Background: Traditionally, most Western models of health viewed sickness and disease as a product of individual factors such as personal behaviors and genetic predisposition; consequently, healthcare interventions were largely focused on fixing the individual, with little attention placed on contributing external factors. The WHO's "Social Determinants of Health" (SDH) framework, however, takes a broader ecological perspective that suggests that interventions must occur at multiple levels in order for good health to be achieved on an equitable basis. This model views health as a function of many circumstantial and environmental factors that are continuously and simultaneously interacting across multiple domains. These factors include structural mechanisms, such as laws and policies; socioeconomic conditions, such as education and occupation; and intermediary circumstances, such as living and working conditions. Utilizing the SDH framework as a guide, this qualitative study sought to identify which specific determinants are most significant and present the greatest risk to the health and well-being of the Urak Lawoi' (UL), a "sea nomad" group indigenous to southern Thailand. Methods: Interviews, household surveys, and focus group discussions were utilized to gather primary data from 71 subjects in three different UL communities in southern Thailand. In addition, a comprehensive literature review of relevant international mechanisms, national laws, and national policies was conducted. All data collected was analyzed and coded utilizing HyperRESEARCH. Results: In all three communities, education and livelihoods were found to be the most critical determinants. Additionally, land grabbing and living conditions were identified as dire issues on Ko Lipe. The law and policy review revealed several deviations between international mechanisms and national laws and policies in both enshrinement and enforcement, with the Royal Thai Government (RTG) often overlooking the interests of the UL when formulating laws and policies. Conclusions: The above-mentioned determinants, along other structural and intermediary determinants, are synergizing, thereby placing the UL at increased risk of poorer health and health outcomes compared to other Thais living in the same vicinities. To rectify this, the RTG must reform national laws and policies that harm the UL, and civil society must hold them accountable. Several recommendations are offered to achieve a better future for the Urak Lawoi'.

No abstract

Economic corridors are under construction across the planet. Trillions of dollars are being spent and they will have significant implications for international politics and, ultimately, world order. However, there has been limited conceptual work on them to date, especially in International Relations. This article contributes to that gap by explaining the dominant rationale before offering a conceptualisation of economic corridors as an essentially extractivist paradigm. This counter-hegemonic proposition revolves around four relational theses: (1) economic corridors are a ‘fix’ for crises of capitalism; (2) economic corridors exacerbate class struggle; (3) economic corridors are tools for exploitation; (4) economic corridors facilitate financial extraction. In so doing it unmasks the dominant rationale as ideological cover for valorisation and accumulation based on extractive and exploitative relations with human and extra-human nature. Rather than contributing to inclusive and sustainable development as proponents claim, the article contends economic corridors reinforce power asymmetries between states, countries, and classes, thereby extending and entrenching processes of uneven and combined development. The argument is substantiated with empirical reference to mainland Southeast Asia but aims to advance understanding of extractive dynamics integral to the concept of economic corridors and hence operative worldwide.

We defend the proposition that global trafficking prevalence data—when gathered using validated methods and presented with sufficient detail on study design and data analysis—can advance the fight against trafficking in persons. Space does not allow us to engage in a full review and critique of existing data and methodologies, but we subscribe to the view that the field in general suffers from ‘“epidemiological anaemia”—lack of primary data collection based on sound sampling procedures’. We would add another condition: demographic disorder—unsystematic use and interpretation of population data. Until that situation improves, and it can best do so through systematic application of qualitative and quantitative ‘microlevel research’, we recommend that existing global prevalence data be presented with clearer caveats and used with due caution.