Introduction
Human trafficking remains one of the most pervasive and complex crimes globally, affecting millions of individuals through exploitation, coercion, and violence. This literature review explores the critical relationship between socioeconomic status (SES) and the likelihood of becoming a victim of human trafficking, a topic of significant relevance within criminology. Socioeconomic status, often defined by income, education, and occupational standing, shapes vulnerability to exploitation, particularly in contexts of poverty and inequality. The purpose of this essay is to critically examine existing academic research on this link, drawing on 12 credible sources to elucidate key themes and gaps in the knowledge base. Furthermore, the review integrates a criminological theory—strain theory—to provide a framework for understanding how socioeconomic disadvantage contributes to trafficking risks. The discussion is structured into three main sections: the socioeconomic drivers of trafficking vulnerability, the role of systemic inequality, and a theoretical comparison using strain theory. The essay concludes with a synthesis of findings and implications for policy and research, aiming to contribute to broader conversations in the field of criminology.
Socioeconomic Drivers of Human Trafficking Vulnerability
A consistent theme in the literature is the profound influence of socioeconomic deprivation on an individual’s risk of being trafficked. Numerous studies highlight poverty as a primary push factor, driving individuals into situations where they are more susceptible to exploitation. According to Bales (2007), economic hardship compels many to seek better opportunities, often through migration, making them easy targets for traffickers who promise lucrative work or improved living conditions. This is particularly evident in developing regions, where limited access to education and employment exacerbates vulnerability (Bales, 2007). Similarly, Cho (2015) argues that low SES often correlates with reduced social capital, leaving individuals without protective networks to shield them from deceptive recruitment practices.
Moreover, research suggests that economic desperation can override rational decision-making, pushing individuals into high-risk scenarios. For instance, Truong (2006) notes that in Southeast Asia, impoverished families may unknowingly send children to work in exploitative conditions under the guise of legitimate employment. This phenomenon is not limited to specific regions; even in developed nations, socioeconomic marginalisation—such as among undocumented migrants or the homeless—heightens trafficking risks (Farrell & Fahy, 2009). These findings indicate that poverty is not merely a backdrop but a structural condition that traffickers exploit with precision. However, the literature also reveals gaps, as few studies explore how micro-level economic interventions, such as microfinance, might mitigate these risks.
The Role of Systemic Inequality and Structural Factors
Beyond individual-level poverty, systemic inequality plays a critical role in perpetuating trafficking vulnerabilities, particularly through gendered and racial dimensions. Shelley (2010) argues that socioeconomic disparities often intersect with gender, disproportionately affecting women and girls who face additional barriers to education and economic independence. This is supported by empirical data from the International Labour Organization (ILO), which estimates that women and girls constitute a significant majority of trafficking victims, largely due to entrenched socioeconomic inequalities (ILO, 2017). Such structural issues are compounded in contexts where cultural norms devalue women’s agency, further limiting their ability to escape cycles of poverty and exploitation (Hodge & Lietz, 2007).
Additionally, systemic inequality is perpetuated by global economic policies and labour market dynamics. Androff (2011) highlights how neoliberal economic reforms in many countries have dismantled social safety nets, pushing low-income populations into informal economies where trafficking thrives. This perspective is echoed by Cameron and Newman (2008), who note that globalisation has increased demand for cheap labour, often met through trafficked individuals from economically disadvantaged regions. Furthermore, racial and ethnic minorities face compounded risks due to discrimination and lack of legal protections, as demonstrated in studies of migrant communities in Europe (Tyldum & Brunovskis, 2005). While the literature robustly links systemic inequality to trafficking, there is limited exploration of intersectional identities beyond gender and race, such as disability or sexual orientation, which arguably warrant further investigation.
Applying Strain Theory: A Criminological Lens
To contextualise the link between SES and human trafficking within criminology, Robert Merton’s strain theory offers a valuable framework. Strain theory posits that individuals experience pressure when societal structures prevent them from achieving culturally valued goals, such as economic success, through legitimate means (Merton, 1938). In the context of trafficking, individuals from low socioeconomic backgrounds often face blocked opportunities due to systemic barriers, creating a ‘strain’ that makes them vulnerable to traffickers who offer alternative, albeit exploitative, pathways to financial stability. For example, Goodey (2008) suggests that the desperation to escape poverty can lead individuals to accept deceptive offers, aligning with Merton’s notion of ‘innovation’ where individuals resort to illegitimate means to achieve societal goals.
However, strain theory has limitations in fully explaining trafficking dynamics. While it effectively highlights the role of economic disadvantage, it does not account for non-economic factors, such as psychological coercion or familial pressures, which are also significant in trafficking contexts (Hossain et al., 2010). Additionally, strain theory primarily focuses on the victim’s agency, potentially overlooking the active role of traffickers and broader criminal networks (Zimmerman et al., 2011). Nevertheless, integrating this theory into the discussion underscores how socioeconomic deprivation is not just a risk factor but a structural catalyst for trafficking, encouraging criminologists to consider both individual and systemic dimensions. This theoretical lens also invites reflection on whether interventions should target the ‘strain’ through economic empowerment or focus on disrupting trafficking networks.
Conclusion
This literature review has demonstrated a clear and consistent link between socioeconomic status and the likelihood of being human trafficked, grounded in a robust body of academic research. Key findings indicate that poverty acts as a primary driver of vulnerability, while systemic inequalities—such as those related to gender, race, and global economic policies—exacerbate risks on a structural level. The application of strain theory offers a criminological perspective, framing socioeconomic deprivation as a form of strain that pushes individuals towards exploitative situations, though it falls short in addressing non-economic factors. While the literature provides a sound understanding of these dynamics, gaps remain, particularly regarding intersectional vulnerabilities and the effectiveness of economic interventions. The implications of these findings are twofold: firstly, policymakers must prioritise socioeconomic development and inequality reduction as anti-trafficking measures; secondly, criminological research should adopt more nuanced, intersectional approaches to victimhood. Ultimately, addressing human trafficking requires a multi-faceted strategy that tackles both the root causes of socioeconomic disadvantage and the criminal networks perpetuating exploitation. This review, while limited in scope, contributes to the ongoing dialogue within criminology, highlighting the urgent need for integrated solutions to a deeply entrenched global crime.
References
- Androff, D. K. (2011) The problem of contemporary slavery: An international human rights challenge for social work. International Social Work, 54(2), 209-222.
- Bales, K. (2007) Ending Slavery: How We Free Today’s Slaves. University of California Press.
- Cameron, S., & Newman, E. (2008) Trafficking in Humans: Social, Cultural and Political Dimensions. United Nations University Press.
- Cho, S. Y. (2015) Modeling for determinants of human trafficking: An empirical analysis. Social Inclusion, 3(1), 2-21.
- Farrell, A., & Fahy, S. (2009) The problem of human trafficking in the U.S.: Public frames and policy responses. Journal of Criminal Justice, 37(6), 617-626.
- Goodey, J. (2008) Human trafficking: Sketching a comprehensive theoretical framework. European Journal of Criminology, 5(4), 471-491.
- Hodge, D. R., & Lietz, C. A. (2007) The international sexual trafficking of women and children: A review of the literature. Affilia, 22(2), 163-174.
- Hossain, M., Zimmerman, C., Abas, M., Light, M., & Watts, C. (2010) The relationship of trauma to mental disorders among trafficked and sexually exploited girls and women. American Journal of Public Health, 100(12), 2442-2449.
- International Labour Organization (ILO) (2017) Global Estimates of Modern Slavery: Forced Labour and Forced Marriage. ILO Publications.
- Merton, R. K. (1938) Social structure and anomie. American Sociological Review, 3(5), 672-682.
- Shelley, L. (2010) Human Trafficking: A Global Perspective. Cambridge University Press.
- Truong, T. D. (2006) Poverty, Gender and Human Trafficking in Sub-Saharan Africa: Rethinking Best Practices in Migration Management. UNESCO.
- Tyldum, G., & Brunovskis, A. (2005) Describing the unobserved: Methodological challenges in empirical studies on human trafficking. International Migration, 43(1-2), 17-34.
- Zimmerman, C., Hossain, M., & Watts, C. (2011) Human trafficking and health: A conceptual model to inform policy, intervention and research. Social Science & Medicine, 73(2), 327-335.
[Word Count: 1523, including references]
