New research on sex work in Malta looks at what drives decision-making

In-depth interviews conducted across Malta: 17 with sex workers and 35 with non-sex-working stakeholders

How do people make decisions when their choices are constrained? What does it mean to decide amid uncertainty, limited options and real-world pressures? These questions shape our everyday lives.

They were also central to my recently completed doctoral research at University College London (UCL), which explored decision-making in the context of sex work in Malta.

Despite frequently being the subject of public debate, there has been a notable absence of empirical research on sex work locally. Conversations are often dominated by ideology rather than evidence, with sex workers’ voices rarely present in policy discussions or media narratives. This gap has left both public understanding and policymaking poorly informed.

This study aimed to address the gap in evidence by providing grounded, context-specific insight into how people make complex decisions about sex work in Malta. A central goal was to bring sex workers’ lived experiences and voices to the forefront.

Despite being the primary stakeholders, sex workers’ perspectives are often absent from public discourse or filtered through institutional lenses. It was, therefore, also important to include the views of professionals whose roles shape these lenses. Their views often influence the institutional frameworks through which sex work is interpreted and addressed. By engaging both groups, the study explored how decisions are made within each context and in turn offers insight into how public discourse around the subject is shaped.

To gather the required insights, 52 in-depth interviews were conducted across Malta: 17 with sex workers and 35 with non-sex-working stakeholders, ranging from healthcare and law enforcement professionals to NGO representatives. Participants reflected a broad range of identities, backgrounds and experiences.

Decisions in focus

The study drew on the concepts of bounded rationality and ‘satisficing’, a term coined by Economics Nobel Laureate Herbert Simon – a portmanteau of ‘satisfactory’ and ‘sufficient’.

These concepts explain how people – including you, I and everyone else – make decisions under less-than-ideal conditions: pressured, with limited cognitive and material resources, and incomplete information.

This is not a failure of reasoning but a fundamental feature of human decision-making. Indeed, this framework reminds us that all people make decisions within constraints, whether cognitive, temporal or informational, and that sex workers’ choices should be understood within this broader human context. In fact, applied to the under-researched context of sex work in Malta, bounded rationality offers a novel, grounded and pragmatic lens for understanding constrained choices in a setting shaped by structural limitations, stigma and legal ambiguity.

Among several key findings, sex workers emphasised economic motivations and described navigating financial precarity and unpredictability. Personal boundaries were highlighted and were described as fluid rather than static − often negotiated in response to dynamic relationships and safety needs.

Roles and relationships – whether with clients, partners, intermediaries or others – often reflected a complex mix of intimacy, care, dependency and exploitation, highlighting the diverse and sometimes contradictory experiences of sex workers, and resisting simplistic binaries between safety and risk or support and coercion. Institutional mistrust, particularly towards law enforcement, was widespread, reinforcing self-reliant approaches to managing risk.

Despite frequently being the subject of public debate, there has been a notable absence of empirical research on sex work locally

Substance use also emerged as a complex issue. While often highlighted in public debates, it was not part of all participants’ experiences, challenging monocausal assumptions around sex work. For those who did discuss it, its relationship with sex work was described as varied and context-dependent too. These and other insights underline the necessity of nuanced policy and practice, responsive and genuinely attuned to sex workers’ lived realities.

Meanwhile, non-sex-working stakeholders’ perspectives were strongly shaped by ideology, as well as by how it interacted with their institutional roles – balancing personal beliefs, policy and practical constraints, and professional expectations. These influences often intersected in complex and sometimes contradictory ways, reflecting the challenges of working within systems that resist clear-cut answers.

Complexity, responsibility and listening differently

The findings make clear that decisions around sex work rarely fit neatly into ‘free’ or ‘forced’ categories. Most participants described making pragmatic decisions, balancing risks, priorities and trade-offs to manage their lives. Understanding these decisions is not about endorsing or rejecting them; it is about humanising, listening, learning and responding with clarity, respect and responsibility.

This study contributes valuable empirical evidence to an under-researched field and lays important groundwork for future research. By exploring how people make decisions under constraint, it provides a practical framework that extends beyond sex work, offering insights relevant to policy and practice in other complex issues.

Moreover, this research highlights the importance of embracing complexity. Like many areas of public interest, sex work resists easy answers. Quick conclusions and rigid categories flatten the nuances of lived experience.

When people are reduced to problems to be solved, their voices are too often sidelined. This study sought to challenge that tendency by placing lived experience at the centre and by acknowledging, exploring and unpacking, rather than dismissing, constrained decisions as being ‘unreal’.

Whether as professionals, researchers or members of the public, we all shape how sensitive topics are discussed. We must recognise that our assumptions can limit what we are willing to hear. Really listening – especially to those who are often unheard – is essential to creating better, more effective policies and services.

Acknowledgements

This research was funded by the Tertiary Education Scholarships Scheme (TESS). The author is grateful to the participants who generously shared their time and insights, and to his doctoral supervisors at UCL, Ella Cockbain and Jyoti Belur, for their invaluable guidance throughout the project.

While the methods and findings of the research are informing several forthcoming academic publications, the full thesis – Choices, Boundaries, and Ideological Divides: A Study of Sex Work in Malta – is available open access to support evidence-informed policy, practice and public understanding.

One can contact the author on j.camilleri.17@alumni.ucl.ac.uk.

Jonathan Camilleri holds a PhD in security and crime science from University College London (UCL), a global leader in research. His interests centre on decision-making in contexts shaped by criminalisation and marginalisation. Among various roles he has held over the years, he has lectured at both the University of Malta and UCL.

Published July 27, 2025 on the portal timesofmalta.com