From 'Social Exclusion' to 'Precarity' The Becoming-migrant of Labour

From ‘Social Exclusion’ to ‘Precarity’ The Becoming-migrant of Labour. An Introduction

1

Carl-Ulrik Schierup & Martin Bak Jørgensen ‘Precarity’ is an ascendant term for contemporary globality; an increasingly used scientific concept, as well as a signifier of resistance by social movements. It refers to a multidimensional ‘weight of the world’, embodying ‘social suffering’2 through degradation of work, a fractured and racialising citizenship, excessive human vulnerability and ‘unequal burdening of toxic risk’3. ‘Migration’ is another powerful term in our time, represented as ‘the age of migration’4. Discourses and studies of ‘precarity’ and ‘migration’ still tend to belong to disparate departments in the social sciences. Yet, linking them offers a fecund point of departure for exploring the intersection of cumulative social dispossession and new subaltern struggles springing from the ‘third great transformation’. With Karl Polanyi’s (1944) celebrated work, The Great Transformation in mind, Burawoy (2010) coined the phrase ‘the third wave of marketization’. It suggests a similarity between neoliberal globalisation and earlier transformational crises in the history of capitalism. It relates to the sweeping commodification of human labour, money and land - uprooting human beings from their communities, looting all that is common, and effectively dispossessing people of social protection and their daily livelihoods. This grand process of deprivation is seen to provoke – similar to the proposition of Polanyi (1944) relating to the world social crisis of the 1930s – contentious countermovements of today. Translated into our present discourse this implies an understanding of precarity as representing “both a condition and a possible rallying point for resistance” (Waite 2008, 412); as a ‘condition’ representing the downside of a ‘neoliberal utopia’s’ uncompromising gamble on the free market (Bech 2000, 4) and as ‘resistance’, an interpellation of social movements generating novel strategies and discourses for reclaiming the commons or, as Polanyi expressed it, ‘re-embedding’ the economy in society. It is a globally articulated countermovement in the making. It will by necessity have new actors, objectives and claims whose prospects are still undecided (Burawoy 2010). It encompasses the labour conflicts of informal workers in China or Bangladesh, the re-articulation of memories of the struggle against apartheid in South Africa, the Arab Spring, Spain’s Indignados movement, the Occupy movement and new inclusive trade unions in the United States, a ramifying transcultural Zapatist movement, anti-fascist coalitions across Europe, etc. From the vantage point of this premise the contributions in this book ask questions that seek to span the social conditions and agency of people as diverse as first generation urbanites in China, migrant pensioners and unemployed youth in Sweden and Spain, refugees in Germany, irregular and regular migrants in Southern Europe, Turkey, Russia the United States and South Africa. Consideration is given to vulnerable livelihoods in segregated megacities belonging to antagonistic geopolitical power-houses, and social movements advocating migrants’ rights as well as wider antiausterity movements. By exploring the notion of precarity as a theoretical and analytical concept and linking it to migration the authors venture beyond what is currently (for want of a better term) still represented as ‘the Global North’; formerly the First among the ‘Three Worlds’ of the Cold War. They explore affinities, synergies, convergence and dissimilarities with related concepts like ‘social exclusion/inclusion’, ‘austerity’ ‘flexibility’, ‘exploitation’, ‘unfree’ and ‘forced’ labour. They track 1 This is the final draft version of the introduction to the forthcoming Brill publication. POLITICS OF PRECARITY: MIGRANT CONDITIONS, STRUGGLES AND EXPERIENCES edited by Carl-Ulrik Schierup & Martin Bak Jørgensen to be published later this year (2016).

2 Alluding to Bourdieu’s (1999) The Weight of the World: Social Suffering and Impoverishment in Contemporary Society. 3 Alluding to Woolfson and Likić-Brborić (2008) "Migrants in the Unequal Burdening of ‘Toxic’ Risk: Towards a New Global Governance Regime."

4 Alluding to the title of the book, The Age of Migration by Castles, de Haas and Miller (2014).

1

along mutually intersecting paths towards a complex understanding of precarity as a social condition but at the same time the material forms a critical assessment of precarity as a political proposition. We set off, accordingly, to explore the range and anticipated strength of analysing contemporary transformations and struggles through the lens of precarity. Rather than defining a single ‘precariat’ as a new (dangerous) ‘class’ (Standing 2011), we explore variations of precarity from a global perspective. These variations embody different shapes in different parts of the world, on different scales and in different socio-economic contexts and yet they appear to share common features in terms of conditionality and a contingent disposition for agency. As a social science concept precarity, as well as its derived neologism ‘precariat’, is associated with Pierre Bourdieu’s (1963) portrayal of a nascent colonial working class in Algeria in the 1950s in terms of precarité. Bourdieu referred, more specifically, to the class divide that separated racialised casual or contingent workers (travailleurs intermittents) from permanently employed workers. In the 1980s different linguistic and discursive versions of ‘precarité’ were taken into broader use in social science studies of informal and casual labour in France, Italy and Spain and during the 2000s - in spite of being criticised for lacking analytical clarity (Barbier 2004) - across Europe and the World. The concept has gained importance as a perspective in critical labour and citizenship studies in general, and in studies on migration in particular. The invention of its derivative ‘precariat’ is attributed to French activists campaigning for irregular migrants’ rights at the turn of the millennium (Jossin, et al. 2005). It was adopted as a slogan for alternative Euro-Mayday parades (Foti 2005), and gained importance in youth movements across Europe (Casas-Cortés, Chapter 2 this volume). It has been diffused broadly as a signifier of social movements contesting the politics of austerity and adopted as a controversial neologism in the social sciences. Guy Standing (2011) popularised the concept widely with his book The Precariat: The New Dangerous Class. Its wider reference is to a globally growing workforce of casual labourers whose lives are precarious. Their experience in the world of work is marked by ‘precarity’ in terms of informal labour, wage squeezes, temporariness, uncertainty and pernicious risk. It is a term designating a historical moment marked by the emergence of a new global norm of contingent employment, social risk and fragmented life situations - without security, protection or predictability. The English concepts like ‘precariousness’, ‘precarious employment’ and ‘precarious workers’ have, during the 2000s, become important in critical studies on migration and work (e.g. Anderson 2010), and ‘precarity’ - the direct transposition of Bourdieu’s original term into an English neologism – together with ‘precariat’, are on the rise as new paradigmatic terms for studies of social inequality, disadvantage and poverty.5 An important background is that the ‘social exclusion/inclusion’ paradigm, which has been dominant in the EU since the early 1990s and subsequently across the world, is starting to be seen as not very realistic in its prevalent discursive and institutional embodiments (Schierup, et al. 2015). This is happening against the background of current neoliberal austerity measures for the restructuring of labour markets and citizenship, depriving citizens of essential social, political and civic rights and usurping effective popular capacity for political agency (Sassen 2006). It is combined with growing scepticism about the power of conventional institutional tools of ‘social inclusion’ to act as antidotes to ‘exclusion’. In sum, it concerns increasing doubt about the institutional remedies for the cure of ‘social anomy’ accorded to the guardianship of the still officially existing, but actually increasingly fading, welfare state of a formerly affluent North-Atlantic world (Schierup, et al. 2006). Whereas - proceeding mostly from an essentially functionalist (Durkheimian) paradigm (Levitas 1998) – mainstream perspectives on ‘social exclusion/inclusion’ are derived from theories of ‘integration’ and ‘social cohesion’ depicting social disadvantage as a consequence of redeemable institutional shortcomings, a critical heterodox discourse representing precarity as a “constitutive element of the new global disorder, to which it is very functional” (Ricceri 2011, 68), turns 5 Especially after the publication of Standing’s (2011) book, The Precariat. The New Dangerous Class, which provoked extensive discussion on scientific and political blogs, as well as in journals and newspapers across the world.

2

functionalism on its head. From this perspective social exclusion is no longer seen as a systemic ‘error’ that can be fixed through social engineering or the politics of moral improvement; rather as an essential purpose in a disjointed political economy of neoliberal globalisation within which the excluded are unsafe and vulnerable – but not superfluous. Viewed thus not as regrettable ‘mistake’, on the contrary, the excluded are ‘valuable’ because they are ‘vulnerable’, and thus particularly exploitable (Bauder 2006, 26). Precarity is therefore akin to the term ‘expulsion’ used by Saskia Sassen (2014, 1) for “capturing the pathologies of today’s global capitalism”. The wider historical-structural context is the generation of a ‘surplus population’6, numbering multiple millions during the past three and a half decades. It is a globally mobile reserve army of labour at the disposal of transnational corporations, sub-contractors and franchises. It is produced by austerity programs which roll back the social compacts of welfare in developmental states, and it has grown on the ruins of actually existing socialism in Eastern Europe, the Soviet Union, and China. Through international migration it feeds private as well as public employers across the globe. Poverty, insecurity and unpredictability are consequently moved beyond the integrationist Durkheimian concern with ‘social cohesion’ in prevalent discourses on ‘social exclusion-inclusion’ and into the Marxian terrain of ‘exploitation’ (Schierup, et al. 2015) where the surplus population and the industrial reserve army provide disciplinary vehicles for regulation and the instigation of morality (Harvey 2010). Taken in broad terms, we may thus speak of precarity as a mode of keeping the “reserve army of labour in labour - thereby maximising both productive activity and placing downward pressure on wages” (Moase 2012). That is precarity as ‘flexploitation’ (Bourdieu 1999). Or as expressed by Bourdieu (1999, 84): “insecurity is the product not of an economic inevitability, identified with the much heralded “globalization,” but of a political will”. It is a creation of a political economy merging new forms of globalised labour force management with a fragmentation, depreciation and profound remoulding of established frameworks of citizenship, and with the management of global migration as a privileged tool. A growing body of research has pointed to migration as an important element in this broader process of the erosion of social and labour rights propelling a sweeping ‘recommodification’ of the labour force (Bommes and Kolb 2006, 109; Castles 2011; Fudge 2014; Schierup, et al. 2006). Related to this, studies have pointed to the proliferation of new modes of ‘niched’ labour markets driven by the ways in which transnational, and often circular or irregular, migration is instrumentalised in the regulation and remaking of economies, labour markets and contemporary societies across the globe (Bauder 2006; Galabuzi 2006; Raes, et al. 2002; Toksöz and Ünlütürk Ulutaş 2012; Veiga 1999). In this context, borders and immigration control function as a “tap regulating the flow of labour” (Anderson 2010, 300) and a mould for the making of labour with specific value for labour markets and employers. The methodical making of ‘institutional uncertainty’, in particular connected with irregular migration, “help[s to] produce ‘precarious workers’ over whom employers and labour users have particular mechanisms of control”. In effect, broader research on precarity is emerging within international labour and migration studies, boosted by critical perspectives on neoliberal globalisation.7 A Fordist mode of labour force management in the heyday of the modern welfare state - at least as a social norm and backed by elaborate positive regulation - included the whole life cycle of the worker in its long-term business calculations (including costs for education, health, pension, and old age care, and other components of social reproduction). This was likewise the case for smaller formal sectors in developmental and developing states. Emerging neoliberal labour force management has, in contrast, been characterised in terms of a generalised mode of hyper-exploitation, which, “by operating only on the present, simultaneously exploits the future” (cf. Papadopoulos 2005; Tsianos 2007, 19). An imperative embodied in precarity is, what is more, an incremental, forced mobility, regionally, globally and nationally, and flexibly across places, occupations and sectors. In effect, “The embodied 6 Marx 1976 [1885], Chapter 25). 7 For example, Papadopoulos (2005), Waite (2008), Standing (2011), Evans (2000), Munck (2007), Phelan (2006), Waterman (2001), Wacquant (2007), Webster (2008), Barchiesi (2006).

3

experience of precarity is, the attempt to live with incessant neoliberal imperatives to transform the self”, (Tsianos 2007, 192). Seen from this perspective the ‘migrant’ is the quintessential incarnation of precarity, with irregular and circulant migrant workers and refugees and asylum seekers being among the most disadvantaged in this globally expanding ‘relative surplus population’ (Marx 1976 [1885], chapter 25). Precarisation of work develops in tandem with a precarisation of citizenship as the dual outcomes of the (global) restructuring of the economy and labour markets alongside a fracturing of frameworks of citizenship (Goldring and Landolt 2011). It structures precarity as a condition embodying imperatives of flexibility, multilocality and compressed mobility (Tsianos 2007, 192). It determines the centrality of mobility in workers’ behaviour and struggles, but furthermore what precarity activists have termed “the becoming-migrant of labour” where “ [w]orking conditions suffered by migrants today (such as informality in the contract, vulnerability, intense links between territory and employment, low salaries, lack of union rights, temporality, total availability, etc.) are spreading […] to the rest of workers” (Casas-Cortés, Chapter 2 this volume; Martin Bak Jørgensen, Chapter 3 this volume).

Social condition and political proposition The academic - and to some degree the activist - debate has hinted at problems inherent in ‘the precariat’ as a theoretical and analytical tool. Standing’s attempt to lump extremely heterogeneous groups into one analytical category has had to face criticism from different angles (e.g. Breman 2013; Seymour 2012). This book contributes to the debate by offering analytical perspectives on what precarity looks like in various contexts and practices. Maribel Casas-Cortés (Chapter 2) quotes a Spanish EuroMayDay organiser who asserts that: “Precarity is [a] political proposition more than a sociological category”. The statement implies that precarity is related to action more than offering an analytical description of the current transformations. The aim of the book is nevertheless to do both. The politics of precarity determines the political economy of neoliberal capitalism which produces precarity of labour, livelihoods and citizenship, and also resistance against the systemic structuration through which it operates. The volume opens with two chapters that in different ways discuss how precarity can be understood conceptually as a set of practices. These chapters emphasise agency through analyses of social movements and activist networks mobilising under the banner of precarity, and they discuss reconceptualization of citizenship. The argument of Maribel Casas-Cortés’ chapter ‘A genealogy of precarity: A toolbox for rearticulating fragmented social realities in and out of the workplace’ (Chapter 2) is that precarity is a political concept. Although it depicts crucial socio-political conditions of neoliberal globalisation, in her ethnographic research of activist networks and precarity struggles it has come to mean a proposition and in practical terms a toolbox which gives activists the tools to work on the politics of necessity created by austerity policies in Europe. She connects her own finding to the ‘Autonomy of migration’ approach (Heidenreich and Vukadinović 2008) which grew out of self-organised efforts by migrants, including the sans-papiers movements, as well as the activism of solidarity with migrants, denouncing the violence and deaths at the borders and human-rights violations perpetuated by migration policies. Critical migration- and border studies (Casas-Cortes, et al. 2015), like the autonomy of migration approach, warn against victimising migrants and posit migration as a social movement that has been able to escape from border control many times. Thereby border control is understood as a complex mechanism for the bio-political ordering of populations generating different forms of mobility. Migration is framed as a core component of capitalism, and mobility as one of the main traits of workers’ practices. Although mobility is regulated and exists in a frictionless form for some and a constrained one for others the concept still invokes a capacity for agency. The increasingly close link between precarity and migration started to become visible during EuroMayDay parades when the question of migration linked to local precarity became visible. Investigating links between migration and precarity requires that we rethink the latter, argues Martin Bak Jørgensen in ‘The Precariat strikes back – precarity struggles in practice’ (Chapter 3). He engages in a theoretical discussion with the literature on the precariat and distinguishes between 4

precarity (as a condition), precariat (as an identity) and precarisation (as a process). Precarity has been used as a sweeping generalisation to describe post-Fordist society and a new regime of flexploitation but has under-emphasised social agency. Thus precarity can serve as an interpellation in struggles for rights and a just society and as a possible catalyst for transformation. Mobilising under precarity is not an individual undertaking but the attempt to build a new commons. Jørgensen therefore emphasises the argument of Negri that we need to “redefine the reality and meaning of the word ‘rights’ based on common demands and social cooperation” (Negri 2004). Through different cases of collective mobilisation in Hamburg and Brussels the chapter elucidates how precarisation unfolds in practice and how the precariat’s position becomes a rallying point for mobilisation that builds alliances across ethnic, racial and class-based divisions, takes forward a movement based in political analysis and helps define wider strategies for resistance and the claiming of rights.8 These alliances can be productive for migrants’ struggles for rights, but can also have detrimental effects. The creation of different categories of migrant workers with different sets of rights tied to their immigration status has, as Aziz Choudry and Mondli Hlatshwayo (Choudry and Hlatshwayo 2016, 5) argue, become a standard component of policies and “a capitalist strategy which is fundamental to the functioning of many economies” (Choudry and Hlatshwayo 2016, 5) and which facilitates the constant reduction of labour costs. After a brief period of scholarly optimism which foresaw that categories of denizens would be a disappearing phenomenon (e.g. Hammar 1990) the reality has turned out to be a permanent hierarchy of different statuses (Morris 2002; Ong 2006), linked to an increasing precarisation and fracturing of citizenship (cf. Goldring and Landholt 2011). Citizenship today is a contested concept. Despite guaranteeing equal rights and obligations, it is distributed and applied in a variety of exclusive ways: all citizens are not equal nor do they have the same access to rights and obligations. The case studies from Hamburg and Brussels show contestations of rights and who is to be counted as citizens are played out in practice.

Precarity at work beyond ‘North’ and ‘South’ In current sociological use ‘precarity’ and the neologism ‘precariat’ have mainly been developed by scholars, who relate to deep changes in the economy, citizenship and class structure in European welfare states – conventionally associated with ‘Fordism’ - and who from there attempt to globalise the concept (Standing 2011). This has been met by criticism referring to historical conditions in the global ‘North’ as well as the ‘South’; speaking provisionally in the language that has become the standard in critical research, replacing discourses of the ‘three (or four) worlds’ or of ‘Centre’, ‘Periphery’ and ‘Semi-Periphery’ in the ‘World System’. Thus, argue Neilson and Rositter (2008), “a deep political consideration of the concept of precarity requires us to see Fordism as an exception”, a short ‘episode’ in European and Western history. Or, as phrased by Foster (2011), far from being a distinctive product of the post-Fordist economy, “historically precarity might be more the rule and the Fordist promise of relative job security and union protection more the exception”; a condition with which proletarians, seen in a longue durée perspective on the history of capitalism, have not been gifted. Others contend that precarious labour and livelihoods were always, and continue to be, the normal condition for the majority of the world’s population; “in the global South, in eastern Europe, as well as for most women and migrants in the North” (Network 2006) - and still with the South taking the lead, in terms of ‘condition’ as well as spearhead of ‘resistance’, with livelihoods of the informal economy as key (Keyworth 2012). This global ‘majority perspective’ on precarity also questions the very ‘newness’ of the discovery of the ‘precariat’ as concept and social reality. It is a critical ‘view from the South’ that Ronaldo Munck deepens in his contribution to this volume (Chapter 4). He traces the theoretical and analytical genealogy of precarity through a long trail of research on social ‘marginality’ and ‘informal labour’ in the global South. He takes this further into a wider discussion of the production of a vast informal working class systemically related to the global expansion of capital-labour relations and driven by a 8 See Nyers and Rygiel (2012).

5

vastly expanded (primitive) accumulation through dispossession after the cold war, the breaking down of the ‘second world’ and the incorporation of hitherto non-capitalist communities into the orbit of capital. The way the ‘marginal pole’ of the economy and the preponderance of informal labour in the global South was conceptualised and analysed by several, in particular Latin American, scholars decades ago appears, although phrased in other conceptual terms, to predate the ‘discovery’ of the ‘precariat’ propagated through critical studies of contemporary neoliberal capitalism in the North. It was a contingent, vulnerable and precarious labour force positioned in a seemingly disconnected ‘informal economy’ of the South. It is a ‘marginal pole’ of the labour force and the economy which was (and is) nevertheless closely connected with the dominant pole of the economy, whereby proliferating corporate chains of outsourcing and subcontracting channel and expropriate the lion’s share of surplus value produced by increasingly abundant hyper-exploited precarious labour forcibly extracted from embeddedness in protective social institutions of rural communities (e.g. Quijano Obregon 1974). Seen from this perspective the contemporary precarisation of labour and livelihoods in north-Atlantic societies since the beginning of the 1980s has been conceptualised in terms of the ‘Brazilianisation of the West’ (Bech 2000), with the South telling the North its fortune, and with ‘the migrant’, the South in the North, as harbinger (Blaschke and Greussing 1980). Colonial and postcolonial predicaments and present day imperial politics continue to reproduce a critical watershed as to economy, political power, state and society in South and North. Yet, the present conjuncture suggests an approach from a perspective of ‘incorporating comparison’ (Mcmichael 1990, 671), seeing precarisation of labour, citizenship and livelihoods in North and South as potentially comparable since they are shaped and connected through similar forces and processes of globalisation. At the same time a need is posited for reviewing theories of political economy that have been critically opposing neo-classical orthodoxy. General lines for the makeover of critical theory on the global political economy of migrant labour were suggested by Alejandro Portes and John Walton (1991, 190) in Labor, Class and the International System. They argued that [c]lass formation on a global level […] means that geographically dispersed labour is not only part of the same stratification system, but increasingly occupies common locations within that system apart from its residence in the core, semiperiphery or periphery. Thus, they saw “core and periphery hierarchies” as interpenetrating and “sharing some (increasingly) common positions and attendant fortunes”. Their proposition remains pertinent given the particular character of class dominance and labour force management in neoliberal globalisation, and its current impact on societies in the South as well as the North. This pertains not least to critical globalisation studies which tend to remain concentrated on the treatment of southern migrants while risking obscuring the emergence of more complex patterns embodied in dehumanising policies and exploitation in so-called ‘emerging economies’ of the South, which are at least ostensibly similar to those prevailing in the dominant economic and immigration nodes of the North (Tobias 2012). This is the central concern of Nazli Senses’ contribution (Chapter 5), ‘Turkey’s new precariat: Differentiated vulnerability and new alliances’. Her chapter focuses on the relevance of the notion of precarity and precarious labour in connection with Turkey’s transformation from a developmental state on Europe’s periphery, exporting (migrant) labour on a grand scale into what has been designated as one of the World’s ‘ten big emerging markets’. It is driven by a neo-liberal transformation, one new feature of which has been the growth of a labour force of irregular cross border migrants as a particular category within an already huge and growing informal ‘domestic’ labour force. Yet, she contends, the irregular migrants embody the essence of precarity, exposed as they are to an exceedingly vulnerable existence distinguished from the conditions and livelihoods of a large domestic informal precariat by the lack of any formal rights, except for those enshrined in certain international human rights’ conventions (cf. Erdoğdu and Şenses 2015). Senses argues for the need to assess with care the specific Turkish experience, both in terms of 6

its particular political economy of precarity, which cannot be restricted to the ‘South’, or the ‘North’, and the specific challenges confronting labour unions and an emerging Turkish precariat movement, for which the inclusion of irregular migrant workers appears to represent sine qua non. In their contribution Anna Gavanas and Ines Calzades (Chapter 6) offer a further deconstruction of the global North-South dichotomy by depicting different faces of precarity along a charged northsouth axis in a European Union disjointed by politics of austerity, here represented against the backdrop of the different neoliberal transformation of established welfare regimes in Sweden and Spain. The analytical focus is on ‘international retirement migration’ (IRM) which has become a standard designation for the retreat to low income countries by old age pensioners from high income countries in North America and Northern Europe. They are the increasingly numerous people from the United States and Canada whom you will encounter in any tourist resort along the coasts of Mexico or across the Caribbean. In the EU Spain takes on a similar function for pensioners from the dominant northern economic powerhouses of the Union - like Germany, Sweden and Holland – as Mexico does in the NAFTA. The politics of austerity has, as in other parts of the EU south, contributed to increasing precarisation of labour and livelihoods in Spain, not least contained in a swelling informal economy and labour market which provides a huge reserve army of labour at the disposition of a rhizomising IRM industry, managed by local petty entrepreneurs and chains of subcontracting. This precarious reserve army of IRM service and care workers is in itself ethnically segmented and racialised through politics of citizenship and indigeneity, with a still numerous migrant labour force as the most vulnerable and cheapest on sale, the most exposed to unabated risk of expulsion from the institutions of a shrinking Spanish welfare state. Yet, based on a critical perspective of a parallel neoliberal transformation of the Swedish welfare state, Gavanas and Calzades reject a view that would present Swedish IRMs as uniformly privileged northerners. Many are themselves economically and socially vulnerable and seek recourse in IMR, not simply to secure a place in the sun, but by attempts to escape from the increasingly precaritised livelihoods of growing numbers of older people also within the societies of the north itself through making strategic choices in a newly emerging transnational field of ‘comparative advantages’ across an economically and socially polarising EU-Europe. The latter is particularly clearly exposed through Sweden’s transformation from social democratic model into an austerity showcase (Schierup and Scarpa Forthcoming) displaying sustained economic growth but also the fastest increase in social inequality among members of the OECD (2011) with differential impacts across indicators of class, ethnicity/race, gender and age. The perspective of the different manifestations of precarisation in a fracturing European Union is supported by Gregoris Ioannou’s chapter (7) ‘Employment in crisis: Cyprus and the extension of precarity’, which charts the distressing consequences of the incorporation and exposure to politics of austerity of this island community at the EU’s south-eastern rim. A lingering political economy of precarisation through informalization became, for many, surprisingly exacerbated by the 2004 accession to the EU; as in other parts of the southern European rim this was brought about by sweeping deindustrialisation, tertialisation and financialisation of the economy. This came in tandem with a race to the bottom contingent on ‘harmonising’ by labour law and consummated through the demise of previously powerful labour unions, all brought to breaking point after the 2008 financial crash, followed in 2013 by devastating austerity dictates from Brussels. A fast precarisation of labour and livelihoods has traversed the whole of society, across a hierarchy of privilege and benefits. But the harshest blow fell on the substantial labour force of irregular migrant workers, outside the realm of labour law and social rights. Mimi Zou’s contribution to this volume (Chapter 8), ‘Regulating Illegal Work in China: Immigration Law and Precarious Migrant Status’ elucidates further aspects of changing livelihoods and the multiple varieties of migrant precarity in an increasingly multipolar world beyond the confines of ‘North’ and ‘South’, and not least driven by changing regimes of accumulation in China and other BRICS members (Garnaut, et al. 2013). While the EU is currently veiling its fractured project for regional integration behind a despondent discourse about a (self-inflicted) so-called 7

‘refugee crisis’ (Munck and Schierup 2016), echoing Oswald Spengler’s (1991) pessimistic Decline of the West, China ties the mobilisation of precarious labour, through a primitive accumulation of unseen world historical dimensions into new grand schemes of macro-regional (Eurasian) integration. Economists have estimated the size of China’s informal contingent to be between 46 percent and 68 percent of the urban workforce (Lee and Kofman 2012). China’s established position as ‘the World’s factory’ has been built to a large degree by a regime of primitive accumulation designed to exploit low wage hukou peasant workers. It has involved growing masses of workers caught up in internal circular rural-urban migration and subjected to precarious working and living conditions (Ngai and Huilin 2010) under the cold hand of draconian ‘bloody Taylorism’9 and drawing heavily on informal labour in rural hinterlands for their reproduction. They were for long alienated from wider city society by a stringent pass regime.10 China’s rural labour force has been far from depleted and the peasantworker regime is still far from being a legacy of the past. Nevertheless, while the stringent administrative means by which urbanisation was once curbed has now been relinquished, today the lack of welfare provision and social services continues to deter many internal migrant workers from settling or dwelling in the cities for long periods (Meng 2013). Zou’s interest lies, however, with current processes of reregulation through a reformed labour legislation that marks China’s current phase of increasingly differentiated labour force management.11 Her particular focus is on precarity related to legislation targeted at controlling foreign migrant labour. This is so far only a trickle compared with China’s gargantuan population and domestic labour force. Nevertheless it is a harbinger of what might come in a society which already sees itself in need of countering a looming demographic crisis through a multiplicity of measures for the mobilisation of labour, within and outside its borders. However, as elsewhere (e.g. the United States and the EU), the new legislation and its contingent policy measures will hardly alleviate the conditions of China’s cross border migrant workers, but rather, Zou contends, produce a range of precarious migrant statuses that will have an adverse bearing on migrants’ employment conditions and livelihoods.

Precaricity The large metropolises of the world are preeminent nodes for the production and articulation of multiple variations of precarious labour and livelihoods. Most critical studies of the precarisation of city life, contingent on migration, ethnicity or race, have looked at metropolises of the global north. They describe the neoliberal restructuring of the economy and welfare institutions, contingent on which citizenship is increasingly losing the former level of protection with rights being reduced or ignored (Lipman 2013; Sassen 2006) and precarisation deepening (Standing 2011; Wacquant 2009). Multiple and fluid forms of racialised expulsion, usually connected with migration, constitute the biggest problem in increasingly segregated urban spaces (Schierup 2000; Schierup, et al. 2015). Labour market and housing segregation and precarious employment have been driving forces of social polarisation affecting, in particular, unemployed youth, ‘working poor’, and regular and irregular migrants (Anderson 2013; Sassen 1991). Such polarisation and exclusion is embedded in policies on health, residence and education. Living conditions have deteriorated under the influence of enforced dispossession of the most disadvantaged (Wilson 1987) combined with processes of gentrification (Sassen 1991). The result is a fast growing precarisation which pushes disadvantaged urbanites out of the sunny side of ethnically and racially divided global cities or leaves them in vulnerable positions (Wacquant 1996). The recent history of Chinese urbanisation provides new scenarios which broaden perceptions of the global precaricity. This is intimately linked with growing megacities which act like dynamos that 9 Our allusion to a concept coined by Liepitz (1982; cf. Schierup 2007). 10 Which, while not sharing its racist presuppositions and conceived purely in functional terms of labour force management, could be compared with migration management through the control of influxes to the cities during the apartheid era in South Africa (described in Chapter 14 of this book).

11 Many aspects of which are scrutinised in Liukkunen (2015).

8

can transform China into a potential capitalist hegemon able to challenge the position of the United States as the dominant economic powerhouse in the world. Enforced politics of dispossession in the 1990s, designed to produce a vast new mobile and flexible labour force, has broadened and deepened the precarisation of labour. The stripping of social benefits and rights to employment with the breakdown of the socialist social contract and privatisation in the public sector ‘precarised’ millions of people previously employed in the state and collective sectors (Lee and Kofman 2012). Linked to the engineering of a refurbished political economy of primitive accumulation, this situation drove a massive influx of internal labour migrants towards the cities in search of factory and construction jobs. It is a development that has not passed without challenge, as amply manifested by new forms of labour organisation and a growing number of strikes (e.g. Ngai and Huilin 2010). However, China’s (capitalist) 21st century new great leap forward has spawned a numerous consumerist population of highly educated urban professionals. From this important constituent of China’s breath-taking urbanisation and modernisation two alluring political and popular discourses of the megacity have surfaced (Engebretsen 2013, 62)). First, the “urban space—or the city, as material space and symbolic field - [is framed] as the proper location for living modern lives (as opposed to the rural village)”. Secondly, there is a powerful discursive link between the idea of the ‘city’ and images of ‘education’, promising that attending a college or obtaining a university degree is a certain ticket to middle-class prosperity. China’s current drive towards a higher value, innovative and knowledgeintensive economy and its push towards advanced urbanisation do spawn fast growing categories of moneyed urbanites. However, increasing pressures on urban resources and the competitive character of the urban economy also challenge social stability and raise the risk of social protest. It indicates that ‘the good life’ of the city and paths for getting there are becoming unobtainable for increasing numbers of people (Du and Li 2010). This produces new forms of urban poverty and precarious livelihoods involving a motley multitude of new urbanites with fewer resources, among them is China’s so-called ‘Ant Tribe’. These are college graduates from recent rural backgrounds living on the outskirts of Beijing (and other major Chinese cities), who, although ostensibly similar to Western Europe’s reserve army of young educated precarians, in many ways share the predicament of China’s hukou migrant workers. Unemployed university graduates, are now recognised as the fourth major precarious social group alongside peasants, unemployed poor and migrant workers (Engebretsen 2013; Xing 2009). Susanne Bregnbæk’s chapter (9) ‘Running into nowhere: Educational migration in Beijing and the conundrum of social and existential mobility’ provides a rare ethnographic account of this not so well known face of the new Chinese precaricity. Her description of the lives of the ‘Ant Tribe’ as a vulnerable community on the edge of the megacity bears witness to a situation in which the collusion of a precarious labour market and the insecurities embodied in a cut-throat educational system extends the boundaries of belonging to a casual precariat. Based on extensive ethnographic fieldwork in Beijing, Bregnbæk depicts a ‘race to the bottom’ as a huge number of first generation, young urban college graduates learn to labour. They are caught between a competitive educational system and the moral burden of inflated expectations from parents and communities in the rural hinterlands from which they migrated. Simultaneously they struggle because they are not part of an urban labour market with established informal networks, crucial for opening doors in a society, where in Bregnbæk’s words, “the idea that social mobility can be attained through higher education is often a fantasy reserved for elite families”. Hence, studies of Chinese cities provide us with new knowledge on the intersection of migration and precarity. However, Moscow - another metropolitan nodal point mostly beyond the radar of critical western social scientists - may qualify as the quintessential example of the contemporary precaricity. A Russian migrant precariat of newly fabricated ‘aliens’ coming from former southern republics of the Soviet Union - previously addressed as ‘fellow citizens’ or ‘comrades’ - matches, according to estimates, the number of irregular Hispanic migrant workers in the United States or the total number of irregular migrant workers in the whole of the European Union (e.g. Bobkov, et al. 9

2011). Migrants are inserted by clandestine practices into urban labour markets and into a society characterised by the incremental growth of inequality, wrought by speculative businesses of ruthless oligarchs, neoliberal austerity policies, laissez-faire and state corruption. Welcoming this new migrant precariat from the south of the former ‘Eastern Bloc’ to the occupational ghettos of metropolitan Moscow is best described say Böhm and Fernandez (2005, 786)) as, “Vellkome tu hell”: Moscow, the former capital of the “second world” has become one of these urban conglomerates where the “first world” meets its dirty underbelly. This vast city has one of the highest concentrations of luxury hotels and cars anywhere in the world. The extremely rich, who have built their wealth on the debris of the melt-down of real existing socialism and the rise of realexisting neoliberal capitalism, come together with migrants from within Russia as well as many ex-Soviet republics in one place. Of course, this ‘meeting’ is often no more than a virtual one, as the migrants – who are mostly illegal – work and live in parts of the city that will never be seen by the rich. In ‘Necropolitics and the migrant as a political subject of disgust: The precarious everyday of Russia’s labour migrants’, which is their chapter (10) for the present volume, John Round and Irina Kuznetsova argue that precarisation of migrants has expanded and now occupies an ontological position of migrants in Russian society. The notion of ‘necropolitics’ emphasises ‘death’. By employing Achille Mbembe’s (2003) term to describe the situation of migrants in Moscow the authors contend that necropolitics is not an historical exception. It does not refer to Nazi death camps or treatment of prisoners but the experiences and everyday conditions that migrants live with in Moscow. While this resembles the understanding of precarity as an ontological concept of existential vulnerability (e.g., Butler 2009), Round and Kuznetsova stress how the ‘city of exception’ is created and maintained with crucial effects on the lives of many migrant workers. Migrants are forcibly kept in a state of illegallity and exposed to a constant reification of vulnerability and precarity. For Mbembe, and the authors necropolitics is not just about killing but rather about who is left to die through decisions taken by the state. In Moscow precarity renders migrants both visible and invisible. They are invisible through being sans papiers but visible when the state puts blame on ‘the migrant’ as the carrier of disease, as criminal, and as a racialised object of disgust. ‘Necropolitics’ is thus a framework through which the state views migrants as diseased, criminal and deviating. The result can be death but more a ‘letting die’ contingent on a hateful institutionally embedded racism, as when the authorities close their eyes to far right groups hunting down migrants, and build control through securitisation and state-sponsored police harassment. Round and Kuznetsova present a dystopian warning, claiming that Russia may not be an exception in our current ‘age of migration’; but at the same time appear to contend only that by revealing the actions, priorities and desires of the state in an extreme case such as Moscow can we get the tools to unravel the conditions and practices in countries and cities where the abuse of migrants may appear to be on a lesser scale. Yet we may ask whether Russia is indeed so extreme? The increasing death tolls in the Mediterranean bear witness that death is an integral component of most contemporary migration flows. Neither is ‘letting die’ an exception. Stories about migrants dying on their way to Greece and Italy make their way into the news every day. The termination of the Italian Mare Nostrum program and its replacement in early 2015 by the EU Operation Triton with much less funding led only to an increase in the number of deaths at sea. The EU has indeed desperately endeavoured to buy absolution for its self-inflicted, so-called ‘refugee crisis’ through concentrating asylum seekers in camps in a Turkey, itself riven by internecine war but seemingly with little objection to the conditions of refugees struggling to survive in those same Turkish refugee camps. They are living examples of Giorgio Agamben’s (1998) description of ‘the bare life’ - ‘a life stripped of all rights’. Nor are xenophobic attacks a particularly Russian phenomenon. Neo-Fascist hatemongering is on the political agenda all across Europe. In Northern Finland vigilante groups calling themselves the ‘Soldiers of Odin’ are patrolling the streets of Kemi on the watch for asylum seekers. In Stockholm masked far right members in late January 2016 made a public call for action and started ‘cleansing’ the central station of migrants ‘depicted as criminal and disgusting’. In 10

February, a masked citizens’ guard which hunts asylum-seeking minors across the city centre already seems to have become part of the creeping ‘pathological normalcy’12 of a country that, not long ago, was hailed as a moral-political great power (Ålund et al., 2016). As with Nazi Germany in the 1930s, a driving force in Swedish political conjuncture today seems to be that the dominant neo-liberal economic and political establishment is seeking recourse in a compromise and an alliance with a conservative neo-communitarian and proto-fascist nationalism. The same could be said for other parts of the EU. It resembles a covert stratagem for perpetuating, under changing political conditions, the hegemonic politics of ‘accumulation through dispossession’ implicating a deepening precarisation of labour, livelihoods and citizenship, with migrants (including asylum seekers) as the core of a flexible hyper-exploited precariat, yet guaranteeing to the extreme radical right that migrants will never become ‘citizens’, enjoy substantial social rights and gain full membership of the nation (Ålund, et al. 2016).

Politics of Possibility? The other side of a Janus-faced politics of precarity is popular resistance; phrased in a Polanyian discourse (1944) as a ‘countermovement’ for decommodification and restitution of the commons. While the dystopian perspective outlined by Round and Kuznetsova leaves no place for this, the contribution (Chapter 11) ‘Mobile commons and/in precarious spaces’ by Nicos Trimikliniotis, Dimitris Parsanoglou and Vassilis Tsianos to this volume challenges this perspective. They investigate migrant struggles and resistance in Athens, Nicosia and Istanbul from a standpoint that sees a pessimistic one-sided reading of the world as succumbing to global neoliberal elites - a world imprisoned and controlled via technologies of surveillance – as problematic. It tends to reproduce ‘paradigms of pessimism’ at the expense of seeing the world through a lens of ‘politics of possibility’.13 Mapping migrant struggles, digitalities and ‘social resistance’ they go on to demonstrate how political subjectivity and agency are constituted among migrants in the three cities. Precarity in their reading goes beyond work and working conditions, to include matters of health, housing, education, culture, social rights and mobility. Their field-work in the three cities documents the collective mobilisation of precaritised migrants through mobile commons from which emerges a frame of practice which captures the everyday life experiences of migrants. ‘Commons’ are constituted by the shared social reality and coping strategies of the migrants. As mobile commons they become spaces of ‘precarity-and-resistance’ which constantly strive to redefine the notion of ‘rights’ through daily struggles for the character, use and meaning of spaces. They also alter the meaning of ‘borders’ which themselves become mobile and flexible. The micropolitics of the commons stem from the shared knowledge and struggle of migrants not only for surviving in the cities but also for re-claiming their rights to be in and transform them. While precarity is often represented as the ontological common (cf. Butler 2009) - that which we are born into - the ‘mobile common’ refers here to everyday lives as resistance; a perspective that focuses on concrete actions for constituting political subjectivity in terms of re-claiming rights and existence on the neighbourhood level, pertaining to migrants and non-migrants alike. It relates to a social practice by which the subaltern speaks back through ‘charting’ socialities, new spatialities and reshaping new modes of citizenship. Seen from this perspective cities have become the new frontier zones for social struggles (Harvey 2012; Sassen 2012; Sassen 2006). Numerous urban studies have shown how the cities become political platforms for movements demanding ‘social justice’ (Dikeç 2007; Harvey 2012; Holston 2009; Marcuse 2009; Schierup, et al. 2014; Scocco 2015). They are key sites for the production of new identities and norms. ‘The right to the city’ (Lefebvre 1968) has become a rallying cry mobilising power for re-negotiating the rights of precaritised urbanites vis-à-vis the market and the state. Cities are the primary receivers of migrant flows and migrants constantly add to their composition and 12 Concept used by Mudde (2010). 13 Recalling also the sociology of emergence, which focuses on possibility: “the Not Yet [the future] has meaning (as possibility), but no direction, for it can end either in hope or disaster” (Santos 2004). See also Agustín and Jørgensen (2016).

11

diversity (Schiller and Çağlar 2009). While cities are critical nodes for the extended reproduction of racialised social inequality, interaction in urban space may also create new commonalities (Rosales and Ålund forthcoming). In this sense cities can be regarded as strategic sites of social innovation and social and political transformation across different institutional domains (Sassen 2012). Cities offer venues and operational and discursive openings for the disadvantaged (Brown 2013). While it was the cities of the Unites States that used to be depicted as the archetype of the neoliberal ‘necropolis’ - not least as embodied in the ‘impacted’ African-American ghettoes in, among others, Chicago, Detroit, Philadelphia and New York (Hughes 1991; Wacquant 1996; Wilson 1993) – urban insurrection and contentious urban justice movements in cities of the US have also long been and remain the most important points of reference and inspiration for subaltern urban movements in big cities across the world. They are also the focus of Peter Schultz Jørgensen’s chapter (12), ‘The Working Class and the city as Political Platform in New York’, in which he investigates the formation of class unity and a new collective narrative among migrant and native workers in New York City (NYC). Schultz Jørgensen’s interpretation uses examples of radical urban politics currently playing out in NYC and their potential for developing into an expanded working class an sich. Metropolitan New York is a site par excellence for gentrification and precarisation, but at the same time it also provides the resources and platform for articulating new political subjectivities and forms of resistance. He demonstrates how NYC has been transformed by neoliberal globalisation, describes changing conditions of labour and livelihoods, discusses the positions of the urban working class and trade unions, and maps emerging forms of organised resistance. These are found in different parts of the city (e.g. the Bronx, Brooklyn and Queens) embodied in civil society organisations like, for example, the Domestic Workers United (DWU), Chinese Staff and Workers' Association (CSWA), and National Mobilization Against Sweatshops (NMASS). These organisations have managed to build up a collective narrative claiming both rights to the city and dignified livelihoods. In this sense Shultz Jørgensen draws on Henri Lefebvre’s seminal work (1968), with the right to the city as a political locus for urban social struggles and collective empowerment invested in reshaping the urban condition (Harvey 2012) and remoulding conceptions of citizenship (Purcell 2003). While claims for the right to the city are not restricted to the United States or the ‘North’ in general, but are embodied in numerous instances and forms of activism across the globe, South as well as North (e.g. Cocco 2015; Shin 2013), the chapter nevertheless provides a generic example of the amalgamation of ‘transversal politics’ (cf. Agustín and Jørgensen 2016; Yuval-Davis 1999) that breaks new paths for contemporary urban struggles.

Rainbow commons of the third great transformation At the same time it might in truth be a current popular revival of the memory of the South African Freedom Charter, proclaimed five decades ago, that carries one of the strongest messages to contemporary social movements as Carl-Ulrik Schierup intimates in his chapter ‘Under the rainbow. Migration, precarity and people power in post-apartheid South Africa’ (Chapter 13). In it he enquires into the structuration of precarity and a living-dead memory of people power buried in South Africa’s ‘unfinished revolution’; a state of protracted crisis for the dreamland of a democratic post-apartheid ‘Rainbow Nation of God’, shattered by a Faustian neoliberal compact, a predatory extractionism and growing inequality, all entangled with a surreptitious politics of xenoracism ruling through turning poor black citizens against poor migrant ‘aliens’ in poverty stricken townships. The chapter departs from an exploration of the transformation of South Africa’s labour force management and its migratory system from a centralised management of unfree labour by the apartheid state bureaucracy to a post-apartheid state of precarity driven by ‘flexploitation’. In effect, ‘precarity’ comes to serve as a critical deconstruction of the global corporate language of ‘flexibility’, the underside of which is the extended contemporary reproduction of a large composite relative surplus population (Mcintyre 2011) - overwhelmingly black and to a considerable degree migrant - whose wretched are driven to employ inventive survival strategies beyond the reach of formal regulatory frameworks. There has

12

been little help from labour unions whose leaders are trapped in the constraints and privileges of the ruling post-apartheid hegemony. A visionary democratic, internationalist and anti-imperialist ‘South African exceptionalism’, socially, culturally and racially inclusive, as claimed by the post-Apartheid discourse is difficult to recognise in this reality. The embrace of neoliberalism has ‘stolen the South African Dream’ and also turned post-1994 South Africa into a dehumanising neoliberal laboratory similar to others around the globe. South Africa may be another dystopia, yet a dystopia challenged. Precarity becomes a political proposition carried forth by a precarious multitude through the daily micro-political creativity of ‘invented spaces’, embodied in a myriad of protests against housing privatisation, forced evictions and the commodification of basic needs like electricity and water. While there may be no pot of gold under the end of the rainbow, current popular upheavals bear witness to arresting from the ground up knowledge production (Choundry and Kapoor 2010), capacities for the building of subaltern rainbow commons and the resuscitation of people power, drawing on memories from the 20th century’s long struggle against apartheid. It is a volatile precariat that can be mobilised by the authoritarian politics of xenoracism and token social policies; or alternatively through building its own commons from the ground up. In this latter reading the precariat indeed turns ‘dangerous’ (cf. Standing 2011), because an inventive ‘informalization from below’ carries with it more than a flexible and affirmative adjustment to a corporate ‘informalization from above’; a transmutation from facilitator of ‘flexploitation’ to a rebellious ‘politics of informal people’14 bearing with it challenges to the neoliberal hegemony. It may merge into or come to be piloted by a broader popular countermovement and political parties reclaiming the commons on a wider scale, including contentious factions of a fractured trade unionism that seeks its own roots in memories of a once community-based movement for people power, and which offers an ideopolitical heritage to be mobilised under novel conditions across the neo-apartheid divisions between ‘aliens’ and ‘natives’. This perspective opens up parallels with, not least, EU-Europe and the United States in terms of from the ground up rainbow movements of ‘uncivil society’ (Bayat 1997) coming out of the ‘third great transformation’ (Schierup and Ålund 2013); a movement that, insofar as it forms alliances across deepening racialised divides, stands up against a crisis-driven mobilisation and the mainstreaming of a neo-fascist ‘pathological normalcy’15 in the present state of ‘the North’ (Ålund, et al. 2016). The initial growth of popular movements from the ground up and their later institutionalisation as new or reformed political parties16 can be read as seed beds for a comingtogether in struggles against the politics of austerity stemming from what can be captured by the ‘precariat’ as a political interpellation (Agustín and Jørgensen 2016). As a ‘movement of movements’ – in Gramscian terms (McNally 2015) – it becomes the voice of the insurgent. It is an active and deliberate re-politicising of society rearticulating deep-seated disputes and conflicts. The driver of this type of politics is the formation of alliances by a multitude of political actors coming together - beyond identity politics and beyond North and South - in social struggles that challenge an immanent democratic closure. It pertains to the growth of new solidarities from below - as practices in different settings and on different levels ensure the conformation and redefinition of political identities in defence of and for reclaiming the commons – which constitute at the same time a shared understanding of what the commons is.17

Acknowledgement of funding

14 Alluding to Bayat (1997). 15 Alluding to the notion of Mudde (2010). 16 E.g., Podemos in Spain, Initiative for Democratic Socialism in Slovenia, initially Syriza in Greece, British Labour’s u-turn under Jeremy Corbyn, and potentially the mobilisation of rebellious youth around the 2016 campaign of Bernie Sanders in the United States.

17 Alluding to Featherstone (2012).

13

We appreciate generous funding by FORTE, the Swedish Research Council for Health, Working Life and Welfare [grant number 2006-1524] and by a Swedish Research Links grant from the Swedish Research Council [grant number 2013-6682].

References Agamben, Giorgio. Homo Sacer: Sovereign Power and Bare Life. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press, 1998. Agustín, Óscar Garcia and Martin Bak Jørgensen. "Against Pessimism. A Time and Space for Solidarity." In Solidarity without Borders: Gramscian Perspectives on Migration & Civil Society Alliances, edited by Óscar Garcia Agustín and Martin Bak Jørgensen, 223-233. London: Pluto Press, 2016. Agustín, Óscar García and Martin Bak Jørgensen, eds. Solidarity without Borders: Gramscian Perspectives on Migration & Civil Society Alliances. London: Pluto Press, 2016. Anderson, Bridget. "Migration, Immigration Controls and the Fashioning of Precarious Worker." Work, Employment and Society 24:2 (2010): 300-317. Anderson, Bridget. Us and Them? The Dangerous Politics of Immigration Controls. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013. Barbier, Jean-Claude. "A Comparative Analysis of ‘Employment Precariousness’ in Europe." In Learning from Employment and Welfare Policies in Europe, edited by Marie-Thérèse Letablier. London: Economic & Social Research Council, 2004. Barchiesi, Franco. "Classes, Multitudes and the Politcs of Community." In Challenging Hegemony, Social Movements and the Quest for New Humanism in Post-Apartheid South Africa, edited by G. Gibson Nigel, 211-246: Africa World Press, 2006. Barchiesi, Franco. "Precarity as Capture: A Conceptual Reconstruction and Critique of the WorkerSlave Analogy." UniNomade (2012). Accessed March 7, 2016. http://www.uninomade.org/precarity-as-capture/. Bauder, Harald. Labor Movement: How Migration Regulates Labor. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006. Bayat, Asef. "Un-Civil Society: The Politics of the "Informal People"." Third World Quarterly 18:1 (1997): 53-72. Bech, Ulrich. The Brave New World of Work. New York: Polity, 2000. Blaschke, Jochen and Kurt Greussing, eds. Dritte Welt in Europa: Probleme Der Arbeitsmigration. Frankfurt am Main: Syndikat, 1980. Bobkov, Viacheslav, Ekaterina Chernykh and Ulvi T. Aliev. "Precarity in Russia and Labour and Employment Markets Transformation." In Precarity. More Than a Challenge of Social Security. Or: Cynicism of Eu's Concept of Economic Freedom, edited by Peter Herrmann and Sibel Kalaycioglu, 160-180. Bremen: Europäischer Hochschulverlag, 2011. Bommes, Michael and Holger Kolb. "Migrants’ Work, Entrepreneurship and Economic Integration." In The Dynamics of International Migration and settlement in Europe, edited by Rinus Penninx, Maria Berger and Karen Kraal Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2006. Bourdieu, Pierre. Acts of Resistance: Against the Tyranny of the Market. New York, NY: New Press, 1999. Bourdieu, Pierre. Travail Et Travailleurs En Algérie. Paris: Mouton et Co., 1963. Bourdieu, Pierre, ed. The Weight of the World: Social Suffering and Impoverishment in Contemporary Society. Cambridge: Polity Press, 1999. Breman, Jan. "A Bogus Concept. Review of Guy Standing, the Precariat: The New Dangerous Class. Bloomsbury Academic: London 2011, £19.99, Paperback, 198 Pp, 978 1 84966 351 9." New Left Review:84, November-December (2013): 130-138. Brown, Alison. "The Right to the City: Road to Rio 2010." International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 37:3 (2013): 957-971.

14

Burawoy, Michael. "From Polanyi to Pollyanna: The False Optimism of Global Labor Studies." Global Labour Studies 1:2 (2010): 301-313. Butler, Judith. Frames of War. When Is Life Grievable? London: Verso, 2009. Böhm, Steffen and Carlos Fernández. "‘Velkom Tu Hell’: Precariat Moscow." Ephemera (2005). Accessed March 7, 2016. http://www.google.com/search?q= percentE2 percent80 percent98Velkom+tu+Hell percentE2 percent80 percent99 percent3A+Precariat+Moscow&rlz=1I7SVED_enSE389&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=ie7. Casas-Cortes, Maribel, Sebastian Cobarrubias, Nicholas De Genova, Glenda Garelli, Giorgio Grappi, Charles Heller and Irene Peano. "New Keywords: Migration and Borders." Cultural Studies 29:1 (2015): 55-87. Castles, Stephen. "Migration, Crisis and the Global Labour Market." Globalizations 8:3 (2011). Castles, Stephen, Hein de Haas and Mark J. Miller. The Age of Migration: International Population Movements in the Modern World. (fifth editon) ed. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2014. Choudry, Aziz and Mondli Hlatshwayo. "Just Work? Migrant Workers, Capitalist Globalisation and Resistance." In Just Work? Migrant Workers’ Struggles Today, edited by Aziz Choudry and Mondli Hlatshwayo, 1-18. London: Pluto Press, 2016. Choundry, Aziz and Dip Kapoor, eds. Learning from the Ground up, Global Perspective on Socialo Movements and Knovledge Production. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010. Cocco, Giuseppe. "The Dance of the Fireflies in Brazil." In Politics of Dissent, edited by Agustín OG and Jørgensen MB, 77-98. Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 2015. Dikeç, Mustafa. Badlands of the Republic. Space, Politics and Urban Policy. Oxford: Blackwell, 2007. Du, Huimin and Si-ming Li. "Migrants, Urban Villages, and Community Sentiments: A Case of Guangzhou, China." Asian Geographer 27:1–2 (2010): 93–108. Engebretsen, Elisabeth L. "Precarity, Survival, Change: China’s Ant Tribes." Suomen Antropologi: Journal of the Finnish Anthropological Society 38:2 (2013): 62-71. Erdoğdu, Seyhan and Nazli Şenses. "Irregular Migrant Labour, Trade Unions, and Civil Society Organizations in Turkey." In Migration, Precarity and Global Governance. Challenges and Opportunities for Labour, edited by Carl-Ulrik Schierup, Ronaldo Munck, Branka Likic-Brboric and Anders Neergard, 177-198. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015. Evans, Peter. "Fighting Marginalization with Transnational Networks: Counter-Hegemonic Globalization, Utopian Visions: Engaged Sociologies for the 21st Century." Contemporary Sociology 29:1 (2000): 230-241. Featherstone, David. Solidarity: Hidden Histories and Geographies of Internationalism. London: Zed Books., 2012. Foster, Hall. "Towards a Grammar of Emergency." New Left Review:68 (2011): 105-118. Foti, Alex. "Mayday Mayday: Euro Flex Workers, Time to Get a Move On! ." EIPCP multilingual webjournal April. April 2005 (2005). Accessed March 7, 2016. http://www.republicart.net/disc/precariat/foti01_en.htm. Fudge, Judy. "Making claims for migrant workers: human rights and citizenship." Citizenship Studies 18.1 (2014): 29-45. Galabuzi, Grace-Edward. Canada's Economic Apartheid: The Social Exclusion of Racialized Groups in the New Century. Toronto: Canadian Scholars' Press Inc., 2006. Garnaut, Ross, Cai Fang and Ligang Song, eds. China: A New Model for Growth and Development. Canberry: ANU Press, 2013. Goldring, Luin and Patricia Landholt. "Caught in the Work-Citizenship Matrix: The Lasting Effects of Precarious Legal Status on Work for Toronto Immigrants." Globalizations 8:3 (2011). Goldring, Luin and Patricia Landolt. "Caught in the Work-Citizenship Matrix: The Lasting Effects of Precarious Legal Status on Work for Toronto Immigrants." Globalizations 8:3 (2011): 325-341. Hammar, Thomas. Democracy and the Nation-State: Aliens Denizens and Citizens in a World of International Migration. Aldershot: Avebury, 1990. Harvey, David. The Enigma of Capital and the Crises of Capitalism. London: Profile Books, 2010. 15

Harvey, David. Rebel Cities. London: Verso, 2012. Heidenreich, Nanna and Vojin S. Vukadinović. "In Your Face: Activism, Agit-Prop, and the Autonomy of Migration; the Case of Kanak Attak." In After the Avant-Garde: Contemporary German and Austrian Experimental Film, edited by R. Halle and R. Steingröver, 131–156. Rochester, N.Y: Camden House, 2008. Holston, James. Insurgent Citizenship: Disjunctions of Democracy and Modernity in Brazil. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2009. Hughes, Mark Alan. "Formation of the Impacted Ghetto: Evidence from Large Metropolitan Areas." Urban Geography 11:3 (1991): 265-284. Jossin, Ariane, Olivier Petitjean and Marc Robert. "Globalisation Du Précariat, Mondialisation Des Résistances." EcoRev - Revue Critique d’Écologie Politique (2005). Keyworth, Jonny. "The Sudan Uprisings – Clues for an Anti-Capitalist Agenda." The Newwolf (2012). Accessed March 7, 2016. Lee, Ching Kwan and Yelizavetta Kofman. "The Politics of Precarity Views Beyond the United States." Work and Occupations 39:4 (2012): 388-408. Lefebvre, Henri. Le Droit À La Ville. Paris: Anthopos, 1968. Levitas, Ruth. The Inclusive Society?: Social Exclusion and New Labour. Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1998. Lipietz, Alain. "1. Towards Global Fordism 2. Marx or Rostov?" New Left Review:132 (1982): 33-47 and 48-58. Lipman, Pauline. The New Political Economy of Urban Education: Neoliberalism, Race, and the Right to the City. London: Routledge, 2013. Liukkunen, Ulla and Yifeng Chen, eds. Fundamental Labour Rights in China - Legal Implementation and Cultural Logic. Berlin: Springer, 2015. Marcuse, Peter. "From Critical Urban Theory to the Right to the City." City. Special Issue. Analysis of urban trends, culture, theory, policy, action 13:2-3 (2009): 185-197. Marx, Karl. Capital: A Critique of Political Economy. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1976 (1885). Marx, Karl. Capital: A Critique of Political Economy. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1976 [1885]. Mbembe, Achille. "Necropolitics." Public Culture 15:1 (2003): 11-40. McIntyre, Michael. "Race, Surplus Population and the Marxist Theory of Imperialism." Antipode 43:5 (2011): 1489–1515. McMichael, Phillip "Incorporating Comparison within a World-Historical Perspective: An Alternative Comparative Method." American Sociological Review 55:3 (1990): 385-397. McNally, Mark. Antonio Gramsci. Houndsmills & NYC, NY: Palgrave Macmillan, 2015. Meng, Xin. "Rural–Urban Migration." In China: A New Model for Growth and Development, edited by Ross Garnaut, Cai Fang and Ligang Song, 179-198. Canberry: ANU Press, 2013. Moase, Godfrey. "A New Dangerous Class." Arena (2012). Accessed March 7, 2016. http://www.arena.org.au/2012/01/a-new-dangerous-class/. Morris, Lydia. Managing Migration: Civic Stratification and Migrants’ Rights. London: Routledge, 2002. Mudde, Cas. "The Populist Radical Right: A Pathological Normalcy." West European Politics 33:6 (2010): 1167-1186. Munck, Ronaldo. Globalisation and Contestation: The Great Counter-Movement. London and New York: Routledge, 2007. Munck, Ronaldo and Carl-Ulrik Schierup. "The Migration Crisis: What Can Trade Unions Do?" OUPblog, 2016. Accessed March 7, 2016. http://blog.oup.com/2016/01/migration-global-tradeunions/. Negri, Antoni. The Porcelain Workshop. For a New Grammer of Politics. Los Angeles, CA: Semiotext(e), 2004. Neilson, Brett and Ned Rossiter. "Precarity as a Political Concept, or, Fordism as Exception." Theory, Culture & Society 25:7-8 (2008): 51-72.

16

Network, Frassanito. "Precarious, Precarisation, Precariat?" Mute (2006). Accessed March 7, 2016. http://www.metamute.org/editorial/articles/precarious-precarisation-precariat. Ngai, Pun and lu Huilin. "Unfinished Proletarianization: Self, Anger, and Class Action among the Second Generation of Peasant-Workers in Present-Day China." Modern China 36:5 (2010). Nyers, Peter and Kim Rygiel, eds. Citizenship, Migrant Activism and the Politics of Movement. Edited by Abingdon, Routledge, 2012. OECD. Divided We Stand: Why Inequality Keeps Rising. Paris: OECD, 2011. Ong, Aihwa. Neoliberalism as Exception: Mutations in Citizenship and Sovereignty. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2006. Papadopoulos, Theo. "The Recommodification of European Labour: Theoretical and Empirical Explorations." The University of Bath, The European Research Institute (ERI), 2005. Accessed March 7, 2016. http://www.bath.ac.uk/eri/ERI-working-papers/ERI-working-paper-05-03final.pdf. Phelan, Craig, ed. The Future of Organised Labour: Global Perspectives. Bern: Peter Lang, 2006. Polanyi, Karl. The Great Transformation: The Political and Economic Origins of Our Time. New York, NY: Farrar and Rinehart, 1944. Portes, Alexandro and John Walton. Labor, Class, and the International System. New York: Praeger, 1991. Purcell, Mark. "Excavating Lefebvre: The Right to the City and Its Urban Politics of the Inhabitant." GeoJournal 58 (2003): 99-108. Quijano Obregon, Anibal "The Marginal Pole of the Economy and the Marginalised Labour Force." Economy and Society 3 (1974): 393-428. Raes, Stephan, Jan Rath, Marja Dreef, Adem Kumcu, Flavia Reil and Aslan Zorlu. "Stitched Up: The Rise and Fall of the Turkish Garment Industry in Amsterdam." In Unravelling the Rag Trade, edited by Jan Rath, 71-86: Verso, 2002. Ricceri, Marco. "Europe and Social Precarity - Proactive Elements for System Interventions." In Precarity. More Than a Challenge of Social Security. Or: Cynicism of Eu's Concept of Economic Freedom, edited by Peter Herrmann and Sibel Kalaycioglu, 49-74. Bremen: Europäischer Hochschulverlag, 2011. Rosales, René León and Aleksandra Ålund. "Renaissance from the Margins – Urban Youth Activism in Sweden”." In Reimaginiering the Nation. Essays on Swedish Society (Preliminary), edited by Aleksandra Ålund, Carl-Ulrik Schierup and Anders Neergaard. New York: Peter Lang, forthcoming. Santos, Boaventura de Sousa. "The World Social Forum: Toward a Counter-Hegemonic Globalisation (Part 1)." In World Social Forum: Challenging Empires, edited by Sen. Jaid, Anita Anand, Arturo Escobar and Waterman. Peter, 235-245. New Delhi: Viveka, 2004. Sassen, Saskia. Cities in a World Economy. Newbury Part, CA: Pine Forge Press., 2012. Sassen, Saskia. Expulsions. Brutality and Complexity in the Global Economy. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Belknap. Harvard University Press, 2014. Sassen, Saskia. The Global City. New York, London, Tokyo. Princeton, New Yersey: Princeton University Press, 1991. Sassen, Saskia. Territory, Authority, Rights: From Medieval to Global Assemblages. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2006. Schierup, Carl-Ulrik. "”Bloody Subcontracting” in the Network Society: Migration and Post-Fordist Restructuring across the European Union." In Irregular Migration, Informal Labour and Community: A Challenge for Europe, edited by Erik et.al. Berggren, 150-164. Maastricht: Shaker Publishing (IMILCO), 2007. Schierup, Carl-Ulrik. "Multipoverty Europe: Perspectives on Migration, Citizenship, and Social Exclusion in the European Union and the United States." In Interculturalism in Europe: Cultural Diversity and Social Policy in the European Union, edited by Jagdish Gundara and Sidney Jacobs. Aldershot: Arena, 2000.

17

Schierup, Carl-Ulrik, Aleksandra Alund and Lisa Kings. "Reading the Stockholm Riots - a Moment for Social Justice?" Race & Class 55:3 (2014): 1-21. Schierup, Carl-Ulrik, Peo Hansen and Stephen Castles. Migration, Citizenship and the European Welfare State. A European Dilemma. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006. Schierup, Carl-Ulrik, Karin Krifors and Zoran Slavnić. "Social Exclusion: Migration and Social Vulnerability." In International Migration and Ethnic Relations, edited by Magnus Dahlstedt and Anders Neergaard, 200-226. Abingdon & New York: Routledge, 2015. Schierup, Carl-Ulrik, Ronaldo Munck, Branka Likic-Brboric and Anders Neergard, eds. Migration, Precarity and Global Governance. Challenges and Opportunities for Labour. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015. Schierup, Carl-Ulrik and Simone Scarpa. "From Social Democratic Model to Austerity Showcase?" In Reimagineering the Nation. Essays on Twenty First Century Sweden. Berne: Peter Lang, forthcoming. Schierup, Carl-Ulrik and Aleksandra Ålund. "A Global Migrant Precariat. Labour, Citizenship and Space for Civil Society." Paper presented at the Primer Seminario Internacional de Estudios Críticos del Desarollo. Crisis, Desarollo y Trabajo, University of Zacatecas, 14-15 February 2013, 2013. Accessed March 7, 2016. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/293331877_A_GLOBAL_MIGRANT_PRECARIAT_L ABOUR_CITIZENSHIP_AND_SPACE_FOR_CIVIL_SOCIETY_Proceedings_from_the_confer ence_Primer_Seminario_Internacional_de_Estudios_Criticos_del. Schiller, Nina Glick and Ayse Çağlar. "Towards a Comparative Theory of Locality in Migration Studies: Migrant Incorporation and City Scale." Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 35:2 (2009): 177-202. Scocco, Sandro. 900 Miljarder Skäl Att Uppskatta Invandring. En Analys Av Invandringens Effekter På De Offentliga Finanserna I Sverige 1950–2014. Stockholm: Arena Idé, 2015. Seymour, Richard. "We Are All Precarious - on the Concept of the ‘Precariat’ and Its Misuses." New Left Project 10 February (2012). Accessed March 7, 2016. http://www.newleftproject.org/index.php/site/article_comments/we_are_all_precarious_on_the_co ncept_of_the_precariat_and_its_misuses. Shin, Hyun Bang. "The Right to the City and Critical Reflections on China's Property Rights Activism." Antipode 45:5 (2013): 1167-1189. Spengler, Oswald. The Decline of the West (Edited by Arthur Helps and Helmut Werner) New York, NY, and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991. Standing, Guy. The Precariat. The New Dangerous Class. London: Bloomsbury Academic, 2011. Tobias, Saul. "Neoliberal Globalization and the Politics of Migration in Sub-Saharan Africa." Journal of International and Global Studies 4:1 (2012): 1-16. Toksöz, Gülay, and Çağla Ünlütürk Ulutaş. "Is migration feminized? A gender-and ethnicity-based review of the literature on irregular migration to Turkey." Turkey, migration and the EU, edited by Paçacı Elitok, Seçil, and Thomas Straubhaar, 85-111. Hamburg: Hamburg Univ. Press, 2012. Tsianos, Vassilis. Imperceptible Politics. Rethinking Radical Politics of Migration and Precarity Today. Dissertation. Hamburg: University of Hamburg, 2007. Wacquant, Loïc. Punishing the Poor. The Neoliberal Government of Social Insecurity. Duke University Press, 2009. Wacquant, Loïc. "The Rise of Advanced Marginality: Notes on Its Nature and Implications." Acta Sociologica 39:2 (1996): 121-139. Wacquant, Loïc. Urban Outcasts: A Comparative Study of Advanced Marginality. London: Polity Press, 2007. Wacquant, Löic. "Red Belt, Black Belt: Racial Division, Class Inequality and the State in the French Urban Periphery and the American Ghetto." In Urban Poverty and the Underclass, edited by Enzo Mingione, 234-274. Oxford: Blackwell, 1996. Waite, Louise. "A Place and Space for a Critical Geography of Precarity?" Geography Compass 3:1 (2008): 412-433. 18

Waterman, Peter and Jane Wills. Place, Space and the New Labour Internationalisms. Oxford: John Wiley And Sons Ltd, 2001. Webster, E., R. Lambert and Andries Bezuidenhout. Grounding Globalization. Labour in the Age of Insecurity. Oxford: Blackwell, 2008. Veiga, Ubaldo Martinez. "Immigrants in the Spanish Labour Market." In Immigrants and the Informal Economy in Southern Europe, edited by Baldwin-Edwards and Joaquin Arango, 105-129. London and Portland: Frank Cass, 1999. Wilson, William J., ed. The Ghetto Underclass: Social Science Perspectives. Newbury Park, London and New Delhi: Sage, 1993. Wilson, William J. The Truly Disadvantaged: The Inner City, the Underclass, and Public Policy. Edited by Chicago and London. The University of Chicago Press, 1987. Woolfson, Charles and Branka Likic-Brboric. "Migrants in the Unequal Burdening of "Toxic" Risk: Towards a New Global Governance Regime." Debatte: Journal of Contemporary Central and Eastern Europe 16:3 (2008): 291-308. Xing, Zhao. "China’s Growing Postgrad ‘Ant Tribes’ (Yi Zu).", 2009. Accessed March 7, 2016. http://www.cnngo.com/shanghai/none/china-buzz-ant-tribe-460917. Yuval-Davis, Nira. "What Is ‘Transversal Politics’." Soundings:12 (1999): 94-98. Ålund, Aleksandra, Carl-Ulrik Schierup and Anders Neergaard. "Democratic Fall or Spring? An Essay on Migration, Social Movements and Sweden’s Current Transformation." Paper presented at the Transnational Migration and Modern States in Times of Economic Crisis, Moscow, 24-25 September, 2015, 2016. Accessed March 7, 2016.

19