側記｜拉納比爾・薩瑪達系列演講 III 難民經濟中的勞動主體
2026-05-19
Event Report III: The Labouring Subject of Refugee Economies
MODERATORS: Mei-Lin Pan (Professor, Department of Humanities and Social Sciences, National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University, Taiwan)
REPORTED BY: DR. POONAM SHARMA
LECTURE SYNOPSIS
Most writings on refugee economy or the immigrant economy refer to changes in the immigrant labour absorption policies of the Western governments. In these writings the refugee economy or the immigrant economy never features directly; refugees are seen as economic actors in the market. But we do not get a full picture of why capitalism in late twentieth or early twenty first century needs these refugee or immigrant labour as economic actors. The organic link between the immigrant as an economic actor and the global capitalist economy seems to escape the analysis in these writings. Yet, if immigration policies produce precarious labour, this has general significance for the task of theorising the migrant as living labour. The question of the production of living labour is important because it puts in a critical perspective the necessity of the states and the international regime of protection to synchronise the economic and the political strategies of protection. Yet the disjuncture between the two strategies of protection is not only typical of the postcolonial parts of the globe, the disjuncture is evident in the developed countries. Globally, one can say, capital sets in motion movements of labour within a specific field of force that dictates how and why migrant labour is to be harnessed, disciplined, and governed (for instance the dominant presence of immigrant labour in logistics, health care, agriculture, etc.), and that shapes the links between “strategies” (that control migrants once they are in motion) and the mechanisms that set these movements in motion.
Supplementary Article for the Lecture:
Ranabir Samaddar, "Capitalism thrives on the immigrant labour economy (and also keeps refugee conditions precarious)", Scroll in.(2018.07.24)
LECTURE
The event commenced with Prof. Pan formally welcoming the audience and inviting the keynote speaker, Ranabir Samaddar, to deliver his lecture. Prof. Samaddar began on an informal and reflective note, grounding his discussion in lived experience by speaking about Tibetan refugee communities in Darjeeling. Drawing from his personal visits to monasteries during travels from Kolkata, he used these encounters to introduce the broader themes of displacement, mobility, and belonging. This opening gesture emphasized that the study of migration must move beyond abstract theorization and remain attentive to everyday lived realities.
Transitioning into the formal lecture, he expressed gratitude to the organizers, particularly Prof. Joyce C. H. Liu, for inviting him to Taiwan. He then situated his lecture within the continuum of his earlier talks, explaining that his overarching aim is to foreground a critical insight: urban power derives its legitimacy from its ability to present itself as a provider of protection, even though this protection is often secured at the expense of migrants and other marginalized populations.
Prof. Samaddar proposed that his lecture series could be understood as a narrative of the emergence of urban power, structured around three key elements. First, the city exercises the power of security and securitization, wherein life gains value only when it is recognized as “secured.” This creates a hierarchy in which those outside formal security frameworks—such as undocumented migrants—are rendered precarious or invisible. Second, the city is fundamentally territorial, requiring demarcation, boundary-making, and protection of space. These spatial practices define inclusion and exclusion, determining who belongs within the urban order. Third, the city represents a shift away from kinship-based organization toward impersonal governance, where populations are managed through administrative and institutional mechanisms rather than social ties.
Building on this conceptual foundation, Prof. Samaddar argued that the modern city cannot be understood without examining the extractive practices that sustain it. Urban systems rely on continuous flows of labor, capital, and resources, often drawn from marginalized populations. In addressing the question “What makes a city?”, he highlighted the central role of rent, property, and financial outputs as primary mechanisms of wealth generation. These processes transform land and space into commodities, reinforcing economic inequalities while sustaining urban growth.
Within this framework, he introduced the figures of “refugee labor” and “migrant labor,” using the term “refugee” in a broader, figurative sense to describe displaced and mobile populations. He emphasized the transitory nature of labor, describing it as constantly “in transit” and lacking stable attachment to place. Urban power, in this context, functions as a facilitating force, enabling the circulation of wealth through mechanisms such as rental income, interest, and speculative investment.
To illustrate these dynamics, Prof. Samaddar referred to the role of major Western universities as economic actors. These institutions, while not traditionally productive in an industrial sense, generate substantial wealth and contribute to urban economies. This reflects a broader transformation in capitalism, where wealth is increasingly produced through knowledge, services, and financialization, rather than through classical industrial labor.
He further identified education and healthcare as two key sectors of investment in the contemporary global economy, both heavily dependent on migrant labor. Alongside these, he emphasized the entertainment industry as another domain where immigrants and stateless populations act as crucial economic participants. These sectors demonstrate how migrants are deeply embedded in global capitalism, even as they remain socially and politically marginalized.
A striking example was drawn from a 2015 study referenced in Time, which highlighted transformations in the sex work industry. The study indicated a shift toward digitally mediated transactions, with a significant portion of income now generated online rather than through direct solicitation. Notably, more than 70% of sex workers in Europe were identified as immigrants from regions such as Eastern Europe and parts of Asia, including the Philippines, Thailand, and India. Prof. Samaddar used this example to illustrate how migration, illegality, and economic participation intersect, often producing conditions of statelessness due to lack of documentation.
He reinforced this argument through a personal anecdote from his research in Paris, where he encountered migrant sex workers from West Bengal and Bangladesh who lacked legal means to return home. Such cases, he suggested, are integral to the functioning of the modern economy, echoing what Karl Marx described as an “army on the move”. However, unlike classical industrial capitalism—where labor was relatively stable and organized within factories—contemporary capitalism is characterized by fluid, fragmented, and mobile labor formations.
Addressing the question of why migrant workers often fail to organize, Prof. Samaddar argued that the primary barrier is invisibility. Migrants lack the social and political visibility necessary for collective mobilization. While digital platforms may facilitate communication, they do not ensure effective organization, as they often remain tools for survival rather than instruments of political action. Consequently, migrants remain dispersed and fragmented, limiting their capacity to assert collective power.
This led to a critical reflection: Are migrants condemned to a condition of invisibility and powerlessness? Prof. Samaddar suggested that many migrants actively conceal their identities to avoid detection, particularly when they lack legal status. This invisibility, while offering a degree of protection, simultaneously excludes them from legal rights and institutional support.
He further argued that the inability of the city to protect migrants is directly linked to their invisibility. Efforts by international organizations, such as rescue operations in European waters, often fail to address the structural causes of displacement. In some cases, migrants avoid rescue altogether, fearing deportation or further marginalization. This paradox highlights the limitations of humanitarian interventions within existing political frameworks.
Turning to international law, Prof. Samaddar critically examined the Refugee Convention of 1951. He argued that while the convention provides a framework for protection, it does not guarantee substantive rights. Moreover, it operates as an agreement between states, meaning its effectiveness depends on political consensus. In the absence of such agreement, international institutions have limited capacity to enforce protections.
This creates a fundamental contradiction: migrants exist in a space where their economic contributions are recognized, but their political and legal identities are denied. The tension between the “illegal migrant” and the “citizen” reveals deep fractures within modern state systems, particularly in relation to social, civil, and political rights. Migrants often become visible only when their labor is needed and disappear into invisibility once their work is complete.
In conclusion, Prof. Samaddar posed two profound questions that challenge dominant frameworks of rights and citizenship:
1.Can refugees and undocumented migrants be recognized as rights-bearing subjects? If not, does the language of rights itself become inadequate in addressing their condition?
2.Are migrants inevitably confined to a cycle of invisibility, emerging only as laboring bodies and receding once their economic function is fulfilled?
DISCUSSION AND Q&A ROUND
Following the lecture, the session transitioned into a discussion and question-and-answer round, beginning with a brief intervention by Prof. Pan. She underscored the contemporary relevance of refugee studies, particularly in light of the expanding presence of refugee settlements and colonies across modern nation-states. Her remarks framed the discussion within current global realities, where displacement is no longer an exception but an enduring structural condition.
Drawing from her own research, Prof. Pan raised a significant question regarding refugee labor and economic adaptation, specifically focusing on refugees engaged in trading activities in India. She invited reflection on how such cases complicate conventional understandings of refugee livelihoods, which are often narrowly framed in terms of aid dependency or informal wage labor. Instead, she pointed to the emergence of niche economic spaces, where refugees actively participate in small-scale trade and commerce as a means of survival. This intervention opened up an important line of inquiry: how do refugees reshape economic categories through adaptive practices?
Responding to these concerns, Prof. Ranabir Samaddar acknowledged that trading and commercial activities do form a part of refugee survival strategies in diverse contexts. He noted that in certain cases—particularly within refugee camps—engagement in petty trade and small-scale marketing has proven to be relatively successful. Such initiatives, he suggested, could potentially be supported and scaled by international organizations, as they offer pathways toward economic self-reliance rather than prolonged dependency.
However, Prof. Samaddar introduced a critical caution against generalization. While these examples are noteworthy, they should not be overemphasized or treated as representative of the broader refugee experience. The majority of refugees, he argued, remain confined to precarious forms of labor with limited upward mobility. Thus, while entrepreneurial activities exist, they do not fundamentally alter the structural constraints faced by displaced populations.
To situate these dynamics within a larger economic framework, he referred to global commodity chains, using examples such as cotton and carpets. These industries illustrate how local labor practices are embedded within transnational markets, where production and trade are interconnected across regions. Refugee labor, in this sense, is not isolated but participates—often invisibly—in the functioning of the global economy.
Despite this participation, Prof. Samaddar emphasized the persistence of systemic discrimination and marginalization. Refugee and migrant workers, particularly those in informal sectors, are frequently excluded from legal protections and subjected to exploitative conditions. This contradiction—economic inclusion without social or political recognition—remains a defining feature of contemporary capitalism.
Extending this argument, he pointed to the rise of high-tech hubs and cyber-industrial centers in urban regions across Asia and beyond. These spaces are often portrayed as symbols of progress and modernity, yet they rely on layered labor hierarchies. At the lower end of these hierarchies are migrant and informal workers who sustain these systems under highly precarious conditions, often without visibility or rights. The contrast between the polished image of global cities and the hidden realities of labor exploitation underscores the uneven distribution of benefits within these economies.
FINAL SEGMENT
The second and concluding segment of the Q&A session brought forward a series of questions centered on rights, accommodation, and the institutional facilitation of migrants within contemporary societies. These questions reflected a broader concern with how modern states and urban systems respond to the presence of migrants—particularly those categorized as “illegal” or undocumented—and whether meaningful frameworks of inclusion can exist within existing political and legal structures.
In response, Ranabir Samaddar introduced a compelling conceptual distinction: the idea that within every modern city, there exists another, parallel city—an informal and often invisible urban layer inhabited by undocumented migrants. This “city within the city” operates under different norms, shaped by necessity rather than legality. It is a space where migrants find ways to live, work, and survive despite being excluded from formal recognition. This framing challenges the conventional view of the city as a unified entity, instead revealing it as fragmented and stratified, with overlapping but unequal forms of existence.
Drawing on both historical and contemporary examples, Prof. Samaddar argued that justice, in the context of migration, is never absolute or complete. Instead, it is always provisional, contingent, and evolving. This means that rather than seeking a fixed or ideal notion of justice, we must engage with what he termed a “notion of possibility.” Justice, in this sense, is not a fully realized condition but a horizon of potential—something that can be approximated through partial measures, negotiations, and incremental changes. This perspective invites a shift from rigid legal frameworks to more flexible and imaginative approaches to migrant rights.
In the concluding part of his response, Prof. Samaddar turned his attention to the changing nature of the modern state. He argued that the state is not merely a regulator operating through formal laws and institutions, but also an entity that increasingly relies on informality as a mode of governance. Contrary to the assumption that informality exists outside or in opposition to the state, he suggested that the state actively produces and sustains informal conditions.
According to this argument, the state engages in a process of selective deregulation—loosening or dismantling certain formal rules and protections. However, this does not result in a weaker state. On the contrary, deregulation often enables the state to expand its discretionary power, allowing it to regulate populations more flexibly and, at times, more arbitrarily. In other words, by stepping back from rigid formal frameworks, the state gains greater freedom to intervene in and control the lives of individuals, particularly those who lack legal recognition.
This paradox highlights a critical insight: informality is not simply a gap in governance but a deliberate and functional aspect of it. Migrants, especially undocumented ones, become central to this system. Their precarious status allows the state and the broader economy to benefit from their labor while avoiding the obligations associated with full legal inclusion.
近期新聞 Recent News
