Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-2lccl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-29T05:58:50.480Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

TIP for Tat: Political Bias in Human Trafficking Reporting

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 December 2020

Rachel Harmon Open the ORCID record for Rachel Harmon [Opens in a new window] ,
Daniel Arnon Open the ORCID record for Daniel Arnon [Opens in a new window]  and
Baekkwan Park Open the ORCID record for Baekkwan Park [Opens in a new window]
Rachel Harmon
Affiliation:
Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
Daniel Arnon*
Affiliation:
Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
Baekkwan Park
Affiliation:
East Carolina University, Greenville, North Carolina, USA
*
*Corresponding author. E-mail: darnon@emory.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Human trafficking affects millions of people globally, disproportionately harming women, girls and marginalized groups. Yet one of the main sources of data on global trafficking, the annual Trafficking in Persons (TIP) Reports, is susceptible to biases because report rankings are tied to political outcomes. The literature on human rights measurements has established two potential sources of bias. The first is the changing standards of accountability, where more information and increased budgets change the standard to which countries are held over time. The second is political biases in reports, which are amended to comply with the interests of the reporting agency. This letter examines whether either of these biases influence the TIP Reports. In contrast to other country-level human rights indicators, the State Department issues both narratives and rankings, which incentivizes attempts to influence the rankings based on political interests. The study uses a supervised machine-learning algorithm to examine how narratives are translated into rankings, to determine whether rankings are biased, and to disentangle whether bias stems from changing standards or political interests. The authors find that the TIP Report rankings are more influenced by political biases than changing standards.

Keywords

human traffickinghuman rightsmeasurement bias
Type
Letter
Information
British Journal of Political Science , Volume 52 , Issue 1 , January 2022 , pp. 445 - 455
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bandura, R (2008) A survey of composite indices measuring country performance: 2008 update. Working Paper. New York: United Nations Development Programme, Office of Development Studies.Google Scholar
Bell, SR, Flynn, ME and Machain, CM (2018) UN peacekeeping forces and the demand for sex trafficking. International Studies Quarterly 62(3), 643–655.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cho, S-Y (2015) Evaluating policies against human trafficking worldwide: an overview and review of the 3P index. Journal of Human Trafficking 1(1), 86–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cingranelli, DL, Richards, DL and Clay, KC (2014) The CIRI human rights dataset. Available from http://www.humanrightsdata.com.Google Scholar
Clark, AM and Sikkink, K (2013) Information effects and human rights data: is the good news about increased human rights information bad news for human rights measures? Human Rights Quarterly 35(3), 539–568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, K et al. (2012) Governance by Indicators: Global Power Through Classification and Rankings. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fariss, CJ (2014) Respect for human rights has improved over time: modeling the changing standard of accountability. American Political Science Review 108(2), 297–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frank, R (2013) Human Trafficking Indicators, 2000–2011: A New Dataset. Harvard Dataverse. https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/23612.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gharib, M and Northam, J (2016) Controversy follows Thailand's new ranking in Human Trafficking Report, National Public Radio, 30 June. Available from http://www.kosu.org/post/controversy-follows-thailands-new-ranking-human-trafficking-report.Google Scholar
Gibney, M et al. (2015) The Political Terror Scale 1976–2015. Available from http://www.politicalterrorscale.org.Google Scholar
Government Accountability Office (2016) Human Trafficking: State Has Made Improvements in Its Annual Report but Does Not Explicitly Explain Certain Tier Rankings or Changes. GAO-17–56:2.Google Scholar
Greene, KT, Park, B and Colaresi, M (2018) Machine learning human rights and wrongs: how the successes and failures of supervised learning algorithms can inform the debate about information effects. Political Analysis 27(2), 223–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harmon, R, Arnon, D and Park, B (2020) “Replication Data for: TIP for Tat: Political Bias in Human Rights Trafficking Reporting”, https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/QUNOJS, Harvard Dataverse, V1 VERSION.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haschke, P and Arnon, D (2020) What bias? Changing standards, information effects, and human rights measurement. Journal of Human Rights 19(1), 33–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Human Rights First (2017) Trafficking in Persons Report Integrity Act would strengthen international efforts in the fight against modern day slavery, 16 February. Available from https://www.humanrightsfirst.org/press-release/trafficking-persons-report-integrity-act-would-strengthen-international-efforts-fight.Google Scholar
International Labor Organization (2019) ILO Global Estimate of Forced Labour Results and Methodology. Available from https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---ed_norm/---declaration/documents/publication/wcms_182004.pdf.Google Scholar
Kelley, JG and Simmons, BA (2015) Politics by number: indicators as social pressure in international relations. American Journal of Political Science 59(1), 55–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kelley, JG and Simmons, BA (2019) Introduction: the power of global performance indicators. International Organization 73(3), 491–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lagon, MP (2019) The U.S. Anti-Trafficking Report and Diplomacy: Sustaining Candor and Credibility. Washington, DC: Freedom House. Available from https://freedomhouse.org/article/us-anti-trafficking-report-and-diplomacy-sustaining-candor-and-credibility.Google Scholar
Murdie, AM and Davis, DR (2012) Shaming and blaming: using events data to assess the impact of human rights INGOs. International Studies Quarterly 56(1), 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reuters (2019) US human trafficking report to upgrade Thailand, sources say. The Guardian, 29 June. Available from https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2016/jun/29/us-human-trafficking-in-persons-report-upgrade-thailand-sources-say.Google Scholar
Rubio, M (2019) Rubio To Kerry On Politicized Human Trafficking Report: Show Me the Paper Trail. Available from https://www.rubio.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2015/8/rubio-to-kerry-on-politicized-human-trafficking-report-show-me-the-paper-trail.Google Scholar
Shelley, L (2010) Human Trafficking: A Global Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Szep, J and Spetalnick, M (2015) Special Report: State Department watered down human trafficking report. Reuters, 4 August. Available from https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-humantrafficking-disputes-special-idUSKCN0Q821Y20150804.Google Scholar
Walk Free Foundation (2016) Global Slavery Index.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: Link

Harmon et al. Dataset

Dataset

https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/QUNOJS
Link
Supplementary material: PDF

Harmon et al. supplementary material

Online Appendix

Download Harmon et al. supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 57.4 KB