Parental absence and child labor in vietnam

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT IwouldfirstliketothankmythesissupervisorDr.NguyenHoangBaooftheVietnam– TheNetherlandsProgrammeVNPatHoChiMinhCityUniversityofEconomics.I muchappreciateforallhisdedication,

UNIVERSITYOFECONOMICS INSTITUTEOFSOCIAL

NETHERLANDSPROGRAMMEFORM.AINDEVELOPMENT ECONOMICS

VIETNAM-PARENTALABSENCEANDCHILD

LABORI N VIETNAM

Athesissubmitted inpartialfulfilmentoftherequirementsforthedegreeofM A S T E R

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

IwouldfirstliketothankmythesissupervisorDr.NguyenHoangBaooftheVietnam–

TheNetherlandsProgramme(VNP)atHoChiMinhCityUniversityofEconomics.I muchappreciateforallhisdedication,hisguiding,supporting,andpatiencetomystudy.Hehassetagreatexampleof ateacher,researcher,especiallyforme

IwouldliketoexpressmygratitudetotheVNPofficerswhowereinvolvedinmythesisprocessbyupdatingthesisscheduleandprovidinggoodconditionformyresearchprocess.W i t h o u t

t h e i r passionateparticipation,t h e t h e s i s processcouldn o t havebeens u c c e s s f u l l y conducted

Finally,thanksarealsoduetomyclassmatesforprovidingmewithunfailingsupportandcontinuousencouragementthroughoutmyyearsofstudyandt h r o u g h t h e processofresearchingandw r i

w o u l d n o t haveb e e n p o s s i b l e w i t h o u t t h e m Thankyou

NguyenNgocMinh Thu

Ho Chi MinhCity,November2017

Childlaborisdefinedasataskwhichhadtookoutthechildhoodfromchildren;haveana b i l i t

y t o affectn e g a t i v e l y onchildphysicalandmentald e v e l o p m e n t Theset a s k s alsoobstructchildschoolingbydisposing childf r o m t h e chanceo f learningatschoolo r forcet h e m toleaveschoolearly.Inaworstform,childlaborcontainschildwhoserveasslaves,hasbeens p l i t t i n g

w i t h t h e i r parents,higho p p o r t u n i t y t o getseriousi l l n e s s andhavet o protectthemselv

ofChildLabour(IPEC).ILO(2013)alsoestimatedaboutone–

thirdofthechildlaborsinVietnam,oraround5 6 9 , 0 0 0 childrenhavetoworkaround42hoursperweekin2012andthiswillhaveabadinfluenceonchildschoolingorchildrenhaveto stopcompletelyschoolingtimeforwork

ThispaperusesapaneldatabuiltupfromVHLSS2012withdescriptivestatisticsofparentsandchildrencharacteristicstodeterminewhetherparent’sabsenceisamainreasonf o r childlabor.WeapplyProbitandOLSregression,aswellasHeckmanselectionmodel,toe x a m i n e t h e impactso f parents’characteristicso n t h e p r o b a b i l i t y o f childw o r k i n g andworkinghours

akeyfactorleadt o childlabor.Itiseconomicfactorsandpovertythatplayanimportantroleinleadingchildl a b o r status andchildworkinghours

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT 3

ABSTRACT 4

CHAPTER1:INTRODUCTION 8

1.1 Child labor 8

1.2 Parentstimeforchildren 11

1.3 TheImpactionofParentsonchildlabor 12

1.4 Researchobjective 12

1.5 Structureofthethesis 13

CHAPTER2:LITERATUREREVIEW 14

2.1 Reviewoftheory 14

2.2 Effectofparentsonchildren’sskilldevelopment 19

2.3 .EffectofParentsonchildren education 20

2.4 Effectofparentsonchildren’slabour 20

2.5 Effectofpovertyonchild’slabor 21

CHAPTER3:RESEARCHMETHODOLOGY 22

3.1 Conceptual framework: 22

3.2 Child laborstatus(workingornot)–logitmodel 24

3.3 Childworking hours–multiplelinearregressionmodel 25

3.4Thelogitmodel Error!Bookmarknotdefined. 3.5Heckman selectionmodel 27

CHAPTER4:EMPIRICALRESULTS 28

4.1 Overviewofchild laborprobleminVietnam 28

4.2 Data 30

4.3.Empiricalresults 41

CHAPTER5:CONCLUSION 47

5.1 Conclusion 47

5.2 Policyimplications 47

REFERENCE 49

Table1:Variabledescription ofchildworkingornotregression 24

Table2:Variabledescription ofchildworkinghourregression 26

Table3:DescriptiveStatistics ofchildren’svariable 31

Table4:DescriptiveStatistics offather’svariables 32

Table5:DescriptiveStatistics ofmother’svariable 33

Table6: Frequencyofsocial-demographiccharacteristics 34

Table7: Child’sworkinggeneralinformation 35

Table8:Parentslivinginfamilycharacteristicsbychildlaborstatus 39

Table9:Parentsincomecharacteristicsbychildlaborstatus 40

Table10:Parentsillnesscharacteristicsbychildlaborstatus 40

Table11:Regressionresult 43

LISTOF FIGURES

Figure1: Child laboraffectsthenation,source:SrinivasViswanathan,2014 8

Figure2: GlobalIncidenceof ChildLabor,2000to2012,source:OurWorld inData 9

Figure3:Incidenceof ChildLaborbetween 5 SEAcountries,2000 to 2012,source:OurW o r l d i n Data 10

Figure4:Incidenceof workingchildrenwho work onlyin fiveSEAcountries 11

Figure5: Therelationship ofhousehold,parentandchildcharacteristicstochildlabor 23

Figure6:Vietnamchildpopulationbyagegroupandgender,source:VietnamNational ChildLaborsurvey,2012 29

Figure7:Frequencyofchild laborstatusbygender 36

Figure8:Frequencychild laborstatusbyratioofeducatedchildinhousehold 37

Figure9: Percentageworkingstatus ofchildbyfirst child inhouseholdstatus 37

Figure10:Frequencyofchildlaborstatusbychild’sreasoningtohospital 38

Figure11: Percentageworkingstatus ofchildbyfatherlivingtogetherstatus 38

Figure12: Percentageworkingstatus ofchildbymotherlivingtogetherstatus 39

Figure13:Frequencyoffathereducationlevelbychildlaborstatus 41

Figure14:Frequencyofmothereducationlevel bychildlaborstatus 41

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Childlabor

CignoandRosati(2005)hasannouncedthatchildrenallovertheworldarerelatedtoa largenumberofactivitieswhichcouldbeableclassifiedaswork.Theseactivitiesincludealargerangeofactivities,fromlessharmforchildrenashomeactivitiestothemostdamagingj o b

childschoolingtimeandalsotheir cognitivedevelopment.This wouldaffectchild’sprofessionalexpertiseandtheirsoftskillwhichwillleadtopoorwagelaterintheirworkingage.Lowwagecausedbadworkingenvironmentandpoorlaborstandards.Theseconditionsw i l l

l a t e l y causepoorincome orevenunemploymentwhenchildrengrowup

Figure2presentedchildlaboraged5-17whichhasbeenreducedfrom23percenton2 0 0 0 to17percenton2012(OurWorldinData,n.d.).From2000till2012,thenumberofchildlaboraround78million whichhasreducedalmostone-

third Theratioofreducingingirllaboras40percentwhiletheratiofallinginboylaboris25percent.From2008-2012,t h e reducingi n childl a b o r i s greatert h a n 2 0 0 0 -

2 0 0 8 , a m o n g o f t h a t , t h e A s i a andP a c i f i c regionhascontributedt h e largenumberofreduci

progressagainstchildlabor-Globalestimatesandtrends2000-2012, 2013)

Figure2:GlobalIncidenceofChildLabor,2000to2012,source:OurWorldinData

Togetherw i t h S o u t h SudanandS u r i n a m e , V i e t n a m hasb e e n l i s t e d i n 7 4 countrieswhichhaves e r i o u s p r o b l e m o f childl a b o r byt h e U S l a b o r Department(Listo f goodsproducedbychildlaborandforcedlabor,2016).Inthesamereport,mostofSoutheastAsiancountriessuchasMalaysia,Indonesia,Cambodia,andThailandareincludedinthelist.OurW o r l d

i n Data( n d ) hass h o w n asFigure3 t h e Incidenceo f C h i l d l a b o r figurea trendo f childlaborwhichagedfrom7-14,howeverthefiguredonotshowalltheresultatthesame

timesothatthedotlinepresentsas:Cambodiahastherapidreducingfromthebeginningofaround6 0 perc e n t t o 1 1 5 percento f childl a b o r i n 2 0 1 2 , Vietnamalsohavea l a r g e decreasingfrommorethan20percenton2006to10.9percentin2012,Thailand:15.1%ofchildlaborin2005-

2006,Philippineshasasmalldifferentfrom2001to2011astheirnumbero f childl a b o r i n beginningi s a l r e a d y l o w a r o u n d 12%o n 2 0 0 1 t o 9 % o n 2 0 1 1 Lastly,Indonesiahaveastabletrendonchildlaborfrom2000to2009anddropincrediblyon2010as3.7percent

Figure3:IncidenceofChildLaborbetween5

SEAcountries,2000to2012,source:OurWorldinData

Event h e overallcaseso f childl a b o r reduce;t h e percentageofchildrenw h o worko n l yincreasedinVietnamandIndonesiainFigure4.Vietnamhasthepercentageofchildrenw h o workonlyincreasedfrom15.9percentin2011to19percentin2012.ForIndonesiathefigurei s 1 1 p e r c en t i

n 2 0 0 9 andincreasest o 4 4 4 percenti n 2 0 1 0 C h i l d l a b o r in o t h e r s countriessuchasThailandandPhilippinesremainunchanged,orslightlyincreasedasCambodia

Considerthiscasebylocation,mothersinurbanhavemoretimetospendwiththeirchildthan onesin rural.As anillustration,the ratioofurbanmotherwhospendmorethan threeh o u r

s perdayi s 3 8 8 percent,w h i l e t h e ratioo f ruralareasi s 2 4 7 percent.Forranking,the most

t im e wasspenttotake carechildrenbelongtothesoutheastarea,follow t h a t arewomenintheNorthwestandCentralregion

VietnamNewsreleasedthefactthat7percentmotherconfessthattheyspentlessorevennotimewiththeirchildren,forfather,thisratioasonefifth.Thisissueevenhashigherratioi n p o o r , ruralhouseholds.Comparingbygender,f a t h e r spends i x t i m e s lowert h a n motherf o r t a k i

n g c a r e o f t h e i r childrenyoungert h a n 1 6 (Childrent h e losersi n modernisation,2008)

AccordingtoJesperMorch,UnicefrepresentativeinVietnam,itisnottheproblemofwhethertheywantt o c a r e childreno r n o t , p a r e n t s havet o f a c e a t r a d e -

o f f situationo f spendingtimebetweenworkingforhouseholdsurvivalandcaringchildren.Parentshavetoworkf o r f am il y survivals o t h a t t h e y don o t haveti me spendingwith childrenandparentshavehigherlevelofeducationandbetterincomecouldhavemoretimetochildcare(Familyundergoingm a j o r s h i f t s i n VietNam,s h o w s f i r s t -

e v e r n a t i o n w i d e s u r v e y o n t h e f a m i l y , 2008)

Moreover,Ms ManiaZaman,DeputyRepresentative ofUNICEF,alsomention inherspeecht h a t V i e t n a m e s e parentsh a v e t o h a n d l e pressureofl o n g h o u r s w o r k i n g f o rcompetitioni n t h e l a b o r market.O t h e r s r e s e a r c h alsoconfirmt h a t i n m o s t o f d e v e l o

p i n g countries,parentsh a v e t o spendm o r e t i m e o n relatedw o r k i n g a c t i v i t i e s f o r i n c

o m e t h a n childcare(Speechatt h e launcho f t h e S u r v e y oft h e FamilyinVietN a m byMs.M a

n i z a Zaman,DeputyRepresentative ofUNICEF,2008)

1.3 TheImpactionofParentsonchildlabor

Parikh(2005)hasshowntheirresearchonchildrenattributionbetweenschoolingandworki

themainf i n d i n g oftheresearchist h a t childrenwhose haveparentsa r e

self-employedoremployersarem o r e l i k e l y t o workt h a n t h o s e w h o s e p a r e n t s areemplo

ischildrenmightnothavetofacewithtrade-offbetweenworkingandschoolingas

itcountsonparentsoccupation

Francavilla(2007)f o u n d i n hers t u d y aboutr e l a t i o n s h i p betweenchildl a b o randmother’sworkinIndia.Childrenbenefitsasschoolingtimemovesamesidewiththepercentageofthepresenceofmotherinfamily,butthechildrenworkingtimemoveopposites i d e withthis factor.Theresearchalsoindicatest h a t if motherstayhomeandtake care ofchildren,thefamily wealthydependonfatherwork,other side,ifmotherhavetoworkforliving,thepercentageofchildlaborwould beincreased

1.4 Researchobjective

Parentsalwaysplayaveryimportantroleonraisingchild;haveastronginfluenceonchildrendevelopment.W i t h determinationt o findo u t t h e relationshipbetweenchildl a b o r andparental

p r o b a b i l i t y ofchildlabor,especiallyfocusingon time livingwithparents

LITERATUREREVIEW

Theliteraturereviewpresentedhowpreviousresearchers’analysewhichfactorsaffecttochildlaboramongchildrencharacteristicsandhouseholdcharacteristics.Thischapterincludedfivesectionswiththefirstpartshowspriorresearchmethodologiesandtheirempiricalm o d e l s A l l t h

e t h r e e n e x t partsf o c u s o n h o w parentsaffectchilds k i l l development,childlaborandchildeducationbasedonprevioustheories.Thefifthparttargeto n

t h e conclusionfrompreviouspaperabouthowpovertyinfluent child labor

2.1 Reviewoftheory:

BasuandVan(1998)presenta basicm o d e l o f childl a b o r

w i t h considerso n H householdswitheveryfamilyincludeoneadultandonechild.Thehousehold’spreferencesaredescribedas:

𝑤𝐴+𝑤𝐶2

if wA<2s

e(wA)=

1 if wA<2sInanotherpaper on 1999,Basualsopresentexaminethehouseholdutilityfunction

withassumptionincasetheincomeofn o n - c h i l d

l a b o r ishighenough,thehouseholdwillwithdrawchildfromlabormarket.Thehypothesis

issimplifiedas:(1)weconsideranimportantnumbers, wherechildwill join

thelabormarketifincomefromnon-child laborbelows.Itwould beeasierto

examine(1)fromutilityfunctionwhen(2) thelabormarketdon o t h a v e parttime job, child

willeitherworkornotworkin thismarket(3)therearejust twohouseholdrule:send child

≥0ande∈{0,1}, (1)will becometrue

Thetheoreticalf r a m e w o r k o f Basu(1999)hasbeent h e basisf o r m a n y empiricalstudies.Withfocusingonchildonly,Portner(2016)analyzethemutualinfluenceoratrade-

o f f betweenchildandadulthouseholdmemberactivitiesas:

��=∝�+����+����+��Thestudyshowthemainfocusonhisresearchisdetermininghowhousehold

characteristiceffecto n children‘st i m e u s i n g i n Philippinesdataw i t h allt h e activitiesareclassifiedin fourparts as:domestic work,marketwork,schooland leisure

With

�:

thehoursspentinanactivityjbyindividuali

Childactivitiesareclassifiedintofourkindsas:domesticwork,non-paidjob,marketworkandschoolandleisureactivities.Domesticworkincludesallthehouseholdactivitiestosavetimeforparentsworking.Domesticwork,therefore,includesalltheactivitiesassociated

fiveyearseducation,finishedprimaryschool,morethanp r i m a r y school;landpropertieswith:land owned,land rented/

Ones id e effecto f mother’sp o w e r o n h e r c h i l d ’ s l a b o r is examinedbyacollectivem o

d e l (IlianaReggio,2005).HisdatabasedonthesurveyofMexicanfamilylife.WiththegreatamountofMexicanhouseholds,theresearchshowsthatifthepowerofmotherincreases,thechildlab

Themother’sweightofdecisioninhouseholdpresentedby𝜃whichchosenfrom0 to1,i n m

a x i m u m case𝜃=1,t h e household’su t i l i t y i s t h e mother’su t i l i t y F o l l o w this,t h e

householdoptimizationissueimplies themaximizationof

xmandxfarecertainpreferablegoodfromp a r e n t s andworkingh o u r ofparenti s

fixed.c(h)i s childu t i l i t y throught h e i r costf u n c t i o n T h e o u t c o m e s h o w s t h a t mother’spowerhasnegativeimpactonchildlaborwhenshehaslesspowerthanherhusbandorchildl

a b o r workinghourswilldecreaseifmother’spower in householdincrease

Intheresearchofallthefactorshaveaffectionwithchildlabor,Abdul(2010)regressallt h e relatedfactorss u c h as:h o u s e h o l d income,childincome,householdheadeducations t a t u s , h

h o w socioeconomicanddemographicelementeffectonchildlabor:AcasestudyforthefishingsectoronBalochistancoastaimtoanalysetheeffectofsocioeconomicandnumericalaspectsonhowlaborworkinthefishingi n d u s t r y of Pakistan

Todemonstratetherelationship

ofchildlaborandvariablesofhouseholdcharacteristics,belowequation isregressed:

WithP C L expresseda percentageo f childl a b o r i n h o u s e h o l d , LPCINCi s a l o g o fhouseholdpercapitaincome,CHINCexpressedchildincome,EDUSThouseholdheadeducationstatus,PERDishouseholdheadperiodicityofearning,DFISHdemonstrated u m m y ofworkinginfishingindustryofhouseholdhead,DGOVSERisdummyofworkingi n governmentserviceso f householdhead,DPVTWORKi s d u m m y o f privateworkofhouseholdhead,GENDisgenderofhouseholdhead,AGEpresentforhouseholdheadage,AGECi s a g e o f childl a b o r , PCLE

Di s percentageofe d u c a t e d childl a b o r i n t h e house,CLEDUpresentf o r c h i l d educationlevelsandWHRCHLABpresentf o r workinghours o f children

Thepapershowstheresult30percentofthechildrenareinvolvedinfishinginthecoastalareasabout.Itisobservedthatthemaincauseofchildlaborisnotpovertyitcomeso u t t o

b e low qualityofeducation,lackof jobopportunity,andlack of development

Alam(2015)usesa linearm o d e l i n h i s researcht o analyset h e impactso f f a m i l y member’sh e a l t h s t a t u s o n b o t h h o u r s spentf o r workandschoolattendanceo f childi n Tanzaniabyusingalinear–OLSmodel:

��,�,𝑡=�0+∑�1,����� 𝑠� 𝑠��,𝑡+�2���� 𝑠� 𝑠��,𝑡+�3��,�,𝑡+��+�𝑡+��,𝑡

�

Ypresentsforworkhoursandalsoforschoolattendance.Illnessis thehealthstatusof

familymemberandchildalso.Xincludedofvalueofhouseholdassetsandalsothedummyvariableof:adultdeathorpregnancystatus of femaleinhousehold

Withresultnearlysameaspreviousresearchmentionedthispapershowsanevidenceo f childmightn o t havea trade-

offbetweenc h i l d educationsandschoolingthoughf a t h e r absenceorillnesswillleadtoachildschoolattendancedecrease.Thereasonforthisdecreasingmightb e b e c a u s e o f householdi n c o m e l

schoolinginregardto this paper

AmarakoonBandaraa,RajeevDehejiabandShaheenLavie-Rouse(2015)determinet h e

influenceofincomeandnon-incomeshocksonchildlaborwithdatawascollectedfromTanzania.Thesepapershowsthatagriculturedecreaseorcollapsewouldhaveahighereffecto n boyst h a n girls.Incontrast,cropshocksw

o u l d leadt o m o r e t h a n 7 0 % p r o b a b i l i t y ofq u i t t i n g school.Ina d d i t i o n , boysmarketworkh o u r s andgirlsh o u s e h o l d worksw o u l d b e t i m e reducingincasehousehold haveabankaccount.Girlsalsowouldhavelessworkingh o u r s becauseofassetsbut

thispaperdonotfind anyinformationrelatetoassetsforboys

AnothersideapproachfromMoehling(2004)considertheroleoffamilystructuretochilddevelopmentintheAmericanSouthbyclassifiedchildtoblackandwhite.Tosimplifyt h e case,t

h e researcha s s u m e d therea r e t w o t y p e o f family,i n t a c t andn o n

-i n t a c t , h e alsof o u n d thes-ign-if-icantcorrelat-ionbetweenfam-ilystructuresw-ith ch-ildlabor

Theresearchshows thespecialstrongeffecton blackchildifchilddo not

livewitho n e orbothparents,theresult would

bereduceonschoolingactivitiesandincreaseonworkingin

themarket.However,thepaperalsoshows

thatorderfactorsuchas:householdresources,adultliteracy…wouldhaveastrongercontributionto thechildschoolingandl a b o r than familystructure

Bangladesh,M.NajeebShafiq(2007)intheirresearch“Household

schoolingandchildlabordecisionsin

rural”trytoinvestigatehowhouseholdmaketheirdecisiononchildeducationandlaborwithdatacollectedfromruralBangladesh.Thepaper shows that two

factorsmight have agreatcontributiontoreduce educationactivitiesandincreasechildlabori s

p o v e r t y andlow

educationlevelofparents.Inaddition,householdhavethesamedecisionbehaviourforallchildrenregardlessofgender.Theyalsofind onemorereason toencouragehouseholdsendtheirchild to

themarketischildwages

Thesepapershavebeenfocusedmoreonparent’sinfluenceandpoverty.Thischapterpresentsfive partsas:

h e researcho f Friedman& Cocking,1 9 8 6 ; Hart& Risley,1 9 9 5 , t h e q u a l i t y ofc a r e i s measuredbyhowthecaregiversreacttothechildren’sdemandandtheirbody’sindicationw i t h thepositiveresponse,languagecommunication andsocialactivities(NationalInstituteo f Child HealthandHumanDevelopmentEarly ChildCareResearchNetwork,2000).The researchalsoextendtheresultsfrompreviousresearchbydisplayingthedifferencesbetweenchildincentre-

careandhomecare.Childrenathomecareperformedlowerthanchildrenatcentre-care

AmatoandR i v e r a ( 1 9 9 9 ) contributep r o o f o n t h e affectionoffathert o children’sbehaviour.Theirresearchshowsthenegativerelationshipofchild’sproblemsandfathercare.Inaddition,stepfatherwillremainasameimpactonchild’sbehaviourasfather.Thisfindingconsistswithotherpreviousresearchasstepfathermightbecomeanimportantresourceforchildren’sbehaviour(Amato,1994a;Bogenschneider,1997)

Cardosoetal(2010)mentionedinhispaperstheroleofparentsinItalyandGermani s theroleofparentsinbothItalyandGermanhasbeenemphasized;theroleofmotheronchildrenactivitiesishighlighted

2.3 EffectofParentsonchildreneducation

Ilahi(2005)andE m e r s o n andS o u z a (2011)hadpresentedt h e relationshipbetweenchildlaborandtheirincome:childwhoworkedearlierintheirchildhoodwouldhaveloweri n c o m ethantheonewhoworklater.Furthermore,insomerecentpaperswithhavefocusedo n otherscharacteristics,thepositivecorrelationbetweenlaterwageandeducationsuchas:t e s t scoreshavebeenpointed out(Beegle,2009 andDumas,2012)

Fromtheeducationview,ClausC.Po¨rtner(2016)presentedastrongcorrelationofgirl’sschooltimedecreasingwhenmotherabsent.Thenumberoflargereducingaround26h o u r sperweekofgirls’schooltimeisalsoshowedinthisresearch.T h i s statementisalsom e n t i o n e

d byAinsworthetal.,

(2005)whofoundthatitwouldbeadecreasecontinuouslyina t i m e p r e c e d i n g t h e l o s s o f parentandaftert h e l o s s , i t w o u l d b e a s t r o n g r e d u c i n g fromschooltime

Inaddition,Alam( 2 0 1 5 ) examinedaboutt h e effecto f parentali l l n e s s o n childreneducation.The outcome p r o o f thatjustfather’sillness impactandreducechildren‘sschoolt i m e, moreover,fatherabsencealsohasa l o n g t e r m effecto n childreneducation.Anotherimportantoutcomefromthisresearchisthereisnoproofforfather’sillnessaffectchildrenschoolingtimebyincreasingchildrenworkingtime

Thei s s u e o f fatherabsencei s alsom e n t i o n e d byMcLanahanandS a n d e f u r ( 1 9 4 4 )

w i t h t h e resulto f l e s s s c h o o l attendancer e c o r d s , lowerschoolscorest h a n t h e childl i v i n gtogetherwithtwoparents.Withthesameresult,manypreviousresearchprovethatchildrenl i v

quitschool,havechildrenout-of-wedlock,getobstaclesinworkingatt h e i r young–

adultyears(Haurin,1 9 9 2 ; HavemanandWolfe,1 9 9 5 ; Kiernan,1 9 9 2 )

2.4 Effectofparentsonchildren’slabour

AccordingClausC.Portner(2016),parentwillallocatetimespendingofchildrenonschooling,workingorothersactivities.Thisresearchalsopresentsproofofhigherpossibilityo f boys’spendingtimeonmarketactivitieswhenfatherabsent,nearly10hourslongerthanboysh a v e fatherl i v e together.However,c o n s i d e r asgirlss i d e , j u s t oneh o u r higherf o r

workingtimeofabsentfatherandwithoutanabsentfather.Anothercontributeofthispaperi s theroleofmother,accordingtosomeevidence, mothereducationincreasemightleadtot i m e spendingondomesticworkofherdaughterincrease.Butthistrendwouldbereverseasi f motherevenhashighereducationandherdaughterwoulddecreasetime ofworking

Inaddition,anotherr e s u l t fromA b d u l Haietal( 2 0 1 0 ) e x p l a i n t h a t householdw i l l sendchildrentoworktomaximizetheirutilityonly,ifhouseholdcouldmaximizetheirutilityw i t h o u tworkingchildren,theywillnotsendchildrentowork.Withconnectingwithpreviouspapers,parentsthinkthatschoolingisnotbeneficialasworkingskilllearningatyoungage.Evenin

someareas,skilltrainingwould beconsideredasmoreadequatethanschooling

toBandaraetal(2015).Othersfactorswouldbehouseholdcharacteristics.ThisresultalsohavethesameideawithBasuandVan(1988)whichispovertyisleadtochildhasbeensenttowork.Thereisacertainpointofadultwage whichhousehold will sendchildtoworkif theadultwageislowerthanthispoint

2.5 Effectofpovertyon child’s labor

Povertyplayani m p o r t a n t r o l e t o forcechildt o a l a b o r market,furthermore,childl a b

RESEARCHMETHODOLOGY

Toanalyset h e impactso f householdandp a r e n t s characteristicso n c h i l d labor,t h i s s t u

d y usestwodependentvariables:childlaborstatus(workingornot)andworkinghoursofchildren

Foralabordecisions,Kaur(2002)conclude thathouseholdincome performsakeyfactortothechildlaborstatus.Furthermore,thisfactorhasanegativelyimpacttochildlabors t a t

u s , t h e childlaborwillincreaseif thehouseholdincomedecreaseandviceversa

Shafiq(2007)alsosuggestthesameresultwhichhouseholdpovertyandparentlowereducationwouldleadtohigherchildlaborstatusandreduce childschooling

Anotherimportantfactorwhichalsoi s consideredasaninfluencec o m p o n e n t bypreviousresearchi s parentabsence.P o r t n e r ( 2 0 1 6 ) hasf o u n d o u t t h e specificr e l a t i o n s h i p betw

o f f betweenschool timeandworkingtime ofchild

Besidesvariablesm e n t i o n e d above,int h i s researchw e alsoi n c l u d e d childcharacteristicssuchastheorderofchildinhouse,is thechildfirstchild or not

3.1 Conceptualframework:

Regardst o theoreticala n d empiricalreviews,parentala b s e n c e mightb e o n e o f t h e importantfactorsaffectchildlabor.However,thedecisionbetweens e n d childt o

l a b o r marketornotalsobeinfluencedbyothersfactorssuchasindividualparentscharacteristics,childcharacteristicsandhouseholdlevel.Parentcharacteristicsinclude:noofmonthslivingi n house,i n c o m e peryear,age,i n p a t i e n t cost,workingh o u r s p e r m o n t h Householdlevelfactorsm i g h t affectc h i l d l a b o r include:gendero f householdh e a d , childcharacteristicsi s

School subsidy for child

No of months living in house

First child in household or not

Income per year

Ratios of educated child in household

Gender Head

Age

No of child in household

HOUSEHOLDCHARACTERISTICS

Child genderInpatient cost

Out-patient times of childWorking hours per month

In-patient times of childChild school cost

PARENTAL ABSENCE AFFECT TO CHILD LABOR

CHILD LABOR

combinedby:schoolsubsidyforchild,firstchildinhouseholdornot,ratiosofeducatedchildi n household,n o ofc h i l d i n household,childgender,o u t - p a t i e n t t i m e s ofchild,i n - p a t i e n t t i m e s

o f child,childschoolcost Theconceptualframeworkispresentedasbelow:

Figure5:Therelationshipofhousehold,parentandchildcharacteristicstochildlabor

3.2 Childlabor status(working ornot)–logitmodel

Logitm o d e l o f t hi s s t u d y t o analyset he impacto f m en ti on ed factorst o childl a b o r s

t a t u s i s expressedasthefollowingequation:

PXi= 1

1+e−βXiXi+uiInthisstudy,theequationwouldbe:

1+e−𝛽𝑍𝑖

Table 1:Variabledescriptionofchildworkingornotregression Typeof

Schoolsubsidyfor

Firstchild

Ratiosofeducated

+�3Ratioofeducatedofchild+�4M o n t h soffatherlivinginhouse+�5M o n t h sofmotherl i v i n ginhouse+�6FatherWorkinghourspermonths+�7Fatheryearlyincome+�8Ageo f father+

�9Motheryearlyi n c o m e + �10FatherInpatientC o s t + �11MotherInpatientC o s t + �12Motherage+ �

13MotherW o r k i n g h o u r s perm o n t h + �14Gendero f householdhead+ �15Schoolsubsidyforchild+�16Childgender+�17OutPatientTimesofChild+�18InPatientTimesofChild+�19Childschoolcost+u

When holdingothersfactorfixed, thechangeofdependantvariableoneunit, the

changeinlog-oddisβXi1o rβXi2orβXi3….βXi15u n i t AfterdefinedβXi, wecouldforecasttheodd-ratioandthe probabilityofchildlaborstatus: workingornot

Fort h e “ Workingornotvariable”,w e t u r n 1 = yesf o r anycaseso f childrenhaveworkdaysgreaterthan 0,incontrastis 0 =notworking

For“ G e n d e r o f h o u s e h o l d head”,w e j u s t k e e p a n y caseshaverelationship

3.3 Childworkinghours–multiplelinearregressionmodel

Toanalysehowallthefactorsaffectchildworkinghours,weusethelinearmodelasbelowfunction:

Workinghours=y=f (Z)

+�3Ratioofeducatedofchild+�4M o n t h soffatherlivinginhouse+�5Monthsofmotherlivinginhouse+�6Fatheryearlyincome+�7Fatheryearlyincome+�8Ageoffather+�9Ageofmother+�10FatherInpatientCost+�11MotherInpatientCost+�12householdheadgender+�13Childgender+�14ChildOutPatientTimes+�15ChildInPatientTimes +u

Childgender gender 1=male,0=female

InPatientTimes ofChild IPTimes time =0,1,2,3,4

TheHeckmanm o d e l i n c l u d e s t w o equation,regressionm o d e l andselectionm o d e l

w i t h s t e p 1 aslogitmodel ofparticipationutilizing allobservations,step2withtheregressionequationwill beestimated usingOLS Themodelisexpressasbelow:

t w o equationsareestimatedsimultaneously

EMPIRICALRESULTS

VietnamwasthefirstAsiancountryandsecondnationintheworldcommittedtotheU n i t

e d NationsConventionontheRightsofChild.ThemostupdatedVietnamLaborcodein2 0 0 7 imposesa c o m p l e t e l y prohibit i n employingchildunder1 5 yearso l d f o r w o r k i n g i n economicactivities.Vietnamhasestablisheda n u m b e r o f programsf o r C h i l d CareandProtectionsuchas:TheNationalPlanofActionforChildrenon1991-2000and2001-

2010,T h e NationalPlanofActionfortheProtectionofChildrenLivinginSpecialCircumstanceso n 1999-

2002whichobjectischildrenunderpoorconditionofliving,homelessorworkingi n dangeroussituation;NationalProgrammeo f Actionf o r Preventingt h e Issueso f StreetChildren,S e x u a l l y AbusedChildrenandChildrenW o r k i n g inH a z a r d o u s Environmentso n 2004-

2010i s aimt o decreaset h e 1 0 percentq u a n t i t y o f childrenl i v e o n t h e streetandchildrenworking inu nh ea lt hy situationandhelp7 0 % ofthose returnb a c k andliving witht h e i r families

4.1 Overviewofchildlabor probleminVietnam

ChildlaborersdefinedbyVietnamNationalChildLaborSurvey2012include:childrenfrom5-

11yearsold,workorrelatetoeconomicactivitiesonehourormoreperdayandfivehoursormoreperweek,childrenfrom12-

14yearsold,workorrelatetoeconomicactivitiesfourhoursormoreperdayandtwentyfourhoursormoreper week

Figure6:Vietnam childpopulationby agegroupandgender,source:Vietnam

NationalC h i l d Labor survey,2012

InthefirstNationalChildLaborsurvey2012hasbeenpresentedinFigure5,publishedonMarch2014,around9.6percentchildren(1.75million)whoagefrom5-

17inVietnama r e workersa n d 4 0 2 percenta r e female.T h i s meanst w o i n e v e r y f i v e o f t h

e m workingi n t h e situationt h a t f i t w i t h t h e childlabord e s c r i p t i o n A l m o s t 8 5 percentchildl a b o r l i v e i n ruralarea,5 5 percentd o n o t got o schoolandm a j o r i t y o f t h e m worki

n Agriculturesector(67percent).Concerning

ontheworkingreason,one-thirdofthemhavepushedtoworkandsmallamountselecttoworkandlearnhowtotrade.Nearly32.4percentworkm o r e t h a n 4 2 h o u r s perweekandt h e a m o u n t o f t i m e e x t e n d i n g i n workl i m i t theschoolingtimewhichlead toreasonchildhaveto dropschool