Explaining cross‐country differences in policy response to child labour

Dessy, Sylvain; Vencatachellum, Désiré

doi:10.1111/1540-5982.00001

Cited by 24 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…9 Mother i supplies work inelastically and her wage w A i is proportional to f i , that is w A i = f i w A , where w A is the axiom context. Dessy and Vencatachellum (2003) find a positive relation between child labor incidence and the log of the Gini index of inequality. Swinnerton and Rogers (1999) show that the impact of economy-wide inequality on child labor is, in general, ambiguous.…”

Section: Householdsmentioning

confidence: 77%

Consumer boycott, household heterogeneity, and child labor

Maio

Fabbri²

2012

J Popul Econ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Consumer boycott campaigns against goods that are produced using child labor are becoming increasingly popular. Yet there is still no consensus on the effects of this type of activism on child labor in developing countries. In fact, if some agreement is to be found in the recent economic literature, it is that a boycott does not reduce child labor. We contribute to this discussion by presenting a simple model which shows that there are conditions under which a consumer boycott reduces child labor. We consider a small country two-factor economy populated by heterogeneous households. The boycott affects both the adult and the child labor markets. We show that the effects are heterogeneous and depends on household characteristics and on the income distribution. We derive the conditions under which the consumer boycott reduces child labor not only for non-poor households but also for some of the households whose income is -before the boycott -below the subsistence level.Keywords: Consumer product boycott, child labor, household heterogeneity, income distribution.JEL Classification: J13, C35 * Department of Economic Studies, University of Naples Parthenope (Italy) and HiCN. E-mail: michele.dimaio@uniparthenope.it.† Corresponding author. Department of Economic Studies, University of Naples Parthenope (Italy.) E-mail: giorgio.fabbri@uniparthenope.it. We would like to thank two anonymous Referees, the Editor of this Journal, Carmen Camacho, Matthias Doepke, Eric Edmonds and Vincenzo Lombardo for comments and suggestions. All errors are of course our own responsibility.

show abstract

Section: Householdsmentioning

confidence: 77%

Consumer boycott, household heterogeneity, and child labor

Maio

Fabbri²

2012

J Popul Econ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…if a child is vulnerable 5 hours per days, then T (b) = 5 24 . 7 Since we consider a measure one of heterogeneous households, the average value is equivalent to the total value. always profitable for the kidnapper to kidnap a child that is his benefit is at least equal to his cost.…”

Section: The Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Theory of Child Protection against Kidnapping

Orset¹

2008

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…1 The absence of a significant positive relationship between measures of absolute poverty and child labor has often been reported at a micro-level (Canagarajah and Coulombe 1997;Kambhampati and Rajan 2005;Ray 2000a;Swaminathan 1998). that focus on market imperfection (Baland and Robinson 2000;Behrman 1999;Emerson and Souza 2003) and income inequality (Dessy and Vencatachellum 2003;Ranjan 2001;Rogers and Swinnerton 2001). The macro-development literature offers alternative explanations to the persistence of child labor 1.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A few studies focus on income inequality. Dessy and Vencatachellum (2003) attribute child labor to unequal distribution of wealth and coordination failure between parents and firms. On the other hand, Ranjan (2001) postulates that lower income inequality reduces child labor by relaxing borrowing constraints for the poor.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Why Does Child Labor Persist With Declining Poverty?

Sarkar

2015

Economic Inquiry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We develop a dynamic overlapping generations model to highlight the role of income inequality in explaining the persistence of child labor under declining poverty. Differential investment in two forms of human capital-schooling and health-in the presence of inequality gives rise to a nonconvergent income distribution in the steady state characterized by multiple steady states of relative income with varying levels of education, health, and child labor. The child labor trap thus generated is shown to preserve itself despite rising per capita income. Policy recommendations include public provision of education targeted toward reducing schooling costs for the poor or raising the efficacy of public health infrastructure. (JEL I1, J2, O1, O2) * We are grateful to Jakob Madsen, Ranjan Ray, and Pushkar Maitra for their valuable inputs. We also thank Richard Barnett, Uwe Dulleck, Lionel Page, Elena del Rey Canteli, and the seminar participants of Queensland University of Technology, University of Queensland and the 7th

show abstract

Explaining cross‐country differences in policy response to child labour

Cited by 24 publications

References 31 publications

Consumer boycott, household heterogeneity, and child labor

Consumer boycott, household heterogeneity, and child labor

A Theory of Child Protection against Kidnapping

Why Does Child Labor Persist With Declining Poverty?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About