We tend to forget that the lowest proletariat in a colonizing country always has a sub-proletariat from the colonized country, and this reality outlasts colonization.
– chris marker, Le Joli Mai, 1962
1 Introduction
The development towards large-scale production zones in Spain and Italy has been described as the “Californization of the Mediterranean agriculture.”1 Following worker uprisings in Southern Spain and Southern Italy, surveys pointed to the prison-like working conditions in large-scale vegetable and fruit production.2 The best known examples are the monitored reception centres, tent cities, informal “ghettos” and shanty towns in Calabria and Apulia and the “prisons of plastic” in Almería.3 Less widely discussed are the production areas in the meat processing industry, such as the precarious working and living conditions in huge slaughterhouses in Lower Saxony in Germany. Workers have protested these conditions. Most of those who find themselves “trapped”
This chapter explores a central paradox that affects the most marginalised workers and that has characterised labour and mobility regimes in the agricultural sector in Europe from the late nineteenth century onwards. On the one hand, labour regimes in agriculture and within the globalised agri-food industry carry an element of confinement, as they are marked by prison-like living and working conditions. On the other hand, these regimes are characterised by “very mobile”5 and “flexible”6 workers. This “hypermobility”7 means that workers regularly change labour arrangements, often working on different farms, in different factories or even in different countries, depending on their citizenship and legal/illegalised status. I access the current labour and living conditions of the most marginalised workers through a post- and decolonial reading of what I call “differentiated regimes of im_mobilisation.” These regimes of im_mobilisation8 consist of formal organised regimes that come with quotas, bilateral agreements and further bureaucratic rules and regulations. Sandro Mezzadra and Brett Nielsons have argued that “differential inclusion” is a crucial element that must be kept in mind “to account for the actual operation
I first trace the development of worker recruitment in Europe and elaborate on how European colonisation impacted migration and labour recruitment in industrialising regions. Given my focus, a comprehensive panorama of all European countries and their specificities is not within the scope of this section. Here, I focus only on the development of state-enforced regimes of labour rotation as part of internal colonisation in Prussia, beginning in the early twentieth century. I then analyse current differentiated labour regimes of im_mobilisation in food production in Europe. I will show how the obverse logics of confinement and hypermobility are related to the coloniality of labour and elaborate on the political economy of the (re)productive sphere and the related political infrastructure.
2 The Development of (Agricultural) Worker Recruitment Systems in Europe
In this section, I roughly map the way in which migration patterns in Europe changed as a result of colonisation and state policies on labour migration and worker recruitment. I then focus on agricultural worker rotation regimes in Prussia and look in detail at policies of internal colonisation and the racialising discourses involved.
Until the mid-twentieth century, Europe was a continent of emigration. In addition to internal European migration, from the mid-nineteenth to the early twentieth century, some fifty million people left Europe to live in settler
Since the First World War heralded the end of the free international labour market, state-organised, -regulated and -controlled labour migration increased within Europe, such as, for instance, from Italy to France, Luxembourg, Belgium, Germany and Austria.17 As early as 1931, Switzerland introduced the Saisonnierstatut (statute for seasonal workers), which regulated short-term residence permits for workers from abroad until 2002.18 Germany followed soon after and signed its first bilateral agreement with Italy as early as 1937, during Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy.19 It was primarily intended to fill the need for workers in agriculture and later it became important for the sectors connected to the arms industry.20
The most extensive migrations into Europe after the Second World War were into the prospering industrialised regions north of the Alps and the Pyrenees, that became immigration regions as a result of the targeted recruitment of so-called guest workers from the Southern European peripheries.22 The rapidly growing economy and Fordist industrial production were in need of “cheap” and “low-skilled” labour. This led to the intensive recruitment of workers into “Western” and “Northern” Europe and the development of bilateral agreements based on state interests, supposedly those of the so-called receiving and sending countries.23 The latter aimed to outsource poverty while benefitting from workers’ remittances. By the early 1970s, practically all industrialising European countries had developed some sort of systematic recruitment of workers from abroad for so-called lower skilled labour.24
In the first phase of “guest worker” migration, Italy was an important country of origin of workers. Further recruitment agreements were subsequently set up with Spain, Greece, Portugal, the former Yugoslavia, Turkey, Morocco and Tunisia. Building on this network of bilateral recruitment agreements, a labour migration regime emerged, involving a core of up to twenty countries. The geographical expansion of this migration regime and the intensity of recruitment peaked between 1967 and 1972.25 In France, for example, the largest groups of workers came from Portugal, Spain and Italy as well as from the North African Maghreb states. Germany initially mainly recruited workers from Italy, then
Kien Nghi Ha has argued that state policies of labour migration in Europe can be roughly divided into two phases. In the first phase, from the nineteenth century until the First World War, it was primarily the European semi-peripheries that served as recruitment areas. In the phase after the Second World War, recruitment areas were increasingly extended to the postcolonial world to satisfy the growing demand for workers. This tendency encompasses all colonising European countries, although the specific characteristics and implementation of labour migration differed for each country. In the 1950s, workers from England’s so-called “Irish backyard” had been supplemented and, in the most marginalised labour areas, even almost completely replaced by workers from South Asia and the Caribbean. France had traditionally recruited workers from the peripheral areas of Spain and Italy and later turned to recruit workers from the formerly colonised francophone societies in Africa.29
In the next section, I will focus on the recruitment of agricultural workers in Prussia, as this provides important insights into internal colonisation policies in Europe. Here, it is worth mentioning that, in the period leading up to the First World War, the German Reich became the second-largest labour importing country in the world after the US. In 1910, the German Reich counted
2.1 Agricultural Workers from Abroad Before, During and After Imperial Germany
That there should be clear limits to the comparability of chattel slavery and serf labor as second slavery and second serfdom, respectively, does not mean that one should disregard obvious parallels, nor that the search for a common denominator is misguided. With respect to the social and economic consequences of the abolition of the respective labor regimes in both regions under scrutiny, it is helpful to consider them as instances
of the coloniality of labor of global capitalism. As a framework for studying the continuities between structures of domination, coloniality of labor could help analyze the ongoing link between labor forms and specific racial groups after the abolition of slavery in the Americas as well as the pauperization of both freed slaves and freed serfs in the Americas and Eastern Europe without tying these processes to a specific type or stage of slavery or serfdom.34
This quasi-colonial division of labour between “Eastern” and “Western” Europe primarily consisted of providing raw materials and foodstuffs. As society moved towards industrialisation, these power relations evolved to comprise the flow of workers. Due to their coercive characteristics and racialising qualities, these flows, I argue, were also marked by a “coloniality of labour.” The case of Imperial Germany illuminates this point.
Labour recruitment to Prussia from eastern neighbouring regions, was already widespread throughout the nineteenth century, especially for agricultural work, leading historians to refer to these semi-peripheral regions as the “recruitment areas” of Prussia.35 In the 1890s, for example, three-quarters of all labour placements in Germany were carried out by commercial agents, some of whom kept up to half of the workers’ wages for their services.36 Ruthenians and Polish workers from Galicia could be recruited officially, as no statutory ban on recruitment existed. By contrast, in Russia, commercial recruitment was banned and foreign agents were not officially allowed to recruit workers within the country. However, recruitment still took place informally and reached such an extent that the historian Klaus J. Bade has referred to these regions as the “free hunting grounds” (freie Jagdgebiete) of Prussia.
It is important to understand the rules and regulations that were in place and the way that labour recruitment developed along state-controlled labour rotation regimes at that time. In 1907, Imperial Germany implemented the Karenzzeit-Regelung (waiting period regulation), thereby introducing a rotation system that formed the basis of later “guest worker” policies.37 Within
These differentiated policies of rotation developed as a very complex system characterised by rigid rules and regulations. They were accompanied by a flexible sub-system of “exceptions in individual cases” that varied among government districts and served the interests of employers and the national economy, but not the workers. For better control, the cards (Arbeiterlegitimationskarten) had different colours depending on workers’ origin. Polish workers received the “red Polish card,” Italian workers received a green card, those from Belgium received a blue one, and so on. The cards of the agricultural workers additionally bore a broad, coloured longitudinal line and there were special cards such as the “potato digger card.” While the ever-increasing mobility of local agricultural workers and the exodus from agriculture became a mass phenomenon, workers from abroad were bound to their contracts. Thus, im_mobilisation became an institutionalised and highly controlled labour regime. So-called contract-breakers were on the police wanted list for deportation. This situation even increased the interest of agricultural employers from abroad, who were considered to be a “safe and cheap labour force” due to their precarious situation within the absence of labour laws.41 According to Kien Nghi Ha, these working relations within the rotation system materialised through the Legitimationskarte (identification card) and therefore contained “elements of temporary serfdom,” since neither freedom of contract nor freedom of movement existed and thus fundamental workers’ rights were denied. Together with the Rückkehrzwang, this coercive relationship was not only an instrument of labour law but also of the police, as it provided the basis for the annual deportation of racially marked “foreigner Poles.” As a consequence, labour laws of forced flexibilisation and forced rotation of employment relations were subject to strict bureaucratic surveillance and control by authorities. Above all, this shows how flexibilisation and control in labour relations developed step by step in a way that aggregated their power. These regulations built the basis for preventing workers from leaving the country or for deporting them whenever necessary. The Nazis later made intensive use of exactly these policies.42 They could thus build their confinement practices of workers from abroad on a recruitment and migration infrastructure that had been developed, proved and tested for many decades. The “Eastern” European “hunting grounds” later changed as a result of the self-ignited world wars. Germany had to give up both
It is important to reflect upon how agricultural workers from “Eastern” Europe were seen within the colonial society in Prussia. Racialised as “born earth workers” (geborene Erdarbeiter) they were called “Wulacker” (from the German word wühlen, to grub) and even dehumanised as “low ranking Slavs.”45 While the colonial nations were establishing their rule in the colonies, Prussia employed workers from “Eastern” Europe under conditions that – following contemporary agricultural historians and recent historical work – amounted to the “existence of lawless wage slaves.”46 In addition, anti-migrant racism began to evolve during the nineteenth century, as workers from abroad were described as “floods” and “streams” flowing into Imperial Germany, thereby fuelling discourses of Überfremdung (racist-imbued fear of being swamped by foreigners). Scholars also contributed to these discourses in society; the sociologist Max Weber pointed to the danger of “polonisation” (“Polonisierung”) while expressing fear of a “slavic flood” (“slavische Überflutung”) of agricultural workers and a development that he described as a “cultural regression of several human ages.”47 Other scholars, such as Sartorius von Waltershausen, even linked the social position and the role of these workers in the German Reich to enslaved people in North America or the British West Indies and referred to workers from Italy as a “second-order working class” (“Arbeiterschicht zweiten Grades”). Meanwhile, other scientists, such as Max Sering – a German
This reveals the colonial mindset of the time, which was driving the appropriation of the labour force, as with land, towards the “East.” According to Kien Nghi Ha, the emergence of nation state migration policies during Imperial Germany cannot be seen as separate from the colonial policies of that time, as the ruling classes of the Wilhelminian colonial society shared nationalist, anti-Semitic, racist, social Darwinist, imperialist and militaristic ideologies.49 Thus, it is not surprising, that dehumanising colonial ideologies impacted all spheres of society, including labour migration policies. External and internal colonisation hence developed simultaneously in Imperial Germany and are both closely linked to the racialised/ethnicised exploitation of agricultural workers and land appropriation – both in the colonies and in Europe.
State policies of labour migration and the recruitment of workers from abroad represent a way of skimming off “human capital” from the peripheries while also outsourcing the reproduction of workers to other regions. This connection is particularly evident in the national economic cost-benefit calculation in Imperial Germany. The so-called “rearing costs” were to be skimped on by these recruitment practices and appeared as “saved socialization and training costs” in the national budget during the guest worker era. It was calculated that a “guest worker” generated at least 20,000 Deutsche Mark (dm) per year for the national economy. In addition, billions of dm were surpluses for the German social security system, since the “guest workers” had no access to benefits.50 At the same time, Germany argued that the implementation of the “guest worker” schemes counted as development aid for the countries of origin and was thus a contribution to their European integration.51 In fact, the opposite took place, as the recruiting national economies received a workforce they did not have to (re)produce,52 thus saving costs. Instead, the countries of origin
According to Ha, just like discriminatory labour migration policies today, the labour migration policies that were developed in Imperial Germany can, therefore, be seen as “internal colonization,” and thus as a reversal of colonial forms of expansion, which allow for the appropriation of the productive power of “Europe’s internal others.” This follows a logic where migrating workers are defined and treated as “freely displaceable objects of consumption.”55 Thus, while the recruitment initiatives from after the Second World War also emanated from the sending states and the German side saw their role as offering a kind of development aid, the narrative of aiming to help also has to be put into the right genealogy.56 According to Madina Tlostanova, the “rhetoric of salvation [has continued to hide] the colonial logic of control, domination and suppression” throughout history up until today.57 In fact, the “guest worker” regime further implemented an ethnicised/racialised division of labour, accompanied by the marginalisation of workers from abroad. The introduction of a new “layer” of migrated workers into society (Unterschichtung) – which was built on centuries of colonial experiences both outside and within Imperial Germany – actually implemented an “underclass” (Unterklasse) or “ethclass” that enabled many German citizens on the lowest rung of the social ladder to rise professionally and socially. This is the way how a neocolonial division of labour was established inside Europe. This sub-proletarianisation created an ethnicised/racialised and underprivileged class within the agricultural labour market.58 Through various rules and regulations, the social upward mobility of migrated workers was made difficult or prevented. This logic was inscribed in
In other words, we can argue that these continuities, which remain analytically important, are all characterised by regimes of im_mobilisation. They adapt to different historical and political conditions and change through time and space, but carry the inherent logic of the need to maintain an ethnicised/racialised subproletariat of those who are racialised/ethnicised by internal and external colonisation.
3 Neocolonial Labour Regimes of Im_mobilisation in the Agricultural/Agri-food Sector in the European Union
This section seeks to highlight patterns and general trends in the EU that allow us to understand the colonial entanglements of current mobility regimes that accompany agricultural labour relations. These regimes manage (i.e., channel, control, restrict and repress) agricultural workers’ movements, thus impacting workers’ choices, overall well-being and life conditions. These new regimes of rotation and of im_mobilisation reveal how coloniality is kept alive in the way that labour is organised.
Despite huge differences in implementation, temporary worker recruitment from abroad – according to quotas on seasonal/short-term labour arrangements – have become essential parts of the agricultural and agri-food sector in many places in the European Union. The Netherlands, Norway, Ireland, Sweden, Greece, Italy, and Spain all introduced systematic recruitment of workers, including for the agricultural sector, before the beginning of the 2000s.59 This especially applies during harvesting and planting months for vegetable and fruit production, in the agri-food industry and, for large meat
When most North European states extended temporary labour migration permits after the Cold War, the southern EU member states followed suit. Thus, Spain, Greece, Italy and Portugal also adopted policies to implement controlled and temporary labour migration – especially for agriculture – although the implementation varies and is very specific to each country.64 According to Plewa and Miller, the most obvious differences relate to the historical background and prior experiences with temporary labour migration policies. While
Apart from differences in scale and types of agricultural recruitment programmes for workers from abroad, the time-limited post-Cold War labour recruitment policies remain essentially very similar, and in some cases even the same, as was the case, for instance, for the post-Second World War Gastarbeiter regulations. The economic objectives of both the sending and the receiving countries are the determining factors for admission, whereas the interests and needs of the migrated workers are disregarded and their rights are generally extremely limited compared to locally born workers. Depending on the country where labour is performed and on the worker’s citizenship (EU/non-EU) the recruitment channel takes very different forms. In general, however, workers mostly have short-term employment contracts – if they have any at all – which are often tied to a specific geographical area, a specific occupation/sector or even to a specific employer.66 Strong dependencies on the employer are particularly significant because it is the employer who controls events surrounding migration and legal residence in the country. The latter power relation has been referred to in migration studies as “deportability,” a social and legal status that clearly reminds one of the above-mentioned serfdom-like labour and living conditions.67 The constant threat of deportation does not only apply to illegalised workers, but also includes the precarious situation of
While recurring, long-term labour relations within the agricultural sector exist and, in some cases, also allow workers from abroad to settle down where they perform wage labour, most agricultural working relations are structured in a way that does not allow settling down or legalising workers’ status. These agricultural labour regimes thus carry elements of hypermobility and of confinement at the same time. In what follows, I will give a few examples that show how different mobility patterns coexisted within regimes of im_mobilisation. This reveals that although the two “obverse” logics of confinement and hypermobility might appear contradictory, in fact they are inherent to these regimes and, therefore, constitute them.
3.1 Current Transnational and Transregional Rotation Regimes
Regimes of im_mobilisation can be transregional, where workers regularly change labour relations within the country, or they can be transnational, and marked by a regular crossing of national borders. In southern Italy, for example, the transregional regime can encompass picking citrus fruit in Calabria during the winter months, then working on strawberry plantations in Campania during spring, followed by harvesting tomatoes in Puglia or Basilicata in the summer.68 This rotation regime is especially relevant to illegalised workers and even more to those seeking asylum, who live mostly in informal, so-called ghettos and shanty towns or in state/ngo-run and monitored reception centres and tent cities.69 Many of the workers who live in these locations are of sub-Saharan African origin. While they have to be highly mobile and follow the different harvest cycles, they “found themselves ‘trapped’ in agriculture” – not least due to their status – and live in segregated spaces.70 After people from
In other cases, the rotation regimes are transnational. This especially applies to agricultural workers from “Eastern” Europe, mainly from Romania and Moldova, that represent the main workforce in Italy, as well as to workers from India, Morocco or Albania, who have officially been registered as holding a regular work contract in agriculture.73 Thus, workers from Romania are most often employed on a seasonal basis.74 Due to the European citizenship of workers holding Romanian citizenship, labour arrangements and worker mobility are not limited to Italy, and agricultural workers regularly return to their place of origin. Although workers from “Eastern” Europe have privileged legal status, this does not necessarily lead to better labour relations or higher wages in Italy.
Analysing forms of mobility and resistance within the caporalato system in tomato farming in Puglia and Basilicata, Domenico Perotta observed that workers from Romania often work for lower wages than workers from Africa. One reason he assumes, among others, is that workers from Romania have “greater freedom” and, therefore, accept lower wages. He argues: “Their most powerful and profitable form of resistance is their mobility within Europe, their ability to ‘escape.’” According to Perotta, this results in the fact that workers from Romania seldom get involved in struggles around working conditions, whereas those from Africa with a precarious legal status, those that are “trapped” in this
3.2 The Invisible Economy: Regimes of (Re)Production within Regimes of Im_mobilisation
This section aims to reflect on the “invisible economy.” This (re)productive sphere of the differentiated regimes of im_mobilisation is where the workforce is produced and reproduced, and that is key to capitalist surplus value.76
Following migrant farm workers’ struggles, Irene Peano investigated reproductive labour and care within large-scale agribusiness on a local basis.77 In what she calls zones – in this case, the agro-industrial district of Foggia in south-eastern Italy – living and working conditions are segregated, racialised/ethnicised and gendered. Comparing the organisation of West-African shanty towns to “Eastern”-European settlements, Peano has shown that, while the shanty towns are mainly populated by single male farm workers, sub-Saharan African women engage in the reproduction of the labour force rather than in agricultural work. This can also include sex work, due to the lack of alternatives. Peano further concludes that “West-African women working as re/productive service providers in the zone are a few hundred with very high turnover rates just as their male counterparts.”78 When it comes to agricultural workers from “Eastern” Europe, who represent the majority, all genders are involved in agriculture. According to Peano, in Romani communities, who represent a large number of seasonal workers, women mostly travel with their next of kin. Most often, all are involved in agricultural labour, including children, and work under the same exploitative conditions as their colleagues from West-Africa. Additionally, she argues that women face a “double work regime,” as they are additionally responsible for tasks such as taking care of small children, cooking and washing. Hence, Peano concludes that different degrees of dependency and thus of exploitation exist that also depend on gender and on the position within “the care-commodity chains and their re/productive labour regimes.”
This “invisible economy” also carries a transregional dimension. In my own studies, I have shown how workers’ families and communities that remain in their countries of origin are also part of this “invisible economy.” Many people who work in the European agricultural sector operate as smallholders in their places of origin. While they harvest abroad or work in the food processing industry, other people must take care of their social responsibilities towards friends, relatives and neighbours and their agricultural subsistence, leading to agricultural care and subsistence chains. These caring communities thus subsidise food production in the countries where their friends and relatives are employed.80
3.3 The Political Infrastructure of Being “Trapped” and Being Mobile
The hierarchisation of workers has installed revolving doors in “fortress Europe,” including at the “Eastern” European borders. This “just-in-time” recruitment of workers becomes possible through different bilateral agreements, such as traineeship agreements, and through co-ethnic citizenship for those who are seen as “not-quite-European” but still “culturally compatible.”81 I will now elaborate on a number of regulations that keep workers “trapped” and hypermobile, thereby reproducing the hierarchisation of workers along colonial legacies.
One such example are “circular migration” policies. They serve as one of the European Union’s formal recruitment strategies for managing labour migration in low-wage sectors, such as in agriculture and agribusiness. Beginning in 2005, the EU developed Mobility Partnerships, based on which bilateral agreements between member states and non-EU-countries could be signed to
Though the living and working relations in the agricultural sector in Southern Italy that Irene Peano refers to as “zones” are very specific, they reveal crucial patterns that are also relevant to labour conditions elsewhere in Europe.89 The large-scale greenhouses in Almería that are known as Spain’s “Seas of Plastic” and the living and working conditions in the meat processing industry, especially the large-scale slaughterhouses in Germany, are further examples of coexisting regimes of confinement and hypermobility. In these zones, workers are “trapped.” They are physically “trapped,” as they may lose their jobs if they leave these zones, and they are socially “trapped,” because of their discrimination and segregation from society, legal status and lack of alternative employment. At the same time, agricultural workers (and those responsible for (re)production within these zones) have to be constantly on the move; this hypermobility arises when either the agricultural working relation is of limited duration or their legal status is complicated and people need to move within or outside the country or even back home. In other cases, people decide to end the working relationship because of bad health relating to the highly exploitative conditions.90 What differs from place to place is the degree of confinement and the range of mobility. This is also applicable beyond the large-scale agribusiness “zones” and is represented within medium and small-scale agriculture, where workers from abroad are also temporarily employed. While long-term working relations do exist, a large majority of workers are only employed for several weeks or months at a time and, therefore, have to be constantly on the move. This concerns agricultural workers from abroad that
The resulting hierarchisation of workers maintains a gendered and ethnicised/racialised division of labour according to colonial legacies. As a consequence, the most precarious workers within the agricultural sector in Europe have to work under the status of “trainee,” “refugee” or “asylum seeker,” or, in the worst-case scenario, have to live under illegalised living and working conditions. This, again, mostly affects workers from regions that have previously been exploited by European colonisation – in Latin America, Africa and Asia – but in some cases also encompasses people from “Eastern” European countries inside and outside the EU, such as in the former Soviet regions. Today, workers from abroad are marginalised in a similar way, as the “guest worker” regime was accompanied by the introduction of a new lower class in society (Unterschichtung). The existence of an underclass (Unterklasse)/ethclass enables citizens of a country who find themselves on the lowest rung of the social ladder to rise professionally and socially, as the stratified underprivileged class takes over the jobs the workers holding citizenship can refuse.91
Whether workers end up being trapped or hypermobile depends on their citizenship and legal and civil status, as well as on racialised and ethnicised forms of discrimination. How workers perceive a certain place and working relation is also bound to class, age, gender, sexuality, (dis)abilities and religion, leading to varying experiences of inclusion or exclusion. Hence, current labour and living conditions in large parts of the agricultural and agri-food sectors in Europe should be analysed as differentiated regimes of im_mobilisation that carry the inherent colonial logic of the transnational and transregional mobilisation of workers, such as their concurrent confinement/segregation.
4 Conclusion
As mentioned in the beginning, Kien Nghi Ha has argued that state policies of labour migration can be roughly divided into two phases: (1) from the nineteenth century to the First World War and (2) after the Second World War.
Anna Mary Garrapa, “Supermarket revolution y agricultura californiana: ¿un modelo en expansión?” Interdisciplina 6, no. 14 (2018): 155–76.
Among others, see NoLager Bremen and Europäisches BürgerInnenforum, eds., Peripherie & Plastikmeer: Globale Landwirtschaft – Migration – Widerstand. Vienna: ebf/NoLager Bremen, 2009; Irene Peano, “Ways of Making a Human Otherwise: After-Ethnography with Migrant Labourers in Italian Agro-Industrial Enclaves,” in Modos de Fazer/Ways of Making, ed. Vítor Oliveira Jorge, 219–30. Porto: Centro de Investigação Transdisciplinar Cultura, Espaço e Memória, 2020.
See, for instance, Devi Sacchetto and Domenico Perrotta, “Il ghetto e lo sciopero: Braccianti stranieri nell’Italia meridionale,” Sociologia del lavoro 128, no. 4 (2012): 153–66.
Among others, see Stefania Prandi, Oro rosso: Fragole, pomodori, molestie e sfruttamento nel Mediterraneo (Cagli: Settenove, 2018).
Monika Szulecka, “Regulating Movement of the Very Mobile: Selected Legal and Policy Aspects of Ukrainian Migration to EU Countries,” in Ukrainian Migration to the European Union: Lessons from Migration Studies, ed. Olena Fedyuk and Marta Kindler, 51–71. Switzerland: Springer International Publishing ag, 2016.
Yoan Molinero-Gerbeau and Avallone Gennaro, “Producing Cheap Food and Labour: Migrations and Agriculture in the Capitalistic World-Ecology,” Social Change Review 14, no. 2 (2016): 121–48.
Dina Bolokan, “On Hypermobility in the Agricultural Sector in Europe – Translocal Life Trajectories between Switzerland and Moldova,” in The Rural-Migration Nexus: Global Problems, Rural Issues, ed. by Nathan Kerrigan and Philomena de Lima (London: Palgrave, forthcoming).
“Im_mobilisation” is intended to question the dichotomous separation between “being trapped” on the one hand and “being hypermobile” on the other and to show that the transitions are fluid and not contradictory. So, it is not a situation of either/or; it is both/and. Immobility is not just a counterpart to hypermobility – both are the counterpart to the free movement of people.
See Sandro Mezzadra and Brett Nielson, “Borderscapes of Differential Inclusion: Subjectivity and Struggles on the Threshold of Justice’s Excess,” in The Borders of Justice, ed. by Étienne Balibar, Sandro Mezzadra, and Ranabir Samaddar (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 2011), 191.
Aníbal Quijano, “Coloniality of Power, Eurocentrism, and Latin America,” Nepantla: Views from South 1, no 3 (2000): 533–74.
Boatcă, Manuela, “Coloniality of Citizenship and Ocidentalist Epistemology,” in “Decolonial Theory & Practice in Southeast Europe,” edited by Polina Manolova, Katarina Kušić, and Philipp Lottholz, special issue, Dversia 19, no. 3 (2019): 55–77.
Kien Nghi Ha, “Spricht die Subalterne deutsch? Migration und postkoloniale Kritik,” in Die Kolonialen Muster Deutscher Arbeitsmigrationspolitik, ed. Encarnación Gutiérrez Rodríguez and Hito Steyerl (Münster: Unrast, 2003), 56–107.
Manuela Boatcă, “Coloniality of Labor in the Global Periphery: Latin America and Eastern Europe in the World-System,” Review (Fernand Braudel Center) 36, no. 3–4 (2013): 287–314.
Boatcă, “Coloniality of Labor.”
Heinz Fassmann and Rainer Münz, Migration in Europa: Historische Entwicklung, aktuelle Trends und politische Reaktionen (Frankfurt and New York: Campus, 1996). Other sources count around fifty-five million people from “Eastern” Europe alone that moved to the US between 1846 and 1940, of which eventually 30–40 per cent returned. See Tara Zahra, The Great Departure: Mass Migration from Eastern Europe and the Making of the Free World (New York: W.W. Norton, 2016).
Klaus Jürgen Bade, Europa in Bewegung: Migration vom späten 18. Jahrhundert bis zur Gegenwart (Munich: Beck, 2000).
Sergio Bologna, “Kontinuität und Zäsur in der Geschichte der italienischen Migrationsarbeit,” in Proletarier der “Achse”: Sozialgeschichte der italienischen Fremdarbeit in ns-Deutschland 1937 bis 1943, ed. Cesare Bermani, Sergio Bologna, and Brunello Mantelli (Berlin: Akademie, 1997), 3ff.
See “Federal Law on the Residence and Settlement of Foreigners of March 26, 1931”; Patrick Auderset, Charles Magnin, and Rosa Brux, Nous, saisonniers, saisonnières … Genève 1931–2019 (Genève: Archives contestataires, 2019).
Bologna, “Kontinuität und Zäsur,” 43ff.
Brunello Mantelli, “Zwischen Strukturwandel auf dem Arbeitsmarkt und Kriegswirtschaft: Die Anwerbung der italienischen Arbeiter für das ‘Dritte Reich’ und die Achse Berlin-Rom 1938–1943,” in Proletarier der “Achse”: Sozialgeschichte der italienischen Fremdarbeit in ns-Deutschland 1937 bis 1943, ed. Cesare Bermani, Sergio Bologna, and Brunello Mantelli (Berlin: Akademie, 1997), 259ff, 273, 386.
Erica Consterdine and Sahizer Samuk, “Closing the Seasonal Agricultural Workers’ Scheme: A Triple Loss” (working paper no. 83, University of Sussex, Sussex Centre for Migration Research, 2015), 4.
Jochen Oltmer, “Einführung: Migrationskontinent Europa,” in Nach Übersee: Deutschsprachige Auswanderer aus dem östlichen Europa um 1900, ed. Deutsches Kulturforum östliches Europa (Potsdam: Deutsches Kulturforum östliches Europa, 2015), 8–25.
Paul Gans and Andreas Pott, “Migration und Migrationspolitik in Europa,” in Handbuch Lokale Integrationspolitik, ed. Frank Gesemann and Roland Roth (Wiesbaden: Springer, 2018), 14.
Stephen Castles, “Guestworker in Europe: A Resurrection?” International Migration Review 40, no. 1 (2006): 741–66.
Christoph Rass, Institutionalisierungsprozesse auf einem internationalen Arbeitsmarkt: Bilaterale Wanderungsverträge in Europa zwischen 1919 und 1974 (Paderborn: Schöningh, 2010); Gans and Pott, “Migration und Migrationspolitik.”
Klaus J. Bade and Michael Bommes, “Migration und politische Kultur im ‘Nicht-Einwanderungsland,’” in Migrationsreport 2000: Fakten – Analysen – Perspektiven, ed. Klaus J. Bade and Rainer Münz (Frankfurt am Main: Campus Verlag, 2000), 333ff.
Corrado Bonifazi, “Evolution of Regional Patterns of International Migration in Europe,” in International Migration in Europe: New Trends and New Methods of Analysis, ed. Corrado Bonifazi et al. (Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2008), 107–28.
Rass, Institutionalisierungsprozesse, 9.
Rass, Institutionalisierungsprozesse, 25.
Kien Nghi Ha, “‘Erdarbeiter’ – ‘Gastarbeiter’ – ‘Computer-Inder’: Arbeitsmigrationspolitik und innere Kolonisierung,” in Deplatziert! Interventionen postkolonialer Kritik, ed. Stephan Cohrs and Nadine Golly (Berlin: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Berlin, 2008), 26.
Boatcă, “Coloniality of Labor,” 304ff.
Boatcă, “Coloniality of Labor,” 304ff.
Boatcă, “Coloniality of Labor,” 312.
Boatcă, “Coloniality of Labor,” 312.
Klaus Jürgen Bade, Auswanderer – Wanderarbeiter – Gastarbeiter: Bevölkerung, Arbeitsmarkt und Wanderung in Deutschland seit der Mitte des 19. Jahrhunderts (Ostfildern: Scripta Mercaturae, 1984), 444ff; Kien Nghi Ha, “Spricht die Subalterne deutsch? Migration und postkoloniale Kritik,” in Die Kolonialen Muster Deutscher Arbeitsmigrationspolitik, ed. Encarnación Gutiérrez Rodríguez and Hito Steyerl (Münster: Unrast, 2003), 78.
Bade, Auswanderer, 460–61.
Klaus Jürgen Bade, “‘Billig und willig’ – Die ausländischen Wanderarbeiter im kaiserlichen Deutschland,” in Deutsche im Ausland – Fremde in Deutschland: Migration in Geschichte und Gegenwart, ed. Klaus Jürgen Bade (Munich: Beck, 1992), 314; Cord Pagenstecher, Ausländerpolitik und Immigrantenidentität: Zur Geschichte der “Gastarbeit” in der Bundesrepublik (Berlin: Dieter Bertz Verlag, 1994); Ha, “Spricht die Subalterne deutsch?” 70ff.
Bade, Auswanderer, 462.
See in detail: Klaus Jürgen Bade, “Land oder Arbeit? Transnationale und interne Migration im deutschen Nordosten vor dem Ersten Weltkrieg” (Habilitation treatise, Erlangen-Nürnberg, [1979] 2005), 425ff, 447ff.
Bade, Auswanderer, 462ff.
Bade, Auswanderer, 462ff.
Ha, “Spricht die Subalterne deutsch?” 75ff.
Ha, “‘Erdarbeiter,’” 25.
Ha, “‘Erdarbeiter,’” 25.
Klaus Jürgen Bade, ed., Deutsche im Ausland – Fremde in Deutschland: Migration in Geschichte und Gegenwart (Munich: Beck, 1992); Kien Nghi Ha. “‘Billig und willig’: Arbeitsmigrations- und Integrationspolitik aus postkolonialer Perspektive,” in Postkoloniale Politikwissenschaft, ed. Aram Ziai (Bielefeld: Transcript Verla, 2016), 176.
Ulrich Herbert and Karin Hunn, “Beschäftigung, Soziale Sicherung und soziale Integration von Ausländern,” in Bundesrepublik Deutschland 1957–1966: Sozialpolitik im Zeichen des erreichten Wohlstandes; Geschichte der Sozialpolitik in Deutschland seit 1945, ed. Michael Ruck and Marcel Boldorf (Baden-Baden: Nomos, 2007), 685–724; Ha,“‘Billig und willig,’” 176.
Max Weber, Die Verhältnisse der Landarbeiter im ostelbischen Deutschland (Duncker & Humblot Reprints, 1892), 452; Max Weber, Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Sozial- und Wirtschaftsgeschichte (Tübingen: Mohr, 1924), 504.
Max Sering was a co-founder of the Society for the Promotion of Inner Colonisation (Gesellschaft zur Förderung der inneren Kolonisation) in 1912 and reflected on his approach in the journal “Archive for Inner Colonisation” (Archiv für innere Kolonisation). See Max Sering, Die innere Kolonisation im östlichen Deutschland (Leipzig: Duncker & Humblot, 1893).
Ha, “‘Erdarbeiter.’”
Ha, “‘Erdarbeiter,’” 23ff.
Herbert and Hunn, “Beschäftigung.”
(Re)productive work includes all working and caring relationships that produce current and future workers who undertake (re)productive work. It ranges from childbirth and the upbringing of children to the care of workers after retiring from employment due to illness or old age. (Re)productive relationships include all of these, but are not limited to these tasks. They go far beyond human-to-human relations. For reflections on the political economy of (re)production, see Dina Bolokan, “Against Single Stories of ‘Left Behind’ and ‘Triple Win’: On Agricultural Care Chains and the Permanent Subsistence Crisis,” Frontiers in Sociology 6 (2021): 1–20.
Ha, “Spricht die Subalterne deutsch?” 69.
Bologna, “Kontinuität und Zäsur,” 307.
Ha, “‘Erdarbeiter,’” 28.
Mathilde Jamin, “Die deutsch-türkische Anwerbevereinbarung von 1961 und 1964,” in Fremde Heimat: Eine Geschichte der Einwanderung aus der Türkei, ed. Aytaç Eryılmaz and Mathilde Jamin (Essen: Klartext-Verlag, 1998); Herbert and Hunn, “Beschäftigung,” 704ff.
Madina Tlostanova, “Postsocialist ≠ Postcolonial? On Post-Soviet Imaginary and Global Coloniality,” Journal of Postcolonial Writing 48, no. 2 (2012): 130–42.
Ha, “Spricht die Subalterne deutsch?” 61ff., 74.
Piotr Plewa and Mark J. Miller, “Postwar and Post-Cold War Generations of European Temporary Foreign Worker Policies: Implications from Spain,” Migraciones Internacionales 3, no. 2 (2005): 59.
Alain Morice and Bénédicte Michalon, “Les migrants dans l’agriculture: Vers une crise de main-d’oeuvre?” Études rurales 182 (2008): 9–28; Stephen Castles, “Guestworker in Europe: A Resurrection?” International Migration Review 40, no. 1 (2006): 741–66.
Plewa and Miller, Postwar; Castles, “Guestworker in Europe”; Sonja Nita, “Circular Migration within the EU-Moldova Mobility Partnership,” in Impact of Circular Migration on Human, Political and Civil Rights: A Global Perspective, ed. Carlota Solé et al., United Nations University Series on Regionalism (Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2016): 23–44.
See The Schwarzenbach Initiative: Angelo Maiolino, Als die Italiener noch Tschinggen waren. Der Widerstand gegen die Schwarzenbach-Initiative (Zürich: Rotpunktverlag, 2011).
See Sachsengänger in Prussia: Manuela Obermaier, Die Sachsengänger: Wanderarbeiter im Rübenanbau 1850 bis 1915 (Berlin: Dr. Albert Bartens Verlag, 1999), or for 1974 France: Plewa and Miller, Postwar, 64. The earliest example of this dynamic was the shutting down of the borders during Covid-19 in spring 2020 while extra regulations allowed for the recruitment of agricultural workers: Dina Bolokan, “Recruitment Infrastructure within the Agricultural and Agrifood Sector: Post-Soviet and Neocolonial Entanglements between ‘Eastern’ and ‘Western’ Europe,” Social Change Review 18, no.1 (2020): 39–77.
See Plewa and Miller, Postwar.
Plewa and Miller, Postwar, 65.
See Plewa and Miller, Postwar, 59ff. Also, the implementation of bilateral agreements with Moldova in the framework of circular migration policies in the EU in 2009 at first allowed people only to work in Poland and only in the agricultural/agri-food sector. Due to recruitment and labour chains (workers from Poland are largely employed in the agricultural sector in wealthier European countries), the meat and fish processing industry lacks workers and compensates with workers from other countries such as Moldova and Ukraine. See Bolokan, “Recruitment Infrastructure.”
For deportability, see Nicholas De Genova, “Migrant ‘Illegality’ and Deportability in Everyday Life,” Annual Review of Anthropology 31 (2002): 419–47.
Domenico Perrotta, “Agricultural Day Laborers in Southern Italy: Forms of Mobility and Resistance,” South Atlantic Quarterly 114, no. 1 (2015): 198.
The inhabitants themselves define these settlements as “ghettos.” See Irene Peano, “Global Care-Commodity Chains: Labour Re/Production and Agribusiness in the District of Foggia, Southeastern Italy,” Sociologia del lavoro 146, no. 2 (2017): 24–39s.
Nick Dines and Enrica Rigo, “Postcolonial Citizenships between Representation, Borders and the ‘Refugeeization’ of the Workforce: Critical Reflections on Migrant Agricultural Labor in the Italian Mezzogiorno,” in Postcolonial Transitions in Europe: Contexts, Practices and Politics, ed. Sandra Ponzanesi and Gianmaria Colpani (London and New York: Rowman & Littlefield International, 2016), 151–72; Martina Lo Cascio and Domenico Perrotta, “The Intertwinement of Symbolic and Structural Violence: Migrant Agricultural Labourers in Two Regions of Southern Italy,” in Race Discrimination and Management of Ethnic Diversity and Migration at Work, edited by Joana Vassilopoulou, Julienne Brabet, and Victoria Showunmi, vol. 6 (Bingley: Emerald Publishing, 2019), 185.
Dines and Rigo, “Postcolonial Citizenships”; Lo Cascio and Perrotta, “Intertwinement”; and Miguel Mellino, Cittadinanze postcoloniali: Appartenenze, razza e razzismo in Europa e in Italia (Rome: Carocci, 2013), 11.
Dines and Rigo, “Postcolonial Citizenships,” 152.
Workers from India mainly work in livestock farming: see Perrotta, “Agricultural Day Laborers,” 197; Lo Cascio and Perrotta, “Intertwinement.”
Dines and Rigo, “Postcolonial Citizenships,” 152.
Perrotta, “Agricultural Day Laborers,” 200.
For reflections on the “invisible economy,” see the Iceberg Model of Capitalist Patriarchal Economics in Maria Mies and Veronica Bennhold-Thomsen, The Subsistence Perspective: Beyond the Globalised Economy (London, New York and Australia: zed Books & Spinifex Press, 1999), 30–31.
See Peano, “Global Care-Commodity Chains”; Irene Peano. “Emergenc(i)es in the Fields: Affective Composition and Countercamps against the Exploitation of Migrant Farm Labor in Italy,” in Impulse to Act: A New Anthropology of Resistance and Social Justice, ed. Othon Alexandrakis (Bloomington, in: Indiana University Press, 2016), 63–88.
Peano, “Global Care-Commodity Chains.”
Peano, “Global Care-Commodity Chains,” and see Alessandra Corrado, “Clandestini in the Orange Towns: Migrations and Racisms in Calabria’s Agriculture,” Race/Ethnicity: Multidisciplinary Global Contexts 4, no. 2, Reworking Race and Labor (2011): 191–201.
See Bolokan, “Against Single Stories.”
For more on “not-quite-European” discourses and Othering processes, see Manuela Boatcă, “Thinking Europe Otherwise: Lessons from the Caribbean,” Current Sociology 69, no. 3 (2021): 389–414; Bolokan, “Recruitment Infrastructure.”
European Commission, Migration and Development: Some Concrete Orientations (2005); On Circular Migration and Mobility Partnerships between the European Union and Third Countries (2007).
Joint declaration on the mobility partnership between the European Union and the Republic of Moldova, 2005.
Marta Jaroszewicz, Migration from Ukraine to Poland: The Trend Stabilises (osw Report, October 2018), 6.
Bolokan, “On Hypermobility.”
Bolokan, “On Hypermoblity,” and see Monika Szulecka, “Regulating Movement.”
See “Circular Migration: First Batch of Mauritians to Leave for Italy,” 7 May 2013,
Ian Barnes and Cristina Cherino, “Circular Migration and New Modes of Governance: So What Are the Consequences?” in Państwo demokratyczne, prawne i socjalne: Studia społeczne, polityczne i ekonomiczne (Krakow, Poland: Krakowska Akadem, 2014), 593.
Peano, “Global Care-Commodity Chains.”
Bolokan, “On Hypermobility.”
Ha, “Spricht die Subalterne deutsch?” 74.
Ha, “Spricht die Subalterne deutsch?” 25.
Between 1990 and 1997, over half of all migration to the European Union states came from formerly Communist Central and Eastern Europe. See Plewa and Miller, Postwar, 67.
Franck Düvell, “Ukraine: Europe’s Mexico?” Central East European Migration Country Report 1 (Oxford: University of Oxford, Centre for Migration, Policy and Society, 2007).
Plewa and Miller, Postwar, 67.
Plewa and Miller, Postwar, following Elmar Hönekopp, “The New Labor Migration as an Instrument of German Foreign Policy,” in Migrants, Refugees, and Foreign Policy: U.S. and German Policies Toward Countries of Origin, ed. Rainer Münz and Myron Weiner (Providence, ri: Berghahn Books, 1997), 17.
Bibliography
Auderset, Patrick, Charles Magnin, and Rosa Brux. Nous, saisonniers, saisonni ères … Gen ève 1931–2019. Genève: Archives contestataires, 2019.
Bade, Klaus Jürgen. “Land oder Arbeit? Transnationale und interne Migration im deutschen Nordosten vor dem Ersten Weltkrieg.” Habilitation treatise, Erlangen-Nürnberg, [1979] 2005.
Bade, Klaus Jürgen. Auswanderer – Wanderarbeiter – Gastarbeiter: Bev ölkerung, Arbeitsmarkt und Wanderung in Deutschland seit der Mitte des 19. Jahrhunderts. Ostfildern: Scripta Mercaturae, 1984.
Bade, Klaus Jürgen, ed. Deutsche im Ausland – Fremde in Deutschland: Migration in Geschichte und Gegenwart. Munich: Beck, 1992.
Bade, Klaus Jürgen. “‘Billig und willig’ – Die ausländischen Wanderarbeiter im kaiserlichen Deutschland.” In Bade, Deutsche im Ausland, 311–23.
Bade, Klaus Jürgen. Europa in Bewegung: Migration vom sp äten 18. Jahrhundert bis zur Gegenwart. Munich: Beck, 2000.
Barnes, Ian, and Christina Cherino. “Circular Migration and New Modes of Governance: So What Are the Consequences?” In Pa ństwo demokratyczne, prawne i socjalne: Studia spo łeczne, polityczne i ekonomiczne, edited by Marian Grzybowski and Bogumił Naleziński, 581–600. Krakow, Poland: Krakowska Akadem, 2014.
Boatcă, Manuela. “Coloniality of Labor in the Global Periphery: Latin America and Eastern Europe in the World-System.” Review (Fernand Braudel Center) 36, no. 3–4 (2013): 287–314.
Boatcă, Manuela. “Coloniality of Citizenship and Occidentalist Epistemology.” In “Decolonial Theory & Practice in Southeast Europe,” edited by Polina Manolova, Katarina Kušić, and Philipp Lottholz, special issue, Dversia 19, no. 3 (2019): 55–77.
Boatcă, Manuela. “Thinking Europe Otherwise: Lessons from the Caribbean.” Current Sociology 69, no. 3 (2021): 389–414.
Bolokan, Dina. “Recruitment Infrastructure within the Agricultural and Agrifood Sector: Post-Soviet and Neocolonial Entanglements between ‘Eastern’ and ‘Western’ Europe.” Social Change Review 18, no. 1 (2020): 39–77.
Bolokan, Dina. “Against Single Stories of ‘Left Behind’ and ‘Triple Win’: On Agricultural Care Chains and the Permanent Subsistence Crisis.” Frontiers in Sociology 6 (2021): 1–20.
Bolokan, Dina. “On Hypermobility in the Agricultural Sector in Europe – Translocal Life Trajectories between Switzerland and Moldova.” In The Rural-Migration Nexus: Global Problems, Rural Issues, edited by Nathan Kerrigan and Philomena de Lima. London: Palgrave, forthcoming.
Bonifazi, Corrado. “Evolution of Regional Patterns of International Migration in Europe.” In International Migration in Europe: New Trends and New Methods of Analysis, edited by Corrado Bonifazi, Marek Okólski, Jeannette Schoorl, and Patrick Simon, 107–28. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2008.
Castles, Stephen. “Guestworker in Europe: A Resurrection?” International Migration Review 40, no. 1 (2006): 741–66.
“Circular Migration: First Batch of Mauritians to Leave for Italy.” 7 May 2013. http://www.govmu.org/English/News/Pages/Circular-Migration-First-batch-of-Mauritians-to-Leave-for-Italy-in-December.aspx.
Consterdine, Erica, and Sahizer Samuk. “Closing the Seasonal Agricultural Workers’ Scheme: A Triple Loss.” Working paper no. 83, University of Sussex, Sussex Centre for Migration Research, 2015. https://bit.ly/2lRzgmw.
Corrado, Alessandra. “Clandestini in the Orange Towns: Migrations and Racisms in Calabria’s Agriculture.” Race/Ethnicity: Multidisciplinary Global Contexts 4, no. 2 (2011): 191–201.
Corrado, Alessandra, Carlos de Castro, and Domenico Perrotta. Migration and Agriculture: Mobility and Change in the Mediterranean Area. London and New York: Routledge, 2017.
De Genova, Nicholas. “Migrant ‘Illegality’ and Deportability in Everyday Life.” Annual Review of Anthropology 31 (2002), 419–47.
Dines, Nick, and Enrica Rigo. “Postcolonial Citizenships between Representation, Borders and the ‘Refugeeization’ of the Workforce: Critical Reflections on Migrant Agricultural Labor in the Italian Mezzogiorno.” In Postcolonial Transitions in Europe: Contexts, Practices and Politics, edited by Sandra Ponzanesi and Gianmaria Colpani, 151–72. London and New York: Rowman & Littlefield International, 2016.
Düvell, Franck. “Ukraine: Europe’s Mexico?” Central East European Migration Country Report 1. Oxford : University of Oxford, Centre for Migration, Policy and Society, 2007.
European Commission. Migration and Development: Some Concrete Orientations, 2005. https://bit.ly/3x6MdPf.
European Commission. On Circular Migration and Mobility Partnerships between the European Union and Third Countries ,2007. https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/MEMO_07_197.
Fassmann, Heinz, and Rainer Münz. Migration in Europa: Historische Entwicklung, aktuelle Trends und politische Reaktionen. Frankfurt and New York: Campus, 1996.
Federal Law on the Residence and Settlement of Foreigners of 26 March 1931. https://bit.ly/37jxDcC.
Gans, Paul, and Andreas Pott : “Migration und Migrationspolitik in Europa.” In Handbuch Lokale Integrationspolitik , edited by Frank Gesemann and Roland Roth, 11 – 56. Wiesbaden: Springer, 2018.
Garrapa, Anna Mary. “Supermarket revolution y agricultura californiana: ¿Un modelo en expansión?” Interdisciplina 6, no. 14 (2018): 155–76.
Gertel, Jörg, and Sarah Ruth Sippel. Seasonal Workers in Mediterranean Agriculture. London: Routledge, 2014.
Goos, Anna. “Manual on Circular Migration Scheme.” 2016. https://bit.ly/3J7v36t.
Ha, Kien Nghi. “Spricht die Subalterne deutsch? Migration und postkoloniale Kritik.” In Die Kolonialen Muster Deutscher Arbeitsmigrationspolitik, edited by Encarnación Gutiérrez Rodríguez and Hito Steyerl, 56–107. Münster: Unrast, 2003.
Ha, Kien Nghi. “‘Erdarbeiter’ – ‘Gastarbeiter’ – ‘Computer-Inder’: Arbeitsmigrationspolitik und innere Kolonisierung.” In Deplatziert! Interventionen postkolonialer Kriti`k, edited by Stephan Cohrs and Nadine Golly, 16–36. Berlin: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Berlin, 2008.
Ha, Kien Nghi. “‘Billig und willig’: Arbeitsmigrations- und Integrationspolitik aus postkolonialer Perspektive.” In Postkoloniale Politikwissenschaft, edited by Aram Ziai, 173–90. Bielefeld: Transcript Verla, 2016.
Herbert, Ulrich, and Karin Hunn. “Beschäftigung, Soziale Sicherung und soziale Integration von Ausländern.” In Bundesrepublik Deutschland 1957–1966: Sozialpolitik im Zeichen des erreichten Wohlstandes; Geschichte der Sozialpolitik in Deutschland seit 1945, edited by Michael Ruck and Marcel Boldorf, 685–724. Baden-Baden: Nomos, 2007.
Hönekopp, Elmar. “The New Labor Migration as an Instrument of German Foreign Policy.” In Migrants, Refugees, and Foreign Policy: U.S. and German Policies Toward Countries of Origin, edited by Rainer Münz and Myron Weiner, 165–82. Providence, RI: Berghahn Books, 1997.
iom. “Circular Migration: Filling Temporary Labour Shortages and Promoting the Benefits of Managed Migration.” YouTube video, 19:54. Accessed April 2022, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SRobg68z9C4.
Jamin, Mathilde. “Die deutsch-türkische Anwerbevereinbarung von 1961 und 1964.” In Fremde Heimat: Eine Geschichte der Einwanderung aus der T ürkei, edited by Aytaç Eryılmaz and Mathilde Jamin, 69–82. Essen: Klartext-Verlag. 1998.
“Joint Declaration on the Mobility Partnership between the European Union and the Republic of Moldova, 2005.” https://www.eeas.europa.eu/node/5404_en.
Lo Cascio, Martina, and Domenico Perrotta. “The Intertwinement of Symbolic and Structural Violence: Migrant Agricultural Labourers in Two Regions of Southern Italy.” In Race Discrimination and Management of Ethnic Diversity and Migration at Work, edited by Joana Vassilopoulou, Julienne Brabet, and Victoria Showunmi, 175–200. Vol. 6. Bingley: Emerald Publishing, 2019.
Lower, Wendy. Nazi Empire-Building and the Holocaust in Ukraine. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2005.
Maiolino, Angelo. Als die Italiener noch Tschinggen waren. Der Widerstand gegen die Schwarzenbach-Initiative. Zürich: Rotpunktverlag, 2011.
Mantelli, Brunello. “Zwischen Strukturwandel auf dem Arbeitsmarkt und Kriegswirtschaft: Die Anwerbung der italienischen Arbeiter für das ‘Dritte Reich’ und die ‘Achse Berlin-Rom’ 1938–1943.” In Proletarier der ‘Achse’: Sozialgeschichte der italienischen Fremdarbeit in NS-Deutschland 1937 bis 1943, edited by Cesare Bermani, Sergio Bologna, and Brunello Mantelli, 253–392. Berlin: Akademie, 1997.
Mellino, Miguel. Cittadinanze postcoloniali: Appartenenze, razza e razzismo in Europa e in Italia. Rome: Carocci, 2013.
Mies, Maria, and Veronica Bennhold-Thomsen. The Subsistence Perspective: Beyond the Globalised Economy. London, New York and Australia: zed Books & Spinifex Press, 1999.
Molinero-Gerbeau, Yoan, and Avallone Gennaro. “Producing Cheap Food and Labour: Migrations and Agriculture in the Capitalistic World-Ecology.” Social Change Review 14, no. 2 (2016): 121–48.
Morice, Alain, and Bénédicte Michalon. “Les migrants dans l’agriculture: Vers une crise de main-d’oeuvre?” Études rurales 182 (2008): 9–28.
Nita, Sonja. “Circular Migration within the EU-Moldova Mobility Partnership.” In Impact of Circular Migration on Human, Political and Civil Rights: A Global Perspective, edited by Carlota Solé, Sonia Parella, Teresa Sordé Martí, and Sonja Nita, 23–44. United Nations University Series on Regionalism. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2016.
Nelson, Robert L. Germans, Poland, and Colonial Expansion to the East: 1850 through the Present. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2009.
NoLager Bremen, and Europäisches BürgerInnenforum, eds. Peripherie & Plastikmeer. Globale Landwirtschaft – Migration – Widerstand. Vienna: ebf/ NoLager Bremen, 2009.
Oltmer, Jochen. “Einführung: Migrationskontinent Europa.” In: Nach Übersee: Deutschsprachige Auswanderer aus dem östlichen Europa um 1900, edited by Deutsches Kulturforum östliches Europa, 8–25. Potsdam: Deutsches Kulturforum östliches Europa, 2015.
Pagenstecher, Cord. Ausl änderpolitik und Immigrantenidentit ät: Zur Geschichte der “Gastarbeit” in der Bundesrepublik. Berlin: Dieter Bertz Verlag, 1994.
Peano, Irene. “Emergenc(i)es in the Fields: Affective Composition and Countercamps against the Exploitation of Migrant Farm Labor in Italy.” In Impulse to Act: A New Anthropology of Resistance and Social Justice, edited by Othon Alexandrakis, 63–88. Bloomington, Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 2016.
Peano, Irene. “Global Care-Commodity Chains: Labour Re/Production and Agribusiness in the District of Foggia, Southeastern Italy.” Sociologia del lavoro 146, no. 2 (2017): 24–39.
Peano, Irene. “Ways of Making a Human Otherwise: After-Ethnography with Migrant Labourers in Italian Agro-Industrial Enclaves.” In Modos de Fazer/Ways of Making, edited by Vítor Oliveira Jorge, 219–30. Porto: Centro de Investigação Transdisciplinar Cultura, Espaço e Memória, 2020.
Perrotta, Domenico, “Agricultural Day Laborers in Southern Italy: Forms of Mobility and Resistance.” South Atlantic Quarterly 114, no. 1 (2015): 195–203.
Plewa, Piotr, and Mark J. Miller. “Postwar and Post-Cold War Generations of European Temporary Foreign Worker Policies: Implications from Spain.” Migraciones Internacionales 3, no. 2 (2005): 58–83.
Rass, Christoph. Institutionalisierungsprozesse auf einem internationalen Arbeitsmarkt: Bilaterale Wanderungsvertr äge in Europa zwischen 1919 und 1974. Paderborn: Schöningh, 2010.
Quijano, Aníbal. “Coloniality of Power, Eurocentrism, and Latin America.” Nepantla: Views from South 1, no. 3 (2000): 533–74.
Sacchetto, Devi, and Domenico Perrotta. “Il ghetto e lo sciopero: Braccianti stranieri nell’Italia meridionale.” Sociologia del lavoro 128, no. 4 (2012): 153–66.
Sering, Max. Die innere Kolonisation im östlichen Deutschland. Leipzig: Duncker & Humblot, 1893.
Szulecka, Monika. “Regulating Movement of the Very Mobile: Selected Legal and Policy Aspects of Ukrainian Migration to EU Countries.” In Ukrainian Migration to the European Union: Lessons from Migration Studies, edited by Olena Fedyuk and Marta Kindler, 51–71. Switzerland: Springer International Publishing ag, 2016.
Tlostanova, Madina. “Postsocialist ≠ Postcolonial? On Post-Soviet Imaginary and Global Coloniality.” Journal of Postcolonial Writing 48, no. 2 (2012): 130–42.
Weber, Max. Die Verh ältnisse der Landarbeiter im ostelbischen Deutschland. Duncker & Humblot Reprints, 1892.
Weber, Max. Gesammelte Aufs ätze zur Sozial- und Wirtschaftsgeschichte. Tübingen: Mohr, 1924.
Zahra, Tara. The Great Departure: Mass Migration from Eastern Europe and the Making of the Free World. New York: W.W. Norton, 2016.