct studies on the causes, consequences and trends of child labor that may make children dropped out of schooling.In this thesis, we aim to picture the child labor issue in Brazil and Turkey. Also, we illustrate children?s work nature, its determinants, and its consequences education.Children?s work preclude school attendance or to be successful in school scores. Some children are engaged in household work. Some children work as unpaid family worker or wage worker. Male children are more likely to be engaged in hazardous forms of child labor, female children are more likely to be engaged in household chores or domestic work. We use ILO?s child labor determinations for which type of activities means ?child labor?.On the one hand, all these type of child labor should be seen as a violation of children?s right. On the other hand, child labor is a barrier for human capital. For this reason, children?s work is an important phenomenon and we examine this issue focusing on Brazil and Turkey.We use PNAD 2008 survey to understand children?s work in Brazil and Child Labor Survey 2006 for Turkey. Also, in Brazil and Turkey, child labor has declined in recent years; we examine these declines with econometric evidence.Children?s work is a joint decision, and is related to poverty, labor market-economic conditions and family preferences. In this thesis, we evaluate the determinants of child labor reviewing literature.According to child labor literature, child labor has been identified as the persistence of poverty in developing countries. The vulnerability of households to poverty and exposure to shocks has proven to be one of the main factors underlying the decision of households to send their children to work (Edmonds and Pavcnik, 2005).Generally, it is obviously seen that in countries where stark poverty exists, not sending the children to school in poor families is very prevalent. A negative relationship between family income and child labor is found in several studies.For example, Spindel (1985), Fausto and Cervini (1991), indicate that child labor is most frequently a result of household poverty. In addition to evidences, Filho (2008) finds that the relationship between household income and labor participation and school enrolment of rural children aged 10 to 14 in Brazil. Also, Edmonds and Pavcnik (2005) examine the panel data collected during Vietnam?s economic boom in the 1990?s, and find that 80 percent of the decline in child labor for Vietnam. They indicate that these declines can be explained by improvements in per capita expenditure and the distribution of subsistence levels across households.Edmonds (2006) compares child labour and schooling in black South African households that are about to receive a large anticipated cash transfer to child labour and schooling in households already receiving the cash. He finds that child labour declines and schooling increases substantially when households begin receiving the anticipated income.Although all findings results are the same which indicates that poverty is important factor driving children to work, there is a mixed evidence of a link between poverty and child labor. In that context, Barros, Mendonça, and Velazco (1996) find that children?s employment tends to be smaller in the poorer metropolitan areas in the Northeast of Brazil and larger in the richer areas in the South. Levison (1991) finds that the highest rates of child labor are not in cities with the highest poverty rates but instead in higher income cities.Besides the importance of poverty, child labor is closely related to the labor market conditions. Improved labor market conditions have two different effects on children?s schooling and work behaviour (for a theoretical model, see Cigno and Rosati, 2005; Kruger, Soares and Berthelon, 2007).On the one hand, to the extent that better labor market conditions generate higher earning for adults and leisure and/or schooling are normal goods. Thus, children?s labor market participation might fall (income effect). On the other hand, better labor market conditions, both in terms of higher real wages (or higher returns to family economic activities) and/or employment opportunities might lead to an increase in returns to work and might induce households to send children to work (substitution effect).Duryea and Arends-Kuennings?s (2003) show that employment rates for 14-16 years old in urban Brazil increase when local labor market conditions improve. In addition to this, Duryea and Arends-Kuennings indicate that the rates of child labor are higher at times and in places where children have better work opportunities as measured by local labor market conditions for the case of Brazil and other Latin American countries.Also, Kruger (2007) indicates that child labor raises during periods of temporary increases in local economic activity driven by positive coffee production shocks in Brazil.Our results are in line with Kruger (2007) for Brazil and Turkey. There is two different effects of improved labor market conditions on children?s work and school attendance. In particular, school attendance may increase during economic crises in Turkey. Because, work opportunities and wages fall and thus, school attendance may increase.The relative size of these effects is likely to depend on the characteristics of the household and of the child. For example, the level of household income is likely to influence the relative size of income and substitution effects. Similarly, child productivity, returns to investment in their human capital and parental preferences over their children?s time use are likely to be differentiated by age and gender.Cigno and Rosati (2005) highlight income shocks and borrowing constraints as a source of inefficiency in the allocation of resources within the family. Children from poor households with little access to credit markets are less likely to be in full time school attendance and are more likely to work when hit by economic shocks. Beegle et al. (2003) also show that in Tanzania households respond to transitory income shocks by increasing child labor.Children experience poverty deeply. For this reason, poverty should be evaluated for children?s perspective. ?Poverty denies children their fundamental human rights. Severe or extreme poverty can cause children permanent damage ? both physically and mentally stunt and distort their development and destroy opportunities of fulfilment, including the roles they are expected to play successively as they get older in family, community and society. Researchs and administrative data show that investment in basic social services for children is a key element to ensure success in alleviating their poverty. It also shows that a minimal level of family resources to enable parents to meet the needs of their children are required even when families are prepared to put their own needs or the needs of work and other social claims on them in second place. If there are insufficient resources to satisfy children?s needs. However hard parents can be shown to try ? then this can cause other obligations and relationships to crumble. This is why UNICEF insists that `poverty reduction begins with children?.? (Gordon et al. 2003)Because of the importance of child labor phenomenon and poverty, developing countries have implemented the eliminating programs of child labor. Conditional Cash Transfer (CCT) programs are the most important scheme to fight child labor. In this thesis, we illustrate the Conditional Cash Transfer schemes and evaluate the impact of CCTs on children?s work and school attendance in Brazil and Turkey.Among largest CCT programs, Brazil?s Bolsa Familia program may be seen as a pioneer for Latin America and other developing countries (including Turkey). Its coverage of poor households has been maintaining.CCTs have been seen as a way of reducing inequality and poverty, balancing goals of social assistance and human capital. Because, as literature indicated, child labor is a barrier for human capital, economic growth and national development.These programs aim to provide primarily at improving the educational, health, and nutritional status of poor families, particularly of children and their mothers. CCTs also help to reduce gender gap which school enrolment rates (enrolment of female children is lower than the enrolment of male children in Brazil and Turkey).Cardoso and Souza (2004) use data from the 2000 population census to evaluate the impact of the Bolsa Escola program. They indicate that children in households that received cash transfers are 3-4 percentage points more likely to attend school than are matched children in the control group. However, the study does not find any significant effect of conditional cash transfers on child labor.In Brazil, according to our results obtained from PNAD survey, children?s work has declined and children?s school enrolment has increased from 1992 to 2008. For these reasons, it is deduced that Conditional Cash Transfer programs are significant and successful investments for children?s school attendance and for human capital, economic growth and development.In Turkey, according to our results obtained from 2006 Child Labor Survey?s results, children?s work is obviously at high level. Concerning ILO?s IPEC (International Program on the Elimination of Child Labor) in 1992 and signed UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) in 1994; the compulsory basic education was extended from 5 to 8 years in 1997. Dayioglu (2006) indicates that compulsory education induce to the increases in children?s school attendance and to the declines in children?s work. However, Tansel (1998) indicates that there is still illiteracy for children.Moreover, because of the ratification of ILO Convention 138 in 1998 which defines the minimum age for employment, Turkey instituted age 15 as the minimum age of employment. Also, Turkey has implemented Conditional Cash Transfer program administered by the Social Solidarity Fund under the Prime Ministry. This program aims to increase the schooling of children, to reduce their probability of work, to provide receiving periodic cash transfers with conditional on children's school enrolment for poor households. Another newly implemented state program is the free distribution of school books in order to reduce schooling costs which induce to drive children to work.For Turkey, there is a specific finding for children?s work. The apprenticeship induces to the continuity to be engaged in economic activity in early ages. Also, working in early ages (especially for male children) may be seen as an advantage. Since, these children are more likely to adapt to the work life in their adulthood.Consequently, some of the patterns that we have obtained from two micro data (PNAD 2008 and CLS 2006) may be merged: Male children are more likely to work, and are engaged in hazardous forms of child labor. Child labor phenomenon has regional differences, and children in rural areas are more likely to work as unpaid family worker; children in urban areas are more likely to work as wage earner. Almost all children work to contribute household income. In Turkey, the apprenticeship is very prevalent; these children may expose to work in hazardous conditions in work place. For example, they may have loss of hearing.According to the results, Conditional Cash Transfer programs have been inducing to increase the school attendance in both Brazil and Turkey. Moreover, in recent years, children?s work has been declined in Brazil and Turkey. However, some children are still engaged in hazardous conditions of child labor, and thus they cannot attend school.However, the evidence on the relation between children?s work and CCT programs appears to be mixed. CCT programs have proved effective in increasing school attendance. Further evidence on their impact on child labor needs to be gathered. The common explanation given in the studies is that the program does not offer enough monetary incentives to deter children?s participation in the labor market. These cash transfer programs need to be complemented with measures that include and after-school component. Further elimination of child labor depends on more specific programs targeted at particular groups and economic sector.