This paper aimed at determining the causes of child labour in both rural and urban areas across select districts of the country. The district-wise analysis helps to look into district-specific variables and how they contribute to the perpetuation of child labour.
The prevalent practice of child labour in India is significantly affected by certain factors that have been highlighted in this analysis. A high per capita income of a district can act as a deterrent to child labour in rural areas, but the effect will be opposite in the urban areas. Looking into the distribution aspect of income becomes imperative in this context; mother’s education, as expected, helps to decrease the incidence of child labour in both rural and urban areas of districts. A variable to check for the effect of caste on child labour has also been included. The results show that districts with higher proportions of SC/ST children population will have higher child labour in the rural areas but will have lower child labour in the urban areas. This can be caused due to the differentiated effect of affirmative action and the limited scope of reservation policy. The most surprising of all findings was that access to schools in rural areas has no significant impact on that area’s child labour. This goes against the common expectations. This can be attributed to the inferior quality of government schools available at the disposal of the poorest strata of the society who are mainly concentrated in the rural areas. Rural areas of districts with higher percentage of males in the labour force will have higher child labour. This result is observed because agriculture generally calls for participation of the entire household. Agriculture in rural areas and household industries in urban areas are found to be the primary demand-side determinants of child labour.
In view of the findings of the current study, few policy prescriptions are suggested. First, given the important role that mother’s education plays in mitigating child labour, schemes to promote education among females that are already in place need to be improved upon to include more beneficiaries. Second, better quality of government schools, particularly in rural areas, needs to be ensured. Although policies such as midday meals and Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan have come a long way, efforts must be directed towards imparting quality education such that the parents find it beneficial to send their children to school. Third, the positive impact of reservation of seats in education and public employment is probably the reason behind lower incidence of child labour in urban areas with higher SC/ST children population. Thus, steps need to be taken to ensure that people belonging to the backward castes in rural areas are also made aware of their rights. Lastly, policies must be focused not only on increasing per capita income but should also guarantee its equitable distribution, especially in urban areas.
This paper comes with its limitations. In spite of poverty being a major factor causing child labour, we have not included a variable that measures it. This is because poverty and child labour might have a two-way causality. Instead, we have used the measure of per capita income of the district. Using census data has its own representation issues. It is said to suffer from the problem of under-reporting of child labour (Lieten 2002). We have also not taken into account the various types of child labour, which might vary across districts, and the study of which would make it easier for policy-oriented purposes. There is scope for further research in this area.
Determinants of Child Labour in India : A Cross-sectional Analysis | Economic and Political Weekly