I think we all understand that there is a myth about education and unemployment as the common reasons for trafficking. In reality, it appears that people from the community with low education are more vulnerable to trafficking. It does not mean they are the only ones. They are just more vulnerable to trafficking. There are some people with good education who are also tricked. I think the underlying reason for people making such assumptions is that people come from low socio-economic backgrounds and people interpret this as low education.
(Anon., National Trafficking Project Coordinator, UN agency Vietnam, 16 October 2009)
A widely-accepted assumption in trafficking discourse is that a relationship exists between levels of education and migratory decisions that lead to unsafe and exploitative work. Education presumably creates opportunities for potential migrants to access decent work1 in the domestic market. If they choose to migrate in order to work abroad, better-educated people are more likely to leave under safer conditions than their less-educated peers. Low levels of education are therefore seen as a major factor limiting the ability of potential migrants to find work at home and/or migrate safely. Education is often also assumed to increase the capacity of victims to understand, process and appreciate the risks involved when entering into a transaction. Victims of trafficking are therefore presumed to have a lower capacity to assess the risks associated with the contracts in which they engage.
This chapter involves an analysis of the two-part assumption that education levels and trafficking are intimately connected and offers an alternative view of how to understand the relationship between the two. After analysing the uneducated victim archetype in greater depth, in the second section of this chapter, I discuss the absence of data connecting the levels of school completion of trafficked victims and their vulnerability to trafficking. There is in fact a surprising lack of empirical analysis of the assumed correlations between education and trafficking. In the course of my research, I have identified only one study involving primary research conducted in Thailand that focused solely on the interrelationship between education, child labour and sex work (Rende Taylor,
1 The International Labour Organisation defines decent work as work that is productive and delivers a fair income, security in the workplace and social protection for families, better prospects for personal development and social integration, freedom for people to express their concerns, organise and participate in the decisions that affect their lives and equality of opportunity and treatment for all women and men. For more, see Vosko, 2010: 85–7.
2005). I have not found any academic work that involves an in-depth study into the relationship between trafficking and education levels and nothing at all on the issue of comprehension of risk.2
To the contrary, I propose the possibility of an inverse relationship between trafficking and education levels; higher educated individuals may face greater vulnerability to trafficking and exploitation. I also examine the question of comprehension of risk, a factor which is rarely analysed in trafficking literature but which proved to be pertinent during my own field investigations in Ghana. I discuss its relevance to vulnerability to trafficking and analyse the views held by several of my informants that potential migrants suffer trafficking and trafficking-like conditions not necessarily because of the tactics of ‘traffickers’ but rather due to the naivety of the victims themselves, being from the ‘village’ and ignorant. I also look at other trafficking-related experiences and decisions that may relate to education levels, including the types of sectors into which victims are trafficked, willingness to report their exploitation and, finally, the geographic distance travelled. In the final section of this chapter, I look beyond the aggregate figures of school enrolment and completion and explore other education-related factors that may prove relevant when assessing vulnerability to trafficking, including the quality of education and cost of schooling.
the Archetypal Uneducated victim and its origins
Numerous authors assert that there are clear correlations between education levels and the risk of human trafficking. At times, authors described strong correlations;
in other instances, reference is made to education as one of a multiplicity of causal factors.
2 The closest analysis I have identified on the topic is an article by Bridget Ogonor and Austin Osunde in which they argue that the right to education is violated for young girls who are trafficked from their homes to places within and outside of Nigeria for labour and sexual exploitation, thereby depriving the victims of education (2007). They examine the successes and shortcomings of a Universal Basic Education Programme for 130 repatriated victims (that is, analyse education as a reintegration tool as opposed to specifically looking at lack of education as a cause). Ironically, the programme appears to have been largely unsuccessful, the authors failing to see the patronising and stereotypical views that they themselves adopt. The authors find themselves unable to explain why the girls ‘seek to be re-trafficked at the least opportunity’, and blame the programme for making ‘no attempt … to change the values and attitudes of the students who are well positioned to positively influence members of the larger society toward sexual trafficking’ (2007: 617). Referring to trafficking as a social vice and making no distinction between the various types of exploitation suffered by victims of trafficking, the authors argue that the curriculum content should ‘equip pupils with the personal agency to probe anti-female cultural values’ – not explaining what these ‘anti-female’ values entail – and ‘dissuade female students from accepting to be trafficked’ (Ogonor and Osunde, 2007: 617).
Writing on trafficking of Romanian women, Sebastian Lăzăroiu and Monica Alexandru argue that education is an important ‘vulnerability’ factor: ‘In this context it is obvious that the higher the degree of education and the longer the period spent in school, the more education constitutes a protection factor against trafficking’ (2003: 27, emphasis added). Describing the global picture of trafficking, Vidyamali Samarasinghe and Barbara Burton argue that the ‘roots of trafficking are structural and systemic’, including ‘profound disadvantages for women in terms of poverty, education and wage employment’ (2007: 54). They continue that ‘[i]ndividuals at risk are usually children and women, aged between 5 and 25 years, mostly rural, poor, and with little education’ (Samarasinghe and Burton, 2007: 55).
In the Asia region, several authors make similar arguments. In a few instances, these are empirically-based, although reports often lack a transparent methodology to determine the basis for data collection. This includes studies focused on Vietnam (Duong and Khuat 2008: 205–6 whose 2005 sample of 213 female respondents was ‘relatively un-educated’) and Nepal (Poudel and Carryer, 2000: 74–5). Mary Crawford and Michelle Kaufman identify various inequalities facing Nepali women, including ‘educational inequalities’ that are ‘rampant’ (2008: 905–6).
They conclude, ‘[a]ll these socio-cultural forces put Nepali girls and women at risk for sex trafficking’ (Crawford and Kaufman, 2008: 905–6). Susan Tiefenbrun, too, argues that women are ‘victims of poverty’ and suffer because of ‘the failure of some cultures and societies to place value on traditional women’s work, and of the lack of education and employment opportunities for women in developing and transition countries’ (2001: 208, with her position echoed by Trépanier, 2003: 48).
In the Africa region, a 2001 study by ILO-IPEC, involving fieldwork in Benin, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Côte d’Ivoire, Gabon, Ghana, Mali, Nigeria and Togo, identified three key underlying ‘causal’ factors of trafficking: socio-cultural factors, such as the social acceptability of children working and historical patterns of illiteracy or low education; economic factors, such as the inequalities between rural and urban areas; and juridical and political factors, such as the absence of enforceable legislation (2001: 13–14, 27–9). In regard to Nigeria, Jeffrey Cole argues that ‘[l]ack of education and the common view that daughters are servants of family interests have worked to channel girls, especially poorer ones, into prostitution, both at home and abroad, from the late 1980s’ (Cole, 2006: 222).
In contrast to the above literature, Lisa Rende Taylor’s 14-month study in two villages in northern Thailand (2005) presents a far more complex picture. Rende Taylor explored the correlations, if any, that existed between parental investment in education and child labour, sex work and trafficking. Her study found that last-born children stay in school the longest and enter work, on average, the oldest.
However, many of the last-born girls go directly from school to Bangkok or abroad, migrating and entering hazardous work. The last-born children, despite receiving higher levels of education than their siblings, enter hazardous labour first or more often. Rende Taylor goes on to note that these younger daughters do not know how to farm and after such significant investment in their education it
is considered undesirable for families to see them working in the farm or a local market. As a result, there is a tendency for these girls, who have received more education than their older siblings, including their brothers, to be sent into riskier work situations (Rende Taylor, 2005: 422).
In general, the literature discussed above reflects a tendency globally – and particularly in the discourse on Africa and Asia – to draw direct links between low levels of education and/or incomplete schooling and vulnerability to trafficking.
Frequently, this ‘link’ is presented as a fact, without any solid evidence to support such statements. Exceptions to this perspective, such as that of Rende Taylor, are rare. There are significant implications of this amplification of the assumed relationship between education levels and trafficking. Substantial resources, for example, are invested in reintegration programmes focused on educating victims.
This assumption is quite puzzling when it comes to Eastern European countries like Ukraine. Quite often Ukraine is presented as the country with the highest number of victims of trafficking in the world (UNODC, n.d.: 6). However, the generally high levels of literacy among the majority of Ukrainians are widely recognised. Prior to 1989, literacy was near-universal, with levels of education in Central and Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union ranking above other countries with comparable levels of per capita income (Corrin, 2005: 545).
Authors writing on the topic of trafficking have also noted the importance of avoiding ‘stereotypes on this issue, as many trafficked women are also highly educated but living in countries where law and order and the authority of central government have broken down so that conditions are ripe for their exploitation’ (McSherry and Kneebone, 2008: 71). Many Eastern European countries from the former Soviet bloc and the Balkan region conform with this description. Like Bernadette McSherry and Susan Kneebone, Rebecca Surtees, who has also conducted research on the trafficking of men (2008), states that
‘[g]enerally, trafficking victims had low education levels’ (2005: 13), but highlights various exceptions:
… a small number of victims from countries such as Ukraine, Moldova, Romania and Bulgaria had higher education levels, including university and college degrees. Indeed, many trafficking victims had education similar to, and even higher than, that of the general population in their home countries. This highlights that it is not only the poorly educated who are trafficked (2005: 13).
In summary, the uneducated victim archetype can be found across the existing literature. However, there are some clear regional discrepancies and certainly some noted exceptions regarding education levels of victims. Despite this, many sources, including academic analysis, fail to unpack in greater detail these inconsistencies and what they say about inadequate education as an assumed cause of trafficking.
contesting the Uneducated victim Archetype
An Inverse Relationship between Education and Trafficking
My research in Ukraine – including data collected from questionnaires completed by 104 trafficked returnees summarised in Table 5.1 – revealed possible correlations between education levels and human trafficking. Of the 104 respondents from Ukraine, all reported having attended school in Ukraine prior to their departure.
The majority of respondents (55.8 per cent) attended school up to the age of 17 years, the age at which high school is usually completed in Ukraine, with some continuing on to further education. In addition, 26.0 per cent of the respondents attended school up to the age of 15 years and 13.5 per cent attended school up to the age of 16 years. The minimum and maximum duration of schooling for the 104 respondents were 6 years and 11 years respectively, not counting those students who went on to attend college or university.
In terms of tertiary education, 17.3 per cent of these respondents, or 18 trafficked returnees, went on to attend college or university before leaving Ukraine.
Among these 18 respondents, ten completed their college or university degree and attained the resulting qualification (nine female and one male respondent).
Overall, the data indicates that among the 104 respondents, 58 had finished school, with a further 18 continuing on to tertiary education. One in ten of the respondents had completed college or university-level education. This sample of 104 returned victims of trafficking cannot be deemed uneducated based on these figures.
For a more definitive analysis, a comparison with the broader Ukrainian population is required. As noted above, like many other former Soviet Union countries, levels of literacy, school enrolment and school completion in Ukraine are relatively high. According to the UNDP National Human Development Report in 2002, universal education among Ukrainians was approaching the level of developed countries at 79 per cent (for comparison, the world average is 65 per cent; in developing states it is 61 per cent; in developed Organisation for Economic table 5.1 Age up to which the respondents attended school
Age at final year of schooling
frequency Percentage of total number of surveyed individuals
13 1 1.0
14 4 3.8
15 27 26.0
16 14 13.5
17 58 55.8
Cooperation and Development (OECD) states 94 per cent; and in Eastern Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) 77 per cent). In 2004, this indicator for Ukraine reached 86 per cent (UNDP National Human Development Report, cited in Ministry of Economy of Ukraine, 2005: 19).
Set against the UNDP data, a significant finding of my research was that the trafficked individuals surveyed appeared more educated than the broader Ukrainian population as a whole. For the purpose of this analysis, I have relied on the UNDP Human Development Report from 2008 (UNDP, 2008). This particular UNDP report documents levels of education of individuals in Ukraine aged 25 to 70 years as of 2006.3
According to the UNDP, as of 2006, approximately 49.2 per cent of people aged 25 to 70 in Ukraine had completed only lower secondary education (2008:
80), that is, had left school by the age of 15 (see UNDP, 2008: 104 and UNESCO, 1997), the age at which compulsory education ends. By comparison, only five respondents, or 4.8 per cent of my survey sample had left school prior to reaching the age of 15 and only 32 of the returned victims of trafficking in total, or 30.8 per cent of all questionnaire respondents, had ended their education by the age of 15.
This reflects a considerable difference with the UNDP data which show that almost 19 per cent more of the broader population of Ukraine had left school at or before the age of 15 when compared to my trafficked respondents. The sample of victims who completed my questionnaire was, on average, more educated than their peers.
An informant from an inter-governmental organisation in Ukraine shared the experience of a trafficked couple who accessed reintegration support from a partner organisation. The informant’s aim in sharing this story was specifically to highlight the misconception that trafficked victims are uneducated:
There was a couple living in Ternopil. The wife had a PhD. She is an economist.
The husband was one of the few ISO9000 auditors [a global standard for third-party certification as an auditor] in Ukraine. They wanted to start a business, a 3 According to my survey data, 87 per cent of victims spent less than one year abroad prior to returning and accessing reintegration support. Many of the victims who had completed my questionnaire in July 2009 would therefore have left Ukraine towards the end of 2007 or around the first half of 2008, depending on how long they had been accessing reintegration support. The 2006 data from this UNDP report are the only reliable available data on education in Ukraine that I have identified that closely resemble the time period when the victims who completed my survey would have left Ukraine. Moreover, it indicates a wide age range allowing some comparability with the age of my survey respondents, who ranged from 17 to 50 years old. It is arguable that the least educated segment of the Ukrainian population could be found among those aged 50 to 70 years, which would skew this analysis. However, there is no evidence that this is the case, especially given the longer life expectancy of the better educated. See for example Corsini 2010, a Eurostat publication.
Although it does not discuss Ukraine – a non-member – it discusses Estonia, another former Soviet country. The study notes that higher educated people live longer than lower educated people for both men and women.
consulting firm. They had at that time a 4-year old daughter and decided to leave her with her grandmother and go abroad to work in the factories in Portugal.
Why? Because they wanted to make enough money to start their consulting business. They decided to go and they ended up in a factory and they were trafficked … The woman was in the trafficker’s house for domestic labour and she was also raped. They were separated for 6 or 7 months because he was in the factory and she was in the house. Their 4-year old kid was back here in Ukraine. [A] grandmother isn’t really equipped to take care of a 4-year old. The factory gets raided and they are deported. (Anon., Counter-Trafficking expert, inter-governmental organisation, 13 August 2009)
The informant went on to note the irony that, after being deported and returning to Ukraine, the family was finally able to access the micro-credit they had been seeking through an NGO programme for reintegration of victims. Beyond the anecdotal element, there is a very interesting issue raised by the comment of this informant who adopted a somewhat dismissive tone towards the victims.4 in the context of an initially voluntary departure, the informant described this story in the language of migration, referring to remittances and goal-setting regarding potential income-earning from the opportunity they found in Portugal. Simultaneously, the informant linked exploitation to this initially voluntary movement; the victimhood of the couple cannot be questioned. Furthermore, their very high levels of education did not reduce their vulnerability to exploitation and could even be seen, in part, a cause for their initial decision to migrate. This furthers some of the related findings discussed in the previous chapter and serves as an interesting example of how monetary need acts as a driving force.
Comments on education and its relationship with trafficking were also made by the then Chief of Mission at IOM Ukraine, who highlighted that Ukrainians are a highly educated population. He went on to note that, ‘[a] lot of victims of trafficking have finished high school’ and ‘there is also trafficking of people with higher education’ (J. Labovitz, former Chief of Mission, IOM Ukraine, 27 August 2009). While arguing that there is in fact a relationship between education levels and trafficking, the former Chief of Mission went on to suggest that it is ‘not as pronounced’ as is often thought. He also made a reference to brain drain, as has
Comments on education and its relationship with trafficking were also made by the then Chief of Mission at IOM Ukraine, who highlighted that Ukrainians are a highly educated population. He went on to note that, ‘[a] lot of victims of trafficking have finished high school’ and ‘there is also trafficking of people with higher education’ (J. Labovitz, former Chief of Mission, IOM Ukraine, 27 August 2009). While arguing that there is in fact a relationship between education levels and trafficking, the former Chief of Mission went on to suggest that it is ‘not as pronounced’ as is often thought. He also made a reference to brain drain, as has