El proyecto de ley 010, recientemente archivado en las comisiones séptimas de senado y cámara, pretendía que sus disposiciones estaban orientadas a

Human capital perspective

World Bank, UNDP, ILO, many economists and educators, and various employer associations overall seem to support the human capital perspective (Cunningham, 2001; Myers, 2001). Within this perspective, childhood is seen as a preparation period for becoming a productive adult by acquiring skills and knowledge (Anker, 2000). Child labor is always discussed in relationship with national economic development. It is a product of economic underdevelopment at the macro level and prevailed mass poverty at the micro level. The discussion pays little, if any, attention to the issue of children’s rights, although it is adamant that all children under any circumstances should receive education (Cunningham, 2001; Myers, 2001). Children are seen as future adult workers. Educating children is, therefore, seen as human capital accumulation for the future. Thus, the biggest concern within this framework is that hazardous and abusive forms of child labor as well as child labor that interfere with school attendance and performance may eventually decrease long-term national economic growth and development (K. Basu & Van, 1998) since they hinder human capital accumulation. Also, entering into the labor force at too young an age is considered detrimental, making children unfit for an appropriate role in their adulthood due to psychological and physical abuses that they have received and lack of education (Cunningham, 2001).

relevance of education to children’s life styles and necessary skills in their future also needs to be carefully considered. In reality, few working children and their families can afford to obtain higher level of education. Moreover, formal education, due to the irrelevance of its contents from children’s lives, usually does not help children find jobs. For those working children, education that can be integrated into their life style seems more important than conventional formal education, which tends to be irrelevant to their lives so that obtaining education could facilitate families’ productivity.

Child labor is also a cause of poverty as well as a product of it. Due to prevailing poverty, children have to work for family survival. This hinders human capital accumulation for the future, which will perpetuate poverty from generation to generation. Thus, eliminating poverty and enhancing national economic growth (GDP growth) by educating children, future adult workers, are the major remedies and goals of this perspective. Contrary to the protectionist perspective, this perspective supports the idea that learning and skills can be acquired both through formal schooling and through experience of work and life (Anker, 2000). In addition, this perspective has no objection to children’s work unless it prevents children from receiving education. Apprenticeship and other work arrangements that transmit income generating skills, for example, are also considered education for children (Myers, 2001). Part-time jobs that do not stand in the way of receiving education are also encouraged, especially among children from poor families.

Policies in this framework involve subsidization of school expenses, school lunch programs, school-study arrangement, creation of flexible curriculum and school calendar, provision of income-generating opportunities for parents, enhancement of quality education and quality schooling through teacher training and improvement of learning materials, and so forth (Anker, 2000; Myers, 2001). The purpose is to make education more accessible and more attractive to all children. Although this perspective does not limit educational opportunity within formal school settings, it seems that advocates of this perspective are in favor of formal schooling rather than non-formal education.

This perspective has brought a new view of children and child work into the international debate. Contrary to the traditional protectionist view of child work, which is that work destroys children’s chances of receiving education, child work, within the human capital perspective, is

seen as one way of learning; certain kinds of child work are even encouraged. Work can have a positive impact on children and a society. Working children are not just being abused and exploited; some of them are also seen as potential contributors to economic development at both national and individual levels (Myers, 2001).

Although this perspective has contributed greatly and successfully to promoting formal schooling and widening the possibility of working children, blindly trusting and believing the goodness of this perspective can be misleading. First, there seems to be too much faith and trust in education, especially formal schooling for its economic returns (Myers, 2001). Receiving education alone does not always bring about economic growth both at the micro (individual) level and the macro (regional or national) levels. Kerala, one of the India’s states, is a good example. Although the state has achieved almost universal basic education, it has not led to economic growth and has not improved people’s financial situations. The GDP is still fairly low compared to countries that have achieved similar educational attainment, although its social development is fairly outstanding. Also, in reality, good quality of education is seldom provided in many places, especially in rural areas in less-developed countries.7 Second, there also seems to be too much faith in the virtue of economic growth. Economic growth at the macro level does not assure a decrease in the number of child laborers and improvements of the environment surrounding working children. Reports from AusAid8 reveal, by studying the Philippines’ case, that child labor does not necessarily decrease with economic growth of the region or country (cited in Burra, 2003). Due to rapid, less-organized economic development, more children actually became involved in labor and worsened their working conditions. Lastly, there is a

7

Attending formal school does not always necessarily mean accumulating human capital (see Footnote 6). As discussed above, what is learned and obtained through formal education is a key to human capital accumulation.

8 _{AusAid. (1997). Child Labour in Asia: Some Perspectives on Selected Countries, International Development}

increasing doubt in poverty alone as a direct cause of child labor, especially among scholars (Brown, 2001; Cingo, Rosati, & Tzannatos, 2000; Ravallion & Wondon, 2000; Weiner, 1991).