Child labour and the ILO

Roos Keja

Course: Development and Social Change

Lecturer: Prof. Dr. L. J. de Haan

Leiden, 8 February 2008

1
Introduction

Nowadays, the theme of child labour is very popular in ‘development thinking’, an

expression that can be used to catch the total of ideas about development, including theory,
strategy and ideology (Potter 2004: 81). It is a fairly recent theme, in which ‘no-one was much
interested twenty years ago’ to use the words of Alec Fyfe (2001: 68). The main actors that
shape the child labour discourse are the International Labour Organisation (ILO), UNICEF
and the World Bank. ‘Civil society’ to which NGO’s belong, is also important (Fyfe 2001: 73).
In this paper, the stance of the ILO on the issue of child labour will be discussed. I will
analyse the development of the position of the ILO towards child labour in the perspective of
the trends in development thinking, with a focus on the period between 1973 and 2006. To be
able to make this analysis, I will make use of literature and of texts of the ILO. It is not easy
to find ILO reports that are written more than ten years ago. To cover the whole period, I
will therefore make use of the text of a convention instead of a report: Convention 138 on
Minimum Age, issued in 1973. Furthermore, I examine a report published in 1999, named
‘IPEC action against child labour: Achievements, Lessons Learned and Indications for the Future
(1998-1999)’. The second report of attention is published in 2006 and carries the promising
name ‘The End of Child Labour: Within Reach’.
In the following section, I will discuss the development of the ILO from its existence until
the Convention of 1973 and link this to the broader discussions in development thinking.
Then I will move on to discussing the Convention of 1973, in which the idea is voiced that
work and education are interchangeable. Subsequently, the reports of 1999 and 2006 will be
discussed and placed in the framework of development. In the conclusions I will make an
effort to link these different themes and put this in the broader perspective of shifts in
development thinking.

The ILO and development thinking from 1919 until the 1970s

The ILO was founded at the end of the First World War. Its constitution was being adopted
in 1919 by the Peace Conference of Versailles that ended the First World War. In 1946, when
the League of Nations transferred all its assets to the United Nations, the ILO became the
first specialized agency of the United Nations (ILO 2000).
The ILO has grown out of nineteenth-century labour and social movements which
culminated in widespread demands for social justice and higher living standards for the
world's working people (ibid.). The main reason for the foundation of the ILO was not to

2
fight child labour, but to fight for better working conditions for the working people. The
institute facilitates negotiations between states in setting minimum international labour
standards in the form of conventions and recommendations. Furthermore, it provides
technical assistance to its constituents and conducts research on labour issues and highlights
the abuse of workers’ rights (O’ Brien & Williams 2007: 387). In structure, the ILO is unique
among world organizations in that the representatives of the workers and of the employers
have an equal voice with those of governments in formulating its policies (ILO 2008).
However, following O’Brien and Williams (2007: 387), the ILO is confined to an advocacy
role. Although the institution has been operating for almost 100 years, its ability to influence
states’ behaviour is limited by its lack of enforcement measures.
Since its existence, the ILO has advocated international trade. In the preamble to the
constitution of 1919, it is said: ‘The failure of any nation to adopt humane conditions of
labour is an obstacle in the way of other nations which desire to improve the conditions in
their own countries’. Even today, the ILO states at its website ‘the main route out of poverty
is work’ (ILO 2008). This can be linked to the neo-classical theories in development thinking,
that came into vogue just after the Second World War. In these theories, free world trade is
generally portrayed as the path to growth and development, and underdevelopment is seen
as a phase that can be overcome in time. The top-down approach that would bring ‘universal
modernism’ to the world, largely by means of industrialisation, is strongly associated with
this period and was only countered in the early 1970s (Potter 2004: 83-93).
The recession in the world economy of the mid-70s and the failure of industrialisation and
trickle-down policies led to a new approach: the basic needs approach. It argued for new
distribution of growth and replaced the focus on industrialisation with one given greater
attention to agriculture and the rural sector (O’ Brien & Williams 2007: 310). The basic needs
approach gained support from the ILO and World Bank and is still applied by the ILO,
according to a report of ILO and IPEC in which ‘providing basic assistance and services for
[..] child workers’ is designated as a priority (1999: 10). As has been shown, the core business
of the ILO is to set international standards to improve working conditions, of which
Convention 138 on Minimum Age, concerning the elimination of child labour.

Education to eradicate child labour, 1973 Convention

Since its existence, the ILO has been developing conventions on minimum age standards.
The early minimum age standards were set to ‘protect children from work that interferes

3
with their full development and to pursue economic efficiency through well-functioning
adult labour markets’ (ILO 2002). From the mid-1930s onwards, there has been an implicit
reference to education in these conventions (ibid.). Convention 138 concerning ‘Minimum
Age for Admission to Employment’, that was adopted in 1973, was the last one in the series
on the minimum age standard. The main aim expressed is: ‘to achieving the total abolition of
child labour’. In this convention, the need for education is explicitly voiced, mainly in articles
two and seven:

Article 2.3. The minimum age [..] shall not be less than the age of completion of compulsory
schooling and, in any case, shall not be less than 15 years.

Article 7.1. National laws or regulations may permit the employment or work of persons 13 to
15 years of age on light work which is (a) not likely to be harmful to their health or
development; and (b) not such as to prejudice their attendance at school […]

Article 7.1 draws special attention to the possibility that work can be damaging to children’s
health and development. Following the ILO, this should be avoided at all costs, because
when the children are grown up they should make their contribution to economic growth
and development (ILO 2002: 7). In most development projects in the 1970s and 1980s, the
target-groups were presented as part of the problem, suffering from social inadequacy to
deal with their environment. Development aid entailed many interventions, because of the
perceived lack of ‘knowledge’ of the target-group to deal with their problems themselves.
Among the solutions, sensitising the target group, making them ‘take conscience’ has
become a common component of development projects (Rossi 2006: 32-33). Thinking along
this line, if one can make parents understand that working is bad for the development of
their offspring, child labour will cease to exist.
From the mid-70s onwards, a growing critique of top-down policies was voiced; it was
argued that it simply maintain the status quo. Emerging from this, ‘development from
below’ has gained itself a prominent place in development thinking. The emphasis is more
on rural-based development strategies, and is also described as grassroots development or
urban-based rural development (Potter 2004: 114). However, still, the peasants and city
dwellers do not decide on the subjects that have to be targeted, because the international
institutions exert their power through the control of agenda setting; they make the decisions
about what gets discussed or not (Lewis & Mosse 2006: 7).
In the year 1979, the International Year of the Child, the ILO got its first major opportunity
to put the subject of child labour on the agenda. In 1989, when the Convention on the Rights

4
of the Child was ratified, the ILO received resources to launch a technical co-operation
project on child labour, for the first time in its existence (Fyfe 2001). In the 1980s, a decade
that is usually seen as the ´lost decade´ for development (O’ Brien & Williams 2007: 312), the
ILO launched a series of publications and reports on child labour. A summary of the ideas
voiced in these documents was given in the Opening Address of Morozov, Assistant
Director-General on a meeting in 1991: “Education is perhaps the single most powerful
means of combating child labour”.
Although the mainstream development actors consider education as a way to fight child
labour, many social scientists point out that education is not the ‘golden’ answer to the
elimination of child labour (see for instance Fyfe 2001; White 1999; Invernizzi & Milne; Myers
2000). They advocate a ‘child-centred-approach’ in which children are seen as social agents.
Their ideas can be associated with a general shift in development thinking towards a more
participatory approach in the 1990s.

Child labour in the picture, the 1990s

As has been shown, a ‘bottom-up’ approach arose as an alternative to the top-down

approach in the late 1970s. From the mid-1980s onwards ´participation´ of different
stakeholders came to be considered of great importance. In 1992, the International
Programme on the Elimination of Child Labour (IPEC) was launched by the ILO, which can
be seen as its executive branch on the domain of child labour. From 1992 onwards, when the
ILO was given funding to launch IPEC, the institute has been given a stronger mandate to
fight against child labour than ever before. Following Fyfe (2001: 74), the IPEC is not more
than a non-formal education programme, that has not been evaluated thoroughly enough. In
the report IPEC however states: ‘The world community looks upon the ILO for guidance and
support in solving the problems of child labour’ (ILO & IPEC 1999: 32).
In its report, IPEC advocates ‘a flexible but holistic approach with an emphasis on
prevention, country ownership by involving local partners in shaping a response to the
problem, and a long-term commitment to address the root causes of the problem’ (ibid.: 36).
The shift that has taken place from the interventionist top-down approach to a bottom-up
approach is clearly present, especially in the terms ‘ownership’ and ‘partners’. This is
coherent with the account of Potter (2004: 118-119), stressing the changes from the late 1990s
upon recent days. A call for sustainable development has been accompanied by the idea of
‘empowerment’ and ‘self-reliance’ of the target group. Partnership is a questionable term,
because it implies an equality that is usually absent; partnerships are mostly externally

5
shaped by the institutes that exert their power to set the agenda (Lewis and Mosse 2006: 7).
Furthermore, the aforementioned buzzwords, like empowerment, that are displayed by
development policy, combined with the complacency of development agents are notably
incongruent with the reality of the lack of progress on many of the development indicators
(Lewis & Mosse 2006: 8).
Convention 182 on the Worst Forms of Child Labour1 was adopted in 1999, giving an extra
impetus for action. ILO recalls this as ‘a growing potential for accommodating diversity
within unity’ (ILO 2006: 79). The acknowledgement of diversity and the wish to
accommodate this diversity, is encouraging. Although Convention 138 is not abandoned,
Convention 182 potentially promotes a more differentiated, flexible and child-friendly
approach towards child labour. Following White (1999: 139), for the first time in its existence
the ILO was confronted with organised working children who demanded to be included in
the process of consultation, and who managed to achieve some degree of participation. The
ILO mentions these changes in its second Global Report:

One result of a more vigorous worldwide movement from the mid-1990s was a growing
pluralism of thought around child labour concerning concepts, causation and responses. At one
level this diversity was a positive (and inevitable) feature of the worldwide movement. On the
other hand there was the ever-present danger of factionalism, which impedes progress towards
global consensus and concerted action against child labour. (2006: 79)

It is apparent that the ILO is struggling with the pluralism and diversity within the child
labour discourse. When reading further, it becomes clear that an imminent wish of the ILO is
to unify and to universalise the different actors in the field of child labour. A closer look at
the Global Report (2006) will show the paradox in the ILO standpoint.

Is the end of child labour within reach?

The second Global Report on Child Labour (2006), carries the encouraging title: The End of
Child Labour: Within Reach. The message of this report is summarised in its preface:

[..] economic growth is not enough – countries must combine it with the right policy mix,
focusing on equality, human rights, decent work for all adults, and education for all children.
The elimination of child labour cannot be achieved in isolation. (ILO 2006: VIII)

1
The worst forms of child labour are: slavery, including child trafficking and child soldiers; prostitution; illicit
activities, in particular related to drugs; work which is likely to harm the health, safety or morals of children.

6
The report carries a clear message of universality, put into a broad historical perspective. The
ILO claims to have a profound understanding of child labour, drawing on ‘over 150 years of
accumulated wisdom from all parts of the world’ (2006: 1). It states that the actions that were
undertaken to combat child labour at the time of the Industrial Revolution, are ‘standard
elements of the universally recognized package of interventions’ (Ibid.). The historical
continuity that is revealed in this texts adds to the argument that child labour can be
eradicated at any time and any place.
Another statement subscribes this: ‘Child labour elimination comes down to a set of
political choices rather than a technocratic exercise’ (Ibid.: 25). Two factors that would bring
an end to child labour would be the unification of ‘the worldwide movement’ and the
upsurge of the political will to prioritize the issue. This worldwide movement is emerging in
a time in which participation is no longer confined to the grassroots level, but has also
gained an appeal on the macro level in the form of a ‘network of global civic activism’ (Lewis
& Mosse 2006: 5). That the formation of such a network is not easy is shown in the following
quote:

Another tension resulted from a false opposition between human rights approaches and those
focused on seeing child labour as part of the wider development debate. Historically, these
elements have always been combined in the global struggle against child labour – they are two
pathways to a common goal. Indeed, there is a growing global consensus on the need for
rights-based development, which can encompass both approaches. (Ibid.: 79)

In this phrase, the ILO shows its dedication to the rights-based approach that it has adopted
towards adult workers since its existence. Following the ILO, there is ‘an expanded
awareness that economic development must go hand in hand with respect for human rights’
(Ibid.: 2). This is very congruent with the overall ideology of the ILO.
In the same section the ILO shows its inflexibility and its strong inclination towards a
universalistic approach: ‘The ILO [..] needs to work with the development community to
erase the differences in approach mentioned above, which are distractions from a common
goal’ (Ibid.: 80). This matches the description of Lewis and Mosse (2006: 5), about emerging
critical and reflexive currents among policy thinkers themselves. Following them, the danger
still exists that institutions have a strong inclination towards universalism, which can easily
lead to overlooking the contextual frame. The ILO can be said to form part of the institutions
that brush aside the unruliness of practice and lead the attention away from the plurality of
perspectives in its universalistic discourse. Hence it remains to be seen if the ILO truly has

7
the mandate to unify all the actors who are involved in the field of child labour to eliminate
this very field.

Conclusions

The ILO has been the first international institute to address the issue of child labour, dating
back to its foundation in 1919. Within the United Nations, the ILO is the most ‘social
democratic’ institute, founded by the protagonists of labour rights. Generally speaking, the
institute does comply with the broad trends in development thinking, but there appears to
be somewhat more reflection.
In the mid-1970s, when the world realised that industrialisation did not bring economic
growth and development for all, the institute raised its voice with the adoption of
Convention 138, calling for the need to abolish child labour. In the early 1990s, when a more
people-centred approach came to the fore and the human rights movement was grown,
accompanied by the call for ‘participation of stakeholders’, IPEC was launched. This is a sign
of the successful adoption of the subject of child labour on the ‘development agenda’ of the
main development institutions. After all, the main institutions decide upon the very
existence, as well as upon the urgency of the problems on their agenda.
With the adoption of the Convention of the Worst Forms of Child Labour in 1999, the ILO
has shown its ability to differentiate among forms of child labour. This seems to reflect a
clear influence of the alternative theories Potter discusses (2004). However, paradoxically as
it may sound, this has given the institute a stronger mandate to call for unity in the approach
to fight child labour. In other words, the ILO seems to advocate a people-centred-approach,
but is at the same time very universalistic in its ideology. The difference between a people-
centred approach and a child-centred approach could well be more complicated than the ILO
makes it appear. The human rights based approach that has been at the core of the ILO since
its existence. The challenge to adapt this approach to a more children’s rights based
approach, involving the full participation of children, lies ahead.

References

Fyfe, A. 2001. Child Labour and Education: Revisiting the Policy Debates, in Lieten K. & B.
White (eds) Child labour. Policy Options, Amsterdam: Aksant, pp. 67-84.

8
ILO. 1973. Convention 138 on Minimum Age [online]. Website: www.ilo.org/ilolex/cgi-
lex/convde.pl?C138 (accessed 20-01-2008).

ILO & IPEC. 1999. IPEC action against child labour: Achievements, lessons learned and
indications for the future (1998-1999) [online]. website:
www.ilo.org/ipecinfo/product/viewProduct.do?productId=171 (accessed 20-01-2008).

ILO. 2000. History of the ILO [online]. Website:

www.ilo.org/public/english/about/history.htm (accessed 20-01-2008).

ILO. 2002. Global Report: A Future without Child Labour. [online]. Website:
www.ilo.org/dyn/declaris/DECLARATIONWEB.GLOBALREPORTDETAILS?var_languag
e=EN&var_PublicationsID=37&var_ReportType=Report (accessed 20-01-2008).

ILO. 2006. Global Report: The End of Child Labour: Within Reach [online]. Website:
www.ilo.org/public/english/standards/relm/ilc/ilc95/pdf/rep-i-b.pdf (accessed 20-01-
2008).

ILO. 2008. About the ILO [online]. Website: www.ilo.org/global/About_the_ILO/lang--

en/index.htm (accessed 20-01- 2008).

Invernizzi, A. & B. Milne. 2002. Are children entitled to contribute to international policy
making? A critical view of children’s participation in the international campaign for the
elimination of child labour, International Journal of Children’s Rights, 10 (4), pp. 403-431.

Lewis, D. & D. Mosse. 2006. Theoretical Approaches to Brokerage and Translation. In: Lewis,
D. & D. Mosse (eds.). Development Brokers and Translators: The Ethnography of Aid and Agencies.
Bloomfield: Kumarian Press Inc, pp. 1-26.

Moore, K. 2000. Supporting Children in their Working Lives: Obstacles and Opportunities
Within the International Policy Environment, Journal of International Development, 12, pp. 531-
548.

Myers, W.E. 2001. The Right Rights? Child Labor in a Globalizing World, ANNALS AAPSS,
575 (1), pp. 38-55.

9
O’Brien, R. & M. Williams. 2007 [2004]. Global Political Economy: Evolution and Dynamics. New
York: Palgrave MacMillan.

Potter, R.B. [et al.] 2004 [1999]. Geographies of Development. Harlow [etc.] : Pearson/Prentice
Hall.

Rossi, B. 2006. Aid Policies and Recipient Strategies in Niger. In: Lewis, D. & D. Mosse (eds.).
Development Brokers and Translators: The Ethnography of Aid and Agencies. Bloomfield:
Kumarian Press Inc, pp. 27-74.

White, B. 1999. Defining the Intolerable: Child Work, Global Standards and Cultural
Relativism. Childhood 6 (1): pp. 133-144.

10