Microfinance and street children: is microfinance an appropriate tool to address the street children issue ?

5. SOME IDEOLOGICAL ISSUES: CAN (STREET) CHILDREN WORK?

5.1. Child labour and child work: definitions

Box 1.4. : EAC and child labour

In 1973, the International Labour Organisation (ILO), under the Minimum Age Convention (Convention n°138), set the minimum legal age for starting work at 15 years old (and developing countries could set it at 14 years)^30(*).

In its definition, ILO considers work as the process which produces a marketable output. Domestic work is therefore not considered in their statistics.

The ILO estimates that the number of children aged 5-14 years in 2004 who were economically active was 190.7 million, while the number classed as child labourers was 165.8 million, which nevertheless represents a decline comparing to the figures of 2000 (ILO, 2006).

ILO/IPEC (2003 :46)

As we notice, these statistics make a distinction between children who are economically active (i.e. children working more than 1 hour but less than 14 hours a week in non hazardous conditions) and child labourers (i.e. children working either 14 hours or more in non-hazardous conditions, or 1or more hours of hazardous work per week). However, for all the children aged 5-11 years, being economically active is synonymous with being a child labourer. Thus, for 12-14 years, child labour is more restrictively defined (N.H.W.^31(*) 14 hours or H.W. 1 hour).

In the 1990s, the ILO took up the distinction between labour and work, in order to separate the `harmful' forms of children's work from the `tolerable', on the basis of hazard (Liebel, 2004; Woodhead, 1999). It lead to the adoption of the ILO Convention 182 in 1999, defining as hazardous work «any activity or occupation that, by its nature or type, has or leads to adverse effects on child's safety, health (physical or mental) and moral development» (ILO, 2006). The previous figure highlights the difference between a child labourer and an economically active child.

On the other side, child work refers to the work done occasionally and which can have positive effects on the children. Indeed, «not all work is harmful to children. Some work activities develop practical knowledge and

skills; and work also reinforces many children's sense of self-esteem and unity with their families» (Jo Boyden et al., 2004).

5.2. Ideological considerations

Myers (1991)^32(*), a famous specialist in child development, points out how the question of working children has often been seen as a dichotomy, depending on the beliefs of each. Let us review the two sets of approaches that are part of the vision on child work:

#177; Approach 1: Abolitionist perspective or child-centered approach

Description - «The crux of the problem is in the fact that children are allowed to engage in economic activity. They argue that childhood should be reserved primarily for study and play, with work consisting (only) of light chores in the home. Moreover, even if children are not mistreated, their participation in the work force weakens adult wages and employment and is thus a factor that generates the very poverty that forces them to work. A working child is considered by definition to be at risk (...) and the ultimate goal should be the elimination of all child labour». (Myers, 1991)

Box 1.5.: What is a hazardous work?

§ Children are too young to be doing this kind of work

§ The hours are too long

§ Children are too small for the tasks and tools involved

§ They are paid too little

§ The work is too hard for a small growing body

§ Too much responsibility

§ The work is too dull and repetitive and does not stimulate their development

§ The working environment is too dangerous

§ They are too unfree (i.e. there has been no choice about whether or not to work, or what kind of work to do; they can not leave; they loose their self-esteem)

From Ennew (2000)

As pointed by many experts, this approach is based on the unthinking adoption of the `modern' western conception of childhood where «childhood is sacralised as a privileged phase of life properly dedicated only to play and schooling, as a time in which children have the right to protection and education but not to autonomy or participation» (Boyden and Myers, 1998). This approach takes mainly its roots from mainstream western developmental psychology theory where few considerations are being given to the cultural aspect of child development (ibid). Indeed, «it has long been the explicit goal of the West to crystallize such ideas in the fashioning of a universal system of rights for the child» (Boyden, 1990). Within this ideal, the family and school were regarded as the appropriate settings for the nurture, protection and socialisation of children (Foy, 2001). Although this approach may have positive effects, as education and family are two important notions for all children, this approach has the risk of not perceiving working children as a social group acting or able to act in an organised manner as protagonists (Liebel, 2004: 8). Regarding street children, the scope of solutions may therefore be limited, as school and family can not always be a viable solution.

#177; Approach 2: Subject-oriented approach

Description: «(Here), the work, under appropriate protection and supervision, is an essential vehicle of juvenile socialization, training and self-esteem. (...) The economic participation of children is therefore acceptable as long as it is consistent with healthy development and that the real problem is the special vulnerability of children when they enter the labor market. Although they support the elimination of child participation in hazardous work, they feel that youngsters wishing to work should have the right to do so. (...) To them, the central issue is how to protect the safety and development of children who work. (Myers, 1991)

Box 1.6.: Some positive aspects of children's work

Work can:

- Increase children's sense of responsibility

- Build their self-esteem

- Enhance children's status as family members and citizens

- Provide them with an opportunity to learn the skills of their parents and neighbours

- Make children feel less marginalized, especially when combined with regular schooling.

- Provide an important an gradual initiation into adult life

From Blanc (1994: 346)

Criticizing the traditional abolitionist perspective, a new movement of child advocates emerged, witnessing that the abolitionist perspective did change few things and that children are still continuing to work (Moore, 1999)^33(*)

They point out the importance to see children as subjects who, «precisely because they are different from adults and have their own specific interests and needs, must be able to decide themselves about their affaires, and should be supported in this». (Liebel, 2004: 8).

This means considering working children as «social actors» who through their activity contribute to the preservation and further development of human life and the society in which they live (ibid).

In order to do so, it needs to replace the narrow view of children's work as exploitation by a wider view that takes account of its multifarious influences on children's growth and development (Boyden, 1998:11). Under this approach, children «are not merely recipients of an experience, but do mainly contribute to its development» (ibid: 11). In such a context, it is possible that «children seek and value work as a source of learning, social acceptance, independence, feelings of accomplishment and self-worth, or other personal benefits beyond strictly economic considerations» (ibid: 11). See Box...

As pointed by Woodhead (1999:14), the problem comes from the conceptualization of «child development».

He enlightens how «studying child development means studying Western concepts of childhood» and highlights how the field how developmental psychology is an ethnocentric one dominated by a Euro-American perspective, with no place to «work» in their model. Indeed, referring to Vygotsky, the author points out how every child is born into a particular social/cultural/historical context and how their development is therefore circumscribed by processes of maturation, but there is no such thing as a «natural environment» for their development (ibid: 18). Moreover, he warns about policies which are aimed to generalize «meeting children's needs», «promoting children's healthy development», or «enabling them to reach their full potential», and which distract attention away from more fundamental issues about the many different expressions of need, routes to health and human potentials (Woodhead, 1997 quoted in Woodhead, 1999: 49)

Applying a subject-oriented approach means avoiding the «rescue strategy», and building upon the capacities of the street children (as underlined in our section 1 «characteristics»). Williams (1993)^34(*), for instance, urges interventions to be directed at changing the capabilities of those for whom street use is, to some degree, a positive aspect of their existence. Consequently, Foy (2001), referring to Tolfree (1998) underlines that the overall objective is to provide this group with the opportunities and experiences which will enable them to become economically productive and eventually self-supporting, to facilitate their survival in the world of work and independent living. This will therefore be a move `beyond conventions, towards empowerment' (Boyden and al, 1998,:87).

#177; Operational implications: towards a model of child development

The following of our paper will be built on a subject oriented approach, implying that we will seek solutions to alleviate the present suffering of street children, whilst looking for ways to improve their future, by constantly building on their capabilities. This approach advocates a holistic model of child development^35(*), which starts from considering what matters to street children and which seeks solutions which are consistent with their livelihoods strategies. As pointed by Conticini (2004), this will guarantee an intervention directed to strengthen children's own solutions rather than merely substitute for them. In order to do that, the following of our paper will try to listen to the street children's needs.

* ³⁰ Unfortunately, fewer than 50 countries have committed themselves to making it part of the national laws (Ennew, 2000)

* ³¹ (N).H.W. : (Non) hazardous work

* ³² Quoted in Liebel (2004)

* ³³ Quoted in Foy (2001)

* ³⁴ Quoted in Foy (2001)

* ³⁵ We will adopt the definition of «child development» raised by Petren and Hart (2000) and quoted in Conticini (2004): «Child development is a holistic process which underpins not only physical growth and health, but also economic, cultural, mental, moral and spiritual development. It represents the process of realising each child's inherent potential».