Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Measuring Deprivation Due to Child Work and Child Labour: A Study for Indian Children

  • Published:
Child Indicators Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The present exercise is an attempt to study the pattern of child work and child labour in India. We classify child activity depending on age, extent of work and the nature of industries they are occupied in. We formulate a deprivation index for each category of work and make some comments on the magnitude of the usual incidence measures and the deprivation adjusted measures put out by us. In this context, we consider structured light work as skill improving and hence beneficial for the children. Lastly, we study the possible determinants of such deprivation among education, income and social status related variables. We use unit level data on employment and unemployment situation in India of National Sample Survey Organization for 61st round (2004–2005).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Although ILO admits that excessive household duties may be detrimental for a child.

  2. ILO Convention No. 33 and findings of research on the impact of child labour on school attendance and performance support the chosen cut-off point.

  3. Apart from the large sample rounds, NSSO regularly collects information on employment and unemployment but on certain key items and from a limited set of households in each round, known as annual series, through the schedule on Household Consumer Expenditure.

  4. That is, I (L) = (number of children in L status / total number of sample children) * 100 and I (CHAC) = (number of children in CHAC / total number of sample children) * 100.

  5. This is broadly consistent with ILO findings (ILO 2006).

  6. Another possible explanatory variable could have been the child’s education. But this is found to be positively correlated with MPCE and parental educational variables. Including this in the regression exercise (which we have not reported separately for the sake of brevity) results in getting a significant positive relationship between deprivation and MPCE, which obviously does not make sense and is a consequence of the correlation mentioned above.

References

  • Das, S., & Mukherjee, D. (2007). Role of women in schooling and child labour decision: the case of urban boys in India. Social Indicators Research, 82, 463–486.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fyfe, A. (1989). Child labour. Cambridge: Cambridge Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • ILO (2002). Every child counts: New global estimates on child labour. Geneva: International Labour Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • ILO (2006). The end of child labor within reach. Geneva: International Labour Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mukherjee, D., & Das, S. (2008). Role of parental education in schooling and child labour decision: Urban India in the last decade. Social Indicators Research, 89, 305–322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • NSSO (2006). Employment and unemployment situation in India, 2004–2005. New Delhi: Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation, Government of India.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Economic Research Unit, Indian Statistical Institute, 203 B.T. Road, Kolkata, 700 108, India

    Saswati Das

  2. Unitedworld School of Business, Kolkata, India

    Diganta Mukherjee

Authors
  1. Saswati Das
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Diganta Mukherjee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Saswati Das.

Appendix: Detailed Classification of Activity Status of Children

Appendix: Detailed Classification of Activity Status of Children

L:

Relevant codes for usual principal activity status are 11, 12, 21, 31, 41 and 51.

ES:

Relevant code is 91 in usual principal activity status and codes 11, 12, 21, 31, 41, 51 are in the usual subsidiary activity status.

H:

Relevant codes are 92, 93 in both usual principal activity status and usual subsidiary activity status.

HS:

Relevant code is 91 in usual principal activity status and codes 92, 93 are in the usual subsidiary activity status.

Description of codes:

11:

worked in household enterprise (self-employed): own account worker

12:

worked in household enterprise (self-employed): employer

21:

worked as helper in household enterprise (unpaid family worker)

31:

worked as regular salaried/wage employee

41:

worked as casual wage labour: in public works

51:

in other types of work

91:

attended educational institution

92:

attended domestic duties only

93:

attended domestic duties and was also engaged in free collection of goods (vegetables, roots, fire-wood, cattle feed, etc.), sewing, tailoring, weaving, etc. for household use.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Das, S., Mukherjee, D. Measuring Deprivation Due to Child Work and Child Labour: A Study for Indian Children. Child Ind Res 4, 453–466 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12187-010-9097-8

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12187-010-9097-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation