Content uploaded by Suleman Lazarus
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Suleman Lazarus on Feb 15, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
54
I
nt. J. Human Rights and Constitutional Studies, Vol. 4, No. 1, 2016
Copyright © 2016 Inderscience Enterprises Ltd.
Physical punishment in Ghana and Finland:
criminological, sociocultural, human rights and child
protection implications
Suleman Ibrahim*
The School of Law,
The Centre for Criminology and Sociology,
Royal Holloway University of London,
TW20 0EX Surrey, UK
Email: suleman.ibrahim.2014@rhul.ac.uk
*Corresponding author
Sirkka Komulainen
Kymenlaakso University of Applied Sciences,
P.O. Box 9, FI-48401 Kotka, Finland
Email: sirkka.komulainen@kyamk.fi
Abstract: This article deploys a critical examination of criminology-claims
regarding connections between physical punishment (PP) and juvenile
delinquency connection. With a particular focus on PP of children as a risk
factor, this article explores the multifacetedness of ‘what is true of all societies
and what is true of one society at one point in time and space’. Drawing on
sociocultural variations, Ghana and Finland, representing Sub-Saharan and
Nordic regions respectively, will be presented as two different kinds of
exemplary cultural contexts. A critical look is also taken on the UN Convention
(United Nations, 1989) on children’s rights regarding global-sociocultural
diversity in child-rearing and parenting. It is maintained that mainstream
criminological associations between PP and juvenile delinquency are not
universalisable due to sociocultural variations across regions. Concomitantly,
tensions remain in understanding the impacts of PP vis-a-vis mainstream child
protection discourses/practices as well as making these discourses/practices a
reality in non-Western regions such as Ghana.
Keywords: physical punishment; sociocultural variations; children’s right;
child protection; criminology-claims; Ghana and Finland; corporal punishment.
Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Ibrahim, S. and
Komulainen, S. (2016) ‘Physical punishment in Ghana and Finland:
criminological, sociocultural, human rights and child protection implications’,
Int. J. Human Rights and Constitutional Studies, Vol. 4, No. 1, pp.54–74.
Biographical notes: Suleman Ibrahim is a PhD student (EPSRC scholarship) at
the Centre for Doctoral Training in Cyber Security (co-supervised by the
Information Security Group and the Centre for Criminology & Sociology),
Royal Holloway University of London. He received an MSc in Criminal Justice
Policy from London School of Economics and Political Science and a BSc in
Sociology and Psychology from the University of Greenwich. He was the
winner of the prestigious University Merit Award in 2013. He has recently
Physical punishment in Ghana and Finland 55
authored a book chapter (2015): A Binary Model of Broken Home: Parental
Death-Divorce Hypothesis of Male Juvenile Delinquency in Nigeria and
Ghana.
Sirkka Komulainen has a background in sociological and applied health and
social care research. Since the early 2000s, her main substance fields have been
children, their families and more recently migration. She obtained her PhD in
Sociology at the University of Surrey, Guildford in 2004 in Childhood Studies
field with critical work on children’s voices and minority group rights. Since
then she has worked as a researcher, consultant and a tutor in the UK and
Finland, including both academic and policy sectors. She is currently based
at Kymenlaakso University of Applied Sciences in south-eastern Finland
as a Senior Research Manager where she is responsible for national and
international health and social care projects. She has published internationally
on childhood and immigrant integration matters. She has a continuing interest
in both sociological theory and innovative qualitative research approaches in
applied fields.
1 Introduction
In criminology, among other risk factors, physical punishment (PP) has been associated
with juvenile delinquency. Developmental theories have also for long offered strong
reasons that punitive parenting such as the utilisation of corporal punishment, may lead to
juvenile delinquency (MacKenzie et al., 2014; DuRant et al., 1994). Ibrahim (2015)
depicts the mainstream strands of juvenile delinquency risk factors into three branches as
illustrated in Figure 1.
Figure 1 The tripartite branches of juvenile delinquency risk factors (see online version
for colours)
56 S. Ibrahim and S. Komulainen
This article, however, looks critically into certain criminological and other significant
approaches (such as developmental) to physical punishment/corporal punishment
(PP/CP1). For theoretical purposes, an exemplary, context comparison is made between
two countries (Ghana and Finland), representing two different world regions
(Sub-Saharan and Nordic) and socio-legal approaches. Regarding juvenile delinquency,
in Finland, PP/CP is considered as a risk factor among others (e.g. Haapasalo, 2006). In
northern European countries like Finland, PP/CP has been banned for several decades.
However, in Sub-Saharan region – Ghana, physical punishment is socio-culturally
considered as a normative and ‘functional’ way of child-rearing.
2 The ban of PP/CP as a worldwide goal
Historically, Sweden was the very first nation in the world to ban spanking of children
and corporal punishment (CP) in general, soon followed by its neighbour Finland in the
early 1980s. The ban paved a way for a total of other 32 countries to prohibit CP globally
(GITEACPOC, 2012) in line with the principles and philosophies of the UN Convention
1989.
There are currently several global discourses, initiatives and policies supporting the
ending of corporal punishment, including legal, criminological, child protection and
welfare related, and human rights perspectives2. The key arguments and statutory
frameworks, here drawing on European Union policy documents and significant research
reviews covering a range of disciplines and paradigms mainly in the Global West, may be
summarised as follows:
a From the perspective of children’s rights protection, health, development and
education there appears to be a general consensus that CP has long term negative
effects. CP in childhood is associated with aggressive, antisocial and criminal
behaviour in adulthood (Gershoff, 2002). Significant studies include nationally
representative studies in Canada, Finland and the USA (Afifi et al., 2014, 2012;
Österman et al., 2014) which have found that CP has associations with mental
disorders including depression, anxiety disorder and alcohol and drug abuse. The
parental tendency to use corporal punishment is seen as transforming from one
generation to the next as children who experience it are more likely to approve of its
use (Lunkenheimer, 2006).
The uses of corporal punishment as well as the negative effects of corporal
punishment are not confined to the Euro-American context: they are a feature of
some research in other parts of the world too. For example, a cross-cultural study
from China, India, Italy, Kenya, the Philippines and Thailand found that physical
discipline was related to both aggression and anxiety in the children (e.g. Lansford
et al., 2005).
b For the proponents with the ban of corporal punishment is a global goal. The goal
has been articulated in the Universal Declaration on the Rights of the Child and
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966 (ICCPR, 1966). The
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights also emphasise
children’s rights to special care and protection [United Nations, 1989; Council of
Europe, (2007), p.19].
Physical punishment in Ghana and Finland 57
The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child states that all children should enjoy,
without regard to skin colour, gender, language, religion, political opinion,
nationality, ethnic origin, social origin, wealth, disability or birth. All children have
the right to life, growth and development, and to participation, non-discrimination
and physical integrity (Central Union for Child Welfare, 2012). Children have the
same rights as adults to respect for their human dignity and physical integrity and to
equal protection under the law. The 17 out of the 47 member states of the Council of
Europe have legally banned corporal punishment of children at home, at school, in
care institutions or in places of detention (Council of Europe, 2007).
From these perspectives, it is required that all corporal punishment of children be
prohibited in law and eliminated in practice. The evidence that corporal punishment
is harmful to children, adults and societies is by some considered as overwhelming:
over 200 studies included in a review by Global Initiative (2015) show associations
between corporal punishment and a wide range of negative outcomes, while no
Western studies have found evidence of any benefits.
In light of these mainstream discourses, PP/CP in some countries is considered as simply
harmful practice that should be eradicated. This paper deploys a more critical
examination at the overall consensus on PP/CP negative effects linkage that appears to be
‘universal-truths’: firstly, anchoring on cultural variations insights, it questions the simple
cause and effect links between PP and juvenile delinquency. Secondly, it steers the
attention towards discursive grey areas between the two – Northern/Western and
Southern – paradigms (Twum-Danso Imoh, 2013) where multifaceted discourses of
parenting, child protection and violence may in many ways intersect.
3 Definitions of physical and/or corporal punishment
PP and CP may be defined in several different ways for which some clarifications are
helpful. Durrant (2005, p.49), for example, views corporal punishment as application of
punishment to the body and defines it as ‘an action taken by a parent, teacher or caregiver
that is intended to cause physical pain or discomfort to a child’. Alternatively, for Straus
(2000, p.1110) the intention is to cause a child to experience pain, but not injury, for the
purpose of correction or control of the child’s behaviour. It is noteworthy that whilst the
element of causing discomfort to a child is present in both definitions, the authors’
positions diverge on the primary purpose of the action.
Gershoff (2002) considers the nature of the disciplining act itself, and draws a
distinction between those actions/behaviours that do not risk significant physical injury
(e.g. smacking and slapping) as corporal punishment and those actions/behaviours that
risk injury (e.g. punching, kicking, burning) as physical abuse. Ferguson (2013, p.197)
elaborates that CP/PP and spanking are not synonymous and conceptualised spanking as
“a mild open-handed strike to the buttocks or extremities” (see also Friedman and
Schonberg, 1996; McLoyd and Smith, 2002).
This paper uses the terms CP and PP interchangeably. Drawing from some of the
above authors, this paper argues that PP/CP can be conceptualised as the use of force
(e.g. spanking on the buttocks and slapping a child’s for touching a forbidden or
dangerous objects) for the purpose of correction of the child’s behaviour. Here PP/CP
may involve a mild open-handed strike to the buttocks, considered as less likely to cause
58 S. Ibrahim and S. Komulainen
physical injury to children. However, although from child protection point of view there
may indeed be a fine line between PP/CP and child abuse, the focus in this paper is not
on how such judgments are made, for example, in Nordic child protection practice; to
reiterate, the theoretical crux of this paper is on the sociocultural definitions and
implications of PP/CP vis-à-vis juvenile delinquency.
4 Theoretical background: from mainstream research toward greyer
areas
Developmental theories – specifically those on parenting, offer strong reasons that
punitive parenting such as the use of corporal punishment, may lead to juvenile
delinquency (MacKenzie et al., 2014; DuRant et al., 1994). There is a long-standing
assumption that physical punishment (PP) or corporal punishment (CP) of children has a
strong positive correlation with a range of negative outcomes in the lives of children from
childhood to adulthood (Straus, 2000). Simply put, the likelihood to offend (e.g. Loeber
et al., 2001), child cruelty to animals (e.g. Flynn, 1999), physical abuse of others (e.g.
Straus, 2000), increased aggression (e.g. Gershoff, 2002) and externalising problems (e.g.
Gershoff et al., 2012) have been linked to CP/PP. Specifically, Bates et al.’s (2007)
sixteen years prospective longitudinal study found that the experience of physical
violence in childhood is linked to delinquency and aggression in adolescent/adulthood
(see also Moffitt et al., 2013; Grana et al., 2013).
Most of research literature on physical punishment conducted in Western societies
has a great consensus on PP/CP as a significant risk factor in terms of juvenile
delinquency (see Figure 1; e.g. Lee et al., 2013; MacKenzie et al., 2012; Taylor et al.,
2010). Authors such as Baumrind et al. (2002) and Morris and Gibson (2011) have
however expressed concerns that the association between CP and negative outcomes may
have been overstated due to methodological issues such as problems of proper statistical
controls overstating the estimates of harm (see also Ferguson, 2013). Support for this is
found in Larzelere and Kuhn’s (2005) meta-analysis which concluded that whilst overly
severe CP was related to more negative outcomes than disciplinary alternatives forms of
child-rearing such as the removal of privileges, conditional spanking had better outcomes
than 10 of 13 disciplinary alternatives such as ignoring or privilege removal,
which are non-physical in nature. Lerner and Lerner (1987/2011) have also suggested a
parenting-child-rearing hypothesis that children’s characteristics (as illustrated in
Figure 1) could influence parenting strategies.
Many studies have supported the idea that CP is a specific aspect of child-rearing in
most African societies (e.g. Archambault, 2009; Frankenberg et al., 2010; Last, 2000;
Twum-Danso Imoh, 2013; Nsamenang, 1992). For instance, in Ghana CP is a
sociocultural normative way of disciplining children; it is culturally accepted
and therefore common-place (e.g. Boakye, 2013; Cusak and Coker-Appiah, 1999;
Kyei-Gyamfi, 2011; Twum-Danso Imoh, 2012, 2013). To understand the usefulness of
the PP/CP and juvenile delinquency linkage in contexts such as Sub-Saharan Africa, it
may be asked: ‘What is true of all societies and what is true of one society at
one point in time and space’ (Bendix, 1963; Nelken, 2010)? Here also certain dominant
criminological conceptualisations of ‘race’ come into picture.
Physical punishment in Ghana and Finland 59
5 Race and cultural variations frameworks
There are many explanatory frameworks regarding the acceptance of PP/CP amongst
parents, some being mainstream and others more marginal in international research
literature. Examples of these include biological and cultural-variation arguments. Some
studies have attempted to affix the propensity to deploy spanking as a method of
parenting to ‘race’. Specifically, certain US studies have argued that parenting practice
involving PP/CP is more frequent among African Americans than Whites
(Deater-Deckard et al., 1996; Horn et al., 2004), for example, referring to presumed racial
characteristics and a greater impulsivity amongst African Americans. This strand of
studies may be associated with such scientific paradigms as, for example, certain forensic
anthropological and genetic research that consider race as a useful biological category
(e.g. Helms et al., 2005).
Alternatively, Gershoff’s (2002) meta-analysis in Western societies was unable
to ascertain if ‘race’/ethnicity moderated the associations between spanking and
delinquency. O’Leary et al. (2011, p.1744) found no evidence to support “the
impulsivity-hypothesis of racial differences in the use of corporal punishment” (see also
White et al., 2009). MacKenzie et al. (2014) have suggested that criminological research
on PP presently demands attention, not just because the most recent studies have
equivocal conclusions but they tend to be consistently ill-equipped to cope with the
complexities around the topic. Barn (2002, p.29) has particularly argued that
“parenting-practices are not biologically determined but socio-culturally defined”. For
example, a recent study by Skinner et al. (2014) of 1,293 families in nine nations
found that multiple-cultural-variables are implicated as mediating mechanisms, not the
particularity of race.
6 Research on parenting: some critical remarks on foci in mainstream
literature
The influence of parenting practices on children’s development has been widely
documented in international research literature3. In the global Western context, a large
body of English-language literature (UK, USA and Australia) has typically focused on
the links between parenting styles, parental discipline responses, child behaviour and
children’s psychological well-being. One of the overarching goals of effective parenting
– from a socio-psychological view, is to support children’s development, from
dependency and external control to internalisation, the ability to take initiative and to be
socially responsible (Halpenny et al., 2010).
Apart from race, culture and ethnicity have emerged as key influences on the
consequences of different discipline practices. The various perspectives within parenting
research include an ecological and systemic perspective on family. For Lerner et al.
(2002), sociocultural approach represents an important theoretical framework within
which parental discipline can be better understood. Halpenny et al.’s (2010) review
covers a range of perspectives to physical punishment, stating that perceptions about the
appropriateness of physical punishment for children are rooted in personal attitudes and
values about what is acceptable in the society. Here, from a sociocultural perspective it is
recognised that family experiences and parenting behaviours are strongly shaped by
60 S. Ibrahim and S. Komulainen
social norms and expectations. Apart from community and cultural values, the associated
national social and legal policies may influence parenting behaviours (ibid).
Mainstream Western research on physical and corporal punishment has been
concerned with the effects of physical punishment on compliance, internalisation of rules,
aggressive and anti-social behaviour, school achievement and motivation for learning,
peer and parent-child relationships, mental health/psychological wellbeing, and risk of
physical abuse. However, Gershoff (2002) highlights that much of the research is
underpinned by a bias towards uncovering negative child outcomes linked with physical
punishment. Accordingly, as Altheide and Johnson (1994, p.486) remind us, “how
knowledge is acquired is relevant to what the claims are”. Payet and Franchi (2008,
p.167) stress the complexity of corporal punishment and state that a universal ethical
perspective such as article 19 ‘cannot capture the intrinsic dynamic of a perspective that
is at once individual and collective, psychological and social and whose reasons are
dictated by experience and shaped by its contradictions’.
Hofstede’s (1980a, 1980b) analysis of the ‘individualism-collectivism’ (I-C)
spectrum in line with world regions looks into such contradictions. Whilst in mainly
individualist societies the socially constructed ‘I’ encourages and sustains consciousness
(autonomy, emotional independence, individual initiative, and right to privacy in people),
in collectivist societies the ‘C’ encourages and maintains collective identity, emotional
dependence, sharing, duties and obligations, group solidarity and group decision-making.
Individualism has usually been associated with the USA, Western Europe and the Nordic
countries such as Finland; whereas collectivism is associated more with rural parts of
Southern Europe and Africa, Asia and Latin America.
7 ‘Child’, ‘rights’ and ‘society’ in Ghana
In Africa, Ghana was the first country to endorse the 1989 UN convention on the
children’s rights’ in theory [Apt et al., (2011), p.3]. Yet it has been argued that certain
social facts such as poverty and the image of childhood in Ghana make the ratification of
the UN convention more as rhetoric than a reality. In the same vein, Rwezaura (1998,
p.254), in using the concept of ‘competing images of childhood’ argued that it is critical
to consider powerful socioeconomic forces such as poverty on the lives of most children
in Sub-Saharan Africa, when contemplating about the right of children in families [see
also Morrow and Singh’s (2014) work in India].
Here the term ‘image of childhood’ refers broadly to the manner in which a given
society perceives its children at a particular historical point in time and how children are
expected to relate to the adult world. In pre-capitalist African social systems, children are
generally seen as a family resource, given that in most families in Ghana, scarce
resources of goods and food is commonplace. Realities of this kind are often resistant to
change, due to the persistence of economic hardship and dependency in most African
nations including Ghana (Rwezaura, 1998). In studying specific issues such as corporal
punishment, it is thus important to take local constructions of childhood into
consideration (Woodhead and Montgomery, 2003), as subjective child-experience is
shaped by the sociocultural fabric elements of a given context (Twum-Danso Imoh,
2013).
In a similar vein, other researchers have argued that the concepts such as ‘child’,
‘right’ and ‘society’ reflect a given place and time (Veerman, 1992; Moore, 1994;
Physical punishment in Ghana and Finland 61
Morrow and Singh, 2014). If the meaning affixed to children and their rights in a society
is location specific (Rwezaura, 1998), so will be the perceived impacts of PP/CP on
children. Evidently, as Morrow and Singh (2014, p.17) reminded us, in many non-
Western nations, “[L}aws in line with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child
may be out of kilter with everyday realities”. This argument echoes Twum-Danso Imoh’s
(2013) work in Ghana, pointing out that unlike the mainstream children’s rights
discourses that often prescribe a binary assessment of children situations, children’s
views may be in striking opposition. Children in Sub-Saharan nations such Ghana may
not view their subordinate position in society in terms of PP as through an ‘evil versus
good’ lens, but rather see themselves as active and strategic agents due to the perceived
benefits that accompany PP in Ghana. In Ghana, children are involved in maintaining
‘law and order’ in families, due to part of children’s roles as active agents of socialisation
of younger siblings. Children participate in the socialisation of their younger siblings,
involving the use of PP to them if necessary – with the approval of their parents or care-
givers (Twum-Danso Imoh, 2013). In the words of children, Twum-Danso Imoh’s (2013,
p.482) study illustrates the situation as follows:
“If my little sister does something wrong, I usually give her a slap on the
buttocks to show her that what she did was not right so that she won’t do that
again next time” (Amerley, age 14); and:
“If I offend my older siblings they can punish me, or if I do something
wrong and my older siblings are around they will punish me. …They are older
than me and want me to stop doing wrong, that is why they punish me”
(Ekow, age 12).
8 PP and juvenile delinquency linkage in Ghana
Boakye (2009), drawing on a survey of 250 participants, believed that patriarchal system
and collectivism suppress any viable move to eradicate child abuse in Ghana. For
Boakye, a strong patriarchal system in Ghana is implicated in obscuring the boundary
between abuse and PP such as spanking on the buttocks. Even if the fear of social reprisal
in reporting any form of abuse in Ghana blurred the boundary between the two acts,
spanking is socio-culturally perceived as a functional way of child-rearing and clearly
outside the realm of child abuse.
In his more recent work, investigating the predictors of juvenile delinquency and
anti-social behaviour in Ghana with 264 samples, Boakye (2013) postulates that the
negative effects of physical punishment as conceptualised in mainstream Western
criminological and related discourses do not hold true in Ghanaian context. The
sociocultural explanation as to why physical punishment may not be a predictor of
juvenile delinquency in Ghana is illustrated in Figure 2. Broadly speaking, it is argued
that the sociocultural fabric of Ghanaian society shape the effect of certain issues
considered as risk factors in Western societies.
For example, in terms of juvenile delinquency, within Western paradigms a large
family size has been considered as a risk factor for children’s involvement in delinquent
behaviours (e.g. Loeber et al., 2001). However, such contention may not be directly
applicable to Ghana where large family structures provide informal support networks
(e.g. Annor, 2014; Boakye, 2013). As Barn (2002) points out, ‘good-enough-parenting’
in one society does not reflect ‘good-enough-parenting’ in another. This acknowledges
62 S. Ibrahim and S. Komulainen
diversity and undermines the mainstream assumption on sameness of key cultural
categories and practices.
Figure 2 Physical punishment, juvenile delinquency and sociocultural fabric in Ghanaian society
On the children-level, based on Lerner and Lerner’s (1987/2011) ‘goodness-of-fit’
parenting hypothesis, one possible explanation for the varying effect of spanking is that it
depends on children’s attitude towards PP, i.e., it is more detrimental if children perceive
it as an ‘out-of-control’ rather than ‘normal’ parenting method. On this basis children in
Ghana are likely to accept physical punishment as a ‘normal’ parenting strategy.
Lack of social support, however, has been seen as a risk factor in some studies.
Jackson’s (2000, p.3) study found that “lower self-efficacy, and less social support were
marginally significant predictors” of juvenile delinquency (see also Kistin et al., 2014).
Similarly, Hoeve et al.’s (2009) meta-analysis of over 160 works found that
psychological control out of frustration has the stronger link to delinquency than
controlled-physical element of punishment. Also, Moffitt et al.’s (2013, p.S7)
longitudinal study found that higher levels of parental-stress and low social support are
linked to harsher physical punishment [see also Krahe et al., (2014), p.10].
9 Finland: PP, risk factors, juvenile delinquency and child protection
In many ways contrasting to Ghana, Finland as a Northern European country may be
discursively and socio-legally situated within the Global West and the individualist end
of the Hofstede’s cultural variations spectrum. In Finland there is a long-standing large
body of criminological, social scientific and other research on child and family welfare, a
lot of which may be associated with mainstream discourses, including those on child
protection4.
Physical punishment in Ghana and Finland 63
By and large, in terms of PP/CP, Finnish research evidence suggests that authoritarian
and punitive upbringing is connected to the child’s behavioural problems and later on to
criminality. Finnish research of this kind has drawn on international research (English
language) evidence and criminological, psychological, child welfare, paediatric,
epidemiological, sociological, social work and other related literature over several
decades (e.g. Kivivuori, 2006; Farrington, 2005; Tremblay and LeMarquand, 2001). The
risk factor spectrum (societal, familial, individual risks) generally relates to excessively
violent and neglectful or otherwise weak parenting practice, influenced by, for example,
drug and alcohol abuse in the family (Haapasalo, 2006).
Recent studies on parental attitudes to corporal punishment in Finland have found that
there has been a clear reduction in all forms of corporal punishment and other parental
violence against children since prohibition in 1983 and that the decline in physical
punishment was associated with a similar decline in the number of children who were
murdered (e.g. Österman et al., 2014). A study by the Police College of Finland, which
involved more than 3,000 parents of children under 13, found that almost all parents
knew of the prohibition of corporal punishment and that parents were very negative about
hitting children. Less than 1% of parents reported hitting their children with an object,
punching them or kicking them; 20% said they had pulled their child’s hair as a
punishment (e.g. Ellonen, 2012; Central Union for Child Welfare, 2014).
A study carried out in 2011, which involved a survey of a representative sample of
4,609 15–80 year olds from Western Finland, found that the proportion of people who
were slapped and beaten with an object during childhood decreased after corporal
punishment was prohibited in 1983. The study found that experience of corporal
punishment was associated with reporting indications of alcohol abuse, depression,
mental health problems, and schizotypal personality and with having attempted suicide in
the past year (Ellonen, 2012). These studies thus suggest that not only has the ban
positively affected child outcomes but also reduced child abuse.
Similarly to Figure 1, in Finland also risk factors to juvenile delinquency are
considered as being individual, familial or societal of their nature. One of the issues to be
noted regarding societal factors may be the counter-factors, i.e. support systems for
families by society. In international literature, for example, socioeconomic inequality has
been a popular societal explanation as to the reasons for criminality. Comparisons have
been made, for example, between Finland and the USA regarding crime levels, noting
that Finland has lower crime rates than the USA and that this could be due to stronger
social welfare support systems in Finland. However, it is recommended that the
multifacetedness of the explanatory factors, cultural contexts and social changes are to be
noted (Kivivuori, 2006) in any country comparisons of this kind.
Further, presently public discourses in Finland regarding PP are typically associated
with child protection. From child protection and children’s rights perspectives, views
have been expressed that violence towards children is an unspoken problem in Finland,
and often clandestine (see Mäkinen, 2010). Socio-legally, local authorities have a
statutory duty to protect children by preventive practice as well as interfere in parenting
practices considered as harmful. Discursively speaking, such practices may be considered
as interventions if not ‘interference’ into families’ privacy (see e.g. THL, 2015) where the
overall aim is to promote the wellbeing of the child. In this respect Finland is very much
located in the individualist end of the Hofstede’s spectrum.
64 S. Ibrahim and S. Komulainen
10 Discussion
Culture is an interwoven set of beliefs, practices, and common sense that define people’s
way of life (Skeggs, 2013). Culturally, variations may be easily observed between Ghana
and Finland, for instance, regarding collectivism and individualism. According to Fincher
and Thornhill (2014, p.114), whilst ‘collectivism is reinforces by conformity, kinship and
in-group dependency, individualism discourages in-group reliance and kinship’. Apart
from family and kinship relations, the individualism-collectivism spectrum may also be
associated, if not replaced, with premodernity-modernity conceptualisation (Fincher
and Thornhill, 2014). However, even if modernity blurred the boundary between
individualism and collectivism (Sampson, 2000), for Smith (2001, 2004), whilst
modernity may privilege individuality in Western societies, poverty, economic and
political insecurity in countries like Ghana (see Ibrahim, 2015) reinforce a strong rather
than less reliance on ties to family and community of origin [see also McCauley’s (2012)
work in Ghana].
In African literature, it has been argued that mainstream criminology-claims are
reflective of Western culture alone (Kalunta-Crumpton, 2004), suggesting that the
dominant paradigm in terms of PP/CP may not be universalisable to all world regions. It
may be noted that for instance, unlike the UN Convention (United Nations, 1989) on the
Rights of the Child, the African Charter on the Rights of Children (1990) takes into
account the sociocultural fabric element African heritage, values and history.
Specifically, Article 20 (1) (C) grants the use of CP, which ‘must be administered with
dignity, love and humanity’. This suggests that in certain contexts, the mainstream
children’s rights discourse and the complementary ones might not be seen as two
opposing paradigms and it is here where there is more room for mainstreaming African
research perspectives.
Further, several authors address the ‘superordination-subordination’ relationship
between the ‘West’ and cultural others (Said, 1994; Fanon, 1967/2008; Ranuga, 1986;
Otu, 1999), which perpetuates claims such as the categorisation of PP/CP as a risk factor
in terms of juvenile delinquency in criminology as ‘universal-truths’. Decolonisation
looks critically such claims that manifestly marginalise and shape the beliefs, values and
practices of cultural others (Ibrahim, 2015; Smith, 1999) as taken-for-granted repeating
discourses, eventually as Foucault (1977) once reminded us, normalise their claims and
practices.
In contemplating the possible link between physical punishment and juvenile
delinquency, cultural context is thus seen as crucial (Yovsi, 2014; White et al., 2009;
Barn, 2002). Culture in this context according to Lansford (2010, p.1), is “a filter that can
ease or exacerbate the effects of corporal punishment on children’s behaviour”. Ghana,
for example, has over four hundred ethnic groups (McCaskie, 2003, 1992) with numerous
child-rearing philosophies. Yet, these diverse child-rearing ideologies converge on PP as
a normative method of disciplining children (MacCaskie, 2003).
This convergence is reinforced by a strong patriarchal family structure, which has the
men as the supreme enforcers of every familial rule and regulation (Amponsah et al.,
2006; Boakye, 2009). Ghanaian cultural values general encourage collectivism (Gyekye,
1996; Kuyini et al., 2009; Hofstede, 1980a). As a result, unlike in modern ‘nuclear family
cultures’, Okpako (2004), Boakye (2013), Annor (2014) and Ibrahim (2015) noted that,
the burden of child-rearing is mutually shared among members of one’s neighbours,
friends, extended families and communities. This collective parenting practices, in part
Physical punishment in Ghana and Finland 65
inform the use and differential meaning and consequences of PP/CP in Ghana. Regarding
the meaning of PP/CP, Twum-Danso Imoh’s (2013, p.479) study specifically reported
children saying that, “Physical punishment helps our parents to bring us up in a way that
will make us responsible adults”. Children in Ghana generally have a pronounced
subordinate position in the society, and in terms of children’s rights, specifically in
relation to their parents and significant others. Ghanaian children commonly perceive PP
from their care-givers as normal.
11 Some further comparisons between Ghana and Finland
A number of authors broadly in the Global West have also called for a more nuanced
interpretation of research findings making associations between parental use of physical
punishment and children’s behaviour problems such as aggression (Deater-Deckard and
Dodge, 1997; Baumrind, 1997). The majority of studies examining links between
parental physical punishment and child behaviours are purely correlational in nature. In
the real world, randomly assigning parents to physical punishment/no physical
punishment experimental groups is untenable, so no causal relationships can be inferred
in every instance. The research reviewed by Halpenny et al. (2010) only allowed an
understanding of whether physical punishment and child variables are associated, but not
causally linked. To simplify a complex argument, Finnish research also indicates that not
all children exposed to risk factors become juvenile delinquents. The general
recommendation as Haapasalo (2006) noted is to use means other than PP for the child’s
upbringing, mainly consistent, safe practices showing appropriate emotional warmth and
respect for the child.
When talking about the Global West, one may bear in mind that Western countries
may vary a lot in terms of their cultural contexts and how ‘child care’ is organised. The
Finnish system is orientated towards recognising need and risks and social services are
family-based with child centric orientation [Pösö, (2015), p.98]. Finland may be more
individualistic than Ghana; yet child care, education and well-being is in many ways a
societal responsibility. Services for children and families draw on the principle of
preventive support (European Union, 2015). Further, an internationally low level of
poverty in Finland and high level of poverty in Ghana could define the varying places of
children within these countries in relation to adults. This echoes the aforementioned
Rwezaura’s (1998) idea of ‘image of childhood’, and what holds true in one society may
not easily apply to another.
Another contemporary point to make is that risk discourses in particular regarding
juvenile delinquency may not be the only ones to consider. For example, one alternative
approach could be that of ‘positive recognition’. It is a theoretically informed practical
approach that seeks to bring new insights to advance child and youth wellbeing and to
prevent youth marginalisation. It may be argued that in individualist societies there may
be an especial need to strengthen dignity and inclusion of young people in their everyday
communities that reach beyond their immediate families. In countries like Finland
children may also be placed in subordinate position and dependent roles in relation to
adults. Instead of focusing on risks and ‘faults’ in children or their parents, attention
could be steered toward human capacities to care, respect and acceptance that may
provide for meaningful active agency amongst children and young people (see abstract in
Häkli et al., 2015).
66 S. Ibrahim and S. Komulainen
12 Effective parenting and PP/CP
Thus, while there may be no unique model for effective parenting practices that can be
generalised to all societies and situations, research findings in the Global West point to
parenting practices which are associated with more positive outcomes. Nurturing
behaviour refers to activities that respond to the child’s needs for emotional security, such
as the provision of warmth and sensitivity within the relationship. Structure refers to
setting boundaries and guiding the child’s behaviour through modelling of positive
behaviours, without physical or psychological coercion. Recognition refers to the child’s
need to be respected and acknowledged by parents and to foster the potential for mutual
understanding and influence to develop. Finally, empowerment refers to combining a
sense of personal control with the ability to affect the behaviour of others (Gracia and
Herrero, 2008; Halpenny et al., 2010).
Specifically in terms of PP/CP, Frankenberg et al. (2010) use the term ‘the care of
corporal punishment’. In their research in the Tanzanian context, an analysis of
qualitative data with parents discovered the following discipline strategies: to beat with
care, representing a commonly used, ‘legitimate’ form of corporal punishment; to treat
like an egg, representing a powerless and soft attitude common for grandparents; as if
beating a snake, representing caregivers’ conceptions of overly harsh corporal
punishment which seriously hurts the child; and the non-care of non-beating, used by
caregivers who neglect their children (ibid, p.459). Frankenberg et al. (2010) conclude
that caregivers need power to raise their children and corporal punishment is regarded as
a useful tool in the context described. Those advocating for the abolition of corporal
punishment, without providing caregivers with alternatives grounded in the local context,
may weaken the caregiving environment for both caregivers and children. Here, in
practical terms lines will be drawn between care-giving and violence towards children
(ibid, p.467).
13 Implications to images of children, children’s rights and child protection
Children’s rights are prevalent and persuasive frameworks for child protection in at least
Anglo-American and Nordic contexts. Alongside more general human rights regimes,
children’s rights became consolidated in a particular way the UN Convention 1989
(UNCRC), promoting children’s status as social actors, thus having implications to
images of children. The changing conceptualisation of children has also been seen in
child protection frameworks, particularly regarding children’s ‘vulnerability’, which at
present remains a contested concept [see also Tisdall, (2015), pp.42–43].
However, the UNCRC has been sharply criticised, alongside other international
human rights treaties, for its claims to be universal, capable of being applied across all
countries and contexts. In particular, it has been accused of promoting a Minority
World/Global North view of childhood, of emphasising children’s lack of capacity,
vulnerability, dependency, and place within nuclear families, which has damaging
consequences for Majority World/Global South children, who do not fit that view
(Tisdall citing e.g. Ennew, 1995; Wells, 2009). The assertion of individual children’s
rights, and specifically their right to be heard, have been described as being at odds with
cultures at the collective end of the spectrum [Tisdall, (2015), p.45, citing Valentin and
Meinert, 2009].
Physical punishment in Ghana and Finland 67
Further, in child protection contexts, rights-based accounts have often been contrasted
to needs-based approaches, leading to complex debates where the former are seen as
neoliberal and the latter – emphasising children’s vulnerability – as patronising [Tisdall,
(2015), p.46] in that they negate children’s agency, capacities and relations to others.
Tisdall concludes that the children’s rights framework has both advantages and
disadvantages both conceptually and legally. Whilst she suggests that concepts such as
‘vulnerability’ may not fully recognise children’s status in their own rights and their
human dignity, individualist approaches to rights may not recognise the importance of
love, relationships, community and networks where children’s lives are embedded [ibid,
(2015), p.49].
14 Conclusions
This article has looked critically on the criminological link between physical punishment
and juvenile delinquency. Ghana and Finland were taken as such case examples that
represent the Global South and the Global West/North, the collectivist versus
individualist, as well as cultural divisions. The Finnish context has also been located in
mainstream (if not dominant) Western discourses on race, child welfare and children’s
rights.
On the basis of the research reviewed and insights drawn thereby, the following
suggestions may be made:
a This article is critical of reductionist risk-discourses that at worst perpetuate racial
inequalities through hegemonic scientific discourses. More nuanced and holistic
interpretations could be made within criminology when considering risks on factors
such as race and ethnicity. There may be both risk and protective factors that affect
child outcomes. Singling out PP/CP as such may not suffice for assessing the overall
wellbeing of the child neither in Ghana nor Finland.
b This article calls for cultural and contextual sensitivity, and especially so with
criminological and related research practice. The implication for the mainstream
discourses of child-rearing and parenting is that the criminality element of PP/CP
in children may have marginalised approaches from the Global South. As
Twum-Danso Imoh (2013) has pointed out, there are always grey areas between the
mainstream and the marginal.
c Images of childhood also vary socio-culturally, including agencies afforded to
children. The understanding of cultural contexts has implications to mainstream
children’s rights discourses that tend to be articulated in terms of children’s
vulnerability, and powerfully so in the UNCRC 1989. Although any substantial
discussion on children’s agencies may merit another paper, it is suggested here that,
for example, the collectivist-individualist spectrum continues to be useful in future
theorising of children’s and families’ agencies.
d In addition, much more could also be said about child protection practices globally.
Violence towards children remains a societal problem even in countries where PP/CP
has been for long banned. It may require global efforts in understanding where risk
may be told apart from harm without imposing one set of cultural practices to
contexts where they are not helpful, as some practices/claims are local truths and
68 S. Ibrahim and S. Komulainen
may be universalisable. Further empirical research regarding PP/CP association with
juvenile delinquency, specifically in non-Western regions, are currently needed to
complement theoretical work on these matters.
Acknowledgements
Suleman Ibrahim would like to thank Andreas Haggman for proofreading the final
version of this paper. Suleman Ibrahim is also grateful to the EPSRC and the UK
government as part of the Centre for Doctoral Training in Cyber Security at Royal
Holloway, University of London.
References
Afifi, T.O., MacMillan, H.L., Boyle, M., Taillieu, T., Cheung, K. and Sareen, J. (2014) ‘Child
abuse and mental disorders in Canada’, Canadian Medical Association Journal, Vol. 186,
No. 9, pp.E324–E332.
Afifi, T.O., Mota, N.P., Dasiewicz, P., MacMillan, H.L. and Sareen, J. (2012) ‘Physical
punishment and mental disorders: results from a nationally representative US sample’,
Pediatrics, Vol. 130, No. 2, pp.184–192.
African Charter on the Right of Children (1990) Pax-Africa: African Peace and Security Agenda
[online] http://paxafrica.org/documents/resources/african-union-documents/african-charter-on-
the-rights-and-welfare-of-the-child-1990/view (accessed 2 January 2016).
Altheide, D.L. and Johnson, J.M. (1994) ‘Criteria for assessing interpretive validity in qualitative
research’, in Denzin, N.K. and Lincoln, Y.S. (Eds.): Handbook of Qualitative Research, Sage,
London.
Amponsah, B., Akotia, C. and Olowu, A. (2006) ‘Ghana’, in Georgas, J., Berry, J.W., van de
Vijver, F.J., Kagitçibasi, Ç. and Poortinga, Y.H. (Eds.) (2006): Families Across Cultures: A
30-Nation Psychological Study, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Annor, F. (2014) ‘Managing work and family demands: the perspectives of employed parents in
Ghana’, Work-Family Interface in Sub-Saharan Africa, pp.17–36, Springer International
Publishing, Cham, Switzerland.
Apt, N.A., Ame, R.K. and Agbényiga, D.L. (2011) ‘Confronting the challenges: optimizing child
rights in Ghana’, in Ame, R.K., Agbényiga, D.L. and Apt, N.A. (2011): Children’s Rights in
Ghana: Reality or Rhetoric?, Lexington Books, Plymouth.
Archambault, C. (2009) ‘Punishment of children in Maasailand’, Africa: Journal of the
International African Institute, Vol. 79, No. 2, pp.282–302.
Barn, R. (2002) ‘Parenting in a foreign climate: the experiences of Bangladeshi mothers in
multi-racial Britain’, Social Work in Europe, Vol. 9, No. 3, pp.28–38.
Bates, J., Lansford, J., Miller-Johnson, S., Berlin, L., Dodge, K. and Pettit, G. (2007) ‘Early
physical abuse and later violent delinquency: a prospective longitudinal study’, Child
Maltreatment, Vol. 12, No. 3, pp.233–245.
Baumrind, D. (1997) ‘Necessary distinctions’, Psychological Inquiry, Vol. 8, No. 3, pp.176–182.
Baumrind, D., Larzelere, R. and Cowan, P. (2002) ‘Ordinary physical punishment: is it harmful?
Comment on Gershoff (2002)’, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 128, No. 4, pp.580–589.
Bendix, R. (1963) ‘Concepts and generalizations in comparative sociological studies’, American
Sociological Review, Vol. 28, No. 4, pp.532–539.
Boakye, K. (2013) ‘Correlates and predictors of juvenile delinquency in Ghana’, International
Journal of Comparative and Applied Criminal Justice, Vol. 37, No. 4, pp.1–22.
Physical punishment in Ghana and Finland 69
Boakye, K.E. (2009) ‘Culture and nondisclosure of child sexual abuse in Ghana: a theoretical and
empirical exploration’, Law & Social Inquiry, Vol. 34, No. 4, pp.951–979.
Central Union for Child Welfare (2012) Attitudes to Disciplinary Violence, Central Union for Child
Welfare & Taloustutkimus Oy, Finland.
Central Union for Child Welfare (2014) The All-Important UN Convention on the Rights of the
Child [online] http://www.lskl.fi/en/central_union/what_we_do/children_s_rights_child_
welfare_policy_and_international_child_welfare_work/un_convention_on_the_rights_of_the_
child (accessed 30 October 2015).
Council of Europe (2007) Eliminating Corporal Punishment: A Human Rights Imperative for
Europe’s Children, 2nd ed., Council of Europe Publishing, Strasbourg.
Cusak, K. and Coker-Appiah, D. (1999) Violence Against Women and Children in Ghana, Gender
Studies and Human Rights Documentation Centre, Accra.
Deater-Deckard, K. and Dodge, K.A. (1997) ‘Externalizing behaviour problems and discipline
revisited: non-linear effects and variation by culture, context and gender’, Psychological
Inquiry, Vol. 8, No. 3, pp.161–175.
Deater-Deckard, K., Dodge, K.A., Bates, J.E. and Pettit, G.S. (1996) ‘Physical discipline among
African American and European American mothers: links to children’s externalizing
behaviors’, Developmental Psychology, Vol. 32, No. 6, pp.1065–1072.
DuRant, R.H., Cadenhead, C., Pendergrast, R.A., Slavens, G. and Linder, C.W. (1994) ‘Factors
associated with the use of violence among urban black adolescents’, American Journal of
Public Health, Vol. 84, No. 4, pp.612–617.
Durrant, J. (2005) ‘Corporal punishment: prevalence, predictors and implications for child
behaviour and development’, in Hart, S.N. (Ed.): Eliminating Corporal Punishment: The Way
Forward to Constructive Child Discipline, pp.49–90, UNESCO, Paris.
Ellonen, N. (2012) Kurin alaiset : lasten ja vanhempien välisten ristiriitojen ratkaiseminen
perheissä (translation by Komulainen: The Chastised: The Resolving of Conflicts Between
Children and Parents in Families), Poliisiammattikorkeakoulu, Tampere.
Ennew, J. (1995) ‘Outside childhood: street children’s rights’, in Franklin, B. (Ed.): The Handbook
of Children’s Rights, Routledge, London.
European Union (EU) (2015) European Platform for Investing in Children [online] http://europa.
eu/epic/countries/finland/index_en.htm (accessed 10 January 2016).
Fanon, F. (1967/2008) Black Skin, White Mask, Pluto Press, New York, NY.
Farrington, D.P. (2005) ‘Childhood origins of antisocial behaviour’, Clinical Psychology &
Psychotherapy, Vol. 12, No. 3, pp.177–190.
Ferguson, C.J. (2013) ‘Spanking, corporal punishment and negative long-term outcomes:
a meta-analytic review of longitudinal studies’, Clinical Psychology Review, Vol. 33, No. 1,
pp.196–208.
Fincher, C. and Thornhill, R. (2014) ‘Collectivism-individualism, family ties, and philopatry’,
The Parasite-Stress Theory of Values and Sociality, pp.113–170, Springer International
Publishing, Cham, Switzerland.
Flynn, C.P. (1999) ‘Exploring the link between corporal punishment and children’s cruelty to
animals’, Journal of Marriage and the Family, Vol. 61, No. 4, pp.971–981.
Foucault, M. (1977) Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison, Trans. Sheridan A., Pantheon,
New York.
Frankenberg, S., Holmqvist, R. and Rubenson, B. (2010) ‘The care of corporal punishment:
conceptions of early childhood discipline strategies among parents and grandparents in a poor
and urban area in Tanzania’, Childhood: A Journal of Global Child Research, Vol. 17, No. 4,
pp.455–469.
Friedman, S. and Schonberg, S.K. (1996) ‘Consensus statements’, Pediatrics, Vol. 98, No. 4,
p.853.
70 S. Ibrahim and S. Komulainen
Gershoff, E.T. (2002) ‘Corporal punishment by parents and associated child behaviors and
experiences: a meta-analytic and theoretical review’, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 128, No. 4,
p.539.
Gershoff, E.T., Lansford, J.E., Sexton, H.R., Davis-Kean, P. and Sameroff, A.J. (2012)
‘Longitudinal links between spanking and children’s externalizing behaviors in a national
sample of White, Black, Hispanic, and Asian American families’, Child Development,
Vol. 83, No. 3, pp.838–843.
GITEACPOC (2012) States With Full Abolition [online] http://www.endcorporalpunishment.org/
pages/progress/prohib_states.html (accessed 23 October 2015).
Global Initiative (Global Initiative to End all Corporal Punishment of Children) (2015) Research on
the Negative Impact of Corporal Punishment [online] http://www.endcorporalpunishment.org/
research/impact-corporalpunishment.html (accessed 1 November 2015).
Gracia, E. and Herrero, J. (2008) ‘Is it considered violence? The acceptability of physical
punishment of children in Europe’, Journal of Marriage and the Family, Vol. 70, No. 1,
pp.210–217.
Grana, J.L., Silva, T.C. and González-Cieza, L. (2013) ‘Self-reported physical and emotional abuse
among youth offenders and their association with internalizing and externalizing
psychopathology: a preliminary study’, International Journal of Offender Therapy and
Comparative Criminology, Vol. 58, No. 5, pp.590–606.
Gyekye, K. (1996) African Cultural Values: An Introduction, Sankofa, Accra.
Haapasalo, J. (2006) (title transl. by S. Komulainen) ‘Early environmental risk factors in the
development of criminality’, Juvenile Crime in Finland: Trends, Causes and Control, Vol. 33,
pp.123–160, Finnish Youth Research Association publications, Helsinki, Finland.
Häkli, J., Kallio, K-P. and Korkiamäki, R. (Eds.) (2015) Myönteinen tunnistaminen (engl. Positive
Recognition), 90pp, Finnish Youth Research Network Publications, Helsinki, Finland.
Halpenny, A-M., Nixon, E. and Watson, D. (2010) Parents’ Perspectives on Parenting Styles and
Disciplining Children, Office of the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs, The National
Children’s Strategy Research Series, Dublin, Ireland.
Helms, J.E., Jernigan, M. and Mascher, J. (2005) ‘The meaning of race in psychology and how to
change it: a methodological perspective’, The American Psychologist, January, Vol. 60, No. 1,
pp.27–36.
Hoeve, M., Dubas, J., Eichelsheim, V., van der Laan, P., Smeenk, W., and Gerris, J. (2009) ‘The
relationship between parenting and delinquency: a meta-analysis’, Journal of Abnormal Child
Psychology, Vol. 37, No. 6, pp.749–775.
Hofstede, G. (1980a) Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work Related Values,
Sage, Beverly Hills.
Hofstede, G. (1980b) ‘Motivation, leadership, and organization: do American theories apply
abroad?’, Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 9, No. 1, pp.42–63.
Horn, I.B., Cheng, T.L. and Joseph, J. (2004) ‘Discipline in the African American community:
the impact of socioeconomic status on beliefs and practices’, Pediatrics, Vol. 113, No. 5,
pp.1236–1241.
Ibrahim, S. (2015) ‘A binary model of broken home: parental death-divorce hypothesis of male
juvenile delinquency in Nigeria and Ghana’, in Maxwell, S.R. and Blair, S.L. (Eds.): Violence
and Crime in the Family: Patterns, Causes, and Consequences (Contemporary Perspectives in
Family Research, Vol. 9, pp.311–340, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, New York.
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) (1966) United Nations Human Rights
Office of the High Commissioner [online] http://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/
pages/ccpr.aspx (accessed 12 December 2015).
Jackson, A. (2000) ‘Maternal self-efficacy and children’s influence on stress and parenting among
single black mothers in poverty’, Journal of Family Issues, Vol. 21, No. 1, pp.3–16.
Physical punishment in Ghana and Finland 71
Kalunta-Crumpton, A. (2004) ‘Criminology and orientalism’, in Agozino, B. and
Kalunta-Crumpton, A. (Eds.): Pan-African Issues in Crime and Justice, Ashgate Publishing,
Hants.
Kistin, C., Radesky, J., Diaz-Linhart, Y., Tompson, M.C., O’Connor, E. and Silverstein, M. (2014)
‘A qualitative study of parenting stress, coping, and discipline approaches among low-income
traumatized mothers’, Journal of Developmental & Behavioral Pediatrics, Vol. 35, No. 3,
pp.189–196.
Kivivuori, J. (2006) ‘Sociological explanations for juvenile crime’, Juvenile Crime in Finland:
Trends, Causes and Control, Vol. 33, pp.161–184, Finnish Youth Research Association
Publication, Helsinki, Finland.
Krahe, B., Bondü, R., Höse, A., and Esser, G. (2014) ‘Child aggression as a source and a
consequence of parenting stress: a three-wave longitudinal study’, Journal of Research on
Adolescence, Vol. 25, No. 2, pp.1–12.
Kuyini, A.B., Alhassan, A.R., Tollerud, I., Weld, H. and Haruna, I. (2009) ‘Traditional kinship
foster care in northern Ghana: the experiences and views of children, carers and adults in
Tamale’, Child & Family Social Work, Vol. 14, No. 4, pp.440–449.
Kyei-Gyamfi, S. (2011) ‘Corporal punishment in Ghana’, in Ame, R., Agbenyiga, D. and Apt, N.
(Eds.): Children’s Rights in Ghana: Reality or Rhetoric?, Lexington Books, Lanham, MD.
Lansford, J. (2010) ‘The special problems of cultural differences in effects of corporal punishment’,
Law and Contemporary Problems, Vol. 73, No. 89, pp.89–106.
Larzelere, R.E. and Kuhn, B.R. (2005) ‘Comparing child outcomes of physical punishment and
alternative disciplinary tactics: a meta-analysis’, Clinical Child and Family Psychology
Review, Vol. 8, No. 1, pp.1–37.
Last, M. (2000) ‘Children and the experience of violence: contrasting cultures of punishment
innorthern Nigeria’, Africa, Vol. 70, No. 3, pp.415–432.
Lee, S.J., Altschul, I. and Gershoff, E.T. (2013) ‘Does warmth moderate longitudinal associations
between maternal spanking and child aggression in early childhood?’, Developmental
Psychology, Vol. 49, No. 11, pp.1–12.
Lerner, R.M., and Lerner, J.V. (1987/2011) ‘Children in their contexts: a goodness of fit model’, in
Lancaster, J.B., Alterman, J., Rossi, A.R. and Sherrod, L.R. (Eds.): Parenting Across the Life
Span: Biosocial Dimensions, pp.377–404, Transaction Publishers, New Jersey.
Lerner, R.M., Rothbaum, F., Boulos, S. and Castellino, D.R. (2002) ‘Developmental systems
perspective on parenting’, in Bornstein, M.H. (Ed.): Handbook of Parenting. Volume 2:
Biology and Ecology of Parenting, 2nd ed., pp.315–344, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,
Mahwah, NJ.
Loeber, R., Stouthamer-Loeber, M., Farrington, D., Kalb, L. et al. (2001) ‘The concentration of
offenders in families, and family criminality in the prediction of boys’ delinquency’, Journal
of Adolescence, Vol. 24, No. 5, pp.579–596.
Lunkenheimer, E.S. et al. (2006) ‘The intergenerational transmission of physical punishment:
differing mechanisms in mothers’ and fathers’ endorsement?’, Journal of Family Violence,
Vol. 21, No. 8, pp.509–519.
MacKenzie, M., Nicklas, E., Brooks-Gunn, J., Waldfogel, J. et al. (2014) ‘Spanking and children’s
externalizing behavior across the first decade of life: evidence for transactional processes’,
Journal of Youth and Adolescence, Vol. 44, No. 3, pp.658–669.
MacKenzie, M.J., Nicklas, E., Waldfogel, J. and Brooks-Gunn, J. (2012) ‘Corporal punishment
and child behavioral and cognitive outcomes through 5 years of age: evidence from a
contemporary urban birth cohort study’, Infant and Child Development, Vol. 21, No. 1,
pp.3–33.
Mäkinen, P. (2010) Lapsiin kohdistuva väkivalta on vaiettu ongelma, Etusivu, 4 March 2010
(transl. Violence Towards Children is an Unspoken Problem), Ministry for Education
and Culture [online] http://www.minedu.fi/etusivu/arkisto/2010/0403/
kuritusvakivalta.html?lang=fi. (accessed 15 December 2015).
72 S. Ibrahim and S. Komulainen
McCaskie, T.C. (1992) ‘Empire state: Asante and the historians’, The Journal of African History,
Vol. 33, No. 3, pp.467–476.
McCaskie, T.C. (2003) State and Society in Pre-Colonial Asante (Vol. 79), Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge.
McCauley, J.F. (2012) ‘Africa’s new big man rule? Pentecostalism and patronage in Ghana’
African Affairs, Vol. 112, No. 446, pp.1–21.
McLoyd, V. and Smith, J. (2002) ‘Physical discipline and behavior problems in African American,
European American, and Hispanic children: emotional support as a moderator’, Journal of
Marriage and Family, Vol. 64, No. 1, pp.40–53.
Moffitt, T.E., Jaffee, S.R., Bowes, L., Ouellet-Morin, I., Fisher, H.L., Merrick, M.T. and
Arseneault, L. (2013) ‘Safe, stable, nurturing relationships break the intergenerational cycle of
abuse: a prospective nationally representative cohort of children in the United Kingdom’,
Journal of Adolescent Health, Vol. 53, No. 4, pp.S4–S10.
Moore, H. (1994) Is there a Crisis in the Family?, Occasional Paper No. 3, United Nations
Research Institute for Social Development (UNRISD), Geneva.
Morris, S.Z. and Gibson, C.L. (2011) ‘Corporal punishment’s influence on children’s aggressive
and delinquent behavior’, Criminal Justice and Behavior, Vol. 38, No. 8, pp.818–839.
Morrow, V. and Singh, R. (2014) Corporal Punishment in Schools in Andhra Pradesh, India,
pp.1–22, Young Lives, Oxford.
Nelken, D. (2010) Comparative Criminal Justice: Making Sense of Difference, SAGE, London.
Nsamenang, A.B. (1992) Human Development in a Cultural Context: A Third World Perspective,
Sage, Newbury Park, CA.
O’Leary, S., Lorber, M. and Smith, A. (2011) ‘An initial evaluation of the role of emotion and
impulsivity in explaining racial/ethnic differences in the use of corporal punishment’,
Developmental Psychology, Vol. 47, No. 6, pp.1744–1749.
Okpako, J.E.F. (2004) ‘Parenting the Nigerian adolescents towards smooth transition to adulthood’,
in Nwazuoke, I.A., Bamgbose, O. and Morokola, O.A. (Eds.): Contemporary Issue and
Research in Adolescents, pp.275–288, Omoade Printing Press, Ibadan.
Österman, K., Björkqvist, K. and Wahlbeck, K. (2014) ‘Twenty-eight years after the complete ban
on the physical punishment of children in Finland: trends and psychosocial concomitants’,
Aggressive Behavior, Vol. 40, No. 6, pp.568–581.
Otu, N. (1999) ‘Colonialism and the criminal justice system in Nigeria’, International Journal of
Comparative and Applied Criminal Justice, Vol. 23, No. 2, pp.293–306.
Payet, J.P. and Franchi, V. (2008) ‘The rights of the child and ‘the good of learners’: a comparative
ethnographical survey on the abolition of corporal punishment in South Africana schools’,
Childhood, Vol. 15, No. 2, pp.157–176.
Pösö, T. (2015) ‘Research in child abuse and neglect: a Finnish perspective’, in Waterhouse, L. and
McGhee, J. (Eds.): Challenging Child Protection: New Directions in Safeguarding Children,
Research Highlights 57, pp.89–99, Jessica Kingsley Publishers, London.
Ranuga, T. (1986) ‘Frantz Fanon and black consciousness in Azania (South Africa)’, Phylon,
Vol. 47, No. 3, pp.182–191.
Rwezaura, B. (1998) ‘Competing ‘images’ of childhood in the social and legal systems of
contemporary Sub-Saharan Africa’, International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family,
Vol. 12, No. 3, pp.253–278.
Said, E. (1994) Culture and Imperialism, Vintage, London.
Sampson, E.E. (2000) ‘Reinterpreting individualism and collectivism: their religious roots and
monologic versus dialogic person-other relationship’, American Psychologist, Vol. 55, No. 12,
p.1425.
Physical punishment in Ghana and Finland 73
Skeggs, B. (2013) Class, Self, Culture, Routledge, London.
Skinner, A., Bacchini, D., Lansford, J., Godwin, J., Sorbring, E., Tapanya, S. et al. (2014)
‘Neighborhood danger, parental monitoring, harsh parenting, and child aggression in nine
countries’, Societies, Vol. 4, No. 1, pp.45–67.
Smith, D.J. (2001) ‘Kinship and corruption in contemporary Nigeria’, ethnos, Vol. 66, No. 3,
pp.344–364.
Smith, D.J. (2004) ‘Burials and belonging in Nigeria: rural-urban relations and social inequality in
a contemporary African ritual’, American Anthropologist, Vol. 106, No. 3, pp.569–579.
Smith, L.T. (1999) Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples, Zed Books,
Sidney.
Straus, M.A. (2000) ‘Corporal punishment and primary prevention of physical abuse’, Child Abuse
& Neglect, Vol. 24, No. 9, pp.1109–1114.
Taylor, C.A., Manganello, J.A., Lee, S.J. and Rice, J.C. (2010) ‘Mothers’ spanking of 3-year-old
children and subsequent risk of children’s aggressive behavior’, Pediatrics, Vol. 125, No. 5,
pp.1057–1065.
Terveyden ja Hyvinvoinnin Laitos (THL; National Institute for Health and Welfare) (2015)
Handbook for Child Protection [online] https://www.thl.fi/web/handbook-for-child-protection
(accessed 16 December 2015).
Tisdall, K. (2015) ‘The rule of law’, in Waterhouse, L. and McGhee, J. (Eds.): Challenging Child
Protection: New Directions in Safeguarding Children, Research Highlights 57, pp.42–49,
Jessica Kingsley Publishers, London.
Tremblay, R.E. and LeMarquand, D. (2001) ‘Individual risk and protective factors’, in Loeber, R.
and Farrington, D.P. (Eds.): Child Delinquents. Development, Intervention, and Service Needs,
Sage, Thousand Oaks.
Twum-Danso Imoh, A. (2012) ‘Cultural practices in the face of globalized ideals: the case of
physical punishment of children in Ghana’, in Twum-Danso Imoh, A. and Ame, R. (Eds.):
Childhoods at the Intersection of the Local and Global, Palgrave, Basingstoke.
Twum-Danso Imoh, A. (2013) ‘Children’s perceptions of physical punishment in Ghana and the
implications for children’s rights’, Childhood, Vol. 20, No. 4, pp.472–486.
United Nations (1989) Convention on the Rights of the Child 1989 [online]
http://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/crc.aspx (accessed 1 December 2015).
Valentin, K. and Meinert, L. (2009) ‘The adult north and the young south’, Anthropology Today,
Vol. 25, No. 3, pp.23–28.
Veerman, P. (1992) The Rights of the Child and the Changing Image of Childhood, Martinus
Nijhoff Publishers, Dordretch.
Wells, K. (2009) Childhood in a Global Perspective, Policy Press, Bristol.
White, R., Roosa, M., Weaver, S. et al. (2009) ‘Cultural and contextual influences on parenting in
Mexican American families’, Journal of Marriage and Family, Vol. 71, No. 1, pp.61–79.
Woodhead, M. and Montgomery, H. (2003) Understanding Childhood: An Interdisciplinary
Approach, The Open University/Wiley, Maidenhead.
Yovsi, R. (2014) ‘Parenting among the Nso of the Northwest Province of Cameroon’, Parenting
Across Cultures, pp.253–266, Springer, Netherlands [online] http://link.springer.com/chapter/
10.1007/978-94-007-7503-9_19 (accessed 26 April 2015).
74 S. Ibrahim and S. Komulainen
Notes
1 This paper uses the terms physical punishment (PP) and corporal punishment (CP)
interchangeably, however depending on which one is used in the literature that the text refers
to.
2 These perspectives are interrelated and have a long history in what is called the Global West in
this article, the comprehensive treatment of which is beyond the scope of this article.
3 Here drawing on and paraphrasing a comprehensive literature review by Halpenny et al.
(2010).
4 In this article, Finland is treated as a case example and a comparison to Ghana; no
comprehensive treatment of Finnish child welfare system or criminological research is
attempted.
