Understanding abusive child labor practices in the shadow of the Arab spring
| Date | 16 March 2015 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/JCS-06-2014-0031 |
| Published date | 16 March 2015 |
| Pages | 76-91 |
| Author | Saeb F. Al Ganideh,Linda K Good |
| Subject Matter | Health & social care,Vulnerable groups,Children's services |
Understanding abusive child labor
practices in the shadow of the Arab spring
Saeb F. Al Ganideh and Linda K. Good
Dr Saeb F. Al Ganideh is Visiting
Scholar and Linda K. Good is
Professor, both at the
Department of Advertising and
Public Relations, Michigan
State University, East Lansing,
Michigan, USA.
Abstract
Purpose –The Syrian civil war that forced hundreds of thousands of Syrian women and children into Jordan
as refugees dramatically increased the number of child labourers in that country. The current investigation
aims to establish a body of knowledge on the issues surrounding child labour in Jordan by providing an
exploratory diagnosis of the phenomenon. The purposeof this paper is to explore verbal and physical abusive
practices towards working children and investigate whether there are differences between the treatment of
domestic and Syrian refugee child labourers.
Design/methodology/approach –The research design is quantitative; however, we use a qualitative
technique to support and expand the research findings. Data were collected from 124 Jordanian and Syrian
working children over a seven-month period in 2013.
Findings –The results reveal that it is poverty that forces Jordanian children into work while Syrian children
are driven by the need for asylum. Of the abusive practices directed towards working children, verbal abuse is
the most common. Older children, children from unstable families and those who work long hours are more
vulnerable to this form of abuse, while children from unstable family structures and who work long hours
are more likely to experience physically abuse. The results reveal that Syrian children are paid much less, are
less verbally abused, had better schooling and perceive working conditions more positively than do their
Jordanian counterparts.
Research limitations/implications –Limitations of this research arise from the size the sample.
Social implications –The current study aims to raise awareness about the importance of preventing
abusive practices towards local and refugee children working in Jordan.
Originality/value –To the best of the authors’knowledge, very little is known about refugee child labour and
how it might differ from domestic child labour.
Keywords Poverty, Arab spring, Child labour, Physical abuse, Syrian refugees, Verbal abuse
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
The issue of child labour has gained the attention of social scientists, economists, psychologists,
and business researchers (i.e. Basu and Van, 1998; Basu, 1999; Baland and Robinson, 2000;
Maffei et al., 2006; Acosta, 2011; Grugel and Ferreira, 2012). Perhaps the most important aspect
of the problem is the serious consequences for children’s development and thus for whole
societies (Bessell, 2011). Due to globalisation, the phenomenon of child labour has expanded to
dangerous limits (Gailey, 1999). The most recent wave of economic changes highlights the
importance of continuing research on this issue, particularly in developing countries which have
experienced higher demand for adult and child workers (Ahmed et al., 2004; Edmonds and
Pavcnik, 2005; Maffei et al., 2006). Despite the fact that the current focus is in developing
countries (Emerson and Souza, 2003), child labour is a growing problem all over the world
(Siddiqi, 2013).
Millions of children have fled their homes to seek safety in neighbouring and other countries due
to recent wars and conflicts (e.g. Syrian civil war; Iraq war; Afghan war; Bosnian War; African
PAG E 76
j
JOURNAL OF CHILDREN’S SERVICES
j
VOL. 10 NO. 1 2015, pp. 76-91, © Emerald Group Publishing Limited, ISSN 1746-6660 DOI 10.1108/JCS-06-2014-0031
domestic conflicts in Democratic Republic of Congo, Somalia, Mali, Sudan and South Sudan).
Many have been forced to work in unsafe conditions. According to the International Labour
Organization (ILO, 2013), the United Nations identified Syrian refugee child labour as a pressing
problem. A recent press report indicated that many who are working in Lebanon are vulnerable to
physical, sexual and verbal abuse, burglary and even illegal organ trafficking (Morris, 2014).
Overall, studies that compare displaced refugee children with non-displaced ones are valuable as
they pinpoint the influence of displacement and refuge on children (Reed et al., 2012). Compared
to other Middle Eastern countries, Jordan continues to provide safe shelter and asylum for
the largest influx of Syrian refugees, mostly women and children (Whitman, 2013). Hence, the
purpose of this paper is to contribute to a better understanding of the phenomenon of child
labour in that country and to compare the situations of domestic and Syrian refugee children.
Child labour: a paradox
Child labour is a difficult concept to define and measure (Miller, 2012). The term usually refers to
children who work with non-related individuals or even with their family members paid or for free
(Ray and Chatterjee, 2012). It is an old problem that exists all over the world (i.e. Basu, 1999;
Gailey, 1999). The potential damage it inflicts on children’s education and physical and mental
health provide a catalyst for local governments and international bodies to confront this
phenomenon (Basu and Van, 1998). Thereupon it is central to understand the determinants and
causes of the phenomenon to better understand its implications (Baland and Robinson, 2000).
Basu and Van (1998) propose a widely used model with two main dimensions namely, the luxury
and the substitution axioms. In the luxury axiom, “a family will send the children to the labour
market only if the family’s income from non-child-labour sources drops very low”while in the
substitution axiom, “from a firm’s point of view, adult labour and child labor are substitutes; more
specifically, child labor can be substituted by adult labor”(Basu and Van, 1998, p. 416). There are
two main types of child labour; the first is connected with helping family members and the second
is related to working with outsiders for remuneration to boost limited family income (Ray and
Chatterjee, 2012). Critics of child labour base their opposition on moral and economic reasons,
such as stealing children’s childhood, economic exploitation, the negative effects on the adult job
market, poor and dangerous physical working environments and potential damage to children’s
education, health and physical and mental development (Arat, 2002). Emerson and Souza (2003)
found that the harmful effects of child labour extend into adulthood. Paradoxically, while many
children work because their families live in poverty, child labour also maintains deprivation; child
labourers are not able to a get high quality education and subsequently, they are trapped in low
earning occupations (Arat, 2002). According to Bhat (2011), child labour can be considered as
a social evil that has dangerous consequences for everyone –children, their families and society.
Contrary to this view, Gailey (1999) argued that child labour, in certain types of jobs and
circumstances can help to improve children’s personality, independence and skills since they
learn how to avoid isolation and communicate with outsiders. Kana et al. (2010) found that child
labour does not have a negative influence on a child’s health and, when working conditions are
appropriate, it somehow improves a child’s health. According to Horowitz and Trivitt (2007) the
economics literature has ignored exploring the socialisation benefits that may accrue as a result of
youth employment. Other researchers prefer to hold the middle ground and suggest that the
issue of child labour has two faces. For example, Grugel and Ferreira (2012) revealed that street
work might harm children’s mental health and lead to low self-esteem; on the other hand, it might
teach them about real life issues and the society in which they live.
Child labour and poverty
The child labour literature provides a good understanding of the issue of poverty and its impact on
employment (i.e. Tuttle, 2006; Edmonds et al., 2009; Hilson, 2010). Child labour researchers
agree that poverty is the main cause and driver of the phenomenon (Edmonds and Pavcnik,
2005; Edmonds, et al., 2009). Poor families who do not have sufficient income to survive are
more likely to encourage or even force their children to work (Haile and Haile, 2012). The main
motivation in many developing countries is therefore poverty; children have to work to support
their families (Tuttle, 2006). This means that confronting child labour in poor developing countries
VOL. 10 NO. 1 2015
j
JOURNAL OF CHILDREN’S SERVICES
j
PAG E 77
To continue reading
Request your trial