Criminal networks,unfortunate circumstances,or migratory projects? Researching sex trafficking from Eastern Europe

Introduction

The place of Eastern Europe (EE) within the popular debates on sex trafficking is not ambiguous; the figures of Natasha, a beautiful and gullible young Slavic woman, and an entrepreneurial but corrupt and malicious Eastern criminal are at the center of numerous films, books, blogs, scholarly work, and other locations of public knowledge on the topic. ¹ These figures titillate, inform, and orient today’s geo-cultural imagination, continuing the tradition of the philosophical and artistic thought of the Enlightenment that cultivated the ideas about sexual repression, perversion, and backwardness of “Eastern Europe” and affirmed the importance of “Western Europe” (Wolff, 1994). The stories that expert knowledge tell about migrants working in the sex industry situate EE on the periphery of the European Union (EU) and describe the region as a point of departure and transit, a place from where migrants flee difficult economic and political situations, an origin of cheap sexual labor and a locus of organized crime and corruption. Analytical narratives sometimes present EE citizens involved in migration and sex work as traumatized by their communist past and still in the process of recovering from transitional problems. Even though these descriptions are not entirely false, such perspectives point toward the doubts about cultural belonging of Eastern Europeans within the European community, as the EE region is generally regarded as problematic and its citizens considered to be more vulnerable and prone to criminal activities. Writing about Orientalist constructions of the Balkan region, Maria Todorova points out that “the Balkans are usually reported to the outside world only in time of terror and trouble; the rest of the time they are scornfully ignored” (Todorova, 1997: 184). Serving as a “repository of negative characteristics against which a positive and self-congratulatory image of the “European” and the “West” [is] constructed” (Todorova, 1997: 188), the narratives of vulnerability and criminality of EE migrants structure and organize the public concern and political measures against sex trafficking (Doezema, 2010; Kempadoo, 2012). However, what are the specific mechanisms of the expert knowledge production on which this politics rests? How do these Oriental productions of “Natasha’s story,” which resonates so well with the construction of East versus West polarity, come to life? And finally, what are the implications of these knowledge constructions for policy-making?

Recently several scholars have explored how the cultural imagination of Eastern spaces and societies affect feminist research projects on sex workers’ migration and justify tighter border control and awareness raising projects among those who are perceived as high-risk populations (Agustín, 2010; Berman, 2003; Goodey, 2008; Kelly, 2005). Within these studies, marginalization and silencing of migrants and politicization and oversimplification of the issue have been identified as main problems. However, only few studies examine the links between theoretical frameworks, disciplinary approaches, methodology and epistemology that structure knowledge on migration and sex work (Brunovskis and Surtees, 2010). In this article, focusing on the research of EE migrant sex workers, I aim to map the explanations of the EE region in relation to sex work with the specific methodological approaches. The target of my analysis is texts based on extensive empirical research, which were published since 2000, and which explore migrants from countries of the former Eastern Bloc involved in transactional sex. ² Analyzed texts include 20 research projects: monographs, articles published in peer-reviewed academic journals, as well as research administered and published by the International Organization for Migration (IOM) and the European Network for HIV/STI Prevention and Health Promotion among Migrant Sex Workers (TAMPEP). Within this sample, I identify prevalent disciplinary approaches and theories, empirical grounding of the research, method and sample choices, validity claims, lines of argument, and “situatedness,” that is, the reflection of researchers on their empirical experiences and sensitivity to particular social contexts (Code, 2006; Haraway, 1988). My goal is to examine how the vast and often conflicting variety of narratives about migrant sex workers from a particular region comes to life within scholarly knowledge.

Research patterns

As Jo Doezema (2010: 4) demonstrates, starting in the early 1980s, the popular focus on White slavery and trade in Western women started to be replaced by narratives of sex trafficking, which focused on the movement of sex workers from Latin America and Asia to Western Europe. The research focusing on people trafficked from the EE region burgeoned after disintegration of the Soviet Union in 1991, which resulted in reorganization of the European borders, changes of political regimes, and major shifts in the regional economy. Transnational feminist scholarship started addressing post-communist countries as a region affected by migration and sex industry in unique ways due to acute poverty, economic changes, and organized crime networks, and framed the issue as a major feminist concern requiring immediate action (Barry, 1995; Hughes et al., 1999). Even though some scholars confirm that migration from EE for sex work abroad has existed for over a century (Bernstein, 2010; Pickup, 1998), it is often stated that sex trafficking is a relatively new problem and that the number of persons from EE countries working in sex industries is steadily increasing (IOM, 2004; Laczko et al., 2002; Lazaridis, 2001). Some researchers call for a particular attention to the region because the number of trafficked persons and migrant sex workers from EE is significantly higher than from other world locations (Lazaridis, 2001: 92; Vocks and Nijboer, 2000: 379).

Within the collected research projects, I identify three most common analytical frameworks, which set direction for the main idea, goals and epistemological approaches of the research. These are the criminological, socio-economic analytical, and migration and labor frameworks. The research focusing on criminality has a goal to explore criminal networks, mechanisms and realities of illegal activities, and violence and effectiveness of crime-prevention measures. This research is mostly found in academic journals of crime and legal studies. The research conducting socio-economic analysis aims to describe socio-economic factors and power relations that influence migrant sex workers and paint the picture of high-risk populations. This research appears in a vast variety of social study sources, such as economic, international, or gender studies. The third group focuses on migratory and occupational life experiences, as well as socio-economic and political factors within countries where the labor takes place, including relations with the state, institutions, and service providers. Within my sample, this research was published by TAMPEP and in journals of migration, international studies, and social sciences. These three thematic strands shape current academic discussion on migration for sex work from EE and, as I discuss further, significantly differ in their methodological approaches. Although in some texts thematic and explanatory frameworks interrelate and overlap, I identify that these three types of research have significantly different starting points in planning empirical research, sampling, construction of the argument, and drawing conclusions concerning migration for sex work. This categorization of research projects should not be seen as clearly defined and mutually exclusive, but rather as a broad map of overlapping research areas that point toward correlation between research focus and methodological choices.

Criminological framework

In 1995, IOM has reported that the core of the problem with Eastern European sex trafficking lies in the existence of “organized networks of traffickers and criminals who bring women from poorer countries to the West in order to exploit them” (IOM, 1995: 12). Continuing this perspective today, the largest portion of the research on sex work and migration from EE is published in journals of criminal studies and by agencies that focus on sex trafficking and an issue of organized crime. The research conducted under the criminological framework of analysis explores in details the mechanics of illegal activities, such as border crossing and violence against women, and interpersonal or motivational factors that influence involvement in migration for sex work, such as relations with criminal networks, family relations, experiences of violence, and individual choices of initial and continuous involvement in criminal activity (e.g. Hughes and Denisova, 2001; Lazaridis, 2001; Surtees, 2008). This approach often acknowledges that illegal female migration for work in the sex industry is influenced by tightening of immigration control at the borders of the EU as well as economic and social factors, but its main research focus is explanation of existence and actions of organized criminal networks. For example, Laczko et al. (2002) compare trafficking trends between countries based on the available statistical data, which shows that trafficking is greater in EE and the Balkans than it is in Central Europe. Their research suggests that poverty is only one of the factors. In case when the countries are not among the poorest in EE but nevertheless have high rates of human trafficking, such as Baltic countries, it is explained by the presence of a stronger organized crime network. They find that in some parts of the region, organized crime is more successful than in others due to the corruption of local officials and the high accumulation of financial, social, and symbolic capital among criminals. Gabriella Lazaridis (2001) also lists factors that make sex trafficking from EE especially profitable. Basing her research on interviews and media accounts of prostitution cases, she notes that availability and low costs of bringing women from EE to Western Europe created a favorable terrain for replacing previously popular Asian and African sex workers with Eastern European women. At the same time, native women are driven out of the market, as Eastern Europeans become more accessible and successfully fulfill the demand for “exotic” service providers. Lazaridis (2001: 92) concludes that shorter travel distances, tourist entry, or smuggling via lightly protected borders, as well as the knowledge that few criminals are convicted, encourage traffickers to seek recruitment of women in Eastern European countries.

Some texts also suggest that it becomes increasingly more difficult to assist victims of trafficking because traffickers adapt and change their methods, which explains why the number of resolved trafficking cases is decreasing while the overall number of victims keeps rising (IOM, 2004: 5). These kinds of approaches see organized crime as a business, which, similar to other businesses, seeks to optimize the profit, minimize the costs, and avoid the risks. In order to address this situation, researchers propose to realize legal, social, and economic reforms that would cause traffickers to reassess the economic benefits of smuggling and sex trade (Lazaridis, 2001: 94; Surtees, 2008: 39) and to conduct more thorough criminological research focusing on trafficking networks (Goodey, 2008: 438). As a result, this type of research helps explain entrepreneurial activities associated with sex trafficking in the countries of departure and transit.

The empirical grounding of criminological research consists of a variety of quantitative or qualitative data. The statistical data on trafficking cases, which are collected with the assistance of anti-trafficking agencies, are used to compare extent and mechanisms of criminal actions (Laczko et al., 2002). The qualitative data come from the interviews with key informants, such as police staff, anti-trafficking organizations, and governmental institutions (Hughes and Denisova, 2001; IOM, 2004; Lazaridis, 2001; Surtees, 2008). Interviews with trafficked women or women working in prostitution are sometimes also conducted as a supplementary data, which provide illustration and experiential knowledge of criminal activities.

Most research reports claim validity by triangulation and presentation of a large variety of data from different sources. So, interviewing key informants is often supplemented by looking at criminal case files, interviews with the victims, and media analysis. However, even when data are verified through different sources, it is clear that criminological research prioritizes expert knowledge. This type of data is based on information provided by law enforcement agencies, such as police forces, border police, representatives of the ministries of justice, agencies assisting victims of trafficking, or, in some cases, members of the organized crime groups (Hughes and Denisova, 2001; IOM, 2004; Lazaridis, 2001). Therefore, researchers also gain access to people who had personal experiences of sex work and migration through these sources, which supports the focus on criminality of the situation. Researchers mostly focus on describing the organization and management of criminal activities, and therefore most of the attention falls on the activities of traffickers rather than trafficked persons: making of fake documents, smuggling women over the borders, withholding passports, manipulating people into debt bondage, providing illegal migrants with living space on specific binding conditions, as well as more gruesome crimes of physical and emotional violence against women. Therefore, in these studies, women’s movement across the border is framed as an activity initiated, organized, and managed by criminals, and also financed, controlled, and regulated by large-scale organized criminal structures with the help of corrupt officials. Clearly, the reality of migratory experiences and sex trade are way more diverse than this.

The problem of accessing sex workers with different experiences is sometimes also acknowledged by researchers. Brunovskis and Surtees (2010: 7) argue that there are significant systematic differences between those sex workers who are assisted by police or social service centers and those who decline assistance or are invisible to these organizations. Research starting from criminological perspective tends to see cases of violence against women as representative of experiences of migration for sex work and concentrates on researching the most underprivileged people who fit the dominant paradigm of criminological approach (Brunovskis and Surtees, 2010: 6). While this approach definitely reveals some cases of violence, abuse, and deception, it does not describe those situations when women cross borders legally without any assistance, but become undocumented, face financial problems, decide to engage in sex trade, and may find themselves in exploitative situations later as they overstay the length of their visa (Andrijasevic, 2010).

Another important aspect of criminological research concerns the issue of ethnicization. Within criminological studies, the distinctions among the various organized crime groups are usually based on regional differences with a tendency to emphasize these differences as ethnic. While the experiences and identities of people involved in the transnational sex trade always cross national, ethnic, racial, and cultural borders in intricate and complex ways (see Agustín, 2007), the ethnicity of criminals and trafficked women is often mentioned as a particularly valuable information for analysis. For example, Louise Shelley (2002) draws distinctions between organized trafficking networks in different parts of the world and categorizes traffickers in post-Soviet countries and Balkans, especially Albanians, as more violent and abusive to women than traffickers in China or Africa. Such distinctions draw pictures of EE criminals as particularly deceitful and cruel, and EE women as exceptionally naive, gullible, and vulnerable “Natashas” (e.g. see Hughes, 2000). Shelley and others ground such simplistic categorizations in particular social contexts and organizational traits of criminal businesses. As a result, these distinctions support ethnicization of migrants from EE and contribute to creation of cultural stereotypes that have direct consequences on the everyday lives of Eastern Europeans in the EU. As Andrijasevic (2010: 100) notes, the name “Natasha” became a synonym for a prostitute in several Western countries, and it is not uncommon for a woman who is blond and presumed to be Russian, to be suspected of being a prostitute and harassed verbally or physically. It is thus not surprising that when the research is primarily concerned with the exploiting practices of the criminals and “the transnational political criminal nexus originating in Central and Eastern European countries” (Hughes and Denisova, 2001: 43), it runs the risk of reiterating the perception of the inherent criminality of Eastern European men and the victimization of migrant women.

Socio-economic analytical framework

A second group of research on sex trafficking focuses on complex socio-economic factors that cause and organize migration and sex trade in the EE region: poverty, lack of democracy, gender inequality and persistence of violence against women, lack of social integration, difficult access to education, and high emigration rates (Kligman and Limoncelli, 2005; Omar Mahmoud and Trebesch, 2010; Okolski, 2001; Shelley, 2003; Vocks and Nijboer, 2000). Differently from the criminological perspective, this research focuses not on criminal networks and mechanisms of trafficking, but on socio-economic differences and reasons of vulnerability of specific populations. For example, Shelley in her analysis of economic development factors influencing sex trafficking in Russia argues that illegal movement could not have occurred in the Soviet period because of the extensive border and internal population control and the structure of the Soviet economy, in which occupational choices were controlled by the state. She notes that the sexualization of life and glorification of the erotic after communism are important factors contributing to the increase in sex trafficking and ability of criminals to easily recruit women for sexual labor abroad (Shelley, 2003: 235).

Other researchers suggest that it is a person’s social position and readiness to emigrate that determine vulnerability to sex trafficking. For example, Dutch researchers Judith Vocks and Jan Nijboer (2000) come to the conclusion that social conditions, such as unemployment, weak familial structures, low standards of living, and discrimination against ethnic minorities within EE draw women toward taking risks and falling into the trap of traffickers. Vocks and Nijboer base their observations on interviews with victims assisted by police and social services and propose a typology of victims of sex trafficking which differentiates between those kidnapped, deceived, or exploited, and suggest that these three different categories of women should be assisted differently. Their explanation draws the conclusion that the lack of adequate information on the risks of migration and the lack of economic and political stability in victims’ countries of origin are the main obstacles toward eradicating sex trafficking. In conclusion, the researchers advocate the legalization of prostitution as it would allow for easier “supervision” of prostitutes (Vocks and Nijboer, 2000: 386).

According to Marek Okolski’s (2001) research on Baltic countries, based on a comparative analysis of quantitative and qualitative data, women who already work in prostitution are the most vulnerable to trafficking. He finds that high-risk populations are those that have troubled personal history including sex abuse, alcohol and drug problem, lack of education, and unfortunate family life. These women are more vulnerable to deception of traffickers because of “their helplessness, limited knowledge, the lack of adequate family support, and their suffering from stigma, social ostracism or exclusion” (Okolski, 2001: 35). He concludes that involvement in the sex trade in the country of origin is a major factor in unsuccessful and dangerous migration. Quite in contrast with Okolski’s research, Omar Mahmoud and Trebesch (2010) find that it is the high rate of emigration that determines the populations’ vulnerability to trafficking and involvement in sex trade abroad. Basing their findings on an extensive and representative survey of households in five EE countries, they argue that “it is first and foremost the wish for a better life abroad that puts millions of people at the risk of ending up in exploitative work conditions. Their willingness to depart and to take risks in the migration process can be easily exploited by criminal agents” (Omar Mahmoud and Trebesch, 2010: 174).

Within the research in this category, comparative analysis among countries and regions is a particularly popular method. Socio-economic analytical perspective generally presents EE countries as culturally different from Western Europe, that is, patriarchal, less educated, and struggling, and also notes that due to difficult economic and political situations, governments are unable to control the problem of trafficking or to assist those who experience violence and exploitation. The researchers base their findings on surveys or interview, as well as analyses of media and reports from anti-trafficking organizations. Access to informants is primarily gained through expert organizations or through creation of random representative sample (e.g. Omar Mahmoud and Trebesch, 2010). Researchers make validity claims based on the robustness of data, repeated surveying or comparison of data from different sources. Similarly as in criminological research, the priority is given to expert knowledge.

I see the main strength of the socio-economic research in the production of data that are comparable across different populations and allow for defining high-risk populations. However, these research projects focus on conditions that bespeak people’s vulnerability but do not describe the ways in which vulnerable people deal with these situations, what they lose and gain. In other words, socio-economic perspectives often fail in describing vulnerable populations as active agents navigating complex social realities. This leads to the situation in which researchers who are not involved in the sex trade themselves and do not belong to vulnerable populations see sex trafficking as a result of unfortunate conditions and perpetuate the notion of essential and inescapable vulnerability of EE populations. For example, Vocks and Nijboer’s typology (2000) only allows for kidnapped, deceived, or exploited victims ignoring other possibilities of involvement in the sex trade. Within their discussion, non-Western women can only be described as forced into prostitution, while voluntary involvement in it is reserved only for local and often legally working western women, who are not perceived as vulnerable. This binary opposition between “forced” and “voluntary” prostitution complicates acknowledgement of non-Western women as self-determined rational agents (see more in Doezema, 2010). Without individual attention to migrant sex workers’ life experiences, this research risks losing sight of the multiple ways in which they navigate complexities of these unfortunate socio-economic situations.

Framework of migration studies

Many research projects completed within criminological and socio-economic frameworks tend to focus exclusively on vulnerability, violence, and emotional harm experienced by migrant sex workers, often sensationalizing these unfortunate experiences. The stories of trafficked and brutally abused “Natashas” leave no possibility for any positive experiences within migrant sex workers’ stories. As Juline Koken (2010) notes, because of ideologies underlying research and policy-making, some experiences of sex workers “are rendered impossible, ‘unknowable’, and excluded from the field of discourse” (p. 38). However, as she and other contributors in this volume demonstrate, women’s experiences of migration and trafficking might not be entirely negative (p. 36). The stories that are perpetuated by typologies of victims found in criminological and socio-economic analyses are completely silent on the instances when migration for sex work, even if not completely successful, results in amelioration of financial situations of women and their families, positive experiences of travel and education, expanding social networks and creating new lives in foreign countries. The room for these positive experiences can be found within research conducted by sex workers themselves and in texts published under the framework of migration and labor studies. In this research, the experiences of migration and sex work are conceptualized as personal projects, some of which are more successful than others.

The migration studies’ take on sex trafficking emerges from the critique of adopting moral positions on selling sex, lopsided data gathering, discursive construction of non-West as “underdeveloped,” and perpetuating neo-colonialism in a form of “rescue” projects (Agustín, 2007). These types of research are often conducted by scholars directly related to and having experience in service providing for sex workers, as well as experience in work in sex industries. Instead of focusing on explanations of reasons of sex trafficking, this approach criticizes the discourse of sex trafficking itself exposing it as a myth related to ideologies of liberalism, nationalism, and radical feminism (see Bernstein, 2010; Doezema, 2010). Such research tends to focus on individual migration projects and the lives of migrant sex workers rather than conceptualizing migration for sex work as sex trafficking (Agustín, 2010: 27). However, there are only few in-depth studies coming from migration perspective, and even less related to the Eastern European region. Most notable examples include the work of anthropologist Laura Agustín (2007) on global “rescuing” agencies, an ethnographic study by Nicola Mai (2009, 2011) on Albanian and Romanian male sex workers in the EU, Rutvica Andrijasevic’s (2004) research on EE female sex workers in Italy, and Leyla Gülçür and Pinar İlkkaracan’s (2002) study on EE sex workers in Turkey. These types of research focus on migration flows and personal choices of migrants within specific economic and political situations. The problem of sex trafficking is perceived as a side-effect of increasing migration flows from EE countries as it creates opportunities for the exploitation of female migrants. These researchers acknowledge the fact that coercion and forced prostitution constitute a notable but nevertheless minor part of experiences of migrant sex workers in the EU (Mai, 2011).

The framework of migration studies permits an understanding of migration for sex work as individual projects and acknowledges the variety of reasons that contribute to migrants’ choices to leave their home countries and engage in sex work abroad. For instance, Andrijasevic (2010) begins her research from the vantage point of women’s lives, their successes and obstacles in realization of their migratory projects. She sees women’s movement as projects of autonomy and investigates the ways in which macroeconomic factors such as poverty play a role in migrant women’s formation as subjects and the realization of their life strategies. Similarly, Mai (2009) considers migration as a “symbolic and liminal act through which young [gay] men negotiate their psychological and economic autonomy away from ‘home,’ which promotes a family-based model of manhood” (p. 349). Therefore, migration for sex work is conceptualized as a life strategy to mediate between family-based models of personhood, which promote responsibility and discipline, and individualized “hedonistic” lifestyles, which are disseminated by Western media in departure countries (Mai, 2009: 350). In other words, migration for sex work is conceptualized as a personal project of identity-making.

In comparison to criminological and socio-economic perspectives, the framework of migration and labor offers different methodological approaches to researching migration for sex work and sex trafficking. Analyzed texts prioritize qualitative methods of interviewing and participant observation that create thick description of reality and allow for hearing voice of migrants and sex workers themselves not only as an illustration but as analysis of their situations. In this way, migratory projects can be seen not as simply predetermined by macroeconomic and political contexts but as creative ways to navigate or resist these circumstances in order to achieve personal goals. The migratory projects are conceptualized as income-generating and life-changing strategies within particular political and economic conditions and within given international divisions of labor. From this perspective, it becomes possible to recognize that sex work and migration are neither imposed on Eastern Europeans nor fully voluntary, but rather strategic. Since research on migration focuses on the occupational choices, behaviors, and the needs of migrants, it allows for an examination of the ways in which migrant sex workers are limited within particular social-economic situations and how they use these situations to their advantage. The migration perspective also suggests that policies should not focus on the issue of “choice,” but instead, on the need to ameliorate migrant women’s living and working conditions by addressing restrictive and abusive immigration policies and by decriminalizing sex work (Gülçür and İlkkaracan, 2002: 419).

The research in this group does not claim representativeness, and many researchers explicitly acknowledge that they present unique cases that are not generalizable and do not represent the experiences of EE migrants. In fact, many researchers avoid identifying and describing the region from where their informants come, noting that regional typologies lead to oversimplification of situations and cannot account for the constant movement of sex workers across geographical borders and ethnic identities (Agustín, 2007; Mai, 2011). The validity of the research is claimed through prioritizing experiential knowledge of sex workers themselves and their maximum involvement in the research project. This research also approaches knowledge as situated within particular experiences and values migrant sex workers’ own analyses of their situations. For example, Mai (2011) mentions the “participatory ethical approach” of his research, which was conducted by a mixed team of people who were involved in sex work themselves or worked closely with organizations representing sex workers. Some projects also used a variety of sources to validate their data: media analysis, interviews with migrants, and participant observations in organizations representing and providing services to sex workers (Agustín, 2005; Gülçür and İlkkaracan, 2002). In this case, researchers indicate an attempt to reach sex workers who are not involved in any type of organizations through snowballing. The methodological choice of this qualitative case-based research allows for a variety of experiences, valuable in-depth descriptions, and analyses of specific cases.

Between research and politics

These three types of research that I have discussed do not stay exclusively within academia. On the contrary, as the majority of research on sex work is undertaken by people working with governments, nongovernmental organizations, and communities of activists, this scholarly work reflects specific political perspectives and contributes to production of political discourses. Particularly, these three types of research can be related to three political perspectives: abolitionism, criminal justice, and transnational feminism or sex workers’ rights discourse. As Kamala Kempadoo (2012) demonstrates, these perspectives offer significantly different and competing narratives regarding the existence and extent of the problem of human and sex trafficking and its possible solutions. The abolitionist perspective conceptualizes sex trafficking as a modern day slavery and supports the intensification of the policing of local communities, and internal and national borders, as it is presumed that it is only through close surveillance and regulation that “traffickers” can be rooted out and punished and “victims” rescued and saved (p. xv). The criminal justice approach, which forms basis for international documents such as the UN protocol to human trafficking, places greater emphasis on illegal immigration, border controls, and on detecting underground activities than on prostitution (p. xvii). However, as Kempadoo (2012) notes, some laws built on this approach conflate sex trafficking and criminal justice paradigms into one, and abolitionist movements fight to insert anti-prostitution framework into the international agenda based on criminal justice approach (p. xviii). The academic research within criminological and socio-economic frameworks forms the grounds for this politics as it focuses only on criminal and harmful aspects of migration for sex work and often silences the voices of migrants and sex workers who do not fit these paradigms. At the same time, the research conducted under the migration studies framework, which is often used by sex workers’ organizations to lobby against anti-trafficking perspective, is not recognized as valuable and remains on the margins of political discussion because it is not seen as expert knowledge (Doezema, 2010; Nieuwenhuys and Pecaud, 2007).

Research on sex trafficking highlighting the issue of criminal networks and socio-economic development in the EE forms part of a strategy to secure the borders of the EU and keep unwanted people outside (Berman, 2003). When the border of the EU moved further to the east in 2004 and 2007, the approaches to the problem of sex trafficking in new member-countries also changed: organized crime and supply of sex workers became less prominent in debates on prostitution and were replaced by the focus on demand for sex services. The shifts in the information campaigns organized in the Eastern European countries can illustrate this change. For example, prior to Lithuanian accession to the EU in 2004, the major anti-trafficking campaign organized by the IOM was targeting high-risk populations and discouraged women from migration. This campaign included posters, flyers, and TV advertisements, which portrayed an image of a lifeless body of a young woman controlled like a marionette by strings attached to her skin with metal hooks. The body was manipulated by a male hand holding the strings. The caption of this rather terrifying image stated: “They will sell you like a doll! Don’t believe in easy work abroad.” The intention behind this image was to draw wide attention to the problem and create a strong negative response to sex trafficking. At the same time, this campaign portrayed highly simplified and stereotypical constructions of the Eastern European victimized femininity and criminalized masculinity (see more in Andrijasevic, 2007). Like the criminological and socio-economic approaches in research, these campaigns present women as particularly vulnerable due to the political and economic instability and, therefore, driven by promises of “easy work” abroad.

Today, when Lithuania is a member of the EU, the main message of information campaigns on the issue is different. The posters of the campaign launched in 2012 portrayed an image of a man in a business suit with his zipper open accompanied by the caption “Buying a woman is shameful!” Instead of focusing on sex trafficking and figures of victimized women and traffickers, this campaign shifts the attention to domestic prostitution and targets men paying for sex services. This image suggests that sex industries are driven by demand within Lithuania itself, and not abroad as the previous campaign suggested. This campaign targets clients and attempts to eliminate the demand for prostitution by associating purchase of sex with shame. This is a significant change in conceptualization of the problem, as the previous campaign targeted women and promoted the feelings of anxiety, fear, and danger. The new campaign follows the “Swedish” or “Nordic” anti-trafficking and anti-prostitution model, which attempts to criminalize the demand for prostitution rather than punishing sex workers and is becoming more popular in Eastern European countries. This campaign demonstrates that after Lithuania became an EU member and migration of Lithuanians was no longer seen as a problem, the issue of the sex trade became framed as prostitution and not as sex trafficking. Instead of discouraging migration and movement of Eastern European women, the agencies and governments within the EU became more concerned with the morals of Eastern men who were now part of Europe.

While research and policies that orientalize EE approaches to sex trafficking flourish, research conducted within the migration studies framework remains marginalized and unrecognized by governments and international governing structures (Nieuwenhuys and Pecaud, 2007). Doezema’s (2010) detailed account of EU policy-making in the sphere of sex trafficking demonstrates that organizations led by sex workers and advocating for sex workers’ rights are not recognized as knowledgeable agents within sex trafficking debates and have minimal power in affecting political discourse on the topic. Those researchers and activists who see sex trafficking as an issue of gendered migration and sex work rather than an inherently criminal and harmful activity and seek to deconstruct and criticize colonialist representations of non-Western citizens within sex trafficking discourse are sidelined within dominant political discourse. Research within the migration studies framework challenges dominant national ideologies of the EU that orientalize EE and prioritize the state as a primary agent protecting Eastern European women from criminals. It is no wonder then, that this perspective is usually excluded from the horizon of the European policy-makers.

Conclusion

This overview of recent research on sex trafficking and migration from EE suggested that researchers’ methodology depends on how they conceptualize the problem of sex trafficking. The criminological and socio-economic research, which sees sex trade primarily as a problem of criminality, vulnerability of women, and as an issue of socio-economic development of the EU, prioritizes expert knowledge in explanations of trafficking and therefore does not pay enough attention to people working in the sex industry. This research also reiterates the ideas about inherent vulnerability and criminality of non-EU citizens. The perspective of migration and labor studies, which is undertaken by researchers working closely with sex workers’ communities, criticizes construction of sex trafficking as a problem and points toward the orientalization of Eastern Europeans. Nevertheless, this perspective remains marginal and has little influence on policy-making in the EU. As I have discussed, the dominant research remains focused on the criminal activities of some individuals and explains violence against women in terms of a lack of knowledge and the vulnerability of Eastern European women to sex trafficking. Meanwhile, the real interests of sex workers who have faced violence as well as a broader community of migrant sex workers remain largely unacknowledged by both researchers and policy-makers.