National Committee and Departmental Committees for the Eradication of Child Labor (CETI)
The National Committee for the Eradication of Child Labor (CETI) was born out of a joint effort between public and private organizations. In 1998 it began to operate with a non-institutional character. In August 1999, the Uruguayan State signed an Intentional Letter between the Ministry of Labor and Social Security and the International Program on the Elimination of Child Labor (IPEC) of the International Labor Organization (ILO). The government then undertook promotion of the conditions that would progressively control, restrict and prohibit the work of children and in the year 2000 created by decree of the Executive Branch No. 367/000 the National Committee for the Eradication of Child Labor (CETI), under the responsibility of the Ministry of Labor and Social Security. It is comprised of delegates from different Ministries and National Institutes, trade union delegates, the Chamber of Commerce and Industries and civil society organizations. Some departmental committees were also established with the same quadripartite integration that incorporate the corresponding City Halls (Rivera, Canelones, and Maldonado). The objectives set for the national CETI are to advise, coordinate and propose policies and programs aimed at the elimination of child labor. It should also coordinate the work of the different stakeholders and generate decentralized instances as was done with departmental CETIs. One of the central tasks is the elaboration of the National Plans of Action in conjunction with the national CETI and the departmental ones. The drafting of the plans also involves other civil society organizations as guests.
Institutional design
Formalization: is the innovation embedded in the constitution or legislation, in an administrative act, or not formalized at all?
Frequency: how often does the innovation take place: only once, sporadically, or is it permanent or regular?
Mode of Selection of Participants: is the innovation open to all participants, access is restricted to some kind of condition, or both methods apply?
Type of participants: those who participate are individual citizens, civil society organizations, private stakeholders or a combination of those?
Decisiveness: does the innovation takes binding, non-binding or no decision at all?
Co-governance: is there involvement of the government in the process or not?
- Formalization
- only backed by a governmental program or policy
- Frequency
- regular
- Mode of selection of participants
- restricted
- Type of participants
- civil society private stakeholders
- Decisiveness
- democratic innovation yields a non-binding decision
- Co-Governance
- yes
Means
|
Ends
|
