"My dream is to have no more children working by the end of my term."
- Former Peruvian President Ollanta Humala, 2012
The idea that child labor should not be permitted in Peru is a common discourse amongst Peruvian politicians. It attempts to push the image of the ideal child of the Global North (referring to the typically richer, more developed countries of the Northern Hemisphere) that Peruvian children should embody, which includes not participating in child labor. This discourse is then reemphasized by global organizations, such as the International Labor Organization, which in turn influence Peruvian politics to continue following the ideals of the Global North. The ideal child of the Global North is one of a protected child that attends school and whose main utility to society is to be cherished and developed into adults [1]. In Peruvian politics, this looks like supporting policies such as banning any labor below the age of 14. However, if Peru’s goal is truly to embody the Global North ideal of the educated child, is an all-out ban of labor below a certain age the most efficient way to eliminate child labor in Peru?
Child Labor and Education
There are a couple of issues that arise with complete restrictions on child labor and its assumed association with increased educational attainment. First, there is limited research establishing the relationship between child labor and education. Second, child labor and its effect on education are outcomes of complex household decisions and are related to other factors affecting individual families. These factors include the number of children in the household, the family’s access to income, and the parents’ interest in schooling. In rural areas, additional factors arise such as the proximity and availability of schooling. This means that child labor is only one of many factors that affect education. Additionally, according to Peter Orazem et al's book Child Labor and Education in Latin America, there is evidence to show that child labor and school enrollment can be complementary activities and that child labor can increase potential educational attainment by increasing household income.
Although child labor can bring some benefits, it can also have negative consequences. Studies have shown working fewer than 5 hours per week appears to have a negative effect on school performance. Rates of child labor are much more prevalent in rural areas as opposed to urban areas in Peru, with children in rural areas being four times more likely to participate in child labor than children in urban areas [2]. Even as child labor does not seem to be a major influence on enrollment and attendance of school, it does seem to directly affect school performance. With 45% of rural families living in poverty in 2015, compared to 14% in urban areas, child labor disproportionately affects rural children’s ability to attend and excel in school compared to urban children.
For children that attend both work and school about 36% of them are lagging behind their expected grade level in Peru, while for children who only attend school that number is closer to 28% of children who are lagging behind. This means that children who work will complete less years of schooling, especially in rural areas where children are more likely to work longer hours and lose even more years of school than children in urban areas [3]. This also clearly indicates that the Peruvian education system is ineffective if one in three children who only attend school still lag behind their expected grade level, proving that simply banning labor with the expectation that Peruvian children will be more educated is both not viable or realistic. This ineffectiveness is due to Peru’s poor investment in education.
Peruvian Education Budget
[5]
In 2015, the OECD average government spending on public education as a proportion of GDP was about 6% [4]. In Peru, the investment in education in 2015 was at a very low rate as a proportion of GDP, standing at around 3.9%. In terms of government expenditure per student, Peru spends about $1,615.36 and $2,108.54 per student in primary and secondary education, respectively. This is amongst the lowest per student spending in Latin America. The lack of investment into the education budget has severely hurt the quality of Peru’s education system. This is evident in Peru’s 2015 PISA scores, an international assessment of educational quality, where Peru scored 64th of 70 participating countries. Therefore, for Peru to combat child labor effectively, policies should focus on education reform rather than banning child labor. This discourse is strongly supported by MANTHOC, which is a Peruvian organization run by children that advocates for children’s right to work and to make decisions that are of their best interests.
Alternative Solutions for Combatting Child Labor
Although enrollment rates, literacy rates, and primary school completion rates in Peru are favorable relative to its peers, the overall quality of the education provided is severely lacking. A Student Census Evaluation conducted by the Ministry of Education in 2015 reported that only 50 percent of second graders achieved satisfactory performance in reading comprehension, whereas only 27 percent of students reached the same level in mathematics. So, the first step in encouraging children to attend school over work is to increase the quality of education.
To do this, Peru needs to increase its education budget to allow for increases in both current and capital education spending. Current spending on education involves spending on things such as teachers wages and operational costs, and in this regard, Peru does very poorly. Teachers in Peru are drastically underpaid and many must take on second jobs to supplement their low income. This in turn makes Peruvian educators more likely to go on strike, which further pushes back time in the classroom for Peruvian students.
Capital spending on education involves spending on things such as infrastructure, which is heavily lacking in Peru. In 2016, only 44.4% of public schools had access to potable water, drainage, and electricity. There is also a significant relationship between school achievement and the frequent use of computers in schools, and in Peru computer access in schools is very limited with only 37% of schools using computers once a week or more. Rural areas are significantly more affected by this, with children in these areas being much more likely to have never used a computer.
It is clear that children in rural areas are much more likely to participate in child labor and have less access to quality education. Therefore, an extra incentive is necessary to encourage rural children to attend school rather than participate in labor. A system, like Mexico’s Prospera program, should be introduced in low-income households in rural areas. This program is a conditional cash transfer system that will transfer cash to impoverished families in rural areas given they meet certain educational enrollment, attendance, and achievement conditions. These conditional cash transfers can assist in both encouraging children in rural areas to attend and excel in school and to raise the income of families in rural areas who live in poverty.
If Peru truly wants its children to embody the ideal of the protected, educated child, then issuing a complete ban on child labor before a certain age would be counterproductive. Although during his tenure President Humala (2011-2016) did raise Peru’s education investment, it continues to remain far below the investment of its peers. The quality of Peru’s education system is poor, and with enrollment rates that are already at a high level, banning child labor will not benefit children if the alternative institution they are told to attend is extremely weak. Therefore, policies that aim to eliminate child labor in Peru should focus on making schools a more attractive way of spending time rather than labor and to assist low-income rural families that allow child labor due to its income boost to the household. Although embodying the ideals of the protected, educated child is not necessarily a bad thing, Peru must be aware of how they make this transition. The reality is that many Peruvian families do not have the luxury to have access to a quality public education system or to be able to live without an extra income boost. Peruvian politicians must take this into consideration when considering Global North policies and ideologies that could detrimentally impact Peruvian children rather than help them.
[1] Viviana A. Zelizer, Pricing the Priceless Child: the Changing Social Value of Children (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994 [1985]): 208-228.
[2] Guilherme Sedlacek et al, "Child Labor, Schooling, and Poverty in Latin America," Child Labor and Education in Latin America: An Economic Perspective, Eds. Peter Orazem, Guilherme Luis Sedlacek, and Zafiris Tzannatos (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2014): 33-40.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Jessica K.Taft, The Kids Are in Charge: Activism and Power in Peru's Movement of Working Children (New York: New York University Press, 2019): 35-36
[5] “Investing in Education to Reduce Poverty in Latin America.” Market Realist, 13 May 2015.
[6] Raul Choque, “Efficacy of an Educational Program on Life Skills in Peru.” Education and Technology, May 24, 2010.
Comments