Reciprocity in Street Children's Informal Support Networks

Background and Introduction.

In a network, social support remains functional through exchange of material and nonmaterial resources. The principle that guides resource exchanges is termed as ‘reciprocity’. Reciprocity could be either direct or indirect. Under the direct reciprocity norm, the beneficiary returns resources directly to the giver. The beneficiary may return the exact resource or a different one, depending on mutual negotiation. Indirect reciprocity takes into a general form where the beneficiary does not return the resource directly to the giver but to other members in his or her social networks. The giver might receive something from other members but not directly from the recipient. Even though the role of reciprocity has been examined among various groups and exchange systems, there is little research to date that explains how reciprocity functions in street children’s networks. This might be because the social networks and resource exchanges among street children has gained recent attention. In order to understand the role of reciprocity in informal support networks of Bangladeshi street children, the paper explores whether resource exchanges are guided by the norms of reciprocity and the type of reciprocity that dominates the exchanges.

Methods.

The reciprocity and informal support among street children is relatively unstudied and likely complex; thus, a qualitative approach was pursued. Purposive sampling from three locations in Dhaka, Bangladesh yielded a sample of 75 street children aged 10-17. For each participant, the researcher conducted a 60-90 minute in-depth qualitative interview for multiple times. Interviews were transcribed, coded and analyzed using Nvivo-9. A priori and emergent themes were identified through within and cross-interview analysis of key topical areas.

Findings.

The findings show that participants are extensively engaged in resource exchanges and, in general, these exchanges are guided by reciprocity norms. Participants show much greater trust and stronger relational solidarity for a network member who reciprocates in a similar fashion than for a member whose reciprocity is intermittent. Network members who strictly oblige to reciprocity norms initially are eventually promoted to the status of a very close friend and will have unfettered access to each other’s resources. Finding also show that resource exchanges among participants occur in financial, instrumental, emotional, and informational domains with varying reciprocity rules. Financial exchanges are strictly guided by the direct reciprocity where the lender is expected to reciprocate exactly the same amount and pay within the negotiated timeline. In other domains, both direct and generalized reciprocity rule apply. Generalized rule is most prominent in informational support where children widely exchange important information to anyone within the street children community.  

Implications.

The findings shed light on reciprocity norms in street children’s informal support system and have few likely implications. It will expand our theoretical understanding of resource exchanges among a group that hardly been discussed in social support and reciprocity literature. As well, the findings demonstrate street children as rational actors and help us to think about strength-based intervention (i.e. asset creation) for them.