Major psychosocial hazards
Major negative psychosocial effects
Breakdown of social networks
Disruptions to familiar surroundings
Monotonous or inappropriate activities
Delayed development, narrow range of cognitive, technical and communication skills maladaptive for future prospects
Neglect, emotional, physical or sexual abuse
Insecurity, inhibition, low social confidence, conflictual relationships
Isolation from peers, bullying, stigmatization
Social exclusion or rejection, deviant or antisocial behavior
Working conditions/workload, accidents and toxins
Insecurity, exploitation, powerlessness
Feelings of worthlessness, fear of failure, self-denigration, negative social comparisons, shame, stigma
Unreasonable parental expectations, collusion with employers
Incompatibility of work vs. school demands
Learned helplessness, external locus of control, hopelessness, apathy, fatalism, feelings of confusion, betrayal, abandonment
Acute poverty, political/social upheaval
Stress, trauma, fear, anxiety, depression, anger, distress, despair, disturbed sleep and eating, substance abuse, self-harm
Woodhead (2004) argues that family-based work, either farm work or domestic work, can strengthen personal identity. It is a primary source of emotional security, socialization, learning, and sense of loyalty. At the individual level, psychosocial effects of child labor vary with age, type of work, number of work hours, health status, and social and psychological resources. Most children have the sociocultural, psychological, and health resources to cope with new roles and routines without serious development risk. For others, initiation into work means a dramatic upheaval in the psychosocial systems that support their general development and well-being. In spite of children’s resilience and cultural values, working children may be at risk especially when they face extreme or unstable patterns of change and/or multiple stressful adversities. They may be at risk for emotional, physical, and sexual abuse from parents, teachers, and police, as well as from employers. The nature of the informal section isolates working children from public scrutiny and posits them as a special risk for exploitation and abuse. In their hazardous child labor study in Lebanon, Saddik et al. (2005) found evidence to support the argument that hazardous work environments also contributed to harmful behavioral and emotional consequences. They found that solvent-exposed working children aged 10–17 were more angry and confused than nonworking children in comparison peer groups. Pollack and Landrigan (1990) stated that child labor can encourage antisocial and risk-taking behavior.
American child labor research has shown a special interest in the link between child labor and problem behavior, mainly substance use. Three national representative longitudinal studies are noticed in this article. Safron et al. (2001) drew data from the “Monitoring the Future” project to examine the relationship between adolescent part-time intensity and substance use. The study supports the argument that work intensity is associated with drug use and physical health behaviors. Bachman, Safron, Sy, and Schulenberg (2003) looked at interrelations among American adolescents’ educational engagement, desired and actual school-year employment, substance use, and other problem behaviors as a part of a longitudinal study. The findings suggest that employment preferences are correlated with educational disengagement and problem behaviors and that those who prefer to work long hours tend to be more likely than their average counterpart to use cigarettes, alcohol, and marijuana. Using the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth (NLSY) of the USA, Paternoster, Bushway, Brame, and Apel (2001) also found a positive relationship between intensive adolescent work and antisocial behavior, but this relationship disappeared after controlling for observed and unobserved heterogeneity.
In short, researchers have presented the argument that child labor has actual or potential benefits and/or risks to a child’s health, survival, and development. From a child development perspective, physical, social, behavioral, and emotional risks may impact children’s health and well-being in the short, medium, or long term. The extent of the developmental effect depends on their characteristics and experiences such as age, gender, health status, social resource, and type of child labor as well as environmental characteristics and protection such as economic conditions, available child welfare policy, and particular chemical exposure protection within their societal context.
Research Gaps
Research on child labor and its developmental effects has made progress over the past two decades as national and international attention has been given to this issue across the globe. The goal to eliminate all of the worst forms of child labor by 2016 and the emerging working children movement are few examples about this progress (Hungerland et al., 2007). In order to actualize all children’s development potential and eliminate all of the worst forms of child labor, research has to emerge in terms of giving children a voice and an outlet to be heard around the world by conducting more scientifically rigorous studies that fulfill current research gaps.
Table 8.2 shows 20 empirical studies that contribute to the current knowledge on developmental effects of child labor. It highlights three research gaps: (1) Research is over-concentrated in developing countries. Only 32.5 % of studies were conducted in developed countries and the majority of studies (67.5 %) were in developing countries. Child labor is not solely a poverty issue or phenomenon that only happens in developing countries. Little has been revealed about health and well-being of child migrant farm workers in the United States as well as their counterparts in other parts of the world. Furthermore, usually hidden within studies is the number of children who are caring for a physically ill parent/relative or those who are actually caring for siblings because of parents that suffer from alcohol and/or substance abuse or mental illness. (2) Research is dominated by Western concepts and frameworks of child development (Nsamenang, 2010). Few studies challenged universal child rights and universal features of child development, needs, and well-being. (3) Evidence is overwhelmingly drawn by cross-sectional studies with a lack of longitudinal data to establish the relationship between child labor and child development from a global perspective. The majority of studies (80 %) draw conclusions from cross-sectional data. Among the four longitudinal studies listed, only two were conducted in the United States. These three points provide a new platform for research and policy development that takes a more inclusive perspective for understanding and changing the issues that cause children to participate in various forms of child labor. Ultimately, this approach would move the dialogue from a developing country problem to a more global issue that would benefit us all by increasing children’s opportunity to be children and develop into active and engaging adults.
Table 8.2
Empirical studies of developmental effects of child labor
References | Location | Data | Effect |
---|---|---|---|
Ambadekar et al. (1999) | India | Cross-sectional | Negative in growth |
Bagley (1999) | Canada & Philippines | Cross-sectional | |
Baron (2005) | Mexico | Cross-sectional | Negative in injuries |
Camacho (1999) | Manila | Cross-sectional | |
Castro, Gormly, and Ritualo (2005) | Phillippines | Cross-sectional | Negative in injury incident |
Chapman, Newenhouse, Meyer, Karsh, Taveira, and Miquelon (2003) | USA | Cross-sectional | Negative in injury incident |
Cortez, Barbieri, Saraiva Mda, Bettiol, da Silva, and Cardoso (2007) | Brazil | Cross-sectional | |
Entwisle et al. (2000) | USA | Cross-sectional | Positive on later high school work |
Fassa et al. (2005) | Brazil | Cross-sectional | |
Hawamdeh and Spencer (2003) | Jordan | Cross-sectional | Negative on growth |
Heady (2003) | Ghana | Cross-sectional | Negative on learning achievement |
Mull and Kirkhorn (2005) | Ghana | Cross-sectional | Negative in injuries |
Robson (2004) | Zimbabwe | Cross-sectional | Mixed in social development |
Saddik et al. (2005) | USA? | Cross-sectional | Negative on neuro-behavioral performance, memory, & motor |
Safron et al. (2001) | USA | Cross-sectional | Negative on substance use |
Uddin, Hamiduzzaman, and Gunter (2009) | Bandladesh | Cross-sectional | |
Emerson and Souza (2007)
Stay updated, free articles. Join our Telegram channelFull access? Get Clinical TreeGet Clinical Tree app for offline access |