Child Labour Challenges and Security Implications in Selected Local Government areas in Ondo State, Nigeria

Reviewer’s One Comments

Authors’ Response

The case selection of Ondo state is justified, but could use some further discussion- why is Ondo state either unique or representative of the broader region, or Nigeria as a whole? Would these findings be likely or unlikely to generalize to similar states/provinces in other countries? Similarly, given that the authors claim Ondo State is justified as it is troubled by banditry, kidnapping, and other forms of attacks, are the harms of child labor exacerbated, or are children that are not laborers equally subjected to these harms?

Thank you for pointing out this. First, the justification for Ondo State as the research context was appropriately justified as the most troubled state in terms of banditry, kidnapping and other forms of attacks occasioned by the clashes between herders and farmers. To clearly reflect on the reviewer’s query, the justification of Ondo State is to give a broad overview of the security implication on child labour activities, particularly from the context of the Southwest region comprising including Ondo State (Page 2, paragraph 2, line 77-78). For emphasis, the uniqueness of Ondo State cannot be used as a representative of child labour and security implication in other regions of the Country. For instance, the North region has a peculiar narrative different from the southwest.

In addition, the query to understand if children that are not labourers can also or equally be categorised as being exposed to harms falls outside of the purview of this study. The aim was to essentially understand how children in child labour are prone to security implication including harms from banditry and kidnapping attacks etc.

The article is mostly well situated in the literature, though I think it could also incorporate scholarship evaluating children's rights from the international human rights literature. Nigeria ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child in 1991. While this article focuses on domestic legislation that has since gone into force, many scholars have focused on Children's Rights, and child labor specifically, that this study could draw from. See, for example, JE Oestreich in Global Governance (1998) or MG Schechter and Bochenek in Human Rights Quarterly (2008), or Clark in Social Forces 2011, among others.

The suggestion of the reviewer to incorporate scholarship evaluating children’s right from the international human right literature is noted, and corrections applied. For instance, the international perspectives on child labour and human right were reviewed, especially the works of Oestreich (1998; 2016) and Linton (2008). See below:

“While the Nigeria’s domestic legislation on Child Rights form the ground legislation for this study, it is imperative to evaluate child labour from the international human rights literature. The right of every child has always been at the top agenda of international organization like the United Nations International Children Emergency Fund (UNICEF). The UNICEF implementation of the convention on the right of the child explains child labour as activities that are damaging to a child physical, social mental and psychological wellbeing (Oestreich, 1998). In addition to this, there have been other international convention implemented for the eradication of child labour for the advancement of the human right of every child (Linton, 2008; Oestreich, 2016). For instance, the Convention of the Right of Child (CRC) ratified in 1989 saw the re-awakening of the world to the menace of child labour. From this point, the momentum and activities of child labour opened research frontiers for possible solutions. With over twenty- years now since this ratification, the child of child labour seems to have surpassed the proposed solutions highlighted in the convention” (page 2, paragraph 2, line 57-70).

Regarding the survey instrument, I worry about the effects of social desirability bias. For example, are there social pressures to respond a certain way to questions about child labor, or should we take these results at face value? Additionally, I am curious about some crosstabs. How many respondents answered strongly agree to multiple questions (for instance, did some children strongly agree with both family breakdown and environmental and peer pressure questions? Relatedly, how many children answered strongly agree to multiple security implication of child labor questions?) I think the authors could provide some additional detail that would strengthen their discussion of the causes and consequences of their 

This is noted, and it is important to state that there were no social pressures for respondents to respond in a particular way. However, the quantitative results have been more integrated for show the trend of responses that answer strongly agree to multiple questions for each research question as follows:

“For the different forms and triggers of child labour activities, family breakdown and environmental peer pressure were not ranked highest on the scales, they share similarities in terms of responses of 29% average. These could be argued that these two factors are related as factors why children go into child labour. Highest in terms of ranking are children working in construction, trading in traffic and the lack of access to education as contributing factors to child labour activities. These items contributed a total of 34% strongly agreed in average. Again, these could be explained, partly that the lack of access to education remain one of the dominant factors why children are involved in child labour activities like construction work and trading in traffic (see page 9-10, paragraph 3, line 466-474)”

“ On one hand, the challenges of child labour in the areas of hazard and injury, drug abuse, and emotional and psychological distress were ranked low on the scale indicating an average of 26.3 %. The explanation from the integration of these responses shows that child labour challenges are to an extent mild on physical injury and emotional or psychological traumas. On the other hand, unruly behaviour, challenge of school drop-out and sexual molestation and rape were ranked high with strongly agree, with an average of 30.7% in responses. Again, this is a testament that the challenges of child labour have more to do with social menace. For instance, the challenge of school drop-out can be linked as contributor to unruly societal menace and sexual molestation of child labourers. (page 10, paragraph 2, line 486-495)”

“ With regards to security implications of child labour activities, the possibility of transforming to a criminal gang and susceptibility to terror and theft were low in terms of the respondents who agreed with the statements with an average of 26.1%. However, the security implications of kidnapping, human trafficking, and exposure to banditry were ranked high with an average of 31.4% of the respondents agreeing to the items. Again, this shows that the security implications of child labour are related to the activities of herders and other criminal activities that have engulfed Ondo State in recent times. (page 10, paragraph 3, line 502-510)”. 

The qualitative information adds great depth and nuance, and is clearly related to the survey instrument, however, I think the authors could do more to tie the two together.

This is moted and appreciated. However, it is important to state that it is not clear what the reviewer means to tie both the qualitative and survey instrument together having stated that they are both related. To ease this confusion, it is important to state that the methodological intention was not to understand the convergence or divergence of the qualitative and quantitative results, but rather to give different perspectives to the research problem. Yet, the authors made extensive attempts to infuse both the qualitative and quantitative results in the discussion section of the paper. For instance, the qualitative and quantitative responses in terms of the different forms of child labour, challenges of child and the implication of child labour were both integrated in the discussion section of the paper (see page 16-17, paragraph 1-4, line 776-816).

The most pressing English language issues come from the use of certain phrases or styles of writing that add unnecessary complexity to a sentence. This can obscure the meaning intended by the authors. Here is one example, though there are others throughout the paper.

"Studies conducted in Nigeria have shown different but similar causes..." line 148.

This is noted and ratified. The sentence now reads as:

“Studies conducted in Nigeria have shown different causes….” (page 4, paragraph 2, line 165-166).

In addition, other similar issues have been corrected throughout the manuscript as the authors employed the service of an English Language Editor.

Reviewer’s Two Comments

Authors’ Response

Another good point is the author's definition of terms. The term "child labor" is widely used, but what does it mean? The author presents some useful alternative definitions. The author chooses to define child labour as "any work that a child does within or outside of the home, that is considered paid work or unpaid work, with an outlook impact on their mental, physical, and social wellness, particularly those work activities that interfere with the right to access education." (line 137) Note the inclusion of the word "outlook" in this definition. What does it mean? The definition is clearer without that word.

This is noted and the phrase “outlook” has been removed from the definition to make it clearer. The definition now reads as:

“……..child labour as any work that a child does within or outside of the home, that is considered paid work or unpaid work that impact on their mental, physical, and social wellness, particularly those work activities that interfere with the right to access education (page 4, paragraph 1, line 154-157).

From a substantive perspective, I would like the author to explain why she chose this definition over others. Isn't this definition too broad? Working with parents on a farm during harvest season is child labor if the child misses school. Bonded child labor to pay off parental debts also fits. Child sex trafficking meets this definition as well. I think the author does not want to include these more severe forms of exploitation of children, but she should say so. .

The authors deliberately exclude activities performed within the jurisdiction of parents as child labour activities, as it portends less physical and mental damage to children, since they are being monitored by the parents.

The manuscript needs another round of editing. Some statements are difficult to understand as written. For example: "The phenomenon of child labour is no doubt negatively depicted in existing literature 30 with evidential documents on the well-being and education of young people." (line 31). And "The undocumented survey or clear statistics of child labour estimates in Nigeria have further impeded any foreseeable solution to the challenge of child labour (Omorogiuwa, 2017)." (line 35). I can find convoluted sentences like these on almost every page. 

These issues are all noted, and corrections have been applied throughout the manuscript. For instance, “The phenomenon of child labour is no doubt negatively depicted in existing literature 30 with evidential documents on the well-being and education of young people” have been deleted from the manuscript.

“The undocumented survey or clear statistics of child labour estimates in Nigeria have further impeded any foreseeable solution to the challenge of child labour (Omorogiuwa, 2017) have been revised and now read as:

“The unclear statistics of child labour estimates in Nigeria have further impeded any foreseeable solution to the challenge of child labour (Omorogiuwa, 2017)” (see page 1, paragraph 1, line 31-33).