Isaar Trust International

In economics and sociology, the cycle of poverty or the poverty cycle is a social phenomenon whereby poverty-stricken individuals exhibit a tendency to remain poor throughout their lifespan and in many cases across generations. The cycle of poverty has been described as a catch-22 and a feedback loop, as it occurs because the financial resources necessary to get out of poverty, namely productive capital, which some critics believe can only be obtained if the individual has financial resources in the first place. Some critics assume that the poverty-stricken find it extremely difficult to get out of poverty because they do not possess enough resources to invest in their own economic development. The cycle of poverty has roots in ancient times and feudalism. Serfs and peasants on a landlord's land often had to pay most of their crops in tribute to their lord as rent or taxes, and were only allowed to keep enough for bare subsistence. Unable to maintain any savings to invest in human or physical capital to improve their own productivity and therefore income, peasant families would remain poor for generations. Applied to countries, the poverty cycle is often called the development trap.

Effect On Economic Growth
With the poor unable to maintain savings and invest in their own development, the cycle of poverty can lead to significant underinvestment in an economy. Consequently, productivity from the impovershed is significantly reduced, and economic growth is reduced. This thus forms a component of growth theory. The cycle of poverty also reduces the potential for skill-based and knowledge-based development because the poor are unable to invest the time and money in the necessary education. This effect leads to a technology shortage, which in turn leads to low production, and thus, lower foreign direct investment (FDI). Additionally, the cycle of poverty leads to a cycle of social unrest; poverty causes social discontent and social strife, and social strife in turns hampers economic growth to a great degree. Unstable political and social climates also deter potential investors, both foreign and domestic, resulting in an even more complex negative feedback loop.

Causes
There are two different and distinct political camps which give different reasons for the cycle of poverty's existence:-

• Unfair Distribution of Wealth - the political Left argue that the cycle of poverty is caused by social injustice and social inequality. As such, those with existing wealth can create more wealth, and those with little wealth are not able to create enough wealth.
• Free market proponents and libertarians argue that the a strong presence of the state in the economy erodes property rights and thus the incentive to create wealth.

The Islamic view is a balance between the two extreme models of capitalism and socialism/communism, whereby government intervention is needed to guarantee the basic minimum needs within society on ethical principles, outside of which private enterprise is encouraged and to be actively promoted. Although Islamic teachings indicate that mankind is the trustee of wealth and resources who discharges his duty to a pre-determined set of principles and guidelines, it also actively espouses wealth creation so that modern states and their people may enjoy the bounties of what this life has to offer and may be able to compete in the global high-tech world.

Unbalanced Distribution Of Wealth
Lack of education, or human capital, is thought to be one of the biggest causes of the poverty cycle. Education in a modern knowledge-based economy is one of the conditions to achieving socio-economic, intellectual and spiritual growth in society. A maximised education would require devoted time and energy, or extra-curricular reading. Children who are from poor families and have to work cannot maximise their education, even if the education is free. It would also require a conducive and hygienic environment, which is often not available to the poverty-stricken. This is even worse in developing and muslim countries such as those in Asia and Africa where public education in many areas is not available for free due to budget constraints. Tertiary education is often not free. Children often will not be able to break out of poverty because their reduced skillset reduces their potential income and contribution to societal development. With no means to provide a conducive educational environment for their own children, the cycle begins again.

Excessive Intervention By The State

Many neoliberals attribute certain cycles of poverty to insufficient protection or recognition of property rights. To be more exact, in an environment where one's property can be stolen at any time, such as countries with a weak rule of law, there is very little incentive to save and invest.

Others argues that poverty is sustained by government overregulation that generates high costs to property ownership through bureaucracy and big government. Therefore many of the poor in the world economy are unable to develop their property or own property because this regulation is too costly to overcome. As a result, they argue they are unable to generate wealth in a legal market that is full of regulation and are forced to resort to operate in an extralegal market that hampers wealth creation, thus hampering their ability to be pulled out of poverty.

Some economists argue that tariffs, income taxes, payroll taxes, savings tax and tax on investments all provide perverse incentives toward wealth creation that hurt the poor the most. They further argue that some of these arrangements are also wealth transfers from poor to rich; such as tariffs and social security. Therefore these regressive tax burdens encourage low productivity and little savings and investment that would otherwise lift the poor out of poverty. Others have argued that welfare perpetuates poverty by providing incentives counter to wealth creation. Proponents of the FairTax favour eliminating welfare programs that prevent benefits from those earning above a certain income. They believe that these income caps as eligibility to receive benefits provide an incentive for labourers to earn less than they actually could in order to gain free benefits from government programs. In the same way, incentive to find work can be reduced by the effect of income tax on low-income earners. As money is earned by a person receiving welfare, the amount of welfare they receive is reduced. This money earned - for example, through part time work - may also be taxed. Thus, there is reduced incentive for those who are part of the cycle of poverty to find work.

Solutions
There are no complete solutions to the poverty cycle, and many proposed methods are undergoing experimentation.

Left-wing solutions
Those on the political Left emphasize the effects of economic repression through social inequality as causes, as well as a lack of resource flow downwards from the wealthy due to insufficient redistribution of wealth.
Universal public education and welfare are the most commonly used methods by modern governments. In many places the rule of law also needs to be strengthened, by creating efficient legal systems that protect the acquired capital of the poor. Mixed-income housing is being implemented in more and more cities as a possible solution to poverty issues. It is an attempt to bring middle and lower class families together in the same neighbourhoods. This interaction between low and middle-income families, according to supporters, helps the low-income families.
The famous Hills v. Gautreaux case in Chicago provides a sort of case study of the potential of mixed-income housing. The cycle of poverty is often cited by opponents of capitalism, such as communists, anarchists, and others as an argument against the capitalist system. They often insist that there can be no effective solution to the cycle of poverty while capitalism remains in place, and that it would be necessary to overthrow capitalism and establish either a planned economy or a gift economy in order to eliminate the cycle.

Free market solutions
Free market economists argue that planned economies and welfare will not solve poverty problems but only make them worse. They believe that the only way to solve poverty is not by shuffling and sharing existing wealth through redistributing wealth but by creating new wealth. They believe that this is most efficiently achieved through low levels of government regulation and interference, free trade, equal property rights, money systems, wages, and tax reform and reduction, thus converting even the poor members of society into capitalists. Some further extend this criticism to any alternative to free market economies.
Implication and criticism of solutions

Critique Of Progressive Reform
By implication, the only way to get out of the cycle of poverty is through an external intervention, from the outside. Left to themselves, the poor cannot get out of poverty; they are trapped in the cycle. Reformists argue that the well-off have a moral, religious, or human obligation to make that intervention.

Critics of this view, especially revolutionary socialists, argue that reformists forget that keeping people in poverty may be a deliberate policy of the ruling class or elite, and that "do-gooder" interventions aiming to improve the lot of the poor might actually have the effect of making their problems, or those of other people, worse, not better. It is argued that the poor must themselves show the will to revolt against poverty, and improve their lot, through becoming politically aware and taking charge of their own destiny.

Advocation Of Privatization
Some also contest the provision of public educations as a partial solution, and do not believe that public education is a right or a suitable public service. There is further contest whether or not provision of aid for tertiary education is a necessary condition to build wealth. Others argue that paying to gain skills merely represents how determined a person is to gain those skills, and is thus an incentive to work and study hard to turn those skills into income.

Some argue that public education, while a good intention, has failed society in properly educating children. They also believe it has been an inefficient use of resources as private schools have done a better job of educating children at a lower cost per capita. Therefore this educational failure is the result of public education not being subject to market forces so they remain inefficient and incompetitive and unaccountable to students and parents while severely hampered by central bureaucracies.

Some theorists believe that the poverty cycle is not a catch-22 as it is believed. Free market microeconomists believe that every individual owns at least one important factor that is capable of building wealth, which is their own labour or time. From their own unskilled labour, persons may spend or save as they wish and along the way build wealth. Whether or not they use this wealth to purchase an education and or build skills to improve income is their own business.

Alternative Provision Of Public Service

Anarchists recognize the problem that public schools may not effectively resolve the poverty cycle due to issues with incentive and attitude to lifelong learning. The provision of free schools in the context of a gift economy might also preserve incentive as those unwilling to gain such skills would not be looked upon favourably.

Islamic Socio-Economic System

Islam argues that mankind has been entrusted with the earth's wealth and resources by God to utilise according to a pre-determined set of values, principles and guidelines which includes basic needs fulfilment of all human beings as a priority, followed by promotion and encouragement of wealth creation policies for attainment of luxury needs and betterment of society as a whole. Consequently, since the creator guarantees the availability of wealth for all human beings in all circumstances, the only issue for governments and society is the equitable distribution of wealth and development of state infrastructures to ensure basic needs fulfilment in contemporary society is maintained.

The modern social welfare systems largely in operation today are in mixed economies in western pseudo-capitalist countries and some south asian nations.

Although they all provide basic needs provision for the needy and poor, their degree of provision varies markedly from those using the benchmark of absolute poverty as a standard as compared to others which are closer to the benchmark of relative poverty. Other determining factors include natural resources, productivity, debt burden, governance and management. The contemporary social welfare system in operation today in western countries represents a compromise between the lassez faire version of capitalism and pure socialism.

Examples of countries where there is some form of a social welfare system is Norway, Germany, UK, USA and Malaysia. Their mode and degree of basic needs provision varies greatly.

The general outline and infrastructure of modern contemporary social welfare systems can be adopted and re-applied in developing & muslim countries providing they take into consideration the heritage, social, cultural & religious values of indigeneous populations. 

The idea of the "welfare state" means different things in different countries.

• An ideal model. The "welfare state" usually refers to an ideal model of provision, where the state accepts responsibility for the provision of comprehensive and universal welfare for its citizens.
• State welfare. Some commentators use it to mean "welfare provided by the state". This is the main use in the USA.
• Social protection. In many "welfare states", social protection is not delivered by the state at all, but by a combination of independent, voluntary and government services. These countries are still usually thought of as "welfare states".

• Comparison of policy, comparing the explicit terms in which actions are taken and it has been found that welfare in different countries often develops on similar lines.
• Comparison of inputs. Inputs are the resources which go into welfare provision and the main determinants are the age of the system and the structure of the population.
• Comparing production. Different states operate different kinds of rules and structures.
• Comparing operations. This is done by considering the detailed operation of benefits and services - what they do, how they are paid for, and who runs them.
• Comparing outcomes. The case can be made that what matters about welfare is not what is intended, nor what the process is, but whether or not people benefit from it. This is the basis of the work done by the Luxembourg Income Study in assessing and comparing social security systems in different countries.

The United Kingdom: the Welfare State
There are three principal elements :-

• A guarantee of minimum standards, including a minimum income
• Social protection in the event of insecurity
• The provision of services at the best level possible

This has become identified, in practice, with the 'institutional' model of welfare: the key elements are social protection, and the provision of welfare services on the basis of right.

In practice, social welfare in the United Kingdom is very different from this ideal. Coverage is extensive, but benefits and services are delivered at a low level. The social protection provided is patchy, and services are tightly rationed.

Germany: the Social Market
 
The post-war German settlement was based on the idea of a 'social state', sometimes rendered as a 'social market economy'. The first, central principle was that economic development was the best way to achieve social welfare. The structure of social services had to reflect this priority. The principle is represented most clearly in the close relationship of services to people's position in the labour market. Social benefits are earnings-related, and those without work records may find they are not covered for important contingencies. Less clear, but probably even more important, is the general concern to ensure that public expenditure on welfare is directly compatible with the need for economic development and growth.

Second, the German economy, and the welfare system, developed through a corporatist structure. This principle was developed by Bismarck on the basis of existing mutual aid associations, and remained the basis for social protection subsequently. Social insurance, which covers the costs of health, some social care and much of the income maintenance system, is managed by a system of independent funds.

Third, there is a strong emphasis on the principle of "subsidiarity". This principle is taken in Germany to mean both that services should be decentralised or independently managed, and that the level of state intervention should be residual - that is, limited to circumstances which are not adequately covered in other ways. Higher earners are not covered by the main social insurance system, but are left to make their own arrangements.

France: Solidarity and insertion
Social protection in France is based on the principle of solidarity: the commitment is declared in the first article of the French Code of Social Security. The principle is used in a number of different senses. The idea seems, at first sight, to refer to co-operative mutual support. Some writers apply the term in relation to 'mutualist' groups (friendly societies) and emphasise that people insured within national schemes (les assurés sociaux) are called to contribute and benefit on an equal footing. Others stress that relationships of solidarity are based in interdependence. Solidarity is usually understood, in this context, in terms of common action, mutual responsibility and shared risks.

The pursuit of 'national solidarity' was undertaken in the first place by attempting progressively to extend the scope of existing solidarities, most notably through the creation of a 'régime général' for health and social security, and subsequently through its progressive expansion. Since the 1970s this pattern of solidarities has been supplemented by additional measures designed to bring 'excluded' people into the net. The most important of these measures is the Revenu Minimum d'Insertion (RMI), introduced in 1988, which combines a basic benefit with a personal contract for 'insertion' or social inclusion.

The French system of welfare is a complex, patchwork quilt of services. This kind of arrangement is relatively expensive, and much of the focus of social policy in recent years has fallen on the control of expenditure - filling 'the hole in the social', le trou de la Sécu. The main areas of concern are not dependency or unemployment, but pensions, because of the special privileges accorded to particular occupational groups, and spending on health care, where the stress on independent, market-led services (la médicine libérale) presents considerable problems in cost control.

Sweden: the Institutional-Redistributive model
The Swedish model can be seen as an ideal form of 'welfare state', offering institutional care in the sense that it offers universal minima to its citizens. It goes further than the British model in its commitment to social equality.

Titmuss's 'institutional-redistributive' model combines the principles of comprehensive social provision with egalitarianism. This is an "ideal type", rather than a description of reality. Social protection is not necessarily associated with equality; the French and German systems offer differential protection according to one's position in the labour market. The Swedish system, looked at in greater detail, has many of the same characteristics: Ringen describes the system as "selective by occupational experience". However, the importance of equality - sometimes identified with 'solidarity', in the sense of organised co-operation - is considerable. The model of this is the 'solidaristic wage policy' advocated by the labour movement, which emphasised improving standards, limited differentials, and redistribution.

The United States: a 'liberal' regime?

The United States is sometimes described as a ‘liberal' welfare regime, in the sense that it represents individualism, laissez-faire, residualism and a punitive view of poverty. These issues often seem to dominate US debates on welfare: examples are the introduction of 'workfare', the exclusion of long-term benefit dependents, and the criticism of the 'underclass'.

The US does not, however, have a unified welfare system. Federalism has meant that many important functions are held by the States, including public assistance, social care and various health schemes (Minnesota and Hawaii have state-funded health systems). By comparison with other developed countries, central government has had a limited role in social welfare provision: the main developments of federal provision were during the Roosevelt administration of the 1930s, which laid the foundations for the social security system, and the "War on Poverty" of the 1960s, which provided some important benefits (notably health care for people on low incomes) and engaged the federal government in a wide variety of projects and activities at local level.

In practice, the US is pluralistic, rather than liberal. There are significant departures from the residual model - e.g. state schooling, social insurance, or the Veterans' Administration, which provides health care for nearly 40 million people. In addition to federal and state activity, there are extensive private, mutualist and corporate interests in welfare provision. The resulting systems are complex (and expensive): the guiding principle is less one of consistent individualism than what Klass has called "decentralised social altruism".

International aspects of social policy
The social policy of the European Union
The European Community was founded for political and economic reasons. The central political aim was less European Union than the maintenance of peace in Europe. The principal economic aim was the establishment of a European free market. By contrast, there were no clear social aims; such social measures as there were followed from the pressures of economic policy. During the 1970s, the emphasis of Community social policy changed towards improving 'living and working conditions' in the community, and the idea of the 'worker' was extended to include those who were not part of the labour force. Once it was accepted that the Community had social objectives distinct from the economic objectives, it became possible to expand the role of the Community in social policy.

The powers of the Union have developed through incremental development of marginal, relatively innocuous measures in order to establish precedent and competence. For example, provisions covering cigarette packets, bus passes or language teaching sought to establish competence in relation to public health, old people, transport and education. This has been resisted through the idea of 'subsidiarity', by which action should always be taken at the lowest possible level.

The Commission's approach to the development of policy is based on the incremental development of services, the progressive expansion of solidarity, and the insertion of those who are excluded. Powers have been taken to deal with the problems of exclusion.

Social policy in developing countries
 
The central problem of the developing countries is poverty. According the World Bank, half the world's population lives on less than $2 a day. Poverty stems not just from a lack of resources, but from lack of entitlement: famines happen, not because there is not enough food, but because poor people are not allowed to eat the food that is there. It is a question of equitable distribution of existing resources not production.

Economic development is essential to welfare. It produces material goods. It promotes integration and interdependence, and extends people's entitlements. It has clearly beneficial effects on social welfare: the last 30-40 years have seen spectacular improvements in longevity, infant survival, access to basic amenities like water supplies and fuel, and the provision of services like health care and education. At the same time, development produces casualties. It makes poor people vulnerable; it uproots traditional lifestyles; it can lead to social polarisation. The 'structural adjustment' favoured by international organisations - moving developing countries towards a formal market economy - has been criticised for pushing developing countries into a situation where their poor will be unprotected.

Although economic development is fundamental, it does not guarantee social protection. Several countries have introduced social security schemes, often tied to the status of particular categories of workers. In some of these only a small minority receive effective protection, but a few countries have made considerable advances in covering their populations, often over a relatively short period of time.

Globalization and welfare
The development of a global economy has implications for national welfare policies. The nation state is being 'hollowed out', with power being dispersed to localities, independent organisations, and supra-national bodies (like NAFTA or the European Union). In contemporary globalization and welfare state policies, globalization limits the capacity of nation-states to act for social protection. Global trends have been associated with a strong neo-liberal ideology, promoting inequality and representing social protection as the source of 'rigidity' in the labour market. International organisations like the World Bank and International Monetary Fund have been selling a particular brand of economic and social policy to developing countries, and the countries of Eastern Europe, focused on limited government expenditure, selective social services and private provision.

Although there has been retrenchment in many countries, and an increased focus on selective social services, however, simulataneously, most developed countries have moved towards basic coverage of the costs of hospital care and more inclusive social protection policies. There has been a greater diversification of the basis of coverage, through a combination of governmental and non-governmental provisions. There is no consistent trend to greater inequality.

Islam has clearly and categorically forbidden the primitive practice of capturing a free man, to make him a slave or to sell him into slavery. On this point the clear and unequivocal words of the Prophet are as follows:

• "There are three categories of people against whom I shall myself be a plaintiff on the Day of Judgement. Of these three, one is he who enslaves a free man, then sells him and eats this money" (al-Bukhari and Ibn Majjah).

The words above are general, they have not been qualified or made applicable to a particular nation, race, country or followers of a particular religion. The Muslim community, historically, adopted a systematic stepwise gradual process to abolish and eliminate the age-old institution of slavery from society because of the social and economic conditions and realities prevalent. The Europeans have taken great pride in claiming that they abolished slavery from the world but only in the middle of the 19th century. Before this, the Western powers had been raiding Africa on a very large scale, capturing their free men, putting them in bondage and transporting them to their new colonies.  Although the entire human race has moved forward from direct physical slavery it still exists but in more complex, subtle forms.

Modern Slavery

For many people, the image that comes to mind when they hear the word slavery is the slavery of the Transatlantic Slave Trade cruelly instigated by the Europeans/Americans mainly, the legacy of which is still prevalent today in Africa and Asia. We think of the buying and selling of people, their shipment from one continent to another and the abolition of the trade in the 1900s. Even if we know nothing about the slave trade, it is something we think of as part of our history rather than our present. But the reality is slavery continues today although in a modified contemporary form.

Millions of men, women and children around the world are forced to lead lives as slaves. Although this exploitation is often not called slavery, the conditions are the same. People are sold like objects, forced to work for little or no pay and are at the mercy of their ‘employers'.

Slavery exists today despite the fact that it is banned in most of the countries where it is practised. It is also prohibited by the main Abrahamic faiths (Islam, Christianity, Judaism), 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the 1956 UN Supplementary Convention on the Abolition of Slavery, the Slave Trade and Institutions and Practices Similar to Slavery.

Women from eastern Europe are bonded into prostitution, children are trafficked between West African countries and men are forced to work as slaves on Brazilian agricultural estates. Contemporary slavery takes various forms and affects people of all ages, sex and race. Global capitalism and its lassez faire attitude to money, work, exploitation, globalism and control are a major root cause to many prevalent problems.

What is Slavery?
Common characteristics distinguish slavery from other human rights violations. A slave is:

• Forced to work - through mental or physical threat 
• Owned or controlled by an 'employer', usually through mental or physical abuse or threatened abuse 
• Dehumanised, treated as a commodity or bought and sold as 'property' 
• Physically constrained or has restrictions placed on his/her freedom of movement
• Intellectual and psychological constraints - the development of an inferiority complex due to years and decades of abuse and control which may lead to fear and inaction

What Types of Slavery Exist Today?

• Bonded labour affects at least 20 million people around the world. People become bonded labourers by taking or being tricked into taking a loan for as little as the cost of medicine for a sick child. To repay the debt, many are forced to work long hours, seven days a week, up to 365 days a year. They receive basic food and shelter as 'payment' for their work, but may never pay off the loan, which can be passed down for generations.
• Forced marriage affects women and girls who are married without choice and are forced into lives of servitude often accompanied by physical violence.
• Forced labour affects people who are illegally recruited by individuals, governments or political parties and forced to work - usually under threat of violence or other penalties.
• Slavery by descent is where people are either born into a slave class or are from a 'group' that society views as suited to being used as slave labour. 
• Trafficking involves the transport and/or trade of people - women, children and men - from one area to another for the purpose of forcing them into slavery conditions.
• Financial Control of Governments and Societal infrastructures, which poor people and citizens depend upon, due to abuse of power by global multinationals, mismanagement and countries such as the USA directly and indirectly through IMF/World Bank/UN
  

Worst forms of child labour affects an estimated 179 million children around the world in work that is harmful to their health and welfare.

Take Action : Slavery & What We Buy

Complex Connections
Slavery exists today in both traditional and modern forms. Often there is no direct connection between forms of slavery and what we buy. Even where connections exist, they can be complex and difficult to untangle. Many goods or services that use slavery are part of local and domestic economies rather than for export, for example bonded labourers working on farms in Nepal, child domestic workers in the Philippines, or traditional slavery in parts of West Africa.

Much of modern day slavery therefore needs to be eliminated through research, campaigning and advocacy at the local, regional and international level. That is how Thinkers Forum International works, in partnership with local/national organisations around the world.

Making The Link: Fair and Ethical Trade
There are some examples of a direct connection between what consumers in developed countries buy and the use of slavery. Products where this may be the case include chocolate and hand-knotted rugs. Here consumer power can play an important role. Consumers can also act positively in response to issues of wider labour exploitation. Where possible, we would encourage you to buy ethically or, preferably, fairly-traded goods.

Fair Trade means that decent working conditions are assured and producers are guaranteed a fair price for their goods. Producers also receive a premium that is invested in development projects that combat poverty. Increased demand for fair trade shows small producers that people are willing to pay a fair price for their goods. It would ensure that the system grows and that more workers are helped. It also tells large companies that consumers are committed to ethical purchasing. Find out whether a fair trade labelling scheme exists in your country.

Ethically Traded Goods are monitored for their labour standards including no forced labour or illegal child labour. However, they do not guarantee a fair price.

Labour Exploitation
People are exploited at work beyond the abuses associated with slavery, for example in sweatshops or export processing zones.

Labour Standards
These seek to eliminate forced labour, child labour and discrimination in employment, while ensuring respect for the right to freedom of association and collective bargaining. Codes of conduct of companies and schemes such as the Ethical Trading Initiative should meet these standards. They are agreed by international labour organizations and human rights groups which through pressure and lobbying obtain the right deals for the enslaved poor.

Responsibilities of Transnational Corporations
Some of the biggest players in the global economy are Transnational Corporations. It is vital that these companies are held to account in terms of human rights, including for the way their workers are treated. 
 

Modern forms of slavery are also connected to the global economy more broadly:-

Poverty
One of the root causes of slavery and slavery-like conditions, and where globalisation exacerbates and increases poverty and inequality, it makes people more vulnerable to slavery. The increased demand for cheaper products, for example, means labour costs are driven down. This can lead to worsened conditions for workers and again, a greater vulnerability to exploitation and slavery. Unfair trade rules and the institutions governing international trade need to be changed so that trade can be used to help and not harm poor communities.

Migration And Trafficking
Increasing numbers of people are moving away from their homes in search of work. This is linked to poverty, but also to cheaper and easier means of international travel and the global media, which promotes perceptions of affluence to poorer parts of the world. Governments have tended to react to the increase in migration by making their immigration policies more restrictive. This in turn makes migrants more vulnerable to exploitation and trafficking.
 

Refs: Various