The previous chapter demonstrated how trafficking, modern slavery, exploitation and organised crime have all presented academics, professionals, policy makers and lawmakers with constant definitional challenges. As Haughey (2016b) points out, it is hard to say precisely what constitutes a threshold for exploitation or what evidence might be used to identify its presence, but we tend to know it when we see it. This, it seems, goes to the heart of the problem that is encountered when trying to define the problem in order to legislate for it and develop policies and regulatory frameworks. All the laudable efforts of academics, legislators and policy makers that were discussed in that chapter describe the phenomenon but lack explanatory power for why and how it occurs and is concentrated upon particular populations or groups, in different places over time. To solve this problem requires theory. Theory explains a phenomenon, why and how it occurs or does not occur. Theory provides a foundation and logic for the development of approaches for responding to the phenomenon, preventing or mitigating it. Theory can be quantified, tested and developed so that approaches can be strengthened, refined and adapted to changing conditions.

In this chapter, I argue that these definitional problems occur because there is a tendency to try to define a problem and work backwards to identify correlates and causes in a linear pathway of logic – if A then B. Trafficking does not follow neat linear causal pathways – it is complex and non-linear. Human trafficking and exploitation is a complex pattern of transactions that emerges from the synergistic, dynamic relationships between the exploiters and the exploited (Barlow et al, 2021; Green, Heys, and Barlow, forthcoming). It is a social phenomenon.

Theories of complexity

The application of complex systems theory to a social phenomenon such as trafficking and modern slavery provides a theoretical foundation for its analysis as a pattern that emerges from social interactions that are autonomous and non-linear; the relationships self-organise according to a small number of relatively simple rules that are accepted based upon shared purpose and cultural norms (Gelfland et al, 2011).