64539 Child Labour in the Latin America and Caribbean Region: A Gender-Based Analysis L. Guarcello B. Henschel S. Lyon F. Rosati C. Valdivia CO-ORDINATED BY: Furio Rosati, UCW Project Co-ordinator Anita Amorim, Gender Mainstreaming Project Co-ordinator, ILO-IPEC Phan Thuy, Networking Project Co-ordinator, ILO-IPEC April 2006 Copyright © International Labour Organization 2006 Publications of the International Labour Office enjoy copyright under Protocol 2 of the Universal Copyright Convention. Nevertheless, short excerpts from them may be reproduced without authorization, on condition that the source is indicated. For rights of reproduction or translation, application should be made to the ILO Publications Bureau (Rights and Permissions), International Labour Office, CH-1211 Geneva 22, Switzerland. The International Labour Office welcomes such applications. ISBN 978-92-2-118564-2 (Print) ISBN 978-92-2-118565-9 (Web pdf) First published 2006 The designations employed in ILO publications, which are in conformity with United Nations practice, and the presentation of material therein do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the International Labour Office concerning the legal status of any country, area or territory or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers. The responsibility for opinions expressed in signed articles, studies and other contributions rests solely with their authors, and publication does not constitute an endorsement by the International Labour Office of the opinions expressed in them. Reference to names of firms and commercial products and processes does not imply their endorsement by the International Labour Office, and any failure to mention a particular firm, commercial product or process is not a sign of disapproval. ILO publications can be obtained through major booksellers or ILO local offices in many countries, or direct from ILO Publications, International Labour Office, CH- 1211 Geneva 22, Switzerland. Catalogues or lists of new publications are available free of charge from the above address. Printed in Italy II Preface While gender and development programmes are finding their way into the institutional arena, little has been achieved in terms of mainstreaming gender concerns into specific institutional responses to child labour. There is a need to ensure that initiatives such as national Time Bound Programmes for the elimination of child labour (TBP) are equally effective in reaching boys and girls in child labour, and in particular boys and girls in worst forms of child labour. Both boys and girls deserve to go to school and to be protected from work that is damaging to their health or development. Disaggregating data on child labour according to sex is an important starting point for identifying gender dimensions of the child labour phenomenon. But in formulating policies and programmes to address the special needs of the working girls or working boys in a gender sensitive manner, more detailed information and analysis is required. In sectors where girls are in workplaces that are not easily visible, such as the household, their numerical visibility are of little help to increase programmes on their behalf. This is mainly due to the fact that employment arrangements of working children are generally casual and informal, making the girls virtually scattered, invisible, separated from their families and difficult to reach. The current study is part of a broader effort to improve understanding of how child labour differs by sex in the Latin America and Caribbean region, and to ensure that policies relating to child labour adequately reflect these differences. The study was undertaken as an expansion of a global study done in IPEC in 2003 on girl child labour, with a particular focus on the review of the World Bank LSMS, UNICEF MICS and ILO SIMPOC datasets for Latin American and Caribbean countries. It provides a more in-depth analysis of the non-tabulated and raw data from these surveys. While the data stem from a variety of sources, efforts have been made to extract outstanding examples of gender disparity in different sectors of child labour in Latin American and Caribbean countries. The information is presented in ways that should assist further study of the complex interplay of child labour and gender in other parts of the world. Furio Rosati UCW Project Co-ordinator III Acknowledgements: Funding for this report was provided by the USDOL and DFID-UK, under t he gender mainstreaming initiative in IPEC co-ordinated by Anita Amorim. The Authors would like to thank Yacouba Diallo (ILO/IPEC-SIMPOC, Geneva), Astrid Marschatz (ILO/IPEC-SIMPOC, Costa Rica), Sandya Badrinath (ILO- IPEC intern), Frank Hagemann (ILO/IPEC-Senior Policy Analyst & SIMPOC Coordinator, Geneva), Gloria Moreno-Fontes (ILO- Senior Labour Officer, MIGRANT), Angela Martins-Oliveira (Senior Statistician, SIMPOC), Hakki Ozel (Senior Statistician, SIMPOC), Evy Messel (Director of Gender Bureau, ILO) and Diane Steele (Household Survey Coordinator, Development Research Group, World Bank, Washington, DC) for their useful comments, and Anita Amorim (ILO/IPEC- Latin America Programme Officer and Gender Focal Point, Geneva) for her strong guidance to the project, Phan Thuy, co-ordinator of the ILO-IPEC networking programme, as well as Maria Arteta, Latin America Programme Officer for her support and suggestions. IV Table of Contents Preface………………………………………………………………………….III TABLE OF CONTENTS.................................................................................……………V 1. INTRODUCTION…...…………………………………………………………………1 2. DATA SOURCES……………………………………………………………………..3 3. LITERATURE REVIEW.............................................................................................7 3.1 Sex differentials in children's work involvement..................................................7 3.2 Issues relating to sex-differentiated time use ........................................................8 4. SEX DIFFERENTIALS IN WORK INVOLVEMENT.............................................14 4.1 Children’s involvement in economic activity .....................................................14 4.2 Children’s involvement in household chores in their own homes.......................15 4.3 Children’s total work involvement .....................................................................17 4.4 Children performing “double duty� ....................................................................19 4.5 Girls’ and boys’ involvement in child labour .....................................................20 4.6 “Inactive� children..............................................................................................23 5. SEX DIFFERENTIALS IN THE NATURE AND IMPACT OF WORK PERFORMED BY CHILDREN..............................................................................................25 5.1 Intensity of children’s work................................................................................25 5.2 Children’s work characteristics ..........................................................................26 5.3 Educational and health consequences of children’s work...................................28 6. HOUSEHOLD DECISIONS CONCERNING CHILD LABOUR ............................32 6.1 An explanatory framework .................................................................................32 6.2 Estimating the determinants of child labour .......................................................38 6.3 Gender analysis of regression results..................................................................39 7. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS......................................................................41 8. COUNTRY REPORTS..............................................................................................44 8.1 Bolivia ................................................................................................................44 8.2 Brazil ..................................................................................................................49 V 8.3 Colombia ............................................................................................................54 8.4 Costa Rica...........................................................................................................59 8.5 Dominican Republic ...........................................................................................65 8.6 Ecuador...............................................................................................................70 8.7 El Salvador .........................................................................................................76 8.8 Guatemala...........................................................................................................83 8.9 Honduras ............................................................................................................90 8.10 Nicaragua............................................................................................................96 8.11 Panama .............................................................................................................102 8.12 Venezuela .........................................................................................................109 BIBLIOGRAPHY..........................................................................................................114 APPENDIX: DETAILED DESCRIPTIVE TABLES……………………….....……….I VI 1. Introduction The study examines the child labour phenomenon in the Latin America and Caribbean (LAC) region from a gender perspective. It represents part of a broader effort to improve understanding of how child labour differs by sex, and to ensure that policies relating to child labour adequately reflect these differences. Using information from SIMPOC1 and LSMS2 survey datasets from 12 LAC countries, the study looks at differences by sex in key dimensions of the child labour phenomenon – its extent, nature, and effect on health and education outcomes. It addresses what type of activity is more common among girls, and the extent to which girls’ work experience differs from that of boys. The study also analyses how gender stereotypes and cultural norms affect household decisions concerning children’s time use, and the implications this has for policy. While numerous recent studies model the determinants of children’s work and schooling, very few make a distinction by sex, or systematically explore how gender interacts with other variables to influence family choices concerning children’s activities. The study encompasses not only girls and boys at work in economic activity, but also those performing household chores in their own homes. The latter group of children, dominated by girls, is frequently overlooked in child labour statistics and in analyses of child labour. This can result in gender biases both in the understanding of child labour and in policies addressing it. The study also looks at girls and boys performing “double duty� (i.e., both household chores and economic activity for significant amounts of time each week) and reportedly “inactive� children (i.e., girls and boys neither at work nor attending school). The study is structured as follows: Section 2 provides an overview of data sources, data comparability issues, data gaps and other measurement issues; Section 3 reviews current literature and research on gender and child labour, briefly highlighting the approaches followed and the main results identified; Sections 4 and 5 present a range of descriptive 1 ILO/IPEC Statistical Information and Monitoring Programme on Child Labour. 2 World Bank Living Standards Measurement Studies. 1 Child labour in the Latin America and Caribbean region: a gender-based analysis indicators of child labour, including total rates of involvement in economic activity and household chores, work intensity (hours worked), school attendance, and reported illness/injury. Differences by sex are examined for each. Building on this descriptive analysis, Section 6 looks at household decisions concerning school and work, and how gender considerations might affect these decisions. A bivariate probit model is employed to analyse the relative importance of various child, household, and community factors for families’ decisions to involve their boys and girls in work. Section 7 summarises the main findings and their possible implications for policy. The final section consists of a series of 12 country-specific briefs on the child labour phenomenon and the gender issues associated with it. 2 2. Data sources This study draws primarily on data from recent surveys conducted in 12 LAC countries – Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama and Venezuela. All 12 were household surveys undertaken since 2000 based on nationally representative samples. Key characteristics of the 12 surveys are summarised in Table 1. Table 1. Survey characteristics Reference Sample Country Survey name Survey type period size Bolivia Living Conditions Bolivia Survey (Encuesta continua de LSMS 2000 4.875 households hogares) Pesquisa National Por Household Brazil 2003 126.858 Amostra de Domicilios (PNAD) Survey Encuesta sobre Colombia Caracterización de la Labour Force 2001 19.094 Población entre 5 y 17 años Household Encuesta de Hogares de Costa Rica Survey +Child 2002 6.549 Propositos Multiples Labour Module Dominican Encuesta National de Trabajo Labour Force 2000 7.906 Republic Infantil (ENTI) Encuesta Nacional de Empleo, Desempleo y Subempleo en el Ecuador Labour Force 2001 14.062 �rea Urbana y Rural (ENDEMUR) Encuesta de Hogares de Household El Salvador 2001 11.953 Propositos Multiples Survey Encuesta de Condiciones de Guatemala LSMS 2000 7.276 Vida (ENCOVI) Encuesta de Hogares de Household Honduras 2002 8.378 Propositos Multiples Survey Encuesta para la Medición del Nicaragua Labour Force 2000 8.786 Empleo Urbano y Rural Panama Encuesta del Trabajo Infantil Labour Force 2000 9.261 Encuesta de Hogares por Household Venezuela 2000 16.809 Muestreo Survey 3 Child labour in the Latin America and Caribbean region: a gender-based analysis Ten of the 12 surveys were conducted as part of the ILO/IPEC SIMPOC series (Bolivia and Venezuela are the exceptions), and were therefore specifically designed to collect information on child labour. The SIMPOC survey module dealing with girls and boys aged 5-17 years is divided into two parts. In the first part, the respondent is one of the parents or the guardian, and information is collected on household assets, children's work conditions, working hours and work hazards for each child or adolescent in the household. In the second part, the respondent is the child, and questions relate to the past and current educational status of the children as well as to their working status. The SIMPOC module also contains a number of questions relating to job activities, work risks, injuries/disabilities, relationship of the child with the employer, use of the income earned, and to children’s present and future time- use preferences. The remaining two surveys belong to the World Bank Living Standards Monitoring Studies (LSMS) series, multi-purpose surveys designed to collect information on a range of socio-economic and demographic variables, including the employment of girls and boys and adults. Although the surveys investigate different themes, each contains the core information required (labour market status, education, time spent performing household chores, health status) to carry out the analysis in this paper. As illustrated in Table 2, the 12 surveys differed somewhat in terms of scope and variables examined. While all surveys collected information on girls and boys at work in economic activity, three (Bolivia, Brazil and Venezuela) lacked information on child involvement in household chores. Information on hours worked in economic activity was collected by all 12 surveys, but three lacked information on work sector (Colombia, Costa Rica and Dominican Republic), and two lacked information on work-related illness and injury (Costa Rica and Venezuela). None of the surveys offered information concerning children’s involvement in unconditional worst forms of work,3 and for this reason estimates of children’s work presented below understate girls’ and boys’ total 3 In accordance with ILO Convention No. 182, categories targeted by the ILO as unconditional worst forms include: (a) all forms of slavery or practices similar to slavery, such as the sale and trafficking of children, debt bondage and serfdom and forced or compulsory labour, including forced or compulsory recruitment of children for use in armed conflict; (b) the use, procuring or offering of a child for prostitution, for the production of pornography or for pornographic performances; and (c) the use, procuring or offering of a child for illicit activities, in particular for the production and trafficking of drugs as defined in the relevant international treaties. 4 Child labour in the Latin America and Caribbean region: a gender-based analysis Table 2. Availability of sex-disaggregated data relating to child labour in the survey datasets El Salvador Costa Rica Guatemala Dominican Venezuela Nicaragua Honduras Data area Colombia Republic Ecuador Panama Bolivia Brazil Work in economic activity Work in household chores x x x ‘Light’ work in economic activity School attendance Child inactivity (not attending school and not working) Wkly. hours in economic activity Sector of work in economic x x activity Modality of work in economic activity Job-seeking x x Reported illness/injury x x Wkly. hours in HH chores x x x Mothers’ education x x x Household income/wealth x Water availability x Electricity availability x Employment of mother x x x work involvement. This is a significant omission for the purposes of this study, as a number of the worst forms concern girls. Large-scale household surveys such as those drawn on for this study are ill-suited for capturing the prevalence of the unconditional worst forms because they are carried out illegally, or are considered socially unacceptable, and thus survey respondents are not willing to report them truthfully. Many of the girls and boys concerned also do not live at home, putting them beyond the scope of traditional household surveys. New survey methodologies therefore need to be developed and tested in order to account for children working in the unconditional worst forms in child labour estimates. The surveys also differed somewhat in terms of the child, household and community variables collected, which are critical for understanding household decisions concerning children’s time use. Information on mothers’ education 5 Child labour in the Latin America and Caribbean region: a gender-based analysis was absent from three others (Bolivia, Colombia and Nicaragua), and information on mothers’ employment was absent from three of the surveys (Brazil, Colombia and Nicaragua). Information on household wealth/income was missing from four surveys (Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador and Honduras), and one survey (Colombia) lacked information on household access to basic services. 6 3. Literature review The section briefly reviews current literature on the gender dimensions of child labour. It draws on the extensive annotated bibliography on child labour among girls developed by ILO/IPEC (Amorim, Rai & Murray, 2004). 3.1 Sex differentials in children's work involvement Quantitative analyses using household survey data reveal large variations by sex in children's work involvement (Blunch and Verner, 2000; Canagarajah and Coulombe, 1998; Cartwright, 1999; Cartwright and Patrinos, 1999; Coulombe, 1998; Dar & al, 2002; Deb & Rosati, 2002; Grootaert, 1999; Grootaert and Patrinos, 1999; Gustafsson-Wright & Pyne, 2002; Liu, 1998; Nielsen, 1998; Patrinos and Psacharopoulos, 1995; Ray, 1998; Sakellariou and Lall, 1999). But sex differentials in children’s work rates vary across countries and regions. Cross-country descriptive statistics on child economic activity (i.e., excluding household chores) compiled by the UCW Project illustrate this point.4 These statistics show that boys consistently work in greater proportion than girls in the Latin American and Caribbean (LAC) region, but not in the South Asian or Sub Saharan Africa (SSA) regions. In the LAC region, boys' economic activity rate is greater than girls' in all 18 countries where data are available (Argentina, Belize, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Venezuela), though the differences are not always large. In the 6 South Asia countries included in the UCW Country Statistics, boys are more likely than girls to be economically active in two (Bangladesh, Philippines), girls are more likely to be economically active in two others (Nepal and Yemen) and girls and boys work in roughly equal proportion in the final two (Cambodia and India). In Sub-Saharan Africa, sex differentials in children's economic activity are also mixed. A higher share of 4 See Country Statistics at www.ucw-project.org 7 Child labour in the Latin America and Caribbean region: a gender-based analysis boys than girls are economically active in 13 countries (Burundi, Chad, Ethiopia, Lesotho, Madagascar, Mali, Namibia, Rwanda, Senegal, Tanzania, Togo, Uganda, Zambia), while in six others (Angola, Cameroon, Comoros, Guinea, Malawi, CAR) the opposite pattern holds. Girls and boys work in roughly equal proportion in four countries (Gambia, Ghana, Guinea Bissau, Sierra Leone). These figures do not, however, include children's involvement in household chores, a form of work associated with girls in most societies. Therefore, differences by sex in work participation rates should be treated with some caution. Considerable debate currently exists over the necessity of including unpaid household work in the analysis of labour-force participation, in order to give the appropriate weight to the work of women and to take account of the importance of the household sector in developing countries. The debate has been extended to children’s work, which largely falls into the category of non-market household production. Some studies analyse the work of boys and girls at home and try to understand the dynamics of work performed by children in both economic and non-economic fronts (Assaad, Levison & Zibani, 2001; Canagarajah and Coulombe, 1998; Ertürk, 2004; Ilahi, 2001; ILO/IPEC, 2004a, ILO/IPEC, 2004b, Levison & Moe, 1998). For Turkey, Ertürk (2004) goes beyond the traditionally accepted statistical notions of economic and non-economic activities, as they value the work performed by women and girls at home as having ‘market value’, and therefore being also ‘economic’ in nature. There also appears to be a large degree of specialisation by sex in terms of the types of economic activity performed by children. In an international overview, Ashagrie (1998) finds that boys are more concentrated in manufacturing, trade, restaurants, hotels, and transport, while girls in agriculture and personal services. 3.1 Issues relating to sex-differentiated time use Demography and life cycle There is substantial empirical evidence indicating that the incidence of child labour increases with age (Blunch & Verner, 2000; Cartwright & Patrinos, 1999; Coulombe, 1998; Nielsen, 1998; Patrinos & Psacharopoulos, 1997; Patrinos & Psacharopoulos, 1995), and that the work rates of girls change vis-à-vis those of boys as children grow over. UCW country statistics 8 Child labour in the Latin America and Caribbean region: a gender-based analysis for Latin America and the Caribbean, for example, indicate that the economic activity rates of boys tend to rise relative to girls as children approach adolescence, as relatively more boys take up work in the formal work force while relatively more girls take up responsibility for tasks associated with running the household. Ilahi (2001) finds that in Peru time spent on household chores and on the family farm or enterprise increases with age for both boys and girls, but that only girls are affected in terms of their grade-for-age attainment. The age composition of female members in the household is also relevant, when it allows children to have their work substituted by others. For example, the presence of adult females in the household may alleviate the housework burden of children. Ilahi (2001) finds that for Peru, the presence of prime-age females in the household lowers the housework time of both boys and girls, but has no effect on child economic activity. It also significantly affects the educational attainment of girls, with no effect on the attainment of boys. This suggests that there is a substitution between the time of young girls and prime- age females in the household. Employment and unemployment Where labour markets for adults and children exist, adult and child time appear to be associated. The adult female’s decision to participate in the labour force affects the amount of time children spend on housework, schooling, and income generation. An important issue for gender differences in time use is whether children and parents (particularly mothers) are substitutes in economic activity. Grootaert and Patrinos (1999), in their comparative study of the determinants of child labour in Côte d’Ivoire, Colombia, Brazil and the Philippines, find a positive effect of mothers’ wages on girls’ housework. Ray (1998) finds for Peru, that a rise in adult male wages produces a significantly negative impact on the household decision to send its children to work, while in Pakistan the impact of a rise in adult female wages on such decision is significantly positive, possibly because of children performing housework. Sakellariou & Lall (1997) find for the Philippines, that in rural areas, employment status of the mother is associated with an 18 percentage point increase in the probability of child working, mostly on family farms. Glinskaya, Garcia, and Lokshin (2000) find that in Kenya, a 10 percent increase in mothers’ wages reduces girls’ enrolment by 8.8 percent, while it raises the school attendance of boys by 11 percent, indicating that girls 9 Child labour in the Latin America and Caribbean region: a gender-based analysis probably drop out of school to replace mothers in home production activities. A related issue is how layoffs and involuntary job loss of adults affect the time use of children. It is crucial to distinguish between voluntary job losses which are endogenous and involuntary ones which instead are exogenous. Duryea (1999) finds for Brazil a negative effect of the father becoming unemployed during the school year on the child's grade achievement. This effect is statistically significant for both girls and boys. An unemployment shock by fathers during the school year is associated with a 4 percentage point decline in the probability of grade advancement for children of age 10-15. Since adult employment fluctuates, Ilahi (2001) calculates unemployment shocks at the cluster level in Peru and finds that as local female unemployment increases, the time urban boys and girls allocate to household chores decreases significantly, but the magnitude is much larger for girls. The opposite effect holds for the rural sample, although it is much smaller, and insignificant for boys. This result is consistent with the findings in Grootaert and Patrinos (1999). Childcare The existence of markets for childcare also plays an important role in children’s time allocation. In Brazil (Deutsch, 1998), the presence of children aged 6 to 15 who can serve as substitute care providers influences negatively the decision to use outside childcare. The same negative association between the presence of children in this age group in the household and the decision to turn to outside care emerges in Romania (Fong and Lokshin, 1999). Generally, it appears that in countries where the remuneration from employment for women is high and where childcare markets function, a high share of women is engaged in income generating activities; the better women are paid, the costlier is the childcare they choose. In countries where outside markets for childcare are lacking, the burden of care falls on “mother substitutes�, especially on young girls, with potentially negative effects on them, such lower levels of school enrolment. Child care costs may have a negative influence on the choice to turn to outside childcare. Glinskaya, Garcia, and Lokshin (2000) find that in Kenya, a 10 percent increase in child care costs reduces older girls’ school enrolment rate by three percent, while the effect is not significant for boys. Higher cost of care reduce the household demand for paid care. Girls take over the care of small children; their schooling is sacrificed to allow the mother to work for 10 Child labour in the Latin America and Caribbean region: a gender-based analysis wages. This evidence suggests that access to low-cost child care could reduce the likelihood of girls’ being pulled out of school to perform household chores. Sickness and disease Sickness and disease in the household can have an important influence on children’s time use, particularly in contexts in which formal social risk mitigation instruments are lacking. Sickness and disease involve costs for the household, both monetary as well as indirect time costs. The latter may derive, in the case of sickness of children, by increased extra care requirements from non-sick members. In the case of sickness of prime age adults, children may be expected to devote more time to housework and economic activity to smooth the shock driven by the decline in household income. When sickness and disease in the household generate a substitution effect, i.e., when children are withdrawn from school and engaged in housework or economic activity, this effect may vary by sex. The limited research on this subject suggests that the time use of girls may be particularly sensitive to illness in the household. Girls in both Asia and Latin America appear to have to take on more care responsibilities than boys, resulting in increased household chores and lower levels of schooling. Pitt and Rosenzweig (1990) analyse how mothers and older boys and girls in Indonesia alter their activity patterns in response to infant morbidity in the household. They find sex-differentiated effects of infant sickness on intra- household time-use. Teenaged daughters are significantly more likely to increase their participation in household care activities, to decrease their participation in market activities and to drop out of school compared to teenaged sons in response to increases in infant morbidity. Ilahi (2001) finds differences by children’s place of residence. In urban areas, where children tend to devote a much higher amount of time to household chores than in rural areas, the illness of a young child produces greater care burdens on other child family members, with a stronger effect on girls. Adult illness instead has no influence on children’s time use patterns. In rural areas, where children are prevalently engaged in household-based income generating activities, the illness of children reduces the child labour of girls while adult illness increases their participation in market activities by which they supplement the lost household income. Both the illnesses of children and adults produce no effect on boys time use. 11 Child labour in the Latin America and Caribbean region: a gender-based analysis Parents’ educational attainment Parents’ educational attainment has often been recognized as a factor influencing children’s involvement in work (Cartwright and Patrinos, 1999; Coulombe, 1998; Grootaert, 1999; Patrinos and Psacharopoulos, 1997; Ray, 2000; Sakellariou and Lall, 1997). Educated parents usually earn more money and can more easily afford to send their children to school. Further, they are favoured with respect to non-educated parents in understanding the value of education for long-term returns to human capital accumulation. For both reasons they may have a lower propensity to send their children to work. Several studies distinguish between the effect of mothers’ and fathers’ educational level on child labour. The descriptive statistics in Tzannatos (1998) show for Thailand that 24 percent of boys and girls whose household heads attained less than primary education work, while for boys and girls whose household heads attained upper secondary education the percentage working is only four percent and 16 percent respectively. A probit estimation of the data confirms the negative correlation between parents’ education and child labour. Ilahi (2001) finds for Peru that the education of the oldest prime-age female in the household tends to have a beneficial effect on the child labour of boys, but not girls. Ray (2000) finds for both Pakistan and Peru that increasing the education of adults in the household has a positive role in lowering both boys’ and girls’ labour, but the effect is much stronger for Pakistan than Peru. Canagarajah and Coulombe (1998) find for Ghana that fathers’ education has a significant negative effect on child labour; with a stronger effect for girls than for boys. Mothers’ educational attainment does not seem to significantly affect child labour. Household wealth Differences in girls’ and boys’ time use also depend on household wealth. There is a wide body of empirical evidence indicating that children’s economic activity decreases as household welfare increases. Cartwright & Patrinos (1999), Cartwright (1999), Coulombe (1998), Patrinos & Psacharopoulos (1995), for example, find a negative correlation between household welfare and child labour. For Pakistan and Peru, Ray (2000) finds that changes in household wealth influence the composition of girls’ work (between economic activities relative to household chores), but produce no effect on the total hours they work. Ilahi (2001) finds for Peru that there is a negative association between wealth and 12 Child labour in the Latin America and Caribbean region: a gender-based analysis both housework of urban girls and income generating activities of rural girls. Such an association does not hold for boys. Further, girls’ work appears to respond more to changes in household welfare than boys’. A recent study of Bhalotra and Heady (2003) yields some interesting findings. Using land size as an indicator of household welfare for rural families, the authors find that girls’ farm labour increases with household welfare in Pakistan and Ghana; such an effect does not emerge for boys. The effect of household wealth on child work and schooling may also depend on the intra-household distribution of wealth. Systematic evidence on this relation is scarce. Galasso (1999), finds that in Indonesia as the share of household assets owned by the mother increases, girl child labour drops while that of boys does not. Access to basic services In contexts where basic services infrastructure is limited, the burden for the provision of services such as water and fuel is often borne by women and children. Evidence suggests that responsibility for these time-intensive activities can adversely effect childrens’, and particularly girls’, ability to attend school. Using data from El Salvador, Ghana, Guatemala, Morocco and Yemen, Guarcello, Lyon and Rosati (2003) find that households with access to water and electricity are more likely to send their children to school and less likely to send them to work or to keep them “idle� at home. In another study based on data from Yemen, the effect of access to a public water network on children’s activity was found to be strongly influenced by gender; water access had a much greater impact on the probability of girls attending school and not working compared to boys (Guarcello & Lyon, 2003). Ilahi (2001) finds for Peru that household access to water services has a significantly negative effect on child labour in urban areas, while for rural areas such an effect doesn’t emerge. Lack of access to energy infrastructure has little effect on child labour, but it reduces the educational attainment of both boys and girls. Ethnicity A recent ILO-IPEC (2004, unpublished) study on the linkages of gender, child labour and indigenous people in Peru, shows the extent to which cultural factors can create a negative bias towards women and increase the burden of household chores for girls. 13 4. Sex differentials in work involvement 4.1 Children’s involvement in economic activity5 There are large sex-based disparities in children’s involvement in economic activities6 in the 12 countries, suggesting that gender plays an important role in decisions concerning children’s work. As shown in Figure 1, the proportion of 7-14 year-old boys in economic activity is more than double that of similarly- aged girls in nine of the 12 countries and is almost double that of similarly- aged girls in two others. Only in one country, Bolivia, does girls’ economic activity rate approach that of boys. Economic activity rates for older, 15-17 year-old, children follow a similar pattern (Appendix Table A1). These national figures disguise important differences by residence. The overall gap by sex in economic activity rates is primarily the result of boys’ greater involvement in rural (mostly agricultural) work; urban areas feature a lower overall level of child involvement in economic activity and a smaller difference in involvement by sex (Appendix Table A1). Factors favouring boys’ involvement in work therefore appear less relevant in urban contexts. 5 “Children’s work� (or “child work�) is a general term covering the entire spectrum of work and related tasks performed by children, regardless of whether this work is legal or illegal, harmful or harmless, and independent of its technical nature. Children’s work, like child labour, can be broken down into two broad categories: economic activities and household chores or “housework�. These two categories are not, of course, mutually exclusive; many children perform both economic activities and household chores. 6 Economic activity is defined by the UN System of National Accounts (1993 Rev. 3) as encompassing most productive activities, including unpaid and illegal work, work in the informal sector, and production of goods for own use. In line with the international definition of employment, one hour spent on economic activity during the reference week is sufficient for classifying a person (child or adult) as economically active during that week. Household chores refer to work of a domestic nature performed by children in their own household. They include activities such as house cleaning, food preparation and child care. These activities are considered non-economic activities and therefore outside the ‘production boundary’, according to the UN System of National Accounts (1993 Rev. 3) for measuring GDP. There are no internationally accepted indicators for involvement in housework; this paper includes estimates based on two time thresholds, one hour and 28 hours during the reference week. 14 Child labour in the Latin America and Caribbean region: a gender-based analysis Figure 1. The proportion of boys in economic activity is greater than that of girls in all 12 countries Percentage of children in economic activity, 7-14 years age range, by sex and country 24.8 25.9 male female 22.2 20.4 19.4 18.0 16.6 16.5 13.9 percent 12.3 11.2 9.7 9.5 8.9 8.5 7.7 6.6 6.5 6.1 5.3 4.6 3.5 2.0 1.4 Bolivia Brazil Columbia Costa Rica Dominican Ecuador El Salvador Guatemala Honduras Nicaragua Panama Venezuela Republic The fact that girls are less involved in economic activity does not translate into their being more involved in school. Indeed, only in Nicaragua and Colombia is there a significant enrolment gap favouring girls. In Guatemala and Bolivia, on the other hand, the enrolment gap favours boys, while in the remaining countries girls and boys attend school in roughly equal proportion. For both boys and girls, school attendance levels are, not surprisingly, negatively related to levels of involvement in economic activity. Brazil excepted, working children attend school in much lesser proportion than non- working children (see also Section 5.3). Figure 2. School attendance rates differ little by sex in the 12 countries Percentage of children attending school, 7-14 years age range, by sex and country 97.5 96.9 96.1 male female 95.1 97 94.7 94.5 94.5 94.4 96 93.8 93.8 91.2 90.9 90.7 91 86.9 86.8 86.2 85.7 85.4 percent 80.8 77.2 72.1 Bolivia Brazil Columbia Costa Rica Dominican Ecuador El Salvador Guatemala Honduras Nicaragua Panama Venezuela Republic 4.2 Children’s involvement in household chores in their own homes Children’s work in economic activity provides only a partial picture of children’s total work involvement, as children can also be at work in household chores such as fuel wood and water collection, cooking, child care, and shopping for their own household. Although international labour standards provide for exceptions for household chores performed in a child’s own 15 Child labour in the Latin America and Caribbean region: a gender-based analysis household, household chores can pose risks to children’s health, and can affect children’s ability to attend and benefit from schooling in the same ways as economic activity. Consideration of household chores is therefore also important to a general understanding of children’s, and particularly girls’, work. Figure 3. Girls are much more likely than boys to be responsible for household chores in their own home a) Percentage of children in household chores for at least 14 hours during the reference week, 7-14 years age range, by sex and country 53.6 54.4 male female 45.7 40.2 36.3 34.3 29.5 percent 24.7 19.9 19.8 17.7 14.8 11.6 11.4 8.5 8.4 6.1 4.2 NA NA NA NA Bolivia Brazil Columbia Costa Rica Dom. Rep. Ecuador El Salvador Guatemala Honduras Nicaragua Panama Peru Venezuela b) Percentage of children in household chores for at least 28 hours during the reference week, 7-14 years age range, by sex and country 18.8 male female 15.4 14 10.9 10.3 percent 8.3 6.6 5.5 4.8 3.1 2.1 1.8 1.3 1.1 0.9 0.6 0.5 0.1 NA NA NA NA Bolivia Brazil Columbia Costa Rica Dom. Rep. Ecuador El Salvador Guatemala Honduras Nicaragua Panama Peru Venezuela Latin American households appear much more likely to assign responsibility for household chores to girls than to boys. As shown in Figure 3, the proportion of girls spending at least 14 hours per week on chores outstrips that of boys in all nine countries where data are available.7 Only in four countries (Dominican Republic, Guatemala, Honduras and Nicaragua) does a substantial share of children perform chores beyond a higher weekly time threshold of 28 hours. In three of these four countries (Dominican Republic is the exception), the proportion of girls putting in at least this much time on household chores substantially exceeds that of boys. 7 See discussion in next section relating to time thresholds for work in household chores and economic activity. 16 Child labour in the Latin America and Caribbean region: a gender-based analysis In all nine countries, involvement in household chores is highest, and the gap by sex is largest, in rural areas (Appendix Table A3). Poorer water and energy infrastructure in rural areas means more time must be spent on chores such as water and fuel collection, the responsibility for which typically falls disproportionately on girls and women. The differences by sex in rates of both market and household chores tend to grow with age in the countries included in the study. Boys’ involvement in economic activity tends to increase relative to girls’ as they grow older, while for household chores the opposite holds true (Appendix Tables A1 and A3). This undoubtedly reflects the different socially-dictated paths taken by boys and girls as they reach adolescence and begin the transition to adulthood. Girls are generally expected to devote more time to household tasks such as cooking, cleaning and child care, and to tending to household members who fall ill. Boys, on the other hand, are expected to increase their involvement in farm or wage work, in preparation for their eventual role as the main breadwinners of their own households.8 4.3 Children’s total work involvement For an indication of children’s total work involvement, it is necessary to look at economic activity and housework collectively, i.e., at the proportion of children performing either housework or economic activity. But in order to arrive at such a combined indicator, it is necessary to decide what time thresholds should be used in measuring involvement in economic activity and household chores. This remains an area of some debate, as underlying it is the question of whether children’s housework should be treated statistically the same as their economic activity. And as girls predominate in housework and boys in economic activity, the time thresholds set for the two will affect estimates of girls’ total involvement in work vis-à-vis that of boys. In line with the international definition of employment, one hour spent on economic activity during the reference week is widely used as the threshold for classifying a child as economically active. But, a similar statistical standard for housework unfortunately does not yet exist. As housework is very common for both boys and girls, and some housework is considered a normal and even beneficial part of childhood in most cultures, the one hour per week threshold 8 World Bank, Engendering Development Through Gender Equality in Rights, Resources and Voice, World Bank policy research report, January 2001, p. 152. 17 Child labour in the Latin America and Caribbean region: a gender-based analysis would seem too low for measuring housework involvement. But further research is needed on how time on household chores affects health and education outcomes in order to determine what the appropriate time threshold should be.9 For the purposes of this paper, the time threshold for measuring work in household chores is arbitrarily set at 14 hours per week (the cut-off frequently used for light work in economic activity), while a higher threshold of 28 hours is used for classifying household chores as child labour (see Section 4.5).10 Therefore, “working� children are defined as being either involved in economic activity for at least one hour per week or performing household chores for at least 14 hours per week.11 Girls’ involvement in work rises considerably relative to that of boys when this combined measure is used. Indeed, for 7-14 year olds, girls’ total work rate actually exceeds that of boys in six of nine countries (Figure 4). This underscores the fact that the economic activity rate – the most commonly used measure of children’s work – alone is a misleading indicator of girls’ work involvement. When the “invisible� work performed by girls in the household is ignored, girls’ work involvement is understated vis-à-vis that of boys. Figure 4. Girls work involvement rises relative to boys’ when “work� is defined to include both economic activity and household chores Percentage of children in economic activity (at least one hour per week) or household chores (at least 14 hours/week), 7-14 years age range by sex and country 60.2 male female 55.9 53.6 49.4 49.1 42.9 41.4 39.8 percent 25.7 24.9 23.4 22.9 21.8 20.2 19.4 16.1 12.7 8.9 NA NA NA NA Bolivia Brazil Columbia Costa Rica Dominican Ecuador El Salvador Guatemala Honduras Nicaragua Panama Peru Venezuela Republic 9 ILO/IPEC recently launched a research programme aimed at establishing statistical standards for children’s non-economic work, including household chores. 10 This higher threshold of 28 hours is used by UNICEF for classifying housework as child labour. See Section 4.5. 11 Eliminated the overlapping category to avoid double counting. 18 Child labour in the Latin America and Caribbean region: a gender-based analysis Ignoring housework also might bias policy prescriptions for tackling child labour, or even generate unintended or undesirable consequences. Failing to consider the opportunity costs of housework, for example, is likely to limit the effectiveness of policies designed to promote schooling by compensating households for the foregone value of children’s work time.12 Clearly, the policy debate should not be limited to the choice between economic activity and schooling, but rather among schooling, economic activity and housework. 4.4 Children performing “double duty� A relatively small proportion of 7-14 year-olds perform double duty, i.e., both economic activity and household chores for significant amounts of time each week (set here at 14 weekly hours for each activity). Only in three of the nine countries where data are available (Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua) does the group performing double duty exceed four percent of the child population. In all three, the share of boys performing double duty exceeds the share of girls. Rates of double duty are higher among 15-17 year-olds, but only in Guatemala, Honduras and Nicaragua do they exceed 10 percent of total children. Table 3. Children performing “double duty�, 7-14 years age range, by sex and country Percentage of children in both economic activity or household chores Country (each for more than 14 hours/week) Male Female Bolivia -- -- Brazil -- -- Columbia 0.9 0.9 Costa Rica 0.2 0.2 Dominican Republic 2.7 1.5 Ecuador 2.2 3.0 El Salvador 1.2 1.3 Guatemala 6.6 6.1 Honduras 5.3 2.9 Nicaragua 8.0 4.6 Panama -- -- Venezuela -- -- 12 Mason A., and Khandker S., “Household schooling decisions in Tanzania�, World Bank (mimeograph), Washington D.C., 1997, as cited in Ilahi N., The Intra-household Allocation of Time and Tasks: What have we learnt from the empirical literature?, World Bank, Policy Research Report of Gender and Development, Working Paper Series No. 13, Washington D.C., June 2000. 19 Child labour in the Latin America and Caribbean region: a gender-based analysis 4.5 Girls’ and boys’ involvement in child labour Not all children’s work constitutes child labour. Child labour is the subset of children’s work that is injurious, negative or undesirable to children and that should be targeted. Three main international conventions – the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), ILO Convention No. 182 (Worst Forms) and ILO Convention No. 138 (Minimum Age) – define child labour and provide a framework for efforts against it.13 All 12 countries have ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child and ILO Conventions No. 138 and No. 182. Table 4. Ratification status of international conventions relating to child labour, LAC region UN Convention on the Rights ILO Convention No. 182 ILO Convention No. 138 of the Child ratification(a) (Worst Forms) ratification(b) (Minimum Age) ratification(c) Country Min. age Yes/No Date Yes/No Date Yes/No Date specification Bolivia Yes 8.3.1990 Yes 6.6.2003 Yes 11.6.1997 14 years Brazil Yes 24.9.1990 Yes 2.2.2000 Yes 28.6.2001 16 years Colombia Yes 28.1.1991 Yes 28.1.2005 Yes 2.2.2001 14 years Costa Rica Yes 21.8.1990 Yes 10.9.2001 Yes 11.6.1976 15 years Dominican Republic Yes 11.6.1991 Yes 15.11.2000 Yes 15.6.1999 14 years Ecuador Yes 23.3.1990 Yes 19.9.2000 Yes 19.9.2000 14 years El Salvador Yes 10.7.1990 Yes 12.10.2000 Yes 23.1.1996 14 years Guatemala Yes 6.5.1990 Yes 11.10.2001 Yes 27.4.1990 14 years Honduras Yes 10.8.1990 Yes 25.10.2001 Yes 9.6.1980 14 years Nicaragua Yes 5.10.1990 Yes 6.11.2000 Yes 2.11.1981 14 years Panama Yes 12.12.1990 Yes 31.10.2000 Yes 31.10.2000 14 years Venezuela Yes 13.9.1990 Yes 26.10.2005 Yes 15.7.1987 14 years Sources: (a) www.unicef.org; (b) and (c) www.ilo.org What proportion of children in the 12 countries fall into the category of child labourers, and how do child labour rates differ by sex? Determining 13 The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) recognises the child’s right to be protected from forms of work that are likely to be hazardous or to interfere with the child's education, or to be harmful to the child's health or physical, mental, spiritual, moral or social development. In order to achieve this goal, the CRC calls on States Parties to set minimum ages for admission to employment, having regard to other international instruments. ILO Conventions No. 138 (Minimum Age) and No. 182 (Worst Forms) target as child labour 1) all forms of work carried out by children below a minimum cut-off age (at least 12 years in less developed countries); 2) all forms except ‘light work’ carried out by children below a second higher cut-off age (at least 14 years in less developed countries); and 3) all ‘worst forms’ of child labour carried out by children of any age under 18 years, where worst forms include any activity or occupation which, by its nature or type has, or leads to, adverse effects on the child’s safety, health, or moral development. 20 Child labour in the Latin America and Caribbean region: a gender-based analysis where, and how, to draw the statistical line between benign forms of work, including light work and legal apprenticeships, on one side, and child labour for elimination, on the other, poses a number of measurement challenges. Table 5. Child labour among 5-14 year-olds (a) (b) (c) Child labour estimates for 5-14 year- Economically Economically Children aged olds(3) active children active children 5-14 (a)+(b) (a)+(b)+(c) Country Sex aged 5-11 aged 12-14 years performing HH as a percentage as a percentage years(2) excluding those in chores for at of children aged of children aged light-work least 28 hours 5-14 5-14 per week Male 16 23.2 - 18.6 - Bolivia Female 13.1 21.1 - 16 - Male 3.7 12.7 - 6.4 - Brazil Female 1.8 5.5 - 2.9 - Male 9.6 16.2 3.1 11.4 14.4 Colombia Female 4.5 6.5 4.4 5.0 9.1 Male 5.3 6.6 0.6 5.8 6.3 Costa Rica Female 2.6 1.4 1.5 2.3 3.7 Dominican Male 15.2 24.3 10.4 17.6 25.7 Republic Female 6.1 4.7 10.9 5.7 16.0 Male 12.4 27.8 0.8 17.0 17.5 Ecuador Female 7.8 15.9 1.1 10.2 10.8 Male 4.4 19.3 0.4 8.8 9.1 El Salvador Female 1.5 8.6 1.7 3.6 5.2 Male 15.1 38.5 5.5 23.4 27.8 Guatemala Female 8.7 19.7 18.8 12.7 28.8 Male 5.8 26 7.1 11.4 17.1 Honduras Female 2.2 9 12.9 4.2 15.9 Male 8.5 27.2 5.5 13.5 17.7 Nicaragua Female 3.3 9.7 11.5 4.9 15.4 Male 2.5 10.0 0.1 4.6 4.7 Panama Female 0.6 1.8 0.9 0.9 1.8 Female 2.4 8.4 - 6 - Venezuela Male 1.3 1.9 - 1.7 - Notes (1): The stipulations contained in ILO Conventions Nos. 138 and 182 also extend to children aged 15-17 years. The Convention on the Rights of the Child also applies to all persons under the age of 18. However, 15-17 year-olds are excluded because data on the nature of work performed by children in this age group are not currently available. (2) Does not include children in unconditional worst forms of child labour, because these forms are not captured in household surveys (4) Guatemala: Child labour among children aged 7-14. (5)The indicators presented in Table 4 do not explicitly deal with the group of children that combine HH chores and economic activity. This becomes an issue when looking at children aged 12-14 years, who could theoretically work for a combined total of as many as 40 hours per week (13 hours in economic activity and 27 hours in household chores) without being classified as child labour. A lower combined hours threshold for this group is needed, but further research is needed justify what this threshold should be. For example, measuring forms of work that have “adverse effects on the child’s safety, health, or moral development� (ILO Convention No. 182), requires detailed information about work hazards and on the interplay between 21 Child labour in the Latin America and Caribbean region: a gender-based analysis work, health and schooling. This information is beyond the scope of standard household surveys. For this reason, minimum working age,14 as defined by ILO Convention No. 138, is typically used as the main criterion for approximating child labour. All but two of the 12 countries included in this study set the general minimum working age at 14 years upon ratifying ILO Convention No. 138.15 Therefore, all economically active children below the age of 14, with the exception of 12- and 13-year-olds in “light work�, may be thought of as being in child labour. Estimates of child labour calculated on this basis, shown in Table 5, suggest that child labour is much more common among boys. Indeed, boys’ child labour rates are at least double those of girls using this measure in all countries except Bolivia. But, as seen from the preceding discussion, applying this criterion alone has an inherent gender bias, as it considers children in economic activity, a category where boys predominate, but not children performing housework, where girls are most prevalent. Household chores also clearly can adversely affect children’s welfare and therefore also fall within the definitions of child labour set out in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and ILO Convention No. 182. The question again arises, however, of the appropriate time threshold for classifying housework as child labour. A small amount of light housework is unlikely to adversely affect a child’s “safety, health, or moral development�, and for this reason, UNICEF considers only girls and boys performing housework beyond a relatively high weekly time threshold, tentatively set at 28 hours, as having their rights compromised. This time threshold, however, is supported only by preliminary UNICEF research looking at effects of housework on schooling in Africa. Very little research on the impact of children’s housework has been conducted in the Latin American context. As shown in Table 5, while girls form a greater share of children performing household chores beyond this 28-hour weekly time threshold, boys form a much larger share of children in under-aged economic activity.16 When 14 Understood as the minimum working age for work in economic activity. 15 The exceptions are Brazil and Costa Rica, which set the minimum working ages at 16 and 15 years respectively. However, for the purposes of comparability, the minimum age of 14 years is used for estimating child labour for all 12 countries. 16 This paper uses a lower threshold of 14 hours for measuring children at work in household chores, as detailed in Sections 4.2 and 4.3. Applying the 14 hours threshold also to child labour would of course raise the proportion of children in child labour, and raise the proportion of girls in child labour relative to boys. 22 Child labour in the Latin America and Caribbean region: a gender-based analysis the two groups are put together, the total percentage of children in child labour is higher for boys in all countries except Guatemala, but the gap by sex is narrower than when minimum age is used as the sole criterion for measuring child labour. It should be emphasised that these indicators constitute only rough measures of child labour and need further refinement. For housework in particular, numerous research questions require answering before arriving at more definitive criteria for child labour. Should, for example, the same time cut-off be applied to all household chores, when some types, such as hauling water, are likely to have more serious consequences than others, such as child care? Should the time threshold be lower for younger, 5-11 year-old children, compared to older ones? And are there some “hazardous� forms of household chores that should be targeted for elimination altogether, independent of time spent on them? 4.6 “Inactive� children Data from the selected countries reveals an additional group of children that are inactive, i.e., not attending school, not performing economic activity, and not spending significant amounts of time carrying out household chores. This group also merits policy attention. To the extent that they are indeed inactive, children in this group can be at a double disadvantage, benefiting neither from schooling nor from the learning-from-experience that some forms of work offer. In El Salvador, inactive children outnumber children in economic activity. The group of inactive children is also relatively large in Guatemala, accounting for about 15 percent of all 7-14 year-olds. But in the remaining countries where data are available, inactive children constitute a relatively small share of total children. Girls appear slightly more likely than boys to be inactive, although, Guatemala excepted, differences in the size of the inactive group by sex are small. 23 Child labour in the Latin America and Caribbean region: a gender-based analysis Table 6. Child “inactivity�, 7-14 years age range, by sex and country % children that are % children that are reportedly inactive after controlling Country reportedly inactive(1) for job-seeking and chronic illness/injury male female male female Bolivia 2.6 4.2 -- -- Brazil 0 -- -- Columbia 4.7 4 -- -- Costa Rica 3.5 3.7 3.4 3.6 Dominican 1.9 1.8 -- -- Republic Ecuador 4 5.8 -- El Salvador 9 10.6 -- -- Guatemala 12 16.3 10.8 15.4 Honduras 5.7 6.9 -- -- Nicaragua 10.5 8.7 5.5 5.5 Panama 3.6 4.4 3.6 4.3 Venezuela 2.5 2.7 -- -- Notes: (1) Neither performing economic activity nor attending school, and spending less than 28 hours per week on household chores* What might explain this observed group of children left out of both school and work? One possibility is that they are simply unemployed, i.e., wanting to work in economic activity but unable to find a job. Another possibility is that they are chronically ill or disabled, resulting in the exclusion from school and economic activity. But, as shown in Table 6, these two possibilities appear to account for only a very small proportion of total inactive children, leaving a substantial remaining “unexplained� group. Some from this remaining group of children may really be inactive, i.e., engaged only in leisure activities or small amounts of household chores. Such an outcome might be optimal for households in circumstances where the costs to education are high and returns to work are low.17 Others from this group may actually be economically active or in school but not captured due to reporting error or omission. Parents may falsely report their children as being idle instead of as working, for example, because (at best) work by children is forbidden or (at worst) because their children are engaged in illegal or dangerous activities. Parents may report their children as being out of school when in fact they are in some form of non-formal or informal schooling. 17 For a more complete discussion, see Biggeri M., Guarcello L., Lyon S. and Rosati F., The puzzle of “idle� children: neither in school nor performing economic activity: Evidence from six countries, Understanding Children’s Work Project, draft working paper, Florence Italy, August, 2003. 24 5. Sex differentials in the nature and impact of work performed by children 5.1 Intensity of children’s work performed by children Involvement in work is a relatively crude measure of the work burden faced by children because it does not capture work intensity, i.e., the time spent by children in work.18 Working hours affect time available for schooling and leisure, and therefore children’s current and future welfare. Evidence is also emerging of a relationship between children’s working hours and health and safety outcomes. A recent study of working children in Brazil, for example, found that as working hours increase, the risks faced by children of work- related illness and injury also rise, across almost all types of work.19 Figure 5. Girls and boys differ little in terms of the length of their working week a) Average weekly hours spent in economic activity, 7-14 years age group, by sex and country 36.3 35.5 33.1 male fem ale 31.5 28.1 27.9 26.9 26.7 26.6 26.3 28 25.4 22.8 20.5 20.2 20.1 19.9 19.6 18.7 18.6 17.1 hours 15.7 14.4 13.1 Bolivia Brazil Columbia Costa Rica Dominican Ecuador El Salvador Guatemala Honduras Nicaragua Panama Venezuela Republic 18 As noted above, in line with the international definition of employment, children classified as economically active can work as little as one hour per week. 19 Guarcello L., Lyon S. and Rosati F., Impact of Working Time on Children’s Health and Safety, UCW draft working paper, March 2004. 25 Child labour in the Latin America and Caribbean region: a gender-based analysis b) Average weekly hours spent in household chores, 7-14 years age group, by sex and country male female 19.1 16.3 15.7 14.2 13.4 13.1 10.7 10.3 hours 9.1 8.6 8.3 7.9 7.5 7.5 6.5 5.8 7 7 NA NA NA Bolivia Brazil Columbia Costa Rica Dominican Ecuador El Salvador Guatemala Honduras Nicaragua Panama Venezuela Republic Are there differences by sex in the intensity of work performed by children? Looking at economic activity alone, boys and girls appear to differ little in terms of the length of their working week. While boys work longer hours than girls in nine of the 12 countries, only in two (Dominican Republic and Venezuela) does the hours gap exceed five hours per week. Weekly working hours increase with age for both boys and girls in the 12 countries, but in roughly equal proportion. Girls put in more weekly hours performing household chores than boys in all nine countries where data are available, though again the differences are small and the average time spent on household chores is relatively low for both boys and girls. Larger differences in housework intensity emerge, however, moving across the age spectrum. While hours worked on household chores are almost the same for seven year-old boys and girls, by the age of 17 girls are putting in as much as twice as many weekly hours on household chores compared to boys (Appendix Table A10). The most striking difference in work intensity is not between girls and boys but between economic activity and household chores. In all countries, economic activity involves fewer children working more intensely, while housework involves a greater number of children working less intensively. 5.2 Children’s work characteristics The preceding sections highlighted a clear pattern of specialisation by sex in children’s work: boys predominate in economic (income-generating) activities and girls in work activities related to the running of the household. This undoubtedly reflects the different social roles prescribed for boys and girls in Latin America and most other cultures. It also likely reflects the fact that boys 26 Child labour in the Latin America and Caribbean region: a gender-based analysis and girls face different economic incentives and constraints regarding their time-use choices.20 Is there also evidence of specialisation by sex within these two broad work categories? The survey datasets used in this paper collected very limited information on the nature of housework performed by children, and how this differed by sex, an information gap that future child labour surveys should be designed to fill. Figure 6. There is a large degree of specialisation by sex in economic activity Agricultural work as a percentage of total economic activity, 5-14 years age range, by sex and country male female 77.8 74.5 72.9 71.9 71.3 68.8 67.8 65.8 69 64.2 57.7 50.5 55 percent 45.2 49 39.8 34.9 31.7 19.5 15.3 14.6 9.3 NA Bolivia Brazil Columbia Costa Rica Dominican Ecuador El Salvador Guatemala Honduras Nicaragua Panama Venezuela Republic The surveys did collect information on the sectors and modalities of economic activity performed by children. This information suggests that the nature of children’s economic activity depends to a considerable extent on their sex. Boys’ economic activity is heavily concentrated in the agriculture sector; farm work accounts for at least two of every three working boys in all countries where data are available except Venezuela (Figure 6). Girls are also concentrated primarily in the agriculture sector in two of the countries, Bolivia and Ecuador. But elsewhere girls’ economic activity appears much more heterogeneous, distributed across the commerce, services, manufacturing as well as the agriculture sector (Appendix Table A8). For both boys and girls, agriculture work becomes less important and other sectors more important as they approach the end of childhood. The family is the most important work setting for both boys and girls, but its relative importance by sex differs across the 10 countries where data are available. Girls’ involvement in family work exceeds that of boys in five of the countries (Bolivia, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, and Venezuela), while in three others (Brazil, Honduras and Panama) the opposite holds true. Boys and 20 Ilahi N., Children’s work and schooling: Does gender matter? Evidence from the Peru LSMS panel data. World Bank, paper for the policy research report on gender, December 2001, p. 2. 27 Child labour in the Latin America and Caribbean region: a gender-based analysis girls are rougly equally likely to work for their families in the remaining two (Guatemala and Nicaragua). For both boys and girls, family work takes on less importance, and wage work and self employment more importance, as they approach adulthood (Appendix Table A8). Figure 7. The family is the most important work setting for both boys and girls Family work as a percentage of total economic activity, 5-14 years age range, by sex and country 86.4 94 m ale fem ale 80.1 78.9 77.1 78.9 75.1 71.3 68.3 68.3 67.9 64.1 67 55.6 51.5 50.8 48.9 47.6 46.5 45.4 percent 41.4 35.9 NA Bolivia Brazil Columbia Costa Rica Dominican Ecuador El Salvador Guatemala Honduras Nicaragua Panama Venezuela Republic It should be stressed before concluding this section that work sector and work modality offer only a very partial picture of work characteristics and how they may differ by sex. Questions relating to both indicators are based on international standards for adult work, and therefore do not fully reflect the array of work performed by children. Further information is needed on work tasks, workplace conditions, workplace safety measures and a range of other issues in order to fully assess sex-related differences in the nature of children’s work. 5.3 Educational and health consequences of children’s work The educational and health consequences of work are perhaps the two most important considerations in determining the degree to which this work constitutes child labour to be targeted for elimination.21 The preceding sections highlighted important differences by sex in the nature of children’s work. Does this mean that the consequences of work on children’s health and education also differ by sex? 21 The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) recognises the children’s right to be protected from forms of work that are likely to be hazardous or to interfere with the child's education, or to be harmful to the child's health or physical, mental, spiritual, moral or social development. ILO Convention No. 182 (Worst Forms) targets as child labour any activity or occupation which, by its nature or type has, or leads to, adverse effects on the child’s safety, health, or moral development. 28 Child labour in the Latin America and Caribbean region: a gender-based analysis Data on two indicators collected by the survey datasets – school attendance and reported illness/injury – allow at least a partial answer to this question. Looking first at education, evidence from the 12 countries does not suggest that work affects the ability of girls to attend school more than that of boys. In fact, in five countries (Colombia, Costa Rica, Honduras, Panama and Venezuela) the opposite holds true; the attendance rate of working girls is substantially higher than that of their male counterparts. The challenge in the LAC region does not specifically relate to the attendance of female working children, but rather to closing the attendance gap between working and non- working children generally. Brazil excepted, the attendance rate of working children is significantly below that of non-working children. Figure 8. Work does not appear to affect the ability of girls to attend school more than that of boys (a) School attendance rate of children involved in economic activity, 7-14 years age range, by sex and country 93.9 95 94.1 93.5 85.3 85.4 male female 81 75.7 74.4 73.6 72.4 70.8 70.5 69.2 68.6 67.7 64.2 63.3 62.5 61.7 61.2 57.9 56.9 53.7 percent Bolivia Brazil Columbia Costa Rica Dominican Ecuador El Salvador Guatemala Honduras Nicaragua Panama Venezuela Republic b) School attendance rate of children performing household chores for more than 28 hours per week, 7-14 years age range, by sex and country 97.1 96.2 94.7 94.8 94.4 male female 93.5 86.2 85.1 81.8 76.3 75.6 74.1 80 71.6 78 66.6 72 62 percent NA NA NA NA Bolivia Brazil Columbia Costa Rica Dominican Ecuador El Salvador Guatemala Honduras Nicaragua Panama Peru Venezuela Republic The effect of work on schooling of course extends beyond attendance. Recent research from the region suggests that there is also a negative relationship between work involvement and classroom performance. A study of learning achievement among seventh graders in Argentina found that working children 29 Child labour in the Latin America and Caribbean region: a gender-based analysis were the poorest performing group, and that among working children, performance declined with hours worked.22 Another study using data from Nicaragua indicates that even a few hours of work each day increases the likelihood of children falling behind in their studies.23 Other research suggests that Latin American working children fall about two years behind in their studies relative to their non-working counterparts.24 These studies did not, however, look in detail at whether work affects the academic performance of girls and boys differently. Figure 9. There are no apparent patterns by sex in terms of the health effects of work a) Rate of reported illness/injury among children involved in economic activity, 7-14 years age range, by sex and country 26.2 24.6 male female 17.2 16 percent 13.2 12.4 11.7 11.5 11.1 8.5 7.2 6.9 6.7 5.1 4.9 4.7 1.5 0.6 N.A. NA NA Bolivia Brazil Columbia Costa Rica Dominican Ecuador El Salvador Guatemala Honduras Nicaragua Panama Venezuela Republic b) Rate of reported illness/injury among children involved in household chores (for at least 28 hours per week), 5-17 years age range, by sex and country 20.0 male female 16.0 14.1 percent 10.7 11 8.1 6 3.7 3.6 1.3 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Bolivia Brazil Columbia Costa Rica Dominican Ecuador El Salvador Guatemala Honduras Nicaragua Panama Venezuela Republic Turning to health, working girls have lower levels of work-related illness and injury than boys in all countries except Bolivia and Guatemala. This suggests that boys’ work could be more hazardous in nature than girls’ work. 22 Duro E., Working youths: Can they get an education? UNICEF, Buenos Aires, 2001, as cited in Grimsrud B., Millennium Development Goals and Child Labour, UCW Working Paper, October 2003. 23 Rosati F. and Rossi M., Children’s working hours, school enrolment and human capital accumulation: Evidence from Nicaragua and Pakistan, UCW working paper, 2002. 24 Mendez E.G. and Duro E., Latin America: A Pending Debt for Social Policies, 2002, in Grimsrud B. (ed.), The Next Steps: Experiences and Analysis of How to Eradicate Child Labour, FAFO, Oslo, 2002. 30 Child labour in the Latin America and Caribbean region: a gender-based analysis But the work-health relationship is difficult to measure, and caution should be exercised in reading too much into these findings. The health consequences of work, for example, may be obscured by the selection of the healthiest children to work, or by the fact that health consequences may not become apparent until a later stage in a child’s life. It may also be that it is not work per se that is damaging to health but rather certain kinds of work, a fact that is concealed when looking at the prevalence of health problems averaged across all categories of child workers. It should also be kept in mind that these figures on attendance and illness/injury do not encompass children in unconditional worst forms of child labour,25 whose health and education are undoubtedly most severely compromised.26A number of these unconditional worst forms involve predominantly girls. Girls working in domestic service, a common phenomenon in many Latin American countries, are another category of child workers often not fully captured by household surveys.27 The scant evidence available on these girls suggests that they face a number of serious health and developmental threats. In Guatemala, for example, these girls, numbering an estimated 92,000,28 often work more than 10 hours of work a day, six days a week; threats, beatings, harassment and even sexual abuse are not uncommon; benefits are not paid, vacations or sick days generally are non-existent. Less than one-third are able to attend school. 25 In accordance with ILO Convention No. 182, categories targeted by ILO as unconditional worst forms include: (a) all forms of slavery or practices similar to slavery, such as the sale and trafficking of children, debt bondage and serfdom and forced or compulsory labour, including forced or compulsory recruitment of children for use in armed conflict; (b) the use, procuring or offering of a child for prostitution, for the production of pornography or for pornographic performances; and (c) the use, procuring or offering of a child for illicit activities, in particular for the production and trafficking of drugs as defined in the relevant international treaties. 26 The problem is that household surveys, from which most data on children in economic activity are derived, do not capture children in unconditional worst forms. This is because these forms of work are carried out illegally, or are considered socially unacceptable, and thus survey respondents are not willing to report them truthfully. Many of the children concerned also do not live at home, putting them beyond the scope of traditional household surveys. New survey methodologies therefore need to be developed and tested in order to account for children in unconditional worst forms in child labour estimates. 27 Domestic service is classified as an unconditional worst form of work in some but not all of the countries. 28 Archbishop’s Human Rights Office, Annual Report on Childhood, Guatemala, 2000. 31 6. Household decisions concerning child labour 6.1 An explanatory framework The issue of specialization by sex and of the different attribution of tasks and roles to boys and girls has been discussed extensively in the literature. It is beyond the scope of the analysis to summarize this wide body of knowledge here. However, from an economic perspective, the main role in determining differences by sex, besides the cultural and social values to be discussed later, is played by the opportunity for specialization within the household. As discussed in the seminal work of the Nobel Laureate Gary Becker,29 the incentive to specialize both in activities and in the acquisition of human capital within the household is very strong. Specialization increases the potential welfare the household can achieve and help to minimize the amount of effort needed to produce the same level of output. In the simplest terms possible, the reasoning is the following. The household uses two kinds of goods to “produce� its welfare: goods bought in the market and goods and services produced domestically. Different kinds of human capital are necessary for these activities: working for the market requires knowledge that is mainly acquired outside of the household (formal schooling, on the job training, etc.), while domestic production requires human capital that is mainly acquired within the household. Specialization is efficient and it allows an increase of the overall welfare of the household: small differences in relative productivity, social norms, cultural and religious biases can be widely amplified by such a specialization process and lead to the outcomes often observed. This “economic� explanation obviously helps only to partially understand the phenomenon of sex-based differences. Social, cultural and religious norms have a large role to play and, as discussed before, the economic specialization mechanism is likely to act as an “amplifier� of such non economic biases. But 29 Becker G., A Treatise on the Family, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1981. 32 Child labour in the Latin America and Caribbean region: a gender-based analysis it is very difficult to highlight the causes of such biases. Social norms, in particular, are difficult to link with observed variables and are also difficult to target as policy objectives. However, they are likely to act by changing the way in which observed variables influence the behaviour of the household. For example, if a social norm prescribes that men have precedence in the food allocation over women, it should show up in a difference between male and female caloric intake. This is the approach we will follow here. We will model the household decisions about children’s activities and estimate the effects of the relevant variables separately for boys and girls in order to highlight possible differences in the effects. Let us briefly discuss the logical framework we use to interpret household decisions. Households have multiple objectives. For a start, material consumption is not the only dimension of welfare. Other factors, such as health and “freedom� also affect the happiness or satisfaction of each household. Moreover, the household faces a problem of temporary resource allocation; the decisions it makes today will influence the quantity of resources available to it in the future. This is particularly relevant in the case of child labour, where the choice is not only between consumption and other activities today but also between present and future consumption. We may assume that parents care about the present and future wellbeing of their children. However, since they care also about their own wellbeing, this does not imply that parents will do everything in their power to foster their children’s interests. Their decisions will be a compromise between these objectives. Indeed, many aspects of parental behavior cannot be fully explained by the alternative hypothesis that parents are totally self-interested, and that they expend resources on in their offspring only because they get some direct return from that expenditure.30 For example, there is ample evidence that pension coverage discourages fertility.31 Taken together with evidence that aging parents receive support from their grown-up children,32 this phenomenon is consistent with the hypothesis that parents regard having children as a way to re-allocate their resources over their own lifetime. In other words, if the parents invest in their 30 See Cigno (1993) and Rosati (1996). 31 Among others, Nugent and Gillaspy (1983), Entwisle and Winegarden (1984), and Cigno and Rosati (1992, 1996). 32 For example, Cigno, Giannelli, and Rosati (1998). 33 Child labour in the Latin America and Caribbean region: a gender-based analysis children’s welfare, their children will look after the parents when they are old. Of course, this attitude is most likely to prevail in situations where capital markets are not sufficiently developed to provide a viable alternative to filial support. In practice, it is not very helpful to dwell on whether parental motivations are altruistic or egoistic. What matters is how much value parents put on resources invested in their children, not whether this evaluation reflects love or simply the expectation of a share in the fruits of the investment. Parental decisions concern, essentially, the allocation of resources among alternative uses, in particular the use of each household member’s own time, the distribution of income over time and across household members, and the number of births. All these decisions are interrelated and cannot be studied in isolation. Two points have to be kept in mind where fertility decisions are concerned. The first is that parents cannot determine the number and timing of births with certainty. The second is that parents are not as interested in the number of births as in the number of children who will survive into adulthood. By one set of actions (frequency of sexual intercourse, adoption of contraceptive or fertility-inducing practices, and so on), parents then condition the probability distribution of fertility outcomes. By another (the health care and nutrition that they give to the child), they condition each child’s probability distribution of survival to each subsequent stage of life.33 Both sets of actions also affect, directly or indirectly, the lifetime morbidity prospects of surviving children.34 The complexity of the household problem does not permit us to draw simple schematizations. Even intuitively appealing ones can be highly misleading. Consider, for example, the “children first� implicit or explicit assumption, which is often made in child labour analyses. In a nutshell, parents are concerned about their children’s welfare. In all circumstances, children are better off if they go to school than if they go to work. Hence, parents will send their children out to work only if the household’s income falls below a certain critical level. Even if this were a correct representation of parental preferences (in other words, if it were true that parents put their children’s interests before their own), the approach would still be flawed because it implies that it is necessarily better for the child to go to school and have a subsistence level of 33 See Cigno (1998) and Cigno and Pinal (2001). 34 Not only nutrition and health care, but also birth spacing is relevant in this respect. 34 Child labour in the Latin America and Caribbean region: a gender-based analysis consumption than not to go to school and enjoy a higher level of consumption. This is far from necessarily being the case in general. Consider the following example: a child is working and his or her wage rate rises enough to bring household income above the critical threshold. The children-first approach implies that the child’s labour supply should be reduced until household income is back to the critical level. This is not necessarily in the child’s best interest: the extra income could buy the child more food or, if s/he goes to school, more educational material. Indeed, if the child does go to school, better nutrition would improve his or her educational performance. Up to a point, child labour could thus help, rather than hinder, human capital accumulation. The child’s extra income could also buy more maternal attention by reducing the amount of time his or her mother has to spend working. In that case, the best response to the wage rise might be to reduce the mother’s, rather than the child’s, labour supply, so that the mother could spend more time with the child. There are thus no short cuts. Any analysis must take into consideration the fact that parents attach weight to their own and to each of their children’s lifetime consumption stream. The weights attached to each of these consumption streams and the rate at which the future is discounted may vary from household to household, depending on the parents’ altruism and foresight or on their ability to appropriate part of their children’s future incomes. We define children’s consumption to include not only food and clothes but also medical care. We exclude educational inputs, which we regard as an investment and consider as a separate item. Strictly speaking, health expenditures also should be treated as an investment. So should nutrition, because the amount of food consumed in the pre-school period is known to have a positive effect on the probability that the child will survive to school age and, more generally, on his or her current and future health prospects. As it is difficult to separate these long-term effects from the more immediate ones, however, we keep health expenditure in with current consumption, and look for links between this and health/survival probabilities. The amount that a person is able to earn, as an adult, is positively related to that person's health (dependent on past consumption) and personal skills (dependent on human capital). Therefore, saying that parents give weight to each of their children's lifetime consumption streams is equivalent to saying that they care about how much their children consume today and about the size of the stock of health and human capital that they will carry into adult life. 35 Child labour in the Latin America and Caribbean region: a gender-based analysis Human capital is partly a reflection of native talent and partly the fruit of education. The second part is "produced" with time (which includes not only school attendance but also homework) and other educational inputs (books, tuition fees, and writing materials but also travel to school). The opportunity cost of the time that the child spends being educated is equal to the child’s wage rate and/or the child’s marginal product in the family farm or business. Assuming this to be constant, the marginal cost of human capital is constant up to the point where the child's time is fully employed in education. From that point onward, the marginal cost rises, as more and more has to be spent on educational inputs, in combination with a fixed time endowment, to provide the child with an extra unit of human capital. Parents decide how to allocate the time of their school-age children and how much to spend on each of them with the aim of achieving, as far as possible, their objectives (which, remember, include the well-being of the children), subject to the family budget constraint. Different types of solutions are possible. The first type of solution occurs when the marginal cost of human capital is higher than the maximum that parents are willing to pay.35 If this is the case, the child is made to work full time. The second type of solution arises when the marginal cost of human capital is lower than the minimum, below which parents want their children to study full time. If that is the case, the child does not work at all. In between these extremes, we have a third type of solution, where parents invest the child’s time and expend other household resources to the point where the marginal cost of human capital is equal to the price that parents are subjectively willing to pay (the amount of consumption that they are willing to give up, in order to endow the child with one more unit of human capital). If this occurs, the child works and studies at the same time. If parents send their children to school at all, they also have to bear the educational costs such as tuition fees and the cost of books. The possibilities are illustrated in the diagram below, where the vertical axis measures the amount consumed by a school-age child, c, and the horizontal axis the amount of human capital, h, which he or she has upon entering adult life. The broken line through points I and L is the production frontier, representing all the possible outcomes of (efficient) household decisions. Its slope is equal to the marginal cost of human capital. The line is 35 This willingness to pay takes into account the likely return to the educational investment. 36 Child labour in the Latin America and Caribbean region: a gender-based analysis consumption (c) I T human capital (h) truncated at point I to indicate that parents cannot push the child’s stock of human capital below a certain minimum ("natural talent"). The first type of solution, where the child works full time, is represented by point I. The second, where the child's time is fully occupied in education, can be at L or at any point to the right of it (to the right of L, parents spend money for the child’s education over and above the necessary minimum). The third type of solution, where the child works and attends school at the same time, can be anywhere between I and L. The choice depends on parental preferences, represented by a map of indifference curves,36 such as the convex- to-the-origin curve through point T, as well as on resource restrictions (reflected in the production frontier). In the figure, parents choose point T. This is a situation in which the child goes to school, thus ending up with more human capital than he or she was born with, but also works, thus consuming more, given the limitations imposed by the household budget constraint, than if he or she studied full time. 36 Each of these curves is a locus of points that give parents the same satisfaction. 37 Child labour in the Latin America and Caribbean region: a gender-based analysis 6.2 Estimating the determinants of child labour Understanding the effects of child, household, and community factors on families’ decisions to involve their boys and girls in work, and how the size of these effects differs by sex, is of course critical for policy. As discussed above, the choices of the household concerning child labour and schooling depend on the income of the household, on the expected returns to education, on the cost of education, and on the characteristics of household preferences and on other variables that determine the relative value of children’s time in different activities. Moreover, recent empirical literature37 has shown the importance of the household structure and of the presence of siblings for child work decisions. We modelled the possible child activities (school only, school and work, work, and neither work nor school) by means of a bivariate probit. To allow for the age effects, we introduced the age of the child and the age squared. Income was proxied by the log of the real per capita expenditures, where available, or by a measure of the household permanent income, where expenditure information was not available. With respect to household composition, we divided the number of siblings into two age groups; the first includes siblings below the school age and the second the number of siblings of school age. We also controlled for the number of adults. Further, we included the years of education of the mother and of the household head. Note that in the majority of the surveys considered it was not possible to identify the level of education of the father. The surveys do not contain information on schooling costs, nor on returns to child labour. In particular, information on land cultivated by the household was not available. We used two variables as proxies of the value of children’s time in out of school activities: access to public water network and/or electricity. Finally, dummies for urban/rural residence and to take care of unobservable regional differences have been used in the estimates. 37 See Cigno, Rosati and Tzannatos (2000) and Patrinos –Psacharopoulos (1997). 38 Child labour in the Latin America and Caribbean region: a gender-based analysis 6.3 Gender analysis of regression results Table 7 provides a summary of the marginal effects computed after the bivariate probit model for three selected variables38 – household income, mothers’ education and household water access. Specifically, the table provides an indication of the direction of the effects, and of whether the effect is stronger for male or female children. The direction of the effects is generally consistent with that predicted by theory. A rise in household income increases the likelihood of school attendance and decreases the likelihood of work in economic activity. Household access to water makes it less likely that a child works and more likely that s/he attends school. Water access also makes it less likely that children are “inactive� (i.e., neither working nor attending schooling), not surprising considering this group includes children performing household chores such as water collection. Children of better-educated mothers are more likely to go to school and less likely to work in economic activity, with the exceptions of Venezuela, where mothers’ education and work are positively related, and El Salvador, where mothers’ education is positively associated with work and negatively associated with school attendance. Sex-based differences in the strength of these effects typically favour male children. The influence of income, mothers’ education and water access on involvement in economic activity is greater for boys than girls across all countries with only two exceptions – mothers’ education in the Dominican Republic, which has a greater influence on girls’ work, and household income in Bolivia, which influences girls’ and boys’ work equally. The influence of the three variables on school attendance is greater for boys than girls in all countries with only four exceptions – mothers’ education in Costa Rica and Dominican Republic, water access in El Salvador and household income in Honduras. The pattern is less clear for children in the residual group of “inactive� children, a group which includes children spending significant amounts of time performing household chores. These results suggest that policies addressing income levels, mothers’ education and water access are likely to be more successful in raising school attendance and reducing work among boys. While the results refer only to work in economic activity, where boys are most active, the direction of the effects do not change when an expanded definition of work (i.e. economic activity and housework) is used. 38 The full set of estimates are available on request from the authors. 39 Child labour in the Latin America and Caribbean region: a gender-based analysis Table 7. Summary of marginal effects after bivariate probit* Household income Mothers’ education Household water access Activity Effect Effect Country Direction Effect Direction of strongest Direction of strongest of effect strongest for effect for effect for Work only - equal - male School only + male + male Bolivia Work and school - male - male Inactive + female - female Work only - male - male - male Brazil School only + male + male + male Work and school - male - male - male Inactive - male - male - male Work only - male - male + male School only + male + female Costa Rica Work and school Inactive - male - female Work only - male - female - male Dominican School only + male + female + male Republic Work and school - male - male + female Inactive - female - male - male Work only - male + male - male El School only + male - male + female Salvador Work and school + female + male - male Inactive - female + female - female Work only - male - male School only + male + male Guatemala Work and school - male + female Inactive - male - female Work only - male - male - male School only + female + male + male Honduras Work and school - male Inactive - female - male - male Work only - male - male - male School only + male + male + male Nicaragua Work and school - male - male - male Inactive - female - male - female Work only + male - male School only + male + male Venezuela Work and school + male - male - male Inactive - female - male - Male *Note: Regressions could not be conducted for Columbia, Ecuador and Panama because there were too few control variables in the datasets. 40 7. Discussion and conclusions The preceding sections examined the child labour phenomenon in the Latin America and Caribbean (LAC) region from a gender perspective. Using information from SIMPOC and LSMS survey datasets from 12 LAC countries, the study looked at differences by sex in key dimensions of the child labour phenomenon – its extent, nature, and effect on health and education outcomes. It addressed what types of work are more common among girls, and the extent to which girls’ work experience differs from that of boys. Among the key results emerging from the descriptive analysis were the following: • boys are much more likely to be involved in economic activity: the proportion of 7-14 year-old boys in economic activity is more than double that of similarly-aged girls in nine of the 12 countries and is almost double that of similarly-aged girls in two others. Only in one of the 12 countries, Bolivia, does girls’ economic activity rate approach that of boys; • girls are more likely to be assigned responsibility for household chores: the proportion of girls spending at least 14 hours per week on household chores outstrips that of boys in all nine countries where data are available. In all nine countries, involvement in household chores is highest, and the gap by sex is largest, in rural areas; • differences by sex in rates of both economic activity and housework tend to grow with age: boys’ involvement in economic activity tends to increase relative to girls’ as they grow older, while for household chores the opposite holds true; • girls are at least as likely as boys to be involved in work when “work� is defined to include both economic activity and household chores: this underscores the fact that the economic activity rate – the most commonly used measure of children’s work – alone is a misleading indicator of girls’ work involvement. When the “invisible� work performed by girls in the household is ignored, girls’ work involvement is understated vis-à-vis that of boys; • working boys and girls appear to differ little in terms of the amount of time they spend on economic activities: while boys work longer hours than girls in nine of the 12 countries, only in two (Dominican Republic and Venezuela) does the hours gap exceed five hours per week; 41 Child labour in the Latin America and Caribbean region: a gender-based analysis • girls spend more weekly hours performing household chores than boys: differences in housework intensity grow moving across the age spectrum. While hours worked on household chores are almost the same for seven year-old boys and girls, by the age of 17 girls are putting in as much as twice as many weekly hours on household chores compared to boys; • there is considerable specialisation by sex in children’s economic activity: boys’ economic activity is heavily concentrated in the agriculture sector, while girls’ economic activity tends to be more heterogeneous, distributed across commerce, services, manufacturing as well as agriculture; • work does not appear to have a greater affect on the ability of girls to attend school: in fact, in five countries (Colombia, Costa Rica, Honduras, Panama and Venezuela) the opposite holds true, the attendance rate of working girls is substantially higher than that of their male counterparts; and • working girls have generally lower levels of work-related illness and injury than boys: this suggests that boys’ work could be more hazardous in nature than girls’ work. These findings indicate that girls’ and boys’ work is dissimilar, but do not indicate that girls face a lower risk of work involvement or that work poses a lower threat to girls’ welfare. Girls appear to work as long hours as boys and they appear to be as likely as boys to be excluded from education. They also appear no more likely than boys to suffer the triple burden of housework, schoolwork and economic work. Data limitations, however, mean that these findings should be interpreted with caution, and prevent drawing any final conclusions regarding girls’ involvement in child labour vis-à-vis boys’. Further information is needed on work tasks, workplace conditions, workplace safety measures and a range of other issues in order to assess the hazardousness of children’s work, and any systematic differences in the degree of hazard faced by boy and girl workers. The data presented above offered no information concerning the nature of housework, and its possible consequences on child welfare. The statistics presented above also failed to capture hidden and unregulated work sectors, where risk of exploitation is especially high and where ILO/IPEC global evidence suggests girls frequently predominate. Girls working in domestic service, a common phenomenon in many Latin American countries, are a case in point. The scant evidence available on these girls suggests that they face a number of serious health and developmental threats. The study also modelled the determinants of children’s work and schooling, critical for identifying policy targets. It looked specifically at the 42 Child labour in the Latin America and Caribbean region: a gender-based analysis influence of three factors – household income, mothers’ education and household water access – on family decisions to involve their boys and girls in work, schooling or both. Regression results indicated that the direction of the influences was similar for boys and girls, and generally consistent with that predicted by theory (i.e., household income, water access and mothers’ education had a positive influence on school attendance and a negative influence on work in economic activity). The regression results, however, indicated important sex-based differences in the strength of the influences favouring male children. The impact of income, mothers’ education and water access on involvement in economic activity and school attendance was greater for boys than girls with only a few exceptions. This result suggests that girls’ work may be more resistant to policy measures addressing these factors, and points to the need for different policy approaches for reducing girls’ and boys’ work. A more in-depth analysis is needed, making use of a wider range of explanatory variables, to identify other policy targets with particular potential for combating girls’ work in the LAC region. 43 8. Country reports 8.1 BOLIVIA Table 8. Selected socio-economic indicators, Bolivia Indicator 1998 2000 2002 Population (millions) 8.0 8.3 8.7 Population growth (annual %) 2.3 2.3 2.0 National poverty rate (% of population) .. .. .. GDP (current $) (billions) 8.4 8.3 7.7 GDP growth (annual %) 5.2 2.4 2.5 Access to improved water source (% of total pop.) .. 79.0 .. Access to improved sanitation (% of urban pop.) .. 82.0 .. M .. .. .. Under-five mortality rate F .. .. .. T .. 79.0 .. M .. .. .. Child malnutrition, weight for age (% of under 5) F .. .. .. T 7.6 .. .. M 8.9 8.0 .. Illiteracy rate (% population aged 15 and above) F 22.4 20.7 19.3 T 15.8 14.5 13.4 M .. 94.4 .. School attendance rate (%children aged 7-14) F .. 91.2 .. M .. 20.4 .. Economic activity rate (% children aged 7-14) F .. 18 .. Rate of involvement in household chores over 14 hours per M .. .. .. week (% children aged 7-14 years) F .. .. .. Source: World Bank, Development Indicators Database, 2003 Work in economic activity: Differences by sex in economic activity rates are relatively small in Bolivia. As shown in Table 9 about 20 percent of 7-14 year-old boys are at work in an economic activity, against 18 percent of similarly-aged girls. But the gap by sex in child economic activity rates rises with age, from one percentage point for the 10-14 age group to almost nine percentage points for the 15-17 age group, undoubtedly reflecting the 44 Child labour in the Latin America and Caribbean region: a gender-based analysis different socially-dictated paths taken by boys and girls as they come of age. Child work is more common in rural compared to urban areas, especially for boys. Table 9. Child involvement in economic activity, household chores and in school, by age group and sex % involved in % involved in % performing % enrolled Age group economic activity household chores (1) “double duty�(2) in school Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female 10-14 23.6 22.1 -- -- -- -- 92.2 85.5 15-17 38.7 30.4 -- -- -- -- 71.8 71.3 7-14 20.4 18.0 -- -- -- -- 94.4 91.2 7-17 24.7 21.1 -- -- -- -- 84.4 82.8 Notes: (1) Children performing household chores for at least 14 hours per week; (2) Children involved in both economic activity and household chores for significant amounts of time each week (i.e., at least 14 weekly hours for each activity) School attendance: School attendance rates at the basic level are very high in Bolivia, with little difference by sex. Ninety-four percent of boys and 91 percent of girls aged 7-14 years attend school. Attendance, however, falls off to around 71 percent among 15-17 year-old boys and girls. Only about eight percent of out-of-school children are engaged in work. The remaining, “inactive�, group of out-of-school children is in some ways at a double disadvantage, benefiting neither from schooling nor the learning- by-doing that some forms of work offer. Involvement in household chores: Unfortunately, information on involvement in household chores is not available for Bolivia, and therefore an indicator of total work involvement cannot be constructed. Involvement in child labour: Child labour is the subset of children’s work that is injurious, negative or undesirable to children and that should be targeted for elimination. Minimum working age, as defined by ILO Convention No. 138, is typically used as the main criterion for estimating child labour. Bolivia, upon ratifying ILO Convention No. 138 in 1997, set the general minimum working age at 14 years. Therefore, all economically active children below the age of 14, with the exception of 12- and 13-year- olds in “light work�, may be thought of as being in child labour. The rate of child labour calculated on this basis is slightly higher for boys than girls (19 percent versus 16 percent). But applying this criterion alone has an inherent gender bias, as it considers children in economic activity, a category where boys are most prevalent, but not children in housework, where girls are most prevalent. 45 Child labour in the Latin America and Caribbean region: a gender-based analysis Figure 10. Children in child labour,* by sex and age, Bolivia 23.2 21.1 male female 18.6 16 16 13.1 percent n.a. n.a. (a) Economically active children (b) Economically active children (c) Children aged 5-14 performing (a)+(b) (a)+(b)+(c) aged 5-11 years aged 12-14 years excluding those HH chores for at least 28 hrs./wk. in light-work *Notes (1): The stipulations contained in ILO Conventions Nos. 138 and 182 relating to hazardous work, excessively long work hours and unconditional worst forms, also extend to children aged 15-17 years. However, the 15-17 years age group is excluded because data on the nature of work performed by children in this age group are not currently available. (2) Does not include children in unconditional worst forms of child labour, because these forms are not captured in household surveys Average weekly working hours: Girls and boys at work in economic activity differ little in terms of working hours. In the 7-14 years age group, both put in a working week of 27-28 hours, and in the 15-17 years age group, a working week of around 40 hours. However, it is again important to also consider hours spent performing household chores, information unfortunately not available for Bolivia. Work sector: There appears to be little specialisation by sex in the type of activities performed by children. Both boys and girls work primarily in family agriculture (78 percent of working boys and 73 percent of working girls), with work in commerce coming a distant second (11 percent of working boys and 14 percent of working girls). Girls are more likely than boys to work as servants, a form of work in which children are particularly vulnerable to abuse. The type of economic activities that children perform depends to an important extent on residence. Agriculture work is prevalent in rural areas while work in the commerce, service, manufacturing, and construction sectors is important in urban areas. 46 Child labour in the Latin America and Caribbean region: a gender-based analysis Figure 11. Average weekly working hours, by age group, work type and sex, Bolivia 40.6 39.8 male female working hours 26.7 28.1 n.a. n.a. eco. act. (7-14 years) eco. act. (15-17 years) HH chores (7-14 years) HH chores (15-17 years) AGE GROUPS/ACTIVITY TYPE Figure 12. Distribution of working children, by work sector and sex, Bolivia a) Males Commerce 10.9 Service 3.4 Manufacturing 4.3 Construction 2.4 Servant 0.7 Agriculture 77.8 Other 0.5 b) Females Commerce 14 Service 6 Manufacturing 3.5 Servant 3.6 Agriculture 72.9 Work and school attendance: Working boys are somewhat more successful than their female counterparts in also attending school. Among 7-14 year- old working children, boys’ attendance exceeds girls’ by nine percentage points, and among 7-17 year-old working children, boys’ attendance is seven percentage points higher than girls’. Both working girls and boys lag substantially behind non-working children in terms of school attendance. 47 Child labour in the Latin America and Caribbean region: a gender-based analysis Figure 13. School attendance rates of children at work in economic activity, by age group and sex, Bolivia 80.8 85.3 male female 74.4 70.1 66.3 62.5 percent 43.9 41.5 10-14 15-17 7-14 7-17 AGE GROUPS Figure 14. Rate of reported illness and injury, children at work in economic activity, by age group and sex, Bolivia male female 17.2 16 15.3 14.2 13.8 13.3 11.9 10 percent 10-14 15-17 7-14 7-17 AGE GROUPS Work and health: There is little difference by sex in the levels of reported illness/injury among children in economic activity. But the work-health relationship is difficult to measure, and caution should be exercised in reading too much into this finding. The health consequences of work, for example, may be obscured by the selection of the healthiest children to work, or by the fact that health consequences may not become apparent until a later stage in a child’s life. It may also be that it is not work per se that is damaging to health but rather certain kinds of work, a fact that is concealed when looking at the prevalence of health problems averaged across all categories of child workers. 48 Child labour in the Latin America and Caribbean region: a gender-based analysis 8.2 BRAZIL Table 10. Selected socio-economic indicators: Brazil Indicator 1998 2000 2002 Population (millions) 166.0 170.4 174.5 Population growth (annual %) 1.3 1.3 1.2 National poverty rate (% of population) .. .. .. GDP (current $) 787.0 595.5 452.4 GDP growth (annual %) 0.2 4.5 1.5 Access to improved water source (% of total pop.) .. 87.0 .. Access to improved sanitation (% of urban pop.) .. 85.0 .. M .. .. .. Under-five mortality rate F .. .. .. T .. 39.0 .. M .. .. .. Child malnutrition, weight for age (% of children F .. .. .. under 5) T .. .. .. M 15.5 14.9 .. Illiteracy rate (% population aged 15 and above) F 15.6 14.6 12.3 M .. 96.3 .. School attendance rate (%children aged 7-14) F .. 96.7 .. M .. 11.1 .. Economic activity rate (% children aged 7-14) F .. 5.5 .. Rate of involvement in household chores over 14 M .. .. .. hours per week (% children aged 7-14 years) F .. .. .. Source: World Bank, Development Indicators Database, 2003 Work in economic activity: Boys are much more likely than girls to be involved in economic activity. As shown in Table 11, the proportion of boys in economic activity is around double that of girls for the 7-14 and 5- 17 years age ranges. The gap by sex in child economic activity rates rises with age, from five percentage points for the 7-14 age group to 17 percentage points for the 15-17 age group, undoubtedly reflecting the different socially-dictated paths taken by boys and girls as they become of age. For both boys and girls, work is primarily a rural phenomenon; only six percent of 7-14 year-old urban boys, and three percent of similarly-aged urban girls, are economically active. 49 Child labour in the Latin America and Caribbean region: a gender-based analysis Table 11. Child involvement in economic activity, household chores and in school, by age group and sex % involved in % involved in % performing % enrolled Age group economic activity household chores (1) “double duty�(2) in school Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female 10-14 13.8 6.8 -- -- -- -- 97 97.3 15-17 38.4 22 -- -- -- -- 82 82.7 7-14 9.5 4.6 -- -- -- -- 96.9 97.5 5-17 15.2 8.2 -- -- -- -- 90.5 91.2 Notes: (1) Children performing household chores for at least 14 hours per week; (2) Children involved in both economic activity and household chores for significant amounts of time each week (i.e., at least 14 weekly hours for each activity) School attendance: The fact that boys are more involved in economic activity does not translate into their being less involved in school. School attendance is nearly universal for both boys and girls in the 7-14 years age group, at 97 percent, but a greater proportion of male students than female students must also work. Involvement in household chores: Unfortunately, information on involvement in household chores is not available for Brazil, and therefore an indicator of total work involvement cannot be constructed. Figure 15. Children in child labour,* by sex and age, Brazil 12.7 male female percent 6.4 5.5 3.7 2.9 1.8 n.a. n.a. (a) Economically active children (b) Economically active children (c) Children aged 5-14 performing (a)+(b) (a)+(b)+(c) aged 5-11 years aged 12-14 years excluding those HH chores for average of at least in light-work 28 hrs./wk. *Notes (1): The stipulations contained in ILO Conventions Nos. 138 and 182 relating to hazardous work, excessively long work hours and unconditional worst forms, also extend to children aged 15-17 years. However, the 15-17 years age group is excluded because data on the nature of work performed by children in this age group are not currently available. (2) Does not include children in unconditional worst forms of child labour, because these forms are not captured in household surveys Involvement in child labour: Child labour is the subset of children’s work that is injurious, negative or undesirable to children and that should be targeted for elimination. Minimum working age, as defined by ILO 50 Child labour in the Latin America and Caribbean region: a gender-based analysis Convention No. 138, is typically used as the main criterion for estimating child labour. Brazil, upon ratifying ILO Convention No. 138 in 1990, set the general minimum working age at 14 years. Therefore, all economically active children below the age of 14, with the exception of 12- and 13-year- olds in “light work�, may be thought of as being in child labour. The rate of child labour calculated on this basis is much higher for boys than girls – six percent versus about three percent. But applying this criterion alone has an inherent gender bias, as it considers children in economic activity, a category where boys are most prevalent, but not children in housework, where girls are most prevalent. Average weekly working hours: Girls and boys at work in economic activity differ little in terms of working hours. In the 7-14 years age group, both put in a working week of around 19 hours, and in the 15-17 years age group, a working week of around 32 hours. Again, however, it is important to also consider hours spent performing household chores, information unfortunately not available for Brazil. Work sector and modality: The type of economic activities that children perform appears to depend to an important extent on their sex in Brazil. For boys, work in the agriculture sector is prevalent, accounting for 66 percent of total working boys, while the commerce and service sectors come in second and third in terms of importance (18 and 10 percent of working boys, respectively). For girls, agriculture is relatively less important (accounting for 50 percent of working girls), while the service sector is relatively more important (accounting for 25 percent of working girls). Included in the service sector are girl domestic servants working in private homes, a group particularly vulnerable to abuse. Girls are less likely than boys to work within their own families, and more likely than boys to work for wages. The very different nature of girls’ and boys’ work suggests that different policy approaches are needed to address this work. 51 Child labour in the Latin America and Caribbean region: a gender-based analysis Figure 16. Average weekly working hours, by age group, work type and sex, Brazil 33.4 30.6 male female 20 18.7 hours n.a. n.a. eco. act. (7-14 years) eco. act. (15-17 years) housework (7-14 years) housework (15-17 years) Figure 17. Distribution of working children aged 7-14, by work sector and sex, Brazil a) Males commerce 17.7% manufacturing 6.7% service agriculture 9.7% 65.8% other 0.2% b) Females manufact. service 9% 25% commerce 16% agriculture 50% Work and school attendance: Work does not appear to affect the ability of girls to attend school differently from that of boys. The attendance rate of both working boys and working girls in the 7-14 years age group stands at almost 94 percent, three percentage points below overall attendance rates for this age group. 52 Child labour in the Latin America and Caribbean region: a gender-based analysis Figure 18. School attendance rates of girls and boys at work in economic activity, by age group, Brazil 93.6 94.7 93.9 95 male female 82.5 80.3 76.2 percent 71.8 10-14 15-17 7-14 5-17 AGE GROUP Figure 19. Rate of reported illness and injury, girls and boys at work in economic activity, by age group, Brazil male female 7.6 7.4 7.3 7.4 percent 5.1 4.9 4.7 4.4 10-14 15-17 7-14 5-17 AGE GROUP Work and health: Working boys have slightly higher levels of work-related illness and injury than working girls across all age groups, indicating that boys’ work may be more hazardous in nature. But the work-health relationship is difficult to measure, and caution should be exercised in reading too much into these findings. The health consequences of work, for example, may be obscured by the selection of the healthiest children to work, or by the fact that health consequences may not become apparent until a later stage in a child’s life. It may also be that it is not work per se that is damaging to health but rather certain kinds of work, a fact that is concealed when looking at the prevalence of health problems averaged across all categories of child workers. 53 Child labour in the Latin America and Caribbean region: a gender-based analysis 8.3 COLOMBIA Table 12. Selected socio-economic indicators: Colombia Indicator 1998 2000 2002 Population (millions) 40.8 42.3 43.7 Population growth (annual %) 1.9 1.8 1.5 National poverty rate (% of population) .. .. .. GDP (current $) 98.8 81.3 82.2 GDP growth (annual %) 0.6 2.8 1.5 Access to improved water source (% of total pop.) .. 91.0 .. Access to improved sanitation (% of urban pop.) .. 97.0 .. M .. .. .. Under-five mortality rate F .. .. .. T 25.0 23.4 .. M .. .. .. Child malnutrition, weight for age (% of F .. .. .. children under 5) T .. .. .. M 8.9 8.3 .. Illiteracy rate (% population aged 15 and F 8.9 8.3 7.8 above) T 8.9 8.3 7.9 School attendance rate (%children aged M 91.0 .. .. 7-14) F 93.8 Economic activity rate (% children aged M 16.6 .. .. 7-14) F 7.7 Rate of involvement in household M 11.4 chores over 14 hours per week (% F .. .. 19.9 children aged 7-14 years) Source: World Bank, Development Indicators Database, 2003 Work in economic activity: Boys are much more likely than girls to be involved in economic activity. As shown in Table 13, the proportion of boys in economic activity is more than two times that of girls for both the 7-14 and 15-17 years age ranges. The gap by sex in child economic activity rates rises with age, from nine percentage points for the 7-14 age group to 22 percentage points for the 15-17 age group, undoubtedly reflecting the different socially-dictated paths taken by boys and girls as they come of age. School attendance: School attendance at the basic level is high but not yet universal in Colombia; 94 percent of 7-14 year-old girls and 91 percent of 54 Child labour in the Latin America and Caribbean region: a gender-based analysis similarly aged boys are in school. Attendance, however, falls off to 73 percent for girls and 67 percent for boys in the 15-17 years age range. Involvement in household chores: Colombian households are more likely to assign responsibility for household chores to girls, though differences by sex in involvement in household chores are not large39. Among 7-14 year- olds, girls and boys perform chores in roughly equal proportions. Among older (15-17 year-old) children, girls are more likely than boys to perform chores, but the difference is small compared to the other LAC countries examined. Table 13. Child involvement in economic activity, household chores and in school, by age group and sex % involved in % involved in % performing % enrolled Age group economic activity household chores (1) “double duty�(2) in school Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female 10-14 22 10.2 89.9 92.9 1.0 1.2 89.9 92.9 15-17 40.3 18.4 67.3 73.1 2.9 4.6 67.3 73.1 7-14 16.6 7.7 91 93.8 0.9 0.9 91 93.8 5-17 19.8 9 84.3 88.1 1.2 1.5 84.3 88.1 Notes: (1) Children performing household chores for at least 14 hours per week; (2) Children involved in both economic activity and household chores for significant amounts of time each week (i.e., at least 14 weekly hours for each activity) Children performing “double duty� Very few children, girls or boys, must perform double duty, i.e., both economic activity and household chores for significant amounts of time each week (set here at 14 weekly hours for each activity). As shown in Table 13, the rate of “double duty� exceeds three percent only among 15-17 year-old girls. Total work involvement (i.e., economic activity or household chores): Combining economic activity and household chores (and eliminating the overlapping category of children performing both), provides an indication of children’s total work involvement. As shown in Figure 20, girls’ involvement in work is equal to that of boys using this measure for the 15- 17 years age group, and almost equal for the 7-14 age group. This underscores the fact that the economic activity rate – the most commonly used measure of children’s work – alone is a misleading indicator of girls’ total work involvement. 39 As housework is very common for both boys and girls, and some light housework is considered a normal and even beneficial part of childhood in most societies, children performing housework for less than 14 hours per week are not considered here. 55 Child labour in the Latin America and Caribbean region: a gender-based analysis Figure 20. Children’s total work involvement, by sex and age, Colombia 51 49.9 male female 31.4 percent 28.3 28 24.9 25.1 21.8 10-14 15-17 7-14 5-17 AGE GROUPS Involvement in child labour: Child labour is the subset of children’s work that is injurious, negative or undesirable to children and that should be targeted for elimination. Minimum working age, as defined by ILO Convention No. 138, is typically used as the main criterion for estimating child labour. Colombia, upon ratifying ILO Convention No. 138 in 1990, set the general minimum working age at 14 years. Therefore, all economically active children below the age of 14, with the exception of 12- and 13-year-olds in “light work�, may be thought of as being in child labour. But housework that is too time-consuming (defined here as exceeding 28 hours per week)40 can also affect children’s welfare, and should therefore also be considered as child labour. As shown in the Figure 21, boys form a much larger share of under-aged children in economic activity and girls form a slightly larger share of children performing household chores for over the 28-hour threshold. When the two groups are put together, the proportion of boys in child labour (14 percent) exceeds that of girls (9 percent). 40 This time threshold is supported by preliminary UNICEF research looking at the effects of housework on schooling in Africa. Very little research on the impact of children’s housework has been conducted in the Latin American context; the 28-hour time threshold, therefore, should be considered as only tentative. 56 Child labour in the Latin America and Caribbean region: a gender-based analysis Figure 21. Children in child labour,* by sex and age, Colombia 16.2 male female 14.4 11.4 9.6 9.1 percent 6.5 5 4.5 4.4 3.1 (a) Economically active children (b) Economically active children (c) Children aged 5-14 performing (a)+(b) (a)+(b)+(c) aged 5-11 years aged 12-14 years excluding those HH chores for an average of at in light-work least 28 hrs./wk. *Notes (1): The stipulations contained in ILO Conventions Nos. 138 and 182 relating to hazardous work, excessively long work hours and unconditional worst forms, also extend to children aged 15-17 years. However, the 15-17 years age group is excluded because data on the nature of work performed by children in this age group are not currently available. (2) Does not include children in unconditional worst forms of child labour, because these forms are not captured in household surveys Average weekly working hours: Boys in economic activity put in slightly longer hours than their female counterparts – 20.2 compared to 18.6 hours for the 7-14 years age group, and 33.1 versus 28.8 hours for the 15-17 years age group. For household chores, the opposite pattern holds, with 7-14 year-old girls spending almost two hours per week more on chores, and 15- 17 year-old girls an average of six hours per week more on chores, than similarly-aged boys. Figure 22. Average weekly working hours, by age group, work type and sex, Colombia 33.1 male female 28.8 working hours 20.2 18.6 14.2 7.5 7.9 5.8 eco. act. (7-14 years) eco. act. (15-17 years) HH chores (7-14 years) HH chores (15-17 years) AGE GROUPS/ACTIVITY TYPE Work and school attendance: Working girls are slightly more successful than their male counterparts in also attending school. Among 7-14 year-old 57 Child labour in the Latin America and Caribbean region: a gender-based analysis working children, girls’ attendance exceeds boys’ by five percentage points, and among 15-17 year-old working children by 14 percentage points, larger than the gaps in overall attendance rates for these age ranges. Both working girls and working boys lag substantially behind non-working children in terms of school attendance. Figure 23. School attendance rates of children at work in economic activity, by age group and sex, Colombia male female 81 78.7 75.7 73.7 70.9 61.2 percent 55.8 42.3 10-14 15-17 7-14 5-17 AGE GROUPS Figure 24. Rate of reported illness and injury, children at work in economic activity, by age group and sex, Colombia 24.7 25.2 male female 17.1 percent 11 11.7 9.7 0.5 1.5 10-14 15-17 7-14 5-17 AGE GROUPS Work and health: Young (7-14 year-old) working boys have much higher levels of work-related illness and injury than young working girls, suggesting that boys’ work may be more hazardous in nature for this age group. But the work-health relationship is difficult to measure, and caution should be exercised in reading too much into these findings. The health consequences of work, for example, may be obscured by the selection of the healthiest children to work, or by the fact that health consequences may not become apparent until a later stage in a child’s life. It may also be that it is not work per se that is damaging to health but rather certain kinds of work, a fact that is concealed when looking at the prevalence of health problems averaged across all categories of child workers. 58 Child labour in the Latin America and Caribbean region: a gender-based analysis 8.4 COSTA RICA Table 14. Selected socio-economic indicators: Costa Rica Indicator 1998 2000 2002 Population (millions) 3.7 3.8 3.9 Population growth (annual %) 2.1 2.1 1.6 National poverty rate (% of population) .. .. .. GDP (current $) 14.1 15.9 16.9 GDP growth (annual %) 8.4 1.7 2.8 Access to improved water source (% of total pop.) .. 98.0 .. Access to improved sanitation (% of urban pop.) .. 98.0 .. M .. .. .. Under-five mortality rate F .. .. .. T .. 13.4 .. M .. .. .. Child malnutrition, weight for age (% of F .. .. .. children under 5) T .. .. .. M 4.8 4.5 .. Illiteracy rate (% population aged 15 and F 4.7 4.3 4.1 above) T 4.7 4.4 4.2 School attendance rate (%children aged 7- M 94.5 14) F 95.1 M 4.9 Economic activity rate (% children aged 7-14) F 1.4 Rate of involvement in household chores over M 8.9 14 hours per week (% children aged 7-14 F 12.7 years) Source: World Bank, Development Indicators Database, 2003 Work in economic activity: Boys are much more likely than girls to be involved in economic activity, though work rates are relatively low for both sexes. As shown in Table 15, the proportion of boys in economic activity is more than twice that of girls for the 7-14 and 5-17 years age ranges. The gap by sex in child economic activity rates rises with age, from 6.2 percentage points for the 7-14 age group to 20 percentage points for the 15- 17 age group, undoubtedly reflecting the different socially-dictated paths taken by boys and girls as they come of age. Children’s work in Costa Rica primarily occurs in rural areas; only 4.5 percent of 7-14 year-old boys, and 1.3 percent of similarly-aged girls, work in urban areas. 59 Child labour in the Latin America and Caribbean region: a gender-based analysis Table 15. Child involvement in economic activity, household chores and in school, by age group and sex % involved in % involved in % performing % enrolled Age group economic activity household chores (1) “double duty�(2) in school Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female 10-14 6.9 1.8 5.6 16 0.6 0.3 92.1 93.6 15-17 33.2 13.5 9.2 39.6 1.1 2.7 66.4 70.8 7-14 9.7 3.5 4.2 11.6 0.4 0.2 94.5 95.1 5-17 14.3 5.8 5 17.1 0.5 0.8 84.2 85.5 Notes: (1) Children performing household chores for at least 14 hours per week; (2) Children involved in both economic activity and household chores for significant amounts of time each week (i.e., at least 14 weekly hours for each activity) School attendance: School attendance rates at the basic level are very high in Costa Rica, with little difference by sex. Ninety-five percent of both boys and girls aged 7-14 years attend school. Attendance, however, falls off to just 66.4 percent for boys and 70.8 percent for girls among 15-17 year-olds. Out-of-school boys and girls both cite age and school costs as the main reasons. Very few (three percent of boys and one percent of girls) indicate having left school because of the need to work (Table 16). Table 16. Reasons cited for dropping out/not attending school, 5-14, Costa Rica Main reasons cited Residence Sex Cannot Must Study No Access Other Illness pay study Age Ignored Total work costs interest problems reason costs Male 1.62 3.94 4.06 7.97 5.53 4.70 62.98 3.48 5.74 100 Urban Female 0 3.17 4.94 3.65 4.85 9.87 64.47 0.48 8.57* 100 Male 4.31 4.35 6.45 12.87 13.79 8.08 39.21 1.55 9.38 100 Rural Female 1.85 4.25 3.24 7.41 15.17 11.68 45.54 0.23 10.64** 100 Male 3.29 4.19 5.54 11.01 10.65 6.79 48.24 2.28 8 100 Total Female 1.18 3.86 3.86 6.04 11.42 11.02 52.42 0.32 9.89* 100 Notes: *other reason: other, pregnant, must help in domestic office; **other reason: other, must help in domestic office Involvement in household chores: Costa Rican households are much more likely to assign responsibility for household chores to girls. Among 10-14 year-olds, girls’ involvement in household chores (for at least 14 hours per week)41 is around three times that of boys, and among 15-17 year-olds, more than four times that of boys. There is thus a clear pattern of specialisation by sex in children’s work in Costa Rica, in keeping with 41 As housework is very common for both boys and girls, and some light housework is considered a normal and even beneficial part of childhood in most societies, children performing housework for less than 14 hours per week are not considered here. 60 Child labour in the Latin America and Caribbean region: a gender-based analysis traditional gender roles, that sees boys in economic activity and girls in activities relating to the functioning of the household. Children performing “double duty� Very few children, girls or boys, must also perform double duty, i.e., both economic activity and household chores for significant amounts of time each week (set here at 14 weekly hours for each activity). As shown in Table 15, only among 15-17 year-old girls does this group exceed one percent. Total work involvement (i.e., economic activity or household chores): Combining economic activity and household chores (and eliminating the overlapping category of children performing both), provides an indication of children’s total work involvement. As shown in Figure 25, girls’ involvement in work is higher than that of boys using this measure, across all age groups and in both rural and urban areas. This underscores the fact that the economic activity rate – the most commonly used measure of children’s work – alone is a misleading indicator of girls’ total work involvement. Figure 25. Children’s total work involvement, by sex and age, Costa Rica male female 48.1 40.8 percent 21.3 19.2 18.5 17.1 13.2 14.4 10-14 15-17 7-14 5-17 AGE GROUPS Involvement in child labour: Child labour is the subset of children’s work that is injurious, negative or undesirable to children and that should be targeted for elimination. Minimum working age, as defined by ILO Convention No. 138, is typically used as the main criterion for estimating child labour. Costa Rica, upon ratifying ILO Convention No. 138 in 1990, set the general minimum working age at 14 years. Therefore, all economically active children below the age of 14, with the exception of 12- and 13-year-olds in “light work�, may be thought of as being in child labour. But housework that is too time-consuming (defined here as 61 Child labour in the Latin America and Caribbean region: a gender-based analysis exceeding 28 hours per week)42 can also affect children’s welfare, and should therefore also be considered as child labour. As shown in the Figure 26, boys form a much larger share of under-aged children in economic activity and girls a much larger share of children performing household chores for over the 28-hour threshold. When the two groups are put together, the proportion of boys in child labour slightly exceeds that of girls, though child labour levels are relatively low for both sexes. Figure 26. Children in child labour,* by sex and age, Costa Rica male female 6.6 6.3 5.8 5.3 3.7 percent 2.6 2.3 1.4 1.5 0.6 (a) Economically active children (b) Economically active children (c) Children aged 5-14 performing (a)+(b) (a)+(b)+(c) aged 5-11 years aged 12-14 years excluding those HH chores for an average of at in light-work least 28 hrs./wk. *Notes (1): The stipulations contained in ILO Conventions Nos. 138 and 182 relating to hazardous work, excessively long work hours and unconditional worst forms, also extend to children aged 15-17 years. However, the 15-17 years age group is excluded because data on the nature of work performed by children in this age group are not currently available. (2) Does not include children in unconditional worst forms of child labour, because these forms are not captured in household surveys Average weekly working hours: Boys in economic activity put in slightly longer hours than their female counterparts – 13 compared to 10 hours for the 7-14 years age group, and 34 versus 26 hours for the 15-17 years age group. For household chores, the opposite pattern holds, with 7-14 year-old girls spending an average of 2 hours per week more, and 15-17 year-old girls an average of nine per week more, than similarly-aged boys. For both 42 This time threshold is supported by preliminary UNICEF research looking at the effects of housework on schooling in Africa. Very little research on the impact of children’s housework has been conducted in the Latin American context; the 28-hour time threshold, therefore, should be considered as only tentative. 62 Child labour in the Latin America and Caribbean region: a gender-based analysis economic activity and household chores, the difference by sex in hours worked is more pronounced in rural compared to urban areas. Figure 27. Average weekly working hours, by age group, work type and sex, Costa Rica 33.8 male female 26.4 working hours 17.1 13.3 9.5 8.5 8.6 6.3 eco. act. (7-14 years of age) eco. act. (15-17 years of age) housework (7-14 years of age) housework (15-17 years of age) Figure 28. Distribution of working children, by work modality and sex, Costa Rica a) Males servant; 0.46 wage; 26.4 family; 62.83 self; 10.31 b) Females servant; 7.56 wage; 4.12 self; 11.19 family; 77.13 63 Child labour in the Latin America and Caribbean region: a gender-based analysis Work sector and modality: The type of economic activities that children perform appears to depend to an important extent on their sex in Costa Rica. Boys are more likely then girls to be in wage work (26.4 percent of total working boys versus 4 percent of total working girls), while girls are more likely to be self-employed (11.2 versus 10.3 percent), or working within their families (77 versus 62 percent). Girls are also much more likely than boys to work as servants in private homes, a type of work that research suggests leaves children particularly vulnerable to abuse. The very different nature of girls’ and boys’ work suggests that different policy approaches are needed to address this work. Work and school attendance: Working girls are somewhat more successful than their male counterparts in also attending school. Among 7-14 year-old working children, girls’ attendance exceeds boys’ by 10 percentage points, and among 15-17 year-old working children this gap rises to 13 percentage points. But both working girls and working boys lag substantially behind non-working children in terms of school attendance. The challenge in Costa Rica is therefore to close the attendance gap between working and non- working children generally. Figure 29. School attendance rates of children at work in economic activity, by age group and sex, Costa Rica 83.1 86.6 male female 76.7 71.2 percent 46.4 33.4 10-14 15-17 7-14 AGE GROUP Work and health: Information on work-related illness and injury, and how this may differ by sex, is not available for Costa Rica. 64 Child labour in the Latin America and Caribbean region: a gender-based analysis 8.5 DOMINICAN REPUBLIC Table 17. Selected socio-economic indicators, Dominican Republic Indicator 1998 2000 2002 Population (millions) 8.1 8.4 8.6 Population growth (annual %) 1.7 1.6 1.5 National poverty rate (% of population) 28.6 .. .. GDP (current $) (billions) 15.9 19.7 21.3 GDP growth (annual %) 7.3 7.8 4.1 Access to improved water source (% of total pop.) .. 79.0 .. Access to improved sanitation (% of urban pop.) .. 75.0 .. M .. .. .. Under-five mortality rate F .. .. .. T .. 46.8 .. M .. .. .. Child malnutrition, weight for age (% of under 5) F .. .. .. T .. .. .. M 17.1 16.4 .. Illiteracy rate (% population aged 15 and above) F 17.2 16.4 15.6 T 17.2 16.4 15.6 M .. 96.1 .. School attendance rate (%children aged 7-14) F .. 97.0 .. M .. 31.3 .. Economic activity rate (% children aged 7-14) F .. 11.1 .. Rate of involvement in household chores over 14 M .. 17.7 .. hours per week (% children aged 7-14 years) F .. 34.3 .. Source: World Bank, Development Indicators Database, 2003 Work in economic activity: Boys are much more likely than girls to be involved in economic activity. As shown in Table 18, the proportion of boys in economic activity is almost triple that of girls for the 7-14 and 5-17 years age ranges. The gap by sex in child economic activity rates rises with age, from 17 percentage points for the 7-14 age group to 33 percentage points for the 15-17 age group, undoubtedly reflecting the different socially-dictated paths taken by boys and girls as they come of age. For both boys and girls, work is almost equally distributed between rural and urban areas. 65 Child labour in the Latin America and Caribbean region: a gender-based analysis Table 18. Child involvement in economic activity, household chores and in school, by age group and sex % involved in % involved % performing % enrolled Age group economic activity in household chores (1) “double duty�(2) in school Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female 10-14 30 9.7 18 40.3 3.3 2.4 96.1 96.8 15-17 48.5 16.8 11.2 52.5 3.2 7.1 86.7 84.5 7-14 24.6 8.5 17.7 34.3 2.7 1.5 96.1 97 5-17 26.1 9 15.8 34.9 2.4 2.4 92.7 93.1 Notes: (1) Children performing household chores for at least 14 hours per week; (2) Children involved in both economic activity and household chores for significant amounts of time each week (i.e., at least 14 weekly hours for each activity) School attendance: The fact that boys are more involved in economic activity does not translate into their being less involved in school. School attendance is nearly universal for both boys and girls in the 7-14 years age group, at 96 percent, but a greater proportion of male students than female students must also work. Attendance falls off to 87 and 85 percent of boys and girls, respectively, in the 15-17 years age group. Involvement in household chores: Dominican Republic households are much more likely to assign responsibility for household chores to girls. Among 10-14 year-olds, girls’ involvement in household chores (for at least 14 hours per week)43 is nearly 41 percent against just 18 percent for boys. The difference by sex increases with the age; among the 15-17 olds, the rate of involvement in household chores for girls (53 percent) is almost five times that of boys (11 percent). Children performing “double duty�: Very few children, girls or boys, must also perform double duty, i.e., both economic activity and household chores for significant amounts of time each week (set here at 14 weekly hours for each activity). As shown in Table 18, only among 15-17 year-old girls does the rate of “double duty� exceed four percent. Total work involvement (i.e., economic activity or household chores): Combining economic activity and household chores (and eliminating the overlapping category of children performing both), provides an indication of children’s total work involvement. As shown in Figure 30, girls’ involvement in work using this measure is almost equal to that of boys 43 As housework is very common for both boys and girls, and some light housework is considered a normal and even beneficial part of childhood in most societies, children performing housework for less than 14 hours per week are not considered here. 66 Child labour in the Latin America and Caribbean region: a gender-based analysis across all age ranges. This underscores the fact that the economic activity rate – the most commonly used measure of children’s work – alone is a misleading indicator of girls’ total work involvement. Figure 30. Children’s total work involvement, by sex and age, Dominican Republic 61.5 60.3 male female 47 45.8 41.4 41.7 40.1 39.8 percent 10-14 15-17 7-14 5-17 AGE GROUPS Involvement in child labour: Child labour is the subset of children’s work that is injurious, negative or undesirable to children and that should be targeted for elimination. Minimum working age, as defined by ILO Convention No. 138, is typically used as the main criterion for estimating child labour. The Dominican Republic, upon ratifying ILO Convention No. 138 in 1999, set the general minimum working age at 14 years. Therefore, all economically active children below the age of 14, with the exception of 12- and 13-year-olds in “light work�, may be thought of as being in child labour. But applying this criterion alone has an inherent gender bias, as it considers children in economic activity, a category where boys are most prevalent, but not children in housework, where girls are most prevalent. Although international labour standards provide for exceptions for housework performed in a child’s own household, chores that are too strenuous or too time-consuming can pose risks to children’s health and development in the same ways as work in economic activity, arguing for their inclusion when looking at child labour. As shown in the Figure 31, boys form a much larger share of under-aged children in economic activity while the share of girls and boys performing household chores for over the 28-hour threshold is almost equal. When the two groups are put together, the proportion of boys in child labour significantly exceeds that of girls. 67 Child labour in the Latin America and Caribbean region: a gender-based analysis Figure 31. Children in child labour,* by sex and age, Dominican Republic male female 25.7 24.3 17.6 16 15.2 percent 10.4 10.9 6.1 5.7 4.7 (a) Economically active children (b) Economically active children (c) Children aged 5-14 performing (a)+(b) (a)+(b)+(c) aged 5-11 years aged 12-14 years excluding those HH chores for an average of at in light-work least 28 hrs./wk. *Notes (1): The stipulations contained in ILO Conventions Nos. 138 and 182 relating to hazardous work, excessively long work hours and unconditional worst forms, also extend to children aged 15-17 years. However, the 15-17 years age group is excluded because data on the nature of work performed by children in this age group are not currently available. (2) Does not include children in unconditional worst forms of child labour, because these forms are not captured in household surveys Average weekly working hours: Boys in economic activity put in slightly longer hours than their female counterparts – 19.6 compared to 14.4 hours for the 7-14 years age group, and 30.3 versus 29.3 hours for the 15-17 years age group. For household chores, the opposite pattern holds, with 7-14 year-old girls spending more than three hours per week more on chores, and 15-17 year-old girls an average of nine hours per week more on chores, than similarly-aged boys. Figure 32. Average weekly working hours, by age group, work type and sex, Dominican Republic 30.3 29.3 male female 19.6 working hours 15.7 14.4 10.3 7 6.7 eco. act. (7-14 years) eco. act. (15-17 years) HH chores (7-14 years) HH chores (15-17 years) AGE GROUPS/ACTIVITY TYPE 68 Child labour in the Latin America and Caribbean region: a gender-based analysis Work and school attendance: Work does not appear to affect the ability of girls and boys to attend school. The attendance rate of both working boys and working girls in the 7-14 years age group stands at almost 94 percent, only slightly below overall attendance rates for this age group. The effect of work on schooling of course extends beyond attendance. Figure 33. School attendance rates of children at work in economic activity, by age group and sex, Dominican Republic 94.1 male female 93.7 93.4 93.5 89.5 86.4 percent 82 76 10-14 15-17 7-14 5-17 AGE GROUPS Figure 34. Rate of reported illness and injury, children at work in economic activity, by age group and sex, Dominican Republic 14.1 male female 12.5 12.7 12.3 12.4 percent 10.3 8.5 8.2 10-14 15-17 7-14 5-17 AGE GROUPS Work and health: Working boys have slightly higher levels of work-related illness and injury than working girls across all age groups, suggesting that boys’ work may be more hazardous in nature. But the work-health relationship is difficult to measure, and caution should be exercised in reading too much into these findings. The health consequences of work, for example, may be obscured by the selection of the healthiest children to work, or by the fact that health consequences may not become apparent until a later stage in a child’s life. It may also be that it is not work per se that is damaging to health but rather certain kinds of work, a fact that is concealed when looking at the prevalence of health problems averaged across all categories of child workers. 69 Child labour in the Latin America and Caribbean region: a gender-based analysis 8.6 ECUADOR Table 19. Selected socio-economic indicators: Ecuador Indicator 1998 2000 2002 Population (millions) 12.2 12.6 13.1 Population growth (annual %) 2.0 1.9 1.8 National poverty rate (% of population) .. .. .. GDP (current $) 19.7 13.6 24.3 GDP growth (annual %) 0.4 2.3 3.0 Access to improved water source (% of total pop.) .. 71.0 .. Access to improved sanitation (% of urban pop.) .. 70.0 .. M .. .. .. Under-five mortality rate F .. .. .. T .. 34.3 .. M .. .. .. Child malnutrition, weight for age (% of F .. .. .. children under 5) T 14.3 .. .. M 7.3 6.7 .. Illiteracy rate (% population aged 15 and F 10.9 10.0 9.4 above) T 9.1 8.4 7.9 School attendance rate (%children aged 7- M .. 90.7 .. 14) F .. 90.9 .. M .. 19.4 .. Economic activity rate (% children aged 7-14) F .. 11.2 .. Rate of involvement in household chores over M .. 6.1 .. 14 hours per week (% children aged 7-14 F .. 8.4 .. years) Source: World Bank, Development Indicators Database, 2003 Work in economic activity: Boys are much more likely than girls to be involved in economic activity. As shown in Table 20, the proportion of boys in economic activity is almost 10 percentage points higher than that of girls for the 7-14 years and 5-17 years age ranges. The gap by sex in child economic activity rates rises with age, from eight percentage points for the 7-14 age group to 20 percentage points for the 15-17 age group, undoubtedly reflecting the different socially-dictated paths taken by boys and girls as they come of age. Children’s work in Ecuador is less common in urban areas; only about nine percent of 7-14 year-old boys, and less than four percent of similarly-aged girls, work in urban areas. 70 Child labour in the Latin America and Caribbean region: a gender-based analysis School attendance: School attendance rates at the basic level are high but not yet universal in Ecuador; about nine out of 10 7-14 year-olds attend school, with little difference by sex. Attendance falls off to two-thirds among 15-17 year-olds, again with no difference by sex. Table 20. Child involvement in economic activity, household chores and in school, by age group and sex % involved in % involved in % performing % enrolled Age group economic activity household chores (1) “double duty�(2) in school Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female 10-14 28.9 17.8 6.5 11.1 1.5 2.4 88.5 87.4 15-17 49 31.9 10 16.5 7 10.7 66 66.2 7-14 22.1 13.6 6.1 8.4 2.2 3 90.7 90.9 5-17 25.4 16 6.3 9.5 2.7 3.8 83.6 83.7 Notes: (1) Children performing household chores for at least 14 hours per week; (2) Children involved in both economic activity and household chores for significant amounts of time each week (i.e., at least 14 weekly hours for each activity) Involvement in household chores: Ecuadorian households are much more likely to assign responsibility for household chores to girls. Among 10-14 year-olds, girls’ involvement in household chores (for at least 14 hours per week)44 is around two times that of boys. Among 15-17 year-olds, 17 percent for girls are involved in household chores against only 10 percent of boys. There is thus a clear pattern of specialisation by sex in children’s work in Ecuador, in keeping with traditional gender roles, that sees boys in economic activity and girls in activities relating to the functioning of the household. Children performing “double duty�: Relatively few children, girls or boys, must also perform double duty, i.e., both economic activity and household chores for significant amounts of time each week (set here at 14 weekly hours for each activity). As shown in Table 20, only among 15-17 year-old girls does the rate of double duty exceed 10 percent. Total work involvement (i.e., economic activity or household chores): Combining economic activity and household chores (and eliminating the overlapping category of children performing both), provides an indication of children’s total work involvement. As shown in Figure 35, boys’ involvement in work is still higher than that of girls using this measure, but 44 As housework is very common for both boys and girls, and some light housework is considered a normal and even beneficial part of childhood in most societies, children performing housework for less than 14 hours per week are not considered here. 71 Child labour in the Latin America and Caribbean region: a gender-based analysis the gap by sex is smaller than that for involvement in economic activity. This underscores the fact that the economic activity rate – the most commonly used measure of children’s work – is a misleading indicator of girls’ total work involvement. Figure 35. Children’s total work involvement, by sex and age, Ecuador 53.1 male female 35.9 percent 26.4 23.6 22.9 18.1 18.5 16.1 10-14 15-17 7-14 5-17 AGE GROUPS Figure 36. Children in child labour,* by sex and age, Ecuador 27.8 male female 17.0 17.5 15.9 percent 12.4 10.2 10.8 7.8 0.8 1.1 (a) Economically active children (b) Economical?y active children (c) Children aged 5-14 performing (a)+(b) (a)+(b)+(c) aged 5-11 years aged 12-14 years excluding those HH chores for an average of at in light-work least 28 hrs./wk. *Notes (1): The stipulations contained in ILO Conventions Nos. 138 and 182 relating to hazardous work, excessively long work hours and unconditional worst forms, also extend to children aged 15-17 years. However, the 15-17 years age group is excluded because data on the nature of work performed by children in this age group are not currently available. (2) Does not include children in unconditional worst forms of child labour, because these forms are not captured in household surveys Involvement in child labour: Child labour is the subset of children’s work that is injurious, negative or undesirable to children and that should be targeted for elimination. Minimum working age, as defined by ILO Convention No. 138, is typically used as the main criterion for estimating child labour. Costa Rica, upon ratifying ILO Convention No. 138 in 1990, set the general minimum working age at 14 years. Therefore, all economically active children below the age of 14, with the exception of 12- and 13-year-olds in “light work�, may be thought of as being in child 72 Child labour in the Latin America and Caribbean region: a gender-based analysis labour. But housework that is too time-consuming (defined here as exceeding 28 hours per week)45 can also affect children’s welfare, and should therefore also be considered as child labour. As shown in the Figure 36, boys form a much larger share of under-aged children in economic activity whereas very few children, boys or girls, perform household chores for over the 28-hour threshold. When the two groups are put together, the proportion of boys in child labour (17 percent) significantly exceeds the proportion of girls in child labour (10 percent). Average weekly working hours: Boys in economic activity put in slightly longer hours than their female counterparts – 28 compared to 26.6 hours for the 7-14 years age group, and 34 versus 32.8 hours for the 15-17 years age group. For household chores, the opposite pattern holds, with 7-14 year-old girls spending an average of 1.6 hours per week more on chores, and 15-17 year-old girls an average of 3.2 hours per week more on chores, than similarly-aged boys. Work sector: There does not appear to be a large degree of specialisation by sex in terms of the type of economic activities that children perform. Both boys and girls work primarily in family agriculture (68 percent of working boys and 71 percent of working girls), with work in commerce and manufacturing coming a distant second and third in terms of importance. Girls are more likely than boys to work as servants in private homes (5.3 percent of working girls versus less than one percent of working boys), a type of work that research suggests leaves children particularly vulnerable to abuse. Figure 37. Average weekly working hours, by age group, work type and sex, Ecuador 34 32.8 male female 28 26.6 working hours 11.9 9.1 8.7 7.5 eco. act. (7-14 years) eco. act. (15-17 years) HH chores (7-14 years) HH chores (15-17 years) AGE GROUPS/ACTIVITY TYPE 45 This time threshold is supported by preliminary UNICEF research looking at the effects of housework on schooling in Africa. Very little research on the impact of children’s housework has been conducted in the Latin American context; the 28-hour time threshold, therefore, should be considered as only tentative. 73 Child labour in the Latin America and Caribbean region: a gender-based analysis Figure 38. Distribution of working children, by work sector and sex, Ecuador a) Males Commerce 13% Service 2% Manufacturing 10% Agriculture Construction 68% 3% Servant 0.4% Other 4% b) Females Commerce 8.5 Service 1.7 Manufacturing 8.6 Construction 0.3 Servant 5.3 Agriculture 71.3 Other 4.4 Work and school attendance: There are no large differences by sex in terms of the ability of working children to attend school. School attendance rates stand at about 71 percent for 7-14 year-old working children, and at about 48 percent for 15-17 year-old working children, with little variation by sex. Both working girls and working boys lag substantially behind non-working children in terms of school attendance. The challenge in Ecuador is therefore to close the attendance gap between working and non-working children generally. 74 Child labour in the Latin America and Caribbean region: a gender-based analysis Figure 39. School attendance rates of children at work in economic activity, by age group and sex, Ecuador 72.4 70.8 male female 61.4 61.1 56.3 57.1 percent 47.6 48.1 10-14 15-17 7-14 5-17 AGE GROUPS Figure 40. Rate of reported illness and injury, children at work in economic activity, by age group and sex, Ecuador 11.3 male female 9.1 7.1 6.9 percent 5.6 5.6 5.9 4.7 10-14 15-17 7-14 5-17 AGE GROUPS Work and health: Working boys have higher levels of work-related illness and injury than working girls for both the 7-14 year and 15-17 years age groups, suggesting that boys’ work may be more hazardous in nature. But the work-health relationship is difficult to measure, and caution should be exercised in reading too much into these findings. The health consequences of work, for example, may be obscured by the selection of the healthiest children to work, or by the fact that health consequences may not become apparent until a later stage in a child’s life. It may also be that it is not work per se that is damaging to health but rather certain kinds of work, a fact that is concealed when looking at the prevalence of health problems averaged across all categories of child workers. 75 Child labour in the Latin America and Caribbean region: a gender-based analysis 8.7 EL SALVADOR Table 21. Selected socio-economic indicators, El Salvador Indicator 1998 2000 2002 Population (millions) 6.0 6.3 6.5 Population growth (annual %) 2.1 2.0 1.9 National poverty rate (% of population) .. .. .. GDP (current $) 12.0 13.2 14.3 GDP growth (annual %) 3.5 2.0 2.3 Access to improved water source (% of total pop.) .. 74.0 .. Access to improved sanitation (% of urban pop.) .. 88.0 .. M .. .. .. Under-five mortality rate F .. .. .. T .. 35.4 .. M .. .. .. Child malnutrition, weight for age (% of children F .. .. .. under 5) T 11.8 .. .. M 19.3 18.4 .. Illiteracy rate (% population aged 15 and above) F 25.1 23.9 22.9 T 22.3 21.3 20.3 M 86.9 School attendance rate (%children aged 7-14) F 86.8 M 12.3 Economic activity rate (% children aged 7-14) F 5.3 Rate of involvement in household chores over 14 M 8.5 hours per week (% children aged 7-14 years) F 19.8 Source: World Bank, Development Indicators Database, 2003 Work in economic activity: Boys are much more likely than girls to be involved in economic activity. As shown in Table 22, the proportion of boys in economic activity is more than double that of girls for the 7-14 and 5-17 years age ranges. The gap by sex in child economic activity rates rises with age, from seven percentage points for the 7-14 age group to 22 percentage points for the 15-17 age group, undoubtedly reflecting the different socially-dictated paths taken by boys and girls as they come of age. It is important to note, however, that the gap by sex in economic activity rates stems almost entirely from boys’ greater involvement in rural (mostly agricultural) work. In urban areas, 7-14 year-old boys and girls work in almost equal proportion. 76 Child labour in the Latin America and Caribbean region: a gender-based analysis School attendance: Raising school attendance rates for both boys and girls remains a challenge in El Salvador. About 13 percent of 7-14 year-old children are out-of-school, with little difference by sex. The proportion of out-of-school children rises to 43 percent and 46 percent for boys and girls, respectively, in the 15-17 years age group. Low overall attendance rate is a particular problem in rural areas, where almost one-fifth of 7-14 year-olds does not attend school. Table 22. Child involvement in economic activity, household chores and in school, by age group and sex % involved in % involved in % performing % enrolled Age group economic activity household chores (1) “double duty�(2) in school Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female 10-14 17.9 8 11.2 27.6 1.8 1.9 87.7 86.7 15-17 38.6 16.9 10.6 41.2 2 4.4 66.5 64.2 7-14 12.3 5.3 8.5 19.8 1.2 1.3 86.9 86.8 5-17 16 7 7.7 21.2 1.2 1.7 77.2 76.9 Notes: (1) Children performing household chores for at least 14 hours per week; (2) Children involved in both economic activity and household chores for significant amounts of time each week (i.e., at least 14 weekly hours for each activity) Involvement in household chores: Households in El Salvador are much more likely to assign responsibility for household chores to girls. Among 10-14 year-olds, girls’ involvement in household chores (for at least 14 hours per week)46 is more than two times that of boys, and among 15-17 year-olds, about four times that of boys. There is thus a clear pattern of specialisation by sex in children’s work in El Salvador, in keeping with traditional gender roles, that sees boys in economic activity and girls in activities relating to the functioning of the household. Children performing “double duty�: Very few children, girls or boys, must perform double duty, i.e., both economic activity and household chores for significant amounts of time each week (set here at 14 weekly hours for each activity). As shown in Table 22, only among 15-17 year-old girls does this group exceed two percent. Total work involvement (i.e., economic activity or household chores): Combining economic activity and household chores (and eliminating the overlapping category of children performing both), provides an indication 46 As housework is very common for both boys and girls, and some light housework is considered a normal and even beneficial part of childhood in most societies, children performing housework for less than 14 hours per week are not considered here. 77 Child labour in the Latin America and Caribbean region: a gender-based analysis of children’s total work involvement. As shown in Figure 41, girls’ involvement in work is higher than that of boys using this measure, across all age groups. This underscores the fact that the economic activity rate – the most commonly used measure of children’s work – alone is a misleading indicator of girls’ total work involvement. Figure 41. Children’s total work involvement, by sex and age, El Salvador 51.8 46.9 male female 32.9 percent 27 25.8 23.4 22.3 19.4 10-14 15-17 7-14 5-17 AGE GROUPS Figure 42. Children in child labour,* by sex and age, El Salvador male female 19.3 percent 8.6 8.8 9.1 5.2 4.4 3.6 1.5 1.7 0.4 (a) Economically active children (b) Economically active children (c) Children aged 5-14 (a)+(b) (a)+(b)+(c) aged 5-11 years aged 12-14 years excluding performing HH chores for an those in light-work average of at least 28 hrs./wk. *Notes (1): The stipulations contained in ILO Conventions Nos. 138 and 182 relating to hazardous work, excessively long work hours and unconditional worst forms, also extend to children aged 15-17 years. However, the 15-17 years age group is excluded because data on the nature of work performed by children in this age group are not currently available. (2) Does not include children in unconditional worst forms of child labour, because these forms are not captured in household surveys Involvement in child labour: Child labour is the subset of children’s work that is injurious, negative or undesirable to children and that should be targeted for elimination. Minimum working age, as defined by ILO Convention No. 138, is typically used as the main criterion for estimating child labour. El Salvador, upon ratifying ILO Convention No. 138 in 1990, set the general minimum working age at 14 years. Therefore, all 78 Child labour in the Latin America and Caribbean region: a gender-based analysis economically active children below the age of 14, with the exception of 12- and 13-year-olds in “light work�, may be thought of as being in child labour. But housework that is too time-consuming (defined here as exceeding 28 hours per week)47 can also affect children’s welfare, and should therefore also be considered as child labour. As shown in Figure 42, boys form a much larger share of under-aged children in economic activity, while the share of children performing household chores for over the 28- hour threshold is small for both sexes. When the two groups are put together, the proportion of boys in child labour exceeds that of girls by about four percentage points. Average weekly working hours: Girls and boys differ very little in terms of the length of their working weeks in El Salvador. Girls aged 15-17 years put in slightly longer hours than similarly-aged boys in both household chores and economic activity. But weekly time spent on household chores and economic activity is virtually the same for boys and girls aged 7-14 years. Figure 43. Average weekly working hours, by age group, work type and sex, El Salvador 35.5 33.4 male female 26.3 26.9 hours 13.2 8.3 7.6 6.5 eco. act. (7-14 years of age) eco. act. (15-17 years of age) housework (7-14 years of age) housework (15-17 years of age) 47 This time threshold is supported by preliminary UNICEF research looking at the effects of housework on schooling in Africa. Very little research on the impact of children’s housework has been conducted in the Latin American context; this time threshold, therefore, should be considered as only tentative. 79 Child labour in the Latin America and Caribbean region: a gender-based analysis Figure 44. Distribution of working children by work sector and sex, El Salvador a) Males commerce 14.3 manufact. 11.1 agriculture 69 service 2.8 servant 0.3 other 2.4 b) Females servant 8.7 agriculture 15.3 service 12.7 manufacturing 24.2 commerce 39.2 Work sector: The type of economic activities that children perform appears to vary to a large extent on their sex in El Salvador. Boys work overwhelmingly in family agriculture (over two-thirds of them) with commercial activities coming a distant second (14 percent). Girls’ work, on the other hand, is much more heterogeneous, spread across commerce (accounting for 39 percent of working girls), manufacturing (24 percent), agriculture (15 percent) and services (13 percent). Almost one in ten working girls are servants in private homes, a form of work that leaves them particularly vulnerable to abuse. The very different nature of girls’ and boys’ work suggests that different policy approaches are needed to address this work. Work and school attendance: Work does not appear to affect the ability of girls to attend school differently from that of boys. There is a slight difference by sex in the attendance rate of 7-14 year-old working children, while among 15-17 year-old working children girls’ attendance exceeds boys by about five percentage points. But the attendance of working children, girls and boys alike, is far below the overall attendance rate (62 80 Child labour in the Latin America and Caribbean region: a gender-based analysis percent compared to 87 percent for the 7-14 years age group). The challenge in El Salvador therefore does not specifically relate to attendance levels of female working children, but rather to closing the attendance gap between working and non-working children generally. The effect of work on schooling of course extends beyond attendance. Long working hours also undoubtedly affect the ability of children to derive educational benefit from schooling. But little specific information is available on the impact of work on learning achievement, and how this may differ by sex. Figure 45. School attendance rates of children at work in economic activity, by age group and sex, El Salvador 67.2 67.5 67.7 68.6 male female 55.2 52.2 42.9 percent 37.3 10-14 15-17 7-14 5-17 AGE GROUP Figure 46. Rate of reported illness and injury, children at work in economic activity, by age group and sex, El Salvador male female 5.1 4.8 4.8 4.6 percent 2 1.3 0.6 0.6 10-14 15-17 7-14 5-17 AGE GROUP Work and health: Working boys have higher levels of work-related illness and injury than working girls across all age groups, indicating that boys’ work may be more hazardous in nature. But the work-health relationship is difficult to measure, and caution should be exercised in reading too much into these findings. The health consequences of work, for example, may be obscured by the selection of the healthiest children to work, or by the fact that health consequences may not become apparent until a later stage in a 81 Child labour in the Latin America and Caribbean region: a gender-based analysis child’s life. It may also be that it is not work per se that is damaging to health but rather certain kinds of work, a fact that is concealed when looking at the prevalence of health problems averaged across all categories of child workers. 82 Child labour in the Latin America and Caribbean region: a gender-based analysis 8.8 GUATEMALA Table 23. Selected socio-economic indicators: Guatemala Indicator 1998 2000 2002 Population (millions) 10.8 11.4 12.0 Population growth (annual %) 2.6 2.6 2.6 National poverty rate (% of population) .. .. .. GDP (current $) 19.3 19.0 23.3 GDP growth (annual %) 5.0 3.3 2.0 Access to improved water source (% of total pop.) .. 92.0 .. Access to improved sanitation (% of urban pop.) .. 98.0 .. M .. .. .. Under-five mortality rate F .. .. .. T .. 49.4 .. M .. .. .. Child malnutrition, weight for age (% of children F .. .. .. under 5) T .. .. .. M 25.2 23.9 .. Illiteracy rate (% population aged 15 and above) F 40.4 38.8 37.5 T 32.8 31.4 30.1 M 77.2 School attendance rate (%children aged 7-14) F 72.1 M 25.9 Economic activity rate (% children aged 7-14) F 13.9 Rate of involvement in household chores over 14 M 8.5 hours per week (% children aged 7-14 years) F 19.8 Source: World Bank, Development Indicators Database, 2003 Work in economic activity: Boys are much more likely than girls to be involved in economic activity. As shown in Table 24, the proportion of boys in economic activity is almost double that of girls for the 7-14 and 5- 17 years age ranges. The gap by sex in child economic activity rates rises with age, from 12 percentage points for the 7-14 age group, to 34 percentage points for the 15-17 age group, undoubtedly reflecting the different socially-dictated paths taken by boys and girls as they come of age. The gap by sex in economic activity rates is primarily the result of boys’ greater involvement in rural (mostly agricultural) work; for the 7-14 years age group, the difference in economic activity rates by sex in urban areas is quite small (two percentage points). 83 Child labour in the Latin America and Caribbean region: a gender-based analysis Table 24. Child involvement in economic activity, household chores and in school, by age group and sex % involved in % involved % performing % enrolled Age group economic activity in household chores (1) “double duty�(2) in school Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female 10-14 36.5 19.7 36.7 56.7 9.3 8.4 76.1 71.5 15-17 70.8 36.5 27.3 66.1 14.8 18 41.4 34.7 7-14 25.9 13.9 36.3 53.6 6.6 6.1 77.2 72.1 5-17 30.5 16.1 22.4 56.6 8.5 9 62.5 57.7 Notes: (1) Children performing household chores for at least 14 hours per week; (2) Children involved in both economic activity and household chores for significant amounts of time each week (i.e., at least14 weekly hours for each activity) School attendance: The fact that girls are less involved in economic activity does not translate into their being more involved in school. Indeed, boys’ school attendance is also higher than that of girls for all age groups. The attendance gap stems from the low level of enrolment of girls vis-à-vis boys in rural areas. In urban areas, girls attend school in almost equal proportion to boys. While some out of school children are engaged in work, many others – 12 percent of total 7-14 year-old boys and 16 percent of total similarly-aged girls – are inactive. Among 7-14 year-olds out of school, illness is by far the most important reason cited by both boys and girls (Table 25). Table 25. Reasons cited for dropping out/not attending school, 7-14, Guatemala Main Reasons cited Residence Sex Teacher Caring for Lacking Not Temporary Illness Work other Total absent home money interested migration Male 47.79 5.88 0.45 0.44 2.36 2.91 0.4 39.79 100 Urban Female 56.33 6.8 1.04 0.81 0.54 2.9 1.06 30.53 100 Male 59.35 1.55 0.95 0.6 11.83 8.87 0.61 16.24 100 Rural Female 63.61 1.07 4.48 1.08 3.53 5.69 1.03 19.51 100 Male 55.03 3.16 0.76 0.54 8.29 6.65 0.53 25.02 100 Total Female 60.74 3.33 3.13 0.97 2.35 4.59 1.04 23.86 100 Involvement in household chores: Guatemalan households are much more likely to assign responsibility for household chores to girls. Among 10-14 year-olds, girls’ involvement in household chores (for at least 14 hours per 84 Child labour in the Latin America and Caribbean region: a gender-based analysis week)48 is more than one and a half that of boys, and among 15-17 year- olds, more than twice that of boys. There is thus a clear pattern of specialisation by sex in children’s work in Guatemala, in keeping with traditional gender roles, that sees boys in economic activity and girls in activities relating to the functioning of the household. Children performing “double duty�: A relatively large proportion of Guatemalan children must perform double duty, i.e., both economic activity and household chores for significant amounts of time each week (set here at 14 weekly hours for each activity). As shown in Table 24, around eight percent of 7-14 year-olds perform double duty, with little difference by sex. The number performing double duty rises to over 15 percent for the 15-17 years age group, with the share of girls in this group exceeding that of boys by about three percentage points. Total work involvement (i.e., economic activity or household chores): Combining economic activity and household chores (and eliminating the overlapping category of children performing both), provides an indication of children’s total work involvement. As shown in Figure 47, girls’ involvement in work is higher than that of boys using this measure for the 7-14 years age group, and is equal to that of boys for the 15-17 years age group. This underscores the fact that the economic activity rate – the most commonly used measure of children’s work – alone is a misleading indicator of girls’ total work involvement. Figure 47. Children’s total work involvement, by sex and age, Guatemala male female 82.1 82 80.2 82.9 66.4 61.3 60.2 53.6 percent 10-14 15-17 7-14 5-17 AGE GROUPS 48 As housework is very common for both boys and girls, and some light housework is considered a normal and even beneficial part of childhood in most societies, children performing housework for less than 14 hours per week are not considered here. 85 Child labour in the Latin America and Caribbean region: a gender-based analysis Figure 48. Children in child labour,* by sex and age, Guatemala 38.5 male female 28.8 27.8 percent 23.4 19.7 18.8 15.1 12.7 8.7 5.5 (a) Economically active children (b) Economically active children (c) Children aged 7-14 performing (a)+(b) (a)+(b)+(c) aged 7-11 years aged 12-14 years excluding those HH chores for at least 28 hrs./wk. in light-work *Notes (1): The stipulations contained in ILO Conventions Nos. 138 and 182 relating to hazardous work, excessively long work hours and unconditional worst forms, also extend to children aged 15-17 years. However, the 15-17 years age group is excluded because data on the nature of work performed by children in this age group are not currently available. (2) Does not include children in unconditional worst forms of child labour, because these forms are not captured in household surveys Involvement in child labour: Child labour is the subset of children’s work that is injurious, negative or undesirable to children and that should be targeted for elimination. Minimum working age, as defined by ILO Convention No. 138, is typically used as the main criterion for estimating child labour. Guatemala, upon ratifying ILO Convention No. 138 in 1990, set the general minimum working age at 14 years. Therefore, all economically active children below the age of 14, with the exception of 12- and 13-year-olds in “light work�, may be thought of as being in child labour. But housework that is too time-consuming (defined here as exceeding 28 hours per week)49 can also affect children’s welfare, and should therefore also be considered as child labour. As shown in Figure 48, boys form a much larger share of under-aged children in economic activity and girls a much larger share of children performing household chores for over the 28-hour threshold. When the two groups are put together, there is little difference by sex in the proportion of children in child labour. 49 This time threshold is supported by preliminary UNICEF research looking at the effects of housework on schooling in Africa. Very little research on the impact of children’s housework has been conducted in the Latin American context; this time threshold, therefore, should be considered as only tentative. 86 Child labour in the Latin America and Caribbean region: a gender-based analysis Average weekly working hours: Girls and boys at work in economic activity differ little in terms of working hours – both put in a relatively long working week of around 35 hours. There are slight differences by sex in the intensity of housework. Seven to 14 year-old girls spend an average of five hours per week more on household chores, and 15-17 year-old girls an average of 13 hours per week more, compared to similarly-aged boys. Work sector and modality: The type of economic activities that children perform appears to depend to an important extent on their sex in Guatemala. Boys work overwhelmingly in family agriculture (three-fourths of them) with commercial activities coming a distant second (10 percent), while girls activities are more evenly spread across agricultural work (40 percent), commerce (27 percent), manufacturing (20 percent), and services (12 percent). About two-thirds of both male and female working children work without wage for their families. The very different nature of girls’ and boys’ work suggests that different policy approaches are needed to address this work. Figure 49. Average weekly working hours, by age group, work type and sex, Guatemala 44.6 46 male female 36.3 35.5 working hours 26.1 19.1 14.2 13.1 eco. act. (7-14 years of age) eco. act. (15-17 years of age) housework (7-14 years of age) housework (15-17 years of age) Figure 50. Distribution of working children, by work sector and sex, Guatemala a) Males commerce 10.3 manufact. 5.9 agriculture 74.5 service 3 other 6.3 87 Child labour in the Latin America and Caribbean region: a gender-based analysis b) Females other 0.5 service 12.3 agriculture 39.8 manufact. 20.1 commerce 27.4 Work and school attendance: Work does not appear to affect the ability of girls to attend school more than that of boys. The school attendance rates of 7-14 year-old boys at work in economic activity exceeds that of their female counterparts by five percentage points, about the same as the gap by sex in overall attendance rates for this age group. Among 15-17 year-old working children, school attendance is almost the same for girls and boys, while the gap by sex in overall attendance rates is seven percentage points. But both working girls and working boys lag substantially behind non- working children in terms of school attendance. Figure 51. School attendance rates of children at work in economic activity, by age group and sex, Guatemala 63.3 male female 61.2 57.9 53.6 46.8 43.1 percent 26.5 25.3 10-14 15-17 7-14 6-17 AGE GROUP 88 Child labour in the Latin America and Caribbean region: a gender-based analysis Figure 52. Rate of reported illness and injury, children at work in economic activity, by age group and sex, Guatemala male female 25.8 26.2 24.4 24.6 24.4 22.2 23.2 21.4 percent 10-14 15-17 7-14 7-17 AGE GROUP Work and health: There is little difference by sex in the levels of reported illness/injury among children in economic activity, despite the large differences in the specific types of economic activities that girls and boys perform. But the work-health relationship is difficult to measure, and caution should be exercised in reading too much into these findings. The health consequences of work, for example, may be obscured by the selection of the healthiest children to work, or by the fact that health consequences may not become apparent until a later stage in a child’s life. It may also be that it is not work per se that is damaging to health but rather certain kinds of work, a fact that is concealed when looking at the prevalence of health problems averaged across all categories of child workers. 89 Child labour in the Latin America and Caribbean region: a gender-based analysis 8.9 HONDURAS Table 26. Selected socio-economic indicators, Honduras Indicator 1998 2000 2002 Population (millions) 6.1 6.4 6.8 Population growth (annual %) 2.6 2.5 2.5 National poverty rate (% of population) .. .. .. GDP (current $) (billions) 5.3 5.9 6.6 GDP growth (annual %) 2.9 4.8 2.0 Access to improved water source (% of total pop.) .. 90.0 .. Access to improved sanitation (% of urban pop.) .. 94.0 .. M .. .. .. Under-five mortality rate F .. .. .. T .. 43.8 .. M .. .. .. Child malnutrition, weight for age (% of under 5) F .. .. .. T .. .. .. M 26.3 25.3 .. Illiteracy rate (% population aged 15 and above) F 26.8 25.5 23.7 T 26.6 25.4 23.8 M 85.4 .. School attendance rate (%children aged 7-14) F 86.2 .. M 16.5 .. Economic activity rate (% children aged 7-14) F 6.1 .. Rate of involvement in household chores over 14 hours M 40.2 .. per week (% children aged 7-14 years) F 54.4 .. Source: World Bank, Development Indicators Database, 2003 Work in economic activity: Boys are much more likely than girls to be involved in economic activity. As shown in Table 27, the proportion of boys in economic activity is almost three times that of girls for both the 7- 14 and 5-17 age groups. The gap by sex in child economic activity rates rises with age, from 15 percentage points for the 10-14 age group to almost 39 percentage points for the 15-17 age group, undoubtedly reflecting the different socially-dictated paths taken by boys and girls as they come of age. Child work in Honduras is more common in rural than in urban areas, especially among boys. 90 Child labour in the Latin America and Caribbean region: a gender-based analysis Table 27. Child involvement in economic activity, household chores and in school, by age group and sex % involved in % involved in % performing % enrolled Age group economic activity household chores (1) “double duty�(2) in school Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female 10-14 24.3 9 44.4 64.9 1 1.2 81.5 82.1 15-17 60.1 21.2 38.1 74.9 2.9 4.6 40.9 48.6 7-14 16.5 6.1 40.2 54.4 0.9 0.9 85.4 86.2 5-17 22.3 8.2 35.7 51.8 1.2 1.5 72.2 74.1 Notes: (1) Children performing household chores for at least 14 hours per week; (2) Children involved in both economic activity and household chores for significant amounts of time each week (i.e., at least14 weekly hours for each activity) School attendance: Raising school attendance rates for both boys and girls remains a challenge in Honduras. About one-fifth of 7-14 year-old children are out of school, with little difference by sex. The proportion of out-of- school children rises to 60 percent and 51 percent for boys and girls, respectively, in the 15-17 years age group. Only about 10 percent of out of school children are engaged in work. The remaining, “inactive�, group of out-of-school children is in some ways at a double disadvantage, benefiting neither from schooling nor the learning-by-doing that some forms of work offer. Involvement in household chores: Honduran households are much more likely to assign responsibility for household chores to girls. Among 10-14 year-olds, girls’ involvement in household chores (for at least 14 hours per week)50 is nearly 65 percent against 45 percent for boys. The difference by sex increases with the age; among 15-17 year-olds, girl’s involvement in household chores is two times that of boys. Children performing “double duty�. Relatively few children, girls or boys, must perform double duty, i.e., both economic activity and household chores for significant amounts of time each week (set here at 14 weekly hours for each activity). As shown in Table 27, only among 15-17 year-olds does the rate of “double duty� exceed 4 percent. The proportion of boys performing double duty exceeds that of girls for all age groups. Total work involvement (i.e., economic activity or household chores): Combining economic activity and household chores (and eliminating the 50 As housework is very common for both boys and girls, and some light housework is considered a normal and even beneficial part of childhood in most societies, children performing housework for less than 14 hours per week are not considered here. 91 Child labour in the Latin America and Caribbean region: a gender-based analysis overlapping category of children performing both), provides an indication of children’s total work involvement. As shown in Figure 53, girls’ involvement in work using this measure exceeds that of boys for the 7-14 years age group and is almost equal to that of boys for the 15-17 years age group. This underscores the fact that the economic activity rate – the most commonly used measure of children’s work – alone is a misleading indicator of girls’ total work involvement. Figure 53. Children’s total work involvement, by sex and age, Honduras 78.7 76.8 male female 67.1 58.2 55.9 53.5 49.4 49.5 percent 10-14 15-17 7-14 5-17 AGE GROUPS Involvement in child labour: Child labour is the subset of children’s work that is injurious, negative or undesirable to children and that should be targeted for elimination. Minimum working age, as defined by ILO Convention No. 138, is typically used as the main criterion for estimating child labour. Honduras, upon ratifying ILO Convention No. 138 in 1980, set the general minimum working age at 14 years. Therefore, all economically active children below the age of 14, with the exception of 12- and 13-year-olds in “light work�, may be thought of as being in child labour. But housework that is too time-consuming (defined here as exceeding 28 hours per week)51 can also affect children’s welfare, and should therefore also be considered as child labour. As shown in the Figure 54, boys form a much larger share of under-aged children in economic activity, while the girls form a larger share of children performing household chores for over the 28-hour threshold. When the two groups are put together, the proportion of boys and girls in child labour is almost equal. 51 This time threshold is supported by preliminary UNICEF research looking at the effects of housework on schooling in Africa. Very little research on the impact of children’s housework has been conducted in the Latin American context; this time threshold, therefore, should be considered as only tentative. 92 Child labour in the Latin America and Caribbean region: a gender-based analysis Figure 54. Children in child labour,* by sex and age, Honduras 26 male female 17.1 15.9 percent 12.9 11.4 9 7.1 5.8 4.2 2.2 (a) Economically active children (b) Economically active children (c) Children aged 5-14 (a)+(b) (a)+(b)+(c) aged 5-11 years aged 12-14 years excluding performing HH chores for an those in light-work average of at least 28 hrs./wk. *Notes (1): The stipulations contained in ILO Conventions Nos. 138 and 182 relating to hazardous work, excessively long work hours and unconditional worst forms, also extend to children aged 15-17 years. However, the 15-17 years age group is excluded because data on the nature of work performed by children in this age group are not currently available. (2) Does not include children in unconditional worst forms of child labour, because these forms are not captured in household surveys Average weekly working hours: As shown in Figure 55, girls spend longer hours in both economic activity and household chores, with the differences particularly pronounced for the 15-17 years age group. Work sector: The type of economic activities that children perform appears to depend to an important extent on their sex in Honduras. Boys tend to work in family agriculture (almost 72 percent) with commerce activities and manufacturing coming a distant second and third in terms of importance (17 and 6 percent, respectively). Girls’ work, on the other hand, is more heterogeneous, spread across commerce (44 percent of female working children), agriculture (20 percent) and service (12 percent). The very different nature of girls’ and boys’ work suggests that different policy approaches are needed to address this work. 93 Child labour in the Latin America and Caribbean region: a gender-based analysis Figure 55. Average weekly working hours, by age group, work type and sex, Honduras male female 24.4 24.4 working hours 15.7 15.5 15.7 15.5 13.1 13.1 eco. act. (7-14 years) eco. act. (15-17 years) HH chores (7-14 years) HH chores (15-17 years) AGE GROUPS/ACTIVITY TYPE Figure 56. Distribution of working children, by work sector and sex, Honduras a) Males Commerce 17.1 Agriculture 71.9 Service 0.6 Manufacturing 6 Construction 1.9 Other 2.4 b) Females Commerce 44.1 Service 11.9 Manufacturing 24.1 Agriculture 19.5 Other 0.6 Work and school attendance: Working girls are much more successful than their male counterparts in also attending school. Among 7-14 year-old working children, girls’ attendance exceeds boys’ by 17 percentage points, and among 15-17 year-old working children, girls’ attendance is 21 percentage points higher than boys’. Both working girls and working boys lag substantially behind non-working children in terms of school attendance. The effect of work on schooling of course extends beyond attendance. 94 Child labour in the Latin America and Caribbean region: a gender-based analysis Figure 57. School attendance rates of children at work in economic activity, by age group and sex, Honduras 70.5 67.6 male female 53.7 54.1 50.6 percent 38.7 35.2 17.8 10-14 15-17 7-14 5-17 AGE GROUPS Figure 58. Rate of reported illness and injury, children at work in economic activity, by age group and sex, Honduras 18.8 male female 16.2 14.3 13.2 11.1 11.1 10.2 percent 9.5 10-14 15-17 7-14 5-17 AGE GROUPS Work and health: Working boys have higher levels of work-related illness and injury than working girls across all age groups, indicating that boys’ work may be more hazardous in nature. But the work-health relationship is difficult to measure, and caution should be exercised in reading too much into these findings. The health consequences of work, for example, may be obscured by the selection of the healthiest children to work, or by the fact that health consequences may not become apparent until a later stage in a child’s life. It may also be that it is not work per se that is damaging to health but rather certain kinds of work, a fact that is concealed when looking at the prevalence of health problems averaged across all categories of child workers. 95 Child labour in the Latin America and Caribbean region: a gender-based analysis 8.9 NICARAGUA Table 28. Selected socio-economic indicators: Nicaragua Indicator 1998 2000 2002 Population (millions) 4.8 5.1 5.3 Population growth (annual %) 2.7 2.6 2.4 National poverty rate (% of population) 47.9 .. .. GDP (current $) 2.1 2.4 .. GDP growth (annual %) 4.1 4.3 .. Access to improved water source (% of total .. 79.0 .. pop.) Access to improved sanitation (% of urban pop.) .. 96.0 .. M .. .. .. Under-five mortality rate F .. .. .. T .. 40.8 .. M .. .. .. Child malnutrition, weight for age (% of F .. .. .. children under 5) T 12.2 .. .. M 34.4 33.7 .. Illiteracy rate (% population aged 15 and F 34.0 33.2 32.6 above) T 34.2 33.5 32.9 School attendance rate (%children aged 7- M .. 80.8 .. 14) F .. 85.7 .. Economic activity rate (% children aged 7- M .. 22.2 .. 14) F .. 8.9 .. Rate of involvement in household chores M .. 29.5 .. over 14 hours per week (% children aged F .. 45.7 .. 7-14 yrs) Source: World Bank, Development Indicators Database, 2003 Work in economic activity: Boys are much more likely than girls to be involved in economic activity. As shown in Table 29, the proportion of boys in economic activity is more than double that of girls for the 7-14 and 5-17 years age ranges. The gap by sex in child economic activity rates rises with age, from 11 percentage points for the 7-14 age group to 30 percentage points for the 15-17 age group, undoubtedly reflecting the different socially-dictated paths taken by boys and girls as they come of age. The gap by sex in economic activity rates is especially large in rural areas; the difference by sex in economic activity rates in urban, areas however, is also significant. 96 Child labour in the Latin America and Caribbean region: a gender-based analysis Table 29. Child involvement in economic activity, household chores and in school, by age group and sex % involved in % involved % performing % enrolled Age group economic activity in household chores (1) “double duty�(2) in school Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female 10-14 26.2 9.4 34.6 57.8 11.1 7.1 80.6 85.5 15-17 47.9 16.3 32.9 68.9 13.5 14.9 55.1 60.9 7-14 17.6 6.5 29.5 45.7 8 4.6 80.8 85.7 5-17 20.9 7.5 27 44.4 7.8 5.9 71.9 76.5 Notes: (1) Children performing household chores for at least 14 hours per week; (2) Children involved in both economic activity and household chores for significant amounts of time each week (i.e., at least 14 weekly hours for each activity) School attendance: Girls attend school in greater proportion than boys across all age groups, though attendance levels are relatively low for both sexes. The gap in attendance rates is five percentage points for the 7-14 years age group and six percentage points for the 15-17 years age group. The attendance gap stems from the low level of boys’ attendance vis-à-vis girls’ in rural areas; the difference by sex in attendance is very small in urban areas. Involvement in household chores: Nicaraguan households are much more likely to assign responsibility for household chores to girls. Among 7-14 year-olds, girls’ involvement in household chores (for at least 14 hours per week)52 is one and a half times that of boys, and among 15-17 year-olds, over two times that of boys. There is thus a clear pattern of specialisation and/or segregation by sex in children’s work in Nicaragua, in keeping with traditional gender roles, that sees boys in economic activity and girls in activities relating to the functioning of the household. Children performing “double duty�: A relatively large proportion of Nicaraguan children must perform double duty, i.e., both economic activity and household chores for significant amounts of time each week (set here at 14 weekly hours for each activity). This is perhaps the most vulnerable group of working children; they put in the longest total working hours and are the group whose education is most compromised. As shown in Table 29, the share of 7-14 year-old boys performing double duty is almost twice that of similarly-aged girls (eight percent compared to 4.6 percent). For the 52 As housework is very common for both boys and girls, and some light housework is considered a normal and even beneficial part of childhood in most societies, children performing housework for less than 14 hours per week are not considered here. 97 Child labour in the Latin America and Caribbean region: a gender-based analysis 15-17 years age group, a slightly higher share of girls than boys must perform double duty. Total work involvement (i.e., economic activity or household chores): Combining economic activity and household chores (and eliminating the overlapping category of children performing both), provides an indication of children’s total work involvement. As shown in Figure 59, girls’ involvement in work is higher than that of boys using this measure for the 7-14 years age group, and is nearly equal to that of boys for the 15-17 years age group. This underscores the fact that the economic activity rate – the most commonly used measure of children’s work – alone is a misleading indicator of girls’ total work involvement. Figure 59. Children’s total work involvement, Nicaragua 74.6 73.4 62.3 male female 54.3 49.1 47.9 42.9 44 percent 10-14 15-17 7-14 5-17 AGE GROUPS Involvement in child labour: Child labour is the subset of girls’ and boys’ work that is injurious, negative or undesirable to children and that should be targeted for elimination. Minimum working age, as defined by ILO Convention No. 138, is typically used as the main criterion for estimating child labour. Nicaragua, upon ratifying ILO Convention No. 138 in 1990, set the general minimum working age at 14 years. Therefore, all economically active children below the age of 14, with the exception of 12- and 13-year-olds in “light work�, may be thought of as being in child labour. But housework that is too time consuming (defined here as exceeding 28 hours per week)53 can also affect children’s welfare, and should therefore also be considered as child labour. As shown in the Figure 53 This time threshold is supported by preliminary UNICEF research looking at the effects of housework on schooling in Africa. Very little research on the impact of children’s housework has been conducted in the Latin American context; this time threshold, therefore, should be considered as only tentative. 98 Child labour in the Latin America and Caribbean region: a gender-based analysis 60, boys form a much larger share of under-aged children in economic activity and girls a much larger share of children performing household chores for over the 28-hour threshold. When the two groups are put together, the proportion of boys in child labour exceeds that of girls. Figure 60. Children in child labour,* by sex and age, Nicaragua 27.2 male female 17.7 15.4 percent 13.5 11.5 9.7 8.5 5.5 4.9 3.3 (a) Economically active children (b) Economically active children (c) Children aged 5-14 performing (a)+(b) (a)+(b)+(c) aged 5-11 years aged 12-14 years excluding those HH chores for an average of at in light-work least 28 hrs./wk. *Notes (1): The stipulations contained in ILO Conventions Nos. 138 and 182 relating to hazardous work, excessively long work hours and unconditional worst forms, also extend to children aged 15-17 years. However, the 15-17 years age group is excluded because data on the nature of work performed by children in this age group are not currently available. (2) Does not include children in unconditional worst forms of child labour, because these forms are not captured in household surveys Average weekly working hours: Girls and boys appear to differ little in terms of their work intensity in Nicaragua. Boys put in more weekly hours in economic activity, and girls more weekly hours in household chores, but the differences by sex in the intensity of both types of work are not large. Work sector: The type of economic activities that children perform appears to depend to an important extent on their sex in Nicaragua. Boys tend to work in family agriculture (over two-thirds of them) with commercial activities coming a distant second (15 percent). Girls’ work, on the other hand, is more heterogeneous, spread across commerce (accounting for 38 percent of working girls), agriculture (35 percent), manufacturing (14 percent), and services (13 percent). The very different nature of girls’ and boys’ work suggests that different policy approaches are needed to address this work. 99 Child labour in the Latin America and Caribbean region: a gender-based analysis Figure 61. Average weekly working hours, by age group, work type and sex, Nicaragua 43.6 42.5 male female 31.5 27.9 hours 23.1 16.3 16.2 13.4 eco. act. (7-14 years) eco. act. (15-17 years) housework (7-14 years) housework (15-17 years) Figure 62. Distribution of working children, by work sector and sex, Nicaragua a) Males commerce 14,8 manufact. 7.2 service 5,2 agriculture 68,8 other 4 b) Females service 13.2 agriculture 34.9 manufacturing 14.3 commerce 37.7 Work and school attendance: Work does not appear to affect the ability of girls to attend school more than that of boys. The differences by sex in the attendance rates of both 7-14 year-old and 15-17 year-old working children are roughly the same as the differences by sex in overall attendance rates. But the attendance levels of working children, girls and boys alike, are far below the overall attendance rate. The challenge in Nicaragua therefore does not specifically relate to attendance levels of female working children, 100 Child labour in the Latin America and Caribbean region: a gender-based analysis but rather to closing the attendance gap between working and non-working children generally. The effect of work on schooling of course extends beyond attendance. Long working hours also undoubtedly affect the ability of children to derive educational benefit from schooling. But little specific information is available on the impact of work on learning achievement, and how this may differ by sex. Figure 63. School attendance rates of children at work in economic activity, by age group and sex, Nicaragua male female 64.2 61.2 61.3 61.2 53.8 49.4 41.2 percent 34.3 10-14 15-17 7-14 5-17 AGE GROUP Figure 64. Rate of reported illness and injury, children at work in economic activity, by age group and sex, Nicaragua male female 12.3 11.7 11.5 11.4 7.1 percent 6.7 5.5 4.3 10-14 15-17 7-14 5-17 AGE GROUP Work and health: Working boys have considerably higher levels of work- related illness and injury than working girls across all age groups, indicating that boys’ work may be more hazardous in nature. But the work- health relationship is difficult to measure, and caution should be exercised in reading too much into these findings. The health consequences of work, for example, may be obscured by the selection of the healthiest children to work, or by the fact that health consequences may not become apparent until a later stage in a child’s life. It may also be that it is not work per se that is damaging to health but rather certain kinds of work, a fact that is concealed when looking at the prevalence of health problems averaged across all categories of child workers. 101 Child labour in the Latin America and Caribbean region: a gender-based analysis 8.11 PANAMA Table 30. Selected socio-economic indicators: Panama Indicator 1998 2000 2002 Population (millions) 2.8 2.9 2.9 Population growth (annual %) 1.6 1.6 1.5 National poverty rate (% of population) .. .. .. GDP (current $) 10.9 .. 12.3 GDP growth (annual %) 8.7 .. 0.8 Access to improved water source (% of total pop.) .. 87.0 .. Access to improved sanitation (% of urban pop.) .. 99.0 .. M .. .. .. Under-five mortality rate F .. .. .. T .. 24.1 .. M .. .. .. Child malnutrition, weight for age (% of F .. .. .. children under 5) T .. .. .. M 8.0 7.5 .. Illiteracy rate (% population aged 15 and F 9.3 8.7 8.3 above) T 8.6 8.1 7.7 School attendance rate (%children aged 7- M .. 93.8 .. 14) F .. 94.5 .. Economic activity rate (% children aged 7- M .. 6.5 .. 14) F .. 1.4 .. Rate of involvement in household chores M .. 14.8 .. over 14 hours per week (% children aged F .. 24.7 .. 7-14 yrs) Source: World Bank, Development Indicators Database, 2003 Work in economic activity: Boys are more likely than girls to be involved in economic activity, although economic activity rates are relatively low for both sexes. As shown in Table 31, almost seven percent of 7-14 year-old boys are at work in economic activity, against less than two percent of similarly-aged girls. The gap by sex in child economic activity rates rises with age, from seven percentage points for the 10-14 age group to 16 percentage points for the 15-17 age group, undoubtedly reflecting the different socially-dictated paths taken by boys and girls as they come of age. Child work in Panama is primarily a rural phenomenon; economic activity rates are below three percent for both boys and girls in urban areas. 102 Child labour in the Latin America and Caribbean region: a gender-based analysis School attendance: School attendance rates at the basic level are very high in Panama, with little difference by sex. Ninety-four percent of both boys and girls aged 7-14 years attend school. Attendance, however, falls off to around 70 percent among 15-17 year-olds, with a greater proportion of girls attending school. While some out of school children are engaged in work, others – about four percent of 7-14 year-old boys and girls – are inactive. This group of children is in some ways at a double disadvantage, benefiting neither from schooling nor the learning-by-doing that some forms of work offer. Table 31. Child involvement in economic activity, household chores and in school, by age group and sex % involved in % involved in % performing % enrolled Age group economic activity household chores (1) “double duty�(2) in school Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female 10-14 9.1 2.1 18.1 31.9 -- -- 92.5 93.1 15-17 25.9 10.2 25.5 48.7 -- -- 68.5 72.1 7-14 6.5 1.4 14.8 24.7 -- -- 93.8 94.5 5-17 9.5 3.1 14.5 26.1 -- -- 84.3 85.2 Notes: (1) Children performing household chores for at least 14 hours per week; (2) Children involved in both economic activity and household chores for significant amounts of time each week (i.e., at least14 weekly hours for each activity) Involvement in household chores: Panamanian households are much more likely to assign responsibility for household chores to girls. Among 10-14 year-olds, girls’ involvement in household chores (for at least 14 hours per week)54 is nearly twice that of boys for both the 7-14 and 15-17 years age groups. There is thus a clear pattern of specialisation by sex in children’s work in Panama, in keeping with traditional gender roles, that sees boys in economic activity and girls in activities relating to the functioning of the household. Total work involvement (i.e., economic activity or household chores): Combining economic activity and household chores (and eliminating the overlapping category of children performing both), provides an indication of children’s total work involvement. As shown in Figure 65, girls’ involvement in work is higher than that of boys using this measure across all age groups. This underscores the fact that the economic activity rate – 54 As housework is very common for both boys and girls, and some light housework is considered a normal and even beneficial part of childhood in most societies, children performing housework for less than 14 hours per week are not considered here. 103 Child labour in the Latin America and Caribbean region: a gender-based analysis the most commonly used measure of children’s work – alone is a misleading indicator of girls’ total work involvement. Figure 65. Children’s total work involvement, by sex and age, Panama 53.3 male female 43.8 33.3 percent 28.2 25.5 25.7 22.5 20.2 10-14 15-17 7-14 5-17 AGE GROUPS Involvement in child labour: Child labour is the subset of children’s work that is injurious, negative or undesirable to children and that should be targeted for elimination. Minimum working age, as defined by ILO Convention No. 138, is typically used as the main criterion for estimating child labour. Panama, upon ratifying ILO Convention No. 138 in 1990, set the general minimum working age at 14 years. Therefore, all economically active children below the age of 14, with the exception of 12- and 13-year- olds in “light work�, may be thought of as being in child labour. But housework that is too time-consuming (defined here as exceeding 28 hours per week)55 can also affect children’s welfare, and should therefore also be considered as child labour. As shown in the Figure 66, boys form a much larger share of under-aged children in economic activity, while the share of children performing household chores for over the 28-hour threshold is small for both sexes. When the two groups are put together, the proportion of boys in child labour is exceeds that of girls, though child labour levels are relatively low for both sexes. 55 This time threshold is supported by preliminary UNICEF research looking at the effects of housework on schooling in Africa. Very little research on the impact of children’s housework has been conducted in the Latin American context; this time threshold, therefore, should be considered as only tentative. 104 Child labour in the Latin America and Caribbean region: a gender-based analysis Figure 66. Children in child labour,* by sex and age, Panama 10 male female percent 4.6 4.7 2.5 1.8 1.8 0.9 0.9 0.6 0.1 (a) Economically active children (b) Economically active children (c) Children aged 5-14 (a)+(b) (a)+(b)+(c) aged 5-11 years aged 12-14 years excluding performing HH chores for an those in light-work average of at least 28 hrs./wk. *Notes (1): The stipulations contained in ILO Conventions Nos. 138 and 182 relating to hazardous work, excessively long work hours and unconditional worst forms, also extend to children aged 15-17 years. However, the 15-17 years age group is excluded because data on the nature of work performed by children in this age group are not currently available. (2) Does not include children in unconditional worst forms of child labour, because these forms are not captured in household surveys Average weekly working hours: Girls and boys appear to differ little in terms of their work intensity in Panama. Boys put in more weekly hours in economic activity, and girls more weekly hours in household chores, but the differences by sex in the intensity of both types of work are very small. Figure 67. Average weekly working hours, by age group, work type and sex, Panama 29.4 28.5 male female 22.8 19.9 hours 13.4 8.6 8.6 7 eco. act. (7-14 years) eco. act. (15-17 years) housework (7-14 years) housework (15-17 years) 105 Child labour in the Latin America and Caribbean region: a gender-based analysis Figure 68. Distribution of working children, by work sector and sex, Panama a) Males commerce 12.5 construction 1.4 agriculture 65.8 service 17.2 servant 2.1 other 2.5 b) Females construction 6.5 service 32.5 servant 1.2 commerce 25 agriculture 31.7 other 3.2 Work sector: The type of economic activities that children perform appears to depend to an important extent on their sex in Panama. Boys tend to work in family agriculture (two-thirds of them) with services and commercial activities coming a distant second and third (17 and 13 percent, respectively). Girls’ work, on the other hand, is more heterogeneous, spread across services (33 percent of female working children), agriculture (32 percent) and commerce (25 percent). The very different nature of girls’ and boys’ work suggests that different policy approaches are needed to address this work. 106 Child labour in the Latin America and Caribbean region: a gender-based analysis Figure 69. School attendance rates of children at work in economic activity, by age group and sex, Panama 69.2 66.1 male female 61.7 59 41.5 42.7 percent 31.5 25.7 10-14 15-17 7-14 5-17 AGE GROUP Figure 70. Rate of reported illness and injury, children at work in economic activity, by age group and sex, Panama male female 8.3 7.8 7.5 7.2 5.4 percent 4.9 2.4 1.4 10-14 15-17 7-14 5-17 AGE GROUP Work and school attendance: Working girls are somewhat more successful than their male counterparts in also attending school. Among 7-14 year-old working children, girls’ attendance exceeds boys’ by seven percentage points, and among 15-17 year-old working children, girls’ attendance is six percentage points higher than boys’. Both working girls and working boys lag substantially behind non-working children in terms of school attendance. The challenge in Panama is therefore to close the attendance gap between working and non-working children generally. Work and health: Working boys have higher levels of work-related illness and injury than working girls across all age groups, indicating that boys’ work may be more hazardous in nature. But the work-health relationship is difficult to measure, and caution should be exercised in reading too much into these findings. The health consequences of work, for example, may be obscured by the selection of the healthiest children to work, or by the fact that health consequences may not become apparent until a later stage in a child’s life. It may also be that it is not work per se that is damaging to 107 Child labour in the Latin America and Caribbean region: a gender-based analysis health but rather certain kinds of work, a fact that is concealed when looking at the prevalence of health problems averaged across all categories of child workers. 108 Child labour in the Latin America and Caribbean region: a gender-based analysis 8.10 VENEZUELA Table 32. Selected socio-economic indicators, Venezuela Indicator 1998 2000 2002 Population (millions) 23.2 24.2 25.1 Population growth (annual %) 2.0 1.9 1.8 National poverty rate (% of population) .. .. .. GDP (current $) (billions) 95.8 120.5 94.3 GDP growth (annual %) 0.2 3.2 -8.9 Access to improved water source (% of total pop.) .. 84.0 .. Access to improved sanitation (% of urban pop.) .. 75.0 .. M .. .. .. Under-five mortality rate F .. .. .. T .. 23.8 .. M .. .. .. Child malnutrition, weight for age (% of under 5) F .. .. .. T 5.3 4.4 .. M 7.5 6.9 .. Illiteracy rate (% population aged 15 and above) F 8.7 7.9 7.3 T 8.1 7.4 6.9 M .. 94.7 .. School attendance rate (%children aged 7-14) F .. 96.0 .. M .. 6.6 .. Economic activity rate (% children aged 7-14) F .. 2.0 .. Rate of involvement in household chores over 14 hours per M .. .. .. week (% children aged 7-14 years) F .. .. .. Source: World Bank, Development Indicators Database, 2003 Work in economic activity: Boys are much more likely than girls to be involved in economic activity, though levels of work are relatively low for both sexes. As shown in Table 33, 6.6 percent of 7-14 year-old boys are at work in economic compared to two percent of similarly-aged girls. The gap by sex in child economic activity rates rises with age, from 4.6 percentage points for the 7-14 age group to 19 percentage points for the 15-17 age group, undoubtedly reflecting the different socially-dictated paths taken by boys and girls as they come of age. For both boys and girls, work is more common in rural than in urban areas. 109 Child labour in the Latin America and Caribbean region: a gender-based analysis School attendance: The fact that boys are more involved in economic activity does not translate into their being less involved in school. School attendance is nearly universal for both boys and girls in the 7-14 years age group, at around 95 percent. Attendance falls off to 65 percent for boys and 70 percent for girls in the 15-17 years age range. Involvement in household chores: Unfortunately, information on involvement in household chores is not available for Venezuela, and therefore an indicator of total work involvement cannot be constructed. Table 33. Child involvement in economic activity, household chores and in school, by age group and sex % involved in % involved % performing % enrolled Age group economic activity in household chores (1) “double duty�(2) in school Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female 10-14 6.6 2 -- -- -- -- 93.2 95.3 15-17 27.4 8.4 -- -- -- -- 64.9 70 7-14 6.6 2 -- -- -- -- 94.7 96 5-17 14.2 4.3 -- -- -- -- 86.8 89 Notes: (1) Children performing household chores for at least 14 hours per week; (2) Children involved in both economic activity and household chores for significant amounts of time each week (i.e., at least14 weekly hours for each activity) Figure 71. Children in child labour,* by sex and age, Venezuela 8.4 male female 6 percent 2.4 1.9 1.7 1.3 n.a. n.a. (a) Economically active children (b) Economically active children (c) Children aged 5-14 performing (a)+(b) (a)+(b)+(c) aged 5-11 years aged 12-14 years excluding those HH chores for an average of at in light-work least 28 hrs./wk. *Notes (1): The stipulations contained in ILO Conventions Nos. 138 and 182 relating to hazardous work, excessively long work hours and unconditional worst forms, also extend to children aged 15-17 years. However, the 15-17 years age group is excluded because data on the nature of work performed by children in this age group are not currently available. (2) Does not include children in unconditional worst forms of child labour, because these forms are not captured in household surveys Involvement in child labour: Child labour is the subset of children’s work that is injurious, negative or undesirable to children and that should be targeted for elimination. Minimum working age, as defined by ILO Convention No. 138, is typically used as the main criterion for estimating 110 Child labour in the Latin America and Caribbean region: a gender-based analysis child labour. Venezuela, upon ratifying ILO Convention No. 138 in 1987, set the general minimum working age at 14 years. Therefore, all economically active children below the age of 14, with the exception of 12- and 13-year-olds in “light work�, may be thought of as being in child labour. The rate of child labour calculated on this basis is much higher for boys than girls – eight percent versus two percent. But applying this criterion alone has an inherent gender bias, as it considers children in economic activity, a category where boys dominate, but not children in housework, where girls dominate. Chores that are too strenuous or too time- consuming can pose risks to children’s health and development in the same ways as work in economic activity, arguing for their inclusion when looking at child labour. Figure 72. Average weekly working hours, by age group, work type and sex, Venezuela male female 38.4 33.1 33.9 working hours 25.4 n.a. n.a. eco. act. (7-14 years) eco. act. (15-17 years) HH chores (7-14 years) HH chores (15-17 years) AGE GROUPS/ACTIVITY TYPE Average weekly working hours: In the 7-14 years age group, boys put in a working week of around 33 hours and girls of around 25 hours. In the 15-17 years age group, boys spend an average of 39 hours per week in economic activity and girls an average of almost 34 hours. Again, however, it is important to also consider hours spent performing household chores, when assessing work intensity and how it differs by sex. 111 Child labour in the Latin America and Caribbean region: a gender-based analysis Figure 73. Distribution of working children, by work sector and sex, Venezuela a) Males Commerce 27 Service 7.3 Manufacturing 14 Agriculture 49 Construction 1.1 Other 1.7 b) Females Commerce 65.1 Service 17.8 Manufacturing 7.8 Agriculture 9.3 Work sector and modality: There is a considerable degree of specialisation by sex in the economic activities performed by children. Agriculture is by far the most important sector for working boys, accounting for one of every two male child workers. The commerce and manufacturing sectors are second and third in terms of importance for working boys, accounting for 27 percent and 14 percent, respectively, of male child workers. For working girls, on the other hand, the commercial sector is common, accounting for two of every three female working children, followed by the services and agriculture sectors. Included in the service sector are girl domestic servants working in private homes, a group particular vulnerable to abuse. Girls are much more likely than boys to work for their families, and much less likely than boys to work for wages (Appendix Table A7). The very different nature of girls’ and boys’ work suggests that different policy approaches are needed to address this work. 112 Child labour in the Latin America and Caribbean region: a gender-based analysis Figure 74. School attendance rates of children at work in economic activity, by age group and sex, Venezuela 85.4 85.4 male female 56.9 56.9 percent 50.2 35.5 35.8 26.8 10-14 15-17 7-14 5-17 AGE GROUPS Work and school attendance: Working girls are much more successful than their male counterparts in also attending school. Among 7-14 year-old working children, girls’ attendance exceeds boys’ by 28 percentage points, and among 15-17 year-old working children, girls’ attendance is nine percentage points higher than boys’. Both working girls and working boys lag substantially behind non-working children in terms of school attendance. Work and health: There is no information on reported injury or illness among children at work in economic activity in Venezuela. 113 Bibliography Amorim A., Rai P. & Murray U., 2004, “Annotated Bibliography on girl child labour�, Girl Child Labour Paper 4, ILO, Geneva. Archbishop’s Human Rights Office, 2000, “Annual Report on Childhood�, Guatemala. Ashagrie K., 1998, “Statistics on Working Children and Hazardous Child Labour in Brief�, International Labour Organization, Geneva. Assaad R., Levison D. & Zibani N., 2001, “The Effect of Child Work on School Enrolment in Egypt�, Working Paper 0111, Economic Research Forum for the Arab Countries, Iran and Turkey (ERF), Cairo, Egypt. Becker G., 1981, “A Treatise on the Family�, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass. Bhalotra S., 2000, “Investigating Separability of Parent and Child Labour�, Paper presented at the North American Winter Meeting of the Econometric Society, January 2003, Washington D.C. Bhalotra S. & Heady C., 2003, “Child Farm Labor: The Wealth Paradox�, The World Bank Economic Review 17, 197–227. Biggeri M., Guarcello L., Lyon S. & Rosati F., 2003, “The puzzle of ‘idle’ children: neither in school nor performing economic activity: Evidence from six countries�, Understanding Children’s Work Project draft working paper, August. Birdsall N., 1991, “Birth Order Effects and Time Allocation�, In T. Paul Schultz (ed.), Research in Population Economics. A Research Annual, vol. 7. Greenwich, CN and London: JAI Press. Blunch, N-H and Verner D., 2000, “Revisiting the Link between Poverty and Child Labor: The Ghanaian Experience�, World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No. 2488.Washington, D.C.: World Bank. Canagarajah, R. & Coulombe H., 1998, “Child Labor and Schooling in Ghana�, Working Paper Series 1844, The World Bank, Washington DC. 114 Child labour in the Latin America and Caribbean region: a gender-based analysis Cartwright K., 1999, “Child Labor in Columbia�, In Grootaert C. and Patrinos H., eds. The Policy Analysis of Child Labor: A Comparative Study, New York: St. Martin’s Press. Cartwright, K., and Patrinos, A., 1999. “Child Labor in Urban Bolivia.� In Grootaert, C. and Patrinos, H., eds. The Policy Analysis of Child Labor: A Comparative Study, New York: St. Martin’s Press. Cigno A. & Rosati, F., 1992, “The Effects of Financial Markets and Social Security on Saving and Fertility Behaviour in Italy� Journal of Population Economics 5, 319-341. Cigno A., 1993, “Intergenerational Transfers without Altruism: Family, Market and State�, European Journal of Political Economy 7, 505-518. Cigno, A. & Rosati F., 1996, “Jointly Determined Saving and Fertility Behaviour: Theory, and Estimates for Germany, Italy, UK, and USA�, European Economic Review 40, 1561-1589. Cigno, A., 1998, “Fertility Decisions when Infant Survival is Endogenous", Journal of Population Economics 11, 21-28. Cigno A., Giannelli G.C. & Rosati F., 1998, “Voluntary Transfers among Italian Households�, Structural Change and Economic Dynamics 9, 435-451. Cigno A., Rosati F. & Tzannatos Z., 2000, “Child Labor, Nutrition and Education in Rural India: an Economic Analysis of Parental Choice and Policy Options� World Bank Working Paper. Cigno A. & Pinal C., 2001, “Endogenous Child Mortality, Price of Child- Specific Goods and Fertility Decisions: Evidence from Argentina" in D. Heymann, F. Navajas & E. Bour (eds) Latin American Economies, Macmillan: London. Cigno A., Rosati F. & Tzannatos Z., 2002., “Child Labor Handbook.� Social Protection Discussion Paper 0206. Washington, D.C.:World Bank. Coulombe H., 1998, “Child Labour and Education in Côte d’Ivoire�, World Bank Working Paper Mimeo. Dar A., Blunch N, Kim B & Sasaki M., 2002, “Participation of Children in Schooling and Labor Activities: A Review of Empirical Studies�, World Bank, Social Protection Discussion Paper 0221, Washington, D.C. 115 Child labour in the Latin America and Caribbean region: a gender-based analysis Deb P. & Rosati F., 2002, “Determinants of Child Labor and School Attendance: The Role of Household Unobservables�, Understanding Children’s Work Project Working Paper. Deutsch R., 1998, “Does Child Care Pay? Labor Force Participation and Earnings Effects of Access to Child Care in the Favelas of Rio de Janeiro�, Working Paper 384, Inter-American Development Bank, Washington DC. Durryea S., 1999, “Children’s Advancement through School: The Role of Transitory Shocks to Household Income�, Working Paper 376, Inter-American Development Bank: Washington DC. Ejrnæs M. & Pörtner C., 2002, “Birth Order and the Intrahousehold Allocation of Time and Education�, University of Copenhagen, May. Entwisle B. & Winegarden C., 1984, “Fertility and Pension Programs in LDCs: a Model of Mutual Reinforcement�, Economic Development and Cultural Change 32, 331-354 Ertürk Y, 2004, “Gender, education and child labour in Turkey�, ILO, Ankara. Fafchamps M. & Quisumbing A., 1998, “Social Roles, Human Capital and the Intra household Division of Labor: Evidence from Pakistan�, Department of Economics, Stanford University, mimeograph. Fong M. & Lokshin M., 1999, “Childcare and Women’s Labor Force Participation in Romania,� The World Bank, mimeo. Food and Agriculture Organization, 2001, “Gender analysis of agricultural production systems, Gender fact sheets�, Rome. (internet) Galasso E., 1999, “Intra-household Allocation and Child Labor in Indonesia�, Paper presented at the Economist Forum, The World Bank. Glinskaya E., Garcia M., & Lokshin M., 2000, “The Effect of Early Childhood Development Programs on Women’s Labor Force Participation and Older Children’s Schooling in Kenya�, Policy Research Working Paper 2376, World Bank, Washington, D.C. Grimsrud B., 2003, “Millennium Development Goals and Child Labour�, UCW Working Paper, October. Grootaert, C. & Kanbur R., 1995, “Child Labor�, Policy Research Working Paper 1454, The World Bank, Washington DC. 116 Child labour in the Latin America and Caribbean region: a gender-based analysis Grootaert C., 1999, “Child Labor in Côte d’Ivoire: Incidence and Determinants.� In Grootaert C. & Patrinos H., eds. The Policy Analysis of Child Labor: A Comparative Study. New York: St. Martin’s Press. Grootaert C. & Patrinos H., 1999, “Policy Analysis of Child Labor: A Comparative Study�, St. Martin’s Press. Guarcello L. & Lyon S., 2003, “Children’s Work and Water Access in Yemen�, Understanding Children’s Work (UCW) Project Working Paper. Guarcello L., Lyon S. & Rosati F., 2004, “Impact of Working Time on Children’s Health and Safety�, Understanding Children’s Work (UCW) Project Working Paper, March. Guarcello L., Lyon S. & Rosati F., 2004, “Child labour and access to basic services: Evidence from five countries�, Understanding Children’s Work (UCW) Project Working Paper. Guarcello, L., 2004, “A review of child labour data from a gender perspective in Latin America�, ILO-UCW. Gustafsson-Wright E. & Pyne H., 2002, “Gender Dimensions of Child Labor and Street Children in Brazil�, World Bank Latin America and the Carabbean Region, Gender Sector Unit, World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 2897, Washington,D.C., October. Haspels, N. & Suriyasarn B., 2003, “Promotion of Gender Equality in actions against child labour and trafficking: a practical guide for organizations� ILO, Bangkok. Ilahi N. & Grimard F., 1999, “Public Infrastructure and Private Costs: Water Supply and Time Allocation of Women in Rural Pakistan�, Economic Development and Cultural Change, forthcoming. Ilahi N., 1999, “Gender and the Allocation of Adult Time: Evidence from the Peru LSMS Panel Data� The World Bank, mimeograph. Ilahi N., 2000, “The Intra-household Allocation of Time and Tasks:What Have We Learnt from the Empirical Literature�, Policy Research Report on Gender and Development Working Paper Series 13, World Bank, Washington D.C. 117 Child labour in the Latin America and Caribbean region: a gender-based analysis Ilahi N., 2001, “Children’s work and schooling: Does gender matter? Evidence from the Peru LSMS panel data�, World Bank, Paper for the policy research report on gender, December. ILO/IPEC, 2003, “Gender mainstreaming in actions against child labour� ILO, Geneva. ILO/IPEC, 2004a, “Gender, education and child labour in Lebanon�, ILO Beirut. ILO/IPEC, 2004b, “Gender, education and child labour in Egypt�, ILO, Cairo. ILO/IPEC, 2004c, “Girl Child Labour in domestic work, sexual exploitation and agriculture: rapid assessments in the Philippines, Ghana and Ecuador�, Girl child labour Paper 1, ILO, Geneva. ILO/IPEC, 2004d, “A Comparative Analysis: Girl Child Labour in domestic work, sexual exploitation and agriculture in the Philippines, Ghana and Ecuador�, Girl child labour studies 2, ILO, Geneva. ILO/IPEC, 2004e, “Child Labour data review: a gender perspective�, Girl child labour Paper 3, ILO, Geneva. ILO/IPEC, 2004f, “Gender Equality and Child Labour: a tool for facilitators�, ILO, Geneva. ILO/IPEC, 2004g, “Gender and Street Children in Bucharest: a rapid Assessment�, Bucharest. ILO/IPEC, 2004h, “A gender review of child labour publications in Tanzania�, Dar es Salaam, 2004. ILO/IPEC, 2004i, “Buenas Practicas en el combate al trabajo infantil domestico: una perspectiva de genero�, San Jose. ILO/ IPEC, 2004j, “Trabajo Infantil Domestico en America Central: Una perspective de Genero�, San Jose. ILO-/IPEC, ANDI, 2004, “Trabalho Infantil e Genero: Uma leitura da Midia do MERCOSUL�, Brasilia, 2004, upcoming, English / Spanish. Jacoby H. & Skoufias, E., 1997, “Risk, Financial Markets and Human Capital in a Developing Country�, Review of Economic Studies 64, 311-335. 118 Child labour in the Latin America and Caribbean region: a gender-based analysis Levison D. & Moe K., 1998, “Household Work as a Deterrent to Schooling: An Analysis of Adolescent Girls in Peru�, Journal of Developing Areas 32 (3), 339-356. Liu A., 1998, “School Children’s Participation Behaviour in Vietnam: An Empirical Analysis�, The Twelfth Annual Conference of the European Society for Population Economics, Amsterdam, Netherlands. Kevane M. & Wydick B., 1998, “Social Norms and the Time allocation of Women’s Labor in Burkina Faso�, Economics Department, University of Santa Clara, mimeograph Mason A. & Khandker S., 1997, “Household Schooling Decisions in Tanzania�, The World Bank, Washington DC. mimeograph. Murray U., Amorim A. & Piprell C., 2003, “Good Practices: Gender mainstreaming in actions against child labor�, ILO/IPEC, Geneva. Nielsen Helena S., 1998, “Child Labor and Schooling in Zambia.� World Bank working paper. Nugent J. & Gillaspy R., 1983, “Old Age Pensions and Fertility in Rural Areas of Less Developed Countries: Some Evidence from Mexico�, Economic Development and Cultural Change 31, 809-830. Parish W. & Willis R., 1993, “Daughters, Education, and Family Budgets: Taiwan Experiences�, Journal of Human Resources vol. 28, no. 4, 863- 898. Patrinos H. & Psacharopoulos G., 1995, “Educational Performance and Child Labor in Paraguay�, International Journal of Educational Development 15(1). Patrinos H. & Psacharopoulos G., 1997, “Family size, schooling and child labor in Peru – An empirical analysis,� Journal of Population Economics 10(4), 387-406. Pitt M. & Rosenzweig R., 1990, “Estimating the Intrahousehold Incidence of Illness: Child Health and Gender-Inequality in the Allocation of Time�, International Economic Review 31, 969-989. Psacharopoulos G., 1997, “Child labor versus educational attainment: Some evidence from Latin America�, Journal of Population Economics 10, 377-386. 119 Child labour in the Latin America and Caribbean region: a gender-based analysis Ravallion M. & Wodon Q., 1999, “Does Child Labor Displace Schooling? Evidence on Behavioral Responses to an Enrollment Subsidy�, The World Bank, mimeo. Ray R., 1998, “Analysis of Child Labour in Peru and Pakistan: A Comparative Study�, University of Tasmania, Australia, mimeo. Ray, R., 2000, “Child Labor, Child Schooling, and Their Interaction with Adult Labor: Empirical Evidence for Peru and Pakistan�, The World Bank Economic Review 14 (2), 347–67. Rosati F., 1996, “Social Security in a Non-Altruistic Model with Uncertainty and Endogenous Fertility", Journal of Public Economics 60, 283-294 Rosati F. & Tzannatos Z., 2000, "Child Labor in Vietnam: An Economic Analysis", World Bank Unpublished Working Paper: Washington DC Rosati F. & Rossi M., 2002, “Children’s working hours, school enrolment and human capital accumulation: Evidence from Nicaragua and Pakistan�, Understanding Children’s Work (UCW) Project Working Paper. Sakellariou C. and Lall A., 1999, “Child Labor in the Philippines� In Grootaer, C. and Patrinos H., eds. The Policy Analysis of Child Labor: A Comparative Study. NewYork: St. Martin’s Press. Sasaki M. & Temesgen T., 1999, “Children in Different Activities: Child Labor and Schooling in Peru�, Draft, World Bank, Washington, D.C. Skoufias E., 1993, “Labor Market Opportunities and Interfamily Time Allocation in Rural Households in South Asia�, Journal of Development Economics 40, 277-310. Tunali I., 1997, “Young Hands at Work: Child Labor in Turkey.� Department of Economics, Koc University, Istanbul, Turkey, mimeo. World Bank, 2001, “Engendering Development Through Gender Equality in Rights, Resources and Voice�, World Bank policy research report, January. 120 Appendix. Detailed descriptive tables Table A1. Proportion of children at work in economic activity (at least one hour during reference week) Age in years Entire Country Sex age 7-14 10-14 15-17 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 range male - - 3.8 0.4 3.6 3.8 6.2 12.3 9.4 18.3 24 31.9 19 11.7 7.2 9.7 25.4 Urban female - - 1.2 0.9 0 5.4 8.8 8.9 13.9 15.8 10.3 30.4 17.9 10.5 6.8 10.3 19.9 Bolivia male - - 26.9 28.3 39.2 39.5 36.9 38.5 57.9 62.5 59.5 62.9 71.6 45.4 40.5 45.7 63.8 Rural female - - 17.9 30.8 29.2 26.3 35.3 48.5 46.8 50 50.8 51.3 64.8 39.1 35 40.9 55.2 male - - 12.9 11.9 19 17.4 17.8 24.9 26.6 33.2 37 42.7 35.7 24.7 20.4 23.6 38.7 Total female - - 8.8 12.3 11.8 13.8 18.5 24 25.7 30.3 23.6 35.7 32.6 21.1 18.0 22.1 30.4 male 0.2 0.2 0.6 1.3 1.4 3.4 4.8 6.3 10.1 14 21.5 31 41.7 10.8 5.3 7.8 31.3 Urban female 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.6 0.7 1.7 2.9 4.4 5.1 7.6 13.5 19.3 26.1 6.6 2.9 4.4 19.6 male 0.4 3.9 5.5 6.5 12.5 25.7 32.5 37.4 47.3 53.5 62.4 71.5 76.5 34.1 27.7 39.5 70 Brazil Rural female 1.1 2.8 2 4.4 4.9 11.6 14.5 16.6 21.7 24.7 29.3 35.9 38.4 15.7 12.4 17.9 34.5 male 0.2 0.9 1.5 2.3 3.4 7.5 10.1 12.2 17.5 21.4 29.1 38.4 47.9 15.2 9.5 13.8 38.4 Total female 0.3 0.7 0.6 1.3 1.5 3.5 4.8 6.6 8.2 10.6 16.1 21.9 28 8.2 4.6 6.8 22 male - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Urban female - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - male - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Colombia Rural female - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - male 2.9 3.9 5.4 10.0 10.6 16.9 16.0 20.2 23.2 35.6 39.1 38.2 43.4 19.8 16.6 22 40.3 Total female 0.8 3.3 1.9 5.2 5.0 6.0 9.1 9.3 11.5 15.5 18.1 17.3 19.9 9.0 7.7 10.2 18.4 male 0.3 1.5 1.2 1.8 5.6 3 4.1 5.6 5.8 10.8 11.6 17.6 33.2 8.2 4.5 5.7 21.4 Urban female 1.1 1.6 1 0.3 0.4 1.1 1.4 0.6 3.6 1.3 8.3 5.5 12.6 3.3 1.3 1.6 9.1 male 3.1 4.9 5.6 8.9 9.9 12.5 15.7 14.4 25.3 32.3 41.3 49.1 55.5 21.8 15.8 20.2 48.8 Costa Rica Rural female 1.8 3.4 6.5 2 5.1 4.8 7.2 5.6 8.4 9.5 16.2 20 23.4 8.7 6.1 6.9 19.5 male 1.5 3.1 3.2 4.6 7.7 7.4 9.3 9.6 15 22.2 24.3 31.8 42.4 14.3 9.7 12.5 33.2 Total female 1.4 2.4 3.4 1 2.9 3 4.1 3 5.6 4.9 11.9 11.9 16.5 5.8 3.5 4.1 13.5 male 2 4.2 12.2 17.6 15.9 20.5 21.1 25.6 32.5 35.8 46.4 42.3 47 24.1 22.2 26.5 45.3 Urban female 0.6 0.6 3.9 7.4 9.5 8.1 10.8 8.5 9.8 8.3 13.2 16.1 20 8.7 8.4 9.2 16.1 Dominican male 5.7 7.2 15.9 17.6 22.4 30.2 23.4 41.5 44.6 44.3 49.5 51.3 65.9 29.3 28.4 35.6 54.4 Rural Republic female 5.5 2.3 4.8 4.4 8 8.6 10.2 9.5 11.3 13.7 16.3 17.8 20.1 9.5 8.7 10.6 17.8 male 3.5 5.5 13.8 17.6 18.4 24.2 22 31.7 37.2 38.6 47.5 45.8 53 26.1 24.6 30.0 48.5 Total female 2.4 1.3 4.3 6.3 8.9 8.3 10.6 8.9 10.4 10.5 14.4 16.7 20.1 9 8.5 9.7 16.8 El male 0.6 1.0 0.8 1.1 2.2 3.6 5.9 10.3 10.1 17.0 18.8 25.7 25.9 8.9 6.2 9.3 23.3 Urban Salvador female 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.6 1.8 3.8 3.5 7.0 8.4 17.2 14.9 12.4 16.6 6.5 5.1 7.7 14.7 I Table A1. Proportion of children at work in economic activity (at least one hour during reference week) male 0.3 2.2 1.3 5.0 9.5 14.3 17.5 25.5 35.4 43.4 51.3 50.5 64.3 23.5 18.8 27.1 55.6 Rural El female 0.0 0.3 1.0 1.5 0.5 4.2 3.6 5.2 11.0 17.1 16.1 22.1 22.2 7.5 5.6 8.2 20.0 Salvador male 0.4 1.6 1.0 2.8 5.9 8.6 11.6 18.0 22.3 29.7 33.6 37.2 45.4 16.0 12.3 17.9 38.6 Total female 0.3 0.3 0.6 1.0 1.2 4.0 3.6 6.1 9.6 17.1 15.4 16.7 18.8 7.0 5.3 8.0 16.9 male 2.3 2 1.7 6.2 7.5 13.4 10.5 18.7 29 32.2 57.2 50.5 54.7 20.3 14.3 21 54.3 Urban female 0 1 3.7 2.6 4.2 4.6 9.4 16.3 19.9 30.1 37.3 37.6 44.6 15.7 11.7 16.6 39.7 male 1.9 3 8.4 12.5 17.7 23.1 35.5 44.2 58.6 68.1 73.8 81.4 84.2 39.2 32 44.4 79.6 Guatemala Rural female 1.0 2.2 4.2 5 11.1 15 22 16.1 24 32.1 31.7 41.5 30.5 18.0 15.2 21.4 34.6 male 2 2.7 6 10.3 13.7 20 28.2 35.4 48 54.9 68.2 70.4 73.8 30.5 25.9 36.5 70.8 Total female 0.7 1.8 4 4.1 8.8 11.6 17.4 16.2 22.3 31.3 33.8 40.1 35.9 16.1 13.9 19.7 36.5 male 0.2 1.1 0.3 3.8 2 7.5 9 8.2 13.1 22.5 33.7 38.3 42.3 12.9 7.9 11.7 38.3 Urban female 0 0.4 0.8 0.9 3.2 5.8 5.6 7.5 9.5 14.4 21 28.5 22 9.3 5.9 8.5 23.8 male 0.7 1 2.4 6 9.2 13.7 19.8 31.5 51.2 58.6 72.6 75.9 85.3 29.2 22.7 33.3 77.2 Honduras Rural female 0.3 0.9 0.3 1.8 2.9 4.9 4.4 12.7 10 16.1 17.7 20.9 16.5 7.4 6.3 9.4 18.5 male 0.5 1 1.4 5.1 6.1 11.3 15.3 21.8 33.7 43.9 57.4 59.6 63.7 22.3 16.5 24.3 60.1 Total female 0.2 0.7 0.5 1.4 3 5.3 4.9 10.5 9.8 15.3 19.3 24.7 19.4 8.2 6.1 9 21.2 male 0.0 1.3 2.3 4.8 5.4 9.3 12.5 20.9 23.4 26.1 37.4 39.2 44.5 16.0 12.0 18.3 40.3 Urban female 0.4 1.1 0.5 2.3 2.9 4.3 8.0 7.9 14.4 12.9 16.2 25.2 29.9 8.8 6.1 9.5 23.4 Nicaragua male 3.9 3.6 9.3 15.6 24.8 36.6 39.6 41.4 58.2 68.3 75.6 74.7 81.6 36.9 34.1 48.2 77.3 Rural female 0.0 2.3 3.2 8.7 5.4 11.1 13.7 17.9 23.4 22.5 25.4 30.6 41.5 13.4 12.1 17.2 31.4 male 1.9 2.5 5.6 9.6 14.7 22.1 25.1 29.9 41.4 43.6 55.1 54.1 61 25.7 22.2 32.1 56.7 Total female 0.2 1.7 1.8 5.1 4.1 7.6 10.7 12.5 18.2 17 20 27.5 34 10.9 8.9 13.0 26.6 male 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 1.9 0.7 2.4 2.7 6.4 6.7 15.1 7.2 18.7 4.6 2.5 3.6 13.9 Urban female 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 1.3 1.3 0.9 0.7 3.8 4.9 5.0 12.1 2.3 1.0 1.6 7.4 male 0.7 1.1 3.2 5.7 3.3 8.0 10.5 14.4 22.9 25.6 32.1 43.5 55.7 15.7 11.3 15.8 43.4 Panama Rural female 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.3 1.7 1.7 1.5 2.3 4.2 4.7 15.5 13.0 16.5 4.0 1.9 2.8 14.9 male 0.3 0.5 1.6 2.6 2.5 4.1 5.7 8.3 13.7 15.3 22.0 21.7 34.0 9.5 6.5 9.1 25.9 Total female 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.8 1.4 1.3 1.5 2.1 4.1 9.3 8.0 13.6 3.1 1.4 2.1 10.2 male 0.6 1.0 0.9 2.5 2.8 7.8 7.6 13.6 15.5 18.6 26.2 30.0 37.5 12.3 8.7 12.6 41.9 Urban female 0.7 0.8 0.6 1.1 0.9 2.3 2.8 5.3 9.1 9.4 15.5 15.7 20.6 6.2 3.7 5.8 25.4 male 6.5 12.4 15.0 18.3 19.2 26.4 29.4 42.6 54.5 59.6 64.4 68.9 68.9 36.6 32.8 30.8 67.4 Ecuador Rural female 5.0 7.4 8.7 16.8 14.4 16.4 19.6 25.7 27.6 36.4 43.3 39.2 43.7 22.8 20.6 17.3 41.9 male 3.4 5.8 7.0 9.9 9.9 16.4 17.5 26.8 32.7 36.0 41.7 47.6 51.9 23.1 19.4 19.0 50.6 Total female 2.7 3.7 4.1 7.6 6.4 8.5 10.5 14.8 17.1 22.5 27.6 26.0 30.1 13.5 11.2 10.0 31.1 male - - - - - 0 0.9 0 0 2 9.3 7 23 5.4 0.6 0.6 13.5 Urban female - - - - - 0.9 0 0 0 1.8 3.1 3.2 8.4 2.3 0.6 0.6 5 male - - - - - 2.2 3.2 6.2 10.8 14.7 22.4 30.7 34.9 15.3 7.4 7.4 29.2 Venezuela Rural female - - - - - 0.9 1.9 1.7 1.8 4.7 6.2 7.6 13.2 4.6 2.2 2.2 8.9 male - - - - - 2 2.9 5.5 9.6 13.2 20.8 28.2 33.4 14.2 6.6 6.6 27.4 Total female - - - - - 0.9 1.7 1.5 1.6 4.3 5.8 7.1 12.5 4.3 2 2 8.4 II Table A2. Child labour among 5-14 year-olds (a) (b) (c) Child labour estimates for 5-14 year-olds(3) Economically active children Economically active children Children aged 5-14 (a)+(b) (a)+(b)+(c) Country Sex aged 5-11 years(2) aged 12-14 years excluding performing HH chores for an as a percentage of children as a percentage of those in light-work average of at least 28 hours aged 5-14 children aged 5-14 per week male 3.6 11.5 - 6.5 - Urban female 3.4 10 - 5.8 - Bolivia male 34.5 41.4 - 37 - Rural female 27.6 38.6 - 31.5 - male 16 23.2 - 18.6 - Total female 13.1 21.1 - 16 - male 1.7 7 - 3.3 - Urban female 0.9 3.7 - 1.7 - male 12.6 36.7 - 20.0 - Brazil Rural female 5.8 13.8 - 8.1 - male 3.7 12.7 - 6.4 - Total female 1.8 5.5 - 2.9 - male - - - - - Urban female - - - - - male - - - - - Colombia Rural female - - - - - male 9.6 16.2 3.1 11.4 14.4 Total female 4.5 6.5 4.4 5.0 9.1 male 2.5 2.5 0.6 2.5 3.0 Urban female 1.0 0.3 0.9 0.8 1.6 male 8.8 11.7 0.7 9.7 10.3 Costa Rica Rural female 4.5 2.9 2.2 4.0 6.2 male 5.3 6.6 0.6 5.8 6.3 Total female 2.6 1.4 1.5 2.3 3.7 male 13.6 23.7 10.1 16.4 24.8 Urban female 6.1 4.6 9.9 5.7 14.9 Dominican male 17.6 25.3 10.8 19.4 27.2 Rural Republic female 6.2 4.8 12.5 5.8 17.7 male 15.2 24.3 10.4 17.6 25.7 Total female 6.1 4.7 10.9 5.7 16 male 2.1 10.3 0.3 4.5 4.7 Urban female 1.5 8.7 0.7 3.5 4.1 El Salvador male 7.0 28.5 0.6 13.5 13.8 Rural female 1.6 8.6 2.8 3.7 6.4 III Table A2. Child labour among 5-14 year-olds male 4.4 19.3 0.4 8.8 9.1 El Salvador Total female 1.5 8.6 1.7 3.6 5.2 male 7.5 22.4 4.1 12.9 16.2 Urban female 4.7 17.9 14.3 10.0 22.8 male 19.0 47.4 6.3 29.0 34.0 Guatemala Rural female 10.7 20.8 21.2 14.1 32.0 male 15.1 38.5 5.5 23.4 27.8 Total female 8.7 19.7 18.8 12.7 28.8 male 3.3 10.8 5.7 5.5 10.8 Urban female 2.4 8.4 9.3 4.2 12.6 Honduras male 7.5 37.3 8.2 15.7 21.6 Rural female 2.2 9.4 15.4 4.1 18.3 male 5.8 26 7.1 11.4 17.1 Total female 2.2 9 12.9 4.2 15.9 male 4.9 21.5 3.9 9.3 15.1 Urban female 2.6 10.9 8.9 4.9 15.2 male 18.1 51.4 7.4 26.6 37.8 Nicaragua Rural female 6.3 19.2 14.6 9.5 26.3 male 8.5 27.2 5.5 13.5 17.7 Total female 3.3 9.7 11.5 4.9 15.4 male 0.8 4.4 0.0 1.8 1.8 Urban female 0.4 1.0 0.4 0.6 1.0 Panama male 4.7 16.6 0.2 8.1 8.2 Rural female 0.8 2.9 1.5 1.4 2.9 male 2.5 10.0 0.1 4.6 4.7 Total female 0.6 1.8 0.9 0.9 1.8 male 3.4 13.0 0.8 6.3 7.0 Urban female 1.3 6.5 1.1 2.7 3.6 male 18.5 45.2 0.8 26.4 26.7 Ecuador Rural female 12.6 25.5 1.2 16.5 16.7 male 12.4 27.8 0.8 17.0 17.5 Total female 7.8 15.9 1.1 10.8 10.8 male 0.4 0.7 - 0.6 - Urban female 0.5 0.7 - 0.6 - male 2.7 9.4 - 6.6 - Rural Venezuela* female 1.4 2 - 1.8 - male 2.4 8.4 - 6 - Total female 1.3 1.9 - 1.7 - Note: Guatemala children aged 7 and older IV Table A3. Proportion of children involved in household chores (at least one hour during reference week) Age in years Entire Country Sex age 7-14 10-14 15-17 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 range male - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Urban female - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - male - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Colombia Rural female - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - male 37.9 54.5 66.4 69.1 72.5 75.5 74.3 75.5 81.6 78.6 75.3 67.3 69.7 69.4 73.8 77 70.8 Total female 48.2 52 62.1 72.2 82.9 79.5 89.5 89.5 90.1 94 89.1 92.5 88.6 78.5 81.6 88.3 90.1 male 17.1 23.5 30.8 32.6 39.2 28.9 47.6 47.0 44.8 59.4 44.9 46.4 50.2 39.4 40.6 45.2 45.2 Urban female 17.0 32.1 35.2 40.7 47.9 59.7 52.4 67.6 62.8 68.4 71.3 65.7 78.9 55.0 54.3 62.1 62.1 male 19.9 26.5 37.0 39.1 42.9 46.0 47.8 44.5 48.5 45.9 37.7 45.0 37.4 40.3 44.0 46.5 46.5 Costa Rica Rural female 23.1 35.7 50.4 45.0 55.1 63.5 68.8 71.2 72.8 80.5 81.9 81.0 82.4 62.7 63.2 70.7 70.7 male 18.3 24.9 33.5 35.2 41.0 36.9 47.7 45.9 46.5 52.3 41.8 45.8 44.9 39.8 42.2 45.8 45.8 Total female 19.8 33.7 41.9 42.5 51.7 61.6 60.0 69.3 66.9 73.7 76.2 72.4 80.2 58.4 58.4 66.1 66.1 male 35.0 45.7 61.4 55.7 59.2 61.2 61.2 63.5 60.3 60.4 47.8 52.4 39.7 54.4 60.3 61.3 46.9 Urban female 42.8 58.9 64.7 75.3 79.8 84.5 86.0 89.2 89.0 91.4 91.9 92.4 91.2 79.1 82.3 87.7 91.9 Dominican male 36.5 51.0 60.7 69.4 70.5 68.9 74.4 72.5 68.0 61.5 63.2 54.2 50.0 62.0 68.4 69.6 56.4 Rural Republic female 56.9 70.9 75.2 83.1 86.9 90.8 89.0 90.4 92.9 94.5 93.5 91.0 95.9 84.7 87.6 91.5 93.2 male 35.6 48.0 61.1 61.6 63.7 64.2 66.7 67.1 63.4 60.7 53.4 53.1 43.1 57.4 63.6 64.6 50.4 Total female 48.2 63.8 69.2 78.3 82.7 86.9 87.0 89.7 90.5 92.7 92.5 91.8 93.0 81.3 84.4 89.1 92.4 male 15.5 18.5 19.9 22.6 28.9 30.6 30.8 30.3 34.5 35.4 45.1 34.1 39.4 29.6 29.0 32.3 43.6 Urban female 14.6 16.4 25.6 23.8 31.4 27.3 30.5 29.8 36.5 36.4 38.9 33.8 32.7 28.8 29.8 32.0 38.1 male 12.7 25.3 19.4 36.2 36.5 37.0 39.7 49.9 46.8 45.3 49.2 43.1 46.6 37.4 38.8 39.7 46.2 Ecuador Rural female 13.8 19.2 29.8 34.7 32.7 32.1 36.9 37.0 38.9 45.2 52.9 47.8 50.3 35.9 35.9 35.1 50.3 male 14.2 21.4 19.7 28.9 32.2 33.6 34.8 39.2 39.9 39.6 46.8 38.1 42.7 33.1 33.4 34.9 44.5 Total female 14.3 17.6 27.5 28.3 31.9 29.5 33.4 33.2 37.5 40.6 45.0 39.9 39.9 31.9 32.5 33.2 42.3 male 20.0 29.8 40.3 53.6 65.6 64.6 73.1 70.5 68.3 72.9 72.3 66.0 61.8 57.9 63.1 69.7 67.0 Urban female 20.9 28.0 42.2 55.5 67.5 80.4 81.6 90.5 91.1 89.9 84.6 87.7 86.6 68.5 74.7 86.7 86.3 male 20.4 30.9 50.0 59.4 65.6 70.4 77.1 74.1 72.0 68.6 55.8 51.2 40.4 56.6 67.1 72.4 49.0 El Salvador Rural female 19.8 38.0 61.9 75.5 82.2 88.7 92.5 96.1 96.0 92.5 92.9 89.0 90.4 77.3 85.7 93.1 90.8 male 20.2 30.3 45.0 56.1 65.6 67.3 75.1 72.3 70.1 70.8 64.9 59.2 51.1 57.3 65.0 71.0 58.5 Total female 20.4 32.5 51.7 65.3 74.2 84.6 86.8 93.1 93.4 91.3 88.2 88.3 88.1 72.6 80.0 89.8 88.2 V Table A3. Proportion of children involved in household chores (at least one hour during reference week) male - - 35.9 54.8 53.3 64.4 63.9 62.4 61.9 60.2 50.1 44.2 61.3 55.3 56.2 62.5 52.3 Urban female - - 60.9 72 71.5 65.3 85.8 86.7 86.2 79.4 82.2 89.7 83.4 78.3 76.0 80.8 85.0 male - - 52.3 54.2 54.9 60.5 58.7 58.9 56.6 49.6 40.8 44.6 46.5 53.1 55.8 57.2 43.9 Guatemala Rural female - - 68.1 73.9 82.6 85 90 94.5 90.9 89.3 91.7 91.8 91.9 85.4 83.4 89.8 91.8 male - - 46.5 54.4 54.3 61.8 60.2 60.1 58.5 53.5 43.9 44.5 51.7 53.9 56.0 59.0 46.8 Total female - - 65.9 73.3 78.9 78.6 88.5 91.7 88.9 85.3 88.1 91.1 88.7 82.8 80.8 86.4 89.2 male 41 59.2 68.1 77.1 77.5 82.6 84.5 82.9 84.9 79.4 74.8 73.6 62.8 72.9 79.4 83 70.2 Urban female 47.9 64.6 71.1 81.5 87.1 90.1 89.7 91.7 96.4 90.1 89.6 92.3 88.7 83 87.1 91.6 90.2 male 56.9 67.7 77.1 81.4 91.3 87 86.9 85.3 82.8 82.9 73.1 66.4 63.3 77.5 84.3 85.1 68.1 Honduras Rural female 50.9 73.5 83 90.2 94.7 95.9 94 96.3 98.9 94.8 95 91.4 94.9 87.8 93.3 96 93.7 male 50.6 64.1 73.1 79.7 85.4 85.3 85.9 84.3 83.8 81.5 73.7 69.5 63 75.6 82.2 84.2 69 Total female 49.7 70 78.2 86.7 91.5 93.6 92.1 94.3 97.8 92.6 92.3 91.9 91.4 85.7 90.7 94.1 91.9 male 19.6 31.7 43.0 48.8 58.0 54.7 67.2 66.4 70.0 68.4 66.6 62.8 59.5 54.2 58.2 64.9 63.0 Urban female 21.1 33.7 45.7 62.4 65.5 73.7 81.3 85.2 85.3 87.5 87.1 85.7 83.0 67.6 71.8 82.5 85.4 Nicaragua male 21.2 39.5 51.6 54.9 64.5 66.3 70.2 62.7 55.9 54.9 44.3 52.0 40.8 52.3 59.8 62.1 45.5 Rural female 26.5 41.3 56.0 64.2 77.9 80.3 78.4 79.5 87.3 83.7 87.4 82.4 82.0 69.5 74.6 81.5 84.2 male 20.4 35.6 47.1 51.5 61.1 60.1 68.6 64.8 62.7 62.8 56.3 58.3 51.2 53.3 58.9 64.9 63.0 Total female 23.5 37.4 50.7 63.2 71.3 76.9 79.9 82.6 86.1 85.9 87.2 84.3 82.7 68.5 73.1 82.5 85.4 male 25.7 38.4 47.2 59.5 60.7 70.7 72.6 74.4 76.4 79.7 80.6 78.1 82.0 64.3 67.2 74.4 80.2 Urban female 31.1 39.1 59.8 73.1 74.6 79.3 82.3 83.4 90.9 93.3 88.4 85.3 88.3 74.9 79.8 85.8 87.3 male 27.1 41.8 55.3 67.5 71.1 73.2 79.6 78.8 83.0 80.5 78.4 76.0 78.8 65.9 72.8 78.5 77.8 Panama Rural female 36.3 52.1 65.8 73.3 78.8 84.8 89.0 94.8 89.0 92.1 92.5 86.3 91.2 77.1 82.8 89.8 90.1 male 26.4 39.9 50.8 63.1 65.2 71.8 75.3 76.4 79.0 80.0 79.8 77.5 81.1 64.9 69.6 76.1 79.5 Total female 33.5 45.1 62.7 73.2 76.4 81.7 85.3 88.2 90.1 92.8 90.0 85.6 89.2 75.8 81.1 87.5 88.2 Note: Bolivia/Brazil/Venezuela; no information on household chores VI Table A4. Proportion of children involved in household chores (at least 28 hours during reference week) Age in years Entire Country Sex age 7-14 10-14 15-17 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 range male - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Urban female - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - male - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Colombia Rural female - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - male 3.0 3.8 3.1 5.7 2.6 3.3 2.0 2.5 2.5 2.5 1.9 5.0 4.2 3.3 3.1 2.6 3.7 Total female 3.4 2.8 3.7 5.1 3.9 4.0 4.0 5.7 4.7 7.1 11.0 14.3 17.6 6.4 4.8 5.1 14.2 male 1.3 0.3 0 0 0 0.7 0 0.4 0.7 3 0 3.7 1.1 0.8 0.5 0.9 1.6 Urban female 0 1.1 0 0 0.9 0 0 0.7 2.1 4 9.4 10.1 22.4 4.4 1.0 1.4 14.4 male 0 0.3 0.4 0 0 0.7 1.6 2.1 0.3 1.2 0.4 0.8 3.1 0.9 0.8 1.2 1.4 Costa Rica Rural female 0.6 0 0.8 0 0.5 0.8 2.2 4.3 7.5 6.6 16.6 19.3 24.8 6.4 2.7 4.0 19.9 male 0.8 0.3 0.2 0 0 0.7 0.7 1.2 0.5 2.1 0.2 2.4 1.9 0.8 0.6 1.0 1.5 Total female 0.3 0.6 0.3 0 0.7 0.4 1 2.4 4.3 5.1 12.7 14.1 23.3 5.3 1.8 2.6 16.7 male 13.4 12.3 9.6 7.8 10.7 6.7 8.8 15.2 10.6 7.2 8.1 5.3 3.4 9.2 9.4 9.5 5.8 Urban female 9.5 10.0 8.1 9.7 8.9 7.3 11.6 9.5 13.2 11.1 9.1 17.8 19.6 10.9 9.9 10.5 15.2 Dominican male 7.9 7.3 13.7 11.4 13.8 13.5 10.6 12.9 6.9 8.3 4.1 8.2 5.3 9.9 11.6 10.7 6.0 Rural Republic female 9.5 16.6 9.8 8.6 10.6 15.2 13.2 14.1 10.3 17.7 19.8 17.5 24.2 13.9 12.3 14.1 20.1 male 11.2 10.1 11.4 9.4 12.0 9.3 9.5 14.3 9.1 7.6 6.7 6.4 4.1 9.5 10.3 10.0 5.8 Total female 9.5 12.7 8.9 9.3 9.6 10.2 12.2 11.3 12.1 13.9 13.1 17.7 21.3 12.1 10.9 11.9 17.0 male 0.0 0.5 1.1 0.9 0.8 1.5 0.3 0.5 1.3 1.2 2.8 0.8 1.4 1.0 0.9 1.0 1.3 Urban female 0.0 0.2 0.6 0.6 1.4 0.9 2.4 1.2 2.0 1.7 6.2 3.6 4.7 1.9 1.3 1.6 1.8 male 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.6 0.8 1.1 0.9 1.0 1.9 1.7 1.7 2.9 2.9 1.2 1.0 1.7 2.5 Ecuador Rural female 0.0 0.4 0.6 0.9 1.0 0.4 1.1 1.9 0.9 4.3 4.3 5.6 4.8 1.9 1.4 4.8 5.0 male 0.1 0.4 0.6 0.7 0.8 1.3 0.6 0.7 1.5 1.4 2.3 1.8 2.1 1.1 0.9 1.2 1.7 Total female 0.0 0.3 0.6 0.7 1.2 0.7 1.8 1.5 1.5 3.0 5.4 4.5 4.7 1.9 1.3 2.8 2.9 male 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 1.7 0.7 0.9 0.7 1.0 0.4 0.3 0.5 0.9 Urban female 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.4 1.1 2.7 2.0 7.4 5.3 9.6 2.2 0.9 1.4 7.5 male 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.9 0.0 0.3 1.6 1.3 0.9 1.3 0.7 1.5 0.7 0.7 0.9 1.2 El Salvador Rural female 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.6 0.6 2.7 1.9 4.9 6.6 10.3 15.8 14.0 22.1 5.6 3.5 5.3 17.0 male 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.5 0.0 0.2 0.8 1.5 0.8 1.1 0.7 1.3 0.5 0.5 0.7 1.0 Total female 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.3 0.3 1.7 1.1 2.9 4.5 6.4 11.0 9.2 14.5 3.8 2.1 3.3 11.5 VII Table A4. Proportion of children involved in household chores (at least 28 hours during reference week) male - - 1 4.9 3.3 4.9 4 9.4 2 3.2 2.5 3.7 7.2 4.2 4.1 3.2 4.5 Urban female - - 4.5 5 8.2 14.3 22.8 22.6 17.8 19.9 24.1 25.5 33.1 17.6 14.3 19.9 27.4 male - - 3.9 5.8 6.2 6.2 7.9 8 7.5 5.7 5.8 4.3 3.4 5.9 6.3 7.1 4.5 Guatemala Rural female - - 5.9 8.6 14.8 21.4 19.9 35.3 34.7 37.8 45.3 43.6 51.3 27.2 21.2 29.7 46.6 male - - 2.9 5.5 5.1 5.8 6.8 8.5 5.5 4.8 4.6 4.1 4.7 5.3 5.5 6.3 4.5 Total female - - 5.5 7.3 12.6 19.1 21 30.8 27.8 30.7 37.2 37.1 44.4 23.7 18.8 25.9 39.4 male 0.8 2.4 4.4 4.4 6.3 6.5 6.9 8.5 9.1 7.6 11.1 8 9.8 6.4 6.7 7.7 9.6 Urban female 2.9 2.8 3.4 2.5 5 9.4 12.2 16.2 15.9 23.2 21.7 29.3 30.5 13.3 10.9 15.4 26.9 male 3.5 4 5.1 7.8 6.6 10.6 10.7 8.2 13.8 13.4 11.4 15.2 9.9 9 9.4 11.2 12.3 Honduras Rural female 2.7 4.1 4.7 8.6 13.5 14.6 16.7 21.7 36.9 40.8 45.6 46.2 51.4 20.4 18.7 25.3 47.3 male 2.4 3.3 4.8 6.5 6.5 9 9.1 8.3 11.7 11 11.3 12.1 9.8 7.9 8.3 9.7 11.1 Total female 2.8 3.6 4.2 6.2 9.9 12.6 14.7 19.3 27.7 32.8 33.4 37.4 39.5 17.3 15.4 21 36.5 male 0 1.4 2.6 2.3 2.7 5.7 4.4 6 5.3 9.8 8.8 9.1 11 5 4.6 6.3 9.6 Urban female 0.5 1.7 3 2.3 4.2 7.5 13.2 16.1 23.8 23.6 24 26.9 28.1 12.4 10.8 16.8 26.2 Nicaragua male 0.8 3.1 3.6 2.9 7.1 7.5 14.9 12 12.6 16.1 6.6 10.3 11.6 7.8 8.8 12.3 9.4 Rural female 0.8 2.8 6.8 11 12.3 19.4 16.1 25.1 26.3 35.5 48.3 31 54.2 19.3 17.7 24.0 43.7 male 0.4 2.2 3.1 2.6 4.9 6.5 9.3 8.6 9.1 12.4 7.8 9.6 11.2 6.3 6.6 9.1 9.5 Total female 0.6 2.2 4.8 6.1 7.9 13.3 14.6 20.2 24.8 28.7 34.1 28.6 37.4 15.5 14.0 20.1 33.2 male 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 2.1 1.4 0.6 0.3 0.1 0.1 1.4 Urban female 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.1 0.9 0.1 1.2 1.0 3.5 2.3 4.0 1.0 0.5 0.6 3.2 male 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.4 0.0 0.3 0.5 0.7 1.4 0.8 0.9 0.3 0.2 0.4 1.1 Panama Rural female 0.0 0.1 0.8 0.2 1.1 0.9 1.9 2.2 4.2 5.8 7.5 10.2 16.1 3.0 1.9 2.8 10.7 male 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.4 0.3 1.8 1.3 0.7 0.3 0.1 0.2 1.3 Total female 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.1 0.7 0.4 1.3 1.0 2.4 2.9 5.0 5.1 7.8 1.8 1.1 1.6 5.8 Note: Bolivia/Brazil/Venezuela; no information on household chores VIII Table A5. Proportion of children involved in household chores and economic activity (at least 14 hrs per week for each) Entire age 7-14 10-14 15-17 Country Sex Age in years range 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Urban male - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - female - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Colombia Rural male - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - female - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Total male 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.6 1.2 0.2 0.1 0.4 1.0 3.8 2.8 2.7 3.1 1.2 0.9 1.0 2.9 female 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.8 0.2 1.7 1.3 0.8 2.1 3.6 4.6 5.7 1.5 0.9 1.2 4.6 Urban male 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.3 0.9 0.0 0.6 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.4 female 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.5 2.3 0.3 0.0 0.0 1.2 Rural male 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.6 0.6 1.1 2.5 1.6 0.5 0.2 0.3 1.8 Costa Rica female 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.7 1.3 0.4 3.2 2.9 4.3 1.0 0.3 0.5 3.4 Total male 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.4 0.7 0.5 1.5 1.0 0.4 0.2 0.3 1.0 female 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.2 1.8 1.5 3.0 0.6 0.2 0.2 2.2 Urban male 0.0 0.7 1.0 0.4 0.5 1.2 0.4 3.3 2.7 3.1 1.3 2.6 1.1 1.4 1.5 2.1 1.6 female 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 1.3 1.7 3.9 2.8 1.6 2.8 8.3 11.9 2.4 1.4 2.2 7.4 Dominican Rural male 0.7 0.0 3.1 1.2 5.8 3.8 5.1 8.3 5.0 3.5 4.4 6.6 6.8 3.9 4.4 5.1 5.9 Republic female 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.3 1.9 0.0 1.6 2.7 7.0 5.1 7.1 8.3 2.4 1.7 2.6 6.7 Total male 0.3 0.4 1.9 0.8 2.7 2.2 2.4 5.2 3.6 3.2 2.4 4.2 3.0 2.4 2.7 3.3 3.2 female 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.1 1.5 1.1 3.0 2.8 3.9 3.7 7.9 10.6 2.4 1.5 2.4 7.1 Urban male 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.2 0.0 1.4 1.4 2.3 2.6 0.7 3.6 0.9 0.7 1.1 5.3 female 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.6 2.0 1.6 2.3 3.0 2.9 6.5 1.4 0.8 1.4 8.0 Rural male 0.0 0.2 0.8 4.1 1.5 3.0 3.3 6.4 7.1 7.3 10.0 10.7 9.9 4.8 4.2 2.3 10.2 Ecuador female 0.0 1.2 1.3 2.0 2.9 2.9 5.7 9.9 8.4 12.4 17.5 15.1 14.4 6.9 5.7 4.1 15.7 Total male 0.0 0.1 0.3 1.9 0.8 1.5 1.5 3.7 3.9 4.4 5.6 5.2 6.5 2.7 2.2 1.5 7.0 female 0.0 0.5 0.7 0.9 1.2 1.4 2.9 5.7 4.5 7.2 9.3 8.3 9.8 3.8 3.0 2.4 10.7 Urban male 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.9 0.9 0.8 1.4 0.8 0.9 1.7 0.6 0.6 0.9 1.1 female 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 1.5 0.4 2.1 2.3 4.0 3.9 4.6 3.2 1.7 1.3 2.0 3.9 Rural male 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 1.1 2.7 1.7 4.0 4.8 3.4 3.6 2.1 1.8 1.8 2.8 3.0 El Salvador female 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.6 4.6 3.3 5.1 5.2 4.9 1.8 1.2 1.8 5.1 Total male 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.9 1.8 1.3 2.3 3.0 2.0 2.1 1.9 1.2 1.2 1.8 2.0 female 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.2 1.1 0.2 1.4 3.3 3.6 4.5 4.9 3.8 1.7 1.3 1.9 4.4 IX Table A5. Proportion of children involved in household chores and economic activity (at least 14 hrs per week for each) Urban male - - 0.0 2.3 3.1 7.2 2.5 7.5 8.0 10.6 9.5 12.3 20.7 7.2 5.1 7.4 14.3 female - - 0.1 0.9 3.1 1.9 3.3 6.7 6.3 9.6 16.4 18.3 23.3 7.9 4.1 5.7 19.2 Rural male - - 1.4 2.9 4.1 5.3 7.0 11.4 14.8 14.8 12.9 16.6 16.1 9.1 7.4 10.3 15.1 Guatemala female - - 1.5 3.3 5.6 5.5 9.6 7.4 12.8 15.8 16.5 17.3 18.4 9.6 7.2 10.0 17.3 Total male - - 0.9 2.7 3.8 5.9 5.7 10.1 12.4 13.3 11.7 15.0 17.7 8.5 6.6 9.3 14.8 female - - 1.0 2.5 4.8 4.3 7.3 7.1 10.2 13.3 16.5 17.7 20.3 9.0 6.1 8.4 18.0 Urban male 0 0 0 1.3 0.7 2.2 2.1 2.7 2.3 6 8.8 9.9 7.7 3.1 2.1 3 8.8 female 0 0 0.4 0.6 1 1.1 1.7 2.7 4.5 6.9 7.3 12.5 11.8 3.9 2.3 3.4 10.5 Rural male 0 0.4 1 1.5 2.2 2.9 7.8 10.6 16.2 22.2 23.5 26.3 22 9.4 7.6 11.3 24 Honduras female 0 0 0 0.9 1.5 2.7 1.5 6.1 4.5 10.4 8.6 8.3 11.3 3.7 3.2 4.9 9.2 Total male 0 0.2 0.6 1.4 1.6 2.6 5.4 7.3 9.9 15.6 17.7 19.2 14.8 6.7 5.3 7.8 17.3 female 0 0 0.2 0.7 1.3 2.1 1.6 4.7 4.5 8.8 7.9 10.4 11.6 3.8 2.9 4.2 9.9 Urban male 0.0 0.5 1.1 2.1 0.4 2.2 2.9 6.6 5.1 9.5 9.0 9.3 10.6 4.2 3.5 5.3 9.6 female 0.0 0.2 0.5 0.4 1.7 2.2 5.9 4.9 7.0 7.6 8.9 12.8 16.8 4.8 3.4 5.5 12.7 Rural male 0.0 0.9 3.7 7.4 11.0 16.1 18.7 12.0 21.5 21.8 19.2 17.4 18.6 12.0 13.2 17.9 18.4 Nicaragua female 0.0 0.0 1.4 2.7 2.9 5.6 6.9 9.8 13.3 11.2 15.8 17.7 21.5 7.2 6.1 9.1 18.1 Total male 0.0 0.7 2.3 4.4 5.5 8.8 10.2 9.0 13.6 14.6 13.7 12.7 14.2 7.8 8.0 11.1 13.5 female 0.0 0.1 1.0 1.4 2.3 3.8 6.4 7.2 9.6 9.1 11.8 14.9 18.6 5.9 4.6 7.1 14.9 Note: Bolivia/Brazil/Venezuela; no information on household chores X Table A6. Proportion of children involved in household chores or economic activity (at least 1 hrs in Ec.Act. or 14 hrs per week in hhchore) Entire age 7-14 10-14 15-17 Country Sex Age in years range 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Urban male - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - female - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Colombia Rural male - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - female - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Total male 6.9 8.0 11.2 16.8 18.0 26.2 24.8 29.6 34.7 43.9 47.3 49.9 55.8 28.0 24.9 31.4 51.0 female 4.2 7.6 8.3 13.5 15.4 16.5 25.0 27.8 34.2 39.2 47.7 46.9 55.5 25.1 21.8 28.3 49.9 Urban male 1.7 1.1 2.5 1.1 6.4 2.4 8.2 4.3 7.8 21.4 17.7 24.8 38.5 10.9 6.2 8.3 27.5 female 0.0 2.3 1.4 1.7 7.9 4.7 5.0 14.4 18.9 25.8 34.4 33.3 51.7 16.8 10.0 13.7 40.6 Rural male 0.4 1.9 2.2 4.3 6.9 7.2 9.9 13.8 20.0 29.6 40.5 48.9 58.9 19.2 12.0 16.3 49.7 Costa Rica female 0.6 2.3 5.8 4.4 7.0 9.6 17.0 19.9 32.2 35.0 51.9 59.7 58.1 23.2 15.8 21.6 56.2 Total male 1.1 1.5 2.4 2.3 6.6 4.6 9.0 8.6 13.6 25.8 27.5 35.6 47.0 14.6 8.9 12.1 37.0 female 0.3 2.3 3.3 2.9 7.4 7.1 10.6 17.0 24.3 29.8 42.4 44.9 54.0 19.7 12.7 17.4 47.2 Urban male 15.7 20.9 23.3 29.0 34.6 35.1 42.2 43.3 56.5 48.9 59.2 59.1 60.2 39.8 38.6 44.6 59.5 female 13.6 15.7 15.6 31.9 34.4 35.0 36.5 45.2 51.6 44.6 53.4 59.5 55.0 37.0 36.6 42.0 56.1 Dominican Rural male 17.5 20.5 32.5 39.1 43.1 46.5 43.0 55.1 56.3 58.4 60.4 64.6 71.7 44.6 45.6 51.0 65.0 Republic female 16.9 24.9 25.5 35.6 40.7 44.3 53.1 45.4 54.8 62.8 62.3 66.3 76.9 45.1 44.8 51.9 67.6 Total male 16.5 20.7 27.3 33.4 38.0 39.6 42.6 47.9 56.4 52.1 59.6 61.3 64.1 41.7 41.4 47.0 61.5 female 14.9 19.5 19.7 33.3 37.0 38.5 42.2 45.3 52.8 52.3 56.8 61.9 62.8 40.1 39.8 45.8 60.3 Urban male 0.9 2.8 3.7 6.7 8.4 11.2 12.0 18.6 19.3 23.0 31.8 35.2 43.3 16.3 12.8 16.8 44.6 female 1.6 1.7 3.9 4.7 6.0 7.9 11.9 8.8 19.4 16.9 26.8 26.3 27.9 12.1 9.5 12.9 29.4 Ecuador Rural male 8.3 14.0 17.1 21.5 21.5 32.0 32.2 44.4 56.8 60.7 68.1 69.4 71.1 39.0 35.4 36.3 69.5 female 6.2 9.4 10.8 20.6 18.9 19.9 24.0 28.0 33.2 40.8 48.7 45.8 51.4 26.8 24.4 27.0 48.4 Total male 4.4 7.6 9.5 13.6 14.1 20.8 21.1 30.3 35.8 39.0 46.5 50.6 56.0 26.4 22.9 23.6 53.1 female 3.7 5.1 7.0 11.3 11.3 13.2 17.4 17.8 25.4 28.5 36.3 34.8 37.5 18.5 16.1 18.1 35.9 Urban male 1.0 1.7 2.5 4.4 7.1 8.0 13.7 18.8 21.3 26.2 31.0 37.7 31.5 15.1 12.5 17.4 33.4 female 2.6 1.0 2.5 6.6 5.9 13.0 18.5 32.0 34.2 39.6 46.2 42.0 52.0 22.2 18.8 27.2 46.8 El Salvador Rural male 0.5 3.9 3.6 8.9 17.8 24.2 27.5 34.6 46.7 53.1 57.9 57.1 69.8 30.0 26.9 37.1 61.8 female 0.3 2.4 4.9 12.5 14.1 24.0 30.3 38.3 46.8 55.8 58.2 53.7 64.4 29.9 28.4 39.0 58.5 Total male 0.8 2.8 3.0 6.4 12.6 15.5 20.5 26.8 33.5 39.1 43.2 46.7 50.9 22.3 19.4 27.0 46.9 female 1.6 1.6 3.7 9.5 9.6 18.5 24.0 35.0 40.0 48.1 51.5 47.2 56.9 25.8 23.4 32.9 51.8 XI Table A6. Proportion of children involved in household chores or economic activity (at least 1 hrs in Ec.Act. or 14 hrs per week in hhchore) Urban male - - 2.3 2.0 28.7 48.0 40.4 48.3 52.2 52.0 47.3 59.6 70.2 65.6 46.3 51.8 72.3 female - - 0.0 1.0 45.6 46.1 51.7 43.3 63.2 64.5 54.0 67.4 80.7 76.1 54.3 58.4 77.4 Guatemala Rural male - - 1.9 3.0 41.9 45.2 45.2 53.0 62.0 64.8 72.6 83.4 83.4 88.3 57.6 66.2 87.3 female - - 1.0 2.2 45.3 53.5 60.5 67.0 71.3 72.8 69.1 76.1 83.1 86.7 63.4 71.1 84.7 Total male - - 2.0 2.7 37.2 46.2 43.4 51.4 59.1 60.3 63.5 74.7 79.0 80.2 53.6 61.3 82.1 female - - 0.7 1.8 45.4 50.9 57.6 59.3 68.3 69.9 63.0 72.6 82.2 82.9 60.2 66.4 82.0 Urban male 6.9 15.2 21 34.2 27.8 40.1 40.7 39.1 48.6 54.3 65.1 61.9 65.8 38.7 37.6 44.2 64.3 female 10.3 17 22.4 29 42.3 46.3 56.2 62 65.7 73.2 72.9 78.9 72.9 50 49.5 60.7 74.9 Honduras Rural male 19.9 18.4 33.3 39 52.9 55.2 61.9 69.7 79.4 79 87.6 89.2 94.3 57.3 57.8 68.1 90 female 12.7 22.9 32.2 45.1 52.9 61 67.1 73.2 79.3 82.5 83.7 78.6 72.9 56.1 60.5 72 78.9 Total male 14.8 17.1 27.9 37.1 42.1 49.4 53 56.9 65.3 68.9 78.8 77.4 80 49.5 49.4 58.2 78.7 female 11.7 20.7 28.3 38.7 48.5 55.2 62.3 68.5 73.3 78.2 78.3 78.7 72.9 53.5 55.9 67.1 76.8 Urban male 5.4 9.7 13.1 20.0 26.9 28.5 37.4 42.9 54.2 55.4 62.4 65.3 66.5 35.4 32.9 43.2 64.7 female 4.6 9.0 17.0 28.3 30.9 43.3 46.8 55.4 65.1 66.0 72.8 71.0 70.1 42.8 42.2 55.4 71.3 Nicaragua Rural male 11.6 19.2 28.9 39.0 48.9 57.6 65.5 60.6 74.1 81.5 84.9 88.5 88.0 54.0 54.6 67.3 87.0 female 11.3 21.7 29.4 39.7 53.4 59.4 66.1 73.3 79.2 79.2 80.7 74.3 73.1 54.1 57.3 70.6 76.3 Total male 8.4 14.4 20.6 28.4 37.5 42.2 50.4 50.7 64.5 66.2 72.8 75.1 76.1 44.0 42.9 54.3 74.6 female 7.6 15.1 23.0 33.3 41.3 51.2 56.2 63.6 71.0 71.7 76.2 72.4 71.2 47.9 49.1 62.3 73.4 Urban male 0.8 4.6 6.0 7.8 10.0 11.8 15.7 18.6 23.9 24.5 33.9 32.9 34.7 17.0 14.4 18.5 33.9 female 2.8 5.2 7.0 9.4 10.8 15.4 25.6 22.6 33.8 43.9 46.6 44.6 48.3 24.6 21.3 28.2 46.5 Panama Rural male 2.5 5.5 13.3 20.7 15.1 22.9 29.7 32.6 40.7 47.7 50.2 58.8 66.4 29.3 27.3 34.0 58.2 female 4.0 7.4 12.1 19.1 23.8 29.7 37.6 45.5 40.5 49.9 64.8 62.0 67.5 33.0 31.3 40.2 64.7 Total male 1.7 5.0 9.3 13.7 12.2 16.9 21.4 25.4 31.3 35.1 40.6 43.2 47.8 22.5 20.2 25.5 43.8 female 3.4 6.2 9.5 14.0 16.6 21.8 30.9 32.3 36.5 46.3 54.1 51.0 54.7 28.2 25.7 33.3 53.3 Note: Bolivia/Brazil/Venezuela; no information on household chores XII Table A7. Distribution of children at work in economic activity by work modality Wage Self Family Unpaid Servant Other Daily Country Sex employment 5-14 15-17 5-14 15-17 5-14 15-17 5-14 15-17 5-14 15-17 5-14 15-17 5-14 15-17 male 44.2 73.0 11.4 8.1 44.5 18.9 - - - - - - - - Urban female 11.7 16.2 10.9 11.6 77.4 72.2 - - - - - - - - Bolivia male 1.4 7.7 0.9 3.9 97.8 88.5 - - - - - - - - Rural female 0.5 2.8 0.5 1.7 99.0 95.6 - - - - - - - - male 10.5 35.7 3.1 5.7 86.4 58.6 - - - - - - - - Total female 3.1 8.9 2.9 6.2 94.0 84.8 - - - - - - - - male 37.8 74.7 18.1 11.0 42.2 13.6 - - - - 1.9 0.7 - - Urban female 44.7 79.2 12.3 7.9 42.1 12.6 - - - - - 0.3 - - male 8.8 62.6 5.0 10.6 85.6 26.9 - - - - 0.7 0.0 - - Brazil Rural female 20.0 66.1 9.0 17.5 71.0 15.8 - - - - 0.0 0.6 - - male 31.6 73.8 15.3 11.0 51.5 14.5 - - - - 1.6 0.7 - - Total female 38.8 78.0 11.5 8.7 49.0 12.9 - - - - 0.7 0.4 - - male - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Urban female - - - - - - - - - - - - - - male - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Colombia Rural female - - - - - - - - - - - - - - male 35.9 56.6 - - 47.6 33.5 16.1 9.2 0.5 0.7 - - - - Total female 13.6 39.0 - - 55.6 38.7 18.3 6.2 12.5 16.1 - - - - male 51.6 83.9 23.7 11.5 24.7 4.6 - - 0.0 0.0 - - - - Urban female 12.1 61.7 36.5 11.7 46.5 7.8 - - 4.9 18.8 - - - - male 48.5 71.8 9.7 10.4 40.3 16.7 - - 1.5 1.1 - - - - Costa Rica Rural female 21.2 41.6 14.3 12.1 45.1 14.5 - - 19.3 31.7 - - - - male 49.4 76.9 13.6 10.9 35.9 11.7 - - 1.1 0.7 - - - - Total female 19.3 50.3 19.0 12.0 45.4 11.6 - - 16.3 26.2 - - - - male 62.6 76.7 14.9 10.4 - - 19.7 9.7 - - 2.7 3.2 - - Urban female 52.8 73.9 6.6 5.9 - - 35.8 19.2 - - 4.8 1.0 - - Dominican male 46.6 65.1 12.2 9.0 - - 39.9 23.5 - - 1.3 2.4 - - Rural Republic female 53.7 73.2 7.7 6.1 - - 35.2 19.3 - - 3.5 1.4 - - male 55.6 72.2 13.7 9.9 - - 28.6 15.1 - - 2.1 2.9 - - Total female 53.1 73.7 7.0 6.0 - - 35.5 19.2 - - 4.3 1.1 - - male 44.6 68.2 14.3 11.0 40.3 20.1 - - 0.8 0.7 - - - - Urban female 32.9 32.2 7.3 10.1 44.7 28.6 - - 15.1 29.1 - - - - male 15.6 45.9 3.1 2.9 81.0 51.1 - - 0.3 0.1 - - - - Ecuador Rural female 8.2 22.8 1.7 4.2 87.9 66.0 - - 2.2 7.1 - - - - male 22.5 54.1 5.8 5.9 71.3 39.6 - - 0.4 0.3 - - - - Total female 12.7 26.1 2.7 6.3 80.1 52.7 - - 4.5 14.9 - - - - XIII Table A7. Distribution of children at work in economic activity by work modality male 27.3 56.8 1.7 2.9 63.2 33.7 - - 0.0 0.2 7.8 6.5 - - Urban female 12.6 24.5 2.6 2.6 79.2 56.0 - - 5.6 16.9 0.0 0.0 - - male 12.7 40.8 1.5 4.8 84.6 53.2 - - 0.4 0.0 0.8 1.4 - - El Salvador Rural female 10.1 19.2 5.0 5.5 73.3 48.0 - - 11.6 26.7 0.0 0.6 - - male 16.5 45.8 1.6 4.2 78.9 47.0 - - 0.3 0.1 2.7 3.0 - - Total female 11.3 21.8 3.8 4.0 76.3 52.0 - - 8.6 21.9 0.0 0.3 - - male 26.5 52.5 4.1 3.7 54.3 19.3 3.0 3.9 - - - - 12.1 20.5 Urban female 15.6 35.7 2.6 8.9 47.3 35.6 5.1 0.4 - - - - 29.4 19.2 male 7.5 22.4 1.3 3.6 71.7 46.4 7.5 2.5 - - - - 12.0 25.1 Guatemala Rural female 4.7 19.0 1.9 8.0 75.2 54.0 5.3 3.1 - - - - 12.9 15.8 male 11.2 30.5 1.8 3.6 68.3 39.2 6.7 2.9 - - - - 12.0 23.9 Total female 7.9 25.8 2.1 8.4 67.0 46.5 5.3 2.0 - - - - 17.8 17.2 male 22.4 61.7 4.1 11.1 71.3 25.5 2.2 1.7 - - - - - - Urban female 31.2 58.1 1.6 3.7 64.9 37.0 2.3 1.3 - - - - - - male 15.2 37.8 3.0 12.0 80.8 49.8 1.0 0.4 - - - - - - Honduras Rural female 14.7 32.3 0.7 12.0 81.9 52.9 2.7 2.9 - - - - - - male 16.7 44.5 3.2 11.7 78.9 43.1 1.2 0.8 - - - - - - Total female 21.3 47.1 1.1 7.2 75.1 43.7 2.5 2.0 - - - - - - male 30.0 19.7 16.4 10.4 53.6 69.9 - - - - - - - - Urban female 25.5 26.2 5.4 5.8 69.1 68.0 - - - - - - - - Nicaragua male 22.2 49.2 4.0 6.2 73.9 44.7 - - - - - - - - Rural female 28.2 27.8 3.9 7.8 67.9 64.3 - - - - - - - - male 24.5 37.6 7.6 7.8 67.9 54.6 - - - - - - - - Total female 27.2 27.0 4.5 6.8 68.3 66.3 - - - - - - - - male 27.3 57.8 63.7 39.0 9.0 3.3 - - - - - - - - Urban female 54.8 83.2 23.3 8.9 22.0 7.9 - - - - - - - - male 15.6 36.2 18.6 19.5 65.9 44.3 - - - - - - - - Panama Rural female 21.7 46.7 20.3 12.1 58.0 41.2 - - - - - - - - male 18.7 45.1 30.6 27.5 50.8 27.4 - - - - - - - - Total female 37.0 64.9 21.7 10.5 41.4 24.6 - - - - - - - - male 40.2 70.9 30.4 29.1 29.5 - - - - - - - - - Urban female 35.0 60.7 65.0 39.3 0.0 - - - - - - - - - male 35.9 62.3 17.5 21.5 46.6 16.2 - - - - - - - - Venezuela Rural female 14.6 52.5 18.9 22.1 66.5 25.4 - - - - - - - - male 35.9 62.8 17.6 21.9 46.5 15.3 - - - - - - - - Total female 15.4 53.1 20.5 23.4 64.1 23.5 - - - - - - - - XIV Table A8. Distribution of children at work in economic activity by work sector Country Sex Agriculture Commerce Service Manufacturing Construction Servant Other 5-14 15-17 5-14 15-17 5-14 15-17 5-14 15-17 5-14 15-17 5-14 15-17 5-14 15-17 male 8.5 8.1 47.4 35.1 14.7 12.1 16.6 20.8 8.9 21.9 1.5 1.0 2.5 1.0 Urban female 2.7 5.4 49.2 29.9 22.2 15.9 12.1 14.2 0.0 0.0 13.8 34.6 0.0 0.0 Bolivia male 95.9 93.7 1.4 0.4 0.4 1.2 1.1 2.1 0.7 2.6 0.5 0.0 - 0.0 Rural female 93.9 88.6 3.5 4.4 1.4 2.1 0.9 2.7 0.0 0.0 0.6 2.0 - 0.3 male 77.8 59.8 10.9 14.1 3.4 5.5 4.3 9.5 2.4 10.2 0.7 0.4 0.5 0.4 Total female 72.9 53.9 14.0 15.1 6.0 7.9 3.5 7.5 0.0 0.0 3.6 15.6 0.0 0.2 male 25.5 16.5 36.6 33.6 19.9 24.3 12.3 15.1 4.6 9.0 - - 1.1 1.6 Urban female 16.5 4.5 29.1 23.6 42.6 59.6 11.5 11.8 0.4 0.3 - - 0.0 0.3 male 95.3 87.0 1.4 3.3 0.9 2.6 1.7 4.6 0.3 1.7 - - 0.4 1.0 Brazil Rural female 85.7 72.4 2.2 2.8 5.5 17.1 6.6 7.3 0.0 0.4 - - 0.0 0.0 male 64.2 40.0 17.1 23.5 9.3 17.0 6.4 11.6 2.2 6.5 - - 0.7 1.4 Total female 50.5 21.7 15.9 18.3 24.4 48.8 9.1 10.7 0.2 0.3 - - 0.0 0.2 male - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Urban female - - - - - - - - - - - - - - male - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Colombia Rural female - - - - - - - - - - - - - - male 45.2 45.0 29.3 23.3 11.4 16.6 11.8 10.7 2.2 4.1 - - 0.2 0.4 Total female 14.6 19.0 38.0 27.8 32.0 36.9 14.5 16.3 0.1 0.1 - - 0.8 0.0 male 22.7 11.9 31.4 32.7 16.7 21.0 11.8 14.1 17.4 20.3 0.0 0.0 - - Urban female 12.0 8.9 38.8 27.1 29.7 27.7 9.8 12.1 0.0 0.0 9.7 24.2 - - male 69.1 54.8 15.7 16.3 4.5 8.7 7.1 10.4 3.3 7.9 0.4 1.6 - 0.4 Costa Rica Rural female 65.6 24.8 13.5 24.4 6.6 15.7 2.7 7.8 0.0 0.0 11.7 27.4 - 0.0 male 57.8 38.7 19.5 22.4 7.5 13.3 8.3 11.8 6.7 12.5 0.3 1.0 - 0.2 Total female 54.2 18.5 18.9 25.5 11.5 20.5 4.2 9.5 0.0 0.0 11.3 26.1 - 0.0 male 15.4 14.4 38.3 33.9 7.1 3.5 25.5 21.5 3.1 12.1 0.8 0.9 9.8 13.8 Urban female 11.9 3.7 28.1 32.0 7.8 6.9 22.4 12.4 0.0 0.0 18.3 31.1 11.6 14.0 male 84.5 77.9 4.4 3.6 0.5 0.6 5.1 8.4 2.9 6.2 0.3 0.1 2.4 3.2 Ecuador Rural female 84.2 66.4 4.2 5.8 0.4 0.7 5.6 14.8 0.3 1.1 2.5 7.1 2.9 4.1 male 67.8 54.6 12.6 14.8 2.1 1.7 10.0 13.2 2.9 8.3 0.4 0.4 4.2 7.1 Total female 71.3 44.1 8.5 15.1 1.7 2.9 8.6 14.0 0.3 0.7 5.3 15.6 4.4 7.6 XV Table A8. Distribution of children at work in economic activity by work sector male 23.0 17.5 36.8 28.9 7.4 7.5 25.0 26.4 - - 0.0 0.2 7.8 19.5 Urban female 0.5 0.3 49.0 32.5 14.8 13.6 30.0 35.5 - - 5.7 16.9 0.0 1.3 male 85.3 78.9 6.3 6.4 1.2 1.1 6.2 6.0 - - 0.4 0.0 0.6 7.7 El Salvador Rural female 30.0 26.1 29.5 20.3 10.5 8.5 18.4 18.3 - - 11.7 26.7 0.0 0.0 male 69.0 59.5 14.3 13.5 2.8 3.1 11.1 12.5 - - 0.3 0.1 2.4 11.4 Total female 15.3 13.3 39.2 26.3 12.7 11.1 24.2 26.8 - - 8.7 21.9 0.0 0.6 male 34.6 24.0 28.1 23.5 9.2 11.0 14.9 18.4 - - - - 13.2 23.1 Urban female 10.5 5.0 36.9 45.9 28.9 30.7 22.5 16.9 - - - - 1.3 1.6 male 84.0 74.5 6.1 7.3 1.5 2.1 3.7 6.1 - - - - 4.7 10.0 Guatemala Rural female 52.1 31.4 23.3 28.2 5.3 13.3 19.1 25.6 - - - - 0.2 1.5 male 74.5 61.0 10.3 11.6 3.0 4.5 5.9 9.4 - - - - 6.3 13.5 Total female 39.8 20.7 27.4 35.4 12.3 20.4 20.1 22.0 - - - - 0.5 1.6 male 18.4 20.2 53.5 36.9 1.1 3.2 17.9 18.7 7.4 15.3 - - 1.7 5.7 Urban female 0.0 1.9 51.1 40.3 20.3 37.8 28.3 18.7 0.0 0.0 - - 0.3 1.4 male 85.4 84.4 8.0 5.1 0.5 1.0 2.9 3.2 0.5 2.6 - - 2.6 3.6 Honduras Rural female 32.6 25.0 39.3 23.3 6.2 24.1 21.2 26.7 0.0 0.0 - - 0.7 1.0 male 71.9 66.6 17.1 13.9 0.6 1.6 6.0 7.5 1.9 6.2 - - 2.4 4.2 Total female 19.5 11.8 44.1 33.0 11.9 31.9 24.1 22.1 0.0 0.0 - - 0.6 1.2 male 22.2 17.3 38.8 25.0 13.0 10.7 16.7 23.4 5.2 16.4 - - 4.3 7.2 Urban female 7.0 2.7 54.8 39.3 18.0 42.2 20.2 15.0 0.0 0.4 - - 0.0 0.3 Nicaragua male 88.1 79.8 4.8 5.9 2.0 2.3 3.3 4.8 0.9 4.6 - - 0.9 2.6 Rural female 51.2 42.8 27.7 9.0 10.4 36.1 10.8 12.1 0.0 0.0 - - 0.0 0.0 male 68.8 55.3 14.8 13.4 5.2 5.6 7.2 12.1 2.1 9.2 - - 1.9 4.4 Total female 34.9 21.7 37.7 25.0 13.2 39.3 14.3 13.7 0.0 0.2 - - 0.0 0.2 male 8.7 6.7 34.2 43.1 44.3 20.7 - - 0.3 10.3 4.5 7.8 7.9 11.5 Urban female 0.6 0.4 40.7 19.7 49.3 63.4 - - 0.0 2.3 2.6 0.0 6.9 14.1 male 86.7 68.6 4.5 8.9 5.4 9.1 - - 1.7 5.6 1.2 4.0 0.5 3.8 Panama Rural female 59.1 36.2 11.1 13.3 17.7 39.4 - - 12.2 0.0 0.0 1.3 0.0 9.8 male 65.8 43.1 12.5 23.0 17.2 13.9 - - 1.4 7.5 2.1 5.6 2.5 7.0 Total female 31.7 18.3 25.0 16.5 32.5 51.4 - - 6.5 1.2 1.2 0.7 3.2 12.0 male 29.5 41.7 0.0 20.2 30.4 13.0 40.2 10.8 - 9.9 - - - 4.5 Urban female 0.0 10.7 100.0 32.8 0.0 26.9 0.0 22.2 - 2.6 - - - 4.8 male 49.2 49.3 27.3 23.1 7.0 6.3 13.7 11.3 1.1 6.0 - - 1.7 4.0 Venezuela Rural female 9.7 14.6 63.9 46.4 18.4 35.6 8.0 3.4 0.0 0.0 - - 0.0 0.0 male 49.0 36.4 27.0 23.5 7.3 12.5 14.0 12.1 1.1 9.2 - - 1.7 6.4 Total female 9.3 7.6 65.1 43.8 17.8 34.2 7.8 11.1 0.0 0.7 - - 0.0 2.5 XVI Table A9. Average weekly working hours, children at work in economic activity Age in years Entire Country Sex age 7-14 10-14 15-17 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 range male - - 20.8 28 7.4 34.3 18.4 35.2 40.1 41.4 43.2 44.9 35.3 38.2 33.5 36.4 42.3 Urban female - - 21 31.8 - 23.3 13.6 34.3 42 43.3 35 47.4 39.4 38.6 33.5 35.1 43.1 Bolivia male - - 20.7 21.5 21.3 23.1 22.9 24.3 29.9 30 37.9 41.6 38.6 29.2 24.8 27.2 39.4 Rural female - - 18.4 22.6 26.3 22.8 26.5 25.2 26.6 35 34 37.3 39.6 29.4 26.5 28.7 36.9 male - - 20.8 21.7 19.8 24.6 21.9 27.1 32.2 34.2 40.1 43.2 37.4 31.8 26.7 29.7 40.6 Total female - - 18.6 23 26.3 22.9 22.6 27.3 32 37.5 34.3 43.7 39.5 32.3 28.1 30.6 39.8 male 12.8 26.0 8.6 18.7 13.4 14.6 16.4 17.0 21.4 24.9 29.8 33.8 37.9 30.4 20.3 20.8 34.7 Urban female 12.7 9.1 10.6 17.5 12.4 12.5 16.7 18.7 21.2 24.9 27.8 31.8 34.9 29.0 20.3 20.8 32.3 male 4.5 11.2 13.2 14.1 16.7 17.4 18.6 18.7 21.5 23.0 27.3 30.9 33.6 25.1 19.8 20.4 30.8 Brazil Rural female 12.7 10.0 8.2 13.4 12.3 15.3 14.6 15.4 19.2 20.1 23.6 25.9 26.8 21.0 16.9 17.5 25.6 male 10.3 13.8 11.8 16.2 15.6 16.4 17.7 17.9 21.4 24.0 28.8 32.8 36.7 28.2 20.1 20.6 33.4 Total female 12.7 9.8 9.0 14.9 12.3 14.2 15.7 17.2 20.2 22.9 26.5 30.3 33.1 26.3 18.7 19.2 30.6 male - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Urban female - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - male - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Colombia Rural female - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - male 13.1 6.3 17.5 14.6 13.6 13.4 16.0 19.3 24.5 28.9 28.5 31.7 38.2 25.5 20.2 21.7 33.1 Total female 6.4 7.8 14.7 10.8 12.1 13.7 14.5 18.7 19.0 28.1 23.0 28.6 34.7 22.3 18.6 20.2 28.8 male - - 1 - 5.7 2.9 9.9 31.3 15.6 19.3 30.9 45.7 38.1 33.2 15.6 18.3 38.8 Urban female - - 12 - - 5 20 3 4 6.9 33.1 39.7 26.2 27.4 7.8 6.8 30.5 male 24 4.6 7 10.8 6.9 11.2 13.6 14 23.8 29.6 31.4 35.2 41.4 31.7 22.2 23.7 36.7 Costa Rica Rural female - - 16.4 3.5 9 4.3 8.1 21.6 20.2 41.5 30.5 27.8 35.6 28 19.3 20.9 31.5 male 24 4.6 2.8 10.8 6.4 9 12.2 19.3 22.4 27.5 31.2 38.2 40 32.2 20.5 22.5 37.4 Total female - - 14.8 3.5 9 4.5 9.6 19.6 17.6 33.6 31.4 30.8 31.1 27.8 17.1 18.2 31.1 male 5.5 7.8 10.8 11.0 19.3 14.7 19.6 24.0 24.4 25.8 29.9 29.1 34.9 23.9 20.0 22.1 31.2 Urban female 4.6 3.1 3.3 8.5 13.5 11.7 14.4 21.2 21.8 18.5 22.0 31.1 33.5 20.1 15.0 17.3 29.1 Dominican male 16.6 12.4 14.7 11.1 21.0 18.5 17.8 18.5 19.4 29.6 24.9 34.8 25.9 22.1 19.1 20.6 28.9 Rural Republic female 5.9 4.7 11.2 9.7 10.9 10.1 6.9 18.5 11.4 22.0 27.9 31.7 29.0 19.1 13.4 14.5 29.6 male 12.9 10.2 12.8 11.1 20.1 16.5 18.9 21.3 22.4 27.2 28.0 31.5 31.5 23.1 19.6 21.5 30.3 Total female 5.5 4.1 6.7 8.9 12.6 11.1 12.4 20.3 17.7 20.3 24.4 31.3 31.7 19.7 14.4 16.2 29.3 male 10.6 8.4 7.3 38.4 13.5 17.7 21.9 26.6 32.4 32.9 36.7 43.7 41.2 34.5 27.8 28.2 29.9 Urban female 5.6 33.0 13.9 9.2 26.1 16.2 21.0 25.9 40.4 33.6 33.9 40.8 38.9 34.7 30.1 31.7 27.9 male 15.6 14.2 22.7 20.0 19.6 22.1 25.5 29.5 31.0 35.4 39.2 39.4 38.4 31.8 28.0 40.6 39.0 Ecuador Rural female 13.7 18.1 19.5 20.5 19.7 27.0 22.7 27.9 28.6 30.0 38.1 37.9 39.5 30.2 25.9 38.1 38.5 male 15.1 13.7 21.6 22.5 18.7 21.0 24.7 28.7 31.4 34.7 38.3 40.9 39.5 32.6 28.0 35.3 34.0 Total female 12.5 20.0 19.1 19.6 20.2 25.4 22.5 27.5 32.3 30.8 36.8 38.9 39.3 31.4 26.6 35.8 32.8 XVII Table A9. Average weekly working hours, children at work in economic activity male 7.3 14.5 15.6 17.4 15.2 20.6 24.3 25.0 31.6 32.6 30.6 31.4 36.5 30.3 27.6 28.7 32.9 Urban female 21.0 13.3 42.0 30.0 28.0 24.7 22.2 23.8 31.8 32.1 35.0 32.0 37.8 32.1 28.9 28.9 35.2 male 12.0 31.1 17.2 22.0 23.1 23.4 24.7 24.5 24.8 30.4 33.3 34.2 33.4 29.6 25.9 26.3 33.6 El Salvador Rural female - 6.0 8.1 18.2 18.3 15.1 18.2 15.2 27.7 31.9 34.3 34.5 38.5 30.6 24.8 25.6 35.8 male 8.8 25.5 16.6 21.0 21.7 22.8 24.6 24.6 26.4 31.0 32.5 33.2 34.3 29.8 26.3 26.9 33.4 Total female 21.0 10.0 14.0 21.4 26.2 19.6 20.3 20.3 29.6 32.0 34.7 33.5 38.1 31.3 26.9 27.2 35.5 male 9.5 5.7 17.8 25.2 27.1 22.5 22.9 34.2 41.5 39.9 39.5 45.0 48.8 39.0 33.9 35.4 44.4 Urban female 0.0 5.3 19.0 15.8 16.9 30.9 38.9 25.1 36.1 62.1 47.4 57.5 47.5 45.9 41.0 44.0 50.5 male 37.8 21.4 23.3 22.1 64.0 30.0 25.1 32.0 36.0 49.1 43.2 45.0 45.6 40.0 36.9 36.3 44.6 Guatemala Rural female 25.0 15.8 35.2 22.4 36.9 26.0 25.8 29.1 32.3 45.3 48.1 43.6 35.5 36.9 33.2 33.3 42.9 male 9.5 5.7 17.8 25.2 27.1 22.5 22.9 34.2 41.5 39.9 39.5 45.0 48.8 39.0 36.3 36.1 44.6 Total female 0.0 5.3 19.0 15.8 16.9 30.9 38.9 25.1 36.1 62.1 47.4 57.5 47.5 45.9 35.5 36.6 46.0 male 7.8 8.9 10.1 11.6 11.3 11.6 11.7 11.6 13.4 12.8 14.9 13.5 15.6 12 11.8 12.2 14.6 Urban female 9.2 9.6 10.3 10.1 12.2 12.8 15.6 16.5 16.3 19.4 19.5 21.9 24 15.6 14.3 16.1 21.7 male 10.9 9.9 11.2 12.4 13.4 14.5 14.6 14.3 16.2 15.3 15.6 17.5 15.2 13.8 13.9 14.9 16.2 Honduras Rural female 9.8 10.4 10.6 13.1 13.9 15.3 16 18.3 22 25.7 26.7 28.4 27.3 17.6 16.6 19.1 27.4 male 9.9 9.5 10.7 12.1 12.6 13.4 13.4 13.2 14.9 14.3 15.3 15.7 15.4 13.1 13.1 13.8 15.5 Total female 9.6 10.1 10.5 12 13.2 14.3 15.8 17.5 19.5 22.9 23.1 25 25.5 16.8 15.7 17.9 24.4 male - 26.3 24.5 26.2 22.8 23.7 25.6 26.9 31.0 35.6 40.8 42.4 43.8 35.5 28.9 29.6 42.4 Urban female 24.0 55.1 21.0 20.0 19.4 23.0 22.7 24.9 30.8 30.9 38.1 38.8 41.3 33.3 26.7 27.6 39.6 Nicaragua male 26.5 21.6 25.6 25.4 31.0 28.0 32.8 32.3 35.3 36.5 41.8 43.7 46.9 37.5 32.6 33.5 44.2 Rural female - 20.3 11.3 24.3 26.4 22.4 35.0 29.9 35.8 26.7 42.1 45.2 48.3 34.8 28.7 30.1 45.4 male 26.5 23.0 25.3 25.6 29.0 26.9 30.8 30.3 34.2 36.2 41.4 43.2 45.9 36.9 31.5 32.3 43.6 Total female 24.0 34.3 12.8 23.4 23.7 22.6 29.7 28.3 33.5 28.6 40.3 41.9 44.7 34.1 27.9 29.1 42.5 male - - 3.8 - 13.5 13.3 16.7 17.1 34.6 25.5 20.3 27.6 32.6 26 24.2 25.6 26.9 Urban female - - - 25 15 13.7 25.1 10.6 25.4 22.5 28.4 25.9 28.2 25.7 20.4 20.3 27.7 male 13 10.8 15 17.5 16.9 19.1 18.9 21.9 24 27.1 29.2 29.6 31.9 26.5 22.4 23.3 30.5 Panama Rural female 9.5 15 - 16.8 10.5 12.5 30.6 15.9 21.2 23.8 27.5 31.3 29.2 26 19.7 20.9 29.1 male 13 10.8 14.2 17.5 15.4 18.6 18.4 21.1 26.8 26.8 25.6 29.2 32.1 26.4 22.8 23.8 29.4 Total female 9.5 15 - 20.5 10.7 13.1 27.7 14.1 22 23.1 27.8 29.1 28.6 25.9 19.9 20.6 28.5 male - - - - - - 30 - - 40 33.3 39.6 40.3 38.3 37 37 38.5 Urban female - - - - - - - - - 32.5 33.3 45.5 41.8 39.9 32.5 32.5 40.8 male - - - - - 25.1 23.3 28.5 35.8 36.1 35.6 40.2 38.8 36.8 33.1 33.1 38.4 Venezuela Rural female - - - - - 24.2 26.2 26 28.6 23.1 26.7 34.9 35.5 30.8 25.2 25.2 33.3 male - - - - - 25.1 23.5 28.5 35.8 36.2 35.5 40.1 38.9 36.9 33.1 33.1 38.4 Total female - - - - - 24.2 26.2 26 28.6 23.7 27.2 35.5 36.1 31.4 25.4 25.4 33.9 XVIII Table A10. Average weekly working hours, children performing household chores(1) Age in years Entire Country Sex age 7-14 10-14 15-17 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 range male - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Urban female - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - male - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Colombia Rural female - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - male 3.4 3.6 4.2 4.6 5.4 5.9 6.0 6.3 7.1 7.0 7.2 7.9 8.7 6.1 5.8 6.4 7.9 Total female 3.4 3.9 4.6 5.7 6.2 6.1 7.9 8.4 9.7 10.5 13.0 13.7 16.3 8.7 7.5 8.6 14.2 male 5.7 4.7 5 5.3 5.4 5 6.5 6.4 7.1 8.8 8.1 9.7 8.4 7 6.4 6.9 8.7 Urban female 3.4 4.5 4.1 5.1 8.2 6.5 7.4 8.6 10 11.7 12.6 16.1 17.7 10.4 8.1 8.9 15.6 male 4.2 4.4 4.6 4.6 5.5 6.1 6.4 7.2 6.7 7.2 7.9 7.9 9.6 6.5 6.1 6.7 8.4 Costa Rica Rural female 4.4 4.9 5.3 5.6 6.4 7.2 9.3 10 13 11.8 16.3 19.6 21.4 11.6 8.9 10.1 18.9 male 5 4.5 4.8 5 5.4 5.7 6.4 6.7 6.9 8.1 8 8.9 8.8 6.8 6.3 6.8 8.6 Total female 3.9 4.7 4.7 5.3 7.2 6.8 8.4 9.3 11.3 11.8 14.4 17.8 19.1 11 8.5 9.5 17.1 male 4.6 5.7 6.0 5.9 6.2 6.4 6.7 7.6 8.4 6.3 7.3 5.6 6.2 6.5 6.6 7.0 6.3 Urban female 7.5 6.7 5.6 8.4 8.3 9.3 9.0 11.2 12.6 12.2 12.8 15.7 17.2 10.7 9.7 10.7 15.1 Dominican male 7.2 5.9 6.3 7.3 8.2 6.7 8.6 8.0 7.8 7.8 6.1 8.1 8.1 7.4 7.6 7.8 7.3 Rural Republic female 6.4 7.3 7.3 9.1 10.0 9.9 12.8 12.6 13.3 14.4 17.1 15.0 18.5 11.9 11.2 12.6 16.7 male 5.8 5.8 6.1 6.6 7.0 6.5 7.6 7.8 8.1 6.8 6.7 6.6 6.9 6.9 7.0 7.3 6.7 Total female 7.0 7.0 6.4 8.7 9.0 9.5 10.4 11.8 12.9 13.1 14.4 15.4 17.7 11.2 10.3 11.5 15.7 male 3.5 6.0 5.1 7.3 6.3 5.4 6.6 7.8 7.5 6.9 7.3 7.5 8.0 6.8 6.7 6.9 8.3 Urban female 3.0 5.5 6.0 5.7 6.6 7.0 9.0 9.8 9.4 10.5 12.6 12.2 14.4 9.0 8.0 9.2 11.1 male 5.8 5.7 7.7 8.7 7.8 8.7 7.5 8.0 9.4 8.0 9.2 10.5 9.0 8.4 8.3 7.6 9.6 Ecuador Rural female 6.3 7.8 6.7 8.5 9.9 8.8 10.0 11.6 11.5 12.7 12.7 13.7 13.1 10.8 10.1 13.0 13.2 male 4.5 5.8 6.2 8.1 7.1 7.1 7.1 7.9 8.5 7.5 8.1 9.0 8.5 7.6 7.5 7.1 8.7 Total female 4.5 6.6 6.3 7.2 8.0 7.9 9.5 10.8 10.3 11.7 12.7 13.0 13.8 9.9 9.1 10.7 11.9 male 4.4 4.1 4.3 5.3 5.3 5.7 6.1 6.8 7.3 7.0 7.2 7.6 7.5 6.3 6.1 6.6 7.4 Urban female 5.0 4.2 5.5 6.0 5.6 6.5 7.5 9.0 9.3 9.6 12.0 11.0 12.9 8.7 7.6 8.4 12.0 male 4.0 5.1 5.1 5.6 6.5 6.6 7.1 7.4 8.1 7.8 7.9 7.8 8.0 6.9 6.9 7.4 7.9 El Salvador Rural female 4.0 5.2 5.4 6.7 6.6 8.2 8.7 10.2 11.5 12.6 14.7 13.2 16.3 10.0 9.0 10.2 14.7 male 4.2 4.6 4.7 5.5 6.0 6.1 6.6 7.1 7.7 7.4 7.5 7.7 7.7 6.6 6.5 7.0 7.6 Total female 4.6 4.7 5.4 6.4 6.1 7.4 8.1 9.6 10.4 11.2 13.3 12.0 14.3 9.4 8.3 9.3 13.2 male - - 11.8 17.2 11.9 12.9 12.9 14.8 10.2 11.5 11.8 13.2 14.8 12.9 12.7 12.5 13.2 Urban female - - 11.8 12.3 14.7 16.4 19.1 22.3 16.6 18.1 23.3 23 23.7 19.0 17.1 18.4 23.3 male - - 14.3 16.4 13.2 12.8 15.1 16.8 15 14 13.8 13.7 11.7 14.4 14.7 14.8 13.0 Guatemala Rural female - - 13.7 16.2 16 20.8 19.1 22.3 22.8 23.6 26.2 26.8 29.8 22.2 19.9 21.9 27.5 male - - 13.8 16.6 12.8 12.8 14.6 16.2 13.2 13.2 13.1 13.5 12.6 13.9 14.2 14.1 13.1 Total female - - 13.3 14.9 15.7 19.6 19.1 22.3 20.5 21.8 25.3 25.5 27.7 21.2 19.1 20.8 26.1 XIX Table A10. Average weekly working hours, children performing household chores(1) male 7.8 8.9 10.1 11.6 11.3 11.6 11.7 11.6 13.4 12.8 14.9 13.5 15.6 12 11.8 12.2 14.6 Urban female 9.2 9.6 10.3 10.1 12.2 12.8 15.6 16.5 16.3 19.4 19.5 21.9 24 15.6 14.3 16.1 21.7 male 10.9 9.9 11.2 12.4 13.4 14.5 14.6 14.3 16.2 15.3 15.6 17.5 15.2 13.8 13.9 14.9 16.2 Honduras Rural female 9.8 10.4 10.6 13.1 13.9 15.3 16 18.3 22 25.7 26.7 28.4 27.3 17.6 16.6 19.1 27.4 male 9.9 9.5 10.7 12.1 12.6 13.4 13.4 13.2 14.9 14.3 15.3 15.7 15.4 13.1 13.1 13.8 15.5 Total female 9.6 10.1 10.5 12 13.2 14.3 15.8 17.5 19.5 22.9 23.1 25 25.5 16.8 15.7 17.9 24.4 male 8.7 9.4 10.2 10.2 10.4 12.4 11.8 12.9 13.2 14.6 14.1 14.5 16.6 12.5 12.0 13.0 15.0 Urban female 8.6 9.2 11.1 10.8 11.8 13.5 14.9 15.9 17.7 18.1 19.5 20.7 21.6 15.6 14.4 16.1 20.5 Nicaragua male 10.3 11.9 12.9 12.8 14.3 14.3 17.0 15.4 17.5 17.6 16.9 17.2 20.9 15.2 15.0 16.2 18.2 Rural female 10.9 12.2 13.8 15.6 15.6 18.6 17.8 21.9 20.7 25.4 27.2 23.4 31.6 19.6 18.5 20.7 27.0 male 9.5 10.8 11.6 11.4 12.4 13.4 14.3 14.0 15.2 15.7 15.2 15.5 18.1 13.7 13.4 14.5 16.2 Total female 9.7 10.8 12.6 12.9 13.7 16.1 16.3 18.6 19.0 21.2 22.7 21.8 25.1 17.4 16.3 18.2 23.1 male 4.6 6.1 5.7 5.8 5.9 6.2 7.0 6.7 7.8 7.7 8.4 9.1 7.6 7.0 6.6 7.1 8.4 Urban female 5.3 5.4 5.3 5.8 6.1 6.6 8.3 8.0 9.4 10.4 11.5 11.3 12.1 8.5 7.7 8.6 11.6 male 5.7 5.8 6.4 7.3 6.8 7.2 7.5 7.8 8.1 9.2 9.4 9 9.3 7.6 7.5 7.9 9.3 Panama Rural female 5.6 6.2 6.9 7.3 8.1 9.0 9.8 11.3 11.3 13.1 15.2 17.4 18.2 10.5 9.6 10.8 16.7 male 5.1 6.0 6.0 6.5 6.3 6.7 7.2 7.2 7.9 8.3 8.7 9.1 8 7.2 7.0 7.4 8.6 Total female 5.4 5.9 6.1 6.5 7.0 7.7 9 9.5 10.1 11.5 13 13.4 14 9.4 8.6 9.6 13.4 Note: (1) Refers to children performing household chores for at least one hour during the reference week Bolivia/Brazil/Venezuela; no information on household chores XX Table A11. School attendance rate, all children Age in years Entire Country Sex age 7-14 10-14 15-17 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 range male 46.4 84.8 97.4 93.9 96 97.3 93.5 96.1 98.5 94.8 86.9 82.7 69.5 88.2 96 95.7 80.4 Urban female 60.5 88 97.1 98.4 99.2 96.8 98.7 90.8 87.6 85.5 91.6 81 70.4 88.5 94.4 90.9 81.6 Bolivia male 38.2 70.7 95.5 96.9 97.7 96.8 95.8 90.6 82.7 74.5 62.1 52.9 49.8 78.4 91.9 86.7 55.7 Rural female 38.9 65 92.3 94.8 98.3 94.1 85.5 82.1 75.4 64.9 58.1 46.2 32.9 73.6 86.3 76.7 46.9 male 42.5 79 96.6 95.1 96.7 97.1 94.4 93.5 92.9 87.9 77.8 72.3 63.3 84.4 94.4 92.2 71.8 Total female 51.3 78 94.9 97 98.9 95.7 93.9 87.5 83.2 76.8 80.6 72.1 58.7 82.8 91.2 85.5 71.3 male 73.3 88.9 95.5 98.1 98.0 98.6 98.5 98.5 97.2 94.7 90.5 85.0 75.9 91.7 97.4 97.5 83.9 Urban female 74.3 90.0 97.0 98.8 98.9 98.9 98.9 98.6 96.9 94.3 90.7 85.1 77.3 92.1 97.8 97.5 84.4 male 50.6 77.2 92.8 94.5 97.3 96.7 96.8 96.7 93.6 91.0 86.2 73.7 59.8 85.4 94.9 94.9 73.5 Brazil Rural female 56.8 77.6 93.9 96.8 97.9 98.4 98.6 97.2 95.8 91.9 84.0 75.3 62.3 86.8 96.3 96.3 74.1 male 69.2 86.8 95.0 97.4 97.9 98.2 98.2 98.1 96.5 94.0 89.7 83.0 73.0 90.5 96.9 97 82.0 Total female 71.2 87.6 96.4 98.4 98.7 98.8 98.8 98.3 96.7 93.9 89.5 83.6 74.9 91.2 97.5 97.3 82.7 male - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Urban female - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - male - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Colombia Rural female - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - male 70.4 87.0 90.8 92.8 94.2 95.6 93.3 92.8 83.8 82.4 74.6 68.2 59.3 84.3 91.0 89.9 67.3 Total female 75.2 88.6 93.1 95.8 96.8 96.1 95.0 93.8 93.0 86.3 82.3 72.6 63.4 88.1 93.8 92.9 73.1 male 53.9 95.2 99.4 99.3 100 98.3 98.0 95.7 97.1 89.8 84.6 82.2 69.7 89.3 97.4 96.0 78.4 Urban female 57.9 97.7 99.1 99.4 97.0 99.0 99.3 96.9 96.7 90.0 82.2 82.8 73.9 89.8 97.3 96.5 79.3 male 41.4 86.0 95.4 97.1 97.5 96.4 95.0 96.1 84.9 67.9 63.8 48.6 40.1 78.0 91.1 87.8 50.5 Costa Rica Rural female 37.7 88.4 95.4 96.7 98.2 99.0 98.6 93.7 78.6 75.6 62.6 61.9 51.5 80.3 92.6 90.1 59.1 male 48.5 90.9 97.6 98.4 98.8 97.4 96.6 95.8 91.4 78.2 75.7 67.1 57.4 84.2 94.5 92.1 48.5 Total female 48.4 93.5 97.5 98.3 97.7 99.0 99.0 95.4 89.3 83.7 73.2 73.6 65.8 85.5 95.1 93.6 48.4 male 87.0 89.1 97.6 95.4 95.3 96.2 97.5 97.2 96.6 93.3 92.7 89.3 81.7 93.3 96.2 96.2 88.3 Urban female 86.4 93.9 95.5 97.6 98.3 99.2 97.6 97.9 94.7 95.2 93.7 89.1 78.7 94.2 97.1 97.1 87.9 Dominican male 77.5 91.1 94.7 96.7 97.5 95.5 97.8 96.0 97.2 91.4 86.2 82.4 83.1 91.9 96.0 95.9 83.9 Rural Republic female 77.2 91.2 95.3 97.5 98.9 96.6 98.6 97.0 94.0 95.7 84.4 76.8 73.5 91.4 96.8 96.4 78.6 male 83.1 90.0 96.3 95.9 96.1 96.0 97.6 96.7 96.8 92.6 90.3 86.6 82.1 92.7 96.1 96.1 86.7 Total female 82.9 92.8 95.4 97.6 98.5 98.2 98.0 97.5 94.4 95.4 90.2 84.5 76.8 93.1 97.0 96.8 84.5 male 82.4 94.7 97.3 96.3 98.4 98.4 96.9 92.7 89.7 91.1 86.4 75.7 72.5 90.7 95.1 93.8 79.0 Urban female 83.2 96.3 98.0 98.3 98.1 98.0 96.5 94.6 92.4 89.5 81.6 79.0 66.3 90.7 95.9 94.2 77.4 male 67.8 87.0 94.2 96.2 95.6 95.8 92.5 83.7 63.8 55.1 47.7 41.6 32.9 74.7 85.1 78.7 40.8 Ecuador Rural female 61.0 85.5 93.6 95.1 98.5 95.3 89.9 78.5 70.3 55.1 46.1 47.1 40.8 74.7 84.5 75.7 44.9 male 75.5 91.4 96.0 96.3 97.2 97.2 94.9 88.6 78.3 75.8 70.7 60.3 54.3 83.6 90.7 88.5 66.0 Total female 73.2 91.6 96.0 96.9 98.3 96.8 93.5 87.1 82.9 72.9 66.2 65.1 55.9 83.7 90.9 87.4 66.2 XXI Table A11. School attendance rate, all children male 50.3 78.9 84.7 91.7 93.7 93.4 95.2 93.6 91.9 88.4 88.3 76.7 73.3 84.8 91.5 92.5 79.8 Urban female 56.2 73.5 86.4 90.5 95.3 95.9 94.9 96.9 90.9 83.7 81.9 79.3 65.1 83.4 92.0 92.7 75.5 male 31.6 48.9 74.3 83.0 86.4 88.0 85.9 86.3 80.9 70.9 59.5 56.3 40.2 69.0 82.0 82.6 51.8 El Salvador Rural female 35.7 58.5 77.9 83.0 88.9 86.3 90.7 81.2 78.6 65.1 56.2 48.5 41.3 69.4 81.3 80.3 49.2 male 41.0 64.7 79.7 87.9 89.9 90.9 90.6 89.9 86.6 80.0 75.2 67.2 56.5 77.2 86.9 87.7 66.5 Total female 47.2 66.7 82.3 86.8 92.4 91.1 92.9 89.4 85.3 73.9 70.7 65.5 55.6 76.9 86.8 86.7 64.2 male 30.3 66.2 75.4 90.9 92.3 81.3 95.9 85.8 74.1 79.1 56.5 62.4 57.8 73.4 84 82.8 58.8 Urban female 44.1 56 79.2 80.3 89.9 88.1 83.7 84.7 92.5 59.5 65 54.1 53.6 71.5 82.1 81.6 58 Guatemala male 11.4 35.1 67.6 76.8 83.2 81.1 76.8 80.1 66.4 54.1 39.1 30.8 26 56.8 73.6 72.6 32.1 Rural female 16.1 35.3 57.5 73.9 74.6 79.3 77.6 72.7 55.1 40.2 24.7 20.7 16.3 50.2 66.7 65.5 20.8 male 17.5 44.4 70.3 81.7 86.7 81.2 82.4 82.1 69.2 63.3 44.9 42.1 37.3 62.5 77.2 76.1 41.4 Total female 25.9 41.7 64.2 76.1 79.6 82.2 79.8 77 70.3 47.9 40.1 32.7 30.5 57.7 72.1 71.5 34.7 male 59.8 78.8 92.4 95.9 96.9 95 98.1 93.2 87.9 78.1 65.5 65.5 52.8 82.4 92.4 90.9 61 Urban female 56.5 85.3 91.6 97.7 97.6 94.8 98.2 92.2 90.3 73.9 70.1 64.3 63.7 82.7 92.1 90 66.2 male 37.2 63 86.1 91.7 90.3 90 86.9 80.4 56.6 52.9 33.1 23 16.7 64.9 80.4 74.8 25.1 Honduras Rural female 35.9 64.9 88.2 92.3 92.2 91.9 92.8 79.4 60.2 50.2 35.8 27.7 26 67.4 82 76.1 30.2 male 46.1 69.7 88.9 93.3 93.1 92 91.6 85.7 70.9 63.2 45.8 41.4 34.8 72.2 85.4 81.5 40.9 Total female 44.4 72.8 89.6 94.5 94.5 93 95.1 84.8 73.6 61.1 53.1 45.8 46.4 74.1 86.2 82.1 48.6 male 49.0 76.9 85.4 92.1 92.0 92.8 92.1 91.0 87.7 80.4 75.0 61.7 65.0 81.0 89.3 88.9 67.3 Urban female 59.7 73.2 87.5 91.9 89.0 92.9 95.6 90.0 90.1 86.1 84.5 73.3 65.3 83.4 90.3 90.9 74.6 Nicaragua male 39.7 57.0 62.2 76.9 73.7 79.3 74.3 73.4 68.8 55.4 50.6 38.0 29.6 61.4 70.8 70.9 39.8 Rural female 40.5 53.0 77.8 82.6 84.9 83.9 84.9 80.1 77.3 68.0 54.6 39.1 26.6 68.0 80.4 79.2 41.2 male 44.5 67.0 74.4 85.4 83.2 86.5 83.9 83.2 77.9 70.0 63.8 51.7 49.2 71.9 80.8 80.6 55.1 Total female 51.2 63.5 82.9 87.8 87.1 88.5 90.4 85.5 84.7 78.3 71.8 59.0 50.5 76.5 85.7 85.5 60.9 male 64.0 90.7 97.5 96.6 98.8 98.7 99.7 97.9 94.1 94.3 83.3 83.9 72.1 90.5 97.3 97.1 79.8 Urban female 62.2 88.6 98.1 97.4 98.5 98.9 97.8 98.7 99.0 95.7 85.2 87.9 77.2 91.4 98.0 98.0 83.4 male 35.3 74.0 90.7 95.0 94.6 95.1 96.1 91.2 78.9 70.4 63.8 54.0 38.0 76.5 89.5 87.0 52.2 Panama Rural female 34.1 71.6 93.6 95.4 96.9 92.1 94.6 86.2 81.2 74.8 56.9 54.9 45.3 77.0 89.9 86.3 53.0 male 50.0 83.1 94.4 95.9 97.0 97.0 98.2 94.6 87.3 83.4 75.4 72.0 58.0 84.3 93.8 92.5 68.5 Total female 48.8 80.7 95.9 96.5 97.8 95.9 96.4 93.4 91.7 87.5 73.5 75.8 66.7 85.2 94.5 93.1 72.1 male 86.1 97.4 98.2 98.2 100 98.3 97.1 97 97.9 94.8 83.3 72.6 56.7 90.6 97.7 97 70.7 Urban female 87.7 94.4 98.6 95.9 95.5 98.9 100 100 92.6 96.1 86.8 85.3 58.4 91 97.1 97.4 76.3 male 79.9 92 95.7 98.1 97 97.1 96.4 95.6 91.1 83.4 74.2 66.5 51.1 86.3 94.3 92.7 64.1 Venezuela Rural female 82.8 92.3 95.8 97.9 97.9 97.4 97.8 96.1 93.7 89.9 81.2 68.1 56.3 88.7 95.9 95 69.1 male 80.7 92.6 95.9 98.1 97.4 97.3 96.4 95.7 91.8 84.7 75.3 67.1 51.8 86.8 94.7 93.2 64.9 Total female 83.5 92.5 96.1 97.7 97.6 97.6 98 96.5 93.6 90.8 81.8 70.2 56.6 89 96 95.3 70 XXII Table A12. School attendance rate, economically active children Age in years Entire Country Sex age 7-14 10-14 15-17 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 range male - - 72.8 100 100 86.4 89.2 98.1 97.2 73.4 61.1 50.3 57.3 69.8 86.5 86.5 55.4 Urban female - - 100 100 - 100 100 85.6 79.2 77.7 57.8 55.7 52.9 70 86.5 84.2 55.4 Bolivia male - - 90.1 96 94.4 91.9 97.2 85.6 72.4 65.4 37.7 30.1 38.8 70.2 84.9 78.6 35.3 Rural female - - 95.3 86.8 94.3 83.9 70.7 73 54.2 41.7 33.1 39 19.3 59.1 70.8 58.7 29.8 male - - 87 96.1 95 91.1 95.5 88.8 78.1 68.4 47.3 39.9 45.5 70.1 85.3 80.8 43.9 Total female - - 95.7 87.4 94.3 87.7 79.6 75.9 62.9 52.5 40.3 49.7 32 62.5 74.4 66.3 41.5 male 92.1 100 100 97.4 97.6 99.2 97.2 98.1 95.2 87.3 80.9 75.6 66.6 79.0 93.7 93.3 72.8 Urban female 82.4 93.0 93.4 93.5 100 100 98.3 98.6 94.9 90.6 84.7 79.5 75.2 83.1 95.0 94.9 78.8 male 50.7 79.2 96.6 92.7 99.2 97.4 97.5 97.9 92.3 88.6 83.6 70.5 56.5 82.0 94.1 93.8 69.6 Brazil Rural female 0.0 73.9 100 98.3 96.6 97.7 98.7 100 93.6 87.8 79.4 68.3 60.0 81.2 94.9 94.5 68.5 male 79.4 82.9 97.6 94.9 98.6 98.0 97.4 98.0 93.7 87.9 82.0 73.8 63.7 80.3 93.9 93.6 71.8 Total female 31.0 78.8 97.8 96.6 97.9 98.6 98.5 99.2 94.3 89.4 83.1 76.6 71.8 82.5 95.0 94.7 76.2 male - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Urban female - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - male - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Colombia Rural female - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - male 69.6 85.8 61.2 88.8 88.3 94.9 84.2 78.5 60.9 62.0 46.1 52.1 30.6 61.2 75.7 73.7 42.3 Total female 37.1 94.2 56.9 94.3 99.7 96.1 91.5 78.1 82.0 62.6 70.0 50.6 46.2 70.9 81.0 78.7 55.8 male - - 100 - 100 70.9 69.2 89.9 71.4 61.8 46.3 53.7 29.3 47.5 76.4 70.8 38.7 Urban female - - - - - 100 100 100 100 21.5 59.6 64.9 56.6 61.9 81.3 77.1 58.9 male 100 100 100 100 89.5 89.5 100 80.6 54.9 34.1 35.3 19.7 15.3 34.4 57.8 53.8 21.9 Costa Rica Rural female - - 100 100 100 100 100 46.1 52.9 49.4 25.6 58.3 22.6 45.6 71.8 66.0 35.1 male 100 100 100 100 94.2 84.7 88.4 83.5 58 39.6 38.3 30 21.4 38.6 62.5 57.8 27.9 Total female - - 100 100 100 100 100 51.9 60.4 43 37.5 60 38.9 51.1 73.6 68.1 44.1 male 100 75.3 100 88.4 94.6 95.3 93.4 95.4 94.5 90.3 88.8 84.9 74.6 89.3 93.6 93.6 83.1 Urban female 0.0 100 100 83.8 91.5 100 94.9 94.0 86.9 84.9 87.1 91.8 64.7 87.5 91.9 92.6 82.0 Dominican male 67.9 97.5 98.0 98.5 95.6 94.4 99.1 94.0 96.6 84.5 78.7 79.8 83.1 89.8 94.9 93.9 80.4 Rural Republic female 86.5 100 100 100 100 93.1 100 100 88.8 94.4 72.9 62.6 64.6 84.6 96.2 94.7 66.7 male 78.5 86.9 99.0 92.9 95.1 94.9 95.8 94.8 95.3 88.2 85.1 82.7 77.9 89.5 94.1 93.7 82.0 Total female 63.5 100 100 88.5 94.5 97.5 96.3 96.0 87.7 89.8 81.2 81.4 64.6 86.4 93.5 93.4 76.0 male 100 100 100 100 97.9 98.3 85.4 75 71.4 69.6 69.4 40.9 40.7 63.3 78.7 76.7 64.6 Urban female 68.2 94.3 96.4 100 85.9 96.9 100 79.3 75.7 72 56.7 56.1 42.1 62.8 80.7 79.1 60.1 male 62.6 60.9 88.4 97.4 94.4 94.7 88.3 73.3 49.6 43.2 30.8 27.9 23 53.4 70.4 49.8 27.2 Ecuador Rural female 33.7 68.5 92.3 92.3 96.7 93.5 88.5 60.4 56.6 35.4 30.1 36.8 36 55.1 68.6 50.8 34.3 male 66 64.6 89.3 97.7 94.9 95.7 87.6 73.8 55.3 51 45.2 32.4 29.9 56.3 72.4 61.4 47.6 Total female 38.8 71.7 92.7 92.9 95.9 94 90.1 64 62.4 43.3 38.6 43.4 38.4 57.1 70.8 61.1 48.1 XXIII Table A12. School attendance rate, economically active children male 32.3 100 52.5 100 100 92.2 95.5 77.6 70.8 64.4 68.5 49.3 41.9 63.0 76.0 74.7 52.4 Urban female 100 35.5 100 100 100 67.9 72.3 100 85.7 64.8 66.6 55.8 35.0 64.7 78.8 77.3 51.8 male 0.0 45.6 59.7 64.5 68.9 60.6 65.7 76.1 69.3 53.1 35.8 36.5 21.8 47.8 64.7 64.5 30.4 El Salvador Rural female - 100 100 41.8 100 73.0 91.2 69.3 60.5 41.9 42.9 39.2 20.9 45.8 58.4 57.7 34.3 male 22.1 64.1 56.9 72.4 74.5 67.9 73.4 76.5 69.6 56.5 45.8 41.2 27.5 52.2 67.7 67.2 37.3 Total female 100 64.4 100 57.9 100 70.6 81.3 87.7 72.4 52.8 55.8 46.0 28.4 55.2 68.6 67.5 42.9 male 0 100 62.4 85.7 90 62.1 89.7 72 72.7 58.1 43.3 35.9 39.5 53.9 70.3 67.8 39.9 Urban female - 44.1 76.7 94.9 100 74.4 71.2 73.5 90.8 30.2 48.4 33.5 38 51.6 64.8 61.5 40.3 male 28.8 50.5 83.1 69.6 69.2 78.9 71.2 69.2 54.4 41.1 26.1 22.5 16.8 44.5 61.6 59.6 21.6 Guatemala Rural female 0 41.8 62.4 77.4 84.5 63.5 78 64.8 45.6 19.6 17.3 12 16.4 38.3 55 50 14.9 male 18.1 61.3 81 73 73.7 75.2 73.2 69.7 58.4 44.8 31 25.9 22.8 46.6 63.3 61.2 26.5 Total female 0 42.2 66.4 81.1 87 64.9 76.7 67.9 62 23.7 30.4 19.3 26.6 42.9 57.9 53.6 25.3 male 0 100 100 75.6 100 79.3 95.4 79.6 66.1 47.6 29.9 38.1 24.1 46.3 69.9 68.3 30.4 Urban female - 100 100 100 100 95 90.7 85.1 82.3 55.8 45.4 42.3 46.8 58.3 79.4 77.1 44.6 male 100 100 91.5 77 84.2 69.5 61.9 58.6 36.2 33.8 17.3 11.6 9.1 31.7 49.7 46.1 12.9 Honduras Rural female 100 71.5 100 80 100 81.7 80.8 71 54.1 41.6 28.3 23.6 46.9 50 64.4 61.1 30.9 male 83.1 100 92.2 76.6 86.4 72 70.2 62 41.5 36.6 20.2 19 14.1 35.2 53.7 50.6 17.8 Total female 100 77.7 100 85.2 100 87.5 85.7 75.3 66.3 47.7 37.6 34.3 46.8 54.1 70.5 67.6 38.7 male - 24.1 56.5 67.5 68 83 80.3 81.1 70.7 52 51.1 33.2 45.5 56 69.8 70.5 43.3 Urban female 100 81.3 100 89.2 100 74.4 90.6 78.2 63.7 66.7 67.6 52.5 52.1 65.2 75.4 72.1 56.1 Nicaragua male 48.4 49.9 55.3 60.3 60.8 71.7 59.2 63.5 56.2 41.1 42.6 23 18.5 46.2 57.6 57.1 28.5 Rural female - 50.8 71.1 55.2 91.4 71.5 45.5 64 46.3 48.2 29.4 34.3 9.7 44.7 57.5 54.3 24.3 male 48.4 43.1 55.5 62.3 62.2 74.2 64.9 70.4 60.1 44.9 45.7 27.3 29.3 49.4 61.2 61.2 34.3 Total female 100 61.3 75.5 63.9 94.7 72.3 62.7 68.8 54.3 56.3 47.5 44.1 33.7 53.8 64.2 61.3 41.2 male - - 27.3 - 96.7 100 100 88.6 51.9 70.5 52.5 39 31.7 52.5 74.4 72.4 41.1 Urban female - - - 100 100 100 94.4 100 66.9 61.1 44.9 49.3 57.7 59.9 78.5 77.8 53 male 0 80.4 59.8 85.2 76.9 88.3 89.4 63.4 43.1 33.6 24.5 19.6 14 37.4 58.4 55.3 18.5 Panama Rural female 50 0 - 100 100 82.6 44.2 70.4 57.6 42 15.7 13.7 10.6 29.2 62.8 57.1 13.6 male 0 80.4 57.7 85.2 85.3 89.4 92 67.6 45.4 42.3 35.8 23.5 19.7 41.5 61.7 59 25.7 Total female 50 0 - 100 100 91.1 70.5 80.6 59.4 52.6 24.8 28 38.8 42.7 69.2 66.1 31.5 male - - - - - - 100 - - 57.7 35.4 32.6 8.9 22.6 70.5 70.5 18.9 Urban female - - - - - 100 - - - 50 66.7 68.7 22.5 44.7 65 65 40.9 male - - - - - 88.5 74.6 70.3 61 40.1 31.9 28.5 23.1 36.4 56.8 56.8 27.3 Venezuela Rural female - - - - - 91.6 88.7 76.7 86.9 87.1 42.6 35.2 30.8 50.6 86.2 86.2 35 male - - - - - 88.5 75.5 70.3 61 40.4 32.1 28.6 21.9 35.8 56.9 56.9 26.8 Total female - - - - - 92.5 88.7 76.7 86.9 85 44.1 37 30 50.2 85.4 85.4 35.5 XXIV Table A13. School attendance rate of children performing household chores (28 hrs. per week) Age in years Entire Country Sex age 7-14 10-14 15-17 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 range male - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Urban female - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - male - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Colombia Rural female - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - male 75.0 93.2 92.7 89.3 94.8 85.4 94.5 92.8 48.5 69.8 64.0 41.0 70.1 78.2 85.1 78.7 56.1 Total female 70.9 86.3 100 96.9 100 87.6 84.6 77.3 70.1 43.9 51.2 35.0 29.5 61.1 80.0 69.6 37.2 male 0.0 100 - - - 100 - 100 100 100 - 71.2 49.2 71.8 96.3 94.4 78.8 Urban female - 100 - - 0.0 - - 0.0 59.5 75.4 27.1 45.4 53.1 48.2 96 95.2 75.7 male - 0.0 100 - - 0.0 100. 61.4 100 47.6 100 67.3 20.5 52.1 92.4 90.5 61.8 Costa Rica Rural female 0.0 - 100 - 100 100 79.4 53.0 39.8 17.9 23.0 15.7 14.0 25.1 91 88.4 56.1 male 0.0 55.0 100 - - 52.3 100. 68.9 100. 83.2 100. 70.6 30.3 62.8 94.4 92.5 72.2 Total female 0.0 100 100 - 35.7 100 79.4 44.8 45.6 42.8 24.7 27.6 37.8 35.7 93.5 91.9 66.8 male 85.9 86.9 100 100 100 94.6 100 94.6 94.0 92.7 94.5 81.1 100 94.0 97.1 95.2 91.4 Urban female 91.1 100 88.0 90.8 100 100 97.0 100 87.8 94.8 72.9 85.6 72.5 90.3 94.5 95.3 78.4 Dominican male 93.1 83.7 100 100 96.0 95.1 100 100 88.2 86.7 100 67.2 100 94.4 97.0 95.6 83.2 Rural Republic female 79.2 92.3 100 100 100 98.1 94.2 95.4 76.0 93.5 83.0 65.2 58.5 87.0 94.9 92.6 69.3 male 88.0 85.9 100 100 98.2 94.9 100 96.5 92.2 90.5 95.7 74.1 100 94.2 97.1 95.4 88.3 Total female 86.6 95.9 93.6 94.0 100 99.0 95.9 97.7 83.9 94.1 78.7 78.2 66.7 88.8 94.7 94.1 74.4 Urban male - 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 61.8 100 76.9 100 100 91.5 94.2 90.8 45.2 female - 100 100 100 67.5 100 100 100 100 85.3 69.9 73.5 60.8 79.2 93.0 96.9 35.2 Ecuador Rural male - - - 83.4 100 100 89.1 70.4 13.5 0.0 54.2 0.0 33.3 38.7 53.1 86.3 23.9 female - 100 57.4 100 100 100 77.1 41.1 100 6.7 28.6 45.3 25.3 41.5 47.5 68.0 34.6 Total male - 78 100 94.1 100 100 92.4 81.3 35.9 48.7 70.2 25.8 57.9 66.0 75.6 88.6 34.5 female - 100 81.3 100 78.8 100 93.4 65.6 100 30.1 55.5 58.1 46.0 62.2 71.6 78.5 34.8 male - - - - - - 100 - 79.9 52.4 62.6 100 77.9 75.8 73.7 73.7 78.0 Urban female - - - - - 44.3 100 79.9 88.3 78.2 38.3 70.5 14.7 45.9 80.7 80.7 35.4 male - - - 100 100 - 100 30.6 100 100 74.1 56.4 78.3 75.7 77.5 70.5 72.4 El Salvador Rural female - 0 - 0 100 60.9 90.7 55.6 63 48.1 29.6 27.9 15.8 36.9 57.0 57.5 23.9 male - - - 100 100 - 100 30.6 88.6 77.7 68.9 79 78.1 75.7 76.3 71.8 74.9 Total female - 0 - 0 100 57.6 92.5 60.5 71.2 52.6 32.9 41.6 15.4 39.8 62.0 62.5 28.2 male - - 80.4 92.9 91.2 81.3 96 83.5 67.6 80.6 64.8 72.6 57 79.5 84.0 81.4 63.6 Urban female - - 81.8 78.1 87.2 84 84.2 82.7 92.9 65.1 72.8 53.8 54.6 76.2 82.0 82.0 60.9 male - - 62.7 75.4 84.9 83.3 79.2 80.7 65.6 62.5 48 36.1 27.7 67.6 74.8 75.6 37.0 Guatemala Rural female - - 59.3 75.9 74.2 77.7 76.2 72.7 55.4 41.6 25.1 22.3 15.1 55.3 66.9 65.1 21.1 male - - 67.5 81.6 87.4 82.6 84.4 81.7 66.4 70 54.4 49.1 40 71.9 78.0 77.7 47.3 Total female - - 65.7 76.6 78.1 79.4 79 76 70.2 50.3 42.1 33.5 29.3 62.4 72.0 71.0 35.3 XXV Table A13. School attendance rate of children performing household chores (28 hrs. per week) male 100 70.8 90.6 78.6 100 100 96 87.1 96.4 65.6 55 73.1 42.3 79.2 90.1 89.6 55.6 Urban female 31.5 74 90 100 91.8 82.6 100 83.9 84.2 44.7 49.5 52.4 52.3 64.6 77.3 75 51.5 male 19.6 69.1 86.8 83.3 78.8 84.4 78.3 67.3 30.7 42.2 38.7 13.4 29.3 54.4 66 59.8 25.9 Honduras Rural female 24.3 76.3 86.8 92.5 85.9 77.4 85.7 69 45.1 34.5 23.5 15.3 16.3 46.2 62.1 56.1 18.7 male 29.7 69.6 88.3 82.1 87.6 88.8 84 75.8 54 48.7 45 30.7 35.9 62.9 74.1 69.7 37.2 Total female 27.4 75.6 87.8 93.7 87.1 78.9 90.9 74.3 55 37.8 32.1 30.5 32.1 52.4 66.6 62 31.5 male 57.9 76.1 82.1 92.1 93.9 90.4 93.1 91.4 89.0 85.4 79.0 67.7 71.9 84.4 89.8 89.8 73.1 Urban female 63.0 74.6 88.9 92.3 90.7 92.5 96.2 88.9 90.1 86.2 85.1 79.5 70.4 86.3 90.7 90.6 78.8 Nicaragua male 22.6 61.5 58.9 77.3 75.7 80.0 76.0 78.3 70.3 60.4 55.1 47.5 37.9 66.3 72.7 74.0 47.4 Rural female 55.8 47.4 74.9 80.0 84.8 87.1 86.9 82.0 79.9 69.5 56.9 43.9 28.8 71.3 81.0 81.5 45.3 male 40.1 68.1 70.0 85.2 84.6 85.0 85.0 85.8 80.4 76.3 70.3 60.1 59.8 76.2 81.8 82.7 63.7 Total female 59.4 60.1 81.5 86.8 87.7 89.8 91.7 85.9 85.8 79.3 73.4 65.1 55.7 79.5 86.2 86.4 65.6 male 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 2.1 1.4 0.6 0.3 98.4 98.3 91 Urban female 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.1 0.9 0.1 1.2 1.0 3.5 2.3 4.0 1.0 98.5 98.8 87.5 male 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.4 0.0 0.3 0.5 0.7 1.4 0.8 0.9 0.3 93.5 93.1 85.1 Panama Rural female 0.0 0.1 0.8 0.2 1.1 0.9 1.9 2.2 4.2 5.8 7.5 10.2 16.1 3.0 90.1 87.4 60.4 male 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.4 0.3 1.8 1.3 0.7 0.3 96.2 96.1 89.2 Total female 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.1 0.7 0.4 1.3 1.0 2.4 2.9 5.0 5.1 7.8 1.8 94.8 93.9 77.8 Table A14. Rate of reported illness/injury by child activity status, 5-17 (1) Performing (2) Economically (3) Attending Multiple activities Multiple activities Inactive (neither Inactive (neither Country Sex HH chores active school (1), (2) and (3) (2) and (3) (1) nor (2) nor (3) (2) nor (3) male - 13.8 11 - 14.9 - 17.5 Bolivia female - 15.3 11.7 - 18.5 - 9.9 male 307 17.1 2.8 9.4 11.4 1.3 4.1 Colombia female 1.3 9.7 0.2 1.3 1.4 2.5 2.8 Dominican male 14.1 12.7 12.7 14.3 12.7 - - Republic female 11.0 10.3 9.5 10.0 9.5 - - male 8.1 9.1 6.9 6.6 6.6 14.9 12.4 Ecuador female 6.0 5.9 5.7 5.7 5.5 4.2 4.7 male - 4.8 - - 5.0 - - El Salvador female - 1.3 - - 0.7 - - male 16.0 23.2 22.1 8.6 26.9 21.5 21.6 Guatemala female 20.0 24.4 24.3 18.3 25.6 24.9 22.1 male - 16.2 10.8 - 11 - - Honduras female - 10.2 9.9 - 9.7 - - male 10.7 11.4 9.5 10.6 9.7 - - Nicaragua female 3.6 5.5 4.7 1.7 4.0 - - male - 7.8 - - 5.9 - - Panama female - 2.4 - - 4.3 - - Notes: *Guatemala 7-17; (a)Nicaragua, Brazil: injury; *Venezuela: no information health XXVI Table A15. Rate of reported injury/illness among children at work in economic activity, by age and sex Age in years Entire Country Sex age 7-14 10-14 15-17 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 range male - - 49.2 0 64.8 15.4 24.3 7.2 12 20.2 16 4.2 31.2 17.1 20.8 16 13.9 Urban female - - 0 35.8 - 6.7 0 7.7 5.8 47.2 8.4 17.5 10.6 15.2 16.5 17.8 14.1 Bolivia male - - 23.1 20.3 4.5 21.4 25.1 13.6 10.4 8.5 7.6 10.2 2.4 12.5 14.7 13.5 7.1 Rural female - - 32.8 26.8 29.9 19.6 22.1 10 8.3 8.2 14.8 4.4 9.5 15.3 17.4 11.4 10.1 male - - 27.8 19.9 11 20.6 24.9 12 10.8 12.7 11 7.3 12.9 13.8 16 14.2 10 Total female - - 30.3 27.2 29.9 16.6 15.4 9.5 7.4 20 12.9 12.7 9.9 15.3 17.2 13.3 11.9 male - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Urban female - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - male - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Colombia Rural female - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - male 0.0 0.0 0.0 24.9 6.7 7.2 1.4 6.5 14.7 17.8 18.7 17.9 34.9 17.1 11.7 11.0 24.7 Total female - 0.0 14.8 14.0 3.2 1.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.0 66.7 7.8 9.7 1.5 0.5 25.2 male 0.0 0.0 18.3 3.7 6.7 15.4 14.6 6.2 11.7 15.5 11.6 17.8 11.1 12.0 11.6 12.8 13.4 Urban female 56.7 42.8 0.0 12.2 11.2 0.0 8.9 8.4 9.9 25.8 19.8 4.0 12.8 11.0 9.7 9.8 11.5 Dominican male 4.6 0.0 14.5 19.2 16.3 13.1 10.6 15.3 9.2 11.7 21.3 11.6 13.3 13.5 13.4 12.0 15.2 Rural Republic female 0.0 31.1 0.0 22.8 4.6 12.5 16.0 0.0 3.4 0.0 26.4 5.5 8.8 9.2 6.4 5.6 13.4 male 3.1 0.0 16.3 10.7 11.2 14.3 13.0 10.6 10.7 14.1 15.1 15.1 11.9 12.7 12.4 12.5 14.1 Total female 15.1 35.6 0.0 15.3 8.9 4.5 10.8 5.5 7.3 12.4 22.5 4.6 11.1 10.3 8.5 8.2 12.3 male 0.0 0.0 11.7 0.0 0.0 2.2 2.6 3.5 1.3 5.4 10.2 2.2 10.1 5.4 3.2 3.4 8.7 Urban female 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.5 4.2 4.4 1.1 5.8 2.1 13.2 5.3 2.8 3.1 6.2 male 0.0 10.5 7.7 2.8 7.8 4.9 9.8 9.3 6.5 11.3 11.2 18.4 13.5 10.5 8.1 7.4 14.6 Ecuador Rural female 0.0 0.0 5.6 1.9 0.0 3.6 9.0 7.8 4.3 6.0 7.3 9.2 8.2 6.1 5.1 7.2 8.3 male 0.0 9.6 8.0 2.4 6.5 4.2 8.1 7.8 5.1 9.5 10.9 12.9 12.3 9.1 6.9 5.6 11.3 Total female 0.0 0.0 5.2 1.8 0.0 3.1 8.7 7.1 4.3 5.0 6.9 6.8 10.0 5.9 4.7 5.6 7.1 male 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.4 3.1 5.6 2.9 5.6 6.8 4.6 3.9 4.3 5.2 Urban female 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.3 1.2 0.0 9.0 2.2 0.5 0.5 3.9 male 0.0 15.4 0.0 3.6 13.7 9.1 3.4 6.7 2.9 4.8 4.4 4.4 4.1 5.0 5.5 5.0 4.3 El Salvador Rural female - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.7 0.7 0.0 male 0.0 10.2 0.0 2.7 11.2 7.0 2.5 6.9 3.0 5.0 3.9 4.8 4.8 4.8 5.1 4.8 4.6 Total female 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.6 0.7 0.0 4.9 1.3 06 0.6 2.0 male - - 18.3 40.5 11.5 58.3 10.2 14.9 8.4 19.6 23.2 18.1 40.7 24.6 20.8 20.5 28.0 Urban female - - 41.1 14.8 17.1 3 12.5 27.4 15.3 23.9 20.2 16.6 21.9 20.1 20.5 20.0 19.7 male - - 35.5 25.2 22.7 23 32 29.8 20.3 23.2 28 18.5 11.3 22.8 25.5 25.3 19.1 Guatemala Rural female - - 21.8 14.9 39.1 32.4 29.8 29.1 30.4 23.5 19.4 31.6 17.8 26.6 28.6 28.5 23.9 male - - 33.8 28.4 20.3 30.8 29.6 27.1 17.7 22.4 26.6 18.4 19 23.2 24.6 24.4 21.4 Total female - - 27.3 14.9 35.6 28.6 26.4 28.5 24.9 23.7 19.7 26.5 19.7 24.4 26.2 25.8 22.2 XXVII Table A15. Rate of reported injury/illness among children at work in economic activity, by age and sex male 0 100 0 0 0 0 9.7 4.9 12.9 17.6 10.4 18.1 19.6 14.4 10.3 11.3 16.7 Urban female - - 50 62.2 0 17.4 14.8 18.3 5.5 14.5 8.9 10.9 2.5 10.6 14.8 13.5 8 male 0 0 0 0 4.9 5.8 6.2 10.1 18.6 20.6 18.7 17 23.6 16.7 13.9 15 19.7 Honduras Rural female - 0 0 0 0 0 6.4 11.4 13 10.3 7.6 2.6 31.3 9.8 8.6 9.5 11.6 male 0 28 0 0 4.4 4.4 7 9.2 17.6 20 16.9 17.3 22.3 16.2 13.2 14.3 18.8 Total female - 0 30.5 17.7 0 7.7 10.7 13.3 9.8 11.9 8.3 7.6 13.8 10.2 11.1 11.1 9.5 male - 0.0 24.8 0.0 0.0 7.9 2.6 8.8 12.6 10.9 10.1 13.5 8.9 9.7 8.6 9.4 10.8 Urban female 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.9 7.2 4.0 0.0 5.3 9.4 3.1 0.5 4.3 4.0 6.0 5.7 2.6 Nicaragua male 0.0 0.0 10.0 8.1 10.2 6.9 15.2 14.5 15.5 14.1 12.7 9.0 14.5 12.2 12.6 13.5 12.2 Rural female - 0.0 0.0 7.7 0.0 0.0 9.2 8.5 8.5 10.9 8.0 0.0 11.4 6.6 7.1 7.9 6.3 male 0.0 0.0 13.2 5.8 8.3 7.2 11.8 12.4 14.7 13.0 11.8 10.9 12.3 11.4 11.5 12.3 11.7 Total female 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.8 6.1 2.1 7.5 5.8 7.1 10.3 5.6 0.2 7.3 5.5 6.7 7.1 4.3 male - - 0 - 0 0 12.4 0 0 1.4 6.9 7.7 4.5 4.6 2.0 2.2 6 Urban female - - - 0 0 58.9 0 0 0 2.3 10.5 0 0 4.5 10.3 10.6 2.3 male 0 0 4.4 5.7 11.6 20.9 3.7 3.1 7.4 11.6 4.7 13.8 9.3 9 8.6 8.9 9.4 Panama Rural female 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.1 0 2.1 0 0.8 1.3 1.5 0.6 male 0 0 4.1 5.7 6.7 18.9 5.8 2.6 5.4 9.2 5.6 12.5 7.8 7.8 7.2 7.5 8.3 Total female 0 0 - 0 0 28.7 0 0 0 3.5 3.3 1.3 0 2.4 4.9 5.4 1.4 *Venezuela: no information health XXVIII Table A16. Proportion of inactive children (i.e., not attending school, not at work in economic activity and spending less than 28 hours per week on household chores) Age in years Entire Country Sex age 7-14 10-14 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 range male 0 0 1.7 4.4 2.3 1.3 4.8 3.8 1.3 1.5 2.7 2.1 17.3 2.9 2.6 2.5 Bolivia* female 0 0 4.7 1.4 0.5 2.6 2.3 6.8 7.2 8.8 5.3 9.9 19.2 4.9 4.2 5.4 male 28.0 12.2 6.9 5.4 4.6 3.0 4.1 2.7 6.6 3.8 4.0 11.1 10.0 7.5 4.7 4.0 Colombia female 23.3 10.9 6.0 3.8 3.2 3.2 3.6 2.8 3.9 5.2 7.5 12.2 15.8 7.3 4.0 3.7 male 50.7 8.9 2.4 1.6 1.0 1.9 3.0 3.1 4.6 11.6 11.8 12.9 10.7 9.3 3.5 4.7 Costa Rica female 50.8 6.5 2.5 1.7 1.9 1.0 0.8 2.6 7.6 11.8 12.1 13.3 12.7 9.5 3.7 4.6 Dominican male 14.2 7.2 3.3 2.3 2.6 2.2 1.0 0.8 0.7 1.7 0.9 2.4 3.1 3.3 1.9 1.3 Republic female 14.2 6.4 3.8 0.9 0.9 1.3 1.3 1.6 2.7 2.3 3.4 7.8 7.7 4.0 1.8 1.8 male 23.3 6.5 3.3 3.5 2.3 2.1 2.9 4.4 7.1 6.6 6.4 7.5 9.3 6.4 4.0 4.5 Ecuador female 25.2 7.4 3.6 2.5 1.2 2.7 5.5 7.6 10.7 14.1 16.2 19.8 24.6 10.4 5.8 8.1 male 58.5 34.7 19.8 11.3 8.5 6.4 6.1 5.5 6.4 6.9 6.4 10.5 10.1 15.0 9.0 6.2 El Salvador female 52.3 32.9 17.7 12.1 7.6 7.1 6.3 8.7 10.8 14.7 15.1 19.5 19.1 17.6 10.6 9.5 male - - 27.5 14.2 8.8 12.7 8.7 5.8 8.6 5.3 6.8 4.9 4.4 10.5 12.0 8.3 Guatemala female - - 31.1 21.4 16.7 9.5 11.0 11.1 12.1 13.8 15.6 13.7 17.4 16.1 16.3 11.5 male 52.0 28.5 10.5 4.3 5.0 3.8 3.1 5.0 6.7 7.0 6.0 8.3 7.7 11.7 5.7 5.0 Honduras female 52.7 25.1 9.7 4.6 3.6 3.5 2.8 7.6 11.3 12.6 13.7 12.3 14.1 13.5 6.9 7.4 male 54.7 31 22.1 11 11.7 7.3 6.1 7.5 6 7.7 9.1 10.7 7.8 15.3 10.5 6.9 Nicaragua female 48.7 35 15.9 10.3 9.8 7.1 5.1 8.1 3.4 7 6 14.4 8.2 14.1 8.7 6.2 male 49.6 16.8 4.9 3.7 2.7 2.4 1.4 2.7 4.8 6.6 7.7 8.0 8.8 9.2 3.6 3.4 Panama female 51.1 19.3 3.8 3.5 2.0 3.7 2.9 5.7 5.8 8.1 15.2 14.2 16.8 11.4 4.4 5.2 male 0 0 0 0 0 2.5 2.8 2.6 4.4 7.4 10.6 12.8 22.1 4.9 2.5 4 Venezuela female 0 0 0 0 0 2.3 1.8 3.1 6.2 8.6 14.9 25.3 34.6 7.1 2.7 4.4 *Bolivia: inactive children (not attending school / not at work in economic activity) XXIX XXX Table A17. Child economic activity and school attendance by income quintile Income quintile Country Sex 1 2 3 4 5 W S n W S n W S n W S n W S n male 0.4 91.6 1.5 3.2 84.2 4.1 3.4 87.6 2.7 4.4 80.3 4.9 3.5 83.8 5.5 Urban female 0.5 84 4.7 1.4 89 5.5 2.6 83.5 3.4 2.3 82.8 9 5.5 81.8 5.2 Bolivia male 19.8 38.9 0.8 10.8 58 2.4 12.4 60.6 3.5 4.3 71.9 2.5 0.6 64.3 7.3 Rural female 23.5 44.4 4.2 12 56.6 9.2 9.6 70.4 2.1 9.1 71.1 4.3 14.5 54 8.9 male 16.6 47.5 0.9 7.3 70 3.2 6.5 78.2 3 4.4 78.8 4.5 3.2 81.8 5.7 Total female 20.3 49.9 4.2 7.5 70.3 7.6 4.5 80 3 3.5 80.7 8.2 6.5 78.7 5.6 male 6.2 57.2 6.3 3.9 60.3 4.1 4.6 67.6 4.2 2.6 63.5 2.6 1.8 71.0 2.0 Urban female 2.8 74.7 9.5 1.4 81.7 4.5 1.0 83.3 6.2 1.7 84.1 2.4 1.4 87.7 2.9 Dominican male 4.4 57.5 6.6 4.7 59.7 6.0 2.1 59.8 2.5 2.8 64.2 3.3 2.8 66.6 2.4 Rural Republic female 2.1 78.6 11.8 2.4 81.1 7.0 1.6 82.2 3.9 1.2 81.7 5.9 1.3 84.8 2.1 male 5.1 57.4 6.5 4.3 60.0 5.1 3.5 64.3 3.5 2.6 63.7 2.8 2.0 70.2 2.1 Total female 2.4 77.1 10.9 1.9 81.4 5.7 1.2 82.9 5.2 1.5 83.3 3.5 1.4 87.1 2.7 male 8.7 49.7 33.5 6.2 60.6 25.2 3.9 73.4 16.6 3.3 82.0 10.2 1.6 88.8 4.3 Urban female 4.4 46.6 45.9 4.3 64.1 25.3 1.7 73.9 19.3 3.4 79.8 12.9 1.1 88.6 6.9 El male 17.9 44.8 27.0 12.4 58.8 16.9 9.8 64.2 14.3 5.2 69.3 13.9 5.0 75.8 7.7 Rural Salvador female 4.8 55.9 36.9 4.4 65.2 27.9 4.0 71.9 20.1 2.4 78.1 15.1 2.7 79.7 7.8 male 16.8 45.4 27.8 10.5 59.3 19.5 6.8 68.9 15.5 3.9 78.1 11.3 2.0 87.0 4.8 Total female 4.7 54.9 37.9 4.3 64.9 27.0 2.8 72.9 19.7 3.1 79.3 13.5 1.3 87.6 7.0 male 18.8 38.3 30.6 14.2 41.2 29.7 10.2 55.3 24.9 11.8 60.9 17.1 3.6 78.9 6.9 Urban female 17.2 32.3 46.9 5.9 44.3 34.7 10.2 56.3 28.7 7 64.2 19 5.5 78.4 9.3 male 20.8 30.8 32.7 23 39.9 20.5 16.5 47.5 21 18.1 46.1 17.4 16.1 64.1 8.2 Guatemala Rural female 10.2 33.2 50.7 10.8 43.8 37.5 10.4 48.3 36.3 9.3 54.3 29.8 6 75.4 13.8 male 20.6 31.5 32.5 21.5 40.1 22.1 14.6 49.9 22.2 14.8 53.9 17.3 6.3 75.7 7.2 Total female 10.8 33.1 50.4 9.9 43.9 37 10.4 51 33.7 8 60 23.5 5.6 77.8 10.3 male 12.4 61.9 16.4 8.8 66.6 14.7 7.0 71.4 12.5 5.0 75.5 10.9 3.5 83.4 5.9 Urban female 4.0 65.8 25.6 4.9 76.6 12.5 3.8 78.2 11.8 2.5 80.5 11.5 1.1 87.6 6.0 male 22.7 37.6 23.9 19.2 42.7 20.1 13.6 49.2 18.3 17.3 53.7 10.0 13.0 67.0 6.5 Nicaragua Rural female 9.0 56.1 28.5 7.7 62.8 23.9 6.2 67.4 19.3 3.4 70.6 20.7 3.1 83.3 8.6 male 19.7 44.8 21.7 14.6 53.3 17.7 9.5 63.1 14.7 9.0 68.4 10.6 5.2 80.4 6.0 Total female 7.4 59.1 27.6 6.4 69.2 18.6 4.8 74.0 14.8 2.8 77.6 14.1 1.5 86.7 6.5 male 4.7 78.3 12.5 1.4 85.3 10.4 2.4 85.4 10.4 3.1 88.4 6.4 1.5 91.4 4.5 Urban female 1.9 83.1 13.1 1.2 86.4 11.9 0.8 87.3 10.2 1.0 90.5 7.3 0.8 93.5 4.1 male 13.5 61.7 17.3 8.6 72.1 13.8 7.8 75.8 12.3 4.7 84.0 6.3 5.5 84.5 5.9 Panama Rural female 3.8 65.8 29.0 2.3 80.0 16.4 2.6 83.0 13.4 0.2 87.4 11.6 3.0 82.2 13.4 male 12.5 63.6 16.7 5.8 77.2 12.5 4.7 81.2 11.3 3.4 87.3 6.4 2.0 90.6 4.6 Total female 3.6 68.4 26.7 1.9 82.6 14.6 1.5 85.6 11.5 0.8 89.7 8.3 1.0 92.2 5.2 XXXI Table A17. Child economic activity and school attendance by income quintile male 2.2 90.8 7 3.3 78.5 17.3 5 88.2 6.8 5.3 83.4 8.9 3.2 91.4 3.1 Urban female 0 84.7 12.9 1.5 85.9 12.6 0 88 12 3.2 87.6 7.7 0.7 93.4 3.8 male 6.2 79.2 10.7 10.6 76.1 8.8 12.5 73.8 7.4 9.6 78.2 5.3 11.3 75.2 4.2 Venezuela Rural female 1.4 82.2 14.6 1.2 83.6 13.1 3.5 83.9 10.7 3.3 85.1 8.3 3.4 81.8 11.4 male 6 79.8 10.5 10 76.3 9.5 11.4 75.8 7.3 8.9 79.1 5.9 9.6 78.6 4 Total female 1.3 82.3 14.5 1.2 83.8 13.1 3.1 84.4 10.8 3.3 85.5 8.2 2.8 84.4 9.7 Notes: W=working in economic activity; S=attending school; and n=neither working nor attending school XXXII Table A18. Child economic activity and school attendance by mothers’ education level No education At least primary education Secondary or higher Country Work School Neither Work School Neither Work School Neither male 8.9 72.2 2.6 3.2 84.3 4.2 0 91 6.5 Urban female 1.7 78.9 7.7 1.1 85.9 5.6 0.4 91 5.6 male 23.4 39.8 2.2 7.1 59.2 1.7 0 100 0 Bolivia Rural female 25.1 43.5 6.1 8.9 62.3 4.8 0 100 0 male 19.2 49.2 2.4 4.5 75.9 3.4 0 91.5 6.1 Total female 18.2 53.9 6.6 3.6 78.4 5.3 0.4 91.5 5.3 male 5.5 77.9 13.8 3.9 82.7 10.2 2.3 90.1 5.2 Urban female 1.2 72.5 23.9 1.7 86.5 11.2 0.2 91.1 6.9 male 16.1 61 20.6 10.9 70.7 12.8 4.5 83.9 6.1 Costa Rica Rural female 4.2 64.9 29.2 3.3 75.7 18.7 1 89.2 7.1 male 12.6 66.6 18.4 7.8 76 11.7 2.9 88.4 5.4 Total female 3 67.8 27.2 2.6 80.2 15.6 0.4 90.6 7 male 14.5 79.7 0.0 3.0 63.6 3.5 0.4 85.0 0.7 Urban female 0.0 78.7 14.2 1.4 83.6 4.3 1.2 91.2 1.9 Dominican male 0.0 50.3 5.2 3.3 64.6 3.8 1.5 67.2 0.6 Rural Republic female 0.0 63.1 33.3 1.4 82.7 6.0 0.0 85.2 2.5 male 11.3 73.2 1.1 3.1 64.0 3.6 0.5 82.1 0.7 Total female 0.0 73.5 20.5 1.4 83.2 5.0 1.0 90.3 2.0 male 15.9 55.7 12.6 5.9 77.3 7.2 1.2 91.2 1.9 Urban female 3.9 76.4 15.8 3.0 81.5 10.7 1.7 91.3 3.6 male 22.2 41.2 10.5 17.8 53.7 8.4 4.1 80.9 3.9 Ecuador Rural female 17.3 45.5 17.5 9.5 63.1 15.8 2.5 84.5 4.6 male 20.6 45.0 11.0 12.8 63.6 7.9 1.7 89.5 2.2 Total female 14.1 52.8 17.1 6.8 70.9 13.6 1.8 90.2 3.7 male 8.3 64.4 19.7 3.6 76.3 13.6 0.4 92.3 5.1 Urban female 3.6 66.7 21.6 2.6 76.4 16.6 1.1 90.5 6.6 male 15.9 51.4 21.3 9.9 60.9 17.6 8.7 77.1 8.6 El Salvador Rural female 5.0 59.7 31.4 3.5 69.4 23.8 1.6 83.3 12.2 male 13.8 55.0 20.9 6.6 68.9 15.5 1.3 90.7 5.4 Total female 4.6 61.7 28.7 3.0 73.2 19.9 1.2 89.8 7.1 male 18 47 18.6 8.9 62 18.9 0.8 79.7 13.2 Urban female 15 47.2 28.1 7 62.8 23.3 0.5 82.4 9.5 male 23.3 35.8 24.6 14.9 47.5 21.5 1.5 77.3 13.3 Guatemala Rural female 11.1 38.3 44.9 8.7 53.5 30.5 1.1 74.8 16.5 male 22.3 38 23.4 12.5 53.3 20.5 0.9 79.3 13.2 Total female 11.9 40.1 41.4 8 57.3 27.6 0.6 81.4 10.4 XXXIII Table A18. Child economic activity and school attendance by mothers’ education level male 13.4 62.2 18.1 7.6 73.4 12.4 2.1 88.6 4.8 Urban female 5.4 66.8 21.5 3.5 75.8 15.3 3.3 86.3 5.5 male 24.6 48.7 18 17.8 58.2 14.3 4.7 84.3 4.3 Honduras Rural female 4.2 58.1 34.9 3.5 65.8 26.7 2 80.9 10 male 21.9 52 18 13.9 64 13.5 2.5 87.9 4.7 Total female 4.6 60.4 31.3 3.5 69.7 22.2 3.1 85.4 6.3 male 6.1 68.4 20.8 3.6 80.9 12.3 1.0 92.6 4.4 Urban female 1.9 78.5 17.5 0.7 87.2 10.6 1.1 92.3 5.3 male 12.9 58.5 19.3 11.0 70.4 13.2 3.4 83.5 9.3 Panama Rural female 6.5 59.6 31.5 2.1 76.3 20.6 1.0 90.7 7.5 male 11.5 60.5 19.6 8.2 74.5 12.9 1.5 90.7 5.4 Total female 5.6 63.5 28.6 1.5 80.8 16.4 1.1 92.0 5.7 male 0 100 0 9.9 73.2 14.6 4.4 92.9 2.7 Urban female 0 63.8 36.2 2.4 86.8 8.8 0 88.7 8.1 male 16.1 65.1 14.7 8.3 78.7 8.8 4.2 86.6 5.6 Venezuela Rural female 3.5 68.3 25.2 3.6 81.6 12.5 2 87.1 7.2 male 15.5 66.3 14.2 8.5 78 9.5 4.3 87.7 5.1 Total female 3.4 68.1 25.6 3.4 82.2 12 1.6 87.4 7.4 Notes: W=working in economic activity; S=attending school; and n=neither working nor attending school XXXIV Table A19. Child economic activity and school attendance by mothers’ employment status Employed Not employed Country Sex Work School Neither Work School Neither Urban male 2.7 83 3.9 4.3 86.2 4.9 female 4.1 81.5 3.3 1.9 86.2 10.1 Bolivia Rural male 13.4 45.4 1.3 12.5 63.5 3.4 female 19.1 49.5 3.6 8.6 66.5 9.9 Total male 6.8 68.5 2.9 7.4 77.6 4.4 female 9.8 69.3 3.4 4.2 79.6 10 Urban male 3.2 86.6 7.4 2.8 85.9 9 female 0.8 89.3 8.4 0.7 83.9 14.9 Costa Rica Rural male 9.5 72.7 11.9 12 73.2 12.8 female 2.9 78.3 16.2 2.5 76.5 20.3 Total male 6 80.4 9.4 7.2 79.8 10.8 female 3.9 82.3 10.6 4.5 80.2 14 Urban male 2.5 65.4 2.2 3.8 65.2 4.6 female 2.2 81.8 3.8 1.0 85.2 4.6 Dominican male 3.6 58.2 4.1 3.3 64.2 5.0 Rural Republic female 2.0 82.3 3.8 1.7 80.8 8.5 Total male 2.9 62.9 2.9 3.6 64.8 4.8 female 2.1 82.0 3.8 1.3 83.3 6.2 Urban male 3.4 81.0 4.8 4.4 86.3 4.3 female 3.1 85.1 5.2 1.5 88.5 8.7 Ecuador Rural male 16.9 49.1 5.4 16.8 61.0 11.2 female 15.6 52.3 10.1 4.1 73.6 19.6 Total male 9.5 66.6 5.1 10.0 75.0 7.4 female 8.8 70.3 7.4 2.6 82.0 13.4 Urban male 3.2 79.3 11.2 3.8 78.6 14.5 female 2.4 79.5 13.5 2.0 77.9 17.5 El Salvador Rural male 12.7 57.1 17.8 10.9 60 22 female 4.2 65.5 26.3 3.8 67.2 27.6 Total male 7.7 68.7 14.4 7.3 69.4 18.2 female 3.2 73.1 19.4 2.9 72.7 22.4 Urban male 7.8 65.6 16.3 10.3 65.9 10.3 female 6.4 75.1 10.4 7.3 66.9 15.9 Guatemala Rural male 24.5 32.8 14.8 24.3 45.3 11.2 female 19.1 45.5 27.8 11.8 49.7 30.2 Total male 14.5 52.5 15.7 20.0 51.7 11.0 female 10.6 65.3 16.1 10.4 55.2 25.6 XXXV Table A19. Child economic activity and school attendance by mothers’ employment status Urban male 6.4 76.6 9 6.9 76.8 12.2 female 6.1 73.6 11.6 1.6 81.5 14.5 Honduras Rural male 16.8 58.4 13.4 20.4 55.4 15.6 female 7.1 63.5 19.6 2.4 64.4 31.7 Total male 10.9 68.7 10.9 15.8 62.7 14.5 female 6.6 69.3 15 2.1 70.5 25.6 Urban male 1.5 90.5 4.9 2.7 86.3 9.1 female 1.6 89.7 6.5 0.4 90.3 8.5 Panama Rural male 10.5 72.2 9.4 9.6 70.2 14.9 female 6 74.5 16.7 1.8 76.3 21.2 Total male 4.2 85 6.2 6.3 78 12.1 female 2.9 85.2 9.5 1.1 83.3 14.9 Urban male 86.9 0 0 0 91.8 8.2 female 28.5 0 0 0 89.9 10.1 Venezuela Rural male 67.3 0 0 0 89.9 10.1 female 50.4 0 0 0 86.1 13.9 Total male 68.8 0 0 0 90.2 9.8 female 48.7 0 0 0 86.5 13.5 Notes: W=working in economic activity; S=attending school; and n=neither working nor attending school Note: El Salvador, employment status of Household Head; XXXVI Table A20. Child economic activity and school attendance by household water access Households withwater access Households without water access Country Sex Work School Neither Work School Neither Urban male 3.6 84 4.2 2.9 83.2 5.6 female 3.1 82.6 6.7 3.4 89.8 1.2 Bolivia Rural male 9.1 59.1 2.8 16.3 48.2 1.9 female 10.4 64.2 4.2 19.5 49.6 6.6 Total male 4.8 78.7 3.9 13.3 56 2.7 female 4.6 78.8 6.2 15.4 59.7 5.3 Urban male 2.0 84.3 5.5 3.9 75.5 9.8 female 4.5 68.2 7.0 6.5 54.8 8.9 Brazil Rural male 1.1 87.5 6.0 1.4 80.9 11.7 female 1.6 80.3 6.4 3.3 72.7 11.0 Total male 1.5 85.9 5.7 2.7 78.2 10.8 female 3.2 73.9 6.7 5.0 63.4 9.9 Urban male 3.1 86.5 7.6 0 80.4 19.6 female 0.8 88.6 9.3 5 68.2 26.8 Costa Rica Rural male 9.9 73.2 11.7 10.2 66.8 18.2 female 2.9 78.3 16.4 0.6 71.2 25.5 Total male 6.1 80.7 9.4 9.7 67.4 18.3 female 1.7 84.1 12.4 1.3 70.7 25.7 Urban male 2.0 70.0 1.8 5.0 59.4 5.4 female 1.7 85.0 3.4 1.3 81.7 5.6 Dominican male 2.0 63.0 2.8 4.2 59.6 5.3 Rural Republic female 1.3 82.2 3.8 2.1 80.8 8.2 Total male 2.0 68.2 2.1 4.6 59.5 5.4 female 1.6 84.3 3.5 1.7 81.3 6.9 Urban male 4.1 84.4 4.1 7.7 71.4 10.2 female 2.2 87.4 6.6 3.1 82.6 10.3 Ecuador Rural male 12.6 62.8 7.9 19.5 50.9 8.5 female 9.5 67.3 11.8 10.6 59.3 16.9 Total male 6.2 79.2 5.0 17.3 54.7 8.8 female 4.0 82.5 7.9 9.2 63.7 15.6 Urban male 2.5 82.0 10.3 6.6 67.6 18.3 female 2.0 81.6 12.5 3.3 69.2 21.7 El Salvador Rural male 10.1 61.9 15.8 13.7 55.0 20.7 female 3.9 70.8 20.9 4.2 62.7 30.3 Total male 4.9 75.7 12.0 11.8 58.3 20.0 female 2.6 78.4 15.0 4.0 64.5 28.0 XXXVII Table A20. Child economic activity and school attendance by household water access male 11.0 65.8 10.0 9.2 62.4 18.6 Urban female 7.6 69.1 13.3 16.9 52.1 23.8 male 22.5 48.7 9.9 25.6 40.2 14.9 Guatemala Rural female 13.5 49.8 27.1 10.7 46.6 37.3 male 17.2 56.5 9.9 23.5 43 15.4 Total female 10.7 58.9 20.5 11.7 47.4 35.2 male 6.3 79.4 8.8 7.9 71.6 13.8 Urban female 4 78.2 12.1 3.7 75.7 15.6 male 20.4 59.8 13.2 19.9 55.3 15.4 Honduras Rural female 3.2 71.5 20.6 3.8 63.1 29.5 male 8.5 76.4 9.5 8.5 76.4 9.5 Total female 3.9 77.3 13.3 3.9 77.3 13.3 male 4.4 79.6 7.9 9.2 66.2 15.2 Urban female 2.0 85.4 7.2 4.2 72.2 17.8 male 15.2 57.3 12.2 19.8 42.5 20.4 Nicaragua Rural female 5.0 72.6 15.8 7.5 61.6 24.9 male 6.5 75.3 8.7 15.5 52.0 18.3 Total female 2.6 82.9 9.0 6.1 66.0 21.9 male 1.5 89.9 6.5 3.9 83.3 9.3 Urban female 0.8 91.2 6.7 1.3 87.7 9.7 male 4.6 83 8.6 11.4 67 15.2 Panama Rural female 1.8 86.7 10.9 3.1 72.3 23.2 male 2.2 88.5 6.9 9.1 72.1 13.4 Total female 1 90.2 7.6 2.5 77.8 18.3 male 4.1 86.5 8.5 5 70.7 11.3 Urban female 1.2 88.5 9.3 5.4 72.6 22.1 male 8.1 79 7.9 25.5 53.8 9.3 Venezuela Rural female 2.1 84.3 11.3 4.6 68.8 23.8 male 7.6 79.9 7.9 24.9 54.3 9.4 Total female 2 84.8 11 4.7 69 23.7 Notes: W=working in economic activity; S=attending school; and n=neither working nor attending school XXXVIII Table A21. Child economic activity and school attendance by household electricity access Households with electricity access Households without electricity access Country Sex Work School Neither Work School Neither Urban male 3.3 84.5 4.2 8.5 74.6 7.1 female 3.2 83.7 6.1 2.6 78.2 5.2 Bolivia Rural male 4.3 64.9 3.5 16.6 48.2 1.8 female 5.8 67.4 6.3 20 50.5 5.5 Total male 3.4 81.7 4.1 15.7 51.1 2.3 female 3.6 81.3 6.1 18.3 53.1 5.4 Urban male 2.2 83.2 6.0 6.6 71.5 10.7 female 5.6 59.6 7.8 8.0 49.6 10.9 Brazil Rural male 1.1 86.7 6.7 2.1 72.3 20.3 female 2.6 76.0 9.3 4.3 67.3 13.4 Total male 1.7 84.9 6.3 4.4 71.9 15.4 female 4.2 67.4 8.5 6.3 57.9 12.1 Urban male 3.1 86.4 7.7 0 100 0 female 0.8 88.4 9.4 0 88.7 11.3 Costa Rica Rural male 9.5 74 11.4 19 48.3 25.9 female 2.9 78.7 16.1 1.1 61.2 35.6 Total male 5.9 80.9 9.3 16.9 54.1 23 female 1.7 84.1 12.4 1 64.9 32.4 Urban male 3.3 65.3 3.3 4.4 66.3 5.9 Dominican female 1.5 83.6 4.3 0.0 87.0 4.8 Rural male 3.1 62.6 3.8 5.3 52.4 7.7 Republic female 1.9 82.2 6.0 1.7 76.7 10.6 Total male 3.2 64.3 3.5 5.2 54.8 7.4 female 1.7 83.1 4.9 1.3 78.7 9.5 Urban male 4.5 83.3 4.5 4.4 49.0 37.3 female 2.3 86.9 6.9 6.3 60.1 31.4 Ecuador Rural male 15.8 57.8 7.8 22.8 42.2 10.5 female 9.9 63.8 14.1 11.5 54.4 19.8 Total male 9.1 73.0 5.8 21.6 42.7 12.3 female 5.3 77.8 9.7 11.3 54.6 20.2 XXXIX Table A21. Child economic activity and school attendance by household electricity access Urban male 3.0 80.5 11.1 11.0 44.5 31.8 female 2.2 80.1 13.6 5.4 52.8 37.3 El Salvador Rural male 10.1 62.6 16.1 17.0 47.4 24.5 female 3.7 71.7 21.0 5.0 52.7 39.1 Total male 5.8 73.4 13.1 16.3 47.1 25.3 female 2.8 76.9 16.4 5.1 52.8 38.9 Urban male 9.9 66.6 10.6 24 46.9 18.7 female 8.6 69.7 12.1 14.9 25.6 49.9 Guatemala Rural male 21.1 50.6 8.7 27.8 36.9 16.9 female 12.9 52.8 25.1 11.2 42.4 40.8 Total male 15.9 58 9.6 27.5 37.6 17 female 10.8 60.9 18.9 11.5 40.9 41.6 Urban male 6.4 78.5 9.2 11.7 55.6 25.3 female 3.8 78.5 12.6 4.5 63.2 23.5 Honduras Rural male 12 69.6 10.8 23.4 49.6 17.1 female 3.6 72.2 17.7 3.7 59.9 33.9 Total male 8.2 75.7 9.7 22.4 50.1 17.8 female 3.8 76.6 14.1 3.8 60.2 33 Urban male 6.3 73.8 11.2 15.6 57.8 16.8 female 2.9 80.4 11.0 6.1 56.6 33.8 Nicaragua Rural male 15.0 53.7 14.6 23.2 35.4 24.0 female 6.2 71.2 16.6 8.0 55.5 30.3 Total male 9.0 67.5 12.3 22.3 38.1 23.1 female 3.9 77.6 12.6 7.7 55.7 30.8 Urban male 2 88.5 7.1 7.4 78.6 11.8 female 0.9 90.4 7.4 2.7 81.7 13.4 Panama Rural male 5.2 81.6 9.6 13.7 61.5 17.1 female 1.3 85.4 12.6 4.1 68 26.4 Total male 2.9 86.6 7.8 13.1 63 16.6 female 1 89.1 8.8 4 69.1 25.3 Urban male 4.2 86.1 8.6 0 100 0 female 1.3 88.1 9.6 - - - Venezuela Rural male 9.4 77.2 8 35.5 43.1 5.8 female 2.3 83.7 11.7 1.7 45.8 51.5 Total male 8.8 78.2 8.1 34.7 44.4 5.6 female 3.0 80.5 11.1 11.0 44.5 31.8 XL