Abstract

Child labor in general, and bonded child labor, is a major social challenge in developing economies like Pakistan, where people and government have meager resources. The present study is designed to combat the problem of bonded child labor in the carpet weaving occupation by investigating the economic, social, behavioral, and economic factors affecting the parent's attitude toward bonded child labor. A descriptive-analytical survey design was used. Data was collected from three districts of Punjab province. A total sample of 300 bonded child laborers' parents was selected through a convenience sampling procedure. An interview schedule was used. Data were analyzed by using percentages and frequency distribution for descriptive analysis. The multivariate analyses were performed using multiple linear regression. The parent's attitude towards bonded child labor has 55% variation because of the predictor variables, including parents' age, income, attitude towards workplace, parents' occupation, type of family, children general mood, aggression, children picking power, accompanied with their siblings, behavior with elder and availability of treatment facilities. Children picking ability availability of health care facilities are non-significant predictors in shaping the parent's attitude towards child labor. It can be concluded the parents' socio-economic status and children's behavior are the main reasons for shaping parents' attitudes towards child labor.

Key Words

Bonded, Child Labor, Attitude

Introduction

Due to poverty, increased population pressure, lack of educational facilities, and poor government, child labor is a tragic reality in practically every corner of the world, particularly in third-world countries. Child labor is inextricably linked to the social context in which it occurs. Working children are products of the culture in which they live. As a result, understanding the causes and repercussions of child labor will only be possible using this approach (Stella, 2003). Child labor refers to work that is above their age to perform and or employment that can affect children's health, morality, and safety due to job conditions and nature. If more technically we define child labor, it may be referred to work done by children in any job, other than two significant exceptions: light work can be permitted for children which is appropriate to their age, specified as light work for children over the general minimum working age, and employment that is not classed as one of the worst kinds of child labor, dangerous job. Unpaid and precarious household services, often known as dangerous household duties, are included in a more extensive statistical definition. Any market production and non-market output are included in employment (even agricultural production-related activities to fulfill the family's needs). Whether it will be for-profit or money, labor has part-time versus full-time, cash or in-kind, inside or outside the family in formal and informal economies. It also includes domestic work children do for an employer outside their household, whether paid or not. Article 7 of ILO Convention No. 138 states that national laws or regulations may permit the employment or work of persons as young as 13 years old (or as young as 12 years old in countries where the general minimum working age is 14 years) in light work that is not likely to harm their health or development. It should also not impose restrictions on school attendance, occupational orientation or training, or the ability to profit from education (ILO, 2002). The international standard for child labor is used for the present study, i.e., 18 years of age. Bonded child labor may include any person under the age of 18 or young working against the debt taken by them, or family or any relative or family members. It also includes working for social obligations like caste, religious, or ethnic practices. And suppose the working conditions affect the child's development. In that case, freedom increases their vulnerability to physical and all other types of abuses and deprives them of their rights without their consent (Hussain, 1999).

The bonded labor system is a contemporary kind of slavery that blends feudal beliefs, traditions, and practices with exploitative work relationships that are only transitory. In one way or another, almost all South Asian cultures face the weight of this. It is, nevertheless, more common in Pakistan, India, and Nepal. Children are tied to their families in the same way as their parents are. Child slavery is seen as a natural part of life in societies that view bonded work as expected. Child servitude is justified by poverty, illiteracy, and socio-economic backwardness in which these children are born. Child labor appears to be sensible for disadvantaged homes since it increases their revenue sources (Stella, 2003).

Pakistani carpets made their way to the west via the United Kingdom in the 1950s. Due to its artisans' devotion and hard work, Pakistan has been one of the major exporters of hand-knotted carpets to western markets in the previous two decades. Pakistan shipped $76.5 million in knotted carpets in 2019, making it the world's third-largest exporter. Knotted Carpets were the 53rd most exported product in Pakistan in the same year. The United States ($40.8 million), Germany ($6.6 million), Italy ($4.17 million), the United Kingdom ($3.35 million), and Canada ($2.65 million) are Pakistan's top export destinations for Knotted Carpets (Waggener 2019). Most carpets reaching the international market are produced in small centers or sheds and homes rather than extensive workshops or centers. With the implementation of labor law and the factory act of mid-1970, many big centers disintegrated into small units that eventually moved into residential areas to operate in private homes and sheds. The business also expanded to small cities /towns and villages. Almost 90 percent of the workforce of the carpet weaving industry is comprised of children. The working conditions are worst, with extreme weather and long working hours even reaching 11 hours per day with no or little break (Child Labor Survey, 1996).

Children are denied essential dignity and human rights such as the freedom to move, development, access to education, and enjoyment. They are compelled to work excessive hours in poor working and housing circumstances and are subject to harsh treatment and a lack of pay and compensation. Most youngsters are apprentices when they start working; their services are free for the first six months to a year. If they are fortunate enough to get paid daily, they will receive an average of 15 rupees each day (Jharkhand, 2005).

The conditions can be improved by taking some measures to deal with the problem of bonded child labor. The present study examines the different aspects of bonded child labor from parents' and children's perspectives. The study's findings will help propose comprehensive strategies to deal with the severe consequences of bonded child labor. Parents' illiteracy is the leading cause in Punjab province to send their children to work. The child is only a source of income for their parents. And mainly, boys are among the more victimized gender Avais et al., 2014). In Pakistan, due to the lack of legal framework and welfare institutions, the exact statistics are not available on the prevailing situation of child labor. According to an estimation by The International Labor Organization (2008), currently, 215 million children aged between five to seventeen years are in the active labor force, out of which 115 million are serving in hazardous occupations (Aqil, 2012). The present study has assessed the different factors responsible for shaping the parents' attitude towards bonded child labor.

Literature Review

The most apparent rationale for hiring child laborers is that the employer pays less than an adult's charge for the same work. Non-monetary reasons are also essential and include innocence and less awareness of workers' rights and physical features of the children (Anker et al., 1998). Poor socio-economic conditions and dropping out of school are the primary reasons for child labor (Zarif and Nisa, 2013; Avais et al., 2014). About 34 percent of children's honoraria range from Pak Rs. 1,000 to 1,500, 22 percent of respondents' honoraria range from Pak Rs. 1,501 to 2,000, and 44 percent of respondents' honoraria range from Pak Rs. 2,001 to 2,500. Jomo's (1992) and Khan's (2010) study also reported that the children have low wages.

Parents' illiteracy and insufficient income are the main reasons to push their children to work even at an early age so that the family's basic needs can be fulfilled. Almost all the parents admitted to being uneducated and mainly illiterate. They also stated that they could not send their children to school due to insufficient earnings. Furthermore, none of the parents was aware of their children's rights. The school's environment was not conducive, and the low quality of studies, overall, did not contribute to their children's development (Zarif and Nisa, 2013).

Health-related problems have abounded; wool fibers irritate the lungs, and the impacts of hard labor cause bone deformations. Because of the absence of light in these sweatshops, many children's visions will be harmed. Chains are frequently used to bind the feet of young children who are not accustomed to sitting for lengthy periods. Abuse, both physical and sexual, is rampant, with beatings being the norm. Children are also assaulted and harassed by cops who do not protect them. (Aziz, 2000). Most child laborers have to work for long hours (Zarif and Nisa, 2013). Children are forced into child labor by large families, low money, squalid housing, and inflation.

Most of the respondents say they have a headache, 80 percent say they have a backache, 74 percent reported pain in their eyes, 82 percent have neck stiffness, and 48 percent say they have discomfort in their hands. Even at a young age, it has been discovered that sitting in an improper position causes backache (Jain and Jain, 2002). Emerson and Souza's (2002) study also reported that most children were pushed into the labor force because of poverty, and children work to contribute to the household. The studies by Wahba (2002) reported that if the parents served as laborers in their childhood, there are more chances that their children will also serve as child laborers. Sakurai (2006) study reported parents' unemployment, poor teaching, and quality of education as the reasons for child labor. Khan's (2007) study said the parents send their children to work to increase their income. Chirala (2008) study reported various health effects of child labor. The study noted that most of the respondents never enrolled in school. Only 2% of respondents were primary pass, and 40% were enrolled but dropped out from school; most have an income of 2000 to 2500 rupees per month. Mamadou (2009) study reported that boys are more likely to be engaged in economic activities than girls. Tauson's (2009) study also noted that parents send their children to work to learn new skills. Bhat and Rather (2009) study reported that most of the decisions are made by the male head of the households. Khan's (2010) study findings also asserted that father literacy is linked with child labor.

Ayaz's (2012) study from India also showed that the average family size of child laborers is usually around seven or more than seven members. A greater number of siblings at home also affects schooling negatively. Ahmad's (2012) study reported that poverty and unemployment are the main reasons for child labor. The (Zarif and Nisa, 2013) study also said that most child laborer parents were uneducated and illiterate. The parents of the child laborer are little aware of their children's rights, the youngsters are forced into the labor force to increase the family income. Avais et al., 2014) study reported that the size of the household is significant to assess the economic situation of the home. The findings suggest that illiterate families account for a large share of child labor; practically every respondent's household income is insufficient to meet daily needs. As a result, parents send their children to work to bridge the income-to-expenditure disparity. In other words, child labor is mainly caused by poverty and large families. 

According to Chirala (2008), long working hours can result in headaches, numerous eye issues, muscular and body discomfort, and lung and nerve disorders. Avais et al., 2014) study reported the health effects of child labor, reported retarded physical growth, and underweight among children working in carpet weaving manufacturers' units because of long working hours. The child laborer has less height than their school-going age fellows.

Woodhead (2004) study reported less subjective well-being among children currently working. Omokhodion et al., (2005) documented that child laborers were less fortunate than their peers. Anjum (2015) study reported the less prevalence of delinquency among carpet weavers' children. The majority of respondents asserted it is important that child labor should be banned. Kang's (2012) study also reported that the children work in a hostile environment and lack facilities at the workplace.

A survey of the children who served as bounded child laborers reported that they almost worked for three years to pay a loan of five hundred rupees. Only a tiny percentage of youngsters are recruited and compensated. However, because kids are paid per carpet rather than daily, their predicament is often like local bonded child laborers. The employer claims that young and freshly bonded youngsters may not be paid for months during what the employer claims are a training period. Finally, some youngsters work as part of family labor, such as when weavers supplement their meager salaries with their children's earnings. Children can work as part of family labor under the Child Labor (Prohibition and Regulation) Act; hence this final type of child labor is lawful. This regulation, however, is frequently used since employers may simply claim that any youngster working at their looms is a member of their family (Human Rights Watch, 1994).

Materials and Methods

The details of the material and methods used

are described below:

Methodology

The study used a quantitative research approach. A face-to-face survey design was used to conduct the present study. Data were collected from three districts of Punjab, namely Faisalabad, Gujranwala, and Sheikhupura. The districts selected for the concentration of carpet weaving industry. As the study population was dispersed in a large geographical area, the details of the whole population were not possible to access. So, the convenient sampling technique was used to select the parents of bounded child laborers serving in the carpet industry. A total of 300 parents were chosen for the study whose children are currently working as bonded laborers. The interview schedule was used to collect responses from the parents whose children are serving as bonded child laborers.




Data and Data Analysis

The frequency distribution and percentage calculations were performed for each question. The multiple regression correlation was used to investigate the effect of different factors in shaping the parent's positive attitude towards child labor.

Findings and Discussion

Table 1 describes the socio-demographic features of the parents of child laborers




 




 

Table 1. Socio-demographic features of the Parents of Child Laborers

		Frequency	Percentage
Gender	Male	210	70%
	Female	90	30%
Age	30-40	101	33.7%
	41-45	104	34.6%
	46-50	18	6.0%
	51-55	77	25.7%
Academic Qualification	Illiterate	182	60.7
	Up to Primary	96	32.0
	Up to Middle	22	7.3
Employment status of the parents	No	98	32.7
	Yes	202	67.3
Family Type	Joint	151	50.3
	Nuclear	149	49.7
Monthly Income	No Income	101	33.7
	Up to 8000	110	36.7
	8000 to 12000	89	29.7
Monthly income of the bonded child laborers (Rs.)	Up to 1000	94	31.3
	1000-2000	158	52.7
	2000+	48	16.0

 




In the table above, 70% of respondents were the child's father, and 30% were mothers. The majority of respondents, i.e., 34.6%, were in the age group of 41-45years. 33.7% from 30-40 years and 25.7% from 51-55 and above. However, a smaller proportion of the respondents, 6%, was from 46-50 years. The academic qualification profile revealed that 60.7% of the respondents were illiterate, 32.0% had up to the primary, and 7.3% had up to the middle. Of the parents of bonded child laborers, 67.3% were currently employed, while 32.7% did not have any work to earn their livelihood. Respondent's distribution by their family type showed that 50.3% of the participants from the study area belong to a joint family while 49.7% have a nuclear family system. Out of the total respondents, 33.7% had not their monthly income, but they entirely depended on their children's income. While 36.7% of the respondents had their monthly payments up to 8000 and 29.7% had their income ranging from 8000 to 12000. Out of the total respondents, a tiny proportion, 16% of the bonded child laborer, had a monthly income of more than Rs.2000, while the majority (52.7%) of the children had a monthly payment from Rs.1000-2000 and 31.3% of the children earned up to Rs.1000. The table shows that children got little earnings from their daily labors.




 

Table 2. Economic Reasons behind the decision to send the children to work

Reasons	Frequency	Percentage
Poor Financial conditions.	190	63.3
Lack of stimulating environment for education	80	26.6
In favor of skill-oriented education	30	10.0
Loan Needed	170	56.7
Poverty	96	32.0
Unemployment	34	11.3

 




Most of the respondents, 63.3%, send their children to work due to poor financial/economic conditions. 26.6% of the respondents said that they sent their children to work due to a lack of a stimulating educational environment. A tiny proportion of the respondents, i.e., 10%, informed that they sent their children in favor of skill-oriented education. The data analysis shows that poverty was the leading cause of pulling their children to work. Sakurai (2006) study reported unemployment of parents, poor teaching, and quality of education as the reasons for child labor, whereas Khan (2007) study reported that parents send their children to work to increase the family income. Tauson's (2009) study also said that parents send their children to work to learn new skills. Most of the parents, 56.7%, engaged their children in bonded labor because they got a loan due to poor financial conditions.

In comparison, 32% of the total respondents engaged children due to poverty to meet the basic needs of life, and a small proportion of the respondents (11.3%) said they engaged them due to their unemployment. Ahmad's (2012) study reported that poverty and unemployment are the main reasons for child labor. Levison and Murray (2005) from Brazil also said that father unemployment is the leading cause of child labor. The findings support the study of Pervez (1981). In this study, he found that most of the working children's parents were forced to make their children work because of their poor financial conditions. Otherwise, they did not like such jobs for their children. Amjad (1991), in his study, reported that 55.8% of respondents are compelled because of their household needs.




 

Table 3. Parent's perception of the social aspects of bonded child labor4

Parent's Opinion	Agree		Dis-Agree		Un-Certain
	F	%	F	%	F	%
Starting a job at an early age is detrimental to a child's physical growth	80	28	70	23.3	146	48.7
Parents' perception either the work at an early age creates a difference between children and parents	77	25.7	196	65.3	27	9.0
Parent's perception about "early age job results in developing the bad habits."	59	19.7	85	28.3	156	52.0
Parent's opinion on whether child labor should be banned or not?	120	40.0	49	16.0	131	43.0
Establishment of children union.	109	36.3	149	49.7	42	14.0
Early job keeps away from close friends	66	22.0	192	64.0	42	14.0

 




Among the parents, 28.0% agreed that starting a job at such an early age is detrimental to a child's physical growth. While 23.3% of respondents said they disagreed with the above statement and a large majority of the respondents, 48.7% were uncertain about the statement. They did not know whether the child's work was detrimental to the child's physical growth or not. A study by Avais et al., 2014) also reported that child labor hampered the children's growth; the children become weak and low weight. When parent opinion was asked about either work creates a difference B/W children and parents, 25.7% agreed with the statement.

In comparison, 65.3% indicated disagreement. Parents said that starting a job at an early age did not create any difference between parents and children, while a tiny proportion of 9.0% showed uncertain behavior. The study by Wahba (2002) reported the consistent results that if the parents in their childhood served as laborers, there are more chances that their children will also serve as child laborers.

19.7% of the total respondents said that they agreed that those early jobs help create bad habits among children, 28.3% expressed disagreement with the above statement. In contrast, the majority of the respondents, 52.0%, showed uncertainty about it and indicated that it is up to the child whether they work or not. Anjum (2015) study reported the less prevalence of delinquency among carpet weaver's children. 40% of the respondents agreed with the statement that child labor should be banned, whereas 16% of respondents disagreed, and 43% majority of respondents were uncertain about the ban on child labor. In a study by Anjum (2015), most of the respondents asserted that child labor should be banned. 49.7% of the parents did not feel any need for a children union.

In contrast, a significant proportion of the respondents, i.e., 36.3%, believed that there should be some children unions to better working children, and 14% were uncertain about it. (Zarif and Nisa, 2013) the study also reported that the parents of the child laborers are little aware of their children's rights. The majority of the respondents, i.e., 64%, disagreed with the statement that early age jobs keep children from close friends. In comparison, 22% agreed with it, and a tiny proportion of the respondents, 14% uncertain about the statement. Omokhodion et al., (2005) reported that the child laborers were less fortunate than their peers. Woodhead (2004) study said the less subjective well-being among children currently working.

The tables below will describe the parents' perception of the effects of labor on their children's growth and physical health.




 

Table 4. Parent's perception of the biological effects of bonded child labor

Parent's perception of the biological effects of child labor	Yes		No
	F	%	F		%
Growth of the children according to their age	59	19.7	241	80.3
Children's height is equal to their peer group	107	35.7	193	64.3
Parents' knowledge of the weight of their children	77	25.7	223	74.3

 




Most of the respondents, 80.3%, said that their child's growth was not according to their age, while 19.7% of the respondents said that their children's growth was precisely in pace with their age. A study by Avais et al., 2014) reported retarded physical growth and underweight among children working in carpet weaving manufacturers' units because of long working hours. 64.33% of the respondents indicated that their children's height was not equal to their peer group, while only 35.7% said their children's height is similar to their peer group. Avais et al., 2014) study also has the same results: child laborers have less height than their school-going age fellows. Most of the respondents, 74.3% said that their children's weight was not equal to their age, while 25.7% said the weight of a child according to his age, majority of the respondents said due to poor diet, the weight of children is less. Also, these children had to work more than they consumed. Avais et al., 2014) study also has consistent results for low weight prevalence among child laborers.




 

Table 5. Height of the child Laborers

Average Height in Feet	Frequency	Percentage
3.50	74	63.2
4.00	23	19.6
4 – 5	20	17.2
Total	117	100

 




Table 5 describes the average height of the child laborers. 63.2% of the respondents said their children had an average height of about 3.5 feet, while 19.6% of the respondents were informed about their height of 4 feet, and 17.2% talked about their children's height between 4.1 to 5 feet. Avais et al., 2014) study also has the same results that child laborers have less height than their school-going age fellows.




The subsequent table will describe the parents' perception of the behavioral aspects of the child laborers




 

Table 6. Parents' Perception of the Behavioral Aspects of the child Labor

Parents' Perception of the Behavioral Aspects of the Child Labor	Yes		No
	F	%	F		%
Children usual mood remained pleasant/happy	203	67.7	97	32.3
Parents' perception of the aggressive behavior of the children	56	18.7	244	81.3
Parents' opinion on the excellent picking power of the children	203	67.7	97	32.3
Parents' familiarity with the friends of their children	122	40.7	178	59.3
Parent's opinion that child accompany his brothers and sisters	156	52.0	144	48.0

 




Most of the respondents, 67.7%, talked about the child's general mood that they remained pleasant, but 32.3% informed that their children had an unhappy mood. Anjum (2015) study reported a majority of the respondents (49%) had sad moods. The 18.7% of respondents replied that the children showed aggression on some matters, while the majority, 81.3%, said that the child did not show aggression on any matter. The main reasons for aggression they told that by doing the same work, a child becomes cynic, and they also said that whatever a child found against his behavior, rebuked it. Anjum's (2015) study also proposed consistent results that the child laborers have less delinquent behavior. 67.7% of the respondents said that children understand things quickly, while 32.33% denied the view and they told the reasons for not understanding things as (a) Extra work weakened the mind of a child, and a wandered child has a sharpening mind (b) what a torched mind understands. Avais et al., 2014) study mentioned that children dropped out because of poor performance at school. More than half of the respondents, 59.3%, knew about their child's friends and said that most of their friends were their colleagues and street child. Some of the school-going children were also their friends, while 40.7% of the total respondents did not know about their children's friends. Omokhodion et al., (2005) reported that the child laborers were less fortunate than their peers. 52% of the respondents said that the child accompanied his brothers and sisters, while 48% informed that the child did not accompany his brothers and sisters. When they were asked about the reason for not accompanying, most of them did not know about it, while some said that it depended upon the mood and habits of the child. Woodhead (2004) study reported less subjective well-being among children currently working.




The following tables will describe the health-related aspects of child laborers.




 

Table 7. Parents' Perception of the Health Effects of Child Labor

Parents' Perception of the Health Effects of Child Labor	Yes		No
	F	%	F	%
Parents' distribution according to the child's work affects his health	5	1.7	295	98.3
Receive Treatment	7	2.3	293	97.7

 




Table 7 describes the proportion of parents according to their opinion; do they think that child labor affects their child's health, 98.3% of the respondents think that work at an early age affects their health, 1.7% said the work does not affect their child health. Ahmad's (2012) study reported that the child work affects their health. Table 4.35 indicates that a large proportion of the participants, i.e., 97.7% said that the child received treatment if they suffered any disease. Still, a tiny proportion of the respondents, 2.3%, reported that the child did not receive any treatment. Anjum (2015) study also had consistent findings for less sake of medical care.




 




 

Table 8. Parents responses how frequent their child fall sick

Frequency of Illness Complaint	Frequency	Percentage
1-2	156	52.0
3-4	57	19.3
5-6	56	18.7
7-8	30	10.0

 




Table 8 describes that 52% of the respondents, i.e., more than half of the proportion told that the child complained 1-2 times about any illness in a year, 19.3% said that they complained 3-4 times, 18.7% informed that it ranged 5-6 times and 10% reported that child complained 7-8 times about any disease. The study by Anjum (2015) reported consistent findings on the prevalence of different health-related issues as the majority of the respondents said most often and sometimes among carpet weavers.




 

Table 9. Parent’s views for the Arrangement of Treatment.

Treatment Arrange	Frequency	Percentage
Child (Himself)	41	13.7
Parents	222	74.0
Employers	37	12.3
Total	300	100

 




The data in Table 9 reflects that most of the respondents (74%) said that if a child suffered from any disease, the parents arranged treatment, 13.7% said that child themselves managed. In comparison, 12.33% reported that the employer-provided the facility in case of emergency, but later, he deducted the expenses from the child wages. In a study by Anjum (2015), carpet weavers' children were mainly arranged for treatment.




The table below assessed the parents' perception of their security needs, physical facilities, emotional needs, working environment, and children sharing a bond with their parents.




 

Table 10. Parents' Perception of their Children's Employment Conditions

Children Employment Conditions	Agree		Dis-Agree		Un-Certain
	F	%	F	%	F	%
Satisfaction about their child security at workplace.	223	74.3	71	23.7	6	2
Parent's satisfaction with the facilities provided at the workplace.	92	30.7	181	60.3	27	9.0
Parents' opinion that employers treat their children affectionately	97	32.3	161	53.7	42	14.0
Parent's satisfaction with the working environment of their children	83	27.7	194	64.7	23	7.6

 




About 74.3% of the respondents said they felt secure for their child at the workplace, while 23.7% disagreed with the view, and 2% showed uncertainty with the statement. Kang's (2012) and Anjum's (2014) study also reported a lack of facilities in the workplace. Among participants, 30.66% of the respondents were satisfied with the facilities provided at the workplace place to the child. In comparison, more than half of the respondents, 60.33%, disagreed with the facilities, and 9% of the respondents had uncertainty about the statement. Kang's (2012) study also reported the lack of facilities in the workplace. 32.33% of the respondents agreed with treating the child affectionately. In comparison, more than half of the respondents (53.7%) showed disagreement with it, and a tiny proportion (14%) opined that they were uncertain about the view of whether the employer treated the child affectionately or not. Amjad's (1991) study also reported the harsh behavior of the employer.

Most of the respondents, i.e., 64.66%, were not satisfied with the working environment, 27.66% agreed with the working environment, and 7.6% showed uncertainty about their satisfaction with the working environment. Kang's (2012) study also reported that the children work in nasty environments. Anjum (2015) study also reported the poor working conditions of child laborers working in the carpet industry.

The subsequent portion will describe the findings of the multivariate analysis. The independent variables include parents' age, income, attitude to the workplace, parents' occupation, type of family, children's general mood, aggression, children picking power, accompanied by their siblings, behavior with elders and availability of treatment facilities with the dependent variable of parents' attitude towards bonded child labor.




 

Table 11. Analysis of Variances

R	R Square	Adjusted R 2	Std. Error	F. Statistics	Prob
0.753	0.557	0.520	1.5022	29.93**	0.000

Predictor: Attitude towards child labor

 

Table 12. Regression Coefficients

	Standardized coefficients		t-value	Sig.
	Beta	Std. Error
(Constant)		0.713	7.659***	0.000
Age	0.124	0.058	2.035**	0.043
Income	-0.180	0.054	-3.213***	0.001
Attitude to Workplace	-0.011	0.063	-0.191	0.848
Educational Status	-0.070	0.086	-1.270	0.205
Occupation	-0.213	0.094	-3.726***	0.000
Type of Family	-0.101	0.090	-1.727*	0.085
General Mood of the Child	-0.143	0.095	-2.485**	0.014
Child Aggression	-0.262	0.119	-4.366***	0.000
Child Pick Understand Things Easily	-0.010	0.136	-.168	0.866
Child Accompany Brother & Sister	-0.295	0.086	-5.311***	0.000
Children Behavior with Elders	-0.106	0.141	-1.666*	0.097
Treatment Facilities	0.023	0.306	0.375	0.708

* = Significant at P<0.10; ** = Significant at P<0.05; *** = Significant at P<0.01

Dependent Variable: Parents' attitude toward child labor

Regression analysis was carried out to find out the relative significance of the independent variable in explaining the dependent variable, which is parents' attitude towards child labor. 

The R-square value of 0.55 indicates that the parent's attitude towards bonded child labor has 55% variation because of the predictor variables. An F-value of 29.93 with a P-value of 0.00 shows the significance of the model used to explore the relationship between dependent variables and predictors. The impact of each variable on the parent's attitude towards child labor is described below.

The results are given in Table 3.12; the standardized regression coefficient (Beta), t-value, and significance level are presented. The regression coefficient value indicates the relative significance of the independent variable in explaining the attitude towards bonded child labor. The table reflects the respondent's age, which has a positive beta value of 0.124, which is significant at 5%, indicating that the parent's age affects the attitude towards child labor, i.e., the older parents had shown a propensity towards bonded child labor. It may be possible that more aging parents perceive the socio-psychological and health indication of child labor rightly. Strough et al., (2011) also proposed the relationship between decision-making and age and reported that decision-making is affected by the social context. With an increase in age, decision-making becomes more rational. 

The parent's income has a regression coefficient of -0.180, which is significant at a 1% level, also establishing its importance in explaining the response variable. Parents with poor economic conditions had a positive attitude towards child labor compared to the parents who had better economic conditions. Occupation (work) of the parent also bears the response variable with a –0.213 value of beta, which is significant at 1%. It reflects that the parents with better occupations had a negative attitude and the parents with poor occupations had a positive attitude towards child labor. Sakurai (2006) and Ahmad (2012) study reported that parents' unemployment correlates with chances of child labor. These two findings demonstrate that the material circumstances of the parents are the vital force in affecting attitude towards child labor in developing societies like Pakistan. More than 33% live below the poverty line. Extreme poverty compels the parents to send their children for child labor for extra earnings to meet the family's necessities of life. 

The child's general mood also emerged as a significant predictor of the coefficient beta, which is -0.143, significant as 1%, indicating that child mood also affects parents' attitude towards bonded child labor. The parents who perceive that their child's mood is aggressive and non-cooperative with the family members had a positive attitude towards bond child labor. The parents did not perceive that their children's economic activity (Bonded Child Labor) was irrational. On the other hand, the parents who viewed their children's moods as not aggressive perceived that putting the child in bonded labor is not rational. The variable child aggression is also significant (P<0.01) independent variable in explaining the response variable, the child aggression variable has a standardized regression coefficient -0.262 value. Anjum (2015) also reported the sad mood among child laborers. The next variable is the child's accompaniment with brothers and sisters; the parent's view that their child is not mixing up or accompanying with brother and sister had a positive attitude towards bonded child labor. While the parents, who viewed their child as cooperative and accompanied by the brother and sister, had a negative attitude towards Bonded Child labor. Omokhodion et al., (2005) study reported that child laborers were less fortunate than their peers. Woodhead (2004) study said the less subjective well-being among children currently working. The remaining other variables in the regression model, i.e., (i) Child picks/understands things easily (ii) Child receives any treatment, could not explain significant variation in the regression model. It has emerged that parents' education and economic conditions are the prime forces in influencing the parent's attitude towards bonded child labor. The other factor contributing to parents' attitude towards bonded child labor is the child's attitude. Children who had an aggressive, non-cooperative, or irrational attitude with the family members and parents of such children had a positive attitude towards bonded child labor.

Conclusion

After investigating the different aspects of the parents whose are children were serving as bonded laborers, it can be concluded that bonded child labor is not a simple phenomenon. It is complex and interlinked. Economic aspects are the main contributing factors. The structural elements and arrangements within society gave way to the practices of bonded child labor. Society creates such a system of exploitation for innocent children born in families with poor socio-economic conditions and apathetic parents who send them to work to fulfill basic needs. Family type and size, aggressive behavior of children, family income, father occupation, health care facilities, employer behavior, are the significant factors in shaping the parents' attitudes towards child labor. The problem should be tackled at every level of societal arrangements, i.e., parents, government, persons involved in the carpet industry, welfare institutions, and children.

Recommendations

The government should introduce a comprehensive educational policy and program to address the problem of poverty and unemployment. As the most influential factor is the engagement of children at the workplace because they may learn some skills, the conventional education with a blend of technical skills can prove to be a key to tackling bonded child labor. The government should introduce health insurance and small loan schemes with the collaboration of the private sector.

References

• Ahmad, A. (2012). Poverty, Education and Child Labour in Aligarh City-India. Studies on Home and Community Science, 6(3), 165- 172.
• Amjad. (1991). A Sociological Study of Child Labour with Special Reference to Children working in Auto Workshops. M. Sc Rural Sociology Thesis, University of Agricultural, Faisalabad.
• Anjum, F. (2015). Well-being of Working Children in Carpet Industry in Punjab, Pakistan: Issues, Causes and Interventions (Doctoral dissertation, UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURE, FAISALABAD)
• Anker R., S. Barge, M.P. Joseph, & Rajagopal. S. (1998). Economics of Child Labour in Hazardous Industries of India, Centre for Operations and Training. New Delhi. Hindustan Publisher.
• Aqil, Z. (2012). Nexus between Poverty & Child Labour: Measuring the Impact of Poverty Alleviation on Child Labour. Good Thinkers Organization for Human Development, Kasur.
• Avais, M. A., Wassan, A. A., & Erum, M. (2014). Socio-economic Causes of Child Labor in Carpet Weaving Industry: A Case Study of Union Council Ali Wahan. SSRN Electronic Journal, 2(1), 251–264.
• Awan, M., Waqas, M., & Aslam, M. A. (2011). Why do parents make their children work? Evidence from Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey. International Journal of Academic Research, 3(2), 545-549.
• Ayaz A. (2012). Poverty, Education and Child Labour in Aligarh City-India. Stud Home Com Sci, 6(3), 165-172.
• Aziz. (2000). Call to ban worst form of child labour. HRCP newsletter, 11(4)
• Bhat, B. A., & Rather, T. A. (2009). Child labour in the handicrafts home industry in Kashmir: a sociological study. Int NGO Journal,4(9), 391-400.
• Child Labour Survey. (1996). Government of Pakistan. Main report and statistical appendices. Federal Bureau of statistics, Statistics Division, Islamabad, Pakistan.
• Chirla, A. P. (2008). Hanging by a thread, down to earth. Science and Environment Fortnightly.
• Emerson, P. & Souza, A. P. (2002). From Childhood to Adulthood: The Effect of Child Labor Activities on Adult Earnings in Brazil. Vanderbilt University Department of Economics Working Paper.
• Human Rights Watch. (1994). Small Hands of Slavery: Bonded Child Labour in India. Human Rights Watch, New York.
• Hussain, A. (1999). "Bonded Labour" The report of Task Force what and why is bonded labour in Pakistan.
• ILO. (2002). ILO Global Report on child labour cites, "Alarming" extent of its worst forms. The daily Dawn.
• Jain, K., & Jain, M. (2002). Carpet and Duries Weaving; Word Bank.