Markets for migrant sex and domestic workers

Background

Paid domestic work in private households and commercial sex have much in common: both are largely unregulated spheres of economic activity relying on a predominantly female workforce. Working conditions are often very poor, and workers are at risk of various forms of abuse and violence. In Europe they are both important sectors of employment for migrant women, and the markets have been strongly affected by global economic and social changes. Both are associated with the phenomenon of “trafficking in persons” that is now the object of intense national and international policy concern. Despite the many parallels between domestic work and sex commerce and their policy relevance, the similarities between the two sectors have not been systematically investigated or theorised. This project  examines empirical, theoretical and policy questions about domestic work, commercial sex and trafficking by investigating the market for migrant labour (including the labour of those aged under 18) in these sectors, and tracing connections between this demand and socially tolerated attitudes towards gender, race/ethnicity, age and sexuality.

Methods

The project builds on methods and data developed in a pilot research project on the demand for sexual services and domestic labour in four countries (Sweden, Italy, Thailand and India). Findings from this pilot study are available at:
http://www.iom.int//DOCUMENTS/PUBLICATION/EN/mrs_15_2003.pdf. It extends this project to two sites, Barcelona and London. It involves in depth interviews with a non-random sample of ten users of migrant prostitutes, ten employers of migrant domestic workers and between five and ten third party beneficiaries of migrant prostitution or domestic work in each city. The interviews are structured around a standard set of topics and examine respondents’ attitudes towards gender race/ethnicity and domestic work/commercial sex. Interviews with representatives from a range of organisations and experts in the UK and Spain allow us to contextualise data. We have also developed a small pilot survey on the more general demand for commercial sex and domestic work. Ethnographic data has also been gathered from Tenerife, with a view to examining the role of tourism in constructing markets for sex and domestic work. 


Key Findings

There is no absolute level of demand for the services or sex or domestic workers. Where these services are cheaply available, people are more likely to feel that they “need them. But an affordable supply is not a sufficient condition for demand. Demand is also linked to personal histories and circumstances, and social norms play an important role in employment decisions and practices. Employers of domestic workers valued the economic, social and political inequalities that separated them from migrants because it allowed them to imagine that they were “helping out” rather than simply “employing”, which enabled them to manage an otherwise potentially conflict-ridden relationship. They often actively sought migrants knowing their vulnerable immigration status would give the employer greater control over aspects of the employment relation, in particular labour retention. The same was true of some employers in the sex sector. Sex workers’ clients by contrast, identified availability rather than a specific preference for migrant women (or men) as the main explanation for their demand for services provided by migrant workers. Research findings drew attention to the limitations of conventional labour market analysis as employers and clients were interested in the physical/personal attributes of a worker supplying the service rather than merely in questions of cost or efficiency. Both employers and clients wanted to feel comfortable about accepting services from the worker, and whether or not they felt comfortable was linked to the social identity, also sometimes the immigration status, of the worker.


Employers and clients had very different ideas about children’s involvement in sex and domestic work. Employers tended to relate to their adult domestic workers as if they were children (calling them “girls”, “naughty” etc). They felt that children could make good domestic workers and often stated that they would employ a child if they lived in countries where this was common practice. Clients on the other hand, while attaching sexual value to youth also tended to believe that only adults could consent to the prostitution contract, and such consent was important to them. Client interviewees were cognizant of recent debates about the commercial sexual exploitation of children in a way that domestic workers employer interviewees were not aware of debates about domestic as one of the worst forms of child labour.


The research also drew attention to the role of the state in constructing markets for commercial sex and domestic work. The state directly generates demand for domestic workers through its policies on provision of care in private households for example, but also, the fact that it does not treat either domestic work or commercial sex as employment like any other has great significance for the markets for sex and domestic workers. It means that the (implicit) contracts forged with workers in these sectors are treated as a private matter, and the state thus creates what is effectively a radically free ‘free market’. However, ‘sellers’ and ‘buyers’ of services are not equal, and certain immigration statuses create marginalized groups who are vastly unequal to buyers.


We found no evidence of employer or client demand for “trafficked” labour as such. However, employers in domestic work and in the sex sector were often interested in cheap, flexible and compliant workers. From the viewpoint of the unscrupulous employer, the question is not whether migrants have been “trafficked” or “smuggled” or are otherwise illegally present in the country, but rather whether their immigration status and their desperation for work makes them, in the words of one employer we interviewed “so frightened that they’re not going to pull any stunts”.


Report Author: 
Dr Bridget Anderson:  bridget.anderson@compas.ox.ac.uk,