Global Economic and Political Causes of Human Trafficking

The Criminal Activity Frame

By far the most pervasive frame for viewing human trafficking is as a criminal activity that can be either transnational, domestic, or local in nature. Internationally, trafficking is thus seen “within the broader problem of criminal networks that transcend national borders” (Simmons, Lloyd, & Stewart, 2018, p. 255) and often viewed alongside illicit enterprises such as money laundering, global terrorism, and illegal trade in drugs and weapons. Indeed, as indicated earlier, the Palermo Protocol is technically a supplement to the UN Convention on Transnational Organized Crime. The view of trafficking as a criminal activity is implicit in the aforementioned definitions, as they articulate specific criminal acts.

The criminal activity frame has broad resonance among international organizations as well as governments, as it provides a perspective on human trafficking as “one of the most heinous crimes on Earth” (U.S. State Department, 2019) and a set of mandates for how to respond to it that centers on the enactment and enforcement of anti-trafficking statutes. Public opinion and media surveys further attest to the dominance of this frame in press coverage of trafficking, as well as public perceptions of human trafficking (Bonilla & Mo, 2018; Boushé, Farrell, & Wittmer-Wolfe, 2018; Gulati, 2011; Simmons et al., 2018). Moreover, the criminal activity frame is politically advantageous for states. As it views trafficking as “corrosive to state authority” and even “a potential national security threat” (Charnysh et al., 2015, p. 330), blame for trafficking is often placed largely on non-state criminal elements, and policy responses focus around empowering the state to better combat this threat. Indeed, countries have been more eager to adopt statutes covering prosecution policies than those involving protection or prevention (Cho, Dreher, & Neumayer, 2014).

Despite the prevalence of this frame, it is also seen as a “narrow lens” (Gulati, 2011, p. 365) through which to view trafficking, as it can provide an incomplete and even misleading perspective. Many critique the moralistic and “crusading” aspect of anti-trafficking measures—particularly the overemphasis on sex trafficking—and posit that anti-trafficking discourses are somewhat akin to the problematic responses to “White slavery” in the late 19th and early 20th centuries (Agustin, 2007; Bravo, 2007). Along those lines, much has been made of its inherent alarmism, sexism, and racism related to the criminal-activity frame (Kempadoo, 2015; Shih, 2016). Moreover, the criminal justice approach to trafficking leads to “narrow, palliative policy responses” (Kreidenweis & Hudson, 2015, p. 6) that fail to address the broader threats connoted by trafficking, as well as the political and economic factors that are conducive to it.

The Human Rights Frame

By way of contrast, the human rights frame focuses more on the impact of trafficking on its individual victims, particularly the “full spectrum of human rights violations that trafficking in persons involves” (Charnysh et al., 2015, p. 329). Foundationally, human trafficking entails the violation of multiple core human rights—most notably the freedom from slavery and the rights to life and liberty—as well as several of the so-called second-generation rights, particularly those involving labor practices and working conditions. The human rights frame directly calls attention to the repression of these rights.

This perspective figures prominently in many studies of human trafficking, with particular attention to three related areas—slavery, women’s rights, and labor rights. The parallels between slavery and human trafficking were very prominent in early scholarship on trafficking and still figure largely in public discourse. For example, Kevin Bales (1999; see also Bales & Soodhalter, 2009; Kara, 2009) presented trafficking as the “new slavery,” which bore some similarities (as well as key differences) to traditional notions of slavery, particularly the trans-Atlantic slave trade. Such terminology is readily apparent in policy statements, as both the United Nations as well as the U.S. State Department consistently refer to trafficking as “modern slavery.”

A good deal of attention has also been devoted to the gendered elements of trafficking, particularly in the area of sex trafficking. Females figure prominently in discussions of human trafficking victims, with policymakers and the public readily seeing trafficking as “the criminal victimization of vulnerable girls … who are held captive by nefarious predators and forced into commercial sex” (Boushè et al., 2018, p. 1284; see also Bonilla & Mo, 2018; Bravo, 2007). The problems with this narrative are widely noted and include the overemphasis on sexual exploitation and the controversies surrounding consensual—as oppose to forced—sex work (Agustin, 2007; Lerum & Brents, 2016). At the same time, there is agreement on the increased vulnerability of females across all types of trafficking (Limoncelli, 2009; Lobasz, 2009).

While there are certainly gendered elements to the exploitation of labor (Lebaron, 2015; Lebaron & Ayers, 2013; Limoncelli, 2009), trafficking can also be viewed within the broader purview of labor exploitation, particularly forced labor. Along those lines, trafficked or “unfree” labor can be seen as an extreme example of the denial of labor rights, as these workers enjoy none of the rights associated with formal workplaces, including fair wages, collective bargaining rights, and freedom from discrimination (Bravo, 2007; Peksen, Blanton,& Blanton, 2017).

While many scholars use the human rights frame to understand and examine human trafficking, and it resonates among legislators as well as anti-trafficking activists, it is a bit more challenging from a policy perspective. Human rights-based frames can be effective in placing trafficking on policy agendas. Brysk (2009, p. 17; see also 2005, 2012) posits that even the “disproportionate emphasis on international sex trafficking may be politically valuable and necessary” in generating attention to other types of trafficking as well as broader human rights campaigns. Yet, unlike the criminal activity frame—which prescribes punishments to criminal actors—human rights-based approaches tend to place more blame on the states themselves for failing to “protect vulnerable populations from the risk of being trafficked” (Clark, 2003, p. 248; see also Cho, 2015; Hernandez & Rudolph, 2015; Johnson, 2012; Okubo & Shelley, 2011). Moreover, the “protection” policies more commonly associated with this frame, particularly those that focus on victim care and rehabilitation, are less amenable to “securitization” than prosecution-oriented policies (Charnysh et al., 2015) and are thus less likely to accumulate political support and resources.

The Market-Based Industry Frame

At the same time, human trafficking represents a large illicit industry. While estimates vary as to the exact size of this market, the International Labor Organization (ILO, 2014) estimates the value of the worldwide slavery market at $150 billion, making it the third largest illicit trade in the world (behind weapons and drugs). Along these lines, trafficking is often analyzed through a market-based industry frame. Studies within the business and economics literature have modeled both the market structure of trafficking as well as insights of management theories for understanding trafficking organizations (Crane, 2013; Wheaton, Schauer, & Galli, 2010).

Taken as a whole, the global trafficking market has a decentralized network structure, and multiple “business models” exist and vary across different geographic regions of the world as well as specific types of trafficking (Shelley, 2010). Yet, there are some common patterns that are apparent across different types of trafficking, with extant research finding that “trafficked sex slaves are by far the most lucrative slaves in the world” (Kara, 2009, p. 19). Indeed, the ILO estimates that sex trafficking is roughly six times more profitable than other forms of forced labor, and studies find that the return on investment (ROI) in sex trafficking is over 1,000% per year per victim (Kara, 2017). The higher profit margins are readily explained “by the demand for such services and the prices that clients are willing to pay, and by the low capital investments and low operating costs associated with this activity” (ILO, 2014, p. 15; see also Bales, 1999; Kara, 2009, 2017). There are thus economic incentives to traffic; as Bales (1999, p. 50) argues, “the work of the modern slaveholder is best seen not as aberrant criminality but as a perfect example of disinterested capitalism.”

Other forms of trafficking, particularly forced labor, have a much lower profit margin and are driven by different dynamics. In this case, “value trap slavery” can emerge in industrial supply chains “where margins are narrow and where value is captured further downstream,” including textiles and agriculture (Crane, 2013, p. 54). In situations where profit margins are particularly low, employers and firms face a “cost calculus” where they “perceive the necessity of coerced labor brought as close as possible to zero cost to survive” (LeBaron & Ayers, 2013, p. 883).

Regarding sex trafficking, the market-based industry frame provides justification for criminal justice measures that can ostensibly alter the decision calculus of potential traffickers (Akee, Basu, Bedi, & Chau, 2014; Wheaton, Schauer, & Galli, 2010). Its insights are also germane for labor trafficking, as the market-based industry frame draws attention to the ubiquitous nature of slavery within the global economy, particularly global supply chains, as “every one of us, every day, touches, wears and eats products tainted with slavery” (Bales & Soodalter, 2009, p. 137). Indeed, the global economy is replete with well-publicized cases of labor abuses and slave labor connected to products such as chocolate and seafood (i.e., Faber, Mistrati, & Romano, 2010; Mendoza, McDowell, Mason, & Htusan, 2016). Yet, given the complexity of global supply chains, particularly the use of multiple levels of subcontracting, it is often virtually impossible to tell precisely which goods use slave labor, as in many cases the lines between illicit and licit goods are obscured (Hobbes, 2015; Locke, 2013). Moreover, abuses are much more difficult to detect and prevent, as a multiplicity of private and public actors may be involved. Thus, while this model does provide a more comprehensive picture of human trafficking, it also shows the inherent difficulties in preventing trafficking, particularly in the area of labor.

Economic Factors

The economic influences on human trafficking can be viewed at both micro and macro levels. Implicit in the criminal activity and market-based industry frames is that traffickers are utility-maximizing actors. Along those lines, micro-level approaches seek to model the decision of the trafficker, which can be shaped by consideration of such factors as border controls and whether a country has criminalized trafficking (Akee, Basu, Chau, & Khamis, 2010; Jac-Kucharski, 2012). Open borders are more conducive to trafficking, as is the increasing volume of international cargo. International agreements that promote free trade, such as the Schengen Agreement in Europe and the North American Free Trade Agreement, have encouraged cross-border movement with an unintended consequence of facilitating trafficking (Andreas, 2000; Joyce, 1999). Likewise, the porous borders of the countries of the former USSR allow for the trafficking of persons. An “illusion of inspection” exists in many countries, where the movement of trucks, vans, boats, and the goods they carry receive only a cursory inspection, enabling many people to be concealed and trafficked over borders (Nordstrom, 2007; Shelley, 2010; Soudijn, 2006). With globalization, advancements in communications technology have also benefited traffickers. They can conduct their business online and with mobile devises in a low-cost and anonymous manner, which can readily serve to promote sex trafficking (Zakhari, 2004). “Behind the poor, vulnerable, and isolated trafficking victim often exists an elaborate communications system that links human traffickers with the global market for their goods” (Shelley, 2010, p. 41).

Along somewhat similar lines, others focus on the decision calculus of prospective buyers and traffickers. For example, Kara (2009; see also 2017) finds that the demand for commercial sex is price elastic, as lowering the price of sex will result in increased demand, which ostensibly incentivizes trafficking. Others model price elasticity in the source and destination countries and examine the impact of price elasticity on whether law enforcement actions against trafficking will substantially reduce the demand for trafficking or simply incentivize domestic, as opposed to transnational, trafficking (Akee et al., 2014).

At the macro level, studies have found several indicators to have a robust impact on trafficking. Many find poverty to be a significant determinant of human trafficking, with the basic dynamic being that trafficking flows from low-income into higher-income countries (Babatudne, 2014; Cho, 2015; Peksen et al., 2017). More broadly, scholars argue that globalization, including participation in International Monetary Fund (IMF) programs as well as neoliberal policies intended at increasing global economic competitiveness, can increase trafficking (Kara, 2009; Shelley, 2010). Indeed, some argue that prevalent sex and labor trafficking can serve as a de facto development strategy for a country (Shelley, 2010; see also Busse & Braun, 2003). Along these lines, studies from feminist and human rights perspectives widely note that trafficking is an inextricable part of the broader global economic order (Barrientos, Byrne, Villa, & Peña, 2013; LeBaron, 2015; Limoncelli, 2009).

Similarly, free-market policies such as market deregulation, limited government regulation, and increased economic openness—which aim to increase connections with the global economy—can create an environment in which human traffickers can more easily operate. Following the dynamics of the market-based industry frame, the pursuit of economic growth through neoliberal policies, as well as international organizations that promote such policies (particularly the World Bank and IMF), may facilitate the use of trafficked labor. This can be either directly, through downward pressure on wages, or indirectly, as such policies “increase the divide between the winners and losers of globalization” (Cho, 2013, p. 684). Empirical work along these lines has found mixed support for these linkages, depending on the specific measures used. For example, Neumayer and de Soysa (2007) find that trade openness is negatively related to forced labor, while Heller, Lawson, Murphy, and Williamson(2018) find that countries with free markets are more likely to enact anti-trafficking policies. However, Peksen et al. (2017) find that economic globalization, as well as the adherence to neoliberal economic policies, is related to increased labor trafficking.

Women and children tend to suffer the brunt of economic downturns (Blanton, Blanton, & Peksen, 2018), and this is reflected in their increased vulnerability to human traffickers. Discrimination against women, as measured by a denial of property rights, lack of access to education, limited economic rights, and limited participation in the political process, is linked to human trafficking (Shelly, 2010). In some societies, women hold a lower social status and are sold by their families to cover expenses or are expected to find employment and send remittances home. At times, victims willingly engage with their traffickers, as they think they are traveling to accept honorable employment, only to discover differently when it is too late. In response, some organizations have enacted initiatives to publicize the “cons” of human traffickers and educate poor populations so that they can be more aware of how traffickers often mislead vulnerable people (Bales, 1999).

Political Factors

There are also numerous ways that political phenomena can influence trafficking. Some specific facets underneath this broad umbrella include armed conflict, the institutional strength and effectiveness of governments, and NGOs. Several studies have also examined the impact of trafficking criminalization laws, as well as state laws regarding prostitution, on trafficking flows.

In the post-Cold War period, regional conflicts proliferated, which ostensibly created conditions conducive to human trafficking. Between 2009 and 2018, for example, the world population of forcibly displaced people expanded from 43.3 million in 2009 to 70.8 million in 2018, accounting for between 6 and 10% of the world population as forcibly displaced due to conflict, violence, or human rights violations (UNHCR, 2019). Living in harsh conditions, these individuals are potentially vulnerable to human traffickers. Many lack resources and seek help to relocate; others pay smugglers to move them to a safer country but then become trafficking victims. Still others, such as children, can be trafficked to fight for rebel groups (Shelley, 2010).

Empirical studies have found limited support for a direct impact of conflict on human trafficking, though there is evidence that forced migration can influence trafficking flows (Cho, 2015). Indirectly, studies have found that peacekeeping missions lead to increased human trafficking, particularly forced prostitution, as the presence of UN peacekeepers is related to increased demand for sex workers (Bell, Flynn, & Machain, 2018; see also O’Brien, 2006; Smith & Smith, 2011). Similarly, private military contractors, who are increasingly present in conflicts, contribute to the demand for sex workers and the resulting trafficking and abuse of women (Isenberg, 2009).

While trafficking is often carried out by private actors, the role of the state is an important factor in understanding the causes of human trafficking, as states are charged with the duty to protect their citizens. As discussed previously (see “Framing Human Trafficking”), much of the policy and legislative efforts to address human trafficking have followed the “3P” paradigm regarding prosecution, protection, and prevention. Yet states may vary greatly in their ability to enforce these laws. First, they may lack the institutional effectiveness and political will to ensure that anti-trafficking laws and policies are effectively implemented. In the empirical literature, particular attention has been paid to institutional strength and effectiveness, including the rule of law, bureaucratic efficiency, border control, and corruption (Akee et al., 2014; Hernandez & Rudolph, 2015; Jac-Kucharski, 2012; Keo, Bouhours, Broadhurst, & Bouhours, 2014).

Similarly, state revenues, or lack thereof, may also influence their capacity to implement effective anti-trafficking measures. More specifically, states that effectively raise revenues through taxation of their populace—rather than through such sources as foreign aid or resource rents—are less likely to be source or destination countries for trafficking. They are better able to improve underlying conditions, such as education and economic insecurity, that cause populations to be more vulnerable to traffickers (Blanton, Blanton, & Peksen, 2018; Friman & Reich, 2008; see also Keo et al., 2014; Mahmoud & Trebesch, 2009).

Non-state actors, as well as the policies of neighboring states, can also affect human trafficking. Given the current widespread global opposition to trafficking, states may be particularly attuned to global norms. Indeed, social globalization, a measure of the cultural openness of a country, has a significant impact upon anti-trafficking policies; that is, states with greater cultural ties to the rest of the world are more likely to have stringent anti-trafficking policies (Amahazion, 2014). Given the prevalent condemnation of human trafficking, there is evidence that “shaming” by states or non-state actors can also influence trafficking policies. For example, the annual trafficking reports of the U.S. State Department, particularly the “tier” rankings of their annual Trafficking in Persons Report, are significantly related to the diffusion of criminalization policies (Kelley & Simmons, 2015). Bell and Banks (2018) find NGO shaming to have a similar effect on trafficking flows, with the presence and activity of women’s rights NGOs being negatively related to sex trafficking. While these external pressures may influence trafficking, the potential impact of neighboring states on trafficking is more complex, as studies find that the criminalization of trafficking in a neighboring state may serve merely to divert trafficking flows to other states (Frank & Simmons, 2013).

Regarding state policies, a particular area of contention among scholars, activists, and policymakers is the so-called “abolitionist versus sex work conceptualization of women’s sexual labor” (Limoncelli, 2009, p. 261; see also Sandel, 2012). The abolitionist perspective, which is held by an unlikely grouping of radical feminists, religious, and conservative groups, holds that prostitution and other sex work is a priori coercive and harmful to participants. Farley (2006, p. 103), for example, argues that “prostitution is a gendered survival strategy based on the assumption of unreasonable risks by the person in it,” with prostitutes being “unrecognized victims of intimate partner violence by customers as well as pimps.” Along these lines, prostitution is viewed as conducive to human trafficking, and policy prescriptions focus on ways to reduce the commercial sex industry. By way of contrast, the sex work perspective views commercial sex as legitimate work that is often entered into on a voluntary basis. From this perspective, the illegality of sex work only exacerbates its danger and it is incumbent upon governments to “respect, protect and fulfill the human rights of sex workers” (Amnesty International, 2016, p. 2). Regarding trafficking, it is argued that the “anti-sex bias” (Lerum & Brents, 2016, p. 19; see also Agustin, 2007; Brysk, 2009; Weitzer, 2015; Zhang, 2009) of advocacy groups and governments detracts from the meaningful analysis of trafficking, increases the danger of sex work, and makes it more difficult to fight human trafficking.

There are relatively few empirical studies on the impact of sex work policy—specifically the legalization of prostitution—on human trafficking. In their widely-cited study, Cho, Dreher, and Neumayer(2012) argued that there are two potential ways in which legalization could impact sex trafficking flows, which they term the substitution and scale effects. They posit legal commercial sex would function as a substitute for sex work using trafficked labor, and thus reduce trafficking. By way of contrast, the logic of the scale effect is that legalization would increase the demand for commercial sex by removing criminal penalties. In this case, increased demand for commercial sex could create a perverse incentive structure that would encourage trafficking, with trafficked workers providing a lower-cost alternative to the more regulated, and thus more expensive, commercial sex providers. Testing these propositions within the European Union, they found support for the scale effect, that is, “countries where prostitution is legal experience larger reported human trafficking inflows” (Cho et al., 2012, p. 67; see also Jakobsson & Kotsadam, 2013; Marinova & James, 2012).

Demographic Factors

Many of the same variables that drive licit flows of people from one country to another also influence human trafficking. Foundationally, “the international movement of people is an essential component of human trafficking” (Hernandez & Rudolph, 2015, p. 121). Immigrants often represent a vulnerable subset of the population and may be more likely to become victims of human traffickers. In many cases, the boundary between immigration and trafficking blurs, particularly in cases of human smuggling (Jureidini, 2010). Along these lines, many studies have found a robust relationship between migration patterns and trafficking flows (Cho, 2015; Hernandez & Rudolph, 2015; Mahmoud & Trebesch, 2009; Perry & McEwing, 2013). Similarly, others also find a relationship between cross-border travel and trafficking flows (Akee et al., 2010; Hernandez & Rudolph, 2015).

It is broadly noted that cultural factors, including respect for women’s rights as well as the historical attitudes that cultures have developed toward slavery in general, may influence the prevalence of human trafficking (Shelley, 2010). Empirically, a handful of studies have examined the influence of specific demographic aspects of a country on human trafficking. For example, Akee et al. (2010) find that countries with a greater proportion of children are more likely source countries for trafficking flows. Turning to culture, while trafficking occurs in countries across the full spectrum of religious traditions, empirical studies have found that predominantly Muslim countries are less likely to implement anti-trafficking laws (Potrafke, 2013) and more likely to be source countries for trafficking flows (Cho, 2015).