THE CHILDREN OF THE RURAL POOR

The children of the rural poor engage, by and large, in a variety of activities that, though seldom remunerated, are necessary for the livelihood of the family. These activities have little in common with child labour in its accepted meaning of remunerated work undertaken under an employment agreement. Studies of children’s work therefore rightly make a basic distinction between work in waged employment and that undertaken within the context of the family. Though acknowledging that in peasant societies the latter is the dominant form, these studies have, however, surprisingly neglected its social and economic meaning. The obvious reason is that in spite of its vital importance for poor households, economic theory attributes little value to this type of work (Wadel 1979:366ff). For both neoclassical economic theory and conventional Marxism it creates mainly use value, in opposition to exchange value that is the source of profit and capital growth (Folbre 1986:247-8). An added reason for its neglect is that normally it is felt not to impair the healthy development of children or to detract from such essential activities as education and play. While waged employment is generally agreed to lead to the objectionable exploitation of children, work undertaken under parental supervision is conceived of as part of the household’s moral economy and an essential aspect of socialization. Typically, poor parents are believed to be able to effectively protect their children from excessive drudgery when the latter work under their supervision. That poor children are often able to combine this work with schooling is taken as an additional proof of its suitability (Bouhdiba 1982:17; Bequele and Boyden 1988:2; Fyfe 1989:3ff). A more deep-seated reason still is the reticence, if not hostility, harboured by economic and political elites towards a critical reappraisal of this type of work, particularly if treated in terms of exploitation (Morice 1981:132).