The Double Movement and Foreign Workers

In my course on International Political Economy, I discuss the ideas of Karl Polanyi, who argued that one consequence of the market was the commodification of labor. This refers to the treatment of labor as if it were the same as any other factor of production. In the U.S., western Europe and many other "advanced" industrialized nations, of course, (domestic) labor has long been "de-commodified," at least to a certain extent. But this has not necessarily been true of foreign migrant labor.

One reason for this is obvious: foreign migrant workers are viewed as unwanted or barely tolerable interlopers; they are certainly not citizens, and therefore, most people do not believe that they are deserving of any rights whatsoever. As a result, there are few objections when foreign migrant workers are, in fact, treated as commodities--as nothing more than an undifferentiated "product" that should, rightfully, be subject to the laws of supply and demand. In the Marxist view, people become commodified when their value is determined solely "exchange-value" as defined by money (a special type of commodity).

All of this was brought to mind after I read a article titled, "Sri Lanka: Unions Strike Landmark Deal to Protect Migrant Workers." The article discussed a recent agreement between Sri Lanka on the one hand (which has sent more than 1.6 million workers to the Middle East, Asia and Europe) and Bahrain, Jordan and Kuwait on the other hand. The agreement gives Sri Lankan workers "internationally recognized labor rights," the implementation of which will be ensured by local unions in the receiving countries. The new agreement is based on a model developed under the aegis of the International Labour Organisation (ILO) and its Bureau for Workers’ Activities. It is also the first of its kind covering Asian migrant workers in Arab states

One sentence in the article stood out: "A key clause in the agreement is that, in line with ILO conventions, labourers will not be treated as a ‘commodity.'"

This is, I think, an important development and also one that is of relevance to American workers. For a significant aspect of the global political economy is the gap between the different segments of the global workforce. The larger that gap, the more power global corporations have in setting wage rates; the smaller the gap, the more power workers have.

Is this a good or bad thing? I'll leave that up to you to decide. But, one critical point to remember is that we do live in a world where power matters. Students of political economy need to keep this firmly in mind.