Contexts Analysis and Study of Causes of the Exploitation of Children in Agricultural Activities (Case Study: Mahidasht Dehestan of Kermanshah County)

Journal of Research and Rural Planning

مقاله 6، دوره 5، شماره 3 - شماره پیاپی 15، اسفند 2016، صفحه 163-178   

نوع مقاله: علمی

شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22067/jrrp.v5i3.50793

نویسندگان

Faranak Karamian^* ؛ Ali Asghar Mirakzadeh؛ Kiumars Zarafshani

Razi University

چکیده

Extended abstract
1. INTRODUCTION
In many low-income countries, agriculture forms a large portion of economic activities and a high proportion of employment. Boys and girls throughout history have formed part of the agricultural workforce. Major part of the food and drink that we consume, are produced by child labor in agricultural activities, that this phenomenon is more common in developing and developed countries.
2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
Child labor is a persistent problem worldwide, especially in developing countries. Children form over half the world's population and play a significant role in agriculture. Article I of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, "child" is to be defined: » A child is human beings under the age of eighteen years, unless according to the law applicable to the child, the age of Maturity is detected fewer «. The reasons why employers hire children in the agricultural sector can be divided into 5 categories, which include the following: 1- Lack or non-enforcement of regulations and laws; 2- Children as a cheap source of labour; 3- Rural development and employment; 4- Fair globalization and access to international markets; 5- The global agri-food industry and child labour, and the role of consumers. In general we can say that the main causes of child labor in agricultural activities, including economic factors (poverty, unemployment, the gap, children as cheap labor), social factors (lack of child protection laws, lack of child protection organizations, obedient children and their easy management), family factors (family size, parental awareness of children's needs), and cultural factors (false beliefs as children as a source of income, the need for participation of children in agriculture, keeping the family tradition and limited access to education).
3. METHODOLOGY
Purpose of this research is contexts analysis and study of causes of the exploitation of children in agricultural activities in rural areas. The population included three groups. The first group includes children 5 to 18 years (N=934), the second group includes parents that their children work on farms, and the third group includes experts who are relevant to child labor (N=30). In the first group (children), a sample of 272 members was selected using Krejcie and Morgan (1970) sampling table and the stratified random sampling method with proportional allocation. In the second group (parents), due to the lack of accurate statistics about the parents, purposeful sampling was used. In the third group, (experts) the enumeration is done. Data were collected through structured questionnaire that its validity is confirmed by expert’s panel and its reliability was assessed by Cranach’s alpha (Causes α = 0/83 and children's activities α = 0/95). The collected data were analyzed through SPSS18.
4. DISCUSSION
Based on the results, girls most active in areas such as weeding out the field (average = 4/5), picking product (average= 4/1), water the animals (average= 3/96) and cleaning the place of animals (average= 3/5) and boys most active in areas such as picking product (average= 4), thrashing (average= 3/97), transferring product to the warehouse (average= 3/84). The reasons for employing children, according to research results, are expressed as creating accountability (average= 4/33), cheap use of children (average= 4/25), being clever and agile (average= 4/24). While parents noted factors such as lack of parent’s awareness of the dangers of child labor (average= 4/19), being cheap (average= 4/06) and being obedient (average= 3/94). The experts said that the main reason for using child labor such as being cheap use of family labor (average= 4/6), family poverty (average= 4/53) and the disabled their parents (average= 4/31). According to the results of research on the causes of exploitation of children in agricultural activities from the perspective of the three groups, it might be argued that similarities can be found at all three groups. Because all three groups believe that cheaper the use of children for parents, the main reason is their use of children. Because parents do not give to children money against what they do and this the cause is that more income Given the family. Results correlation analysis shows that there is a significant positive relationship among the children's activities with amount of irrigated land and their families light and heavy livestock; that's mean with increasing levels of irrigated land and having more light and heavy livestock, increase the children's activities that this is the logical because having irrigated land needs more work and this also applies about more livestock.

5. CONCLUSION
According to the results, the average income of rural households (Less than 100 million riyals in the year) on the other hand, lack a second job in the child custody case, recommend the diversification of sources of rural income with business education in rural areas has improved the income of rural households, that parent use of skilled workers instead the use of forced their child. in this way make less pressure to their children, escape from vicious trap and also increase productivity and performance in rural areas. It was observed that with the increase of age and the increase in their ability, Increased The volume of work assigned to them, As the ages of 15 to 17 years had most workloads. However, the continuing education is the only way out of the vicious circle and to academic success reduce the workload in this age, therefore it is suggested the action to alert parents in to preference children's education.

کلیدواژه‌ها

Agricultural؛ rural؛ Children؛ child labor؛ Mahidasht

مراجع

1. Adeoti, A. I., Coster, A. S., & Gbolagun, A. O. (2013). Child farm labour in rural households of south-west, Nigeria. Global Journal of Human-Social Science Research, 13(1), 12-22. ‏

2. Agha Nasiri, M. (1391/2012). A review of the agriculture sector investment in four development programs. Economic Journal (Monthly Issues and Economic Policies), 12(4-5), 61-78. [In Persian]

3. Ahmed, A. U., Hill, R. V., Smith, L. C., Wiesmann, D. M., & Frankenberger, T. (2007). The world’s most deprived. Characteristics and causes of extreme poverty and hunger. Washington: International Food Policy Research Institute.

4. Binder, M., & Scrogin, D. (1999). Labor force participation and household work of urban schoolchildren in Mexico: Characteristics and consequences. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 48(1), 123–154.

5. Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA). (2006). Children contribution to working and caring for the land: the linkage between agriculture and children rights. Retrieved 20 July 2014 from http:// www.cida.gc.ca,1-13

6. Canagarajah, S., & Coulombe, H. (1998). Child labor and schooling in Ghana. Policy Research Working, 1844, 1-44.

7. Coster, A. S., & Adekoya, M. I. (2014). Determinants of child labour and schooling in rural farming households in Ogun State, Nigeria. Asian Journal of Agriculture and Food Science, 2(4), 278-288.

8. Edet, G. E., & Etim, N. A. A. (2013). Child labour in agriculture among poor rural households: some issues and facts. European Journal of Physical and Agricultural Sciences, 1(1), 1-7. ‏

9. El-Gilany, A., Khalil, A., & El-Wehady, A. (2007). Epidemiology and hazards of student labor in Mansoura, Egypt. Eastern Mediterranean Health Journal, 13(2), 347-363.

10. Forastieri, V. (2002). Children at work: health and safety risks. International Labour Organization. ‏

11. Grootaert, C. (1998). Child labor in Cote d'Ivoire: incidence and determinants (Vol. 1905). Washington: World Bank Publications. ‏

12. Grootaert, C., & Kanbur, R. (1995). Child labor: An economic perspective. International Labor Review, 134(2), 187–203.

13. Habibi, T. (1381/2002). The cash on the CRC / legal review. Journal of Strategic Studies of Women, 16, 1-10. [In Persian]

14. International labor organization. (2000). Safety and health in agriculture. 88 (1). Retrieved 15 July 2014 from http:// www.ilo.org/ipec.

15. International labor organization. (2010). Accelerating action against child labour, Report of the Director-General. International Labour Conference, 99th Session. Retrieved 29 June 2014 from http:// www.ilo.org/ipec.

16. International labor organization. (2014). Child Labor in Agriculture. Geneva: International Labor Organization.

17. International Labour Organization. (2006). Tackling hazardous child labour in agriculture Guidance on policy and practice. International Labour Organization.

18. International Labour Organization. (2015). World Report on Child Labour 2015: Paving the Way to Decent Work for Young People. International Labour Organization. ‏

19. Kalantari, S., & Kiani, M. (1385/2006). A comparative study of child labor in developed countries and developing world with an emphasis on Human Development Index. Political and Economic Monthly Periodical Journal, 231-232, 202-295. [In Persian]

20. Kotb, S. A., Mohamed, A. G., Abdel Khalek, E. M., & Yones, D. A. (2011). Agricultural labor among school children in rural Assiut, Egypt. Life Science Journal, 8(2), 423-439. ‏

21. Levison, D., Moe, K. S., & Knaul, F. M. (2001). Youth education and work in Mexico. World Development, 29(1), 167-188.

22. Lloyd, C. B., & Gage-Brandon, A. J. (1994). High fertility and children's schooling in Ghana: Sex differences in parental contributions and educational outcomes. Population Studies, 48(2), 293-306. ‏

23. Menon, M., Perali, F., & Rosati, F. (2005). The shadow wage of child labour: An application to Nepal. Understanding Children’s Work: An Inter-Agency Research Cooperation Project. ‏ Rome, University of Rome, Faculty of Economics

24. Nielsen, H. (1998). Child labor and school attendance: Two joint decisions. University of Aarhus, Denmark, CLS Working Paper Series, 98, 1-32.

25. Nkamleu, G. B., & Kielland, A. (2006). Modeling farmers' decisions on child labor and schooling in the cocoa sector: a multinomial logit analysis in Côte d'Ivoire. Agricultural Economics, 35(3), 319-333. ‏

26. Okpukpara, B. C., & Odurukwe, N. (2006). Incidence and determinants of child labour in Nigeria: Implications for poverty alleviation. ‏ African Economic Research Consortium (156), 1-45.

27. Patrinos, H. A., & Shafiq, M. N. (2008). A positive stigma for child labor?. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper Series, ‏ 4697, 1- 14.

28. Patrinos, H., & Psacharopoulos, G. (1997). Family size, schooling and child labor in Peru: An empirical analysis. Journal of Population Economics, 10(4), 387–405.

29. Siddiqi, F., & Patrinos, H. A. (1995). Child labor: Issues, causes and interventions. Human Resource Development and Operation Policy Working Paper Series, 56, 1-14.

30. Similer, K. R., Mukherjee, S., Dava, G. L., & Datt, G. (2004). Rebuilding after war: Micro- level determinants of poverty reduction in Mozambique. Washington, dc IFPRI Research Report: International food policy research institute.

31. Weiner, M., Burra, N., & Bajpai, A. (2006). Born unfree - child labour, education, and the state in India. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.

32. World Bank. (2003). Timor-leste poverty assessment. Poverty in a new nation: Analysis for action. Washington, DC.