SciPost Submission Page
Petro-politics, Gender Violence and Human Trafficking in Nigeria’s Niger Delta Region
by Abosede Babtunde
Submission summary
| Authors (as registered SciPost users): | Abosede Babtunde |
| Submission information | |
|---|---|
| Preprint Link: | scipost_202412_00020v1 (pdf) |
| Date submitted: | 2024-12-10 18:50 |
| Submitted by: | Babtunde, Abosede |
| Submitted to: | Migration Politics |
| Ontological classification | |
|---|---|
| Academic field: | Political Science |
| Specialties: |
|
Abstract
In Nigeria’s Niger Delta, oil politics by global oil corporation, national government and local leaders perpetuate gender inequalities in the distribution of oil benefits to the impoverished women in oil communities. Women also bear the greater cost of oil-induced environmental harms which adversely affect their traditional livelihood of farming and fishing and expose them to various forms of gender violence. Scholarship on human trafficking in Nigeria focused scant attention on the structural conditions that influenced women experience of human trafficking in extractive contexts. This article examines how oil politics perpetuate gender violence and expose women to human trafficking for sexual exploitation and forced labour in the oil communities in the Niger Delta. Based on feminist political ecology perspectives and field studies in selected oil communities, the study seeks to explain how oil politics perpetuate women’s socio-economic deprivation, in ways that make them to unwittingly consent to human trafficking as victims and accomplice. Women exposure to human trafficking amplified gender violence and violate their rights and aspiration for emancipation and gender justice. International organizations and policy makers need to consider the global, national and local dynamics that amplified women’s experience of human trafficking in extractive communities and the wider implications for the global and local efforts to combat human trafficking.
Author comments upon resubmission
List of changes
I have carefully read and edited the article to weed out repetition and unnecessary information. I have also included additional information based on the comments of the reviewers. The introduction has been revised based on the comments and suggestions of the reviewers where relevant.
Editor:
As you revise the paper, please do be sure to address the following points:
• All 3 reviewers raise issues concerning the repetition of points, the inclusion of unnecessary information, the omission of key information, etc. To fix this weakness, careful attention should be paid to the organization ( or structure) of the paper and its component parts, especially the introduction.
Author’s response
I have carefully read and edited the article to weed out repetition and unnecessary information. I have also included additional information based on the comments of the reviewers. The introduction has been revised based on the comments and suggestions of the reviewers where relevant.
Editor:• All 3 reviewers indicate that there is a need to clean up the writing (grammar and syntax, typos, extraneous sentences).
Author’s response:
I have edited the article for grammar.
Editor: • Reviewers 3 & 4 both make good points about the importance of providing substantiation for some of the claims that are made and of being clearer and more detailed about the research approach/methodology that was employed.
Author’s response
Most of the points were substantiated. Some of the comments of the reviewers repeated what has already been clarified in the article, for instance issue about why women are more exposed to pollution than men. Also, the issue about why women do not inherit land, and that of women’s exploiting other women. I have highlighted all these statements to show they are clarified and discussed in the earlier draft of the article. In areas where there is need for more information, I have addressed them. The specific details required on the number of interviewees have been provided. These details were earlier provided except for that of the numbers of interviews. I also added more details about how and why the respondents were selected.
Editor: Points that you should seriously take into consideration:
• Reviewer 3 calls for the discussion to be situated more clearly within the feminist political ecology framework, i.e., to show more explicitly and consistently where and how it applies to your analysis. e
Author’s response:
The discussion was situated and discussed within the feminist political ecology framework where relevant throughout the article.
Editor: • Reviewer 4 asks for the connection to be drawn between politics and oil in Nigeria.
Author’s response:
I have provided more details about the connection between politics and oil in Nigeria in the introduction. The details were included in the earlier draft but I was asked to remove them in the previous review process. All the changes made are highlighted all through the article. Many thanks for your efforts and support on the review process. Specific response is provided below to each of the reviewers’ comments and suggestions.