Agricultural subsidy policies fail to deal with child labour under agricultural dualism: What could be the alternative policies?

Dwibedi, Jayanta Kumar; Chaudhuri, Sarbajit

doi:10.1016/j.rie.2014.05.003

Cited by 16 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 14 publications

(17 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…They have shown that higher economic growth may sufficiently raise the demand for commodities/services that use child labor thereby worsening the problem. For some other important explanations, see Chaudhuri and Dwibedi (), Gupta (), Jafarey and Lahiri (), Chaudhuri (, ) and Dwibedi and Chaudhuri (, ).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Relative Affluence and Child Labor—Explaining a Paradox

Dwibedi¹,

Marjit

2017

Review Development Economics

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Relative Affluence and Child Labor—Explaining a Paradox

Dwibedi¹,

Marjit

2017

Review Development Economics

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Child labour is primarily considered a poverty phenomenon (Basu, 2003; Dwibedi & Chaudhuri, 2014; Ersado, 2005; Frempong & Stadelmann, 2019). According to Basu and Van's (1998) luxury axiom, increasing income/wealth may reduce child labour incidence.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Do subsidies on seed and fertilizer lead to child labour? Evidence from Malawi

Frempong

2022

Development Policy Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Motivation: Sub-Saharan African governments have subsidized farm inputs-fertilizer and seed especially-to increase food production by small-scale farmers to improve food security. A potential drawback of such schemes is that they may encourage farmers to put their children to work in the fields, harming their education. Purpose: Did the Malawi Farm Input Subsidy Programme that began in 2005/2006 increase child labour on the holdings of beneficiary smallholders? Methods and approach: The article analyses data from the Malawi Integrated Household Panel Survey to examine the effect of seed and fertilizer subsidies on child labour. The study employs a correlated-random-effects-control function regression, using district coupon allocation as an instrumental variable for coupons received by households. Findings: There was statistically significant evidence that the Farm Input Subsidy Programme (FISP) increased child labour. The effect, however, was relatively small. At the sample mean, it was estimated that the programme led to a 12 percentage point increase in the likelihood that children would work on the farm and that the children would work an additional 72 minutes a week on the fields. The FISP, however, did not affect the enrolment of children in school. Effects varied socially: children in male-headed, uneducated, and smallholder households were the most affected. Policy implications: Although the observed effects are not large, they are unwelcome. Two policy corrections could eliminate them. One, the award of subsidy coupons could be made conditional on children's school performance. Two, given that the effects barely applied in households where parents had been to school, agricultural training should stress the importance of children attending school and not working in the fields.

show abstract

“…There are also works, e.g. Gupta (), Jafarey and Lahiri (), Chaudhuri (), Chaudhuri and Gupta (), Chaudhuri and Dwibedi (, ), and Dwibedi and Chaudhuri (, ), that have examined the consequences of trade sanctions, education subsidy and mid‐day meal programs and different liberalized economic policies on the incidence of child labor in the developing economies using different general equilibrium structures. However, none of these works has made any attempt to study the effects of different trade and domestic policies on the sectoral allocation of child labor and explain the atypical empirical finding that the use of child labor as domestic help has been on the rise.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Besides, in a country such as India where corruption is rampant, benefits of different subsidies hardly reach the target group(s). Of late, India has started implementing direct cash transfer for some of its subsidy programs to the bank accounts of the target groups through the “Aadhaar scheme.” The consequence of such a direct cash transfer scheme on child labor has been analyzed in Dwibedi and Chaudhuri ().…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Foreign Direct Investment and Domestic Child Labor

Chaudhuri

Dwibedi

2016

Review Development Economics

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Empirical evidence suggests that use of child labor as domestic help has increased significantly in recent years although the overall incidence of child labor across the globe has declined satisfactorily. This should draw the attention of economists and policymakers because domestic child labor is considered as exploitative and in many cases hazardous. This paper purports to explain this apparently perplexing finding theoretically in terms of a three‐sector general equilibrium model with a nontraded sector where only child labor is used to render services to the richer section of the society. The analysis shows how FDI‐led economic growth increases the size of the services sector although it lowers the overall incidence of child labor in the economy and improves the welfare of the poor families that supply child labor. Finally, a composite policy has been recommended that can deal with all three aspects favorably.

show abstract

Agricultural subsidy policies fail to deal with child labour under agricultural dualism: What could be the alternative policies?

Cited by 16 publications

References 14 publications

Relative Affluence and Child Labor—Explaining a Paradox

Relative Affluence and Child Labor—Explaining a Paradox

Do subsidies on seed and fertilizer lead to child labour? Evidence from Malawi

Foreign Direct Investment and Domestic Child Labor

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About