Essays on the economics of child labor and fertility [Elektronische Ressource] / vorgelegt von Ramona Bruhns (geb. Schrepler)

Informations

• Publié par: ruprecht-karls-universitat_heidelberg
• Publié le: 01 janvier 2006
• Nombre de lectures: 18
• Langue: English
• Poids de l'ouvrage: 1 Mo

Extrait

Essays on the Economics of Child
Labor and Fertility
Inaugural-Dissertation zur Erlangung der Doktorwurde˜
Fakultat fur Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften˜ ˜
Ruprecht-Karls Universitat Heidelberg˜
vorgelegt von:
Ramona Bruhns
(geb. Schrepler)
geboren am 29. Marz 1977, in Timisoara, Rumanien˜ ˜
April 2006ii
Contents
Acknowledgments 1
Introduction and Overview 1
1 Child Labor and Fertility 13
1.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
1.2 The model framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
1.3 The Household’s Optimum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
1.3.1 The unrestricted solution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
1.3.2 Unrestricted solutions w.r.t. one variable . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
1.3.3 The corner solutions w.r.t. both variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
1.3.4 The household’s decision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
1.4 Economic Growth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
1.4.1 The critical level of schooling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
1.4.2 Low and moderate levels of e–ciency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
1.4.3 High levels of e–ciency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
1.4.4 Conclusion: Economic growth and steady states . . . . . . . . . . . 30
1.5 Governmental Intervention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
1.5.1 Regulatory measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
1.5.2 Fiscal Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
1.5.3 Policy Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
1.5.4 Inequality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
1.6 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
1.7 Appendix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
A.1 The corner solution with respect to fertility . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
A.2 The corner solution with respect to education . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
A.3 The corner solutions w.r.t. both variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
A.4 Potential Steady States: the unrestricted solution w.r.t. e. . . . . . 56
2 Child Labor, Fertility and Land: Economic growth in developing coun-
tries 62
2.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
2.2 The Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
2.3 The Household’s Optimum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
2.3.1 The unrestricted solution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
2.3.2 The unrestricted solution w.r.t. education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
2.3.3 The unrestricted solution w.r.t fertility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
2.3.4 The corner solutions w.r.t both variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72Contents iii
2.4 Growth paths: a characterization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
2.4.1 Miscellaneous Paths . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
2.4.2 Growth paths with a constant total population size . . . . . . . . . 76
2.4.3 Path P6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
2.4.4 A constant level of e–ciency and e2f0;1g . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
2.4.5 Path P8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
2.5 Conclusion: Paths. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
2.5.1 The low-level stationary state . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
2.5.2 The high-level stationary state and growth steady state . . . . . . . 86
2.5.3 Economic Growth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
2.5.4 Dynamic E–ciency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
2.6 Governmental Intervention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
2.6.1 Lump-sum transfers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
2.6.2 School-attendance subsidies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
2.6.3 Governmental Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
2.7 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
3 The Long-run Efiects of HIV/AIDS in Kenya 98
3.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
3.2 Historical Overview and Data: 1920-2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
3.2.1 Population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
3.2.2 Output. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
3.2.3 Educational Attainment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
3.3 The Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
3.4 Calibration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
3.5 Projections: The Base Case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118
3.5.1 Preliminaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118
3.5.2 The Benchmark Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
3.5.3 Scenarios: Household Behavior when expectations are revised with
a delay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124
3.6 Variations: Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130
13.6.1 Variation 1: The level of N . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130min
3.6.2 Variation 2: The level of fi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132t
3.6.3 Variation 3: The level of z . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134t
3.7 Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136
3.7.1 Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138
3.7.2 Policy: Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140
3.8 The Efiects on Social Welfare . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142
3.9 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147
3.9.1 No public spending on health . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147
3.9.2 Public Spending on Health . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150
3.10 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155
3.11 Appendix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156
4 Summary and Conclusions 160
Bibliography 165iv
List of Figures
1 Economically active children aged 10-14: participation rates. Source: ILO 2
1.1 The unrestricted solution with respect to fertility for e„ = 0; for low and
high child-raising costs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
1.2 Unrestricted solution with respect to education for difierent costs. . . . . . 23
1.3 unrestricted solution with respect to education with subsidies (for fi„=1=4) 41
2fi(1¡´)1.6a The Household’s Decision and Phase Diagram: z <1 and b< . . . 59nmax
2fi(1¡´)1.6b The Household’s Decision and Phase Diagram: z =1 and b< . . . 59nmax
2fi(1¡´)1.6c The Household’s Decision and Phase Diagram: z >1 and b< . . . 59nmax
2fi(1¡´) 2fi(1¡´)1.6d TheHousehold’sDecisionandPhaseDiagram: z <1andb2[ ; ] 60n nmax min
2fi(1¡´) 2fi(1¡´)1.6e TheHousehold’sDecisionandPhaseDiagram: z =1andb2[ ; ] 60n nmax min
2fi(1¡´) 2fi(1¡´)1.6f TheHousehold’sDecisionandPhaseDiagram: z >1andb2[ ; ] 60n nmax min
2fi(1¡´)1.6g The Household’s Decision and Phase Diagram for z <1 and b> . . 61nmin
2fi(1¡´)1.6h The Household’s Decision and Phase Diagram: z =1 and b> . . . 61nmin
2fi(1¡´)1.6i The Household’s Decision and Phase Diagram: z >1 and b> . . . 61nmin
2.1 Unrestricted solution w.r.t. fertility for a flxed level of e–ciency as a func-
tion of N . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71v
List of Tables
1.1 Unrestricted solution w.r.t fertility for e„=0 and e„=1 . . . . . . . . . . . 22
1.2 Unrestricted solution w.r.t education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
1.3 4U as a function of e–ciency and child-raising costs . . . . . . . . . . . . 24n
1.4 4U as a function of e–ciency and child-raising costs . . . . . . . . . . . . 25e
1.5 Conclusion: Steady-States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
2.1 Solutions to the household maximization problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
2.2 Cyclical and Non-Cyclical Steady States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
2.3 Steady States: fertility and education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
3.1 Population Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
3.2 GDP in Kenya, 1950-2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
3.3 Educational Attainment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
13.4 Households’ choices of e and N . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115t t
3.5 Calibration Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
3.6 Projections: Population Tables without AIDS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
3.7 Projections: Population Tables with AIDS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
3.8 Survival rates • and mortality rates (1&