Street work and the perceptions of children: Perspectives from Dilla town,Southern Ethiopia

Abstract

Based mainly on an in-depth and multifaceted qualitative study of 24 purposely selected street working children in Dilla town, Southern Ethiopia, this study attempts to shed light on children’s use of streets as places of work, survival, socialization, play, learning and growth. Children see street work as a source of livelihood, evidence of agency, informal schooling, sense of responsibility and sphere of socialization. The study also shows that the discourse that views street working children as ‘out of place’ and ‘outside childhood’ is concerned more with defending the values of the writers rather than defending the real interests of the children involved. Children’s responsibilities for themselves and towards their families not only force them to be found at ‘wrong places’ but it also obliges them to engage in ‘wrong careers’. Children not only want freedom and play but they also want responsibility and respect for what they do and who they are, and work can bring both.

Introduction

In Ethiopia, children are at the centre of societal interactions and economic functioning. Child work is a way of life and contributing to family well-being through work is a long-standing feature of most families. Ethiopian culture dictates strong work ethics from an early age. Despite all the difficulties they face, children make valuable contributions to social and economic (re) production of societies (Alebachew, 2009). The Ethiopian culture encourages children to work to develop skills that are useful for their future adult role. Children are considered as assets, especially among the poverty-stricken families, and many work on the streets either to contribute to the well-being of their families (Verhoef, 2005) or to provide for their own welfare (Ennew, 2005). Although the importance of the work of children is widely recognized, most reports document children’s work too exclusively from a narrow ‘child labor’ orientation, thus missing many of the important livelihood questions. There is interest to question normative statements about child work and childhood. There is a need to show the variety of meanings work can have for children. This aspect has been hitherto neglected, despite the frequent invocation of children’s rights.

Street work has long been a source of livelihood for many children growing up in urban Ethiopia. They mostly engaged in shoe shining, fixed street vending, itinerant street vending, portering, scavenging and begging. Children are seen working in large numbers on the streets in many towns of Ethiopia. Their presence becomes obvious as soon as one steps into any urban area. However, calls have been made to ensure that children are accorded greater protection from work because children constitute Ethiopia’s only real hope for a great future. Statements such as this seem to suggest that allowing children to work in any form is totally unacceptable, and that especially street working children are at great a disadvantage. Nonetheless, it is important to take note of the fact that this view has not been left entirely unchallenged. Such views are marked by a ‘high moral tone’ (Liebel, 2004) and do not seem to give the whole picture, especially from the perspectives of those involved (Okoli, 2009). Thus, while many tend to argue that street work is not in children’s best interests some others see children’s involvement in street work as an integral part of their livelihood process. It was actually the existence of such a debate that prompted my interest and desire to explore the lives of street working children; to shed light on the nature and implications of working on the streets from the perspectives of both street children and the adults with whom they are interacting on a day-by-day basis.

Methodology

The empirical data used in this study were gathered through repeated periods of fieldwork carried out in 2013–2014 with street working children and their families in Dilla town, Southern Ethiopia. Children formed the core of this study in two main ways, that is, as participants in the research as well as the focus of the study. In Dilla, many children work on the streets to provide for themselves and contribute to the well-being of the families to which they belong. Thus, out of the rather large number of street working children, a total of only 24 children (aged 9–17 years) were purposively selected (Daniel, 2015) to participate in the study by using a snowball sampling method. Being inspired by ethnography, I used multiple methods that increase children’s position as research participants. The specific methods that I used then provided me with the opportunity to allow the children to have a more direct say in line with the Convention on the Rights of the Child (Article 12). The key data collection methods that I used in this regard included semi-participant observation and informal dialogue, in-depth interviews and focus group discussions, which aimed at building up friendship with them, acquiring adequate knowledge of their everyday routines, as well as understanding the knowledge and embodied practices that sustain them. These methods were used to collect the relevant data for this study based on and guided back the understanding that ethics is central to research involving children. Thus, ensuring privacy and confidentiality were the hallmarks of this study. Time was a critical factor in this study. This is because the degree of openness about one’s life is decided by the relationship built over time. This experience was demonstrated in this study where I spent about 6 months with my research subjects.

Children’s perceptions of street work

Source of livelihood

In urban areas, people live in an entirely money-based economy. In this context, everything requires money (Paula, 2013). Children resort to income-generating activities so as to afford their cost of living. They hold the view that ‘street work is necessary for the wellbeing of the children involved and their respective families’. Without working on the street, most of these children would plunge into abject poverty with negative ramifications for their well-being. It is needless to stress that street work can improve the resources that are available for survival. In their attempt to explain the meaning of work, the children emphasized that ‘work means earning money and making a livelihood’. ‘It is an activity from which one makes a living and use as a source of livelihood’. Many believed that their work opened up livelihood choices they would not otherwise have. Zena (17) explained shoe shining as follows:

I feel that that shoe shining is a normal activity that has to do with the need for meeting the basics of life or contributing to household income. This activity is mostly justified in the eyes of many children in urban settings as it has no harm to children who would otherwise suffer even more due to the deep rooted poverty of their family. Children living in poverty need to work; they need to help themselves; they need to support their poor families. This is what I am doing.

Children in Ethiopia perform various productive activities as a contribution to the survival strategies of the households in which they form an active part. Their help with domestic chores is highly valued, and parents consider it children’s social responsibility to contribute to the well-being of their families (Verhoef, 2005). Street working children often appreciate their working lives and the social benefits they derive from street work. The children in this study surprised the researchers with their positive attitude to their street activities: ‘We liked to work’, ‘It made us feel useful and important’, and ‘We would be worse off if we did not work’ were some of the ideas that street working children interviewed for this study expressly stated. Children working on the street are involved in various street activities to make a livelihood. The children were proud of their work roles and the financial gain they brought. The children did not feel ashamed of the work they did in public. They always think about their lives and also feel responsibility towards their family’s stressful material situations. The responses of the children confirm their struggle to cope with livelihood constrains. The children feel a sense of duty to use their earnings to sustain or help out their parents.

Evidence of agency

A traditional approach to child welfare presents children as victims of poverty whose well-being is dependent on the intervention of others (see Bessell, 2007). However, new social studies of childhood have prompted a rethinking of such assumptions and highlighted children’s agency (James and James, 2001; Levison, 2000). Children make choices even in situations characterized by poverty and abuse. Seen from the point of view of agency and resilience, children’s work may bring experiences of participation, contribution and even empowerment. Children need both protection and opportunities to show responsibility for themselves and others. In the child work discourse, children, through their participation in work, find means of contributing to their own welfare and that of others (Bourdillon, 2006; Leonard, 2004; Woodhead, 1999). Children’s understanding and explanations about street work were based on ideas not only about livelihood but also about agency and resilience. The children interviewed for this research felt some sense of control over their lives, including control over when and how they make money. They always thought actively about the work they did on the streets. For Mamitu (13), selling kollo, lemon and boiled potato for her mother was not only a personal choice and pleasurable experience but also an opportunity to get respect for her knowledge, skill and social competence. The children the principal researcher worked with let him know that they were time conscious, which is an example of their presentation of agency and resilience. The following response of Zena (17) demonstrates this better:

I like what I am doing! Nobody forced me to do it! I came here with my hands and legs. I do shoe shining for myself and I like it. I also know many children who work on the street to help their parents or relatives. Many children are able to redefine and strengthen their position within their families. They make career choices and decisions on their behalf. They are really strong and capable. I have no problem with my work on the street, it [shoe shining] is moving well.

Mamitu (13) works on the street at different times of the day but did not consider herself involved in valuable work and it was her duty to help her family (her mother and four siblings). She further explained that ‘the income from vending added value to her impoverished family and their family showed her kindness and appreciated her efforts’. On the other hand, Zena (17) was doing shoe shining for himself and he liked it, because he chose to do it by himself. At this juncture, two things matter: skills the child demonstrates and the status that this activity earns. The child wants not only to gain proceeds but also to demonstrate skills. What the experiences of Mamitu and Zena tell us is that children could have a positive link with street work, and that this is defined thanks to the skills which enable them make incomes in a work recognized as useful. The euphemism used by child beggars in considering their activity as work illustrates how they seek to develop a sense of normality in what they do. In doing so, they also defend their activity as legitimate and productive that generates money based on effort. Mamitu feels that she is doing valuable work because she gets recognition as working child. Although I cannot say that the children were fully competent in every respect, I would argue that they exercised agency. Work enhanced their control over their day-to-day choices and over major life decisions. This suggests that there is no ‘one size fits all’ approach; in no case could these children totally be considered ‘dependants’ (Daniel, 2015).

Opportunity for informal learning

Work has learning function. For instance, Zena (17) regarded shoe shining as valuable child work, and gave the reason: ‘I am learning how to work and give change to people’. He added, ‘The street work is not as detrimental a place as it is mostly perceived; streets are like schools … we are learning something useful, we are learning how to do business’. Referring to what he learned through his work (vending) and from the adults that he worked with, Paulos (14) said that he had much to learn to be successful in the future. Mulunesh (15) was unable to attend school earlier when she was new for the town and must work to survive. But during the time of data collection she was attending evening school at the nearest public school. Her plan was actually to expand her business. Mulunesh is optimistic about her future. According to her, children are entitled to education but this does not necessarily mean that attending available formal schools is a priority. One could learn so many things through working and with little formal schooling (Alebachew, 2009). Mulunesh (15) conceptualized work as informal schooling, and she gave the reason for it:

My work is teaching me a lot. I am gaining knowledge and developing my skills. Every day I meet so many people who share with me their work and life experiences and tell me about good and bad things including business. I have customers of all sorts-students, teachers, business people, farmers and all these share with their life time experiences … I consider my street corner café as a school where I learn many things. It is a benefit for me.

Many of the children whom the researcher met and talked to indicated that they regarded their street work not merely as a source of their livelihoods but also as an opportunity for learning and developing a set of ‘professional’ skills. They argued that working on the streets exposes them to learning opportunities. In addition to the benefits street work brings to their families, any street activity that bestows positive values like knowledge acquisition, skills development and competencies for making changes for the better in their lives could be viewed as work, despite the difficulties and risks involved. Besides, these skills and street work were embraced as signs of competence, and mastery over the forms and demands of urban living. In fact, it was very easy to crosscheck what Mulunesh reported. The researcher tried to look at the customers’ profile. He personally witnessed that Mulunesh had customers of all sorts (students, teachers, business people, farmers, etc.), and they always made lively discussions and debates on a wide range of issues like business, agriculture, religion, music, sport, urbanization, globalization and politics (Alebachew, 2009). The diversity of goods displayed by the roadsides, and the openness and accessibility of the streets allow customers of all sorts and varying interests to share their experiences and opinions with the children. It is clear that the street as a site is not only a place of work but also a locus of societal interaction. It is also a place which offers a degree of opportunity, a sense of entitlement, relative freedom and independence and opportunity for informal learning. The children enjoyed street work because it offered them opportunities of meeting important personalities, gathering information and learning about events ahead of others.

A symbol of responsibility

In Ethiopia, children’s work typically starts with light personal domestic chores at a very young age. As children grow, work may extend outside the home. Children often find their identity and position in their family through their work. Children could maintain good relation with adults in their families through their contribution. There was a common agreement that submission to parental demands and societal expectations was essential part of being a good child. Findings from the data show that most children accept their role as ‘workers’ because they make contributions to their vulnerable households. Furthermore, the children clearly articulate their roles in and responsibilities to the family, and they recognize their contributions as important for the functioning of their respective family. In addition to the material grounds for working, some children alluded to the moral imperative of being dependent on their friends or parents and of not sharing their financial resources upon returning home. They also make effort to improve their own livelihood through the street activities they are involved in. Mentosha (16) was begging on the day he was interviewed by the researcher. He reported that he decided to ‘do business’ (begging) because of the difficult economic conditions which his mother was facing. The following are the words that he used to explain the situation:

My father is a metal-worker. He gets a good sum of money, but he spends it out with his friends. He does not give my mother money even to pay the house rent. Our mother has no work. When I see that she is stressed, I go out and do some business [beg]. She blesses me because I am doing this to help her and myself. I do not like going back home without having some money to provide. For me, simply to sit and wait for my weak mother to feed me is [morally] unacceptable. So, I always go out and beg or find something to work at and earn some money.

For many, street work is a source of pride as children do it cognizant of their families’ economic circumstances that make their street work necessary. Most children working on the streets carry significant responsibilities. Most of them feel strongly accountable to their families. The words of Mentosha illustrate how children’s feelings of responsibility towards their family’s stressful material situations force them to participate in income-generating activities. Children recognize that their contribution plays a pivotal role in sustaining their family’s livelihoods. In fact, the earnings they take home may serve the purposes of ensuring that there are sufficient resources to run household economies smoothly. Children work on the street and their reasons for working in part entail the moral question of their dependence on their parents, who struggle hard to make ends meet for their family (Abebe, 2008). Mentosha’s relationship with his mother is one of praise and appreciation, which in turn entails a sense of belongingness and solidarity at home. By contributing to their family’s daily income, many children find that they are able to strengthen their position within their families. Mamitu (13) noted the following: ‘it makes me feel that I am valuable and important and I can reduce the financial burden of my family’. Like Mamitu, interview with other street working children revealed that they feel worthy, and that participation in family livelihoods builds their sense of confidence and self-reliance. This highlights the sense of responsibility within which children’s own experiences of street work is embedded.

Sphere of socialization

Street working children interact with each other through multiple social networks and over a range of issues and concerns that constitute social life. The social opportunities of meeting people, making friends and being part of the attraction on the streets were among the reasons why children enjoyed street work. Many children reported enjoying aspects of work on the street. They reported that working and earning money gave them a sense of independence, and that ‘buying things they are in need of’ made them feel good. The children also expressed pleasure and gratitude in aspects of their work that went beyond getting and spending money. Of course, ‘earning money’ is the primary reason why children were happy while working in the streets. But there are also other reasons given, such as ‘being together with friends’. The experience of Kassu (12) and many others demonstrates that the involvement of children in street work gives social opportunities of meeting people and making friends. Mamitu (13) adds that

work can be important for children to expand their relationship beyond home and family. It opens opportunities to enjoy the company of their peers in the work place and the experience of meeting adults in the context of work. It can also contribute to children to have a place in society.

From the words of the children who were interviewed for this study, it has become reasonably clear to the researcher that working on the streets provides children with both social status and a means of socializing. The following words of Woldu (11) clearly show this:

Here on the street we feel freedom that we do not experience at home. Street work allows children to expand their relationship beyond home and family. They always enjoy the company of peers on the street, and their experiences in the contexts of street work and begging are similar. Street working children want to feel solidarity with others and with anyone who shares the same values and thoughts as themselves. Work provides children an opportunity to develop a feeling of belonging.

The children who participated in this study indicated that they liked the street works they were engaged in and reported that they were happy to work, even though the money they made was too little to meet all of their needs. Among the leading sources of their contentment with street work was found the solidarity that they enjoy with their peers and their respective families. Equally importantly, reasons related to learning and socialization appeared to be important as those related to survival or contributing to family economy when it comes to the factors behind their happiness about working on the streets. Interestingly, their faces often beamed with enthusiasm when they spoke about their exciting social opportunities. Their enthusiasm and positive views about working also stem from meeting and watching various people and events in the working arena, meeting friends and establishing new relationships, and more importantly, learning about events ahead of others. For many, the street as a working place was a ‘happening place’ that provided continuous entertainment and sightseeing. Emeka (14) likes street work because ‘There is always something to watch every day’. He alluded to hot exchanges and sometimes the fights between children, young and adults as entertaining and like many; he did not consider those as problems. Deme (12), Mebratu (13), Takel (10) and Amele (15) also spoke about the fights but discounted them as an integral part of the fun. They said that they enjoyed working in and around the street environment because ‘it is like a cinema’ (Deme, 12); ‘that is why I like coming here on my way of working’, concurred Mebratu (13). In their views, streets provide learning opportunities, the goings-on provide them with things to discuss and laugh about in their small working groups, and all of these things make working exciting and worthwhile. In this way, streets provide children with social arenas for interaction and socialization.

Images of street working children

Often the term ‘street children’ is not far away from the word ‘problem’. This is because street children occupy a ‘prohibited’ space and as indicated by Hecht (1998), challenge the hierarchy of the worlds of home and school. It is children’s presence on the street that becomes problematic, not the circumstance in which they find themselves. Children playing in residential streets are legitimized because they are in accordance with adult values (Lucchini, 1996). It is because children work on the streets that they have been considered to be ‘out of place’. The image of urban streets as ‘adult space’ has influenced this construction. The otherness of street working children is not based on their status as deprived children but on their engagement with street life. The public is further intimidated by the press that tends to characterize street working children as ‘at’ risk or ‘as’ risks, dramatizing the image of ‘troubled childhood’ (Aptekar and Abebe, 1997). I argue that some members of the public in Dilla (re)produce the negative image given for street working children. However, the reality is very different. The children I worked with used the streets for livelihood-making purposes. I argue that street working children are active citizens who have responsibility towards themselves and their vulnerable families, and it is these responsibilities that forced them not only to be found at ‘wrong places’ but also involve in ‘wrong careers’ (Evans, 2006). The street working children participated in the study consider themselves as ‘well informed actors’, who are aware about urban life and contemporary issues through their exposures and multiple careers.

It is not the intention of this study to romanticize the street or to ignore the fact that street working children lead a difficult life. But to say that they are vulnerable is not to say much (for so are many other children who receive far less attention), and as harsh as their situation is, it is wrong to think of it as invariably miserable. Street work provides children with a measure of material security. The children managed to meet their daily needs. For the same reason, a good outfit is usually not beyond the means of most street working children, although they might ignore the middle-class view of decency in preference for worn-out clothes or decide to spend their money elsewhere. Street working children participated in the study were not individualistic. Rather, they lived and operated in groups, where solidarity extended from the sharing of food to the provision of physical and emotional support. They were co-operative, socially competent, confident, persevering and resourceful. They were also rarely cut off from ‘positive’ adult influence. Thus, one must ask why the phenomenon in its entirety is deemed beyond the pale. The answer is probably complex. I would propose that its roots lie in our understanding of childhood as one that takes place at home, school and in other adult-constructed worlds (Abebe, 2008), and that being out of these adult-constructed worlds leads to pathology. But local contexts and intrinsic values, I argue, need to be accounted for and respected on their own terms.

Conclusion

Children participated in this study perceived street work and domestic chores positively, viewing them essentially as duties owed to their families’ precarious economic conditions and their love and support. Indeed for the children, the works they do to support themselves and their parents are praise worthy activities through which they learn and demonstrate their ‘coming of age’. They claimed that ‘working on the street’ afforded them opportunities for livelihood, play, leisure and education; to demonstrate agency, opportunities to socialize and to get information ahead of others. By engaging in street work and other forms of economic activities, child workers are helping to seek ways to resolve their problems, and they deserve support and protection from everybody, particularly those within their communities. Their stories and experiences of street work and domestic chores give legitimacy to the claim that work is a form of social participation that integrates children into the ‘world of grown-ups’ (Liebel, 2004). Their positive evaluation and preference for street work can be interpreted as ‘an indicator of personal and cultural investment in coping with a familiar situation’ (Woodhead, 1999). In Dilla, children’s work experiences on the streets are shaped in part by the perception of some members of the public, who consider that children should be located inside the home and school, rather than work on the streets. However, their responsibility for themselves and towards their families not only forces them to be found at ‘wrong places’ but also obliges them to engage in the ‘wrong careers’ (Evans, 2006). It is nothing but a clever device to get with street working children’s subjectivity and to pay heed to what is called ‘living law’.