Welcome back! This week was quite bittersweet. First things first I finished my “new and improved” globalization index and once again ran into a great deal of problems. Unlike last time, I decided to model my index after I collected the data so that I could adjust it accordingly. Speaking of data, I had great difficulty finding recent and organized data for all the countries in South Asia. I had to use the UN data which analyzed human trafficking from 2010 and 2011. Another problem was that different countries reported human trafficking data differently; some countries reported amount of cases currently being produced, some reported the number of victims reported, and others reported amount of prosecuted trafficking. Therefore I looked at most comment method of reporting the data in the UN study and decided to use the cases of human trafficking reported by each country. Unfortunately the only countries I could find that did this were India, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, and Nepal.
After collecting all the data I was going to use I adjusted my globalization scale. First I had to find imports/exports/foreign direct investment as a % of GDP from 2011 since that was the most recent year for which I could find consistent statistics. I then weighted imports at 45%, exports at 25%, and foreign direct investment at 30%. Just like I took into account the larger economies of certain countries when creating my index I realized I should also take into account the fact that some countries, like India, have a comparatively larger population as well. Therefore, I divided the total cases reported in the UN document by the country’s total population.
Unfortunately, after I plotted the data, I saw that it completely disproved my hypothesis. There was no correlation between economic globalization and human trafficking. Next week I’m going to focus on trying to pinpoint the places I could have gone wrong and try to see if there is another way I can connect globalization and human trafficking.