Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
In-depth interviews reveal that Zimbabwean permits improve employment access but not decent work for migrants.
This paper examines the influence of Zimbabwean permits on Zimbabwean migrants’ access to decent work in South Africa. While existing scholarship on migrant labour and decent work has largely focused on undocumented migrants, and studies on Zimbabwean permits have centred on their hidden policy aims and administrative experiences, little attention has been paid to how such permits shape labour outcomes. Drawing on Harvey’s notions of the logic of territory and the logic of capital, the paper analyses migrants’ experiences with work permits and their implications for decent work. The study is based on in-depth interviews with Zimbabwean migrant workers holding Zimbabwean permits. The findings reveal that although permits improve access to employment, they do not guarantee decent work. Instead, migrants remain concentrated in precarious forms of employment characterised by low wages, long hours and limited protection. The paper argues that the temporary nature of the permit regime produces a regulated and docile workforce, structurally embedded in precarious labour markets.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ndebele et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: