{"id":420,"date":"2019-03-11T15:49:14","date_gmt":"2019-03-11T15:49:14","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.sussex.ac.uk\/global\/?p=420"},"modified":"2019-03-19T14:20:02","modified_gmt":"2019-03-19T14:20:02","slug":"examining-the-relevance-of-the-modern-slavery-and-human-trafficking-discourse","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.sussex.ac.uk\/global\/2019\/03\/11\/examining-the-relevance-of-the-modern-slavery-and-human-trafficking-discourse\/","title":{"rendered":"Examining the relevance of the modern slavery and human trafficking discourse"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

This post is written by Hannah Furukawa, Project Administrator for the ‘Chains’ project and MA Migration and Global Development student. <\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

In recent years the term \u2018modern slavery\u2019 has been widely used to describe practices such as forced labour, forced or servile marriage, the sale and exploitation of children, and debt bondage. The aim to eradicate forced labour and end modern slavery and human trafficking is set out in the UN Sustainable Development Goals (Target 8.7). However, the discourse around modern slavery often uses simplistic binaries of those who are \u2018free\u2019 and those who are \u2018enslaved\u2019. At the same time, it demonises any intermediaries who are involved in facilitating migration, labelling them as traffickers. New research led by Dr Priya Deshingkar unsettles the dominant discourse on modern slavery by illuminating the infrastructure of brokerage and giving voice to migrants’ own experiences and how they view the process. At a conference last week, outcomes of the research were shared with academics, experts and policy makers, leading to interesting discussions on what the implications for policy and programming might be. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"
Dr Priya Deshingkar, Global Studies, presenting at the British Academy, London.  Photo credit: Summer Dean<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Research in Ghana and Myanmar<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"


<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n
\"\"
Professor Joseph Teye and Professor Mariama Awumbila, University of Ghana, present their findings. Photo credit: Summer Dean<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

The collaborative project between the University of Sussex, the University of Ghana and the International Organisation for Migration (IOM) in Myanmar conducted over 200 in-depth interviews with aspiring, current and returned migrants as well as brokers and other stakeholders. Both Ghana and Myanmar do not make the top grade of 1 in the US Government\u2019s Department of State Trafficking in Persons Report (TIP) as they are seen to be wanting in actions to control trafficking. In Ghana two main routes were considered, up towards North Africa and towards the Gulf states, whilst in Myanmar the focus was on migration towards Thailand and Singapore. The research focused on the movement for construction work and domestic work. Both are highly gendered due to cultural and ideological norms and both have many characteristics of modern slavery. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Motivations for migration<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In both countries it emerged that reasons\nfor leaving were a sense of frustration and hopelessness with the situations in\nthe home towns and villages, as well as the desire to improve social standing\nand financial opportunities. Migration is often viewed as a \u2018rite of passage\u2019, especially\nfor young men, and in Ghana those who have migrated may improve their chances\nof marriage upon their return. In line with other research, these findings\nhowever challenge the idea that poverty makes people move: migration is a\ncostly process, therefore it is not the \u2018poorest of the poor\u2019 who move if they\nare paying fees upfront. Debt-migrants may be extremely poor. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The role of brokers<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Brokers were used at every stage of the\nmigration process and range from formal agencies to informal networks of family\nand friends. Though some brokers may be \u2018in it for the money\u2019, others view\nthemselves as benevolent enablers of migration. Migrants themselves also often\nsee brokers as vital intermediaries who help them with their journeys. Those\nwho migrated from Mon State in Myanmar to Thailand for example, expressed that\nbrokers made them feel safer during journeys. That is not to say that migrants\ndo not then find themselves in exploitative situations. Women moving from\nMyanmar to Singapore were found to be highly controlled throughout the\nmigration process experiencing physical confinement and having their passports\nwithheld. Debt bondage was also encountered whereby migrants had to work for\naround 7 months with no wages in order to repay the costs of migration. In some\ncases where migrants found themselves in unbearable working conditions, brokers\nwere again contacted to help them find alternative positions. The complex role\nof brokers therefore requires a more nuanced understanding.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"
Alex Ma, Myanmar Researcher                        Kitty Van Geloof representing IOM Myanmar<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Migrant agency<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Popular discourse on modern slavery and\ntrafficking often denies migrants any agency. Yet the temporal aspect of how\nmigrants view their experiences reveals that they do weigh up the risks and\nbenefits of migration. Many who have experienced exploitation, once returned\nhome, will choose to re-migrate. Shorter-term sacrifices and exploitative\nworking conditions are chosen over the option of remaining at home; longer-term\nbenefits are considered to be worth the risk and sacrifice. Thus migrants are\nshown to exercise agency, albeit in highly constrained circumstances.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What government policies often fail to\nunderstand is that restricting migration for this kind of work will not stop\npeople\u2019s desire to move and improve their life chances. Both Ghana and Myanmar at\ndifferent points have banned migration for domestic work, yet rather than\nstopping movement, this results in longer and more expensive journeys, pushing\npeople further under the radar. Restrictive migration policies often tie\nworkers to employers and limit the length of their stay. This leads to migrants\nchoosing to remain irregular and in informal work. In these circumstances\nworkers may experience exploitative conditions and increased vulnerability.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Policy implications<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

At the conference academics and policy\nmakers discussed the lack of definitional clarity over the term \u2018modern\nslavery\u2019 and agreed that consensus is needed in order for policies to be\ndeveloped and to create political and public will. Allowing people the\nopportunity to experience the positive benefits of migration whilst reducing\nexploitative conditions is desirable. How can this be done? Conversations arose\nabout providing legal pathways for migrants, regulating brokers and making\nservices more accessible.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"
Rob Whitby, Head of DFID Migration Policy Team; Ursula Antwi–Boasiako, Head of DFID Modern Slavery Team; and Jennifer Dew, Lead in Migrant Protection and Assistance at IOM consider the research implications. Photo credit: Summer Dean<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Recommendations from the research include\nthe need to carry out participatory research in order to better understand the\nlived realities of people affected by aspects of \u2018modern slavery\u2019 and to\nrecognise what is important for them and how things can be improved from their\nperspectives. Similarly, migrants themselves and not just those who purport to represent\nthem should be involved in the design of interventions; ways need to be found\nto reach them as they are often invisible, extremely busy and scared of\nauthorities. Finally,\nendogenous protection (existing informal systems of support for migrants by\nmigrants) can be built upon by policy makers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

For more information see: http:\/\/www.sussex.ac.uk\/global\/research\/researchprojects\/chains<\/a> <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

This post is written by Hannah Furukawa, Project Administrator for the ‘Chains’ project and MA Migration and Global Development student.  In recent years the term \u2018modern slavery\u2019 has been widely used to describe practices such as forced labour, forced or servile marriage, the sale and exploitation…<\/span><\/p>\n

Read more ›<\/a><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":24,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[1],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.sussex.ac.uk\/global\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/420"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.sussex.ac.uk\/global\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.sussex.ac.uk\/global\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.sussex.ac.uk\/global\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/24"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.sussex.ac.uk\/global\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=420"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.sussex.ac.uk\/global\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/420\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":434,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.sussex.ac.uk\/global\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/420\/revisions\/434"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.sussex.ac.uk\/global\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=420"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.sussex.ac.uk\/global\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=420"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.sussex.ac.uk\/global\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=420"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}