Methodology

This research employs a systematic desk review methodology, initiated by an extensive discourse analysis of racialization theory and global literature regarding the role of labor contractors in the exploitation of migrant labor. This literature review and discourse analysis generate initial theses on the application of racialization theory. These theses are then tested and further developed through an in-depth case study of Thai berry pickers in Sweden, allowing for a nuanced understanding of the specific dynamics at play. Using this case study of Thai migrant workers, this paper addresses the following question: How does the application of racialization theory enhance our understanding of the role played by labor contractors in the exploitation of migrant laborers?

This methodology integrates diverse perspectives and synthesizes existing knowledge—both through extensive discourse analysis of the literature and through a sharp theoretical application of racialization theory—offering insights that can inform future research directions. By leveraging established studies, this approach reveals patterns and connections that may not be immediately apparent through primary data collection alone, making it a timely synthesis and comprehensive overview of the research field.

Furthermore, this inquiry emerges from the author’s experiences as an NGO worker with agricultural migrant laborers, providing practical context and grounding the research in real-world implications. The findings from this case are analyzed in relation to existing studies on racialized labor migration, enriching the overall discourse on the exploitation of migrant workers. This approach is plausible and may illuminate aspects that have not been previously explained in the literature. However, there is further scope for substantiating and testing these findings through more dedicated primary research.

Why Racialization Theory?

The term “race” extends beyond individual experiences; it is intricately woven into societal frameworks that endorse and propagate a hierarchical structure, systematically positioning certain groups as subordinate to others. As Stuart Hall (Reference Hall2017:33) argues, “Race is one of the major master concepts that organize the great classificatory system of difference that operates in human societies. Race, in this sense, is the centerpiece of a hierarchical system that produces differences.” Racial rationales normalize inequalities within capitalism by attributing disparities to perceived intrinsic qualities—often labeled as “biological,” “cultural,” “environmental,” or “ethnic”;—and by justifying unequal social interactions as natural or inevitable.

Race is both a historical and contemporary tool for organizing social difference and producing what Mbembe (Reference Mbembe2017) terms “disposable populations” Central to his argument is the idea that race is not a biologically grounded reality, but rather a socially and politically constructed mechanism that sustains power structures, facilitates wealth accumulation, and perpetuates hierarchical systems. Race functions as a tool of categorization that renders certain groups—as surplus (ibid). This surplus is not merely a state of economic redundancy; it signifies racialized lives as expendable, wasteable, and of diminished intrinsic value within the broader structures of racial capitalism. In this framework, racialized populations become subjects to be managed, controlled, and ultimately rendered invisible or disposable. Their labor is extracted under exploitative conditions, while their humanity is systematically devalued. Race facilitates the ongoing creation of expendable subjects—those whose labor can be exploited and whose lives can be discarded with impunity. It sustains an “us vs. them” logic that underpins systems of policing, border control, labor stratification, and social exclusion (ibid). Through intersecting cultural and material processes that mark certain bodies as disposable, dangerous, burdensome, or sub-human, racialization creates the conditions for specific groups to be strategically included in or excluded from standard economic activity—and defines the terms on which they are in/excluded.

These processes of racialization are always animated and (re-)constituted by local spatio-temporal contexts. While differentiation techniques are experienced across social and spatial scales, they are always articulated (Hall Reference Hall1983) through and alongside the local. This is particularly relevant in the context of migration, where distinct national and regional histories of racialization intersect within a larger global system of accumulation (Robinson Reference Robinson2000). In this paper, I use the term racialization, which is advantageous for its focus on processes and the various ways in which notions of race are translated into practical actions. My aim is to emphasize the enduring importance of viewing racialization not merely as a factor, but as an integral discursive structure in understanding the dynamics of migrant labor exploitation.

Migration and racialization are closely interrelated phenomena. Historian Robin Kelley, in the foreward to Cedric Robinson’s renowned work ‘Black Marxism’, encapsulates Robinson’s viewpoint on racial capitalism, stating that the racialization of the proletariat … began within Europe itself … the “lower orders” usually were comprised of immigrant workers from territories outside the nations in which they worked. Meaning that, historically, migration becomes a way of racializing the workforce and appropriating value in labor process and this is done by employing migrant workers for low order/end work. However, the mechanisms essential for appropriating migrants’ value and compliance in the workplace is done by regulating their day to day lives outside the workplace (Buckley et al. Reference Buckley, McPhee and Rogaly2017). Racialization processes are often tied to migration politics, particularly in colonial cores. The state uses racialized techniques of categorization, bordering, enclosure, and displacement to regulate populations deemed surplus and to create new opportunities for profit extraction (Bird, and Schmid Reference Bird and Schmid2022). Racialization thus becomes deeply entangled with the movement of labor. The global migration regime, and the ways in which certain groups are racialized, is not merely a matter of individual migration choices but is structured by historical and systemic patterns that continue to shape the global distribution of labor.

An essential facet of the perception of migrants is that they are not only racially different due to their cultural distinctiveness but also seen as people uprooted from their presumed permanent homeland. This uprooting from a familiar space renders migrants subjects of suspicion (Malkki Reference Malkki1992). Migrants often find themselves racially pigeonholed as the “dangerous classes,” stripped of rights and privileges typically reserved for the working class. Building on Balibar contends that the “laboring classes” were divided into two distinct categories: the “dangerous classes,” perceived as a societal threat, and those systematically absolved of danger. The latter group enjoyed certain privileges, such as citizenship and voting rights, while the former were deliberately denied access to these positions and markers. In the context of contemporary France, Balibar argues that this dichotomy persists between immigrant laborers and those considered to be the “real” French workers. This divide closely mirrors employment hierarchies, relegating immigrants to menial, unskilled roles. This division has roots in working-class racism, reflecting the racial biases held by those affiliated with the dominant classes toward those perceived as “dangerous” elements within the laboring classes. This nuanced analysis highlights the complex interplay of class and racial dynamics within societal frameworks (Balibar Reference Balibar, Balibar and Wallerstein1991; Lerche, and Shah, Reference Lerche and Shah2018).

The creation of “dangerous” category plays a pivotal role in perpetuating the cycle wherein migrant workers are continually reproduced, as a readily available pool of cheap labor and also as ones who are incorporated into the new society as stigmatized and inferiorized communities.

The ramifications of stigma extend far beyond the confines of the workplace. As migrant workers transition to new environments, they are burdened with pervasive racial stereotypes, skillfully utilized by dominant communities to firmly relegate them to the lowest rung of categorical hierarchies, irrespective of their location, be it within or outside the workplace. This process creates a substantial rupture in their overall life circumstances, functioning not only to sustain their social identity as low-cost migrant labor but also assuming a pivotal role in perpetuating their liminal existence beyond work-related domains (Lerche, and Shah Reference Lerche and Shah2018). The creation of dangerous class, which I call as racialization in this paper, is a deliberate policy that is state sanctioned. Racialization in the form of creating a dangerous working class and reinforcing a temporary migrant status becomes what Gilmore (Reference Gilmore2002: 261) calls a “state-sanctioned and/or extra-legal production and exploitation of group-differentiated vulnerabilities, in distinct yet densely interconnected political geographies.” The often overlooked concluding segment of Gilmore’s definition bears significant importance, as it unveils a dialectical relationship wherein diverse manifestations of humanity are deliberately differentiated, rendering them distinct, with the ultimate aim of interconnecting them within frameworks that serve capitalistic interests (See Melamed Reference Melamed, Marquez and Rana2015). The state has a key role to play. In a different context, Gilmore (Reference Gilmore2002) coins the concept of “partition” to elucidate this phenomenon. She explains it as the base algorithm for capitalism, which only exists and develops according to its capacity to control who can relate and under what terms. Labor exploitation becomes possible because of this racialization. Capital employs migrant labor at significantly lower costs compared to local workers, thereby devaluing labor. This is achieved through practices such as offering lower wages, unfavorable employment terms, and poor working conditions. By keeping the wages earned by migrant workers low, capital shifts the responsibility for the social reproduction costs of these migrant workers back to their home countries. Their susceptibility to exploitation is further heightened through the use of physical characteristics, body size, marital customs, nationality, language to deleterious symbolic indicators of a racialized ethnicity, systematically relegating them to the bottom rung of the global labor hierarchy (Holmes Reference Holmes2013). While individuals are inherently “territorialized” (as everyone is born and resides somewhere), their racialization occurs based on how their geographical location is positioned within the wider socio-geopolitical structure of capitalism (Ferguson, and McNally Reference Ferguson and McNally2015). Embedded within the foundations of inequality, the oppressive mechanisms of racialization serve as critical pillars. On a global scale, economically disadvantaged nations find themselves ensnared in a paradigm where participation in the international market necessitates a relentless reduction in labor costs. This is propelled by the movement of capital, which coerces local economies into specialized commodity production and simultaneous cost-cutting strategies. This invariably includes the perpetual lowering of labor expenses. Simultaneously, in the context of agriculture (as will be elaborated in the case study) in developed nations, the mobility of capital remains constrained. However, this predicament may be addressed through an “in-situ spatial fix” (Harvey 1981, Reference Harvey2001), as labor is recruited with the use of cheap migrant labor. This migration of labor from peripheral regions to the core of capitalist economies acts as a transient crisis mediator for capital. It achieves this by driving down labor costs and, concurrently, shifting the balance of power from labor to capital through regulation of laborers (Scott Reference Scott2012). In both ways, capitalism exhibits a veneer of triumph, ostensibly harnessing racialization to its utmost advantage.

Functions of Labor Contractors

The surge of globalization has ushered in an era where labor migration is profoundly intertwined with flexible production systems. This evolving landscape has witnessed a surge in the utilization of migrant workers procured through labor contractors, accentuating their significance in shaping the contours of contemporary labor dynamics (Barrientos Reference Barrientos2013; Coe et al. Reference Coe, Jones and Ward2010). The last three decades have seen an increase in the number of labor contractors (Deshingkar Reference Deshingkar2018; Jones et al. Reference Jones, Morin, Dobree and Irimu2015). This change is mirrored in the growing dependence of migrants on contractors to navigate the complexities of migration. Concurrently, it is important to understand this “middle space” occupied by these contractors and how they shape the intricacies of present-day migration trends and the experience of workers. (Lindquist et al. Reference Lindquist, Xiang and Yeoh2012).

While a universally accepted definition of labor contracting remains absent, it is commonly aligned with the concept characterized by the International Labour Organisation (ILO) as a “triangular employment relationship” in which this employment arrangement distinguishes the direct employer from the company or individual for whom work is being done (see Lerche et al. Reference Lerche, Mezzadri, Chang, Ngai, Huilin, Aiyu and Srivastava2017). This blanket definition accommodates an array of formal and informal sub-contracting variations, resulting in diverse nomenclatures associated with the practice, such as a jobber, a formal staffing agency, a third party contractor, gang leader and labor intermediaries (Barrinetos Reference Barrientos2013). This figure acts as a nexus for converging forces, simultaneously navigating legal frameworks, orchestrating labor flows, and contributing to the reconfiguration of labor dynamics within an evolving global economic landscape. To achieve this, I categorize the functions of labor contractors into three distinct categories and initiate an examination of analyzing their role in labor migration.

Forming Linkages

Labor contractors play a pivotal function of forming linkages between labor and capital. This function becomes particularly pronounced during the initial phase of recruitment when both workers and employers lack awareness of potential matches. Contractors bridge this information gap by introducing employers to suitable workers and simultaneously informing workers about available job opportunities (Mosse et al. Reference Mosse, Gupta and Shah2005).

The role of forming linkages goes beyond mere introduction. It involves a gamut of tasks, ranging from assisting with visa negotiations and procuring official documents to arranging transportation, job hunting, training, accommodation and sometimes providing healthcare (Broek et al. Reference Broek, Diane and Groutsis2015). They extend financial support and offer counterfeit documentation (Gammeltoft-Hansen, and Nyberg Sørensen Reference Gammeltoft-Hansen and Nyberg Sørensen2013)). They navigate intricate immigration bureaucracies which are marked by unpredictable outcomes (Castles, and Miller Reference Castles and Miller2003; Findlay, and McCollum Reference Findlay and McCollum2013). By providing the necessary training, these entities also oversee the process of recruiting and preparing migrants for employment.

Managing Supply of Laborers on a Need Basis

Moving beyond the initial phase, the significance of a labor contractor’s role hinges on adeptly navigating the relationship between labor and capital demands. Their prowess lies in consistently identifying, attracting and maintaining a constant workforce that can be readily managed to align with the evolving needs of employers. This proficiency is at the core of contemporary capitalism, streamlining the intricate process of identifying and enlisting suitable workers and adjusting labor demand efficiently on “a need basis” (Barrientos Reference Barrientos2013).

The rise of labor contractors is closely intertwined with the dynamics of concentration and seasonality, particularly prevalent within the sphere of global exports in sectors like agriculture and manufacturing. For instance, within the Chilean fruit industry, labor contractors strategically maneuver teams of workers to accommodate geographical shifts as the season unfolds, capitalizing on these transitions to respond to shifting demand (Barrientos, and Kritzinger Reference Barrientos and Kritzinger2003; Barrientos Reference Barrientos2013). Similarly, in the garment sector, the ebb and flow of seasonal cycles—such as the heightened demands during the holiday season—prompt fluctuations in product requirements, which is often met by labor contractors. In this intricate choreography between demand and supply, contractors must strike a delicate balance in setting wage rates—sufficiently enticing to retain a dedicated workforce yet strategically priced for employers to be able to undercut local labor markets and yield a profit. Employing an array of incentives, including credit and advances, contractors sustain their labor force. The utilization of these incentives aims to exploit the inherent uncertainty and precariousness surrounding labor arrangements, effectively suppressing potential dissent among workers and binding them to the services provided by the contractors (Breman Reference Breman2003).

Nonetheless, the skill of managing the labor demand and supply is a precarious endeavor, particularly within markets characterized by seasonal fluctuations. A pivotal distinction arises between the roles of linking and managing labor supply: the former assumes prominence during the initial stages of migration, while the latter emerges as a focal point when orchestrating labor supply to align with the specific production requisites of distinct periods. Nonetheless, the contractor’s multifaceted role transcends that of a mere a “neutral finding agency”, as will be seen in the next function (See Raj, and Axelby Reference Raj and Axelby2019).

Becoming a Shield- Buffering the Middle Space

The word buffer sheds light on an additional dimension of labor contractors’ role—a buffer that aligns with capitalist production by creating a separation between employers and workers. Describing labor contracting, Brass elucidates its function in “upholding or enhancing control over (and thereby reducing the cost of) their workers through coercive means” (Reference Brass2004: 315–16). When workers are employed through labor contractors, there is ambiguity regarding the identity of the employer. The ambiguity of this relationship favors employers, enabling them to evade legal obligations concerning wages, employment terms, and the provision of social security. Breman emphasizes that migrant laborers often find themselves “beyond the scope of the law [and] outside the reach of state agencies, rendering them susceptible to repression and exploitation within an unabashedly stark capitalist framework” (Reference Breman2003; Raj, and Axelby Reference Raj and Axelby2019). The deliberate separation of the real employer from the immediate working arrangement also functions as a mechanism to preempt potential resistance. This separation facilitates the utilization of migrant labor on a casual basis effectively ensuring an environment conducive to their exploitation. Through a systematic categorization of the diverse roles assumed by contractors, certain distinct attributes of contemporary global capitalism emerge. These attributes are intricately linked to the perpetual dependence on a vulnerable and unstable migrant labor force, which is the cornerstone of global capitalism.

Thai Staffing Agency- Role of Labor Contractors in Circular Migration

In Sweden, the practice of commercial berry harvesting has an extensive history spanning over two centuries. Despite its long-standing existence, this industry has garnered minimal public and political attention. The phenomenon of labor migration within the context of Swedish wild berry farms emanated from intricate familial social networks that took root between the north-eastern provinces of Thailand and the rural inlands of northern Sweden during the 1980s. Thai woman living in rural Sweden used to bring her relatives from Thailand on a tourist visit. They belonged to the north-eastern Thailand, which is one of the poorest regions in Thailand (Carmo, and Hedberg Reference Carmo and Hedberg2019). These berry pickers undertook work without formalized regulations governing their working conditions or living arrangements. Subsequently, around 2007, the dynamics shifted as Thai recruitment labor agency replaced these informal familial social networks (ibid). This transition ensued as a response to efforts aimed at “regulating” the notoriously exploiative and poor labor conditions rampant within Sweden’s wild berry farms which gained repeated media attention. Regulation was aimed at documenting workers by the introduction of work visas for the workers coming to Sweden. The other reason of regulating these workers who formed 80 percent of the workforce was because the profitability of the berry farms rested to large extent on the exemption of payroll taxes. So, two regulations were put in place: one was to regulate workers by the introduction of work visas and other was taxes. The Swedish Migration Agency mandated the acquisition of work permits for all non-European Economic Area (EEA) wild berry harvesters (Tollefston et al. Reference Tollefsen, Hedberg, Eriksson and Axelsson2020). These work permits were tied to the employer. In the same year, a significant development unfolded as the Swedish Tax Agency conducted a tax review that led to the categorization of wild berry picking as taxable labor. The implication of this decision prompted a strategic response from Swedish wild berry companies, which aimed to mitigate the burden of employer contributions. Their approach involved subcontracting the employment of wild berry pickers to Thai recruitment agencies. This change was met with acceptance from Swedish authorities, resulting in an exemption for wild berry picking from tax obligations. It was stipulated that tax liability would not apply to this activity, on the condition that the pickers were engaged by staffing agencies situated outside the European Economic Area (EEA) (Axelsson, and Hedberg Reference Axelsson and Hedberg2018). This operational transition was fortified by the implementation of the “183-day rule,” stipulating that any individual employed by an international entity and conducting duties within Sweden for a duration not exceeding 183 days could be exempted from Swedish tax obligations (Ministry of Finance 2018). Hence, a robust yet contrasting set of interests emerged between the state and the industry, ultimately culminating in the adoption of this solution. On one hand, the industry was motivated by a desire to circumvent Swedish tax obligations, while simultaneously maintaining the utilization of cheap circular migrant labor. This approach highlights the functions discussed earlier. It shows how the use of thai staffing agency allowed the industry to sidestep from responsibility for the well-being of these workers, instead opting for limited or negligible involvement. On the other hand, Swedish state authorities demonstrated a keen interest in overhauling the industry’s image and practices. Central to this was the notion of “sanitizing” the industry, which entailed establishing a framework wherein the recruitment and deployment of workers occurred through a regulated migration system.

The current arrangement involves their formal employment by Thai-registered staffing agencies, situated in Thailand. These agencies “post” workers to Sweden for engagement within the wild berry farms. Each of these staffing entities establishes contractual arrangements more than one Swedish berry company and are now the linkage between the berry pickers and the company. Notably, even with the new system the recruitment process is often facilitated through an extensive informal social network entrenched within the northeastern Thai regions. The staffing agencies coordinate the acquisition of work visa, provide training, and arrange for transportation. In parallel, companies in Sweden undertake the responsibility of provisioning, sustenance and accommodations in Sweden. In exchange for these service, Thai wild berry pickers pay a fee. This workforce, facing substantial financial pressure to participate in seasonal employment abroad, finds itself in a disadvantaged position with limited bargaining influence due to its temporary migration status, the need to maintain a good relationship with the employers, and the need to earn sufficient money to recoup the costs. This predicament is exacerbated by their temporary migrant work status, which compels them to have a good relationship with their employers. Simultaneously, they are driven by the imperative to earn sufficiently to recover the expenses incurred for their migration journey. The costs for the migration process are seen as leverage for exploitation since workers have to finance their mobility – that is, they have to pay back the recruiter from the money they earn. This renders them vulnerable. The triangular relationship between the worker, the recruiter (trafficker) and the (indirect) employer, is based on the need for cheap labor. This pool of cheap labor is here described as the racialised “Thai Berry picker”. The process of outsourcing the recruitment and employment of workers to the thai staffing agency in this case in the source region not only creates a physical gap but also a rupture in terms of the intrinsic value and worker identity attributed to these pickers. Within the dynamics of the Swedish labor market, the workers find themselves in a state of spatial disconnect, implying a lack of unified political agency. The Thai berry pickers’ situation exemplifies how processes of racial differentiation are operationalized within contemporary global labor regimes to sustain uneven distributions of power, precarity, and value. Their racialised and outsourced position within the Swedish berry industry is not accidental or simply the result of cost-cutting. Rather, it reflects a broader logic of racial capitalism, wherein hierarchies of labor power are actively constructed to preserve both profitability and social order. The identity of the “Thai berry picker” is not just a demographic label—it is a product of historically embedded structures that frame certain populations as more exploitable and less deserving of rights, protections, or political presence. The outsourcing of recruitment to Thai staffing agencies deepens this dynamic by creating physical and legal distance between workers and employers, severing avenues for direct accountability or collective resistance. In Sweden, this racialised segmentation is not only tolerated but functionally necessary to the labor market and to state migration policies that restrict long-term settlement or integration. As such, the differentiation of Thai workers—through race, migration status, and contractual detachment—is both a tool for maintaining low-cost, flexible labor and a mechanism for reinforcing national and economic power. In this way, the Thai case demonstrates how global systems of accumulation rely on localised practices of racialization to maintain a stratified, unequal workforce. The outsourcing and racial coding of labor are not peripheral issues; they are central to how neoliberal economies function, shifting risk and cost onto workers while depoliticizing their exploitation. These practices render Thai berry pickers hyper-visible as a labor source but invisible as rights-bearing political subjects—a condition deeply tied to the intertwined logics of race, capital, and governance. The organization of labor-power therefore becomes both a racialised and racialising process. To justify organizing particular populations into particular kinds of work, racialised characteristics associated with visible ‘Others’ are ‘mapped on’ to ideas about the suitability of particular ‘working bodies’ for different kinds of work (McDowell Reference McDowell2009). Different kinds of labor become associated with racialised bodies that perform them, which shapes how labor is socially valued, regulated and managed.

Basic Minimum Wages: How Safe is the Safety Net?

Two distinct modes of remuneration are prevalent within Sweden’s wild berry sector. The first method involves a piece rate system, where wild berry pickers receive a payment based on the weight of berries they have harvested. The amount due to the workers varies each season. In the recent past there is a decline in the world market price, attributed to fluctuations in berry production and increased global competition. Until 2010, the conventional practice in the industry was to compensate workers based on a piece-rate basis. This method of payment carries the possibility of substantial earnings when the wild berry season is prosperous, but it also exposes workers to the possibility of low earnings or even debt during poor harvests or periods of low world market prices for wild berries (Hedberg Reference Hedberg2015; Wingborg Reference Wingborg2011, Reference Wingborg2016). The pivotal shift in payment occurred in mid-July 2009 wherein there was a scarcity of berries in Swedish forests, making it evident that the pickers wouldn’t amass sufficient harvests to cover living expenses in Sweden, let alone repay the loans acquired to cover staffing agency fees. The outcomes were significant financial losses for numerous Thai wild berry pickers that year.

In 2010, a significant development emerged in response to the prevailing situation. This came in the form of the introduction of a guaranteed minimum salary. Notably, this initiative extended its coverage to include wild berry pickers from outside the European Economic Area (EEA), encompassing individuals from Thailand and other non-EEA regions. As a result of this change, such non-EEA pickers became eligible to receive a monthly wage that aligned with the minimum amount specified in the Agreement on Agriculture. In rare instances where a berry company hasn’t subscribed to the agreement, the Swedish Migration Agency stipulates a monthly payment of $1,539 USD for the workers. In principle, wild berry pickers have the option to combine both remuneration models. The minimum salary is designed to provide a safety net should they fall short of the berry-picking quota. However, empirical evidence indicates that owing to the transient and seasonal nature of their employment, wild berry pickers lean towards continuing with the piece-rate arrangement, primarily fueled by the aspiration to earn as much as possible in the limited period of their employment (Hedberg 2015; Wingborg Reference Wingborg2016). Although the implementation of these fresh legislations is a commendable move, they fall short in addressing a core concern that frequently remains unacknowledged. This underlying matter revolves around employers’ inherent need for uninterrupted access to cheap and pliable workforce on a seasonal basis with Migrant workers becoming woven into the essential ‘logistics’ of enhancing the profitability of industries.

This weak or non-existent bargaining position, which is a structural-as opposed to a contingent-feature of the works to ensure that foreign workers work hard (even through illnesses and injuries), accede to growers’ requests to labor through the weekend during peak periods, and to suppress complaints and avoid conflicts if they want to stay out of “trouble” and be “named” by the employer to return the following season.

Racialization and the Ideal Worker

Attributes such as geography, gender, class, race, age, marital status, and physical appearance significantly influence the selection of a workforce (See: Tilbury, and Colic-Peisker Reference Tilbury and Colic-Peisker2006; Hopkins Reference Hopkins2011; Moriarty et al. Reference Moriarty, Wickham, Krings, Salamońska and Bobek2012; Tannock Reference Tannock2013; Friberg, and Midtbøen Reference Friberg and Midtbøen2018; Scott, and Rye Reference Scott and Fredrik Rye2021). This phenomenon is particularly evident in low wage sectors such as agriculture and forestry (Preibisch Reference Preibisch2010). Migrant laborers are often depicted as “better” workers due to their willingness to undertake demanding manual and menial tasks (Bonanno, and Cavalcanti Reference Bonanno, Sérgio Bacellar, Bonanno and Bacellar Cavalcanti2014), and specialized proficiency in specific tasks (Preibisch, and Binford Reference Preibisch and Binford2007). Migrant laborers are meticulously positioned in direct contrast to their local counterparts, characterized as embodying qualities that diverge from those attributed to local workers, and vice versa. This narrative prominently manifests within employer explanations for opting for migrant labor, where significant emphasis is placed on portraying migrant workers primarily as industrious and labor-focused entities (McDowell et al. Reference McDowell, Batnitzky and Dyer2007; Smith, and Winders Reference Smith and Winders2007). Moreover, legislative documents tend to depict migrant workers predominantly as “labor without being people” (Castles Reference Castles2006). This phenomenon is deeply racialized because they are rationalized with the use of racial stereotypes. Migrant workers are celebrated for their perceived strong “work ethic” and reliability, qualities that distinguish them as “good workers” when compared to local labor alternatives. This differentiation is similar to the differentiation between “dangerous classes” and “proper worker”. Migrants often find themselves racially pigeonholed as the “dangerous classes” stripped off their rights and privileges that are usually relegated to the working class (Balibar Reference Balibar, Balibar and Wallerstein1991; Lerche, and Shah Reference Lerche and Shah2018).While the semantics are different, the differentiation itself is not as it perpetuates structural racism wherein migrant workers are continually reproduced, as a readily available pool of cheap labor and also as ones who are incorporated into a new society as stigmatized and inferiorized communities. As migrant workers transition to new environments, they are burdened with pervasive racial stereotypes, skillfully utilized by dominant communities to firmly relegate them to the lowest rung of categorical hierarchies, irrespective of their location, be it within or outside the workplace. This process creates a substantial rupture in their overall life circumstances, functioning not only to sustain their social identity as low-cost migrant labor but also assuming a pivotal role in perpetuating their liminal existence beyond work-related domains (Lerche, and Shah Reference Lerche and Shah2018). One of the racial stereotypes given by berry hiring Thai migrant labor is their physique. The physique of Thai migrant workers, characterized as “short and slender” and them being “used to walking like a fishhook”, is deemed particularly advantageous for employment in work such as the wild-berry picking (Hedberg Reference Hedberg2013).

Other than racial steryotypes about the body, the other commonly stated reason for the use of Thai migrant workers in Sweden is because they are said to work harder than the local Swedes worker. The narrative crafted to justify the recruitment of migrants revolves around their proficient physical performance at work and their demonstrated strength and resilience. One of the reasons stated by the employer federation of the berry farm is:

“Our problem is that they (Swedes) can’t work as much as they would like to. They want to work, get their salary and then go home, and it’s like stop, there are regulations about rest and there are work environment aspects” (Swedish Employer federation in Olofsson et al. Reference Olofsson, Tollefsen and Hedberg2023:9)

As against this, the local workers are seen to both be unwilling to do this work and also unfit to perform it and this makes them unwanted bodies for the employers. Swedish laborers are often characterized as “picky”, “lazy” or disinclined to engage in this type of demanding and labor-intensive work, leading to a situation where such tasks are not sought after by them. It is not the adequate supply of Swedesish locals that discourages employers for hiring the, rather the employers do not consider the recruitment of Swedeish workers as a viable option

“When he has advertised for work in Sweden he gets heaps of applications from people who are in long-term unemployment and who lack both the willingness to work in the forest and also all the skills that are required […]. To meet the contract you need a strong mind and a solid physique” (Hultquist Reference Hultqvist2014:43).

Migrant workers work for 12–14 hours in the berry farms. Employers distinctly observe and elucidate a discernible variation in work ethics of the migrant and local workers. They call the local workers as “lazy” and attribute their inherent inadequacies in the commitment towards work to government support systems and a shift in generational values. However, these articulations deliberately overlook a comprehensive acknowledgement of both the precarious nature of seasonal employment in berry farms and the challenges confronted by migrants. Concerning the former aspect, it is evident that engaging in seasonal labor with minimal remuneration is arduous, a difficulty that is even more intensified today due to the growing demands placed on farmers by retail enterprises (Rogaly Reference Rogaly2008; Scott Reference Scott2017). Moreover, there is an additional pressure as productivity is in increasingly being controlled, adjusted and monitored.

In a contrasting viewpoint, migrant workers are portrayed not solely as hard working and content, but also as committed and enthusiastic about their recurring seasonal work. Employers underline the regular annual return of numerous workers, interpreting it as evidence of equitable treatment and a sense of almost familial attachment. Within the framework, “Berry Power with Social Responsibility (2019),” a document spotlighting ethically conscious practices in Sweden’s berry industry, attention is drawn to wage disparities between the migrants’ countries of origin and Sweden as a pivotal driver for enlisting migrant labor. This line of reasoning is put forth to rationalize the low wages offered to migrant berry pickers in the Swedish context. It is contended that, Thai berry pickers can amass five to six times more income in Sweden during the same timeframe than they could in their native region. The employers identify that the work is Sweden is a need of migrant workers as against the local workers who do not “need it”. Recognizing the intrinsic “necessity” attributed to the laborers serves as a pivotal mechanism for asserting control. Fundamentally, it becomes evident that migrant workers and their local counterparts do not occupy a similar positions in terms of their reliance on low-wage harvesting employment or with regard to value they will earn from this work (Scott Reference Scott2013).

Exploitation is intricately interwoven with the process of subjectivation concerning migrant laborers, encompassing the shaping and portrayal of workers who personify specific attributes, thereby rendering them susceptible to being placed within precarious circumstances. mentioned in the first chapter, labor contractors are often blamed for this ‘production’ and subjectivation of migrant workers. Although the Thai staffing agency facilitates the provision of these laborers, the evidence above highlight that the inclination towards the employment of ‘good migrant worker’ and biases against ‘lazy locals,’ as perceived by employers, are cultivated with the intent to maintain profitability. The hierarchies of workers that are constructed in the berry farms by the recruitment of Thai migrant laborers is predominantly contingents on racialization which in this case is linked to the mobility (or lack of), nationality and ethinicity of the laborers. Characteristics related to mobility, nationality, and ethnicity are frequently employed as succinct indicators to signify the use of migrant as favorable for particular tasks. The use of racialization theory helps us to understand the differentiation produced between the migrant and local worker by the use of stereotypes such as “good worker” and “lazy worker”. The narrative constructs migrants as the favored labor force, contingent upon their willingness to engage in strenuous, precarious, and poorly compensated employment, while simultaneously enduring what could be labeled an ‘ethnic penalty’ (Ballarino, and Panichella Reference Ballarino and Panichella2013). Paradoxically, the desirability for migrant workers stems from their capacity to yield increased surplus value to capital and their readiness to endure heightened levels of exploitation compared to the rest of society.