metadata: authors: 0: author: Gustafsson-Wright, Emily
1: author: Pyne, Hnin Hnin
count: Brazil
docna: 0: docna: Gender dimensions of child labor and street
            children in Brazil
docty: Policy Research Working Paper
subtopic: Child Labor Law,Labor Markets,Child Labor,Labor Standards,Street Children,Educational Sciences,Gender and Development,Rural Labor Markets
teratopic: Gender
abstracts: cdata!: The authors review child labor and the
            situation of street children in Brazil from a gender
            perspective. Relying primarily on Brazil's national
            household survey for 1996, the authors examine various
            dimensions of child labor by gender, including
            participation, intensity, and type of activities; the
            relationship between child labor, education, and future
            earnings; and the risks of child labor to health and
            well-being. They also summarize approaches to prevent and
            eliminate child labor and street children in Brazil. The
            authors find that more boys than girls work in Brazil
            especially in rural areas where boys are concentrated in the
            agricultural sector, that many children both work and attend
            school, and that girls attain higher levels of education
            than boys on average, even when considering number of hours
            worked. The exception is the 11-14 category. They also find
            that an individual's earnings are correlated with age
            of entry into the labor market. The earlier a child begins
            to work, the lower his or her earnings. And girls are more
            adversely affected by early labor force entry than boys,
            with the gender differential increasing the earlier a child
            begins to work. Taking poverty as the primary contributor to
            child labor, government programs to combat child labor are
            well designed in that they compensate families for a
            child's foregone earnings and address family factors
            that lead to poverty. However, programs could be improved by
            explicitly considering the gender dimensions of child labor.
            The authors point to the need for analysis of the impact of
            child labor on health, and specifically to the gender and
            sex-differentiated impacts. They suggest the need to address
            gender in intervention strategies for street children, as
            well as research on child labor in domestic service where
            girls are overrepresented.
geo_reg_key: 119228,517191
repnme: repnme: Gender dimensions of child labor and street
            children in Brazil
display_title: Gender dimensions of child labor and
            street children in Brazil
listing_relative_url: /research/2002/10/2028952/gender-dimensions-child-labor-street-children-brazil
topicv3: Child Labor m1326042 1859,Street Children m1326260 757,Labor Markets m1326488 855,Education m1327048 470,Gender m1327621 615
publishtoextweb_dt: 2010-07-01T00:00:00Z
historic_topic: Gender
origu: Gender Sector (LCSPG)
no_of_pages: 36
model_extractions: Poi.icy RESEARCH WORKI.NG PAPFR 2897

# Abstract

Gustafssoni-Wriglit and Pyne review child labor and the sitLuation of street childreln in Brazil from a gendcr perspectivc. Relying primarily on Brazil's national hoUsehold snrvev for 1996, the auithors examinie various dimenisionis of child labor by genidcr, incluiding participation, intensity, and type of activities; the relationship between child labor, cducation, and futLire earninigs; and the risks of child labor to health and wvellbeiig. Thev also summarize approaches to prevent and eliminiiate child labor and street childreni in Brazil.

The authors find that more bovs thani girls _wvork_ in Brazil especially in rural areas where boys arc concentrated in the agricultLral sector, that maniv clhildrein bothi wvork and attend sclhool, and that girls attain highier lcvcls of educatiotn thani boys on average, even when considering number of hours worked. -- hc exception is the 11-14 category. Thev also find that an individual's carninigs are correlated with age of entry inro

> **the** labor market. The earlier a child begins to wvork, the lower his or hcr earniigs. And girls are more adversely affected by early labor force **entry** th an boys, with the gender differential increasing the earlier a child begins to Nwork.

Taking poverty as the primary coontributor to child labor, governenilt programs to comlbat child labor are wvell desigiled in that they compensate familics for a child's forcgone earnings and address family factors that lead to poverty. However, programils coLI]d be improved by explicitly considering the gcnder dimenisionis of child labor. The authors point to the nted for analysis of the impact of child labor on health, and specifically to the gender and sex-diffeciretiated impacts. They stiggest the need to address gendcr in intervention strategies for street childreni, as well as research on chiild labor in domestic service where girls are overreprcsented.

> This paper-a product of the Gender Sector Unit, Latin America and the Caribbean Regioni-is part of a larger effort in the region to identify and address gender issuLes relevanit to devclopment. Copies of the paper are available free from thc World Bank, 18 _1_ 8 HStreetNW, Washiligtoin, DC 20433. I'lcase contact Maria Correia, room 18-1 15, telepholne 202-4739394, fax 202-676-0199, cmail address mcorreia(Cworldbalik.org. Policy Rescarch \Vorkiig P'apers are also posted oni thc Weh at http://econ.worldbank.org. The aLuthors may be contacted at egustafssolln( w\orldbanik.org or hpyne(iw\orldliank.org. October 2002. (30 pages)

> _The l'ohicvI Reseairch Working Paper Series disseminates the lznzdimgs of ivork in prm,'ress to enCnerage' the, exchange of ideas abouzt developmzent issies. An obljective of the series is to gCt the findings o(ut quickly. even if tbe preSentat;I(Sn re Iess than fullv polished. The_

> _papers canr the IManies nfthe ant bors_ **_and_** _shonil( he cited accordinglv. The findings, interpretations, an1d 61cinchisonis expressed_ **_in_** _this paper are enitirelv those o/ the authors. They do inot nhecessaril/ represenit the viv w/ othe World Bank, itS Executive L)irectors. or the_

> _c(ountries thely represent._

P'roduced bv the Rescarch Advisory Staff
# GENDER DIMENSIONS OF CHILD LABOR AND STREET CHILDREN IN BRAZIL

Emily Gustafsson-Wright and Hnin Hnin Pyne
# I. INTRODUCTION

1. This paper provides an overview of child labor<sup>and the situationof streetchildren inBrazil</sup> from a gender perspective. Understanding<sup>themanner and extent to which girlsand boyswork and</sup> are living on the streets has important implications<sup>for methodsof intervention.Thispaperdetails</sup> various dimensions of child labor - such<sup>asparticipationratesandtypesof labor in which girls</sup> relative to boys are involved - and examines<sup>characteristicsof children who work, the relationship</sup> between child labor and educational outcomes<sup>and futureearnings,and the potential healthhazards</sup> and risks.

2. The paper is divided into three parts. The<sup>first partprovides a brief backgroundof thelegal</sup> context in which child labor exists in Brazil<sup>and discussesthedefinitionsof childlabor and street</sup> children as used in the paper. The second<sup>part examinesthree dimensions of child labor -</sup> incidence, intensity, and activities - and<sup>highlightsthedifferencesbetweenboysand girls.</sup> Furthermore, it investigates the possible<sup>relationship betweenchildlabor,educationandfuture</sup> earnings, and corollary risks to children's<sup>health and wellbeing.Thethird part summarizeskey</sup> approaches undertaken to prevent and<sup>eliminatechildlabor in Brazil with agender lens.</sup> Throughout, the paper brings to light<sup>someof the gaps in the existingliteratureand proposestopics</sup> for future research.

## II. BACKGROUND

# **The Legal Context in Brazil**

3. Throughout the world, the reality of child<sup>laborand children in the streetsprecedesrecorded</sup> history. Child labor has generally shown<sup>adeclineastechnologyhas improved,educationhas</sup> become more accessible, and a legal framework<sup>protecting the rightsof childrenhas been</sup> established. In many parts of the world<sup>however,especiallythe developing world,childlabor</sup> remains a serious problem. In recent years, a rise in the attention paid<sup>tochild laborand street</sup> children at an intemational level has been<sup>demonstratedbysuchpolicy actions asthe creationof the</sup> UN Convention on the Rights of the Child<sup>in1989and theInternational Programforthe</sup> Elimination of Child Labor (IPEC) of the<sup>International Labour Organization(ILO)in1992.</sup>
4. In Brazil, civil society organizations such as workers' unions, churches, and non governmental organizations (NGOs) have been instrumental in lobbying for governmental programs to address child labor and street children. As a result, the Brazilian Government has made children a policy priority. In 1988, the federal constitution of Brazil pronounced children and adolescents to be an "absolute priority": article 227 states that "it is the duty of the society and the state to ensure that children and adolescents are an absolute priority - and that they have the right to life, health, food, education, leisure, training, culture, dignity, respect, familial and community relations - as well as to ensure that they are not subject to any form of negligence, discrimination, exploitation, violence, cruelty or oppression." The Government also supported the prohibition of nocturnal, dangerous or unhealthy labor for children under 18 years of age and any type of labor for children under 14 except in a situation of learning or professional training. In 1990, Law 8.069 (the Statute of Children and Adolescents, or ECA) article 60 ratified the prohibition of labor for children, which prohibits children under age 14 to work because of the harm to their physical, psychological and moral development. It also establishes the guiding principles of apprentice work, access to basic education and mandatory attendance, activities compatible with the adolescent's development, and a reduced workday.

5. In 2000, the Government ratified both ILO Convention 138 (anuary); which addresses the minimum age for employment; and Convention 182 (September), which addresses the effective abolition of the worst forms of child labor. The Government has set out to eradicate the worst forms of child labor by the year 2006.

> 6. In its policy on the protection of children, the Government also vowed to support programs and projects that stimulate equality in conditions of access and return to schooling as well as in the

> supply of socio-educational activities, sports, and leisure before and after the normal school day.

> 7. Programs to eradicate harmful forms of child labor in Brazil have included the National Forum for the Eradication and Prevention of Child Labor (1994), which is linked to the Ministry of Labor and receives technical and financial support from the ILO and UNICEF and involves civil

> society. The Forum concentrates on the critical forms of child labor, such as sugar cane, sisal mate and charcoal production. The Federal Program for the Eradication of Child Labor (PETI), which was established through the Ministry of Social Security and Assistance as a pilot in 1996, provides

> cash stipends to low-income families who keep their children in school and out of work. PETI also

2
offers sports and cultural activities to children during after-school hours to keep them away from work. Other programs include: the _Bolsa Escola_ programs, which are minimum income guarantee programs anchored in the school systems of metropolitan areas, the Program for the Assurance of a Minimum Income (FGRM), and programs specifically designed to work with street children. (Sedlacek and Gustafsson-Wright, forthcoming).

> 8. Recently, in an effort to scale up and integrate separate cash-grant initiatives, the FGRM joined with _Bolsa Escola_ (2 million beneficiaries) and PETI (400,000 beneficiaries in 2000) under the umbrella _Alvorada Program._ The _Alvorada_ Program subsequently established the _Sentinela_ initiative to target children at-risk of working in prostitution.

# **Defining Child Labor and Street Children**

9. The World Bank lacks a universal definition of child labor, as the definitions of 'children' and 'labor' are highly dependent on the locality of these elements.' However, in Brazil child labor refers to any work, paid or unpaid, for at least one hour per week and that any type of labor is illegal for children under 14 years of age.<sup>2</sup> This paper considers the phenomenon of street children as one element of child labor and, at the same time, recognizes the additional issues, concerns, and risks that working in the streets poses. UNICEF distinguishes two types of children in the streets (Barker and Knaul, 199?). The first group of children works in the streets and has a home to return to at night (maintaining regular contact with family and contributing to family income), whereas the second group works and live in the streets, lacking regular contact with famnily. Activities in the street fall largely into the following four main areas: (a) vending candy, gum, or newspapers; polishing shoes; and washing cars; (b) begging; (c) illicit behaviors such as drug trafficking or other crininal acts; and (c) prostitution.

# **Worst Forms of Child Labor**

> 10. Some argue that not all types of labor are harmful to children. It is true, in fact, that in some

> areas, child labor is associated with a nurturing working environment in the home with family

> members. Informal education and training are some of the benefits of this type of labor. In addition, because children can be the principal contributors to family income, their labor can

lSee World Bank Child Labor Initiative.

3
substantially improve living conditions for the family<sup>whenthe alternativeiseven moreextreme</sup> poverty. Nevertheless, for many children, the<sup>typeof labor in whichtheyareinvolved canpose</sup> substantial harm to their physical and mental health.<sup>3</sup> 11. In Brazil, key activities identified as the priority forms of<sup>childlabor aregrouped by urban or</sup> rural residence.<sup>4</sup> In urban areas, children may be involved in illicit activities<sup>(drug trafficking,</sup> prostitution, etc.) or street vending (newspapers or other<sup>products).In ruralareas,activitiesmay</sup> include the collection or production of charcoal, agave, cotton,<sup>vegetableproducts,sugar cane,</sup> tobacco, horticultural products, citrus, salt, flour, fish,<sup>wood,textiles,tilesor ceramicsand work</sup> related to the extraction of stones and gems - i.e. mining.

12. Given the overwhelning nature of the problem, the<sup>definitionof priorityformsof child</sup> labor in Brazil is narrow, as its focus is on the eradication of<sup>activitiesthat haveanegativeimpact on</sup> physical rather than psychological wellbeing, and on manual<sup>laborconductedinpublicspaces,that</sup> is, work that is more visible. Boys tend to participate in<sup>theseformsof work. Asthe "worstform</sup> of activities" are expanded to consider the private sphere<sup>of workandthe psychologicalharmsof</sup> child labor, girls child labor will become more visible and<sup>assuchpolicies andinterventionsttategies</sup> will begin to take into account the gender differentiated<sup>formsof child labor.</sup>

# **III. GENDER DIMENSIONS OF CHILD**<sup>**LABOR ANDITSIMPACTS**</sup>

13. This section examines three dimensions of child labor<sup>(incidence,intensity,andactivity)and</sup> the anecdotal evidence on the correlation between child labor<sup>and educationandfutureearnings,as</sup>

> **2** In Brazil, previous to 1991, work was characterized as fifteen<sup>hours per week.</sup>

> 3 See Sedlacek and Gustafsson-Wright, forthcoming.

> 4 The worst forrns of child labor convention of 1999 (Convention 182) states that all members must take immediate and effective measures to secure the prohibition and elimination of<sup>theworstformsof childlaborasa matter of urgency.</sup> For the purposes of the convention, "child" refers to all<sup>personsunderthe ageof 18 and"the worstforms of child</sup> labor" comprises:

> (a) all forms of slavery or practices similar to slavery, such as<sup>thesaleandtraffickingof children,debtbondage and</sup> serfdom and forced or compulsory labour, including forced<sup>or compulsoryrecruitmentof childrenforuse inarmed</sup> conflict;

(b) the use, procuring or offering of a child for prostitution,<sup>for the productionof pornographyor for pornographic</sup> performances;

> (c) the use, procuring or offering of a child for illicit<sup>activities,in particularfor the productionand traffickingof drugs as</sup> defined in the relevant international treaties;

(d) work which, by its nature or the circumstances<sup>in which it is carriedout, is likelytoharmthehealth,safetyor morals</sup> of children.

4
well as the exposures and risks to children's wellbeing. Using a gender lens, the paper focuses on differences between boys and girls and on how societal-based gender roles shape the differences and consequences.

# **Incidence of Child Labor**

14. _The Pesquisa NaconalAmostra do Domicilio_ (PNAD), a national household survey conducted in 1996, estimates that in Brazil 2.6 million children between the ages of ten and fourteen, or 15 percent of the population in the age group, work at least an hour a day.<sup>5</sup> This suggests a large decline from 1993 when 4.5 million children worked. Concerning the absolute number of children working in 1996, the number of children working in rural areas exceeded that of urban areas by only 292,000; however, participation rates (proportion of children between 10 and 14 year who are working) are higher in rural areas (36 percent) than in urban areas (9 percent). In both urban and rural areas, twice as many boys as girls work (see Table 1).6

**Table 1: Incidence of Child Labor (number of children working) and Participation Rates (percentage of all children between the ages of 10-14)**

|-|-<br>-- -<br>.Ur|ba.<br>-|-|Rural-||Total|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|Girls|379,811|6%|450,314|23%|830,125|10%|
|Boys|771,759|12%|994,042|48%|1,765,801|20%|
|Total|1,151,570|9%|1,444,356|36%|2,595,926|15%|

Source: Calculations based on PNAD, 1996 15. School and work are not mutually exclusive activities; many working children in Brazil also attend school, as Table 2 demonstrates. Boys are more likely than girls to be engaged only in work as well as to combine work with school. Gender differences are particularly stark in the rural areas where 12 percent of boys compared to 5 percent of girls are working exclusively, and 36 percent of boys compared to 18 percent of girls are both working and attending school.

> 5For consistency reasons this paper examines 1996 data. It is noteworthy that more recent evidence demonstrates that child labor continues to decline.

> 6 The sample used for this paper consists of 37,401 observations of children ages 10-14. Of this population 75-85% lives in urban areas, 50% are girls, and each age group comprises roughly 20% of the children. The most highly represented *states are Para, Mato Grosso do Sul and Goias.

5
**Table 2: Proportion of Children at Work and/or School, by Sex and Area**

|7-Gl<br>-/) '|-<br>-Boy%) ;|<br>Gd%|B-y./I|
|---|---|---|---|
|Work Only<br>1|2|5|12|
|WorkandSchool<br>5|10|18|36|
|SchoolOnly<br>89|83|66|45|
|Neitherworknorattendschool<br>5|5|11|7|
|100|100|100|100|

Source: Calculations based on PNAD, 1996

# **Intensity of Work**

16. Intensity of work is indicated by hours worked per week or per day. Although the survey found no child working over 20 hours a day, about 5 percent of boys and 6 percent of the girls worked exceedingly long hours, that is, between 10 and 20 hours (see Table 3). Differences between the intensity of work carried out by boys and girls were not dramatic. It is surprising to find, however, that although a greater number and a higher proportion of children work in rural areas, rural children are more likely to work fewer hours than their urban counterparts.

**Table** 3: Proportion of Working Children by Hours Worked Per Day

|**Hours**of<br>**r**<br>.,<br>Urb|ah|---Ru|iiral---|||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|Perday.<br>-<br>- Girl-/)-<br>_-_|Boys(4o)|idiO)|B.(Gis)|Boy|(°;o)-|
|0<h<=5<br>47|50|62|56|55|53|
|5< h<=10<br>45|44|34|40|39|42|
|10< h<=20<br>8|6|4|4|6|5|
|h >20<br>0|0|0|0|0|0|
|100|100|100|100|100|100|

Source: Calculadons based on PNAD, 1996 6
# **Sectors of Work**

> 17. As is to be expected, the majority of working children in the rural areas, particularly boys (95 percent), are involved in agricultural work. Ten percent of rural girls work in the service sector, with the majority (81 percent) working in domestic work. In the urban areas, on the other hand, child labor can be found largely in service and commerce sectors, the proportions being 30 percent and 25 percent, respectively. Agricultural work follows close behind with 20 percent.

> 18. Gender differences in the urban areas are noteworthy (see Table 4). About half of girls work in services compared to 20 percent of boys but boys edge out the girls in both the agriculture and commerce sectors. Again, the service-oriented jobs for girls are primarily in domestic service (77

> percent), whereas for boys, service jobs are primarily food- and drink-related services (42 percent) and auto repairs (32 percent).

> **Table 4: Percentage of Working Children by Sector, Region and Sex**

||||-~<br>|~~~~~~~<br>P,S,t<br>_C_<br>|~~w<br>l<br>_o.-_<br>|>'F,$..4,<br>|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|Agriculture|23.7|12.2|19.9|94.6|82.1|90.7|
|Industry|13.3|8.7|11.8|1.9|4.5|2.7|
|Construction|6.4|0.9|4.6|0.4|0.1|0.3|
|OtherIndustry|0.5|0.3|0.4|0.3|0.0|0.2|
|Commerce|26.3|21.5|24.7|1.5|2.1|1.7|
|Services|20.2|48.7|29.6|0.8|10.3|3.8|
|Aux.Services|2.5|3.1|2.7|0.1|0.0|0.1|
|Transportation|2.5|0.4|1.8|0.2|0.3|0.2|
|Social|1.5|2.4|1.8|0.1|0.3|0.1|
|Public|1.3|1.1|1.3|0.1|0.3|0.2|
|Others|1.7|0.7|1.4|0.1|0.0|0.1|
||100.0|100.0|100.0|100.0|100.0|100.0|

> Source: Calculations based on PNAD, 1996

7
19. A recent study on domestic workers indicates<sup>thatthe incidenceof girls ages 10-16who</sup> work in this sector increased by 10 percent.<sup>7Thisis strikingconsideringthat overalllevels of child</sup> labor have declined substantially over<sup>time.Today,20 percentof all Brazilianwomen whowork are</sup> domestic employees. While most wotking<sup>girlsare white,inthe sectorof domesticservice,sixty</sup> percent of girls are non-white. Girls who<sup>workin domesticservice receiveonaverage 60 percentof</sup> minimum wage and some girls who do<sup>domesticwork(4 percent)dosofor nopayat all.Lastly,</sup> girls working in domestic service tend to<sup>drop out of school(30 percent).</sup> 20. Locality of work indicates the type of<sup>activitiesin whichchildrenare involved(seeTable5).</sup> As the majority of children are working<sup>intheagriculturalsector,particularlyin ruralareas,more</sup> than half of children (54 percent) are<sup>workingon afarm,ranch,poultryfarm, orsmallrural</sup> property. Gender differences in work locality<sup>areparticularlypronounced,againreflectingthe</sup> sectors that differentially engage child labor.<sup>About 20 percent of workinggirls are in their</sup> employer's home, and 12 percent are at home<sup>carryingout domesticchores,comparedto1.4</sup> percent and 2.7 percent respectively among<sup>theboys.In contrast, working boysareprominent in</sup> localities such as roadways or public<sup>areas.</sup>

**Table 5: Distribution of 10 to 14 Year**<sup>**Old Working Children byGender and Work Locality**</sup>

|W'orkLocahrv|-Boy's(°`)<br>|-Girls.(O/%)|TotaIo(%)<br>|
|---|---|---|---|
|Store,repairshop,factory,office,school|26.0|17.1|23.10|
|Farm,ranch,poultryfarm,smallrural<br>property|57.6|46.4|53.8|
|Home|2.7|11.9|5.8|
|Employer'shome|1.4|20.5|7.8|
|Sitedesignatedbyemployer|2.6|0.3|1.9|
|Automotivevehicle|0.3|0.1|0.2|
|Roadwayorpublicarea|7.9|3.0|6.2|
|Other|1.5|0.7|1.2|
|Total|100.0|100.0|100.0|

Source: Calculations based on PNAD, 1995

> 7 Lavinas, Lena (2000).

8
# Types of Activities

21. The Brazilian government has defined the worst forms of child labor as activities involving the collection or production of charcoal, _sisel (/ute),_ cotton, vegetable products, sugar cane, tobacco, horticultural products, citrus, salt, flour, fish, wood, textiles, tiles or ceramics and activities related to the extraction of stones and gems. In addition, most harmful activities specific to urban areas include drug trafficking and prostitution, street vending (newspapers or other products), etc.

22. Boys' and girls' involvement in the worst forms of child labor varies by type of activities. As indicated in Table 6, rural girls comprise a higher proportion of working children in babacu and acai palm plantations, tobacco, and sisel (ute) farms, whereas rural boys are doniinantin sugar cane, cotton, fishing, and coal production.

**Table 6: Percentage of Working Children (10-14 years of age) in Rural Areas by Activity and Gender**

|AgriculturalActvity|Ru|ral|-Total|Ur|ban|Total|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
||-Boys|GLrls||.<br>Boys|GLrls||
|Worstformns|||||||
|Cotton|1.2|0.3|1.0|0.2|0.0|0.1|
|_Agave/sisel_(ute)|0.0|0.3|0.1|-|-||
|Sugarcane|2.1|0.3|1.6|5.0|1.2|4.3|
|Tobacco|2.7|4.7|33|0.6|0.0|0.5|
|_Babacu(palm)_|2.4|6.4|3.5|-|-|-|
|_Acai(paln)_|16.7|20.6|17.8|9.2|9.8|9.3|
|Fishing|1.2|0.6|1.0|9.0|3.8|7.9|
|Coal|0.2|0.00|0.1|-|-||
|LessHarmful|||||||
|Corn|22.1|22.7|22.3|12.4|8.3|11.6|
|_Aipim_(sweetcassava)|11.0|11.1|11.0|6.3|8.4|6.8|
|Cattle|15.0|4.4|12.0|15.0|3.8|12.7|
|Poultry|2.2|10.5|4.5|11.9|36.5|16.9|
|Rice|8.1|4.2|7.0|7.0|3.8|6.4|

Source: Calculations based on PNAD, 1996 9
# **Working on the Streets**

23. Most street activities, both legal and illegal, are consideted the worst forms of<sup>child labor in</sup> Brazil. This paper treats street children as a subset of child labor<sup>while recognizingthat children</sup> working in the street represent a different set of issues and concerns.<sup>The risksand exposuresthat</sup> street children confront daily and the very public nature of their work<sup>and theirhardshipshave</sup> heightened concerns about this particular aspect of child labor,<sup>as wellashavingattractedlocaland</sup> international attention (Freeman, 1997, Scheper-Hughes<sup>and</sup> Hoffman,<sup>1997,UNICEF,1993).</sup> 24. According to PNAD 1995, about 161,000 children or 6.2 percent of all working<sup>children,</sup> work in roadways or public areas. Table 7 shows the number of<sup>childrenworking inthe streetsin</sup> three Brazilian cities. In the city of Salvador, an estimated<sup>16,000childrenwork inthestreets;</sup> however, only 3 percent live and sleep in the street. In fact, in the three Brazilian<sup>citiesthe</sup> percentages of children living or sleeping on the streets are relatively low if compared<sup>to Central</sup> America where an estimated 25 percent of street children sleep or live on<sup>the streets(Takahashiand</sup> Cederlof, 2000).

**Table 7: Estimate of Children in the Street in Selected Brazilian**<sup>**Cities**</sup>

|Ciies'_in_Braid<br>.-<br>'<br>Workinginthe;street-'-`Nunb`er'd.proportionsleeping.i.<br>C<br>"**'r.-..ihe**street-<br>**-**|
|---|
|SaoPaulo<br>4,520<br>895(19.8percent)|
|Fortaleza<br>5,962<br>184(3.1percent)|
|Salvador<br>15,743<br>468(3.0percent)|

Source: Rizzini, Barker, and Cassaniga, 1998 25. Though findings cannot be generalized, a study conducted in<sup>Brasiliaon streetchildren and</sup> adolescents under 18 years of age provides an insight into the population's<sup>gender composition.</sup> The 1996 -1997 survey indicated that although the absolute number of children<sup>dropped</sup> dramatically in the second year, the gender composition remained the<sup>same:89percent of the street</sup> children were boys and 11 percent were girls. Overrepresentation of<sup>boys among street children isa</sup> pattern that is also witnessed in other countries in Latin America.<sup>Boyscomprised 72 percentof the</sup> working youth population in the streets of Mexico (UNICEF, 1993), and<sup>70 percent of those in</sup> Honduras (Takahashi and Cederlof, 2000). However, the Brasilia study found no gender<sup>differences</sup> 10
> in the number of hours worked, the time of day/night worked, or the likelihood of sleeping in the street (Araujo, 1998).

# **The reasons children work**

26. Children work for a variety of reasons though it is commonly believed that one of the main reasons is poverty.<sup>8</sup> Poor families are forced to send their children to work to contribute to family income (see Table 8). Many families do not see themselves as having an altemnative, as children's earnings may be necessary for family survival. The constraint to work is placed on children when the opportunity cost of receiving an education (not working) is extremely high. Other factors that drive child labor include organization of work activities, social norms that encourage children to work, inability to pay school fees supplies or uniforms, inability to access schools due to distance/transportation difficulties and poor quality of school and teachers.<sup>9</sup>

**Table 8: Incidence of Child Labor, by Income Quintile, Area and Gender - (percentage of all children between the ages of 10-14)**

|~$iome<br>F-ov'<br>Ok|~~4<br>Bo~|idT|oa|Bb,|L4|_M~F_|o<br> _WM_|l-T<br>ir<br>:|iU<br>---<br>To|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|**JSt**quintile|14|6|10|52|24|38|31|14|22|
|2ndquintile|14|6|10|40|22|31|19|9|14|
|3rdquintile|12|6|9|40|21|31|15|8|12|
|4thquintile|9|5|7|36|21|29|11|6|8|
|**5th**quintile|6|4|5|28|18|23|7|5|6|

> Source: Calculations based on PNAD, 1996

> 27. A parent's decision to put a child to work is also influenced by the organization of a family's

> productive activities, induding the nature of contracting and payment systems. Child labor becomes part of the famnily labor, which is particularly true in rural areas. Another critical factor is the social

> norms that uphold child labor, which is viewed as an integral and positive part of a child's development. A working child is perceived as receiving discipline and training for his or her future

> 8 See for example Graiter and Lerer (1998), Grootaert and Patrinos (1999), Jensen and Nielsen (1997), Psacharopoulos (1997) and Tzannotos (1998).
entry into the labor market as an adult.<sup>Furthermore,working occupiestime, which might otherwise</sup> be spent "getting into mischief"<sup>(Moura,1999).</sup> 28. The question of why children work<sup>can often beansweredby examininghow themoney</sup> they earn is spent. Employers<sup>frequentlypayruralchildren'searningsdirectlyto their parents,as</sup> part of the family labor. In the urban<sup>areas,however, thesituationdiffersas thetypes of jobs that</sup> children engage in differ substantially.<sup>Some childrenwho work (butdo not live)inthestreetsbring</sup> the money they earn back to their<sup>parentsif it contributessignificantlytofamily income.Evidence</sup> is lacking, however, on how the money<sup>isspent by theparents oncetheyreceiveit.Childrenthatdo</sup> not return to a home with parents or<sup>anotheradult,spendthemoneyontheir ownsubsistence, and</sup> some, as the problem is increasing,<sup>may moveto the purchaseof drugs.</sup> 29. Gender roles affect parents and families'<sup>decisions on who(boy or girl child)worksand</sup> where they work. Girls, for example,<sup>maybe forcedto takeonmoreof the householdchoresas</sup> their male siblings leave the home<sup>to earn incomefor the family.As demonstratedpreviously,girls</sup> are over-represented in domestic<sup>workandother servicesectorjobs, in both urbanandrural areas.</sup> Boys, on the other hand, are over-represented<sup>in thestreets.Thisdivisionof labor in part reflects</sup> gender roles and expectations. Engagement<sup>of girls in domesticservicesector is shapedby the role</sup> of girls/women positioned in<sup>the biological and socialreproductivespheres (maintaininga</sup> household, whether it is her own or<sup>that of others),andthe role of boysengagedin the productive</sup> realm. In addition, girls tend<sup>to primarilyoccupythe private sphere,while boys,the public.Other</sup> reasons for girls leaving their homes<sup>to work and liveon thestreetsmaydifferfromthe reasons</sup> offered by boys. It is not uncommon<sup>for girls whoface physical,sexualor verbalabuse in thehome</sup> to leave this environment in search<sup>of abetterone.The streetsmaybe theironlyoption.</sup>

# **Child Labor, Education and**<sup>**Poverty**</sup>

30. The growing effort to address<sup>childlaborstemsfromthe potentiallynegativesocialand</sup> economic implications of children<sup>working.In manycases, employersare ableto takeadvantage of</sup> the poor bargaining power of children,<sup>sincechildrencannotlegallyform unionsand therefore</sup> employers are able to subject children<sup>to working conditionsto whichtheycouldnot otherwise</sup> subject adult workers. The negative<sup>socialor developmental impactson childrenare measuredby</sup>

> 9 If parents find that there are larger<sup>gainsfrom obtainingworkexperiencethaneducation.</sup>

12
the effects of actual working conditions (hours worked, exposure to physical or mental<sup>strain or</sup> repetitive action, exposure to hazardous substances) and other physical or psychological<sup>risksor</sup> abuse. Economic arguments against child labor are based on the inability of<sup>childrentoaccumulate</sup> human capital (education), which prevents them from having higher future earnings.<sup>Stronger</sup> markets for child labor also induce increased incidence of child labor and<sup>lowerschool enrollment</sup> rates.'° Some evidence suggests that child labor leads directly to lower years of<sup>schooling</sup> (Psacharopolous, 1997) or at least to learning less per year of schooling (Akabuyashi<sup>and</sup> Psacharopolous, 1999). The low rates of productivity growth contribute to<sup>thecycleof povertyand</sup> affect economic growth." 31. The need for children to work does not mean that parents are not concerned about<sup>their</sup> children's welfare or that the consequences of child labor are negative. Child labor and<sup>child</sup> schooling may not be mutually exclusive. In fact, many working children are also in school<sup>as</sup> demonstrated in Table 2. In some cases child labor may even increase household income sufficiently to make school affordable by helping families pay for transportation<sup>to school,school</sup> materials or uniforms. Child labor can also enhance the lifetime earnings potential of<sup>children</sup> directly based on the theory of learning by doing.

# _Education_

32. As discussed above, child labor may be associated with poverty and educational attainment but whether the relationship is negative, positive or some combination is not clear. Anecdotal evidence indicates that in Brazil, the incidence of child labor in households that<sup>fall inthe bottom 20</sup> percent (lowest quintile) of income distribution is 22 percent, compared to only 6 percent<sup>inthe</sup> highest quintile. About 90% of heads of poor households have not graduated from<sup>primaryschool,</sup> and 74% have not completed 4th grade. The consequences of child labor<sup>in thepresent,however,</sup> are only part of the story. How child labor relates to the future - in terms of education and future poverty - poses an even more interesting question. Poor households tend to have low<sup>levelsof</sup> hurnan capital, which in turn, is often a result of early labor market entry.

> **tO** Rosenzweig and Evenson (1977) and Levy (1985) found that higher child wages led to increased child labor participation and decreased enrollments. King, Orazem and Patemo (1999) found that stronger local child labor markets increased the incidence of school dropout. Sedlacek and Gustafsson-Wright (forthcoming).

13
# _Enrollment_

33. Most Brazilian children, on average 94 percent, are enrolled in school, with little difference between girls and boys (94 percent and 93 percent respectively). For working children, average enrollment is only slightly lower at 83 percent. The numbers do not, however, reflect the low levels of educational attainment of Brazilians owing to late entry into school, slow progression, and high drop out rates. The numbers of children who lag in grade as well as the levels of educational attainment of working and non-working boy and girls are more pertinent; and a correlation may exist between these indicators although not necessarily causality.

# _Attainment byvAge_

34. According to the PNAD household survey, the educational attainment of children in Brazil is only about 55 percent of what it should be for their age. Boys tend to lag behind more than girls, especially when they are working (60 percent compared to 51 percent for girls)."<sup>2</sup> The greater number of boys involved in child labor may explain part of this gender disparity in education lags."<sup>3</sup> However, as mentioned previously, these numbers may be distorted by measurement error because many girls work in domestic labor, which often goes uncounted.

35. Contemporaneous evidence of educational attainment between girls and boys who only work, only study, do both or neither in rural and urban areas suggests gender differences. In rural and urban areas, the difference between boys and girls who only study is relatively insignificant. However, for children in rural areas who only work, the evidence clearly demonstrates a substantially lower level of attainment for boys (1.7 years) than for girls (2.5 years). In urban areas, girls who only work or also both study and work, also exhibit higher attainment on average than boys.

36. Although it does not necessarily indicate a causal relationship, it is perhaps more telling to examine the relationship between the number of hours worked and educational attainment (see Table 9). In rural areas, girls who work 10 to 20 hours per day have a 35 percent higher attainment rate than their male counterparts who work the same number of hours, and a 20 percent higher rate than boys if both are working 5 to 10 hours. In urban areas, attainment for girls working 5 to 10

> 12 Note that this considers children who are currendy enrolled in school and currently working and does not describe overall attainment.

> 1 Sedlacek, Gustafsson-Wright and Ilahi (2000)

14
hours is 18 percent higher than boys working the same number of hours, but it is only 3.6 percent higher than boys' attainment when they work 10 to 20 hours per day. However, because the evidence is contemporaneous rather than retrospective, the effects of work on educational attainment over the lifeti;me are unclear. Econometric analysis would be necessary to measure the precise magnitude of these effects.

**Table 9: Level of Educational Attainment for Age** by **Hours Worked for Girls and** Boys

|Hours<br>WorkedPer<br>Day.|.|:1|:||:Ur<br>**:Rural-**|ban||Total||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
||_-Boys_|_:Gils_|_Tot_|Boys|Girls|Total|Boys|Girls|Total|
|h=O|3.37|3.79|3.59|2.14|2.51|2.35|3.18|3.54|3.37|
|O<h<=5|3.30|4.17|3.58|2.03|2.46|2.17|2.55|3.13|2.74|
|5<h<=10|3.51|4.17|3.73|2.15|2.59|2.27|2.77|3.42|2.97|
|10<h<=20|3.27|3.39|3.32|2.43|3.29|2.70|2.88|3.36|3.05|
|Total|3.37|3.81|3.59|2.12|2.51|2.31|3.08|3.51|3.29|

Source: Calculations based on PNAD 1996 37. Educational attainment may also depend on the age at which girls and boys begin to work. While conclusions cannot be made about the causal effects of age of entry into the labor market on educational attainment, individuals will likely not catch up in terms of educational attainment once they have entered the labor market or reached adulthood. Overall, as expected, the later children begin to work, the higher the attainment levels, although it does not increase monotonically. Table 10 shows educational attainment for children ages 4 to 15+ in both rural and urban areas. It is interesting to note that while on average girls have higher educational attainment, girls who begin working between the ages of 11 and 14 have lower levels of educational attainment than boys. The trend is present in both urban and rural areas but to a lesser degree in the latter case. The reasons for these gender differences could be an area of future research.

15
**Table 10: Average Educational Attainment of Individuals**<sup>**whoBegan Working at Different Ages**</sup>

|Age<br>B||Urban|||Rural|||Total||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|egan<br>||||||||||
|Working|Boys|Girls|Total|Boys|Girls|Total|Boys|Girls|Total|
|**4**|4.17|4.24|4.19|2.23|3.02|2.49|3.71|3.93|3.79|
|5|4.68|4.58|4.65|2.15|4.19|2.63|3.90|4.49|4.08|
|6|5.19|4.83|5.05|2.55|3.35|2.80|4.24|4.39|4.29|
|7|4.80|4.77|4.79|2.84|2.82|2.84|4.20|4.22|4.21|
|8|4.73|4.67|4.71|2.57|3.00|2.70|3.99|4.13|4.03|
|**9**|5.13|4.86|5.03|2.54|2.83|2.65|4.29|4.20|4.26|
|10|4.85|5.00|4.90|2.28|2.73|2.44|3.90|4.10|3.97|
|11|5.73|5.43|5.62|2.91|2.80|2.87|4.97|4.70|4.87|
|**12**|5.99|5.82|5.94|3.02|3.30|3.12|5.25|5.16|5.22|
|**13**|6.61|6.48|6.56|3.87|3.74|3.82|6.16|6.02|6.11|
|**14**|7.53|7.53|7.53|3.92|4.02|3.96|7.13|7.07|7.11|
|**15+**|8.42|9.27|8.85|4.51|5.32|4.93|8.10|8.94|8.53|
|**Total**|6.93|7.78|7.29|3.04|3.63|3.27|6.16|7.05|6.53|

Source: Calculations based on PNAD 1996.

# **_Eamings and Poverty_**

38. A child's potential future earnings, as well as future poverty, may<sup>be affectedby his or her</sup> entry into the labor market at a young age but much more so for girls than<sup>boys.In additionto the</sup> physical and mental risks to which these children arc exposed,<sup>whichaffecttheircapacity to work</sup> and earn income in the future, income may be affected<sup>by their lower educationalattainment.While</sup> this does not necessarily indicate a causal relationship, these<sup>datademonstratethat for both boys and</sup> girls, the earlier the age of entry into the labor market the lower<sup>thefutureearnings(seeTable11).</sup> Furthermore, when it comes to earnings, girls are much more likely<sup>to sufferthe consequencesof</sup> early labor force entry than boys. This is especially true in<sup>rural areaswhere girlswho began</sup> working at age 7 earn 55 percent less than if they had begun<sup>workingat age15 or older, whereasfor</sup> boys the difference in only 23 percent. In urban areas,<sup>girlsearn52percent lessand boys32 percent</sup> less than if they had begun working at age 15 or older.

39. Examining the gender wage differential for different ages of entry into the<sup>labor market,</sup> women earn between 64 percent and 83 percent less than men if they began<sup>working betweenthe</sup> 16
ages of 4 and 14, but only 54 percent less if they began<sup>to</sup> work<sup>at or aboveage15.In urbanareas,</sup> women consistently earn between 50 percent and 60 percent<sup>lessthan men if they began working</sup> before age 15, when they earn 35 percent less than boys. The<sup>overallaverage wagedifferentialfor all</sup> ages, and in both rural and urban areas, is approximnately<sup>40 percent.Girlsinrural areasearn 80</sup> percent of what girls earn in urban areas.

**Table 11: Average Income for Individuals who Started**<sup>**Working at Different Ages**</sup>

|Age<br>||Urban|||Rural|||Total||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|Began||||||||||
|working|Male|Female|Total|Male|Female|Total|Male|Female|Total|
|4|367.67|406.28|379.94|346.65|-|231.10|362.73|305.50|344.33|
|5|594.07|251.13|482.73|193.66|63.00|162.68|470.60|209.04|392.16|
|6|536.29|204.10|406.89|228.86|38.96|167.79|425.97|155.60|326.80|
|7|492.17|224.45|399.86|216.71|58.63|166.91|407.33|178.01|330.29|
|8|479.85|222.38|394.66|201.11|51.45|154.42|384.25|167.05|313.77|
|9|522.98|228.87|413.81|172.99|55.09|128.92|410.58|172.63|322.05|
|10|460.43|212.33|376.56|160.26|39.79|115.98|349.75|143.43|277.69|
|11|553.34|236.72|438.88|171-08|53.18|127.57|449.75|185.80|353.78|
|12|536.13|236.03|433.02|200.23|55.60|148.29|452.01|188.50|360.43|
|**13**|607.83|301.09|488.76|280.47|81.90|201.98|554.38|265.41|441.48.|
|14|701.73|376.50|586.93|254.38|67.96|180.21|651.81|335.76|538.56|
|15+|725.80|465.41|593.95|282.20|129.48|203.58|689.33|436.92|561.35|
|**Total**|626.52|378.81|521.27|207.96|71.77|155.12|543.28|324.90|452.02|

Source: Calculatons based on PNAD 1996.

# **_Summary on Child Labor, Education and Poverty_**

40. Child labor does not appear to affect school enrollment,<sup>aslargenumbers of childrenboth</sup> work and attend school, particularly in the rural areas. It<sup>does, however,appearto be correlated</sup> with lags in educational attainment. The most explicit evidence<sup>as observedfrom the dataisseenm</sup> the relationships between lower average grade attainment<sup>and longer working hours of achild and</sup> between lower average grade attainment and earlier age of<sup>entry intothe labor market,though this</sup> evidence does not indicate causality.

17
41. In school, boys also tend to lag behind more than girls, even when controlling for hours worked. This suggests male work activities are less compatible with school than those of girls. Work experience may also be more highly valued for boys whereas observable productivity charactenrstics such as education may be more highly valued for girls.

42. A child's future earnings decline as age of entry into the labor market decreases, with girls experiencing a more adverse effect than boys. The differential earning between males and females also increases the earlier a child enters the labor market.

43. Girls on average attain a higher level of education than boys yet still earn less than boys for every age of entry into the labor market. Furthermore, if girls begin to work between the ages of 11 and 14, they receive less education than boys who begin working at these ages. Reasons for these differences are not clear. Is the type of work that the girls engage in when they enter the labor market between the ages of 11 and 14 less compatible with schooling than the type of work that they do if they start working at earlier ages? Is the type of work that boys do starting at this age more compatible with school? In addition, girls earn less than boys the younger they enter the labor market. Does the type of work that girls are involved in when they start at earlier ages place them on a path of lower lifetime earnings? Perhaps girls who know that they will have low earnings in the labor market self-select themselves out of school to gain other skills for the "marriage-market". Is discrimination a factor? These questions highlight the need for further investigation.

# Risks and Exposures: Impact of **Child Labor on Health**

44. In addition to the risk of adverse impacts of child labor on education and future earnings, it is evident that some forms of child labor pose immediate and long-term health threats to children. Although few data exist on the impact of child labor on children's health in Brazil, public health researchers have conceptualized some general risks and hazards associated with activities that commonly engage children, such as agriculture, construction, and street work. Hazard is defined as exposure to objects, substances, and/or conditions that have the potential to have adverse effects on humans.

18
# **_4Ariculture_**

45. In Brazil, the agricultural sector is the main source of labor for both male and female children, particular in the rural areas. It is also consistently ranked as one of the most hazardous industries in terms of morbidity and mortality (Fassa et al., 2000). Hazards include injury from farm machinery, strenuous labor (lifting and carrying heavy loads, working in uncomfortable positions, etc.), chemicals, such as pesticides, and adverse weather (e.g., heat) 46. Injuries caused by long knives and machetes used for cutting, piling, and hauling the crops are common among children working on farms such as on _sisel_ (jute) or sugar cane plantations in Brazil (Buckley, 2000). Processing machines and heavy machinery are also frequent sources of occupational injuries. Heavy manual labor from agricultural activities places both physical and emotional strain on workers. Moreover, children working in agriculture face an elevated risk of exposure to chemnicals and pollutants. Poor field sanitation and lack of potable water for drinking and washing facilitates the transmission of communicable diseases, and exacerbates the effects of pesticides and heat.

# _Construction_

47. The construction sector in Brazil employs only about 5 percent of working children in urban areas (6 percent among boys, and 1 percent among girls), and less than one percent in the rural areas. It is, however, a harmful occupation for children because of the elevated risk of accidents, as well as exposures to noise, silica, asbestos, dusts, and heavy loads, among others (Fassa et al., 2000).

# _Domestic Service_

48. The ILO characterizes domestic service as harmful under the following conditions: (a) when the child has been sold; (b) when the child is bonded or has to work without pay; (c) when the child works excessive hours, in isolation, or at night; (d) when the child is exposed to safety or health hazards; (e) when the child is subjected to physical or sexual harassment and violence; and (f) when the child is very young. Female domestic workers face additional vulnerabilities, such as sexual coercion and abuse.

49. Whether or not domestic work should be considered a harmful form of child labor in Brazil is disputable. Nevertheless, it should be recognized that the private nature of the work locality 19
causes child domestics to be invisible, isolated and generally unprotected<sup>comparedto work that is</sup> carried out in a more public place. While not all child domestics<sup>sufferneglect,abuseor</sup> exploitation, nor is the work itself always dangerous or inhumane (Innocenti<sup>Digest,1999, Green,</sup> 1998), the invisibility of the work creates the need for attention and<sup>scrutiny.</sup> 50. Domestic service, which demands servility among its workers, is often<sup>associatedwith an</sup> inferior status, stigma and discrimination, which can induce psychological<sup>and emotional distress and</sup> erode self-esteem, particularly among those who start out at<sup>very earlyages(lJNICEF,1993,</sup> Innocenti Digest, 1999). The extent to which harmful conditions among<sup>childdomesticsexist is not</sup> known.

## **_Street Work_**

51. Children working in the streets, particularly those making a home in<sup>the streets,facethe</sup> most severe working conditions. These children are exposed to<sup>drugsand violence(withinthe</sup> home and on the street), as well as traffic accidents, extreme weather, poor<sup>sanitation,and</sup> psychological distress induced by ostracization and discrimination.

52. A 1996 study of street children in Brazil revealed that more than one<sup>half of the boys and</sup> one fifth of the girls experienced some form of street violence<sup>(violencebythe police,other adults,</sup> or street children) (Araujo, 1998). In 1997, however, violent encounters<sup>among boys decreased,and</sup> increased among girls. Also in 1996, 21 percent of the boys, as compared<sup>to12 percent of the girls,</sup> reported having used drugs. This pattern was reversed in 1997, when<sup>onethirdof the girls,as</sup> compared to 22 percent of the boys experimented with drugs. The<sup>dramaticincreasein exposureto</sup> violence and drugs among girls in 1997, however, could be the result of<sup>asamplingerror,rather than</sup> an actual trend. The profile of the girls in the 1997 sample is reported<sup>tobe dramaticallydifferent</sup> from that of 1998.

# **_Prostitution_**

53. One of the most harmful activities for children on the street<sup>is</sup> prostitution.<sup>Girlsaremost</sup> often the target of recruitment and coercion into the sex<sup>industry.TheBrazilianCenterfor</sup> Childhood and Adolescence of the Ministry of Social Services<sup>estimatedthat about a half million</sup> Brazilian girls are engaged in prostitution in large cities or<sup>in</sup> migrant<sup>settlementsin Amazonia</sup> 20
(Dimenstein, 1994). Although fewer in number, boys also are<sup>involvedin prostitution.The scope</sup> of this problem is unknown, however, in large part because of<sup>the stigma attachedto male</sup> prostitution. However, the plight of children involved in prostitution<sup>and other street work-</sup> vulnerability to violence, substance abuse, and HIV infection<sup>-is welldocumented(Dimenstein,</sup> 1994, Green, 1998).

# **Heightened Vulnerability of Children**

54. Although adults face the same exposure to poor working conditions,<sup>childrenare more</sup> susceptible to hazards because of their young age, and because<sup>theyarestillundergoingthe</sup> processes of physical and psychological growth and development<sup>(Fassaet al.,2000).Childrenhave</sup> high levels of susceptibility in the following areas:

- (a) _Work entironment_ Children and youth are not developmentally capable of<sup>assuming</sup> some types of responsibilities and work, for example, because<sup>theyneed moresleep,</sup> and often lack physical and emotional maturity.

- (b) _Ergonomicfactors_ Children experience rapid growth and are, therefore, at<sup>greaterrisk</sup> of injuring ligaments and bones.

- (c) _Carcinogenicfactorr._ Children undergo rapid cell growth, which<sup>increasestheir</sup> susceptibility to carcinogens.

- (d) _Chemical e.xposures:_ Hormnonal development of youth can be adversely<sup>affectedby</sup> chemicals, which can also lead to other health problems.

- (e) _Lateng period:_ Among children and youth, the latency period of<sup>somediseasesis</sup> shortened because of rapid cell growth.

- (f) _Tools and equipment_ Tools, machinery, and equipment are designed for<sup>adultsandcan</sup> cause musculoskeletal disorders among young people, such as back<sup>problemsand</sup> repetitive-motion trauma.

- (g) _Permissible exposure limitr._ The established limits for chemical and<sup>physical exposures</sup> are targeted to adults, which can translate into inadequate protection<sup>fot children.</sup>

21
55. Epidemiological data on the health effects of child labor in Brazil are sorely needed. Although the above concerns are largely theoretical, they provide a guide for further investigation into the impact of child labor on children's health in Brazil. In addition, researchers need should examine gender and sex differentiated impacts, resulting not only from physiological and developmental differences, but also from social differences between girls and boys (i.e., discrimiination in the workplace and home, gender stereotypes, and social expectations and norns).

## IV. **INTERVENTIONS ADDRESSING THE** WORST FORMS **OF CHILD LABOR IN BRAZIL**

56. This section is divided into two parts: the first focuses on the Brazilian Government's efforts to reduce child labor, and the second discusses the general approaches for targeting children on the street, and examples of each in Brazil. The Brazilian Government has concentrated much of its efforts on providing conditional cash grants with the objective of increasing education and discouraging child labor. As far as children working in the streets, Government programs have focused on urban areas.

# The **Child Labor Eradication** (PETI) **Program**

57. The Child Labor Eradication (PETI) Program was initiated in 1996 in _rural areas_ of Brazil, and by 1999 had managed to reach 166 municipalities in eight states and 131,000 working children. The program aims to increase educational attainment and reduce poverty as well as eradicating the "worst forms" of child labor. It provides stipends of approximately R$25 per month to poor families who have children ages 7-14; resources are given to the mother of the beneficiaries. To be eligible, all school age children in the family must attend school participate in after-school activities, and agree not to work. After-school activities _(JornadaAmpliada)_ are a way of ensuring that children do not mix school and work. The advantage of the PETI program over other types of minimum income guarantee programs is that it is more targeted. This program is also anchored in the school system, and is supported by rural worker unions, which assist in the selection of children and the monitoring of the program.

22
# **The Bolsa Escola Programs**

58. _Bolsa Escola_ was established as a minimum income guarantee program anchored in the school systems of metropolitan areas. As a preventive rather than remedial program, _Bolsa Escola_ aims to eliminate poverty in the short-run, reduce long-term poverty through increased educational attainment and reduce child labor. The program provides cash grants to all school-age children in poor families, on the condition that children have 90 percent school attendance. Since 1995, when the first programs were implemented in Campinas and Brasilia, the program has expanded to include around 58 municipalities and four states.

# **Minimum Income Assurance Program**

59. The Mininum Income Assurance Program _(Funda Garanfia de Renda Minima -_ FGRM) was established by the Ministry of Education to provide financial aid and technical support to municipalities with per capita income and tax revenue less than the state average. Having siince merged with other programs, the FGRM originally offered incentives for children and adolescents to attend school by increasing the income of the poorest families. All beneficiaries were required to demonstrate the school attendance of all their children ages 6-15. The program was financed in part by federal funds and in part by funds collected by the municipalities from their own tax revenues or from partnerships with the state governments, private institutions, and national or international nongovernmental entities. The program was developed and implemented by local authorities, depending on the economic and social situations of the local communities. In addition to financial assistance, the federal government was to provide technical assistance so that the municipal programs were followed up with social and educational measures. The Ministry of Education estimates that the FGRM has benefited one million children in more than 500,000 families. The funding for the PGRM was significantly increased to US$850 million for 2001, to reach almost 11 million children. The FGRM was supplemented by the decentralized school lunch program, which benefits 37 million children.

# **Scaling up the Child Labor Initiatives**

60. With the objective of scaling up and integrating separate cash-grant initiatives, in September 2000 initiated a merger of FGRM, the preventative _Bolsa Escola_ Program (2 million beneficiaries in 23
2000) and the remedial PETI program (400,000<sup>beneficiariesin 2000)underthe umbrella</sup><sup>_Alvorada_</sup> _Program._ 61. Additionally, a new program _Sentinela_ was established<sup>under</sup><sup>_Alvorada_to reducechild</sup> prostitution. This program, meant to be both<sup>preventiveandcombative,targetsat-risk children</sup> aged 7-14 from families with per capital less than half<sup>of minimum wage.1By providing US$20 to</sup> each child and $12 per child per month for _thejornada_<sup>_ampliada,_the Governmentproposedto reach</sup> 8,500 children working in the sex industry. The preventive<sup>measures includedanationalcampaign</sup> to raise awareness, annual state-level seminats, and workshops<sup>for programcoordinatorsregarding</sup> the gravity of the problem of prostitution. The<sup>combative measures includedcoordinatingplans</sup> with councils, facilitating access to social services and guaranteeing<sup>interactionbetweenfamilies,</sup> schools, and the community. The Government<sup>alsoproposed putting in placean evaluationsystem</sup> to measure the efficiency and effectiveness of the program. In<sup>addition, thesecombative measures</sup> proposed to improve the social and cultural environment<sup>of the targetedchildren,to increase</sup> education opportunities, and to establish training for<sup>the purposeof incomegeneration.</sup>

# **Targeting Street Children**

62. From the evidence demonstrated in this report, it<sup>is</sup> apparent<sup>that interventionstargeted at</sup> street children need separate consideration, given that<sup>thesechildrenfacedifferent conditions,</sup> circumstances and constraints. Interventions need<sup>toconsider the root causesof the problem -</sup> which range from personal pathology to structural<sup>failings-and accordingto Lusk(1989),use</sup> approaches ranging from social control to social<sup>change.Table 12 providesa descriptionof such</sup> approaches.

63. Until recently, intervention strategies to tackle the problem<sup>of childrenworking inthestreets</sup> have not considered gender-differentiated needs and<sup>circumstances.This isunderstandablegiven</sup> the overwhelming presence of boys (absolute number)<sup>inthe street children.However,when it</sup> comes to gender, other considerations are important, for<sup>example:(a)thetype of activitiesboys and</sup> girls are engaged in, which is influenced by gender roles and<sup>expectations;(b)the risks and hazards</sup> boys and girls face (physical and psychological) either through<sup>theactivitiesor working and living</sup>

> 14 The Federal Constitution, Article 226, paragraph 8 states<sup>that, "thestate will...hinder violence withinfanilies".</sup> Article 227, paragraph 4 punishes abuse and violence and sexual<sup>exploitationof childrenand adolescents.</sup>

24
conditions (e.g. sexual abuse, violence prostitution); and (c) the reasons girls and boys work in the street, which also may be influenced by the different ways boys and girls are socialized and the expectations placed on them (e.g. boys are expected to earn income whereas girls are expected to nurture and care for others). Lastly, little or no information exists on how various intervention strategies differentially affect boys and girls, for example:

- (a) Underlying the correctional approach is the perception of street children as delinquents. Expressions of delinquency and its consequences are often gender defined, however, the gender differentiated effects of juvenile justice and youth corrections systems is not known.

- (b) The rehabilitation approach focuses on providing skills to children so that they can be reintegrated into "mainstream" society, but often the skills provided are based on gender stereotypes.

- (c) The outreach approach, which focuses on the empowermnent of individuals through learning, needs to recognize that girls and boys face different types of discrimination, barriers and opportunities.

**Table** 12: **Types** of **Interventions Directed at Street Children**

|Approach||Characteristics|
|---|---|---|
|Correctional<br>|Social<br>|*Perceiveschildrenasdelinquents<br>|
|Approach|control|*Problemscanberesolvedthroughjuvenilejusticeandyouthcorrections<br>*Basedonassumptionsthattherootcauseofproblemispersonalpathology, and<br>therefore,interventionstrategyisclinicalatitsbestand punitiveatitsworst|
|Rehabilitative<br>Approach||*Viewschildrenasvictimsofchildabuseandneglect,extremepoverty,and<br>unstablehomelife<br>*Focusontransformingstreet childrenintoskilled,pro-socialschoolgraduates<br>throughworkandvalueseducation|
|Outreach<br>Approach||*Perceiveschildrenasagentsofchange (influencedbyFreire'sphilosophy that<br>individualschangetheworldwhilelearningaboutit)<br>* Focusonstructuralproblemsandindividualempowerment(useofstreet<br>educatorswhoprovideeducational, counseling,andadvocacyservicestochildren)|
|Preventive<br>Approach|Social<br>Change|*Perceivestheproblemofstreetchildrenasasymptomofstructuralproblems,<br>suchasmigrationtourbanareas,inabilityofcitiestoprovide adequateservices<br>(housing,employment,etc),breakdownoffamnilystructures<br>*Interventionsfocusoncommunity-based programs,environmental/structural<br>changes,suchasprovidingday-timeactivities,schooling,communitykitchens,<br>artisan cooperatives,etc.|

Source: Lusk, 1989 25
# V. CONCLUSIONS

64. The evidence presented in this paper reveals that a larger number of boys than girls work in Brazil especially in rural areas where boys are concentrated in the agricultural sector. Many of these children are both working and attending school. Girls demonstrate higher levels of educational attainment than boys on average, presumably because they are working less. However, even when considering the number of hours that children work, girls still demonstrate higher educational attainment. The exception is the 11-14 age category where girls demonstrate lower levels of educational attainment than boys.

65. The data presented here also demonstrate that the earnings of an individual are correlated with the age of entry into the labor market. The earlier a child begins to work, the lower his or her earnings.'<sup>5</sup> And girls are more adversely affected than boys who enter the labor market early. In addition, the differential between male and female earnings increases the earlier a child begins to work. What are the reasons for these differences? Do girls selfselect themselves out of the formal labor market? And how can child labor programs best serve the different needs of boys and girls? These questions can only be answered through a thorough econometric analysis that examines the causes and consequences of child labor and measures the gender effects.

66. The paper also points to the need for analysis of the impact of child labor on health (physical as well as psychological well-being). And beyond general risks and hazards associated with activities that commonly engage children, such as agriculture, construction, and street work, interventions for prevention and mitigation of adverse health consequences need to be identified. In addition, these interventions might consider gender and sexdifferentiated impacts, resulting not only from physiological and developmental differences, but also from social differences between girls and boys (i.e., discrimination in the workplace and home, gender stereotypes, and social expectations and norms).

67. An examination of the determinants of child labor and street children offers some insight into the types of interventions that are necessary to address this problem. Poverty, social norms, distribution of labor in the household, lack of schools, and poor quality of 26
education are among the determinants of child labor. Little is known, however, about whether and how these factors differentially impact boys and girls. Given that evidence on both schooling and future earnings indicates that boys demonstrate higher returns to schooling than girls, improving school quality may have more of an effect on boys than on girls.

68. Taking poverty as the primary contributor to child labor, programs such as PETI, _Bolsa Escola_ and FGRM are well designed in that they compensate families for a child's foregone earnings and mitigate the family characteristics that lead to poverty. The design and targeting mechanisms as well as monitoring and evaluation of these programs, however, could be improved by explicitly considering the gender dimensions of child labor, that is, the incidence, number of hours worked, and the types of activities in which boys and girls are involved.

> 69. An exanination of the sectors and activities in which girls and boys work suggests the need for further research on domestic service, a sector in which girls are overrepresented. Besides the incompatible nature of domestic service with schooling, the private nature of this type of work means that girls are more likely to be subjected to both physical and mental abuse. Moreover, the number of girls working in domestic service is increasing,

> even while child labor is decreasing overall in Brazil.

70. Lastly, the paper suggests the need to address gender in intervention strategies for street children. While most programs justifiably focus on boys due to their overrepresentation of the working population, the plight of girls should not be neglected. In addition to the number of street children, programs need to consider: (a) the type of activities in which boys and girls are engaged; (b) the risks and hazards boys and girls face (physical and psychological), either through the activities or working and living conditions; and (c) the different reasons that boys and girls work in the street. The _Sen/inela_ Program, for example, which targets children at-risk of working in the sex industry, is a good example of an initiative that addresses the gender-differentiated reasons that girls and boys work. Supporting such efforts as well as increasing research on how interventions for working and

> **15** Ilahi and Sedlacek (2000).

27
street children affects boys and girls differently, will continue to demonstrate Brazil's innovative efforts at addressing this important issue.

28