Child Labour and Education

1)
This issue broadly creates negative effect in an economy both in short run and long run. The nation loses great potential by the expansion of child labour participation rate. There is no alternative way to improve an economy without reducing child labour.

Again, it is not possible to eradicate child labour within the short period of time. Gradually, people are able to shift our children from work to education. We know that, many reasons are involved behind children become labour in formal and informal sector. From all of the possible causes, poverty is the significant reason to raise child labour.

Although poverty itself is a multidimensional factor, if we create new work opportunity to our poor people and reduce inequality between rich and poor, then child labour will decline.

We need to provide proper and unique education in primary study level, then we should introduce different and practical education program in the secondary level for our poor children. That will helpful for getting job, as well as, ensuring self-employment. We have to secure quality education support from NGO institutes. Their education program should be equipped on economic and social perspective and it must sustainable for particular period of time.

Child education and child nutrition both are the prerequisite for human development in any nation. Both conditions are positively relates with each other, i.e. if child education improve it enhances child nutrition as well. But our children are suffering severely with malnutrition and the malnutrition strongly effects of our child worker.

We need to take some awareness program to poor parents about child education. Without hard to survive, the majority of parents can give their children to continue education. If the poor parents get aware about future prospect of their children through proper education, they will motivate to their children to affix education. Parents and children both must have same goal about the future prospect of their family as well as nation

2)
The model contributes to highlight the link between poverty, education and child labour. Under bad economic conditions, it appears that parents may decide to keep children away from school. In such a context, trade sanctions or repressive laws seem not to be the right solution to fight against child labour. Government policies have to act mainly on growth and on poverty.
Different education policies are considered in the paper and a subsistence consumption is introduced to define a poverty line. When the quality of education is too low or when the households income are below the poverty line, a low-development trap occurs. An improvement of the quality of education through a private education regime or a public education regime may enhance human capital growth and reduce child labour. Nevertheless, if the stock of human capital is low and above the poverty line, the private regime may be more efficient that the public education regime through the incentives it creates, linked to the quality of education. Besides in this case, a public aid can be necessary to finance a public education system, in order to avoid a too heavy fiscal burden that would induce a poverty trap. But if the economy is not too poor, the public regime may be as good as the private system one, or better if the educational quality is high enough.
These results are coherent with empirical facts and may give explanations to the relatively important development of private schooling systems in developing countries at communauty or local levels. It is also shown that when the economy is below the poverty line, none of the education regimes considered in the paper enables to get out the low-development trap. In this case only subsidies policy would contribute to enhance growth.
It would be interesting to compare both regimes with heterogeneous agents. Besides, savings should be introduced in the model in order to study how a social protection system may contribute to reduce child labour.

3) This study investigated the impact of child labour on educational attainment over a threeyear horizon using an instrumental variables strategy. In rural areas, there is suggestive evidence that child labour has no effect on mathematics test scores, although this finding is limited by a weak instruments problem. In urban areas, strong instruments allow us to identify a large causal impact of child labour; a one s.d. increase in hours worked reduces test scores by 12.45 points (out of 100), or 67.85% of one standard deviation of the test score. Given the heterogeneity in the type of employment opportunities available between rural and urban areas, results indicate that policy should focus more on reducing the incidence of the most harmful types of child labour, rather than just reducing child labour in general.
This study has several limitations that could be overcome by better data. Firstly, stronger instruments are required for rural child labour. Secondly, further controls, such as school quality measures, would improve the robustness of the results. While village fixed effects partly capture differential school quality by location, objective measures such as class size would be more informative.
This study could be extended in several ways. Once future rounds of data are collected, further questions could be investigated such as the impact of child labour on final educational attainment, or employment outcomes in adulthood. Moreover, once round 3 data become publically available, the younger cohort of children surveyed by Young Lives could also be included in the analysis.