Unfree labour and adverse incorporation in the global economy: comparative perspectives on Brazil and India

Abstract Abstract The aim of this paper is to contribute to our understanding of unfree labour in the contemporary global economy, the processes by which it is generated, and its connections with poverty and vulnerability. I challenge dominant ‘residual’ views of unfree labour as either external to global economic activity or occurring solely within small-scale, localized or non-market contexts. Instead, I contend that unfree labour needs to be understood in ‘relational’ terms as a particular form of ‘adverse incorporation’ in the global economy. This form of adverse incorporation is constituted through the circular interaction between, on the one hand, the functioning of the global productive economy and associated labour markets, and, on the other, the social relations of poverty which give rise to vulnerability and to unfree labour. I draw throughout on original empirical research conducted on ‘slave labour’ in Brazilian agriculture and child labour in the Delhi garments sector. Keywords: unfree labourglobal economyproductionadverse incorporationpovertyBrazilIndia Acknowledgements This paper emerges from a research project on ‘Vulnerable Workers in Global Production Networks: Case Studies of Trafficked and Forced Labour in Brazil and India’, which was generously funded by the Chronic Poverty Research Centre (CPRC) in 2009–10. The research team in Brazil was coordinated by Leonardo Sakamoto of the NGO Repórter Brasil, and included Maurício Hashizume and Xavier Plassat, with assistance from Gabriel Alberto Trevizan, Julierme Zero Lima Barboza, Carlos Juliano Barros, Maurício Monteiro Filho and Rodrigo Rocha. The research in India was coordinated at the Institute for Human Development by Resmi Bhaskaran, Dev Nathan and C. Upendranadh, and the field team, coordinated by Sunil Kumar, included Shailesh Kumar, Ramanand Jha and Madan Jha. I am indebted to both of those teams for the hard work and great insight they contributed. I am grateful for input into the project and/or comments on earlier drafts of this paper from Stephanie Barrientos, Lucy Ferguson, Sam Hickey, Genevieve LeBaron, Wendy Olsen, Anne Posthuma, Alakh Sharma, Andrew Shepherd and Japhy Wilson. I also appreciate stimulating comments from the anonymous reviewers and helpful input from the editors of this journal. All remaining shortcomings are, of course, entirely my responsibility. Notes 1. Space prevents a full discussion of the merits or otherwise of this term, but I use it in the paper to highlight the distinctive definition of the problem that has been adopted in Brazil. For a critical assessment, see Gomes (2009 Gomes , A. 2009 . Trabalho análogo a de escravo: Construindo um problema . Mimeo . Rio de Janeiro . Google Scholar). For excellent general treatments of ‘slave labour’ in Brazil, see Rezende Figueira (2004 Rezende Figueira, R. 2004. Pisando fora da própria sombra: A escravidão por dívida no Brasil contemporâneo, Rio de Janeiro: Civilização Brasileira. Google Scholar) and Rezende Figueira et al. (2011 Rezende Figueira , R. , Antunes Prado , A. & Antunes de Santana Júnior , H. 2011 . Trabalho escravo contemporáneo: Um debate transdisciplinar . Rio de Janeiro : Editora Mauad X . Google Scholar). 2. These relatively small numbers are the result, not surprisingly, of a generalized reluctance on the part of all these actors to speak openly and ‘formally’ about issues of slave labour, or indeed labour standards in general. As such, gaining access even to these few interviewees was pleasing and the insights gathered were significant. 3. I do not address here those varieties associated with ‘chattel slavery’ (Bales, 2004 Bales, K. 2004. Disposable people: New slavery in the global economy, Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Google Scholar) or those which occur in such sectors as domestic service, care work or sex work. 4. Data provided by the Ministry of Labour and Employment's Labour Inspection Department, September 2010. 5. Such an argument was encountered frequently in my research, based on a sense that global or export markets are more ‘advanced’ and characterized by greater levels of regulation and monitoring of labour standards. 6. Of course, this is not least because there are no accurate data measuring that incidence in the first place. 7. Thanks to Sam Hickey for emphasizing this point.