research paper about migrant workers

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here .

Loading metrics

Open Access

Peer-reviewed

Research Article

Prevalence of common mental health issues among migrant workers: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Roles Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Software, Supervision, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

Affiliations Nicotine Addiction Research Group, Wisma R & D Universiti Malaya, University of Malaya Centre of Addiction Sciences, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, Universiti Malaya Centre for Community & Sustainability, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Roles Data curation, Formal analysis, Methodology, Resources, Supervision

Affiliations Nicotine Addiction Research Group, Wisma R & D Universiti Malaya, University of Malaya Centre of Addiction Sciences, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, Department of Psychological Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Roles Data curation, Methodology, Software

Affiliation Nicotine Addiction Research Group, Wisma R & D Universiti Malaya, University of Malaya Centre of Addiction Sciences, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Roles Formal analysis, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

Roles Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing – review & editing

Affiliations Nicotine Addiction Research Group, Wisma R & D Universiti Malaya, University of Malaya Centre of Addiction Sciences, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, Department of Social & Preventive Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Roles Funding acquisition, Project administration, Resources, Supervision, Writing – review & editing

* E-mail: [email protected]

Affiliations Nicotine Addiction Research Group, Wisma R & D Universiti Malaya, University of Malaya Centre of Addiction Sciences, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, Universiti Malaya Centre for Community & Sustainability, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, Department of Psychological Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

• Siti Idayu Hasan, 
• Anne Yee, 
• Ariyani Rinaldi, 
• Adlina Aisya Azham, 
• Farizah Mohd Hairi, 
• Amer Siddiq Amer Nordin

• Published: December 2, 2021
• https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0260221
• Reader Comments

Previous literature has shown that migrant workers manifested higher common mental issues (especially depressive symptom) compared to local workers due to stressors such as financial constraint and lack of access to healthcare. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to summarize the current body of evidence for the prevalence of depression and anxiety among migrant workers as well as exploring the risk factors and the availability of social support for migrant workers. Seven electronic databases, grey literature and Google Scholar were searched for studies from 2015 to 2021 related to mental health, social support and migrant workers. Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle Ottawa Scale and the Joanna Briggs Institute Qualitative Assessment and Review Instrument (JBI-QARI). Study heterogeneity was evaluated using I 2 statistics. Random effects meta-analysis results were presented given heterogeneity among studies. The search returned 27 articles and only seven studies were included in meta-analysis, involving 44 365 migrant workers in 17 different countries. The overall prevalence of depression and anxiety among migrant workers was 38.99% (95% CI = 0.27, 0.51) and 27.31% (95% CI = 0.06, 0.58), respectively. Factors such as age, biological (health issue, family history of psychiatric disorder), individual (poor coping skills), occupational (workplace psychosocial stressors, poor working condition, salary and benefits issue, abuse), environmental (limited access towards healthcare, duration of residence, living condition) and social factor (limited social support) were associated with a mental health outcome in migrant workers. The availability of social support for migrant workers was mainly concentrated in emotional type of support. A high prevalence of depression and anxiety was found among migrant workers across the globe. This finding warrants a collective effort by different parties in providing assistance for migrant workers to promote their mental well-being.

Citation: Hasan SI, Yee A, Rinaldi A, Azham AA, Mohd Hairi F, Amer Nordin AS (2021) Prevalence of common mental health issues among migrant workers: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS ONE 16(12): e0260221. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0260221

Editor: Baltica Cabieses, Universidad del Desarrollo, CHILE

Received: June 1, 2021; Accepted: November 4, 2021; Published: December 2, 2021

Copyright: © 2021 Hasan et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: All relevant data are within the manuscript paper its Supporting Information files.

Funding: This study was supported by LENDLEASE PROJECTS (M) SDN. BHD. (Grant Number: PV049-2020).

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Introduction

Globalization has improved the interconnectedness between countries which has impacted human mobility in the aspect of migration [ 1 , 2 ]. According to the International Organization for Migration (IOM) (2019), the number of international migrants has increased significantly from 84 million in 1970 to 272 million in 2019. In 2019, the highest two regions that hosted the total global international migrant stock were Europe and Asia, while Oceania, North America and Europe were the highest when a comparison made based on the size of the population in each region. Nearly half of the number of international migrants around the globe is originated from Asian countries (e.g., India, China, Bangladesh) followed by Mexico and the Russian Federation [ 3 ].

In 2017, the migrant workers’ population was still highly concentrated in higher-income countries (68%). However, due to economic development and issue related to immigration regulation in higher-income countries, there was an evident shift in the residence of migrant workers in middle-income countries. In terms of gender composition, the number of male migrant workers (58%) was higher than female migrant workers (42%) with apparent gender imbalance geographically in several regions such as the Arab States, where male migrant workers were highly demanded as the labor opportunities were more concentrated in the construction sector [ 3 ].

It is known that migrant workers commonly hired for jobs related to 3Ds (dangerous, dirty, difficult) [ 4 , 5 ] or precarious employment which increased their exposure to environmental hazards at work site. They were at higher risk of workplace injuries due to inadequate safety protection at the workplace [ 6 , 7 ]. Migrant workers were also reported to have poor working conditions such as low wages, higher working hours, low job security and workplace abuse [ 8 ]. Both occupational hazard and poor working environment have increased the vulnerability of migrant workers to poor health outcomes, especially on their mental well-being. Previous research indicated that migrant workers reported experiencing higher mental health problems in comparison to native workers [ 9 – 12 ].

The most prevalent mental health issues reported among migrant workers are the manifestation of depressive symptoms [ 13 – 17 ]. A systematic review assessing the prevailing psychological disorders among migrant workers also found that these workers were experiencing other issues such as anxiety, alcohol or substance abuse and poor sleep quality [ 17 ]. This psychological distress experienced by the migrant workers are commonly linked to several stressors: financial difficulties, health risks (due to working condition), limited access to healthcare and presence of social issue (i.e., language barrier, discrimination) [ 12 , 13 , 18 – 21 ]. A previous study has indicated the difference in stressors experienced by migrant workers according to gender and working industry [ 14 ]. Furthermore, World Health Organization (WHO) and International Labour Organization (ILO) has also highlighted the mental health impact of COVID-19 on migrant workers around the world, which mainly due to social isolation and job insecurity [ 22 – 24 ].

Looking for a potential solution to address the issue of mental health among migrant workers is a frame of reference in the discussion of protection on their welfare. One of the protective factors that may promote mental well-being of migrant workers is social support. Social support has been found to promote the mental well-being [ 25 , 26 ] including in immigrants [ 27 , 28 ] and refugees [ 29 ]. According to the traditional theoretical framework of social support, four types of social support were identified: emotional support (i.e., expressions of love, trust, and empathy), instrumental support (i.e., tangible aid and service), informational support (i.e., advice, suggestion) and esteem (i.e., useful information for self-evaluation) [ 30 ]. These difference in dimensions of social support may provide another focus for the intervention of the psychological well-being of the migrant workers.

Hence, in addressing the concern of mental well-being among migrant workers, this paper aims to conduct a systematic review of literature and meta-analysis in examining the prevalence of mental health issue (i.e., depression and anxiety) among migrant workers, as well as determining the risk factors of mental health outcomes and exploring the availability of social support for migrant workers.

This systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines [ 31 ]. The protocol of this systematic review was registered with PROSPERO (protocol ID: CRD42021232181).

Search strategy and selection criteria

A systematic search of all English-language literature published from 2015 to 2021 from MEDLINE, Education Research Complete, Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection, ERIC, SAGE, Science Direct, Scopus and Google Scholar search was performed. The following keywords (a) mental health or mental illness or mental disorder or psychiatric illness (b) anxiety (c) depression or depressive disorder or depressive symptoms or major depressive disorder (d) social support or social networks or social relationships or social inclusion or social exclusion or social isolation and, (e) migrant workers were used. The screening process in this review also included references of the selected articles, book chapters, papers presented at conferences, dissertations, editorial and commentaries. In addition, the authors of this paper attempted to contact the respective authors via email to obtain the full articles and detailed data if the articles were unavailable or information of the quantitative studies was inadequate.

Two independent reviewers performed all of the titles and abstracts screening, followed by an analysis of the full-text articles. All duplicates were removed. Any discrepancies were resolved by a third reviewer. Data from eligible studies were extracted by a reviewer and all extracted data were reviewed by two independent reviewers.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

Inclusion and exclusion criteria were set to identify and choose the studies that were most relevant to our research.

The inclusion criteria were the following:

• Any study design (quantitative, qualitative, mixed-methods studies)
• Published between 2015 and 2021
• Published in English
• Any migrant workers

The exclusion criteria were the following:

• Published prior to 2015
• Published in a language other than English
• Internal/external migrants moving within the same country

Quality assessment

Study quality was assessed using the appropriate appraisal tool for each research design: the Newcastle Ottawa Scale (NOS) for Cohort studies [ 32 ], the Newcastle Ottawa Scale adapted for Cross-Sectional Studies [ 33 ] and the Joanna Briggs Institute Qualitative Assessment and Review Instrument (JBI-QARI) [ 34 ]. For mixed-method studies, the quality assessment was conducted based on the data used in this review. If both quantitative and qualitative data were included in this review, both the Newcastle Ottawa Scale and JBI-QARI were used to conduct the quality assessment, while if only one, the study quality was evaluated using either any one of the tools (based on the data used). It was performed by two reviewers and any discrepancies were discussed with the third reviewer.

Statistical analysis

All data analyses were performed using Stats Direct (version 2.7.9). The presence of heterogeneity between the trials was tested using the I-squared ( I 2 ) statistic. An I 2 of more than 75% indicated significant heterogeneity. If the I 2 was significant, pooled prevalence of anxiety and depression were calculated by using a random-effects model [ 35 ]. Conversely, the data were pooled by using a fixed-effects model [ 36 , 37 ]. Publication bias was assessed with the Begg-Mazumdar and Egger test. Qualitative meta-analysis was also conducted to summarize, compare and contrast the extracted data.

Ethics approval

Ethical approval was obtained from Universiti Malaya Research Ethics Committee (UMREC) (UM.TNC2/UMREC_1187).

Electronic database searching identified a total of 3962 articles. Additional literature was also identified using Google Scholar with 160 articles. After removal of duplicated publication, screening of title and abstract and screening of full-text, 27 studies were included in the present systematic review (see S1 Table ). Out of these 27 studies, only seven articles had the data on the proportion of depression and anxiety for meta-analysis. Fig 1 shows the data extraction conducted in accordance with the Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses Guidelines [ 31 ].

• PPT PowerPoint slide
• PNG larger image
• TIFF original image

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0260221.g001

Study characteristics

Most of the literature included were cross-sectional studies (18), followed by longitudinal studies (4), mixed-method studies (3) and qualitative studies (2). Participants were recruited using various sampling method including convenience sampling (7), purposive sampling (5), random sampling (5), snowball sampling (4), cluster sampling (2), stratified multi-stage probability proportional to size (1), cluster and occasional sampling (1), systematic random sampling and purposive (1) and convenience and snowball sampling (1).

Five of the studies were conducted in Australia [ 38 – 42 ]. Two studies were conducted in each of these countries: Singapore [ 43 , 44 ], Hong Kong [ 45 , 46 ], Italy [ 47 , 48 ], The United States of America [ 49 , 50 ], Spain [ 51 , 52 ] and United Kingdom [ 53 , 54 ]. The remaining studies were conducted in Israel [ 55 ], India [ 56 ], South Korea [ 57 ], Malaysia [ 58 ], Thailand [ 59 ], Japan [ 60 ], Norway [ 61 ], Ethiopia [ 62 ], Chile [ 63 ] and China [ 64 ].

There were 44 365 subjects included from the 27 studies (see S1 Table ) with a sample size ranged between 40 and 15 321. Only seven studies reported the mean age of the participants, which range from 28.17 to 43.60 years [ 43 , 44 , 50 , 53 , 56 , 59 , 64 ] Out of 24studies that reported on gender composition, 13 studies had more female participants while another 11 studies had more male participants. Five studies did not state any information on the gender composition of their participants [ 43 – 46 , 50 ].

In total, 39 psychometric instruments were used in 24 studies. Another remaining three studies used interview questions [ 44 , 45 ] and combination of digital audio recorder and notes on emotion non-verbal cues [ 49 ].

Study quality

Table 1 showed summary of study quality for cross-sectional by using the NOS scale. The articles’ scores range from seven to nine stars. Of the 18 studies, 17 could be regarded as good quality [ 38 , 39 , 41 – 43 , 46 , 48 , 54 , 55 – 57 , 59 – 64 ] and only one was scored to be of poor quality [ 58 ]. The summary of study quality for longitudinal studies assessed using the NOS scale was presented in Table 2 . The articles’ score ranges from six to eight stars. Of the four studies, one could be regarded as good quality [ 40 ] and three were scored to be of poor quality [ 51 – 53 ].

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0260221.t001

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0260221.t002

For qualitative studies, most of the studies met the criteria of the JBI-QARI except for (1) the indication of locating the researcher culturally or theoretically (Criteria 6) and (2) the indication of the influence of the researcher on the research (and vice-versa) (Criteria 7) (see Table 3 ). For Criteria 7, only two studies met the criteria [ 44 , 49 ].

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0260221.t003

Meta-analysis

Seven studies assessed the prevalence of depression and anxiety which ranged from 10.7% to 85% for the former and 6.9% to 58.47% for the latter. Pooled proportion of depression was 38.99% (95% CI = 0.27, 0.51) (see Fig 2 ) and pooled proportion of anxiety was 27.31% (95% CI = 0.06, 0.58) (see Fig 3 ).

(95% CI = 0.27 to 0.51), I 2 (inconsistency) = 99.2% (95% CI = 99.1% to 99.3%), Egger: bias = -1.679764 (95% CI = -21.867931 to 18.508402), P = 0.84, Begg-Mazumdar: Kendall’s tau.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0260221.g002

(95% CI = 0.06 to 0.58), I 2 (inconsistency) = 98.9% (95% CI = 98.5% to 99.2%), Egger bias = <too few strata> (95% CI = * to *), P = *, Begg-Mazumdar: Kendall’s tau = <too few strata.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0260221.g003

Qualitative meta-analysis

Depression..

Nine studies explored the presence of depression among migrant workers [ 41 , 48 – 50 , 57 , 58 , 64 , 65 ]. The prevalence of depression among Myanmar migrant workers in Malaysia was 70.8% (N = 136) [ 58 ]. Chen et al. [ 64 ] found the prevalence of depression among migrant workers in China was 24.3%. In the study conducted by Hatch et al. [ 53 ], 10.7% of the respondents reported experiencing depressive episodes. Organista et al. [ 50 ] evaluated the challenging working and living conditions and the psychological distress in Latino migrant workers. Their study found a mean of 0.77 (SD = 0.54) for depressive symptoms, based on standardized factor loadings of 1.00. In another study [ 64 ], the mean of depressive symptoms reported by participants was 32 (SD = 9.6, range = 10–50).

In the semi-structured interview conducted by Crocker [ 49 ], the reported depressive symptoms were 70% among male participants (N = 14) and 85% among female participants (N = 17). While in the study conducted by Hong & Lee [ 57 ], the prevalence of depression was higher in migrants from low-income countries compared to migrants from middle- or high-income countries (male = 27.1% > 23%; female = 37.1% > 31.2%).

Adebayo et al. [ 41 ] investigated the prevalence of acculturation stress and mental health issue (i.e., depression, anxiety, stress) among migrant workers in Australian residential aged care facilities. Based on Depression Anxiety Stress Scale-21 (DASS-21), their results found that 84.7% of the migrant workers in the normal range. Only 1.8% and 0.8% were in the range of severe depression and extremely severe depression, respectively.

Similarly, Gambaro et al. [ 48 ] found that 42.37% of the migrant workers in Italy reported no depressive symptoms, based on the Zung Self-Rating Depression Scale (SDS). 38.14% of the participants were in the low range, 14.41% in the mild range and only 1.69% in the high range.

Four studies assessing the presence of anxiety among migrant workers were identified [ 41 , 48 , 50 , 53 ]. Hatch et al. [ 53 ] reported 6.9% of their participants manifested generalized anxiety disorder (GAD). In another study, Organista et al. [ 50 ] reported a mean of 0.66 for anxiety symptoms (SD = 0.60), based on standardized factor loading of 1.00.

Adebayo et al. [ 41 ] found in their studies that 74.5% of the migrant workers were in the normal anxiety range of DASS-21. Only 2.3% and 3.8% were in the range of severe anxiety and extremely severe anxiety, respectively. In another study [ 48 ], 38.98% of the participants reported no symptoms of anxiety, based on the rating on Zung Self-Rating Anxiety Scale (SAS). 49.15% of the migrant workers were in the low range and another 9.32% were in the mild range of anxiety.

Five studies explored the prevalence of stress (including acculturation stress and post-traumatic stress disorder) among migrant workers [ 41 , 43 , 48 , 49 , 54 ].

The prevalence of stress among female migrant domestic workers in Singapore was 52.5% (N = 85) [ 43 ]. Crocker [ 49 ] found in his study that 95% of male participants (N = 19) and 80% of female participants (N = 16) reported feeling stressed. In another study [ 54 ], the mean of perceived stress among the respondents was 16.89 (SD = 7.19). Adebayo et al. [ 41 ] revealed in their study that based on the DASS-21, 89.9% of the migrant workers were in the normal range. Only 1.8% of the workers reported being on the severe level of stress scale. The study also evaluated the prevalence of acculturation stress among migrant workers in Australia. It was found that the mean of acculturation stress was 38.4 (SD = 14.1).

In the study conducted by Gambaro et al. [ 48 ], based on PTSD Checklist for DSM-5 (PCL-5), 53.95% (N = 63) reported scoring above the median score of 33 which suggested higher level of post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms.

Other mental health outcome

Three studies identified the prevalence of common mental health issues (both depressive and anxiety symptoms) [ 47 , 59 , 61 ]. Two studies measured the mental well-being of migrant workers using the Hopkins Symptoms Checklist-25 (HSCL-25) [ 59 , 61 ]. The prevalence of participants with depressive and anxiety symptoms was 12.7% [ 61 ] and 11.9% [ 59 ]. In another study by Capasso et al. [ 47 ], the prevalence of the anxious-depressive disorder among migrant workers was 32.8%.

Risk factors for mental health outcome

Six studies found the effect of age on the mental well-being of the migrant workers [ 43 , 55 – 57 , 61 , 64 ]. Chen et al. [ 64 ] reported in their findings that the prevalence of mental health issue was higher among younger group of migrant workers (25–39 years old) (M = 6.96, SD = 4.67, p = .008). Similarly, age was found to inversely associated with the symptoms of anxiety and depression (OR = 0.95, p = .03) [ 55 ]. Another study also found that older age (> 50 years old) was correlated with less psychological distress (M = 78.2, SD = 11.9, p < .001) [ 43 ].

In contrast, a study found that older age group (> 45 years old) was associated with higher psychological distress (aPR = 2.74, CI = 1.01–7.41, p < .05) [ 56 ]. Straiton et al. [ 61 ] also reported in their study that the older age group experienced more mental health issue (16.0% vs 11%, p < .001). In addition, the prevalence of depressive symptoms was found to be higher in immigrants aged above 65 years old (40.5%) [ 57 ].

Psychological factors.

Several studies explored the association between the coping skills of migrant workers and their mental well-being [ 48 , 52 ]. Resilience among migrant workers was found to inversely associated with depressive symptoms (r = -0.24, p < .05) and suicidal intention (r = - 0.31, p < .05) [ 48 ]. In addition, lower attention to feelings (i.e., thinking about one’s feelings) (standardized path coefficient = 0.38 (T1), 0.49 (T2), p ≤ .01) and higher mood repair (i.e., one’s ability to regulate moods when experiencing negative emotions) (standardized path coefficient = -0.39 (T1), -0.41 (T2), p ≤ .01) were linked to better psychological well-being among migrants in Spain during both data waves [ 52 ].

In addition, migrant workers with higher negative affectivity (i.e., temperamental style characterized by stable tendency to experience negative emotions) (OR = 1.961, p < .05) and higher social inhibition (OR = .343, p < .05) were associated with higher level of anxious-depressive disorder [ 47 ].

Biological factors.

Two studies found the biological risk factors that influenced the mental health outcome among migrant workers [ 56 , 62 ]. Higher psychological distress was reported among migrant workers with existing health issues (aPR = 2.0, p < .001) [ 56 ] and history of psychiatric illness in their family (OR = 6.75, 95% CI = 1.03, 43.95) [ 62 ].

Occupational factors.

Daly et al. [ 39 ] reported that higher psychological distress among migrant workers in Australia was associated with workplace psychosocial stressors including complex/demanding jobs (OR = 2.6, p < .0001), jobs with low control (OR = 1.8, p < .0001), jobs with low security (OR = 3.4, p < .0001) and overall job adversity (OR = 2.7, p < .0001). In a similar study, they found that higher mental well-being was associated with higher skill discretion (OR = 0.40, p < .001), higher decision authority (OR = 0.36, p < .001) and lower job insecurity (OR = -1.08, p < .001) [ 42 ].

A study found that the effect of occupational roles on acculturation stress among migrant workers in Australia [ 41 ]. It was described that in comparison to other roles in registered aged care facilities, enrolled and registered nurses reported higher level of acculturation stress (F(3, 254) = 3.0, p = .03).

In the study conducted by Organista et al. [ 50 ], poor working conditions (measured by working days, working hours and earnings) were associated with higher level of desesperación (i.e., feeling of isolation) (β = -0.10, p ≤ .01) and depression (β = -0.11, p ≤ .01). Miller et al. [ 60 ] found in their study that higher employment satisfaction was associated with better mental health outcome among migrants working in Japan (B = 4.9; p < 0.001). In addition to poor working conditions, experiencing physical abuse at workplace was also found as a risk factor of psychological distress among migrant workers (OR = 12.17, 95% CI = 5.87, 25.22) [ 62 ].Several studies also reported the risk of mental health issues among migrant workers when experiencing an occupational issue related to salary and benefits [ 56 , 58 , 62 ]. Myanmar migrant workers in Malaysia reported higher depressive symptoms when there was absence of financial aid from employer if they had physical health issue (80.9%, p = .001) [ 58 ]. Similarly, receiving no sick leave (aPR = 2.4, p < .001) [ 56 ] and unable to get salary timely (OR = 3.35, 95% CI = 1.47, 7.63) [ 62 ] were also associated with the presence of psychological distress among migrant workers.

Environmental factors.

Two studies identified having limitation towards healthcare access in the working country as one of the risk factors of mental health issues among migrant workers [ 56 , 62 ]. Higher presence of common mental disorder symptoms was reported by Ethiopian labour migrant returnees working in Middle East countries when they were denied access to healthcare (OR = 3.20, 95% CI = 1.53, 6.67) [ 62 ]. In another study [ 56 ], the risk of psychological distress was identified among Nepali migrant workers in India who experienced barriers to healthcare access (aPR = 1.88, p < .001).

Duration of residence was also found to associate with the mental well-being among migrant workers. Htay et al. [ 58 ] indicated in their study that migrant workers who had lived in Malaysia for a duration of five years and more were found to manifest more depressive symptoms (81.9%, p < .001) in comparison to those who stayed less than five years. Similarly, migrant workers who had stayed in Spain for more than 10 years also reported higher incidence of common mental health problem compared to those with shorter residence duration in Spain (1–10 years) (ORa = 0.06, 95% CI = 0.26–0.01) [ 51 ].

Furthermore, poor living condition in migrant workers was linked to the depression (β = −0.17, SE = 0.02, p ≤ .001), desesperación (i.e., feeling of isolation) (β = −0.19, SE = 0.03, p ≤ .001) and alcohol use (β = −0.13, SE = 0.43, p ≤ .01) [ 50 ].

Risk factors of mental health outcome during COVID-19.

Two studies explored the risk factors of the mental health outcome among migrant workers during COVID-19 [ 46 , 55 ]. In the study by Attal et al. [ 55 ], they found that emotional distress among the workers was associated with household food insecurity (OR = 5.85, p < .001), lower in confidence to care for themselves and employer during COVID-19 (OR = 3.85, p < .001), poorer general health (OR = 2.98, p < .003), country of origin (i.e., those who were not from Philippines) (OR = 2.83, p < .001) and gender (i.e., female) (OR = 2.34, p < .04). In another study, the anxiety symptoms experienced by Filipino domestic helpers in Hong Kong was associated with lack of protective equipment (OR = 1.54, p = .00), higher workload during pandemic (OR = 1.95, p = .00) and worried about termination if getting COVID-19 (OR = 1.43, p = .00) [ 46 ].

Social factors/social support.

The feeling of isolation was associated with higher psychological distress outcome [ 43 , 60 ]. Female migrant domestic workers in Singapore with higher level of stress was associated with feeling isolated (M = 17.6, SD = 3.4) [ 43 ]. Migrants working in Japan reported that lower feeling of isolation promoted their mental well-being (B = 3.2, p = .008) [ 60 ].

In the study conducted by Straiton et al. [ 61 ], mental health issues were found higher among those without social support (20%) in comparison to those with social support (11.2%). A qualitative study conducted by Van Bortel et al. [ 44 ] reported that the respondents indicated social support was an important coping resource for them with two themes identified which were the comfort of company and having someone to talk to. In contrast, in the study conducted during COVID-19, it was revealed that no association was found between social support from employers, family, friends and community organizations and anxiety symptoms (OR = 1.21, p = 0.16) [ 46 ].

In the study conducted by Baig & Chang [ 45 ], their qualitative data described the difference in help-seeking behaviour among migrant domestic workers in Hong Kong between formal and informal support systems. It was found that the workers approached the formal social support (e.g., consulate, local government departments, agency) for the issue related to employment. On the other hand, these migrant workers preferred to seek informal social support (e.g., family, friends) when experiencing emotional distress. Another qualitative data found that limited formal social support (from established organization) was provided for Ethiopian migrant workers returnees from Middle East countries who experienced mental health issues [ 62 ]. Only three organizations were reported to provide formal social support (in terms of mental health care services: two of them provided a rehabilitation center and another one provided hospital-based mental health care.

The present systematic review and meta-analysis included a total of 27 studies, with most studies being cross-sectional. The review of studies has fulfilled the aim of identifying the mental health issue among migrant workers and their risk factors. Our meta-analysis literature review highlights the pool prevalence of depression and anxiety among migrant workers. The prevalence of depression and anxiety was 38.98% and 27.31%, respectively. There was a notable increase in the prevalence in comparison to a decade ago where the reported prevalence of depression and anxiety among labour migrants was 20% and 21%, respectively [ 66 ]. This could be influenced by the increasing trends of working-related migration in the last ten years [ 3 ].

It was also found that refugees had a similar prevalence of depression and anxiety, with 40.9% and 26.6%, respectively [ 67 ]. Another study reported a wide variation in prevalence rates for depression and anxiety among first-generation migrants with, 5% to 44% and 4% to 40%, respectively [ 68 ]. This shows that migration in general amplified the risk for an individual to experience mental health issues. However, the wide variation noted in the study between first-generation migrants may highlight the difference of the postmigration environment between migrant workers, refugees and first-generation migrants which warrants further investigation.

This review also identified the prevalence of stress, including acculturation stress and post-traumatic stress disorder, among migrant/migrant workers. Most of the studies found a high prevalence of stress, except for Adebayo et al. [ 41 ]. In that study, migrant healthcare workers working in aged care residential facilities reported a higher level of acculturation stress in comparison to general stress. Acculturation stress is known to be a common issue among migrant labours [ 69 ].

Risk factors associated with mental health issues among migrant workers

Our review had identified numerous factors associated with mental health issues among migrant workers including age, psychological factors, occupational factors, biological, environmental factors and social factors. Firstly, there were no age group differences in terms of its influence on mental well-being. This could be due to the methodological heterogeneity across studies, which restricted this review to make an inference regarding the age difference.

Psychological factors were found to be associated with mental health issues among migrant workers. Migrant workers with higher resilience and a higher level of emotional intelligence (i.e., good perception, understanding and management of their feelings) reported a higher level of psychological well-being. Resilience and emotional intelligence are known as protective factors that can contribute to better psychological health as it helps an individual to adapt and to regulate their emotions better during stressful situations [ 70 – 72 ]. Personality traits (i.e., negative affectivity and social inhibition) were also linked with the mental well-being of migrant workers, where those who did not display the traits reported a higher level of mental well-being. This is consistent with previous literature [ 73 – 75 ]. These findings on the relationship between migrant workers’ mental well-being and their resilience, emotional intelligence and personality traits suggest that intervention may focus on a psychological aspect such as building resilience and emotional regulation to promote mental well-being among migrant workers.

Biological factors, particularly family psychiatric history and existing health conditions, have also been identified as risk factor for mental health issues among migrant workers. healthcare service. It is established that the likelihood for an individual to experience mental health issue is higher when they have a family member/relative who is diagnosed with a psychiatric disorder in comparison to those with no family history [ 76 ]. This also may be moderated and/or mediated by other factors including stressful life events, poor coping skills and lack of social support [ 77 ]. Moreover, it is interesting to highlight the presence of existing health conditions in migrant workers together with another risk factor found which was the barriers to healthcare access. Migrant workers are common experiencing financial limitations and a lack of formal medical protection which restricted them from seeking formal healthcare service [ 78 – 80 ]. This barrier will put a constraint on health-seeking behaviour among migrant workers, including those with existing health issues.

In addition to barriers to healthcare access, other environmental factors which were duration of stay and poor living conditions were noted as the risk factors of mental health issues among migrant workers. Our findings found that a longer duration of stay in the working country was related to the poorer mental health of migrant workers. Previous research has shown mixed findings of the relationship between migrant workers’ mental well-being and their length of stay at working country [ 81 , 82 ] which suggests that other plausible factors (e.g., occupational, social, psychological) should be considered to explain this association. Concerning the poor living condition as another risk factor, this aspect has been highlighted by Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) reports. A decent living environment is a socioeconomic indicator that influences the social integration of migrants in the host or working country and as a result, improves their general well-being [ 83 , 84 ].

Our review identified the association between occupational stressors and mental health issues among migrant workers. The stressors include job characteristics, type of occupational role, poor working conditions, salary and benefits issues and physical abuse at the workplace. Migrant workers reported a poorer level of mental well-being due to job characteristics such as demanding jobs, jobs with low control and high job insecurity. Our findings were consistent with previous literature that discussed job characteristics as a predictor of mental health issues among employees in the general population [ 85 – 88 ]. Job characteristics have also been found to predict job satisfaction [ 89 – 91 ]. One of the studies in our review showed in their findings that employment satisfaction was related to higher mental well-being among migrants working in Japan [ 60 ]. This suggests that migrant workers’ job satisfaction and mental health are likely to be explained by the characteristics of their jobs, emphasizing the importance of evaluating each of these factors in maintaining the mental well-being of migrant employees.

On another note, Adebayo et al. [ 41 ] discussed the difference between occupational roles and acculturation stress (i.e., mental challenges of adapting to a new culture) where migrant nurses were found to report a higher level of acculturation stress. Migrant workers were known to be at higher risk to experience discrimination and communication problems at the workplace [ 20 , 92 , 93 ]. These issues may intensify the stress level of these nurses as they are working directly with the community which requires quick adaptation to the culture of their working country. As for the remaining occupational risk factors (poor working conditions, salary and benefits issues and physical abuse at the workplace), they can be seen as a result of a lack of labor rights protection for the migrant workers. All of the stated factors are identified by ILO as the common violations experienced by migrant workers [ 94 , 95 ].

Several studies included in this review also identified the associated factors of mental health issues among migrant workers during COVID-19, which mainly related to job stressors such as lack of confidence to properly care for themselves and their employer, lack of protective equipment, higher workload and worries being terminated if contracting COVID-19. It is known that migrant workers had lower job security compared to local workers [ 96 ]. The job insecurity issue is likely to amplify during COVID-19 as the whole world is currently struggling economically. This is consistent with a qualitative study conducted among migrant workers from Bangladesh working in Southeast Asia and the Middle East regions [ 97 ]. The fear of losing jobs and worry about not getting a salary had taken a toll on their mental health, in which in several extreme cases, some of the migrant workers committed suicide.

Finally, social support was also linked with the presence of mental health issues among migrant workers. All of the four studies identifying the association measured the dimension of social support related to connectedness with others. Social disconnectedness has been established as a risk factor for psychological distress [ 98 – 101 ] which highlights the importance of assisting migrant workers to maintain socially connected with their family or friends in seeking emotional support to act as a coping resource for them. However, in contrast, a study conducted during COVID-19 indicated that social support was not associated with the symptoms of anxiety among migrant care workers [ 46 ]. This is inconsistent with previous studies that discussed the effect of lower social support and the presence of mental health issues among healthcare workers during COVID-19 [ 102 , 103 ]. Different types of job characteristics between care workers and healthcare workers may have played a role in observing the difference.

Only two studies discussed the availability of material and informational support for migrant workers. Although emotional support is important in assisting migrant workers in promoting their mental well-being, having additional access to material and informational support may help the migrant workers to cope better with the exposed stressors. This may also increase the help-seeking behaviour in migrants with or at risk of psychiatric disorder.

Strengths and limitations

This review has several strengths. Firstly, a comprehensive searching strategy was carried out in the literature sources, the grey literature and the reference lists of the eligible articles which allowed this review to capture a large number of studies. This review was also systematically conducted using the preferred reporting items criteria of PRISMA guidelines. The majority of the studies included in this review was identified to be of high quality. Furthermore, this study increased the theoretical knowledge on the associated risk factors of mental health issues among migrant workers. This information may act as a reference for the policymakers, authorities and employers to create preventive strategies for migrant workers.

However, there are limitations warrant consideration. Firstly, most of the studies included were conducted in cross-sectional, thus, no causal relationship can be established. Next, there is the presence of heterogeneity of the method and tools across the studies. There is a consideration that should be taken in interpreting the findings in this review. This review also only included study in the English language. Hence, some literature that meets the inclusion criteria may not have been reviewed.

In summary, this review and meta-analysis have provided an overview of the mental health outcome among migrant workers. There is evidence of an increase in depressive and anxiety symptoms in this specific population and various risk factors were identified to associate with the mental health issue, including social support. It is recommended for future research to conduct more cohort and longitudinal studies in looking at the trend or progress of the mental health outcome associated with different factors including demographics, biological, psychological, environmental, occupational and social.

The high prevalence of mental health problems among migrant workers warrants the implementation of necessary intervention strategies in addressing this issue. This may be adopted from the guideline provided by WHO [ 104 ] in promoting mental health in refugees and migrant. The area of interventions mentioned in the guideline including endorsing social integration and reducing the gap of barriers towards healthcare. A specific social support program related to the maintenance of connection with their family members and friends in their origin country should also be designed to act as a coping resource for the migrant workers.

The employer can also play a role in addressing the mental health concern among migrant workers. Some of the strategies that can be taken by employer are acknowledgement of mental health issue as a workplace concern, development of preventive strategies and mental health policies at workplace and facilitate the workers with mental health problems in accommodating at workplace [ 105 ].

Finally, the role of policymakers is vital in tackling this issue of mental distress among migrant workers. Based on the scientific evidence available, policies on healthcare, including mental health, should be prioritized with detailed planning and evaluation to ensure the sustainability of the policy. Close collaboration with non-governmental organization (NGO) can also take place to ensure a more comprehensive discussion can be taken which may lead to the rapid implementation of policies.

Supporting information

S1 checklist..

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0260221.s001

S1 Table. Study characteristics.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0260221.s002

• View Article
• Google Scholar
• 2. Colic-Peisker V. Globalization and migration. In Farazmand A, editor. Global encyclopedia of public administration, public policy, and governance. Switzerland: Springer International Publishing; 2017. pp. 1–7.
• 3. International Organization for Migration. World Migration Report 2020. [Internet]. 2019 [cited 2021 May 8]. Available from: https://publications.iom.int/system/files/pdf/wmr_2020.pdf
• PubMed/NCBI
• 22. International Labour Organization. Impact of COVID-19 on migrant workers in Lebanon and what employers can do about it. [Internet]. 2020 [cited 2021 October 12]. Available from: https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/—arabstates/—robeirut/documents/publication/wcms_741604.pdf
• 23. International Labour Organization. Experiences of ASEAN migrant workers during COVID-19. [Internet]. 2020 [cited 2021 October 12]. Available from: https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/—asia/—ro-bangkok/documents/briefingnote/wcms_746881.pdf
• 24. World Health Organization Europe. Promoting the health of migrant workers in the WHO European region during COVID-19. [Internet]. 2020 [cited 2021 October 12]. Available from: https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/336549/WHO-EURO-2020-1384-41134-55925-eng.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
• 34. Joanna Briggs Institute. [Internet]. Checklist for systematic reviews and research synthesis. 2020 [cited 2021 May 8]. Available from https://jbi.global/critical-appraisal-tools
• 37. Rothman KJ, Boice JD. Epidemiologic analysis with a programmable calculator. Washington DC: US Government Printing Office; 1979.
• 83. OECD. Settling In 2018: Indicators of immigrant integration. [Internet]. 2019 [cited 2021 October 26]. Available from https://doi.org/https%3A//doi.org/10.1787/9789264307216-8-en
• 94. International Labour Organization. Protecting migrant domestic workers: The international legal framework at a glance. [Internet]. 2016 [cited 2021 October 24]. Available from: https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/—ed_protect/—protrav/—migrant/documents/briefingnote/wcms_467722.pdf
• 95. International Labour Organization. Safe and healthy working environments free from violence and harassment. 2020 [cited 2021 October 24]. Available from: https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/—ed_protect/—protrav/—safework/documents/publication/wcms_751832.pdf
• 105. Harnois G, Gabriel P. Mental health and work: impact, issues and good practices. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2000.

An official website of the United States government

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock Locked padlock icon ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

• Publications
• Account settings
• Advanced Search
• Journal List

Precarious employment and migrant workers’ mental health: a systematic review of quantitative and qualitative studies

Ozlem koseoglu ornek , phd, julia waibel , msc, pia wullinger , bsc, tobias weinmann , phd.

• Author information
• Article notes
• Copyright and License information

Correspondence to: Ozlem Koseoglu Ornek, Occupational and Environmental Epidemiology & NetTeaching Unit; Institute and Clinic for Occupational, Social and Environmental Medicine; University Hospital, LMU Munich, Ziemssenstr. 5, 80336 Munich, Germany. [E-mail: [email protected] ]. ORCID: OK Ornek: 0000-0002-9101-6256 T Weinmann: 0000-0002-4582-5191

Received 2021 Nov 1; Prepublished 2022 Mar 9; Issue date 2022 Jul 1.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Evidence suggests that precarious employment can have detrimental effects on workers’ health, including mental health. Migrant workers are discussed to be especially vulnerable to such effects. Thus, we systematically reviewed existing research on the association between precarious employment and migrant workers’ mental health.

Three electronic databases (Web of Science, PsycINFO and PubMed/Medline) were searched for original articles on quantitative and qualitative studies published from January 1970 to February 2022 in English, German, Turkish and Spanish. Multiple dimensions of precarious employment were considered as exposure, with mental health problems as outcomes. Narrative synthesis and thematic analyses were performed to summarize the findings of the included studies along with risk of bias and quality assessment.

The literature search resulted in 1557 original articles, 66 of which met the inclusion criteria – 43 were of high quality and 22 were of moderate quality. The most common exposure dimensions analyzed in the studies included temporariness, vulnerability, poor interpersonal relationships, disempowerment, lacking workers’ rights and low income. The outcome measures included stress, depression, anxiety and poor general mental health. The prevalence of these outcomes varied between 10–75% among the included quantitative studies. All qualitative studies reported one or more dimensions of precarious employment as an underlying factor of the development of mental health problems among migrants. Of 33 quantitative studies, 23 reported evidence for an association between dimensions of precarious employment and mental health.

The results of this review support the hypothesis that precarious employment is associated with migrant workers’ mental health.

Keywords: anxiety, depression, discrimination, job insecurity, temporary employment, transient, occupational health, temporary worker, stress

Globally, the number of migrants is increasing steadily due to climatic disasters, globalization, socio-political pressures and conflicts ( 1 , 2 ). According to the International Labor Organization (ILO), there are approximately 258 million international migrants in the world, 164 million of whom are workers. About two-thirds of these workers live in high-income countries where they are an important labor resource ( 3 ). However, migrant workers tend to contribute to the labor force in their host countries through precarious employment, which is characterized by unfavorable work conditions. These conditions include job insecurity, low income, lack of worker rights and protection, lack of power to exercise rights, work with temporary or no contracts, participation in multiple part-time jobs, lack of employment compensation, unpredictable working schedules, and exposure to unfair and authoritarian treatment ( 4 – 10 ).

Precarious employment has become more prominent recently, especially in high-income countries ( 4 , 9 ). Moreover, the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic has the potential to further increase the prevalence of precarious working conditions ( 11 , 12 ). Apart from that, there is evidence that precarious employment can have negative effects on workers’ quality of life and well-being ( 6 ), ultimately leading to health problems ( 13 – 16 ). For example, some studies indicated an association between precarious employment and physical health problems such as musculoskeletal issues ( 17 ), cardiovascular diseases ( 18 ), occupational accidents and injury ( 19 , 20 ). Results of other studies also show that precarious work conditions have an influence on mental health problems such as depression ( 21 ), anxiety and stress ( 22 ), suicidal ideation ( 23 , 24 ), sleep issues and burnout ( 24 – 26 ). Accordingly, there are a number of systematic reviews that have synthesized the evidence for detrimental mental health effects of different dimensions of precarious employment ( 5 , 9 , 27 – 31 ).

However, none of the reviews so far specifically focused on migrant workers. Migrants are especially vulnerable and likely to be exposed to precarious employment because of language barriers, employer prejudice and discrimination, lack of professional networks, lack of sufficient knowledge related to health and the labor system ( 32 – 34 ) and poor social support ( 35 , 36 ). In addition, migrant workers have been reported to be exposed to various forms of harassment at the workplace: prejudices by employers and workmates ( 33 ), unfair treatment and discrimination ( 37 – 39 ) or being forced to work or perform tasks that are incompatible with their contracts at the threat of deportation ( 37 , 40 – 42 ). This situation is often worse in the case of undocumented migrants who are even more vulnerable and disadvantaged due to a lack of work or residency permits. As a consequence, they are at risk from being exploited by their employers ( 38 , 40 , 41 , 43 , 44 ). Moreover, there is considerable evidence that migrants differ from non-migrants in characteristics such as general health status, access to healthcare or health-related risk factors ( 45 , 46 ).

Because of those peculiarities, studies examining precarious employment and its putative health effects in the general population cannot be automatically and directly transferred to migrant populations. It is thus crucial to comprehensively understand and systematically evaluate migrant workers’ experiences under precarious work conditions and such conditions’ effect on migrant workers’ mental health. Apart from a better scientific understanding, such findings may also help to develop migrant worker-friendly occupational health policies in the future. Thus, the main aim of this review of qualitative and quantitative studies was to analyze and summarize existing quantitative and qualitative research on the association between precarious employment and migrant workers’ mental health. To achieve this aim, the scientific questions were addressed in quantitative studies: (i) What is the prevalence of precarious employment among migrants? (ii) What is the association between precarious employment and mental health among migrants, including its direction and effect size? and in qualitative studies: (i) What dimensions of precarious employment are migrant workers exposed to? (ii) What are the mechanisms underlying the relationship between precarious employment and mental health among migrant workers?

We described our methods by means of a detailed protocol ( 47 ) that was developed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 guidelines ( 48 ), and was registered within the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) (registration number: CRD42019132560).

Eligibility criteria

The Population, Exposure, Comparator and Outcomes (PECO) framework was used as a guide for the eligibility criteria of the included publications ( 49 ). The included papers were original quantitative observational studies and all types of qualitative studies that involved international migrant workers of working age (≥15 years), and published in English, German, Spanish or Turkish in peer-reviewed journals from 1 January 1970 to 14 February 2022. All original studies with ‘precarious employment’ as an exposure and mental health problems as an outcome were included.

Search strategy and information sources

Keywords were determined on the basis of multi-dimensional precarious employment definitions, eg, the dimensions of precarious employment identified with the Employment Precariousness Scale (EPRES) ( 8 , 50 , 51 ) and an earlier reviewer with a similar scope ( 5 ) and related to three main headings, namely, ‘migrant’ (population), ‘precarious employment’ (exposure) and ‘mental health’ (outcome). Search strategies were developed with these keywords using the Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) thesaurus and freetext based on the eligibility criteria (supplementary material, www.sjweh.fi/article/4019 , table S1). With these keywords, information sources were searched in the following order. First, three electronic databases (Web of Science, PsycINFO and PubMed/Medline) were searched for original observational studies published from January 1970 to February 2022. Then, we hand-searched the reference lists of previously published related systematic reviews. We also hand-searched for relevant studies published in the American Journal of Industrial Medicine , BMC Public Health, Ethnicity & Health , and Gaceta Sanitaria in the last year from which we obtained the largest number of eligible studies in the database search. We included all 2019 issues that were published online in the hand-search. Lastly, the reference lists of all included studies were screened based on the eligibility criteria.

Data collection, selection process and extraction

First, two authors independently evaluated the titles, and abstracts of the identified articles. Secondly, two authors independently assessed the fulltext of all candidate articles. Any disagreements were reconciled by discussion with consultation of a third researcher to build consensus if necessary. A flowchart showing details about the selection process is illustrated in figure 1 . Two reviewers independently used a standardized form for data extraction from each included study in the data collection stage. A third reviewer was consulted for resolution in case of differences or disagreement between the reviewers’ evaluation. We contacted 12 corresponding authors to obtain certain data from their respective studies such as participants’ age or gender distribution if the information was not included in the published manuscript.

Flowchart of included studies.

Risk of bias and quality assessment

Two reviewers independently assessed the quality of the included qualitative and quantitative studies. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) was used to evaluate the quality of the quantitative studies ( 31 ). The Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) was used to assess the qualitative studies. The assessed quality of the included studies was graded according to the total score obtained from NOS and CASP. Discrepancies between the reviewers were discussed until a consensus was achieved.

Data analysis and synthesis

The results of the included studies are reported as a systematic review narrative synthesis. No meta-analysis was conducted due to variations in the included studies’ precarious employment dimensions, mental outcomes and measurement methods. Additionally, for studies that did not report confidence intervals (CI), we calculated the 95% CI using RevMan (version 5.4) ( 52 ). Thematic analysis was performed to synthesize the qualitative studies ( 53 ) using MAXQDA ( 54 ). One researcher developed an initial coding frame that a second researcher then checked. Themes and subthemes emerged on the basis of the initial coding. The results of the qualitative and quantitative studies were decided to be combined according to their common features and contents after discussion and analysis among the researchers. According to this decision, a form was developed based on themes and categories. The results of the review presented following the guidelines for systematic reviews and meta-analyses of observational studies (MOOSE) ( 55 ).

Study selection

The database search produced 817 results, and the hand search of the websites and reference lists added 899 studies; in total, 1706 studies were acquired ( figure 1 ). After screening for duplicates, 149 papers were removed; the titles and abstracts of the 1557 remaining studies were then assessed. Of these, 668 studies from the database search and 875 studies from the hand search sources were excluded because they did not fulfil the inclusion criteria, leaving 132 studies for full-text reading. Of these, 57 were found to be eligible for inclusion. The reference lists of the included studies were screened and 8 of these papers met the eligibility criteria. Finally, 65 studies were included, of which 33 were quantitative ( 21 – 23 , 25 , 33 , 40 , 56 – 82 ), 23 were qualitative ( 24 , 32 , 34 , 37 , 41 , 43 , 44 , 83 – 99 ) and 9 were mixed-methods studies ( 26 , 35 , 38 , 39 , 42 , 84 , 100 – 102 ). However, these studies were found to comply with the inclusion criteria with either only qualitative ( 35 , 38 , 39 , 42 , 84 , 101 , 102 ) or only quantitative findings ( 26 , 100 ).

In total, 65 studies were assessed for quality. About two-thirds of them (26 qualitative, 17 quantitative) were of high quality, while about one-third (4 qualitative, 15 quantitative) were of moderate quality (supplementary tables S2 and S3).

Study characteristics

Three studies (two quantitative, one qualitative) were published in Spanish, the others in English. None of the studies were published in German or Turkish. The vast majority of studies were conducted in North America (43%) or Europe (38%). The youngest participant age in all the studies was 16, and the majority of participants were female workers.

Nineteen of the quantitative studies consisted of a study population that included migrant and non-migrant workers. Two studies involved the same participants, but provided data on different variables ( 40 , 79 ). Most of them were cross-sectional studies. They were published between 1998 and 2022, with more than 70% being published after 2009. All but one quantitative studies collected their data after the 2000s. The General Health Questionnaire-12 (GHQ-12) was commonly used to evaluate mental health. Aside from the Employment Precariousness Scale, which was used in three studies ( 77 , 78 , 80 ), there was no specific tool for assessing precarious work conditions ( table 1 ).

Characteristics of the included quantitative studies. [PR=Prevalence Rate; rpb=Point-biserial Correlation; X 2 =Chi Square; EPRES=the Employment Precariousness Scale; COPSOQ-ISTA21=Spanish Version of Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire; ENETS=Quality of Life and Employment, Labor, and Health Conditions First National Survey; SF-36=Scales from the Spanish Version of the short form Health Questionnaire; GJSQ=Generic Job Stress Questionnaire; RSES: Rosenberg’s Self-Esteem Ecale; CCS=Cybernetic Coping Scale; CES-D 20=Epidemiological Studies Depression Rating Scale; MHI-5=Mental Health Inventory 5; MFWSI=Migrant Farmworker Stress Inventory; PAI=Personality Assessment Inventory; DASS-42=Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scale;JCQ=Job Content Questionnaire; GHQ=General Health Questionnaire; PHQ-9=Patient Health Questionnaire 9; ERI=Effort-reward Imbalance; 4M represents the Spanish version of CAGE, which an instrument for alcoholism screening; WHO= World Health Organization; NA=Not available]

The qualitative studies were published in 2003 to 2022, but the underlying data were collected from 1998 to 2019, and most of these papers (73%) were published after 2011 ( table 2 ). Except for one paper, the data from all the qualitative studies were collected in 2006 and afterwards. Semi-structured questionnaire forms were generally used for data collection in focus group discussions or individual interviews. Purposive sampling was the preferred data collection method.

Characteristics of the qualitative studies. [NA=not available.]

Prevalence of precarious employment and mental health problems

The majority of the quantitative studies reported more than one precarious work condition; 26 reported the prevalence of precarious employment and 28 provided an estimate for the prevalence of mental health problems among their participants. In some quantitative studies, the majority of participants were exposed to one of the dimensions of precarious work: non-permanent contracts (84%) ( 82 ), low-income (73%) ( 37 ), lack of health insurance (58%) ( 82 ), unfair treatment (54%) and job insecurity (63%) ( 57 ), precariousness (67%) ( 80 ).

Seven themes emerged from the codes of the qualitative studies: mental health and six other themes representing dimensions of precarious employment. All precarious work conditions and mental health problems reported in the quantitative studies likewise fit into the investigated themes. However, three quantitative studies measuring precarious employment characteristics over the EPRES total score were also included in each theme as they covered all identified themes in this review. The frequency of the themes created by combining quantitative and qualitative data was as follows: mental health (all qualitative and quantitative studies), temporariness (65%; 19 quantitative, 23 qualitative), vulnerability (58%; 13 quantitative, 25 qualitative), imbalanced interpersonal power relations (52%; 19 quantitative, 15 qualitative), disempowerment (46%; 9 quantitative, 21 qualitative), lacking workers’ rights (51%; 12 quantitative, 21 qualitative) and low income (35%; 12 quantitative, 13 qualitative). The included studies reported various mental health problems, most commonly stress (52%), depression (43%), anxiety (34%), poor mental health (23%) and sleep problems (23%).

Precarious employment and its association with mental health

Some quantitative studies provided just the frequency of exposure, while others presented estimates for the association between exposure and mental health. The main dimensions of precarious employment and their associations with mental health problems are summarized in table 1 . Twenty-three quantitative studies reported effect estimates that provided evidence for an association between the respective dimension of precariousness and poor mental health ( figure 2 ).

Effect estimates and cofidence intervals (CI) from qualitative studies fod the association between the respectibe exposure (dimension of precarious work) and poor mental health.

Effect estimates and cofidence intervals (CI) from qualitative studies fod the association between the respectibe exposure (dimension of precarious work) and depression, suicidal ideation, perceived mental exertion, general mental health problems and work stress.

In total, 341 codes were identified from the qualitative studies. Seven themes and 44 categories emerged. Since these identified themes also included precarious work conditions defined in the quantitative studies, the findings regarding precarious employment and its association with mental health problems were given below based on the themes (figure 3). More detailed information about the themes, categories and quotes that best represented these themes and categories are provided in supplementary table S4.

Theme 1: Mental health problems. Mental health problems were apparent in all the included studies. Stress was reported in all but six of the qualitative studies ( 24 , 35 , 43 , 85 , 89 , 102 ). Anxiety was reported in 18 qualitative studies ( 32 , 34 , 35 , 37 , 41 – 44 , 83 , 86 , 88 – 90 , 92 , 95 – 97 , 102 ), depression in 16 ( 32 , 34 , 35 , 37 , 42 , 83 – 86 , 88 , 89 , 94 – 97 , 99 ) and sleep problems in 12 ( 32 , 34 , 39 , 42 – 44 , 84 , 85 , 95 – 97 , 99 ). Precarious working conditions were found to be important factors underlying workers’ mental health problems. The most common underlined factors were job insecurity ( 41 – 43 , 83 – 86 , 88 – 92 , 94 , 95 , 97 , 98 , 101 , 102 ), low income ( 32 , 35 , 38 , 42 , 84 , 86 , 89 , 93 , 95 , 96 ), bad and disrespectful behavior of employers ( 39 , 42 , 44 , 85 , 87 , 93 , 95 , 96 ), job and income uncertainty ( 26 , 83 , 85 ), undocumented status ( 42 – 44 , 84 , 88 , 98 ) and fear of deportation ( 42 , 43 , 88 , 101 ), long working hours ( 41 , 84 , 95 ), need for multiple jobs ( 90 , 95 , 96 ) and discrimination ( 37 , 85 , 101 ).

Theme 2: Vulnerability . Vulnerability was the most apparent theme, appearing in 83% of the qualitative studies ( 24 , 32 , 34 , 37 – 39 , 41 – 44 , 85 – 87 , 89 – 97 , 99 , 101 , 102 ). This theme consisted of six categories: fearing termination for insubordination, being unable to ask for better work conditions, being conditioned to feel easily replaceable, working under conditions inconsistent with their contracts, being paid less than are non-migrants and discrimination and racism at workplace. The most evident category within this theme was “fearing termination for insubordination”, which was present in more than one third of the included qualitative studies. It consisted of four subcategories: feeling obliged to work during sickness, receiving insufficient overtime pay despite being requested to render overtime work, being requested to perform additional work or tasks without added payment, working on assigned tasks or jobs without prior consultation notice to the work ( 24 , 32 , 34 , 37 – 39 , 41 – 44 , 85 – 87 , 89 , 90 , 92 , 93 , 95 , 97 , 102 ). Being undocumented further worsened these working conditions ( 24 , 37 , 85 , 102 ). The studied workers felt too vulnerable to use their rights when needed due to their fear of termination. Thus, many of them went to work despite experiencing work accidents or being in strong pain. Some of them hid their health problems or any work accident/injury to protect their work positions, as some employers prefer not to work with workers who are sick or were in accidents ( 34 , 41 ). Some workers were exposed to retaliation and threats when they complained about their work conditions ( 95 ). Many of the participants expressed that they had accepted their precarious work conditions to survive ( 86 ). Furthermore, the inability to ask for better work conditions was common among the undocumented workers ( 24 , 43 , 85 , 102 ). Additionally, many participants were aware of their contractual rights but felt too vulnerable to struggle for them ( 41 , 44 , 85 , 86 , 89 , 95 , 101 ). Overall, the undocumented migrant workers were more vulnerable compared with the registered migrant workers. Thirteen quantitative studies reported discrimination at the workplace ( 21 , 22 , 57 , 60 , 62 – 65 , 68 , 76 , 79 , 81 , 100 ), and ten of them showed a statistically significant association between discrimination/unfair treatment and mental health problems

Theme 3: Temporariness . This theme emerged in 88% of the qualitative papers. It covered four categories: unstable jobs, temporary/short-term jobs, lack of job security and certainty and lack of income security or stability ( 32 , 34 , 38 , 41 , 42 , 44 , 83 – 86 , 88 – 98 , 101 , 102 ). Temporary jobs and instability prevent workers from obtaining unemployment benefits ( 43 , 90 ). Some of them found work through informal resources ( 44 ), temporary placement agencies ( 95 ) or meeting points in cities where employers recruit workers daily ( 44 ). Many of them worked on short-term contracts or without any contract, leading to job inconsistency ( 44 , 83 – 86 , 90 , 95 , 101 ), economic instability and lack of employee rights ( 101 ). Job insecurity was very common, regardless of the type of precarious contract ( 32 , 38 , 89 , 90 , 93 , 98 ).

Nine quantitative studies ( 25 , 33 , 57 , 66 – 68 , 74 , 75 , 80 ) reported job insecurity, and five of them provided the prevalence of job insecurity ( 25 , 57 , 67 , 74 , 75 ). Seven studies reported an association between job insecurity and mental health problems ( 33 , 57 , 66 – 68 , 75 , 80 ). Many of the studied migrants in the quantitative studies worked on fixed-term, temporary or verbal contracts or no contracts at all ( 40 , 57 , 58 , 72 , 73 , 76 , 82 ). Six of the quantitative studies reported an association between precarious contract types and poor mental health ( 58 , 60 , 72 , 73 , 76 , 82 ) and three of them provided gender-stratified analyses. In one of them, migrant women workers reported mental health problems more often compared to non-migrant women workers, even though this difference was not statistically significant ( 82 ). Undocumented male migrant workers who worked with temporary contracts reported a higher risk of mental health problems compared to the non-migrant men who worked with a permanent contract ( 73 ). In another study, the association between precarious employment and mental health was stronger among women workers than among men ( 77 ).

Theme 4: Lacking workers’ rights . This theme emerged in more than two thirds of the qualitative studies ( 24 , 32 , 34 , 35 , 37 – 39 , 41 , 42 , 44 , 85 , 87 , 89 , 94 – 99 , 101 , 102 ). Workers who worked on an hourly basis did not enjoy the benefits of labor rights, such as health insurance, paid vacation or paid sick leave; this applied to the undocumented workers as well ( 34 , 37 , 38 , 44 , 89 , 94 , 96 , 98 ). Some of the workers were not able to take breaks for basic needs; some were not allowed to go to the lavatory without permission, and some received pay deductions for spending ‘more’ time in the lavatory ( 94 ).

Seven quantitative studies reported workers’ rights ( 21 , 23 , 40 , 59 , 64 , 69 ) with three of them yielding evidence for an association between lack workers’ rights and mental health outcomes ( 21 , 59 , 64 ).

Theme 5: Imbalanced interpersonal power relations . The theme ‘imbalanced interpersonal power relations’ was observed in more than 50% of the qualitative studies and consisted of four categories: harassment and abusive treatment, authoritarian behaviors and approaches, unfair work conditions and treatment, and physical violence ( 34 , 35 , 37 – 39 , 41 , 42 , 44 , 85 , 87 , 93 , 95 , 96 , 102 ). The majority of the workers experienced unfair treatment and conditions at the workplace ( 38 , 39 , 42 , 44 , 85 ). Disrespectful behaviors and outright abuse from employers, such as yelling ( 42 ), scolding and shouting ( 34 , 85 , 102 ), bullying ( 87 ) and ignoring of questions ( 96 ), were also experienced. Some workers were hit by their employers ( 87 , 93 ) or their employers’ children ( 42 ), scorched with an iron or made to drink soap at the workplace ( 34 ).

Six quantitative studies ( 40 , 62 , 66 , 70 , 73 , 75 ) reported undocumented status. Three of them reported an association between undocumented status and poor mental health ( 62 , 70 , 73 ).

Theme 6: Low income . This theme contained the categories “wage that cannot cover basic needs” and “wage that cannot cover unexpected expenses” ( 24 , 35 , 43 , 44 , 83 , 84 , 86 , 91 , 93 , 95 – 97 , 102 ). Many workers experienced various consequences of earning low income, such as worsening quality and quantity of food ( 35 , 83 , 93 , 95 ), inability to provide extracurricular activities for their children [eg, birthday celebrations ( 95 )] and inability to purchase medicine for children ( 93 ). Some of them could not pay their bills and other necessities ( 84 ), such as transportation, clothing for family members ( 83 , 95 ) and other types of required expenses ( 35 , 84 , 86 , 93 ).

Nine of the included quantitative studies reported low income among the participants, with six of them providing its prevalence ( 21 , 23 , 26 , 56 , 58 – 60 , 66 , 70 ). Four of the studies observed evidence for an association between low income and mental health problems ( 23 , 56 , 58 , 60 ).

Theme 7: Disempowerment . This theme was apparent in 63% of the qualitative studies covering the following categories: lack of unions, uncertain pay amount or schedule, unusually small salary amount or lack of payment during official holidays, working time arrangements, and other issues (eg, language barriers and insufficient or non-existent knowledge about labor rights) ( 24 , 32 , 34 , 38 , 41 – 44 , 83 , 85 , 89 , 91 – 96 , 99 , 101 ). The majority of the workers had no unions ( 43 , 89 ) and/or had insufficient information about access to labor unions or any work organization that supports workers. With no official documentation and language problems, the participating workers felt helpless relative to their employers ( 24 , 32 , 43 , 101 ). Thus, they were required to work overtime or on public holidays without any payment ( 38 ), paying low salaries ( 24 , 32 ), giving no payment at all ( 92 ) or paying wages at uncertain times ( 34 , 93 ). Some undocumented workers who fought for payment for days worked were threatened by their employers with calls to police, which might lead to deportation ( 24 , 32 ).

The main purpose of this review of qualitative and quantitative studies was to summarize and analyze existing research on the association between precarious employment and mental health of migrant workers. The review showed that the included studies examined different dimensions of precarious employment and a variety of mental health problems. Some of them reported the prevalence of precarious employment and mental health problems and/or an association between precarious employment and mental health problems. A considerable number of those studies did observe evidence for such an association.

In total, the review included 65 studies from four continents, with almost 90% of the studies being performed in high-income countries, which have had the largest numbers of migrant workers in the last century ( 3 ). Most of the included studies were of high quality. The data of almost all the studies were collected and published after the 2000s, and the number of published studies has increased especially in recent years. This development is consistent with the rising prevalence of precarious work conditions in the last decades due to globalization and decline of social policies ( 5 , 9 ). Mounting awareness of precarious employment and its influence on health and life quality of workers among the general public may also have contributed to the rise in the number of studies in this field.

The results of the present review indicate that a high prevalence of precarious employment among migrant workers with migrants being frequently exposed to various dimensions of precarious employment. On top of this, the results from those studies that also included non-migrant workers indicate that the prevalence of precarious employment tends to be higher among migrant compared to non-migrant workers while at the same time the effects of precarious work conditions on mental health also seem to be more pronounced among migrants ( 77 , 81 , 82 ). Those findings support the assumption of a special vulnerability to precarious employment among migrants outlined at the beginning.

Temporariness, (temporary, fixed-term or verbal contracts or no contracts at all), was the most commonly reported dimension of precarious employment among the included studies. This is in line with the results of related reviews that also concluded that temporariness is the most commonly observed dimension of precarious employment among workers including migrants ( 5 , 19 , 27 , 29 ). Furthermore, migrant workers in the studies included in our review commonly expressed a lack of rights or perceived powerlessness to exercise workers’ rights, income insufficiency for basic needs, income insecurity or perceived powerlessness to negotiate work schedules or salaries. For example, two qualitative studies reported that women workers could not even use pregnancy leave and were forced to work until the last days of pregnancy ( 44 , 89 ). Some studies reported that migrant workers were exposed to highly unacceptable behaviors, such as racism, drinking of soap and scolding with physical violence ( 34 , 42 , 87 , 93 ).

In terms of mental health problems, the most commonly investigated ones were stress, depression, anxiety, poor general mental health and sleep problems. The prevalence of these outcomes varied between 10–75% among the quantitative studies included in the present review. Some of the included studies provided data about a putative association between precarious employment and mental health problems, yielding prevailing evidence for such an association. For example, temporariness was a risk factor for mental health problems in most of the studies examining this dimension of precariousness. The influence of this dimension on mental health ( 2 , 5 , 29 , 30 ) and occupational accidents and injuries of workers ( 19 , 20 ) has been widely examined by other systematic reviews, and their results are similar to those of this review. Moreover, the migrant workers found exposure to discrimination and authoritarian behaviors to be hurtful experiences and are thus important factors of mental health. Reviews by Sterud ( 31 ) and Jurado ( 103 ) also supported this finding as they found a relationship between perceived discrimination and poor mental health among migrant workers. Furthermore, the results of qualitative studies show that workers’ interpretation of precarious work conditions also seems to play an important role in developing mental health problems. Cultural background, education level, professional work experience in original country, perspective of life and workers’ rights, awareness of the occupational system, and rights in the host country may affect their interpretation. For example, workers’ interpretation and acceptance of precarious work conditions as a permanent endeavor or a temporary period may affect the direct relationship between precarious employment and mental health. Some workers resort to precarious employment because of urgent economic needs or a need to obtain a positive reference from an employer, which is required in finding new work or securing a work contract that will extend their residency in the host country. Thus, they may feel the need to endure precarious work conditions, such as discrimination, long working hours without compensation, unpredictable work schedules, lack of workers’ rights and authoritarian or disrespectful behaviors at the workplace. These experiences and feelings of workers may have added impact on their development of mental health problems. Having low social support and family concerns, limited access to and information about health care systems and traumatic life experiences prior to migration may also increase workers’ levels of mental health problems ( 103 ).

The findings of this review also provide scientific data on precarious employment and its influence on mental health based on differences in gender and type of migrant status. Being undocumented in the host country seemed to be the worst condition, and it exposed workers to combined dimensions of precarious employment ( 24 , 41 , 43 ). In addition, female migrant workers developed higher rates of mental problems due to exposure to precarious employment compared with male migrant and non-migrant workers ( 73 , 82 ).

Strengths and limitations

Search strategy and publication bias . This review is the first to provide scientifically comprehensive data about the association between precarious employment and migrant workers’ mental health. Wide-ranging definitions of and approaches to precarious employment, migration, and mental health problems were adopted to identify all relevant studies in the field. In addition to three digital databases, related informal sources and the references of the initially included studies were manually searched to decrease the possibility of overlooking relevant studies. This search strategy covered all relevant observational studies that were published in four languages (English, Spanish, German and Turkish) in the last 50 years. This search produced a reasonable number of qualitative and quantitative studies published in English and Spanish.

A limitation of our review is that no meta-analysis was conducted due to variations between the precarious employment dimensions, mental outcomes and measurement methods in the included studies. For this reason, it was also not feasible to construct funnel plots for assessment. However, the findings from another systematic review suggest that publication bias does not seem to play a major role in the research area of precarious work ( 5 ).

Moreover, some sources of bias in the individual studies need to be taken into account. First, most of the quantitative works were cross-sectional studies using different measurement tools to evaluate multiple types of precarious employment and various mental health outcomes. Only three studies assessed precarious employment with a validated and reliable tool (EPRES); the rest used different forms of questionnaires hampering the comparability between those studies. Furthermore, also mental health was measured with different scales or questionnaires. For example, the 12-item general health questionnaire (GHQ-12) was widely used to measure mental health; however, some authors interpreted the level of mental health over the total score (linear outcome variable), whereas some used a cut-off to define a dichotomous outcome variable. Furthermore, there was a lack of data regarding the duration of exposure to precarious employment, whether the workers had any mental health problems before beginning to work and work experiences prior to migration. Finally, limited data on the causes of migration was provided in the included studies, which might have an influence on the development of mental health problems.

Implications

The results of this review underline the importance of preventing mental health problems by reducing or mitigating precarious work conditions among migrant workers. Additionally, our results may increase social awareness about precarious employment and its influence on mental health, thereby aiding the establishment of human-based, worker-friendly policies at workplaces. This review might also help protect workers from exploitation by enabling experts to control certain elements in workplaces, which seem likely to have precarious work conditions, such as factors related to workers’ rights. Furthermore, our data may play a role in the ongoing discussion about precarious employment being potentially useful for the planning of long-term preventive programmes. We recommend that future qualitative and quantitative studies holistically examine multiple dimensions of precarious employment and their influence on the mental health and well-being of workers using a multidimensional definition of precariousness. When doing so, studies may especially aim to disentangle the underlying mechanisms by being based on sound theoretical frameworks such as occupational stress models ( 9 ). For instance, one may argue that some factors, eg, job insecurity, are not working conditions per se but rather mediators on the pathway between precarious employment conditions and mental health. By applying and operationalizing a priori defined theoretical frameworks, a better understanding of such mechanisms may be obtained. Such analyses may also elucidate to what extent the association between precarious employment and mental health depends on migrants’ individual characteristics and competencies or factors related to the migration process (eg, time since migration, reason for migration) ( 104 ). Moreover, future research may identify work-related or individual factors that act as job resources mitigating the effects of precarious employment in terms of the Job Demands–Resources model ( 105 ). Concerning study designs, most studies included in our review were cross-sectional. Longitudinal studies that can establish a temporal relationship between exposure and outcome would thus be useful in the future.

Concluding remarks

The results of the present review indicate that migrant workers are exposed to various dimensions of precarious employment and frequently experience mental health problems. An association between different dimensions of precarious employment, most prominently temporariness, and mental problems was reported by a considerable proportion of the included studies. However, it was observed that the theme of disempowerment and lacking workers’ rights were less frequently examined compared to other themes, especially in quantitative studies. Altogether, those findings support the hypothesis that precarious employment is associated with migrant workers’ mental health. We recommend that future research should better disentangle the underlying mechanisms by being based on sound theoretical frameworks as provided by occupational stress models. Ultimately, the results of the present review may be used as evidence for developing a new policy to resolve precarious employment. In addition, this review may also be used as a guideline for developing a better migrant-friendly policy in the future.

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest. This study received no specific grant from any funding agency. One of the authors (OKO) received a scholarship within the Alexander-von-Humboldt Foundation’s Philipp-Schwartz-Initiative. The scholarship provider played no role in the study design, the collection, analysis and interpretation of the data, the writing of the report, or the decision to submit the paper for publication.

Supplementary material

• 1. Agbata EN, Padilla PF, Agbata IN, Armas LH, Solà I, Pottie K, et al. Migrant Healthcare Guidelines:A Systematic Quality Assessment. J Immigr Minor Health. 2019 Apr;21(2):401–13. doi: 10.1007/s10903-018-0759-9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10903-018-0759-9. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 2. Salami B, Meherali S, Salami A. The health of temporary foreign workers in Canada:A scoping review. Can J Public Health. 2016 Mar;106(8):e546–54. doi: 10.17269/CJPH.106.5182. https://doi.org/10.17269/CJPH.106.5182. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 3. International Labour Organisation. ILO Global Estimates on International Migrant Workers:Results and Methodology [Internet] Geneva: 2018. Available from: https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---dgreports/---dcomm/---publ/documents/publication/wcms_652001.pdf . [ Google Scholar ]
• 4. Ervasti J, Virtanen M. Research strategies for precarious employment. Scand J Work Environ Health. 2019 Sep;45(5):425–7. doi: 10.5271/sjweh.3845. https://doi.org/10.5271/sjweh.3845. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 5. Rönnblad T, Grönholm E, Jonsson J, Koranyi I, Orellana C, Kreshpaj B, et al. Precarious employment and mental health:a systematic review and meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. Scand J Work Environ Health. 2019 Sep;45(5):429–43. doi: 10.5271/sjweh.3797. https://doi.org/10.5271/sjweh.3797. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 6. Julià M, Vanroelen C, Bosmans K, Van Aerden K, Benach J. Precarious Employment and Quality of Employment in Relation to Health and Well-being in Europe. Int J Health Serv. 2017 Jul;47(3):389–409. doi: 10.1177/0020731417707491. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020731417707491. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 7. Kreshpaj B, Orellana C, Burström B, Davis L, Hemmingsson T, Johansson G, et al. What is precarious employment?A systematic review of definitions and operationalizations from quantitative and qualitative studies. Scand J Work Environ Health. 2020 May;46(3):235–47. doi: 10.5271/sjweh.3875. https://doi.org/10.5271/sjweh.3875. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 8. Standing G. The precariat:The new dangerous class. London: Bloomsbury Publishing; 2016. [ Google Scholar ]
• 9. Utzet M, Valero E, Mosquera I, Martin U. Employment precariousness and mental health, understanding a complex reality:a systematic review. Int J Occup Med Environ Health. 2020 Sep;33(5):569–98. doi: 10.13075/ijomeh.1896.01553. https://doi.org/10.13075/ijomeh.1896.01553. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 10. Vives A, González F, Moncada S, Llorens C, Benach J. Measuring precarious employment in times of crisis:the revised Employment Precariousness Scale (EPRES) in Spain. Gac Sanit. 2015 Sep-Oct;29(5):379–82. doi: 10.1016/j.gaceta.2015.06.008. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gaceta.2015.06.008. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 11. Burdorf A, Porru F, Rugulies R. The COVID-19 (Coronavirus) pandemic:consequences for occupational health. Scand J Work Environ Health. 2020 May;46(3):229–30. doi: 10.5271/sjweh.3893. https://doi.org/10.5271/sjweh.3893. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 12. Matilla-Santander N, Ahonen E, Albin M, Baron S, Bolíbar M, Bosmans K, et al. All Members of the PWR Study Consortium. COVID-19 and Precarious Employment:Consequences of the Evolving Crisis. Int J Health Serv. 2021 Apr;51(2):226–8. doi: 10.1177/0020731420986694. https://doi.org/10.1177/00207314209⇝4. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 13. Bodin T, Çağlayan Ç, Garde AH, Gnesi M, Jonsson J, Kiran S, et al. Precarious employment in occupational health - an OMEGA-NET working group position paper. Scand J Work Environ Health. 2020 May;46(3):321–9. doi: 10.5271/sjweh.3860. https://doi.org/10.5271/sjweh.3860. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 14. Jonsson J, Matilla-Santander N, Kreshpaj B, Johansson G, Kjellberg K, Burström B, et al. Precarious employment and general, mental and physical health in Stockholm, Sweden:a cross-sectional study. Scand J Public Health. 2021 Mar;49(2):228–36. doi: 10.1177/1403494820956451. https://doi.org/10.1177/1403494820956451. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 15. Oddo VM, Zhuang CC, Andrea SB, Eisenberg-Guyot J, Peckham T, Jacoby D, et al. Changes in precarious employment in the United States:A longitudinal analysis. Scand J Work Environ Health. 2021 Apr 1;47(3):171–80. doi: 10.5271/sjweh.3939. https://doi.org/10.5271/sjweh.3939. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 16. Gray BJ, Grey C, Hookway A, Homolova L, Davies AR. Differences in the impact of precarious employment on health across population subgroups:a scoping review. Perspect Public Health. 2021 Jan;141(1):37–49. doi: 10.1177/1757913920971333. https://doi.org/10.1177/1757913920971333. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 17. Machado Susseret N, Briceno-Ayala L, Radon K. Prevalence of low back pain in migrant construction workers in Mar del Plata, Argentina. Am J Ind Med. 2019 Sep;62(9):777–82. doi: 10.1002/ajim.23016. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajim.23016. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 18. Khlat M, Legleye S, Falissard B, Chau N Lorhandicap group. Mortality gradient across the labour market core-periphery structure:a 13-year mortality follow-up study in north-eastern France. Int Arch Occup Environ Health. 2014;87(7):725–33. doi: 10.1007/s00420-013-0915-4. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00420-013-0915-4. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 19. Koranyi I, Jonsson J, Rönnblad T, Stockfelt L, Bodin T. Precarious employment and occupational accidents and injuries - a systematic review. Scand J Work Environ Health. 2018 Jul;44(4):341–50. doi: 10.5271/sjweh.3720. https://doi.org/10.5271/sjweh.3720. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 20. Virtanen M, Kivimäki M, Joensuu M, Virtanen P, Elovainio M, Vahtera J. Temporary employment and health:a review. Int J Epidemiol. 2005 Jun;34(3):610–22. doi: 10.1093/ije/dyi024. https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyi024. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 21. Burgel BJ, Elshatarat RA. Associations between daily-on-the job hassles with perceived mental exertion and depression symptoms in taxi drivers. Am J Ind Med. 2019 Sep;62(9):791–802. doi: 10.1002/ajim.23019. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajim.23019. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 22. Hiott AE, Grzywacz JG, Davis SW, Quandt SA, Arcury TA. Migrant farmworker stress:mental health implications. J Rural Health. 2008;24(1):32–9. doi: 10.1111/j.1748-0361.2008.00134.x. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-0361.2008.00134.x. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 23. Al-Maskari F, Shah SM, Al-Sharhan R, Al-Haj E, Al-Kaabi K, Khonji D, et al. Prevalence of depression and suicidal behaviors among male migrant workers in United Arab Emirates. J Immigr Minor Health. 2011 Dec;13(6):1027–32. doi: 10.1007/s10903-011-9470-9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10903-011-9470-9. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 24. Alemi Q, Montgomery S, Stempel C. A Qualitative Study Exploring the Psychosocial Needs of Male Undocumented Afghan Migrants in Istanbul, Turkey. Societies (Basel) 2018;8(2):22. https://doi.org/10.3390/soc8020022. [ Google Scholar ]
• 25. Karkar A, Dammang ML, Bouhaha BM. of Kidney Diseases and Transplantation Original Article Stress and Burnout among Hemodialysis Nurses. Saudi J Kidney Dis Transpl. 2015;26(1):12–8. doi: 10.4103/1319-2442.148712. https://doi.org/10.4103/1319-2442.14∈. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 26. Vahabi M, Wong JP, Lofters A. Migrant Live-in Caregivers Mental Health in Canada [Internet] Community Ment Health J. 2018 Jul;54(5):590–9. doi: 10.1007/s10597-017-0225-5. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10597-017-0225-5. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 27. de Witte H, Pienaar J, de Cuyper N. Review of 30 Years of Longitudinal Studies on the Association Between Job Insecurity and Health and Well-Being:Is There Causal Evidence? Aust Psychol. 2016;51(1):18–31. https://doi.org/10.1111/ap.12176. [ Google Scholar ]
• 28. Hünefeld L, Köper B. Fixed-term employment and job insecurity (JI) as risk factors for mental health. A review of international study results. E-Journal Int Comp Labour Stud. 2016;5(3) [ Google Scholar ]
• 29. Kim TJ, von dem Knesebeck O. Perceived job insecurity, unemployment and depressive symptoms:a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective observational studies. Int Arch Occup Environ Health. 2016 May;89(4):561–73. doi: 10.1007/s00420-015-1107-1. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00420-015-1107-1. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 30. Kim TJ, von dem Knesebeck O. Is an insecure job better for health than having no job at all?A systematic review of studies investigating the health-related risks of both job insecurity and unemployment. BMC Public Health. 2015 Sep;15(1):985. doi: 10.1186/s12889-015-2313-1. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-015-2313-1. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 31. Sterud T, Tynes T, Mehlum IS, Veiersted KB, Bergbom B, Airila A, et al. A systematic review of working conditions and occupational health among immigrants in Europe and Canada. BMC Public Health. 2018 Jun;18(1):770. doi: 10.1186/s12889-018-5703-3. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-018-5703-3. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 32. Weishaar HB. Consequences of international migration:a qualitative study on stress among Polish migrant workers in Scotland. Public Health. 2008 Nov;122(11):1250–6. doi: 10.1016/j.puhe.2008.03.016. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.puhe.2008.03.016. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 33. Font A, Moncada S, Benavides FG. The relationship between immigration and mental health:what is the role of workplace psychosocial factors. Int Arch Occup Environ Health. 2012 Oct;85(7):801–6. doi: 10.1007/s00420-011-0724-6. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00420-011-0724-6. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 34. Hall BJ, Garabiles MR, Latkin CA. Work life, relationship, and policy determinants of health and well-being among Filipino domestic Workers in China:a qualitative study. BMC Public Health. 2019 Feb;19(1):229. doi: 10.1186/s12889-019-6552-4. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-019-6552-4. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 35. Magaña CG, Hovey JD. Psychosocial stressors associated with Mexican migrant farmworkers in the midwest United States. J Immigr Health. 2003 Apr;5(2):75–86. doi: 10.1023/a:1022955825650. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022955825650. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 36. Doki S, Sasahara S, Matsuzaki I. Stress of working abroad:a systematic review [Internet] Int Arch Occup Environ Health. 2018 Oct;91(7):767–84. doi: 10.1007/s00420-018-1333-4. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00420-018-1333-4. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 37. Agudelo-Suárez A, Gil-González D, Ronda-Pérez E, Porthé V, Paramio-Pérez G, García AM, et al. Discrimination, work and health in immigrant populations in Spain. Soc Sci Med. 2009 May;68(10):1866–74. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2009.02.046. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2009.02.046. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 38. Hsieh YC, Apostolopoulos Y, Sönmez S. Work Conditions and Health and Well-Being of Latina Hotel Housekeepers. J Immigr Minor Health. 2016 Jun;18(3):568–81. doi: 10.1007/s10903-015-0224-y. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10903-015-0224-y. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 39. Romero D, Flandrick K, Kordosky J, Vossenas P. On-the-ground health and safety experiences of non-union casino hotel workers:A focus-group study stratified by four occupational groups. Am J Ind Med. 2018 Nov;61(11):919–28. doi: 10.1002/ajim.22896. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajim.22896. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 40. Agudelo-Suárez AA, Ronda-Pérez E, Gil-González D, Vives-Cases C, García AM, García-Benavides F, et al. por el proyecto ITSAL. Proceso migratorio, condiciones laborales y salud en trabajadores inmigrantes en España (proyecto ITSAL). [The migratory process, working conditions and health in immigrant workers in Spain (the ITSAL project)] Gac Sanit. 2009 Dec;23 Suppl 1:115–21. doi: 10.1016/j.gaceta.2009.07.007. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gaceta.2009.07.007. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 41. Eggerth DE, Ortiz B, Keller BM, Flynn MA. Work experiences of Latino building cleaners:an exploratory study. Am J Ind Med. 2019 Jul;62(7):600–8. doi: 10.1002/ajim.22986. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajim.22986. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 42. Vahabi M, Wong JP. Caught between a rock and a hard place:mental health of migrant live-in caregivers in Canada. BMC Public Health. 2017 May;17(1):498. doi: 10.1186/s12889-017-4431-4. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-017-4431-4. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 43. Ahonen EQ, Porthé V, Vázquez ML, García AM, López-Jacob MJ, Ruiz-Frutos C, et al. ITSAL Project. A qualitative study about immigrant workers'perceptions of their working conditions in Spain. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2009 Nov;63(11):936–42. doi: 10.1136/jech.2008.077016. https://doi.org/10.1136/jech.2008.077016. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 44. Porthé V, Benavides FG, Vázquez ML, Ruiz-Frutos C, García AM, Ahonen E, et al. por el proyecto ITSAL. La precariedad laboral en inmigrantes en situación irregular en España y su relación con la salud. [Precarious employment in undocumented immigrants in Spain and its relationship with health] Gac Sanit. 2009 Dec;23 Suppl 1:107–14. doi: 10.1016/j.gaceta.2009.09.004. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 45. Weinmann T, AlZahmi A, Schneck A, Mancera Charry JF, Fröschl G, Radon K. Population-based assessment of health, healthcare utilisation, and specific needs of Syrian migrants in Germany:what is the best sampling method? BMC Med Res Methodol. 2019 Jan;19(1):5. doi: 10.1186/s12874-018-0652-1. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-018-0652-1. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 46. Brzoska P, Ellert U, Kimil A, Razum O, Sass AC, Salman R, et al. Reviewing the topic of migration and health as a new national health target for Germany. Int J Public Health. 2015 Jan;60(1):13–20. doi: 10.1007/s00038-014-0617-z. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00038-014-0617-z. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 47. Ornek OK, Weinmann T, Waibel J, Radon K. Precarious employment and migrant workers 'mental health :a protocol for a systematic review of observational studies. Syst Rev. 2020 Mar 7;9(1):50. doi: 10.1186/s13643-020-01313-w. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-020-01313-w. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 48. Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew M, et al. PRISMA-P Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst Rev. 2015 Jan;4(1):1. doi: 10.1186/2046-4053-4-1. https://doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-4-1. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 49. Woodruff TJ, Sutton P. The Navigation Guide systematic review methodology:a rigorous and transparent method for translating environmental health science into better health outcomes. Environ Health Perspect. 2014 Oct;122(10):1007–14. doi: 10.1289/ehp.1307175. https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1307175. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 50. International Labour Organisation. From precarious work to decent work [Internet] Geneva: 2012. Available from: https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/@ed_dialogue/@actrav/documents/meetingdocument/wcms_179787.pdf . [ Google Scholar ]
• 51. Vives A, Amable M, Ferrer M, Moncada S, Llorens C, Muntaner C, et al. The Employment Precariousness Scale (EPRES):psychometric properties of a new tool for epidemiological studies among waged and salaried workers. Occup Environ Med. 2010 Aug;67(8):548–55. doi: 10.1136/oem.2009.048967. https://doi.org/10.1136/oem.2009.048967. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 52. The Cochrane Collaboration. Review Manager (RevMan) version 5.4.1. 2020.
• 53. Thomas J, Harden A. Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2008 Jul;8(45):45. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-8-45. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-8-45. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 54. VERBI Software. MAXQDA 2020 software [Internet] Berlin: 2019. Available from: maxqda.com . [ Google Scholar ]
• 55. Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC, Olkin I, Williamson GD, Rennie D, et al. Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology:a proposal for reporting. Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) group. JAMA. 2000 Apr;283(15):2008–12. doi: 10.1001/jama.283.15.2008. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.283.15.2008. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 56. Chang KC, Liao YH, Lee HC, Wu CY, Yen CL, Lin PL, et al. Musculoskeletal disorders, psychosocial stress and associated factors among home-based migrant care workers. Work. 2020;65(3):647–59. doi: 10.3233/WOR-203119. https://doi.org/10.3233/WOR-203119. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 57. Daly A, Carey RN, Darcey E, Chih H, LaMontagne AD, Milner A, et al. Using three cross-sectional surveys to compare workplace psychosocial stressors and associated mental health status in six migrant groups working in Australia compared with Australian-born workers. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019 Feb;16(5):735. doi: 10.3390/ijerph16050735. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16050735. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 58. Del Amo J, Jarrín I, García-Fulgueiras A, Ibáñez-Rojo V, Alvarez D, Rodríguez-Arenas MÁ, et al. Mental health in Ecuadorian migrants from a population-based survey:the importance of social determinants and gender roles. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 2011 Nov;46(11):1143–52. doi: 10.1007/s00127-010-0288-x. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00127-010-0288-x. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 59. Dhungana RR, Aryal N, Adhikary P, Kc RK, Regmi PR, Devkota B, et al. Psychological morbidity in Nepali cross-border migrants in India:a community based cross-sectional study. BMC Public Health. 2019 Nov;19(1):1534. doi: 10.1186/s12889-019-7881-z. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-019-7881-z. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 60. Drydakis N. Adverse working conditions and immigrants'physical health and depression outcomes:a longitudinal study in Greece [Internet] Int Arch Occup Environ Health. 2022 Mar;95(2):539–56. doi: 10.1007/s00420-021-01757-0. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00420-021-01757-0. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 61. Espinoza-Castro B, Weinmann T, Mendoza López R, Radon K. Working conditions as risk factors for depressive symptoms among spanish?speaking au pairs living in germany—longitudinal study. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021 Jun;18(13):6940. doi: 10.3390/ijerph18136940. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18136940. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 62. Grzywacz JG, Quandt SA, Chen H, Isom S, Kiang L, Vallejos Q, et al. Depressive Symptoms among Latino Farmworkers across the Agricultural Season:Structural and Situational Influences. Cult Divers Ethn Minor Psychol [Internet]. 2010;16(3):335–43. doi: 10.1037/a0019722. Available from:file:///C:/Users/ASUS/Desktop/Rujukan PhD/Dev of drug R cell line/nihms579608.pdf. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 63. Hammond WP, Gillen M, Yen IH. Workplace Discrimination and Depressive Symptoms:A Study of Multi-Ethnic Hospital Employees. Race Soc Probl. 2010 Mar;2(1):19–30. doi: 10.1007/s12552-010-9024-0. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12552-010-9024-0. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 64. Haro AY, Kuhn R, Rodriguez MA, Theodore N, Melendez E, Valenzuela A., Jr Beyond Occupational Hazards:Abuse of Day Laborers and Health. J Immigr Minor Health. 2020 Dec;22(6):1172–83. doi: 10.1007/s10903-020-01094-3. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10903-020-01094-3. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 65. Hoppe A, Heaney CA, Fujishiro K. Stressors, resources, and well-being among Latino and White warehouse workers in the United States. Am J Ind Med. 2010 Mar;53(3):252–63. doi: 10.1002/ajim.20752. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 66. Kim-Godwin YS, Bechtel GA. Stress among migrant and seasonal farmworkers in rural southeast North Carolina. J Rural Health. 2004;20(3):271–8. doi: 10.1111/j.1748-0361.2004.tb00039.x. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-0361.2004.tb00039.x. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 67. Liu X, Bowe SJ, Li L, Too LS, LaMontagne AD. Psychosocial job characteristics and mental health:Do associations differ by migrant status in an Australian working population sample? PLoS One [Internet] 2020;15(11 November):1–18. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0242906. Available from:https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0242906. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 68. Negi NJ, Swanberg JE, Clouser JM, Harmon-Darrow C, Negi NJ, Swanberg JE, et al. Working under conditions of social vulnerability:depression among Latina/o immigrant horse workers. Cultur Divers Ethnic Minor Psychol. 2020 Jan;26(1):54–60. doi: 10.1037/cdp0000276. https://doi.org/10.1037/cdp0000276. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 69. Panikkar B, Woodin MA, Brugge D, Hyatt R, Gute DM Community Partners of the Somerville Community Immigrant Worker Project. Characterizing the low wage immigrant workforce:a comparative analysis of the health disparities among selected occupations in Somerville, Massachusetts. Am J Ind Med. 2014 May;57(5):516–26. doi: 10.1002/ajim.22181. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajim.22181. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 70. Robert G, Martínez JM, García AM, Benavides FG, Ronda E. From the boom to the crisis:changes in employment conditions of immigrants in Spain and their effects on mental health. Eur J Public Health. 2014 Jun;24(3):404–9. doi: 10.1093/eurpub/cku020. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/cku020. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 71. Rosmond R, Lapidus L, Björntorp P. A cross-sectional study of self-reported work conditions and psychiatric health in native Swedes and immigrants. Occup Med (Lond) 1998 Jul;48(5):309–14. doi: 10.1093/occmed/48.5.309. https://doi.org/10.1093/occmed/48.5.309. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 72. Sidorchuk A, Engström K, Johnson CM, Kayser Leeoza N, Möller J. Employment status and psychological distress in a population-based cross-sectional study in Sweden:the impact of migration. BMJ Open. 2017 Apr;7(4):e014698. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-014698. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-014698. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 73. Sousa E, Agudelo-Suárez A, Benavides FG, Schenker M, García AM, Benach J, et al. ITSAL project. Immigration, work and health in Spain:the influence of legal status and employment contract on reported health indicators. Int J Public Health. 2010 Oct;55(5):443–51. doi: 10.1007/s00038-010-0141-8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00038-010-0141-8. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 74. Sznajder KK, Harlow SD, Wang J, Tso L, Ashagre Y, Han C. Factors associated with symptoms of poor mental health among women factory workers in China's supply chain [Internet] Int Arch Occup Environ Health. 2022 Jan 10;:1–11. doi: 10.1007/s00420-021-01820-w. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00420-021-01820-w. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 75. Teixeira AF, Dias SF. Labor market integration, immigration experience, and psychological distress in a multi-ethnic sample of immigrants residing in Portugal. Ethn Health. 2018 Jan;23(1):81–96. doi: 10.1080/13557858.2016.1246421. https://doi.org/10.1080/13557858.2016.1246421. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 76. Wadsworth E, Dhillon K, Shaw C, Bhui K, Stansfeld S, Smith A. Racial discrimination, ethnicity and work stress. Occup Med (Lond) 2007 Jan;57(1):18–24. doi: 10.1093/occmed/kql088. https://doi.org/10.1093/occmed/kql088. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 77. Vives A, Amable M, Ferrer M, Moncada S, Llorens C, Muntaner C, et al. Employment precariousness and poor mental health:Evidence from spain on a new social determinant of health. J Environ Public Health. 2013;2013:978656. doi: 10.1155/2013/978656. https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/97⇐. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 78. Vives A, Vanroelen C, Amable M, Ferrer M, Moncada S, Llorens C, et al. Employment precariousness in Spain:prevalence, social distribution, and population-attributable risk percent of poor mental health. Int J Health Serv. 2011;41(4):625–46. doi: 10.2190/HS.41.4.b. https://doi.org/10.2190/HS.41.4.b. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 79. Agudelo-Suárez AA, Ronda-Pérez E, Gil-González D, Vives-Cases C, García AM, Ruiz-Frutos C, et al. The effect of perceived discrimination on the health of immigrant workers in Spain. BMC Public Health. 2011 Aug;11(652):652. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-11-652. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-11-652. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 80. Benach J, Julià M, Tarafa G, Mir J, Molinero E, Vives A. La precariedad laboral medida de forma multidimensional:distribución social y asociación con la salud en Cataluña. [Multidimensional measurement of precarious employment:social distribution and its association with health in Catalonia (Spain)] Gac Sanit. 2015 Sep-Oct;29(5):375–8. doi: 10.1016/j.gaceta.2015.04.002. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gaceta.2015.04.002. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 81. Bhui K, Stansfeld S, McKenzie K, Karlsen S, Nazroo J, Weich S. Racial/ethnic discrimination and common mental disorders among workers:findings from the EMPIRIC Study of Ethnic Minority Groups in the United Kingdom. Am J Public Health. 2005 Mar;95(3):496–501. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2003.033274. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2003.033274. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 82. Cayuela A, Malmusi D, López-Jacob MJ, Gotsens M, Ronda E. The Impact of Education and Socioeconomic and Occupational Conditions on Self-Perceived and Mental Health Inequalities Among Immigrants and Native Workers in Spain. J Immigr Minor Health. 2015 Dec;17(6):1906–10. doi: 10.1007/s10903-015-0219-8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10903-015-0219-8. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 83. Dean JA, Wilson K. 'Education?It is irrelevant to my job now. It makes me very depressed ...':exploring the health impacts of under/unemployment among highly skilled recent immigrants in Canada. Ethn Health. 2009 Apr;14(2):185–204. doi: 10.1080/13557850802227049. https://doi.org/10.1080/13557850802227049. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 84. Winkelman SB, Chaney EH, Bethel JW. Stress, depression and coping among Latino migrant and seasonal farmworkers. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2013 May;10(5):1815–30. doi: 10.3390/ijerph10051815. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph10051815. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 85. Ziersch A, Walsh M, Due C, Reilly A. Temporary Refugee and Migration Visas in Australia :An Occupational Health and Safety Hazard. Int J Health Serv. 2021 Oct;51(4):531–44. doi: 10.1177/0020731420980688. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020731420980688. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 86. Ronda E, Briones-Vozmediano E, Galon T, García AM, Benavides FG, Agudelo-Suárez AA. A qualitative exploration of the impact of the economic recession in Spain on working, living and health conditions:reflections based on immigrant workers'experiences. Health Expect. 2016 Apr;19(2):416–26. doi: 10.1111/hex.12365. https://doi.org/10.1111/hex.12365. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 87. Tang L, Pilgrim D. Intersectionality, mental health and Chinese people in the UK:A qualitative exploration. Ment Heal Rev J. 2017;22(4):289–99. https://doi.org/10.1108/MHRJ-03-2017-0014. [ Google Scholar ]
• 88. Fleming PJ, Villa-Torres L, Taboada A, Richards C, Barrington C. Marginalisation, discrimination and the health of Latino immigrant day labourers in a central North Carolina community. Health Soc Care Community. 2017 Mar;25(2):527–37. doi: 10.1111/hsc.12338. https://doi.org/10.1111/hsc.12338. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 89. Galon T, Briones-Vozmediano E, Agudelo-Suárez AA, Felt EB, Benavides FG, Ronda E. Understanding sickness presenteeism through the experience of immigrant workers in a context of economic crisis. Am J Ind Med. 2014 Aug;57(8):950–9. doi: 10.1002/ajim.22346. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajim.22346. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 90. Labonté R, Cobbett E, Orsini M, Spitzer D, Schrecker T, Ruckert A. Globalization and the health of Canadians:'Having a job is the most important thing'. Global Health. 2015 May;11(19):19. doi: 10.1186/s12992-015-0104-1. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12992-015-0104-1. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 91. León-pérez G, Non AL. Precarious Work and Parenting Stress among Mexican Immigrant Women in the United States. Journal of Marriage and Family. 2021;83(June):881–97. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12761. [ Google Scholar ]
• 92. Martínez AD, Piedramartel A, Agnew J. Going Beyond the Injury:Regulatory Conditions Contributing to Latina/o Immigrants'Occupational Psychosocial Stressors. Front Public Health. 2015 Oct;3:240–8. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2015.00240. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2015.00240. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 93. Nilvarangkul K, Rungreangkulkij S, Wongprom J. Perception of stress in Laotian migrant workers in Thailand. J Immigr Minor Health. 2010 Oct;12(5):678–82. doi: 10.1007/s10903-009-9315-y. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10903-009-9315-y. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 94. Panikkar B, Brugge D, Gute DM, Hyatt RR. “They see us as machines:”The experience of recent immigrant women in the low wage informal labor sector. PLoS One. 2015 Nov;10(11):e0142686. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0142686. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0142686. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 95. Premji S. “It's Totally Destroyed Our Life”:Exploring the Pathways and Mechanisms Between Precarious Employment and Health and Well-being Among Immigrant Men and Women in Toronto. Int J Health Serv. 2018 Jan;48(1):106–27. doi: 10.1177/0020731417730011. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020731417730011. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 96. Premji S, Shakya Y. Pathways between under/unemployment and health among racialized immigrant women in Toronto. Ethn Health. 2017 Feb;22(1):17–35. doi: 10.1080/13557858.2016.1180347. https://doi.org/10.1080/13557858.2016.1180347. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 97. Agudelo AA, Vargas MY, Vahos VJ, Ariza G, Rojas SWJ, Ronda GE. A qualitative study of employment, working and health conditions among Venezuelan migrants in Colombia. Health Soc Care Community. 2022 Jan 13; doi: 10.1111/hsc.13722. https://doi.org/10.1111/hsc.13722. Epub ahead of print. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 98. Chávez S, Altman CE. Gambling with life:Masculinity, risk, and danger in the lives of unauthorized migrant roofers. Am J Ind Med. 2017 Jun;60(6):537–47. doi: 10.1002/ajim.22721. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajim.22721. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 99. Carlos JK, Wilson K. Migration among temporary foreign workers:examining health and access to health care among Filipina live-in caregivers [Internet] Soc Sci Med. 2018 Jul;209:117–24. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2018.05.045. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2018.05.045. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 100. Miller GV, Travers CJ. Ethnicity and the experience of work:job stress and satisfaction of minority ethnic teachers in the UK. Int Rev Psychiatry. 2005 Oct;17(5):317–27. doi: 10.1080/09540260500238470. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540260500238470. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 101. Snipes SA, Thompson B, O'Connor K, Godina R, Ibarra G. Anthropological and psychological merge:design of a stress measure for Mexican farmworkers. Cult Med Psychiatry. 2007 Sep;31(3):359–88. doi: 10.1007/s11013-007-9054-2. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11013-007-9054-2. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 102. Cain P, Daly A, Reid A. How Refugees Experience the Australian Workplace :A Comparative Mixed Methods Study. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021 Apr 12;18(8):4023. doi: 10.3390/ijerph18084023. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18084023. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 103. Jurado D, Alarcón RD, Martínez-Ortega JM, Mendieta-Marichal Y, Gutiérrez-Rojas L, Gurpegui M. Factores asociados a malestar psicológico o trastornos mentales comunes en poblaciones migrantes a lo largo del mundo. [Factors associated with psychological distress or common mental disorders in migrant populations across the world] Rev Psiquiatr Salud Ment. 2017 Jan - Mar;10(1):45–58. doi: 10.1016/j.rpsm.2016.04.004. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rpsm.2016.04.004. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 104. Bauer GF, Hämmig O. A Critical Review of the Job Demands-Resources Model:Implications for Improving Work and Health. In:Bridging Occupational, Organizational and Public Health:A Transdisciplinary Approach. Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht. 2014:43–68. [ Google Scholar ]
• 105. Bakker AB, Demerouti E. The job demands?resources model:state of the art. J Manag Psychol. 2007;22(3):309–28. https://doi.org/10.1108/02683940710733115. [ Google Scholar ]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

• View on publisher site
• PDF (658.5 KB)
• Collections

Similar articles

Cited by other articles, links to ncbi databases.

• Download .nbib .nbib
• Format: AMA APA MLA NLM

Add to Collections

• Original Article
• Open access
• Published: 30 September 2021

Rethinking labour migration: Covid-19, essential work, and systemic resilience

• Bridget Anderson 1 ,
• Friedrich Poeschel   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-7137-0207 2 &
• Martin Ruhs 2 , 3  

Comparative Migration Studies volume  9 , Article number:  45 ( 2021 ) Cite this article

14k Accesses

45 Citations

65 Altmetric

Metrics details

Many of the ‘essential workers’ during the Covid-19 pandemic are migrants, playing an important role for the continued functioning of basic services – notably health services, social care, and food supply chains. We argue that this role should be taken into account when assessing the impacts of migrant workers and in the design of labour migration and related public policies. Existing studies highlight how the employment of migrant workers in essential services is shaped by interests of employers, sectoral policies, and national institutions. Considerations of how migrants may affect the systemic resilience of essential services – in a pandemic or similar crises – are pervasively absent, not only in policy-making but also in research. Drawing on several disciplines, we outline the concept of systemic resilience and develop implications for the analysis and regulation of labour migration. We call for shifting the focus from the role of migrants in specific occupations and sectors in particular countries to transnational systems of production and service provision. To study how migrant workers affect systemic resilience, we propose an agenda for comparative research along three lines: comparing migrants to citizens within the same system, comparing migrants’ roles across systems, and comparing strategies for resilience adopted in different systems.

Introduction

In the spring and summer of 2020, the Covid-19 pandemic and associated bans on movement within and across countries led to severe labour market shocks. These included both sharp increases in labour demand (e.g. in the health sector) and reductions in labour supply (e.g. in agriculture and the care sector). In this global health emergency, the protection and maintenance of essential economic activities and public services has been a central policy challenge. Essential activities and services include sectors such as agriculture and food production, health services and social care, as well as key digital and non-digital infrastructures such as transport and logistics. Thus, Covid-19 raised and continues to raise urgent questions for research and policy about the factors that affect the (lack of) resilience of the provision of essential goods and services during both what is, at time of writing, the ongoing pandemic, and also anticipated future health shocks.

Following the outbreak of Covid-19, governments around the world instituted a range of restrictions on movement and access to workspaces. These were imposed at different times depending on the pandemic phase but between March and June of 2020, the shutdown affected most parts of the world. However, some jobs were declared ‘essential’, exempting them from the most severe restrictions; indeed in some cases governments even required certain workers to go to work. In many countries essential jobs were identified through lists published by the central government (e.g. Italy, Spain, Mozambique, Brazil and the United Kingdom) or at state level (e.g. Germany and the United States). These lists varied considerably in form and level of detail, but there were some goods and services that were common to lists across countries and states, including food provision, health and some care services.

In many high-income countries, ‘migrants’ account for substantial shares of employment in sectors designated essential and therefore they often represented a substantial proportion of those designated ‘essential workers’ or ‘key workers’ (e.g. Fasani & Mazza, 2020 ; Fernández-Reino et al., 2020 ; Gelatt, 2020 ; OECD, 2020a ). In this context, by ‘migrant’ we mean non-citizens who are subject to immigration controls, or who may be legitimately refused entry in exceptional circumstances (e.g. EU citizens, who are not subject to immigration controls but whose free movement between EU member states was curtailed during pandemic restrictions). Essential workers included migrants typically considered ‘low-skilled’ such as crop pickers, food processors, care assistants, and cleaners in hospitals. States in the Global North sought to protect, and in some case even expand the supply of such workers during the health emergency. For example: the Italian government granted temporary legal status to migrants employed irregularly in agriculture and the care sector in spring 2020; the United Kingdom announced the automatic extension of visas of migrant doctors, nurses, and paramedics; Austria and Germany exempted migrants working on farms and in care homes from international travel bans; in the United States, while normal consular operations were suspended, foreign farm workers were still permitted to apply for and receive work visas (OECD, 2020a ). Such measures were widely accepted as pragmatic responses to Covid-19, but they raise important questions about the role of migrants in national labour markets. Whether, why, and to what extent migrant workers are ‘needed’ to reduce labour and skills shortages in essential services are questions that have been the subject of research in recent years. What Covid-19 invites us to consider is migrants’ role in ensuring longer-term resilience of essential services.

Resilience may be broadly defined as the ability to withstand, recover from, and adapt to unexpected external shocks (OECD, 2020b ). It has featured in some aspects of public administration and policy, including military and public health matters, but the role of migration and migrants in the resilience of essential economic activities and services has remained unexplored. Moreover, research on demand for migrant labour has tended to focus on employers’ incentives rather than the essential nature of these sectors or the effects that prioritising systemic resilience might have on the demand for migrant workers. Indeed, with the exception of the resilience of destination country institutions in the case of irregular migration flows (Geddes, 2015 ; Paul & Roos, 2019 ), research on migration and migration policy has not drawn on the concept of resilience, in contrast with many other research areas (Bourbeau, 2015 ).

This paper addresses this gap by outlining a theoretical basis for a new research agenda that can help inform policy debates about the role of migrant workers in the provision and resilience of essential services during the current pandemic and similar future shocks. It analyses why and how a concern for the resilience of essential services can help us rethink the ways of assessing impacts of migrant workers. This in turn can feed into the design of labour migration and related public policies. The paper combines key insights from research on the role of migrant workers in addressing labour and skills shortages (Section 2) with the (essentially disconnected) studies of systemic resilience (Section 3) to suggest how considerations of systemic resilience can be integrated into analyses and policy debates on labour migration (Section 4). Emphasising the need for a transnational perspective, the discussion considers migrants not only in essential services of a single country but also along global supply chains. In addition, due to different institutions and policies across countries, considerable variation can be expected in terms of politics, governance, and the strategies used to pursue resilience. Our discussion of key elements of a future research agenda on how migrants can shape systemic resilience (Section 5) thus highlights the importance of comparative institutional analysis that takes a transnational approach.

Past learning: a need for migrant workers?

In the past, the terminology of ‘essential work’ and ‘key industries’ has been used to refer to domestic production that exempts workers from conscription, e.g. the UK Essential Work (General Provisions) Order of March 5, 1941. The topic of migrants as essential workers has emerged only with the outbreak of Covid-19. However, the literature has long debated to what extent migrants are ‘needed’ for addressing shortages in the supply of labour and skills, usually in specific sectors and occupations. Employers and other stakeholders often argue that migrant workers are needed because certain jobs cannot be filled otherwise. Sceptics suspect that employers seek to avoid raising wages or improving employment conditions and prefer recruiting exploitable migrant workers. Several insights from this debate appear useful for a discussion on migrants as essential workers, in particular the research findings on employers’ demand for migrant labour, the characteristics and determinants of labour and skills shortages, and the alternative policies for responding to them (e.g. Ruhs & Anderson, 2010 ; Waldinger & Lichter, 2003 ).

Firstly, with regards to labour or skills ‘shortages’, there is no universally accepted definition nor one ‘optimal’ policy response. In the context of employers’ calls for migrant workers, ‘labour shortage’ typically refers to the demand for labour exceeding supply at prevailing wages and employment conditions. Some employers may be reluctant or unable to respond by offering higher wages. This exemplifies the central role of wages, employment conditions and structural constraints for debates about labour shortages. Such considerations likely also apply in the context of essential services: for example, employment conditions can simultaneously create flexibility for employers (which might contribute to resilience) and precarity for workers (which might undermine resilience).

The definition of ‘skills’ is similarly contentious, which complicates analyses and debates about ‘skills shortages’. What is recognised and legitimated as ‘skill’ is socially constituted, unavoidably politicised, and often heavily gendered (Bryant & Jaworski, 2011 ; Fenwick, 2006 ; Guo, 2015 ; Sawchuk, 2008 ; Steinberg, 1990 ). Immigration schemes mostly focus on credentialised skills, based on formal educational qualifications and measured through earnings. However, the skills that matter for employers likely vary considerably by country, company, and job profile (Griuglis & Vincent, 2009 ). Foreign qualifications are often not directly transferable, due to country-specific licenses and the need to be complemented by language skills (e.g. Chiswick & Miller, 2003 ). In addition, the notion of skills used by immigration schemes does not always adequately capture ‘soft skills’, which include important employee qualities such as attitude, presentation, social interaction etc. (Sawchuk, 2008 ). In some occupations, soft skills like ‘work ethic’ demanded by employers partly or largely reflect employer preference for workers who accept particular mechanisms of control and/or wages and employment conditions that are not sufficiently attractive for local workers.

In some states the Covid-19 pandemic prompted public acknowledgement that ‘low-skilled’ workers were providing services critical to social and economic functioning. The pursuit of resilience as a desirable goal might therefore change how the socio-economic contributions of low-skilled or unskilled workers are valued and analysed. It may also require rethinking how skill is understood in practice, particularly the tendency to assume an association between skill and specialisation. This association shapes understandings of the nature of skill with workers who have a large number of generalised competences and are often labelled ‘low-skilled’. With regards to the recognition of foreign qualifications, the pandemic has already led to policy changes: Colombia and Peru, for example, simplified the recognition of foreign medical qualifications to allow for recruiting Venezuelan refugees (Freier & Luzes, 2020 ).

Previous research has also found that one reason employers seek to employ migrant workers is the additional means of control over migrants extended by immigration requirements, as workers are often not free to leave sponsoring employers (e.g. Anderson, 2010 ). This highlights that immigration controls are not neutral ‘taps’ allowing in the necessary number of workers, but actively shape employment relationships and rights, creating a labour force with often quite specific constraints that differentiate them from citizens. During the pandemic, for example, some US employers saw migrant workers as less likely to become infected, because they were assigned to on-site accommodation and discouraged from contacts with the local population. Employers may also recruit migrants as a way of accessing networks of workers who can be hired for short periods at short notice. Such factors may support efficiency and resilience, but if so, at what cost to migrant workers themselves?

In principle, employers have a number of options when they perceive staff shortages (Ruhs & Anderson, 2010 ): they can (i) raise wages and/or improve working conditions to attract more applicants from the domestic labour market (including from other sectors) and/or expand the working hours of existing staff, which may require intensified recruitment efforts and investments in training or up-skilling, respectively. Alternatively, employers can (ii) reduce the labour intensity of the production process by increasing the capital and/or technology intensity; (iii) relocate production to countries with lower labour costs; (iv) redirect the business towards less labour-intensive commodities and services; and (v) employ more migrant workers. While some of these options will not be available in certain sectors or occupations, several options are typically also available in essential services: for example, the pandemic may have reinforced a trend among US agricultural producers towards greater mechanisation (Martin, 2020 ). In general, the recruitment of migrant workers is not the only possible response to a staff shortage. Nor is it necessarily the best, from the point of view of employers or states.

Accordingly, while migrants often represent a substantial share of the workforce in essential services, these shares vary significantly between countries (Fasani & Mazza, 2020 ; OECD, 2020a ). Such cross-country variations for specific sectors and occupations partly reflect country-specific ‘system effects’. They arise from the institutional and regulatory frameworks of the labour market, interlinkages with global supply chains and wider public policies such as migration, welfare, housing as well as education and training policies (e.g. Afonso & Devitt, 2016 ; Ruhs & Anderson, 2010 ; Wright, 2012 ). Often beyond the control of individual employers and workers, these system effects may be significantly (albeit not exclusively) influenced by the state and can ‘produce’ domestic labour shortages. Due to system effects, labour migration policy interacts with labour market policy and wider economic and social policies and institutions. Cross-country variation in reliance on migrant workers is related in significant part to differences in institutional and regulatory frameworks, and the same is likely to be the case for the variation in resilience strategies for the provision of essential services.

Finally, it is important to recognise that the role migrants can and should play in addressing perceived labour and skills shortages is a deeply political issue. Whether the best answer is more immigration, higher wages, greater mechanisation, or another alternative critically depends on whose interests policy is meant to serve, and how competing interests (between employers, workers from the domestic labour market, migrants, employment and recruitment agencies etc.) are evaluated and managed. In these debates it is often very difficult for the interests of migrants to be properly represented. For analyses and debates about the role of migrants in shaping systemic resilience, this implies a politics of systemic resilience just as there is a politics of labour and skills shortages. This politics will influence how resilience is defined and measured, how it is governed, and – at least to some extent – which resilience strategies are given priority. Empirical research in this context therefore needs to consider carefully definitions and measurement issues and account for the strong role of policies and institutions (Section 5).

The concept of systemic resilience

In the broadest sense, systemic resilience can be defined as a system’s capacity to continue functioning given external shocks or changes (Martin-Breen & Anderies, 2011 ). Early use of this notion was made in ecology, where systemic resilience captures the capacity of an ecosystem to recover from a shock, returning to the status quo ante. A similar idea of systemic resilience has also long been used in physics and engineering. In a social science context, systemic resilience has been used with a key modification: after a shock, a resilient system continues to function but might end up in a state that is quite different from the status quo ante.

This follows from the nature of systems in social science, which are in general made up by (groups of) persons who are connected through relationships such that they form some collective entity – for example a household, a firm, a city, an industrial sector, regions or countries. Such systems are typically in a process of change also in the absence of shocks (e.g. Robinson & Carson, 2016 ). In addition, social systems are adaptive: they can self-organise and find new modes of operation in order to continue functioning (Martin-Breen & Anderies, 2011 ). These considerations lead to defining systemic resilience here as the ability to withstand, recover from, and adapt to unexpected external shocks (e.g. OECD, 2020b ).

Key elements in the definition of systemic resilience are shown in Fig.  1 . It depicts some social system in the process of steadily rising ‘performance’, captured by an index. When a shock hits, systemic performance might initially decline substantially, down to a point (‘impact’). Over time, however, the performance of a resilient system bounces back. In the baseline scenario (solid dark line), performance fully recovers, eventually proceeding as if the shock had never occurred. In another scenario, the recovery is only partial. In a third scenario, the adaptation by the system not only leads to recovery but also creates lasting benefits, so that performance bounces forward.

Illustration of systemic resilience

Figure  1 hints at how systemic resilience might be measured, a precondition for comparing systems in terms of resilience. More resilient systems would normally exhibit a smaller impact from a given shock and/or a shorter adjustment time than less resilient systems. The two indicators may be combined into a single measure (the shaded area in Fig. 1 ) decribing the overall loss of performance following the shock, and a lower overall loss would indicate a more resilient system. A system could therefore be more resilient than another even when it exhibited a greater impact, as this can be outweighed by a shorter adjustment time, and vice versa.

While some contributions to the literature highlight the overall loss as a measure (e.g. Linkov & Trump, 2019 ), others emphasise the lack of a generally agreed method for measuring systemic resilience (e.g. Martin & Sunley, 2015 ). In any case, the magnitudes of the ‘impact’ and ‘adjustment time’ will critically depend on how the ‘performance’ of the system is defined and measured in the first place. It already emerges from Fig. 1 that determining the adjustment time may be far from obvious in many scenarios. Like defining and measuring resilience, these are also political issues.

The notion of systemic resilience has been applied in numerous disciplines of social science, often using more context-specific definitions (Brand & Jax, 2007 ). This includes development studies, economics, geography, management science and public health – while migration studies have essentially remained disconnected from this work, both in the academic literature and in policy-oriented publications. Nevertheless, the research on systemic resilience across disciplines has produced a number of insights that appear highly relevant for the resilience of essential services and for the role of migrant labour in this context.

These insights can be grouped under three broad themes: flexibility, networks, and policies. Intuitively, a system may be hard to break (resilience) if it bends (flexibility) and if connections between its fibres are strong (networks). Policies or management have an indirect effect, by creating conditions that can be more or less conducive to systemic resilience. All three themes include factors that limit the impact of a shock as well as factors that shorten the adjustment time, and factors might often contribute in both ways.

Factors shaping the flexibility of a system have been identified at various levels. In firms or institutions, individual employees can find workarounds and alter their work schedules, but also organisational structures and corporate strategies can be modified in response to shocks (Eichhorst et al., 2010 ; Woods, 2006 ). As part of such adjustments, production processes may change to a substantial degree (depending on their ‘transformability’): by substituting for inputs, e.g. in terms of materials or suppliers, as well as outputs, e.g. remodelling the product or targeting different markets. The process itself may be reorganised or entirely replaced by another process. Where redundant options are in place for a part of the system, its performance will be less dependent on this part functioning normally (Martin & Sunley, 2015 ). Buffers, for example in the form of excess or surge capacity, can play a similar role (Hynes, 2020 ). It is more likely that key functions of systems can be sustained whenever a diversity of mechanisms is available to deliver them (Martin-Breen & Anderies, 2011 ). However, redundancies and excess capacity create additional costs (Kamalahmadi & Parast, 2016 ), which highlights a trade-off between flexibility and cost-minimisation.

The strength of networks, or social capital, can equally contribute to systemic resilience in a variety of ways. The resilience of a hospital, for example, likely depends on the commitment and team spirit of its staff, which affects the extent of burden sharing, information sharing and peer learning (Kruk et al., 2015 ). After team building, groups adapt better to new challenges, according to experimental evidence (Randall et al., 2011 ). The replacement of staff, additional recruitment as well as mobility and redeployment may all be organised through networks. During crises, networks can become an important resource: currently unaffected nodes of the network can come to the aid of the most affected nodes, thereby functioning as insurance for each other. Such structures can be supported through a common goal or reciprocity (Ostrom, 2003 ) but may have to be sufficiently large or modular to make collective failures unlikely. By enabling rapid temporary increases in staff levels, for example, networks also contribute to flexibility.

Finally, there is an important role for policies (or management) because they shape institutional structures and therefore the conditions for any efforts to keep systems functioning despite shocks (e.g. Briguglio et al., 2009 ; OECD, 2012 ; Thomas et al., 2021 ). Policies that set rigid standards and regulations can limit the scope for flexibility, and centralised institutions can block the operations of decentralised networks. At the same time, policies can also enforce certain preparations and crisis interventions that are individually costly but collectively beneficial. As an extreme example, firms may be mandated to start producing certain medical equipment. More commonly, however, policies and management affect systemic resilience by creating incentives and disincentives, albeit not necessarily intended. The significant differences between systems across countries attest to the long-run implications of different policies.

Introducing systemic resilience into the analysis and regulation of labour migration

In order to incorporate the resilient provision of essential goods and services as an important policy goal, research and policy on migration need to be adapted. This requires rethinking the design of labour migration policies as well as wider public policies, and the framework for evaluating the impact of migrant labour. Some first implications are discussed in this section.

Shifting the focus to transnational systems

In order to investigate systemic resilience, systems need to be the unit of reference. A holistic approach to entire systems has to go beyond the common practice of investigating the impact and policies of labour migration in terms of specific skill levels or occupations. This narrow focus ignores the systems that occupations are embedded in, meaning that effects on the functioning and the resilience of the systems go unnoticed.

Similarly, the impact of migration and migration policies is often evaluated in the context of one particular country. Even research on how systems shape the demand for migrant labour has mainly focused on the role of national institutions and policies. Attention to resilience requires broadening the analysis of systems to consider for example transnational supply chains, and how these interact with national policies. As observed for medical products during the Covid-19 pandemic, domestic production and supply chains, trade in intermediate or final products, and associated supply chains abroad can all be part of the systems behind essential goods. Typically, several economic sectors are involved in a supply chain – for example agriculture, food processing, transport, wholesale and retail trade are all involved in the supply chain for food. Supply chains may rely on migrant workers in various roles, both domestically and abroad. For example, migrants in Malaysia appear to produce much of the global supply of the medical gloves that are necessary to the provision of both health and social care across the world (Khadka, 2020 ). Mechanisms for resilience also often work across borders and demand international collaboration (Hynes, 2020 ). This raises important questions about when national borders enhance and when they undermine resilience.

For labour immigration policies, consideration of systemic resilience reinforces the relevance of the situation in migrants’ origin countries. Migration policies of destination countries reflect their own national interest, but the resilience of essential services requires a more transnational approach to impact analysis and policy-making on labour migration than is typically the case. Currently, most high-income countries’ labour immigration policies are discussed and designed unilaterally with little (if any) consideration of the consequences for migrants’ countries of origin (Ruhs, 2013 ). More cooperative labour migration policies such as bilateral or multilateral migration schemes based on agreed standards and communication channels with origin countries could improve systemic resilience. For example, in a crisis, destination countries could draw on such schemes to quickly increase the supply of migrant labour with certain skills or work experience, such as nurses or returning seasonal workers.

If resilience strategies in destination countries lead to a greater demand for migrant labour, this can threaten resilience in origin countries. Global care chains, e.g. nurses from Europe going to the US while nurses from the Philippines go to Europe, are an example of how emigration can create shortages in migrants’ countries of origin (Yeates, 2010 ). By seeking to increase resilience of their essential services, destination countries risk ‘exporting’ vulnerabilities to origin countries. If on the other hand the resilience strategies in destination countries lead to lower demand for migrant labour, this could reduce remittance flows to origin countries. When this happens as a crisis response, e.g. due to border closures for seasonal migrants, an economic contraction in destination countries can be passed on to origin countries. In case only the origin country experiences a crisis, temporary return of some emigrants could make an important contribution to the systemic resilience of its essential services. More generally, greater global resilience requires that systemic resilience also becomes a policy goal in origin countries and is supported by destination countries.

From short term to long term

Considering systemic resilience necessarily leads to a more expansive temporal frame: most analyses and policy debates on migration are focused on the short term, but a concern with systemic resilience demands a longer-term view. While there has been a considerable increase in recent years in studies that analyse the long-term consequences of migration (e.g. Sequeira et al., 2020 ), they have not, to the best of our knowledge, looked at how migrants shape systemic resilience.

Drawing lessons from past events, including Covid-19, requires us to be conscious of future ‘extreme’ contingencies in current decision-making, thinking about long-term processes and short-term system dynamics concurrently (Dunn Cavelty et al., 2015 ). Since extreme events arise rarely, attention to the medium and long term is a precondition for systemic resilience, in a trade-off against pressures to focus on the short term. For employers, short-term efficiency demands using all inputs to maximum effect, while resilience may require keeping reserves and leaving room for adjustment. For politicians in democracies, elections create very strong incentives to pursue short-term objectives, while resilience demands looking beyond the electoral cycle. Short-term bias has also been debated in the context of sustainability, which similarly relies on thinking with a long time horizon (Harding, 2006 ). However, systemic resilience additionally requires an acute awareness of – even unquantifiable – uncertainty and risk.

The shift in temporal framing will also need to accommodate the temporalities of migrant decision-making. It is not new to note that people may temporarily tolerate harsh working conditions for the promise of a better future. Research has examined the imbrication of temporalities, public policies and migratory decision-making in certain contexts (see e.g. Griffiths et al., 2013 for a review and more recently Mavroudi et al., 2017 ). This work has explored subjective experiences of time including how this is shaped by immigration policies. However, it has so far not been connected to other public policies, and the focus has been on personal and familial endurance rather than systemic resilience.

A new politics of labour immigration

Given the inherently political nature of migration, taking systemic resilience seriously as a policy goal, and making the above-described changes, will require a new politics of labour migration especially with regards to what is currently termed medium and low-skilled labour migration. This new politics will need to facilitate and encourage policy debates and collective decision-making that embrace some difficult trade-offs for societies in destination countries: let wages and prices in social care rise or recruit migrants to fill shortages at existing wages? Finance the excess capacities in healthcare that are needed for emergency situations or minimise costs and count on crisis response policies? Rely on migrant workers to maintain domestic food production or allow for more imports of food?

In a post-Covid-19 world, debates and decisions on these trade-offs need to go beyond the conventional short-term focus on efficiency (what are the economic costs and benefits of immigration today?), welfare (what are the fiscal effects of migrant workers in a particular year?) and distribution (what are the impacts of migrant workers on different groups of citizens?) and consider longer-term concerns including systemic resilience in the provision of essential goods and services. This will entail deciding on how much systemic resilience is ultimately desired, as there may be a point where the short-term costs of raising resilience further outweigh the long-term benefits. It will also require intensified international collaboration in the context of growing pressures towards protectionism. Given the debates about how essential services fared during the Covid-19 pandemic and the role played by migrants in this context, there may now be greater scope for both debating these difficult trade-offs and engaging in greater international cooperation.

From protecting the employment of citizens Footnote 1 to protecting the provision of essential services

Both public debates about international migration and the design of labour migration policies typically put the employment prospects of citizens centre stage. Accordingly, impact assessments of migration usually examine how the wages and employment of citizens are affected by immigration (e.g. Migration Advisory Committee, 2012 ). In public debates, the relationship between migrants and citizens is often approached through an ‘us versus them’ frame (e.g. Anderson, 2013 ). Labour migration policies typically include a ‘labour market test’ as a standard feature: before employers can obtain a work permit for a migrant worker, they need to demonstrate that the position could not be filled from the domestic labour market (although exemptions often apply to high-skilled migrant workers). These approaches and policies serve the political rationale to prioritise the citizens’ access to the national labour market and thereby protect their employment prospects.

In contrast, protecting and enhancing the resilience of the provision of essential goods and services is a different policy goal that might compete with the protection of citizens’ employment prospects: the need to ensure the stable provision of essential services can outweigh distributional concerns and efficiency considerations. As essential services are fundamental for basic social functioning and people’s survival, the ‘means’ of providing them (through some combination of citizens and migrant workers) are of secondary importance compared to the ‘ends’ (maintaining the provision). While this might lead to lower barriers for the recruitment of migrants, prioritising systemic resilience could also lead to deteriorating working conditions and greater exploitation among migrant workers in essential services, justified by the need not to endanger the functioning of essential services.

Covid-19 exposed the often precarious employment conditions of ‘key workers’ who work in contexts that increase their vulnerability to infection and are often employed on temporary contracts with limited rights (e.g. Nivorozhkin & Poeschel, 2021 ). Trade unions and migrant activists protested that while some work was recognised as ‘essential’, workers themselves were treated as ‘disposable’ (Coleman, 2020 ; Dias-Abey, 2020 ). Many commentators called for stronger rights and greater security for existing migrants in essential services, as well as more legal pathways and opportunities for future migrants to work in these occupations. These debates raise the important broader question of how the socio-economic vulnerabilities of migrants employed under restricted rights shape their role in facilitating systemic resilience.

A new agenda for comparative migration research: how do international migrants shape systemic resilience?

There has not yet been research on how international migration affects the systemic resilience of essential services. The Covid-19 pandemic has highlighted the contributions migrants make to the provision of essential economic activities and services, both in countries where these goods and services are consumed/accessed and along global supply chains. Migrants’ jobs and their behaviour in these jobs may well differ from those of citizens in ways that matter for resilience. For example, recalling the features of resilient systems identified in Section 3, migrant workers might be especially flexible, or conversely, immigration requirements might reduce flexibility. Similarly, migrants’ social capital may play roles in transnational networks that are relevant during crises. Thus, the employment of migrants could affect both the magnitude of the decline in performance of a system following a shock as well as the adjustment time (see Fig. 1 ).

Examining the link between migrants and systemic resilience requires comparative research at several levels. Migration is only one among various factors affecting resilience. A comparative approach is needed to disentangle the effects of migrant workers from the impacts of other factors, especially the characteristics of citizens employed in essential services and the effects of policies and institutions. For example, the resilience of the provision of health services in a particular country is likely to be shaped by its general systemic characteristics including how work is organised, regulated and has been prepared for a crisis. At the same time, migrant workers can affect resilience in various direct and indirect ways, many of which might not be obvious and need to be ‘discovered’ through research and experience. Therefore, we do not attempt to provide a list of concrete research questions for comparative analysis. Instead, we identify three types of comparative research set-ups that might shed light on how migrants shape systemic resilience of essential services: comparisons between migrants and citizens within one system (e.g. a system for providing social care in a particular country), comparisons across systems (e.g. across systems for providing care in different countries), and comparisons of the politics of resilience strategies.

Comparing migrants and citizens employed within the same system

The first type of comparative research explores effects on systemic resilience that are specific to migrants and do not arise for citizens even when working in the same jobs. There are a number of reasons why such migrant-specific effects can arise, including the migratory process: in the case of temporary migration, labour supply is conditional on ongoing possibilities to migrate. In the case of longer-term migration, it is conditional on the renewal of residence and work permits. The Covid-19 pandemic highlighted that these conditions can translate into migrant-specific vulnerabilities for systemic resilience: border closures prevented migration, quarantine delayed and discouraged migration, and status renewals became uncertain. Ad-hoc policies mitigated these problems but did not fully resolve them (Section 1). Migrants might also choose to stay away from the destination country or to leave the country, as was observed for some migrants working in social care in Germany (Safuta & Noack, 2020 ).

However, the possibility to recruit migrants from abroad can also be an important source of resilience, particularly if the crisis is national or regional rather than global. From the perspective of destination countries when domestic sources of labour and skills are under strain during a crisis, migrants can be a temporary ‘back-up’ from abroad, provided the origin country is not as badly affected as the destination country. Such temporary support can be arranged through cross-border networks (formal or informal), and migrants are well-positioned to create cross-border networks. In the context of established bilateral or multilateral migration schemes, recruitment of migrants for essential services could be organised especially quickly. This could involve fast-track procedures for recognising or adapting migrants’ foreign qualifications, in order to avoid lengthy delays due to missing licenses or permissions.

In the destination country, unlike citizens, migrants face constraints imposed by immigration controls, and this could affect systemic resilience. Work and residence permits are often tied to a particular employer, which rules out changing jobs and equates losing the job with losing the right to residence. Therefore, migrants are often especially committed to their current job even under the difficult conditions of a crisis, thereby contributing to systemic resilience. As discussed earlier, employment restrictions can make migrants much more exploitable than citizens, and some employers might lower employment conditions in a way that has adverse impacts on systemic resilience. Similarly, migrants’ access to local healthcare and child care is often restricted (especially for irregular migrants), which can undermine their ability to work. Finally, medium and low-skilled migrants often have limited rights to family reunification. Migrants living more often alone than citizens may be advantageous in a pandemic but lack of family support could be detrimental in other crises.

In addition to the process of migration and the related effects of migration controls, the individual migration experience could matter for systemic resilience. The fact that migrants needed to adapt to the new environment in the destination country might mean that they adapt to a crisis situation comparatively easily. If they previously worked in similar roles in the origin country, this might help them develop workarounds: migrants might think more ‘out of the box’ because they are aware of different approaches. Diversity of work teams in terms of prior experiences, talents or training has been linked to stronger team performance (e.g. Horwitz & Horwitz, 2007 ).

Fourth, migrants’ average age and health characteristics may differ from those of citizens. Emigration often takes place at a young age and so migrants might on average be comparatively young while they work in the destination country. This may matter for resilience, as was evidenced in the Covid-19 pandemic when young persons faced a lower risk of falling ill (Promislow, 2020 ). It may also affect their adaptability. In addition, migrants might self-select based on the strength of their health (e.g. Lariscy et al., 2015 ). A ‘healthy-migrant effect’ would play a role for systemic resilience, notably during pandemics. If, on the other hand, migrant workers are poorly housed, they can face an especially high risk of infection (Koh, 2020 ).

For most of these differences between migrants and citizens, the implications for resilience can be studied within a single system, as long as it employs both migrants and citizens in substantial numbers. Using observations on both groups over time (at least before and after a shock), one can examine empirically how migrant workers fared, behaved, and affected the resilience of the provision of a particular essential service compared with citizens. This also offers an opportunity to examine similarities and differences with internal migrants, whose mobilities may be facilitated or constrained using non-immigration policies. These national contexts can also interact with global supply chains.

Comparing migrants’ roles across systems

The role of migrants in shaping systemic resilience may be largely determined by policies, regulations and institutions that differ between particular essential services and between countries (Section 2). This means that an effect ascribed to migrant labour might reflect the structure of an essential service – for example, a structure that relies on the strong involvement of migrant labour. In order to reach reliable empirical conclusions for research and policy, it will therefore be important to distinguish between effects specific to migrants (as discussed above) and effects from certain roles that migrants play in the specific institutional structure of an essential service. In other words, we need to study comparatively how different institutions and policies (such as different institutional designs of the care system) shape the resilience of the provision of an essential service, and what this means for the role of migrants.

For example, if national immigration controls allow limiting a migrant’s employment to specific parts of the country (a policy that varies considerably across countries), labour migration policy can be used to assign migrant health professionals to positions in rural areas (e.g. Hagopian et al., 2003 ) – and a sufficient presence of health professionals in rural areas may be important for the systemic resilience of healthcare. However, in other contexts such a policy might undermine resilience: migrants tend to be more geographically mobile within the destination country (Boman, 2011 ), and such flexibility can become particularly important during a crisis.

In systems for essential services that rely on flexible labour markets, migrants might work disproportionately in roles with low pay, non-standard working hours, and limited contracts. If the existence of these jobs affects systemic resilience (either positively through e.g. enhanced flexibility, or negatively through e.g. poor working conditions), migrant workers impact on resilience. Research has found that the availability of migrant labour can affect the skills mix and use of capital in production and may in some cases expand the number of labour-intensive jobs (e.g. Lewis, 2011 ). This suggests that migrants play specific roles in systems and can affect systemic resilience by influencing some of the institutional characteristics of the system itself.

When analysing the role of migrants within different systems for providing an essential good or service, it is important to consider the transnational dimension. The resilience of a supply chain is often dependent on laws and policies in a number of different jurisdictions, including the migration and labour policies of countries other than the country of final destination. Thus importing certain crops for example does not per se reduce reliance on migrant labour systemically, although it might alleviate national political concerns about this reliance by effectively outsourcing it to other countries. Such interdependencies through supply chains highlight the need for international collaboration in order to increase systemic resilience.

The following questions thus arise for comparative research on the role of migrants across countries with different systems for providing an essential service: how do systems that strongly rely on migrant labour perform in terms of systemic resilience compared with systems that make much more limited use of migrant labour? In other words, what does it mean for resilience when an essential service has come to rely heavily on migrant labour, compared with systems that have moved towards greater mechanisation, employment of citizens at rising wages, or reliance on imports (and thus greater use of migrants in the supply chain abroad)? Such comparative research can draw on cross-country differences in the reliance of essential services on migrant labour, differentiating by migrants’ roles and relating this to observed differences in resilience.

Comparing the choice and determinants of resilience strategies across systems

Building on research that assesses the effects of migrants on resilience within and across systems, it is important to ask whether and why particular resilience strategies are more or less likely to be adopted in different national contexts. We need to understand the factors that constrain and influence the (non-adoption of) particular resilience strategies by national governments, which requires comparative political and institutional analysis. It also requires that we examine how resilience strategies in particular countries are related to the institutions and policies of other countries. For example, as Covid-19 revealed, facilitating labour immigration during a global pandemic requires that sending states facilitate labour emigration.

As discussed above, policy responses to Covid-19 could include a change in the use of migrant labour within a given system (i.e. without changing the broader institutional and policy framework of the system) or a ‘regime switch’ to a different system (e.g. a change to a social care system with different institutional features that are more supportive of systemic resilience). The political choice among these strategies can be influenced by a range of factors. A first obvious factor are the material interests of different groups and the effects of different resilience strategies on them. A change in the use of migrant workers (e.g. in their numbers, the roles they fill, and/or the rights they are given) will create costs and benefits for different political actors and groups, and the same holds for a ‘regime change’ such as a significant change in labour market regulations and/or associated welfare policies. The distributional and other consequences of different strategies for improving systemic resilience can be expected to play an important role in whether or not particular policies are adopted. Similarly, stakeholders will seek to influence what exactly qualifies as an essential good or service. A comparison of official lists of essential services published by Italy, Spain and the United States, for example, reveals a strong overlap but also notable differences (Nivorozhkin & Poeschel, 2021 ).

Effects and path dependencies of institutions and associated social norms are also likely to matter for the choice of resilience strategy. A long tradition of regulating labour markets and societal norms that value high degrees of socio-economic security, solidarity, and social protection might significantly constrain an increase in the reliance on migrant workers on temporary contracts, to make the provision of a particular essential service more flexible and thus more resilient. Regime change will depend on the characteristics and rigidities in the prevailing institutions and norms. Again, this may vary across countries and thus play an important role in explaining the adoption of different resilience strategies.

Third, public attitudes to labour migration and concrete resilience strategies are likely to matter as well. An increase in the use of migrant labour in essential services may well lead to a rise in low-skilled immigration, as many essential jobs are in low-wage occupations. We know from existing research that public attitudes to labour migration critically depend on the skill and perceived contributions of the migrant, and in most countries they are much more positive to higher-skilled than to low-skilled migration (e.g. Hainmueller & Hopkins, 2014 ). An important question for research is whether and how Covid-19 has impacted on these attitudes, and specifically whether the recent apparent public appreciation of key workers in many countries has improved public attitudes towards lower-skilled migrant workers doing essential jobs (Dražanová, 2020 ). Comparative research could explore whether and why the impact of Covid-19 on public attitudes differs across countries, as this may have significant consequences for the resilience strategies considered most acceptable by policymakers.

The Covid-19 pandemic has raised new and urgent research and policy questions about the factors that shape the resilience of essential services to major shocks, especially with regards to food and agriculture, health services, and social care. There is little doubt that epidemics and pandemics will happen again but their effects will depend critically on actions to improve the resilience of the provision of essential economic activities and services. As migrants often represent substantial shares of ‘key workers’ albeit to different degrees across countries, it is important to analyse their role in shaping systemic resilience in different institutional contexts. Existing research on the effects and regulation of labour migration has largely focused on ‘efficiency’ (costs and benefits of immigration) and ‘distribution’ (effects of immigration on different groups of people) as key outcomes of interest without paying significant attention to issues related to systemic resilience.

This paper provides a basic framework and conceptual building blocks for analyses and policy debates about the role of migrant workers in the provision and resilience of essential services. Bringing together key insights from research on labour migration (specifically the role of migrant workers in addressing labour and skills shortages) and work on systemic resilience in other disciplines, we explain why and how a concern for the resilience of essential services should make us rethink how the impacts of migrant workers are assessed and how labour migration and related public policies are designed. Taking systemic resilience seriously as a policy goal requires us to shift the focus of analysis and policy debates from the role of migrants in specific occupations and sectors in particular countries to transnational systems of production and service provision. There is a need for greater attention to medium and long-term effects of labour migration as well as to the role of international supply chains and international collaboration. This in turn might result in a reduction in the relative importance typically attached to the protection of citizens in labour migration policy-making. Analyses of migrants and systemic resilience also demand greater consideration of the interlinkages between migration and other public policy areas which, among other things, requires a multidisciplinary approach.

Some of these changes – such as the greater emphasis on the long term, the analysis of migrants’ effects along the entire transnational supply chain, and linking migration policies with other public policies – would help address what in our view have been long-standing gaps and deficiencies in research and policy debates on labour migration. The new research agenda we propose, to help understand the link between migrants and systemic resilience, requires a comparative approach at several levels, to disentangle the effects of migrant workers on systemic resilience from the effects of policies or institutions. We need comparative analysis of how migrants and citizens affect systemic resilience within given systems , and of how and why resilience varies across systems and across countries characterised by different institutional and policy frameworks and, therefore, different degrees of reliance on and roles for migrant labour. The comparative institutional analysis also needs to pay attention to politics and systemic changes over time, considering whether, how, and why different systems change, including but not limited to their use of migrant labour.

The new analysis of the role of migrant labour in shaping systemic resilience across institutional contexts that we propose in this paper is closely connected to, but different from, discussions about restrictions on low-skilled labour migration and the exploitation of migrants in low-waged jobs. As we point out in Section 5, analysing how migrants can shape systemic resilience requires a consideration of how pre-crisis policies and institutions, the crisis itself and any policy responses to it affect migrants themselves. This type of analysis can produce important and, we would argue, urgently needed insights on the many inter-relationships and trade-offs between facilitating greater systemic resilience through particular uses of migrant labour (e.g. through the enhanced flexibility that migrants on temporary contracts may provide) and the employment conditions and socio-economic security of migrants. We thus consider our rethink and approach as encompassing rather than only complementary to analysis and debates about the effects of the pandemic and policy responses on migrants themselves.

While our analysis is motivated by Covid-19 and the role of migrants in shaping systemic resilience to the current pandemic and similar future health shocks , the paper is also relevant for shocks with similar characteristics as the current pandemic, especially with regards to its transnational reach, relative suddenness of onset and impact, and threat to human health. Examples of shocks that may share these characteristics with Covid-19 and other pandemic shocks include environmental shocks with transnational reach (e.g. major earthquakes, tsunamis, and extreme weather events), human-made disasters (e.g. nuclear meltdowns), and failures of international infrastructure (e.g. protracted breakdowns of power networks or pipelines). These scenarios can all create challenges for essential services to continue operating in a suddenly more difficult and somewhat dangerous environment. Other types of shocks such as financial and economic shocks raise different issues (e.g. Strauss-Kahn, 2020 ) and therefore require different policy responses with their own specific implications for the role of migrant labour in supporting systemic resilience.

One of the criticisms of resilience-thinking is that it takes socio-economic problems as matters of fact that must be adjusted to rather than challenges that can and must be tackled in their own terms. We recognise that it is often important to understand structural causes and not simply ameliorate symptoms. However, shocks do occur and some are outside of human control. In a globalised and interconnected world, it is increasingly likely that these shocks are themselves globally interconnected. Building systemic resilience therefore entails not cementing the status quo but preparing for uncertainties in the future.

Availability of data and materials

not applicable.

While ‘citizens’ and ‘migrants’ are typically counterposed in public debate in many states it over-simplifies and overlooks the fact that many residents may not be citizens yet have the right to unrestricted access to the national labour market (e.g. non-citizens with permanent residence status).

Abbreviations

Coronavirus disease

European Union

International Organization for Migration

Organisation for Economic Development and Co-operation

Afonso, A., & Devitt, C. (2016). Comparative political economy and international migration. Socio-Economic Review , 14 (3), 591–613.

Google Scholar  

Anderson, B. (2010). Migration, immigration controls and the fashioning of precarious workers. Work, Employment and Society , 24 (2), 300–317. https://doi.org/10.1177/0950017010362141 .

Article   Google Scholar  

Anderson, B. (2013). Us and them? The dangerous politics of immigration control . Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199691593.001.0001 .

Book   Google Scholar  

Boman, A. (2011). The mobility of immigrants and natives: Evidence from internal migration following job displacement. Regional Studies , 45 (3), 283–297. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343400903431003 .

Bourbeau, P. (2015). Migration, resilience and security: Responses to new inflows of asylum seekers and migrants. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies , 41 (12), 1958–1977. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2015.1047331 .

Brand, F. S., & Jax, K. (2007). Focusing the meaning(s) of resilience: Resilience as a descriptive concept and a boundary object. Ecology and Society , 12 (1), 23–38.  https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-02029-120123 .

Briguglio, L., Cordina, G., Farrugia, N., & Vella, S. (2009). Economic vulnerability and resilience: Concepts and measurements. Oxford Development Studies , 37 (3), 229–247. https://doi.org/10.1080/13600810903089893 .

Bryant, L., & Jaworski, K. (2011). Gender, embodiment and place: The gendering of skills shortages in the Australian mining and food and beverage processing sectors. Human Relations , 64 (10), 1345–1367. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726711415130 .

Chiswick, B. R., & Miller, P. W. (2003). The complementarity of language and other human capital: Immigrant earnings in Canada. Economics of Education Review , 22 (5), 469–480. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-7757(03)00037-2 .

Coleman, M. (2020, April 23). Essential workers are being treated as expendable. The Atlantic . https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/04/farmworkers-are-being-treated-as-expendable/610288/ . Accessed 20 Aug 2020.

Dias-Abey, M. (2020, August 11). Disposable workers, essential work: Migrant farmworkers during the COVID pandemic. Migration Mobilities Bristol . https://migration.blogs.bristol.ac.uk/2020/08/11/disposable-workers-essential-work-migrant-farmworkers-during-the-covid-pandemic/ . Accessed 25 Aug 2020.

Dražanová, L. (2020). Public attitides to migrant workers: A (lasting) impact of Covid-19?, commentary no. 3 of the MigResHub at the Migration Policy Centre . RSCAS, European University Institute https://cadmus.eui.eu/handle/1814/70322 .

Dunn Cavelty, M., Kaufmann, M., & Søby Kristensen, K. (2015). Resilience and (in) security: Practices, subjects, temporalities. Security Dialogue , 46 (1), 3–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/0967010614559637 .

Eichhorst, W., Feil, M. T., & Marx, P. (2010). Crisis, what crisis? Patterns of adaptation in European labor markets. Applied Economics Quarterly , 61 (suppl), 29–64.

Fasani, F., & Mazza, J. (2020). Immigrant key workers: Their contribution to Europe’s COVID-19 response (IZA DP No. 13178). IZA Institute of Labor Economics. https://covid-19.iza.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/dp13178.pdf .

Fenwick, T. (2006). Learning as grounding and flying: Knowledge, skill and transformation in changing work contexts. Journal of Industrial Relations , 48 (5), 691–706. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022185606070112 .

Fernández-Reino, M., Sumption, M., & Vargas-Silva, C. (2020). From low-skilled to key workers: The implications of emergencies for immigration policy. Oxford Review of Economic Policy , 36 (Issue Supplement_1), S382–S396.

Freier, L. F., & Luzes, M. (2020). Precarious systemic resilience: Venezuelan immigration and COVID-19 in the Andean region (MigResHub Commentary 5). Migration Policy Centre, RSCAS, European University Institute. https://hdl.handle.net/1814/70324 .

Geddes, A. (2015). Governing migration from a distance: Interactions between climate, migration, and security in the South Mediterranean. European Security , 24 (3), 473–490. https://doi.org/10.1080/09662839.2015.1028191 .

Gelatt, J. (2020). Immigrant workers: Vital to the U.S. COVID-19 response, disproportionately vulnerable (MPI Fact Sheet). Migration Policy Institute. https://www.migrationpolicy.org/research/immigrant-workers-us-covid-19-response .

Griffiths, M., Rogers, A., & Anderson, B. (2013). Migration, time and temporalities: Review and prospect (COMPAS Research Resources Paper). COMPAS. https://www.compas.ox.ac.uk/2013/migration-time-and-temporalities-review-and-prospect/ .

Griuglis, I., & Vincent, S. (2009). Whose skill is it anyway?: ‘Soft’ skills and polarization. Work, Employment and Society , 23 (4), 597–615. https://doi.org/10.1177/0950017009344862 .

Guo, S. (2015). The colour of skill: Contesting a racialised regime of skill from the experience of recent immigrants in Canada. Studies in Continuing Education , 37 (3), 236–250. https://doi.org/10.1080/0158037X.2015.1067766 .

Hagopian, A., Thompson, M. J., Kaltenbach, E., & Hart, L. G. (2003). Health departments’ use of international medical graduates in physician shortage areas. Health Affairs , 22 (5), 241–249. https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.22.5.241 .

Hainmueller, J., & Hopkins, D. J. (2014). Public attitudes toward immigration. Annual Review of Political Science , 17 (1), 225–249. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-102512-194818 .

Harding, R. (2006). Ecologically sustainable development: Origins, implementation and challenges. Desalination , 187 (1–3), 229–239. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2005.04.082 .

Horwitz, S. K., & Horwitz, I. B. (2007). The effects of team diversity on team outcomes: A meta-analytic review of team demography. Journal of Management , 33 (6), 987–1015. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206307308587 .

Hynes, W. (2020). Systemic resilience as a response to Covid-19 (MigResHub Think Pieces, 2020/01). Migration Policy Centre, RSCAS, European University Institute. https://hdl.handle.net/1814/70315 .

Kamalahmadi, M., & Parast, M. M. (2016). A review of the literature on the principles of enterprise and supply chain resilience: Major findings and directions for future research. International Journal of Production Economics , 171 , 116–133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2015.10.023 .

Khadka, U. (2020). Disposable medical gloves, indispensable migrant workers (MigResHub Think Pieces, 2020/02). Migration Policy Centre, RSCAS, European University Institute. https://hdl.handle.net/1814/70316 .

Koh, D. (2020). Migrant workers and COVID-19. Occupational and Environmental Medicine , 77 (9), 634–636. https://doi.org/10.1136/oemed-2020-106626 .

Kruk, M. E., Myers, M., Varpilah, S. T., & Dahn, B. T. (2015). What is a resilient health system? Lessons from Ebola. The Lancet , 385 (9980), 1910–1912. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(15)60755-3 .

Lariscy, J. T., Hummer, R. A., & Hayward, M. D. (2015). Hispanic older adult mortality in the United States: New estimates and an assessment of factors shaping the Hispanic paradox. Demography , 52 (1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13524-014-0357-y .

Lewis, E. (2011). Immigration, skill mix, and capital-skill complementarity. Quarterly Journal of Economics , 126 (2), 1029–1069. https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjr011 .

Linkov, I., & Trump, B. D. (2019). The science and practice of resilience . Cham: Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-04565-4 .

Martin, P. (2020). Food supply resilience and migrant workers (MigResHub Think Pieces, 2020/03). Migration Policy Centre, RSCAS, European University Institute. https://hdl.handle.net/1814/70317 .

Martin, R., & Sunley, P. (2015). On the notion of regional economic resilience: Conceptualization and explanation. Journal of Economic Geography , 15 (1), 1–42. https://doi.org/10.1093/jeg/lbu015 .

Martin-Breen, P., & Anderies, J. M. (2011). Resilience: A literature review (The Bellagio Initiative background paper). IDS.

Mavroudi, E., Page, B., & Christou, A. (2017). Timespace and international migration . Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781786433237 .

Migration Advisory Committee (2012). Analysis of the impacts of migration . London: UK Home Office https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/analysis-of-the-impacts-of-migration .

Nivorozhkin, A. & Poeschel, F. (2021). Working conditions in essential occupations and the role of migrants (Working Paper, EUI RSC, 2021/40). Migration Policy Centre, RSCAS, European University Institute. https://cadmus.eui.eu/handle/1814/70541 .

OECD (2012). What makes labour markets resilient during recessions? In OECD, employment outlook 2012 , (pp. 53–107). Paris: OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/empl_outlook-2012-3-en .

Chapter   Google Scholar  

OECD (2020a). COVID-19 and key workers: What role do migrants play in your region? Paris: OECD Publishing.

OECD (2020b). A systemic resilience approach to dealing with Covid-19 and future shocks . Paris: OECD Publishing.

Ostrom, E. (2003). Toward a behavioral theory linking trust, reciprocity, and reputation. In E. Ostrom, & J. Walker (Eds.), Trust and reciprocity: Interdisciplinary lessons from experimental research , (pp. 19–79). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Paul, R., & Roos, C. (2019). Towards a new ontology of crisis? Resilience in EU migration governance. European Security , 28 (4), 393–412. https://doi.org/10.1080/09662839.2019.1637340 .

Promislow, D. E. (2020). A geroscience perspective on COVID-19 mortality. The Journals of Gerontology: Series A , 75 (9), e30–e33. https://doi.org/10.1093/gerona/glaa094 .

Randall, K. R., Resick, C. J., & DeChurch, L. A. (2011). Building team adaptive capacity: The roles of sensegiving and team composition. Journal of Applied Psychology , 96 (3), 525–540. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022622 .

Robinson, G. M., & Carson, D. A. (2016). Resilient communities: Transitions, pathways and resourcefulness. The Geographical Journal , 182 (2), 114–122. https://doi.org/10.1111/geoj.12144 .

Ruhs, M. (2013). The price of rights: Regulating international labor migration . Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Ruhs, M., & Anderson, B. (2010). Who needs migrant workers? Labour shortages, immigration, and public policy . Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199580590.001.0001 .

Safuta, A., & Noack, K. (2020, July 1). A pandemic, and then what? The effects of the coronavirus pandemic on migrant care workers in Germany. COMPAS . https://www.compas.ox.ac.uk/2020/a-pandemic-and-then-what-the-effects-of-the-coronavirus-pandemic-on-migrant-care-workers-in-germany/ . Accessed 23 Aug 2020.

Sawchuk, P. (2008). Labour perspectives on the new politics of skill and competency formation: International reflections. Asia Pacific Education Review , 9 (1), 50–62. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03025825 .

Sequeira, S., Nunn, N., & Qian, N. (2020). Immigrants and the making of America. Review of Economic Studies , 87 (1), 382–419. https://doi.org/10.1093/restud/rdz003 .

Steinberg, R. (1990). The social construction of skill: Gender, power and comparable worth. Work and Occupations , 17 (4), 449–482. https://doi.org/10.1177/0730888490017004004 .

Strauss-Kahn, M.-O. (2020). Can we compare the Covid-19 and 2008 crises? Washington D.C.: Atlantic Council https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/can-we-compare-the-covid-19-and-2008-crises/ . Accessed 24 Aug 2020.

Thomas, S., Fleming, P., O’Donoghue, C., & Almirall-Sanchez, A. (2021). Strengthening health system resilience – What role for migrants and migration policies? (MigResHub Think Pieces, 2020/05). Migration Policy Centre, RSCAS, European University Institute. https://cadmus.eui.eu/handle/1814/70319 .

Waldinger, R., & Lichter, M. I. (2003). How the other half works: immigration and the social organisation of labour . Berkeley: University of California Press. https://doi.org/10.1525/9780520936171 .

Woods, D. (2006). Essential characteristics of resilience. In E. Hollnagel, D. Woods, & N. Leveson (Eds.), Resilience engineering: concepts and precepts , (pp. 21–34). Aldershot: Ashgate Press.

Wright, C. (2012). Immigration policy and market institutions in liberal market economies. Industrial Relations Journal , 43 (2), 110–136. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2338.2012.00664.x .

Yeates, N. (2010). The globalization of nurse migration: policy issues and responses. International Labour Review , 149 (4), 423–429. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1564-913X.2010.00096.x .

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge helpful comments and suggestions from Elizabeth Collett, Andrew Geddes, Philip Martin, Nenette Motus and three anonymous referees as well as from participants of a webinar of the Migration Policy Centre at the European University Institute and a workshop of the IOM Migration Research High-Level Advisers in early 2020. For this workshop, the authors prepared a note that became the basis for this paper (see https://publications.iom.int/system/files/pdf/systematic-resilience.pdf ).

Authors‘ contributions

MR initiated the paper and the authors jointly developed its reasoning and structure. Section 1 was mainly drafted by MR, section 2 by BA and MR, section 3 incl. Figure 1 by FP, section 4 by all authors, and section 5 by MR and FP. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

MR and FP acknowledge funding received from the Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies within the European University Institute (EUI). This funding did not exert any influence on the content of this research.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Migration Mobilities Bristol, University of Bristol, 11 Priory Road, Bristol, BS8 1TU, UK

Bridget Anderson

Migration Policy Centre, Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies, European University Institute, via Boccaccio 151, 50133, Florence, Italy

Friedrich Poeschel & Martin Ruhs

Department for Continuing Education, University of Oxford, Rewley House, 1 Wellington Square, Oxford, OX1 2JA, UK

Martin Ruhs

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

BA is a professor at the University of Bristol and director of Migration Mobilities Bristol (MMB), a specialist research institute at the University of Bristol. FP is a research fellow of the Migration Policy Centre at the European University Institute and a former economist at the OECD. MR is a professor and deputy director of the Migration Policy Centre at the European University Institute, on leave from the University of Oxford.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Friedrich Poeschel .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Anderson, B., Poeschel, F. & Ruhs, M. Rethinking labour migration: Covid-19, essential work, and systemic resilience. CMS 9 , 45 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40878-021-00252-2

Download citation

Received : 03 November 2020

Accepted : 17 July 2021

Published : 30 September 2021

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s40878-021-00252-2

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Essential services
• Systemic resilience
• Migrant workers
• Labour migration policies

Labour Migration, Vulnerability, and Development Policy: The Pandemic as Inflexion Point?

• Introductory Article
• Published: 18 January 2021
• Volume 63 , pages 859–883, ( 2020 )

Cite this article

• Ravi Srivastava 1  

11k Accesses

25 Citations

5 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

This issue takes the current pandemic as a point of reference to reflect on the nature of migration processes in India which involve labour migrants who generally work in the lower rungs of the informal economy. It particularly focuses on the circular migrants who were hardest hit by the stringent lockdowns in India and abroad. While migration occurs for a variety of reasons and takes a number of forms, it mostly aims at improving the livelihood and employment prospects of the movers and supports the growth and development of the areas to which the movement occurs. But this does not happen without significant stress and costs. Patterns of unequal development, demographic changes, wars, and conflicts play a large role in migration. Overall, the global trend has been towards higher mobility, both between countries and within countries, although at various levels, the data is fuzzy. This has contributed to greater well-being and prosperity, notwithstanding the many stress points. However, migration is not a single phenomenon in terms of nature, distance, and temporality and migrant workers have diverse characteristics. Many are poor and have little or no skills or assets, and others are well placed and well endowed in skills and assets. The former have poor bargaining power, form segments at the lower end of the labour market at destination, and struggle to achieve basic rights. The diversity in characteristics is also shared by migrants moving within, and across, national boundaries.

Attempts to curtail or structure mobility are not new. This is obvious in the movement between countries since immigration controls and rules are available to sovereign countries. It is less obvious in the case of internal migration where constraints and barriers on specific types of migration mobility operate through higher economic and non-economic costs. Historically, short-term controls on pandemics such as the Corona-Cov-2 pandemic of 2020 have operated through checks on population mobility, which reduces spatial transmission risks (see de Haan in this volume). These restrictions have dramatic and negative consequences for the economy and for economically vulnerable populations. Among the vulnerable, migratory populations and refugees are likely to be deeply affected, but research and policies have a strong tendency to ignore the existence of such populations (De Haan 1999 ).

1 International Migration

Internal and international (including cross-border) migration is generally seen with different lenses. This is understandable because international migration is subject to a country’s sovereign control over its borders and is permitted through its immigration rules. Moreover, the costs of international migration and information asymmetries are much higher, but benefits to migrants could also be higher due to higher wage/earning differential between countries. While there are also other differences, both internal migration and international migration are impelled by similar factors-in the case of economic migration, lack of adequate opportunities at source, or availability of better opportunities at destination; or in other cases, force of compulsion (as in the case of refugee migration or internally displaced persons (IDPs) ); or other factors (Srivastava and Sasikumar 2005 ; King and Skeldon 2010 ; Srivastava and Pandey 2017 ).

Globally, international migration is a greater focus of monitoring and policy attention for various reasons (Srivastava and Pandey 2017 ). The ILO and the UN have adopted a number of specific conventions and recommendations to protect the rights of international migrant workers, while the UN, the IOM, and the World Bank routinely monitor the trends in international migration and remittances. On the other hand, internal migrants and migrant workers are guaranteed their rights and protected against exploitation under the laws of the land and the general ILO Conventions which are deemed to be sufficient to protect their interests (ibid.). Compared to international migration, internal migration is only the subject of sporadic reports.

The impact of the pandemic has been severe on international emigrant workers, particularly low-skilled emigrant workers on short-term contracts working in the informal economy and undocumented workers. Loss of jobs, wage theft, issues with visa extension, closure of border crossings, lack of access to any social protection mechanisms, cost of repatriation have all taken a heavy toll on them. Incomes also declined for those emigrants who continued in employment. The ILO estimates that global labour income losses, without income support measures, declined by 10.7 per cent during the first three-quarters of 2020 compared to the same period in 2019 (ILO 2020 ).

The World Bank (Ratha et al. 2020 ) currently estimates that international remittances would decline by 7.2 per cent in 2020, followed by a further decline in 2021. High return migration and low prospects of new emigration are estimated to cause an absolute decline in the total numbers of emigrants, more severe than the 2008 global crisis (ibid.).

For India, international migration is voluminous and India is the highest earner of international remittances, which, however, is projected to decline by about 9 per cent in 2020 (Ratha et al. 2020 ). On the other hand, India also has a significant volume of migration from other countries, although most of this from countries with which India shares a border (Srivastava and Pandey 2017 ). There is scanty literature on the impact of the pandemic on these migrants, whereas we know more about the actual and possible impact of the pandemic of international migrants, particularly worker migrants in the Gulf and other regions.

The broad pattern of Indian emigrants abroad was in the past dominated by middle and high-income states in the North, West, and South of the country. Over time, the pattern of worker migration tilted towards the Eastern states of the country-Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, and West Bengal (Srivastava and Pandey 2017 ). The pandemic with its impact on oil revenues is likely to have a significant impact on the GCC countries which depend on oil exports due to falling oil revenues. As Abella and Sasikumar (this issue) show in their paper, trends in aggregate worker emigration closely mirror, albeit with a lag, the growth trends in the Gulf economies. They point out that the Government of India’s Vande Bharat mission brought back nearly 60000 stranded Indians from various countries abroad, of whom 170,000-180,000 were migrant workers. Since the journeys involved a direct travel cost of $350-400, many workers could not avail of them. Nonetheless, the likely scenarios of employment loss on incomplete contracts or wage loss for those migrants continuing to be employed imply a loss of earnings for the migrants as well as a loss in remittances. This loss increases when the “sunk costs” of migration in terms of recruitment costs are factored in. Abella and Sasikumar consider the segment of low-skilled workers, migrating to Saudi Arabia to be engaged in the construction sector. Based on the distribution of length of contract and earnings of this group, they project estimated loss in earnings and remittances under assumptions of job loss or lower wages. They point out that two counter tendencies may imply that the actual decrease in remittances may not be as high as anticipated: first, the tendency of employed migrants to remit a higher proportion of wages during crisis, and second, that the loss in employment may eventually not be very high due to the irreplaceability of low-skilled migrants in some sectors.

The Southern state of Kerala continues to have a large stock of migrants abroad-more than two million, particularly in the Gulf states. Kannan and Hari, in this issue, offer a long-term view of emigration from Kerala and hypothesise the impact of the pandemic of emigration and remittances in Kerala. Migrant workers from Kerala are currently estimated to be about 17-18 per cent of its workforce. Kannan and Hari estimates the number of migrants from Kerala and total remittances over nearly a half a century. Although emigration peaked around 2012-2013, remittances have shown a steady increase, but their contribution to state income declined from over a fifth at the beginning of this decade to about 14 per cent between 2015 and 2020, mainly due to a rapid growth in Kerala’s state income. Significantly, the secular increase in remittances was not reversed either by the Gulf wars or by global economic crises, including the 2008 crisis. The fact that total remittances increased despite a decline in the total number of migrants, Kannan and Hari note, was due to the changing educational and skill composition of the emigrant workforce, with a much smaller proportion engaged in manual and low-skilled jobs. The paper also analyses the macro-economic implications of the emigration for the state economy over different phases, its impact on the labour market, on household income and consumption and (increasing) inter-personal inequality, despite the state’s low multidimensional poverty index (MPI) and high human development index (HDI). The other negative aspect of Kerala’s development is the persistence of educated unemployment, especially among women, despite the safety valve of emigration. The third negative aspect is the declining tax collection effort shown by the share in net state domestic product (NSDP) of own tax revenue. The paper notes that the economic crisis precipitated by the pandemic confronts the state with multiple challenges and possibilities. As far as emigration is concerned, the crisis could be a turning point in terms of a sharp decline in Kerala’s large-scale labour migration to the Gulf countries, but alternatively, it could set off a beginning of a change in the composition of emigration if the demand for health care personnel increases in the Gulf as well as in other countries.

The Kerala migration story is examined from another perspective by Abraham (this issue), which can throw light on the long-term prospects open to return migrants affected by the current crisis (assuming that the short-term prospects could be overshadowed by the severity of the economic crisis and unemployment). Using the Kerala Migration Survey data, Abraham examines the occupational mobility of international migrants, pre-, during, and post-migration. Abraham points out that the major destination for migrants in Kerala is the GCC and 95 per cent of the migrations to the Gulf countries are on temporary contracts. Kerala still accounts for the highest Indian emigrant stock in the GCC. It is also the state with the highest return emigrant stock in India, and a high proportion of return emigrants are still in the working-age group and active in the labour force. The contractual jobs are mostly low skilled but offer a much higher earning potential to the migrants, although at the cost of deskilling for many, and downward occupational mobility. Their post-return occupational choices in the home labour market would be dependent on their level of human and physical capital and re-migration intentions, but termination or non-renewal of the migrant's contract could have an adverse impact on the occupational choices of the return migrants.

Using data from the 2011 Kerala Migration Survey, Abraham constructs three mobility matrices over the three phases of geographical mobility of return migrants in the economically active age group. The study finds that skilled blue-collar workers are in a higher proportion in all three stages of migration and they along with elementary workers form the largest proportion of return emigrants in Kerala. However, the proportion of workers is twice in the service sector while abroad, as compared to in the source region. The proportion of higher-skilled workers (professionals, associates, and technicians) are more or less stable over the three phases, while there is a significant rise (from negligible) in the percentage of workers reporting as managers/self-employed post-return. The data show a high occupational persistence among pre-emigration and post-return occupational choices, indicating that work experience abroad does not lead to a significant level of occupational mobility for return emigrants in Kerala. Around a fifth of the return migrants show upward mobility, while ten per cent moved to a lower occupational category. Only about 10 per cent are engaged in self-employment (mainly as proprietors and managers). Thus, the paper concludes that international migration does not lead to upward occupational mobility for most migrants and that there is limited skill augmentation ensuing from foreign work experience. Understanding these occupational trajectories in “normal” circumstances is more crucial in the current pandemic situation, with high numbers of return migrants, also unable to complete their contracts and requires an urgent consideration about the reintegration strategies for the migrants in the local economy and labour market.

2 Migration and Labour Circulation in India

Once households are considered as a site of production and social reproduction, a site where multiple strategies of subsistence converge, and which is placed in a social and cultural setting of kinship ties and the village, circular migration by individuals becomes part of a household strategy with diversification at its core (Ellis 1998 ). Lucas and Stark ( 1985 ) and the new economics of labour migration literature seek to explain these decisions by a risk spreading within households. Chen and Fan ( 2018 ) suggest that, in addition, migration transition theory, social network theories, and dual labour market theories also provide an explanation of labour market circulation. Of these, only the last emphasises the production structure and demand. The economies of production and social reproduction are shared between the migrant and the non-migrant part of the household in an intricate manner, enabling employers to meet only the basic cost of reproduction of the worker over the employment period, contributing to much greater flexibility and cheapening of labour. This has led to theorisations which focus on the dynamics of capital accumulation, capital labour relations, and how they incorporate the production and care economies (Breman 1996 and 2019 , Larche and Shah 2018 ).

Further, it may eventually be possible for migrants to take longer-term decisions, to migrate with their families, eventually even to uproot themselves almost entirely from their village settings. This has led to studies which explore changes in labour circulation over time and the decisions to migrate and settle permanently in urban areas (Chen and Fan 2018 ; Hu, Xu, and Chen 2011 ; Anh et al. 2012 ).

Labour migration may be seen as part of the larger phenomenon of labour mobility through which labour flows meet the requirements of spatially distinct regions. The larger phenomenon of labour mobility includes labour commuting at one end, and permanent migration, at the other. Circular migration falls between the two ends of this spectrum. The circular migration that is implied here may not have any fixity, in terms of location or temporality. It includes international migrants, cross-border migrants, or internal migrants.

Attempting to find a completely common ground between the various definitions of circular migration is not easy, and some parts of all definitions are debatable. Zelinsky ( 1971 : 225-226) defines circulation as:

a great variety of movements usually short term, repetitive or cyclical in nature, but all having in common the lack of any declared intention of a permanent or long lasting change in residence.

According to Skeldon ( 2012 ), the term “circular” implies a temporary movement that involves return. However, it is also distinct from “return migration”, as it implies more than just a single out-and-return movement to return at any time. Hugo ( 1982 ) further makes a distinction between commuting, defined as regular travel outside the village from 6 to 24 h, and circular migration, involving continuous but temporary absences of greater than 1 day.

Circularity includes migrants who adapt the seasonality of production and employment in their villages to that in the destination locations-whether rural or urban. It also includes those migrants who have acquired a certain fixity of location in urban spaces and also those whose location changes with workplaces and who, therefore, return to their native villages only when work opportunities are exhausted or when they themselves need to recuperate. A single label-seasonal or short term-eludes the circular migrants. Studies in most cases have focused either on short duration or seasonal migrants or those whose stay away from home have no temporal fixity, and who Breman in this issue describes as footloose workers or as modern day nomadism, which ensures that the workforce at the bottom of the economy, shorn off social security, and protection, can be bought at the lowest possible price and only hired for as long as their services. On the other hand, studies in the urban informal economy and in slums and similar habitations have often focused on the circular migrant who is struggling to put a foot in and find herself a niche in the urban economy and civic spaces.

Lucas ( 2015 ) in a review of internal migration globally points out that there is a neglect of seasonal and temporary migration globally. Such a neglect can have serious welfare and development implications for countries.

Long-term migrants in cities comprise either those who totally belong to the urban milieu or have largely extracted themselves from their rural roots. It also includes those who are semi-permanent residents in urban areas but still are linked to their rural habitat, with or without a desire to return to it permanently. Breman suggests that migrants who do not come back to the villages other than for short visits enjoy higher and steadier income, usually originate from castes-classes higher up in the village hierarchy, and are equipped with better physical and social capital. Survey results do not permit a very neat categorisation between different types of migrants. The National Sample Survey Organisation carried out a survey of migrants in 2007–2008. The survey allows us to distinguish between (in)-migrants, long-term outmigrants from households (away for more than a year), and short-term outmigrants (those who were away for work for a period of more than one month but less than six months). Results have shown that both (in)-migrants and long-term outmigrants who happen to be much more concentrated in better socio-economic groups than the short-term outmigrants who happen to be predominantly concentrated in lower consumption quintiles are from Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes or Other Backward Classes (Kundu and Sarangi 2007 ; Srivastava 2012 ). Yet, as discussed earlier the long-term outmigrants also form part of the precarious workforce in the informal urban economy (Srivastava 2020b ).

The migration of those at the bottom of the workforce which is less motivated by choice and search for better opportunity than by the dearth of livelihood opportunities in their home areas is very much a result of unequal development (Srivastava 2011b ; Srivastava et al. 2020b ) which has led to an empirical demarcation between sending states and receiving states. In fact, as shown in Srivastava ( 2020b , Table 8), states sending long-term migrants and short-term migrants largely overlap. As per the data from the 2011 Census and the NSS Survey on Migration (2007-2008), most outmigrants originate in a few low-income states and mostly travel to a handful of middle- or high-income states. The major source states are Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal, Odisha, Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, and Chhattisgarh, whereas the major destination states are Delhi, Haryana, and Punjab in the North (along with other areas in the Delhi National Capital Region), Maharashtra, Gujarat, and Goa in the West, and Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Karnataka and Kerala in the South. Recent studies also indicate that there is an increase in migration from the North-eastern states and towards the Southern states (see Lusome and Bhagat, and Peter et al. in this issue).

However, as Breman rightly observes in this issue, the contrast between home states (sending migrants) and host states (receiving migrants) is too simple and should not be reified. Gujarat happens to be a state of both in-migration and outmigration, and it is not the only one. Breman( 1996 ) and Breman ( 2009 ) show that the demand for outside labour is not necessarily caused by a lack of local supply and migrants are employed because they are cheaper and more docile. In fact, as shown in Srivastava ( 2020b ) a large amount of short-term outmigration emanates from within the high-income states.

At a more general level, one can ask whether such migration leads to an improvement in the condition of the individual and the household, and if so, in what way. Evidence shows that remittances lead to an improvement in consumption and decline in poverty, but effects are linked to the initial endowments of migrants and their current position in the labour market (Srivastava 2011a ). Bharti and Tripathi in this issue use the India Human Development Survey (IHDS) data for 2004-05 and 2011–2012 and analyse intergenerational mobility between father–son pairs, with and without remittances. They find no significant difference in the occupational mobility profile of the two types of households. Although this study is for all types of households, the results are likely to hold more for migrants at the bottom of the occupational ladder.

The seasonal, short duration, and footloose migrants have been analysed in a number of papers in this issue. The general conclusion is that these labourers are among the lowest substratum of workers, intensely exploited and denied a modicum of labour rights (Mishra; Breman; Adhikari et al. this issue), and changes in labour regulation have increased labour flexibility and non-standard employment without addressing issues of rights and dignity of labour, or the balance between capital and labour.

Breman, who has studied the footloose labour in Gujarat for over half a century, summarises his findings on footloose migrants as:

‘modern day nomadism, which ensures that the workforce at the bottom of the economy, shorn off social security, and protection, can be bought at the lowest possible price and only hired for as long as their services are required.

Class-wise, they can be clubbed as either semi-proletarians equipped with meagre and low yielding means of production (land, tools, cattle) or proletarians who are fully dispossessed from such ownership and at risk of even having forfeited control over where and when to apply their labour power. Their social profiles are structured on the basis of their primary identities defined by caste (Scheduled Castes or Dalits, Other Backward Classes); tribe (Scheduled Tribes or Adivasis) or creed (Hindus or Muslims). All these distinct clusters are further subdivided into a broad and stratified repertoire of hierarchical differentiation.

From day one, they are marked as outsiders lacking local language proficiency and familiarity with the alien habitat and its social intercourse.

A drift between their place of origin and the work that entices them away, labour nomads are not without assertiveness. However, it is a resilience that does not amount to a joint platform of protest and resistance.’

Mishra, in this issue, has analysed the unfreedom of seasonal labour migration from the rain-fed regions of three districts in interior Odisha, one of the low-income states of India. The paper historically traces the causes of dispossession of agrarian producers, ranging from land acquisition, peasant differentiation as agriculture commercialises, and rural distress and agrarian crisis. Rural labour that escapes distress is absorbed in an exploitative capitalist labour market through a network of social and economic structures which builds on the ethnicity, caste, gender, and tribal identity of the labourers. Capitalism uses these structures of discrimination to discipline and control labour. In the specific manifestations of migrant lives, the capitalist and non-/pre-capitalist forms of exploitation intersect and create conditions for “conjugated oppression” (Lerche and Shah, 2018 ).

The seasonal migration patterns in the study areas are quite diverse but dominated by inter-state family migration to brick kilns where migration is structured by the dadan system, in which advances given by sub-contractors or Sardars at around the festival of Nuakhali are used by labourers to settle old debts and defray current expenses. In return, labourers commit their labour, as a family unit, to work in the brick kilns, effectively bartering away their freedom and bargaining power. Overall, Mishra notes that despite some diversity, within and between the migration streams, there is a marked adverse inclusion, often characterised by unfreedom, of labourers at the bottom of the social and economic hierarchy, in capitalist production.

Bihar (along with Uttar Pradesh) has long been seen as the largest reservoir of migrant labour to many parts of the country. This migration again combines different streams and variations reflecting the initial social and economic endowment of the migrant’s household and individual characteristics. Dutta, in this issue, follows up on a long tradition of village and migration studies, initiated nearly five decades ago by a group of researchers working with the legendary researcher, Pradhan H. Prasad. (Of this research team, A. N. Sharma and Gerry Rodgers continue this research right till the present day.) Although secondary data suggest that Bihar contributes the most to short duration outmigration, Dutta finds that most of the outmigrants in her study are long-term migrants. The number of cases where entire households have relocated is low. While about one in five individuals migrated from two-third of the households, migration, especially among low-status social groups and agricultural labourers, was male dominated. Shorter-term migration streams were dominated by migrants from the poorest regions, and those at the bottom of the caste and class hierarchy, and these also constituted the most precarious migration streams. Again, while on average, migrants’ educational level was higher than non-migrants, migration streams at the bottom of the education spectrum were dominated by the most vulnerable social groups and poorest source regions. The person’s social and economic status was closely intertwined with the migration trajectory, and despite long periods of migration, most migrants continued to be in precarious jobs and enjoyed virtually no access to social protection entitlements at destination.

Uttarakhand, a mainly hilly state, with a long history of outmigration, was part of Uttar Pradesh till 2000. Awasthi and Mehta in this issue write about the background of migration from this state and then focus on the profile of a sample of migrants who had returned to the State after lockdown. Long-term circular outmigration from the region again far outweighed short-term outmigration, and in many cases, the former had partially been replaced by permanent outmigration, reducing many villages in the hills to the status of “ghost villages”. Turning to their survey of returnee migrants, they find that two-thirds had migrated to other states and nearly a similar proportion of all return migrants were recent migrants. A high, four-fifth of the returnees, were in regular wage/salaried jobs, while about a tenth each were self-employed or casual workers, but the salaried jobs were low skilled, low income, and informal, which ended as soon as lockdown started.

A number of papers in this issue analyse the conditions of migrant workers from the vantage point of receiving states and regions. The paper by Jayaram and Varma in this issue analyses the conditions of migrant workers industrialised Gujarat with a focus on two cities-Surat and Ahmedabad-and three sectors-construction, textiles, and hotels. In Ahmedabad, the textile value chain ended with women home-based workers who received a fraction of the minimum wage. The condition for male migrant workers in the small and medium units varied with scheduled caste migrant workers at the bottom of the ladder as helpers and contract workers having no possibility of upward mobility. Female workers earned even less than the male counterparts. Safety hazards were high, and scheduled tribe migrants were hired by the medium size units to do the most unsafe jobs. In Surat, 70 per cent of the powerloom workers were from Odisha working on piecerates on long shifts and when the powerlooms shut during the lockdown, many were stranded without wages. In the construction industry in Ahmedabad, workers were drawn from tribal areas within the state or from adjoining states, such as Rajasthan or Madhya Pradesh, through contractors, who paid them an advance. Again as lockdown struck, many workers were stuck without wages. Migrant women were often hired as jodis or couples - as 1.5 labour units, leading to a large gender wage gap and a lack of control over incomes. Women often delivered their infants on worksites, without basic facilities, and return to work within 15 days of their delivery (Jayaram et al. 2019 ). In the hotel industry, low-caste workers were generally employed in menial and insecure jobs. Under lockdown, workers immediately lost jobs and living spaces and left worksites with large wage arrears from contractors, who claimed that they were unable to recover wages from the hotel employers. Across the sectors, unsafe working conditions and poor living conditions, high congruence between work and social status, including gender, and a large role for contractors and intermediaries, were common features.

Maharashtra continues to be the largest major destination state for labour migrants. The paper by Singh et al. presents labour market characteristics in the organised construction industry in the urban economic agglomeration around the state capital, Mumbai. The construction industry also draws the highest number of circular/seasonal migrants - nearly 40 per cent of the total, according to NSS and IHDS estimates and employment in the industry grew at a remarkable rate between 1983 and 2011-2012 (Srivastava 2018 ). The industry employs a very high proportion of migrants and informal workers who are engaged through a dense system of sub-contracting, obfuscating the legal responsibility of employers towards the engaged workers. The paper tries to unpack the term “employer” by reflecting on the national level labour legislations, viz. the Inter-State Migrant Workers (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) (ISMW) Act, 1979, the Building and Other Construction Workers (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) (BOCW) Act, 1996 and the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 applicable to the construction sector, complemented with findings from fieldwork to provide a concrete understanding of the labour sub-contracting process. The perpetuation of the contracting system to engage migrants, the authors argue, is to provide employers with highly flexible and low cost labour, and the system evades regulation. The responsibilities under the laws are divided between the “contractor” and the “employer” and take no cognizance of the web of relationships.

Kerala, which has been a major source state for outmigration to other states as well as international destinations, has now emerged as a major and attractive destination state as a result of labour market characteristics and demographic changes. The state has also relatively the most proactive migration policies. Peter et.al. (this issue) estimate that the state is currently home to about 3.5 million circular migrants. The state began to see a heavy influx of migrant labour from the 1990s, and much of this was from beyond the neighbouring states, such as Tamil Nadu. Peter et al. present an analysis of the sectors engaging migrants and the emergence of long-distance corridors, with migrant labour coming to Kerala from the Eastern, Northern and North-Eastern states (Assam, Odisha, West Bengal, Bihar, Jharkhand, and Uttar Pradesh). They suggest that, like the rest of India, the temporary migrants belong to socially and educationally disadvantaged poor agrarian communities, whose livelihood opportunities in their native places have been severely constrained by a multitude of factors including climate change, disasters like drought and floods, conflicts, and oppression.

Kerala is one of the few states which has had proactive policy for labour migrants (Srivastava 2020c , Peter et al., this issue). Some of these measures date back to 2008. However, Peter et al. point out that the welfare schemes and regulatory framework had limited reach among the migrants. Collective bargaining largely eluded them, so that wages, although higher than other states, remained lower than local wages. There was also the “othering” of migrant labour, and even the “guest worker” label, which connoted the welcoming status being given to them, was an unfortunate extraction from international migration, where such workers acquired differentiated and lower rights compared to local workers. They further analyse the measures taken by the state for labour migrants during the lockdown. The state was impacted early by the pandemic and reduced economic activity forced a large number of migrants to return home from mid-March even before the lockdown. With lockdown, the government tried to meet the food-related challenges faced by the labour migrants, with the help of the local community setting up community kitchens, with partial success. Large-scale efforts were made to disseminate awareness about the pandemic among migrants in their languages. Many residential shelters were declared to be in situ shelters, and some new shelters were also set up. Government efforts were strongly supplemented by the community and civil society organisations (CSOs). The paper points out that Kerala's strong decentralised institutional set-up and disaster preparedness also equipped it to take steps arising out of pandemic-related crisis for migrants. But the state also made several mid-course corrections in dealing with the migrant crisis.

The North-Eastern states in India share international borders with Bangladesh, Myanmar, China, and Bhutan. Migration patterns in these states are complicated since these states are both source and destination states for internal as well as international (cross-border) migration. Lusome and Bhagat (in this issue) use Census and other sources of data to analyse patterns of internal migration in these states, and the impact of the pandemic on return migration. The paper also presents a rich texture of migration for states within the region.

On average, about a third of the people in the region are migrants, compared to 37 per cent for the country, and the region saw a rise of 5 million in the migrant population between 2001 and 2011. But 60 per cent of migrants in the region were intra-district. Overall, international migrants comprised 2.5 per cent of all migrants, but they comprised more than two-fifth of the migrants from outside the state. The North and the Eastern part of the country each contributed a fifth of the migrants from outside the region. The region also records a little more than one million migrants from the states in the region to other states-comprising about 2.2 per cent of the region’s population. A majority of these moved to states within the region, but about one-fourth migrated to six major agglomerations in other parts of the country. Within the country, migration from the region exceeds migration to the region and the pattern of migration has now shifted southwards. The paper estimates that during the pandemic, post-lockdown, nearly half a million persons returned to the North-East which was also about half the total estimated stock of migrants in other parts of the country. Most of these migrants were engaged in the unorganised sector of the economy and lost their jobs during the lockdown.

2.1 Gender in Circular Migration

While women outnumber men in internal migration in India, it is often identified as part of marriage or associational migration (Srivastava 2012 ; Rajan and Sumeetha 2020 ; Mazumdar, Agnihotri and Neetha 2013 ). This generalisation is one of the inherent reasons for the invisibility of female labour migrants. While marriage and associated migration are part of the social practice of patrilocality, increased care work responsibilities are core reasons for the majority of women withdrawing from the labour force. Rajan et al. (this issue) argue that among circular migrants, the vulnerability of women falls into several categories, first, where single male migrants leave women and children behind, and the major responsibility of economic and social reproduction falls on these women, second, where women migrate with men, joining the labour force or taking up care responsibilities at home, and third, where women migrate singly to join the workforce. In each of the last two cases, women workers are part of the lower end of the informal economy, where their contribution as workers remains invisible and unrecognised, and their access to social protection entitlements remains weak.

Dasgupta’s paper uses ethnographic material to analyse the situation of informal women migrant workers who work in the lowest rungs of the informal economy. Her fieldwork is based in the National Capital Region of Delhi which is also one of the largest urban economic agglomerations in which a large number of circular labour migrants are employed. Dasgupta focuses on two important sectors: domestic workers and construction workers. Her paper examines how migrant women workers organised their productive–reproductive responsibilities as construction workers and domestic workers. Of the women on whose narratives this paper is based, most had migrated from villages, and two from small villages and four-fifth were from Scheduled Castes or were Muslims. For most of the women, the migration to the NCR is as what is described as associational migration. The patterns of migration varied-some were settled construction workers, others were more short duration migrants, and most domestic workers planned to stay in the cities for a few years without any plan to stay there permanently.

Social networks and ties played an important role in finding the women a place in the labour market, even when clientelist ties were reproduced through petty contractors, or patriarchal relationships reproduced when women chose to work in the proximity of their husbands, given the incidence of worksite sexual violence. Women organised their employment and care responsibilities in a continuum using multiple strategies, depending on working hours, distance, support available from older siblings, or other relatives both at workplaces (in construction) and at home. Long working hours compromised their ability to bargain for better working conditions. Women who were spending more time in the city made choices about leaving older children in the village for schooling because of their own uncertain lives in the cities. The villages partially helped the families to reproduce and gave them a translocal existence.

The construction sector activity was, in principle, regulated by the Building and Construction Workers’ Welfare Act (BoCW Act), whereas there was no sectoral law for domestic workers. Labour markets in both sectors were fragmented and segmented, and wages and working conditions were decided locally. Women workers in construction were deployed in multiple activities but treated as a pool of low-skilled labour with no chances of upward mobility. Workers across sectors did not get weekly leave or sick leave. None of the construction workers accessed maternity benefits under the BoCW Act. The labour contractors’ presence in construction sector made invisible the capital owner from the workers. Social and economic institutions were closely intertwined in producing the specific characteristics of women’s employment as well as the inter-linkage between employment and her care responsibilities, while at the same time keeping features of her work and exploitation invisible and underestimated.

2.2 Commuting Labour

As we remarked at the beginning of this section, labour commuting constitutes one end of the spectrum of labour mobility and, apart from availability of more remunerative jobs, is increasingly influenced by the patterns of urban economic growth, particularly the growth of urban economic agglomerations, cost of living in urban locations, and improved roads and means of transport. Bhatt, Chandrashekhar, and Sharma, in this issue, estimate that in 2018-2019, 18.8 million individuals living in rural areas were working in urban India, for 2.3 million urban workers, the place of work was rural and 9.7 and 7.8 million rural and urban workers, respectively, had no fixed place of work. Among all rural workers, 7.3 per cent were rural-urban commuters, while only 2.1 per cent of urban workers were urban-rural commuters. Using data from the Periodic Labour Force Survey (PLFS) for 2018-2019, the paper offers a rich analysis of the factors that influence commuting, which can be seen to complement decisions to migrate. The analysis of the detailed characteristics of commuters shows that rural-urban commuters are present in manufacturing and construction, wholesale and retail trade, transportation and storage, and education and that men are much more than women, and among men, the younger age cohorts were more likely to commute. The other detailed characteristics are not discussed here, and the reader may refer to the paper for further details. The authors also estimate a multinomial regression model for rural and urban areas, respectively. One of the caveats of the paper is that only place of residence and place of work (rural/urban/no fixed place) are mentioned, while distance of commuting is not given, and the data would capture both daily commutes and short-term outmigration, but this again does not undermine the basic results, given the fluidity and complementarity of different types of labour mobility.

3 Magnitudes, Despite Lack of Exactitude

Lucas ( 2015 ), in a global review, points out that, due to inherent difficulties, given the fluidity of circular migration, circular (internal) migration is poorly measured. This is undoubtedly true for India. But over a period of time, evidence has accumulated about the large and growing numbers of circular migrants, providing little justification for their non-inclusion in policy.

Figures from the Census and NSS are often uncritically used to present very low and misleading estimates of short duration circular migration. The Census of India provides decennial figures of internal migrants (450 million in 2011 or about 37.7 per cent of the total population (Srivastava 2020d )). It further provides numbers of migrants by reason, distance, and duration. The NSS surveys on migration also provide estimates of short duration migration. But it has repeatedly been shown that these figures cannot be used to estimate even short duration circular migration (Srivastava 2020d ).

Despite the uncertainty regarding numbers, alternative estimates have been made for short duration migration, based on NSS and IHDs surveys (NSSO 2010 ; Srivastava 2011a ; Srivastava, Keshri, Gaur, Padhi and Jha 2020a ). These studies also bring out the association of short duration circular/seasonal migration with low social status, poverty, low levels of education, etc. (see also Kundu and Sarangi 2007 ; Keshri and Bhagat 2012 ). Two Commissions and Committees set up by government itself (NCEUS 2007 and MoHPA 2017 ) have also gone into various estimates of short duration seasonal/circular migration.

The Economic Survey for 2016-2017 brought about by the Finance Ministry of the Government of India devoted a full chapter to migration flows. Using a Cohort-based Migration Metric, it estimated that annual inter-state labour mobility averaged 5-6 million people between 2001 and 2011, or a decadal inter-state migrant population of about 60 million and an inter-district migration as high as 80 million. Further, it estimated internal work-related migration using railways data for the period 2011-2016 indicating an annual average flow of close to 9 million people between the states. Further, based on Census estimates, the Survey claimed that during the period 2001-2011, the annual rate of growth of labour migrants nearly doubled relative to the previous decade.

In a study of the construction industry, Srivastava ( 2018 ) showed that the NSS significantly underestimated inter-state circular migrant workers in the industry. Further, in the wake of the pandemic and the migrant exodus, Srivastava ( 2020b ) has attempted to provide estimates of vulnerable circular migrants, focusing on inter-state migrants. The paper estimates that there are about 58.5 million short-term circular migrant, of whom 28 million are estimated to work in other states and 24 million in the urban areas of other states. Further, categorizing outmigrants in NCO groups 5-9 as being occupationally vulnerable, the paper estimates that there were 69 million vulnerable long-term circular migrant workers, of whom 24 million were inter-state migrants workers, and 19 million worked in urban areas of other states. Thus, the paper concluded that there was an estimated 52 million vulnerable inter-state migrant workers, of whom 43 million were located in other states.

4 The Current Pandemic and Circular Migrants

India responded to the pandemic from February 2020 onwards through screening of international passengers and announcing preventing measures. On 19 March, the Prime Minister announced one-day voluntary lockdown as a preparatory measure. But this was followed by a three-week country-wide lockdown from the midnight of 24 March, announced only at four-hour notice. The lockdown did not take into account the country’s economic structure or social demography. It addressed the middle classes when the Prime Minister evocatively asked citizens to treat their doorstep as a boundary (“Lakshman Rekha”) and not to cross it during the lockdown (Breman, this issue). Only essential services were allowed to function during this period. All other economic activities came to a grinding halt.

The extreme restrictions on mobility affected the poorest who had to access essential services (drinking water and toilets) away from their houses. The severe restrictions which placed India at the top of the Oxford University’s stringency index were considered essential to control the virus’s transmission and to give time for the public health infrastructure to be strengthened to respond to the pandemic. But it left the poor and the migratory populations high and dry. Many millions of people, men, women, and children-footloose migrant labour, students, tourists, and others-were stranded in different locations, often without food, shelter, and money.

The plight of India’s migrant labour during the lockdown has been well documented in a number of rapid surveys carried out by civil society organisations on the ground who had been in close contact with migrant labour communities before and during the lockdown. The SWAN network was one such network of activists set-up during the pandemic, which created channels through which migrant workers in distress reached out to volunteers, who then channelled support through their network. The network was able to collect data on the distressed migrants and put out three reports. The data collected have been analysed for this issue by Adhikari et al. (this issue).

The government announced a package of measures for the poor on 27 March, but the circular migrants were by and large not covered by the transfer of limited amounts of cash to women account holders through accounts opened since 2015 to push financial inclusion, or to farmers, and poor pension holders in a government social assistance programme (Srivastava 2020b ). Even the Public Distribution System (PDS) which ostensibly covers three-quarters of the rural population and half the urban population could not reach them. The paper documents that between March and July, even with some improvement over the weeks, only 18 per cent of the stranded migrants who reached out to them were able to access food rations. Across four states-Delhi, Haryana, Karnataka, and Maharashtra, only about 36 per cent had received assistance in the form of cooked food (Adhikari et al., this issue).

Short-term labour migrants often live in worksites and depend on contractors for payments. In many cases, payments for work carried out were also denied to them, but workers were held back at sites. Payment during lockdown was even rarer. Among nearly 24,000 workers whose data were available with the SWAN network, only 4 per cent said that they had been paid during lockdown, while 12 per cent that they had been paid partially. But in many cases, these payments related to work done before the lockdown (Adhikari et al., ibid.).

The footloose labourers who were ultimately dependent on meagre cash savings and uncertain food handouts, were eager to return to their villages. But the desperation was not limited to short-term migrants. Long-term migrants in India’s urban economy, who had lost their jobs and earnings, and in many cases, were unable to pay their rents and were also left out of the social protection net and also felt that they had no recourse but to fall back on their rural resources (see below).

The exodus of the migrants began in the first week of lockdown, but the severe governmental response pushed them back to their shelters or they interned in government shelters. But there was no containing these migrant workers once there was news of an extension of the lockdown. Millions of workers, often accompanied by their family members, including young children began walking back to their villages-often thousands of miles away. They also used whatever means they could muster-bicycles, pushcarts, hired passenger or transport vehicles to make these journeys (Srivastava 2020b ). As Adhikari et al. point out in this issue, the scenes were reminiscent of Steinbeck’s depiction of mass movements of the poor during the Great Depression, or the movement of people in the Indian sub-continent during partition. At least 900 people died during these journeys.

Nearly half the distress calls to the SWAN volunteers emanated from migrants who had less than a day of food supply available with them (ibid). Nearly 57 per cent of the distress calls came from industrial workers (in factories or construction), where many of the former could have been longer-term migrants, about 8.65% belonged to the non-group based employed category and about 20% were self-employed and both these categories are more likely to have been longer-term migrants. The paper points out that initially a majority of distress calls were from short-term inter-state migrants.

Over a period of time, distress calls from longer-term migrants or “settled population” and intra-state migrants increased, indicating a widening net of vulnerability. The impact of the lockdown on longer-term circular migrants has also been corroborated by other surveys (Gramvaani 2020a and 2020b ). Although these migrants had a better social network to tap into for loans or other forms of support, the loss of jobs and earnings of entire communities, in the face of the pandemic, and limited or no access to social protection programmes, exposed them to high risk and vulnerability. Once the lockdown was initiated, earners and remitters had to survive on savings, private or public assistance, reverse remittance from families in the villages, borrowing, and sale of assets. The scope for borrowing and sale of assets to finance subsistence or the journey back home was more likely to be available for long-term migrant workers than the footloose labour (Adhikari et al., this issue).

The harrowing journey home of the migrants was extensively captured by the Indian media, both print and visual. There were times in April–May when every highway in the country, South to North, West and North to East provided ample evidence of the large masses of migrants making their way home. The government stepped in only in early May, and then, too, there was lack of coordination between state governments and between states and the centre, regarding procedures and payments (Srivastava 2020b ). While the government stated in the Supreme Court that by early June, nearly 10 million migrants had availed of trains and state provided transport to go home, the figures of migrants who travelled without any official support was much larger (ibid.). Moreover, despite instructions of the apex Court, a large number of migrants had to incur substantial costs in making the journey. The SWAN network found that 85 per cent of the migrant workers who had returned home or were in transit had to incur high costs for this journey (Adhikari et al. this issue).

The impact of the lockdown was particularly severe for women and children. Women workers and/or spouses faced inordinate problems in accessing health support during pregnancy and for other needs. Many were subject to severe forms of abuse in the confined spaces with spouses. Travelling back was an even more harrowing experience for them. Women were more likely to be thrown out of work during lockdown and less likely to be re-employed as lockdown relaxed (Adhikari et al. this issue).

The gender dimensions of the crisis have also been highlighted by Rajan et al.. Migrant women (workers or spouses) were subject to enormous hardship during transit, and some did not even survive the journeys. Job losses have been particularly severe among informal women workers, and regaining lost jobs has been more difficult for them, resulting in the widening of gender gaps. There was of increased evidence of domestic violence. Loans, debts, and accompanying poverty had resulted in instances of early marriages, sex trade, trafficking, exploitation, while bonded labour and child labour had emerged as areas of concern and may all be on the rise. There was also concern that it was increasingly difficult to meet the pre- and post-natal and pregnant requirements of women. Although the Ministry of Health and the National Commission on Women had issued an advisory on taking special care of women and children, their safety remained an area of concern.

Adhikari et al. (this issue) and Rajan et al. (this issue) also point out that while the extent of food insecurity, loss of livelihoods, and lack of medical care for migrants have been widely discussed, anxiety, fear, depression, and uncertainties concerning their life have received less attention. In particular, they point out that being in a cramped space with no work and constant uncertainty surrounding food spawned a mental health crisis. There has been some recognition of this in government and policy making circles. But the technocratic solutions avoided entire the socio-political context of the migrant crisis which had exacerbated the mental health trauma of the workers.

5 Policy Implications

Papers in this volume underscore the deep-seated vulnerability of labour migrants, neglect of migrants in politics, in policy, and lack of accepted place for them in cities. They approach policy issues largely from two perspectives-that of labour policy and labour regulation and that of social security and social protection. They have also highlighted political inclusion, and the importance of organisations of migrant workers. Most of these issues cut across countries and international and internal migrants (De Haan, this issue).

One of the reasons for the lack of neglect of migrants in the internal policy discourse is that they do not have a political constituency and that they are not able to exercise even the right to vote (De Haan, this issue). In the recent elections in the state of Bihar in India, the presence of migrant returnees put migrant-related issues firmly on the agenda.

The migrant crisis revealed that India’s patchy social protection system does not address the requirements of the enormous mass of mobile workers in the informal economy. According to the ILO (cited by Rajan et al. this issue), India had the lowest percentage of population in Asia and the Pacific covered by at least one social protection benefit (effective coverage) in 2015. The social protection measures in place were more focused towards the rural population, leaving a much larger gap in covering the urban poor and migrant labour. The authors argue for a more migration-inclusive social protection policy encompassing public employment programmes, food, health, and cash transfer (Adhikari et al., Rajan et al., this issue). In their paper, Adhikari et al. (this issue) have argued for a bolstering of the two pillars of the relief response in India, viz. the Public Distribution System (PDS) and the National Rural Employment Guarantee Programme (NREGP). Authors have also argued for a comprehensive and universal social security and social protection system as recommended by the National Commission for Enterprises in the Unorganised Sector (NCEUS 2006 , 2007 ).

Ensuring social protection for migrants means not only creating these entitlements but also mechanisms to ensure that those programmes that exist can be accessed. This involves portability of entitlements such as the PDS, the right of children to attend schools, maternity entitlements of women, and nutritional and pre-school education entitlements of young children (De Haan this issue). These social protection claims have been created by the national government, and some of them (such as PDS, nutritional entitlements of children, and attendance in schools) have been created by law, but cannot be exercised by migrants. There has been some progress in this direction-migrant children cannot be denied the right to enrol in schools for lack of documentation, and post-lockdown, the central government has promised portability of the PDS by June 2021 under its “One Nation, One PDS scheme”.

But there are undeniable pitfalls in moving towards entitlements for migrants. First, social protection claims in India can be created by all three levels of government, central, state, and local and many claims that are created by lower level governments are only for their own citizens and exclude migrants under various domiciliary restrictions (Srivastava 2020a ; MoHPA 2017 ; Kone et al. 2017 ). Second, portability would also require a system of registration of workers (and establishments), and transfer of provisions (registrations and claims) across jurisdictions. At present, no universal system of registration exists, and the reliance is on the system of identification created by government called the UID. This system has several flaws: it creates last mile exclusion of the most vulnerable, and it is susceptible to misuse (Breman, this issue). Any registration system for social security/social protection should be consistent with data privacy, and the concerned law is still being debated in India.

Almost all papers in the volume have argued for a strengthening rather than a dilution of labour laws. The main objective of a labour reform agenda should be to bring about inclusive and equitable growth, ensure a fair distribution of gains in productivity between workers and owners of capital, ensure industrial peace through a responsive system of grievance redressal, eliminate job discrimination against migrants on the basis of caste, gender etc., reduce precarity of employment, and create a minimum floor of labour standards for workers. Jayaram and Varma argue that the migrant crisis could be seen as a direct result of the complete absence of labour governance architecture in the segments of the urban labour markets that employ them, fuelling impunity of employers to perpetuate extractive labour practices. They argue that a labour reform process must bring the protection of migrant workers to the centre of its agenda by strengthening institutional mechanisms for holding employers liable for violations of their labour rights.

Firms are currently able to evade regulatory responsibility towards workers by either not falling within the ambit of the organised (formal) sector, or if they do, keeping workers out of the regulatory framework through a maze of informal and sub-contracting relationships, as mentioned earlier. Jayaram and Varma point out there were as many as seven sub-contracting layers in their study of the construction sector. Migrant sub-contracted workers have no record of their employment relationship and do not even know who their principal employer is. Laws recognise either the principal employer or the contractor but do not take into account the maze of these relationships. The migrant workers, temporary and mobile, with no proper documentation, face an impossible task in negotiating their way through the labour conciliation and adjudication machinery or the criminal justice system, both heavily tilted towards employers (Jayaram and Varma, this issue). Papers in this volume point out that the labour law changes have constantly undermined efforts to fix responsibility on principal employers, and the role of employers is constantly obfuscated in value chains across different types of activities where contracting/sub-contracting is involved. They argue that the common factor between diverse extractive labour practices across sectors is that the relationship between migrant workers and their employers or contractors remains in the extra-legal territory. The inability of workers to invoke employers’ liability to provide for them as a statutory right leaves them with work relationships that are not legally regulated, but fragment and segment them based on social identities of caste, gender, and ethno-linguistic identity. Labour standards need to be maintained across the entire supply chain, where small margins push smaller manufacturers towards a race to the bottom. Jayaram and Varma argue for recognizing the big retailers/buyers as the principal employers with a graded system of compliance responsibility across the value chain.

The labour governance architecture does not recognise or respond to the complex intersection of informality, mobility, and caste- or gender-based discrimination that enables violations of migrant workers’ labour rights. Several important laws, such as the Minimum Wages Act, Employee’s Compensation Act, and the Bonded Labour Abolition Act, which are applicable to all informal workers, also remain unimplemented due to poor enforcement. The enforcement of labour regulation has been affected by the steady debilitation of the labour regulation and inspection system. Rather than relaxing employer compliances, simplification along with greater accountability in the system of inspections can be built on tripartite principles, through greater worker and civil society participation (NCEUS 2007 ; Jayaram and Varma, this issue). Opportunities for informal and migrant workers to register their own unions or ensure their participation in recognised unions through affirmative action would also improve the compliance environment.

The labour reforms process must initiate the comprehensive identification, recognition, and inclusion of the entire spectrum of non-standard employment (including home-based work, piece-rated work, and family-based labour) into the ambit of the formal legal-policy ecosystem. Wherever feasible, systems of firm registration and worker registration should be implemented, so that a direct identification and establishment of employment relationship is possible.

6 Does the Pandemic Denote an Inflexion Point for the Precarity of Circular Migrants?

The neglect of labour migrants in policies is not a benign neglect, arising due to their accidental invisibility, and lack of adequate information regarding migration flows and numbers. While its structural causes-unequal development and demographic imbalances-are undeniable, the present condition of migrant labour is deeply embedded in the pattern of capitalist development, and social-structural conditions in which the production and social reproduction of labour take place. Many of the papers in the present volume emphasise the role of social structure, and gender is maintaining what Shah and Lerche ( 2020 ) call “conjugate structures of exploitation”. The partial reproduction and social reproduction of the worker and her/his family in the rural village, the separation of worker from her/his social milieu, and in the case of wage worker: the pattern of recruitment and deployment in labour markets which are segmented in various ways, create a pool of highly low cost and flexible labour which circulates place to place and between town and country. Srivastava ( 2016a , b ) and Srivastava, Padhi and Ranjan ( 2020 ) point out how labour market informality and flexibility are increasing in India in the formal sector of the economy, while the informal sector is in any case almost entirely informalised. Srivastava ( 2019 ) also shows how labour market flexibility, informality, segmentation based on social structure, and labour circulation go hand in hand.

Concerns with the implications of the precarity of migrants based on their working conditions and living conditions were highlighted during the migrant crisis in India following lockdown, which several authors here and elsewhere have recognised as the largest exodus ever in conditions of crisis. The implications of these conditions were not restricted to the migrant workers and their families but were also felt by the entire population (since living conditions and forced mobility both could cause a worsening of the epidemic). Further, the impact of the sudden forced mobility had significant implications for economic activity both at destinations (from where the exodus took place) and the source areas.

Since, as discussed in Section 4, the Indian state first refused to acknowledge the crisis and then was forced to respond reluctantly to the humanitarian crisis, the question that we ask is whether the crisis constituted a point of inflexion in the migration question in India. A similar question can be asked with respect to international migrants, but for lack of space, we restrict ourselves to the vulnerable internal migrants in India.

A part of the answer became evident even in the period when the stringent lockdown began to unwind when state after state, almost on cue began to make changes in labour laws. Labour law falls in the concurrent list, and states can make amendment to the laws with the consent of the central government. They can also amend provisions by invoking special conditions under powers provided to them in the Acts. As many as twelve states made amendments to provisions in labour laws as soon as the lockdown began to unwind in May 2020 (PRS Legislative Research 2020a ). The maximum number of changes concerned increase in working hours ranging from 10 to 12 hours per day, changes in maximum hours permissible per week, and in overtime payments (ibid.). The rationale provided was work stretching necessitated by social distancing, meeting of labour shortages, or simply labour market flexibility required by new investments. However, several states made far more sweeping changes in labour laws with exemptions for periods between 1000 and 1200 days, in the name of attracting new investments and creating employment. The most extensive changes were proposed by states with the same political dispensation as the centre. Two states, Uttar Pradesh and Gujarat, approved ordinances repealing the provisions of all labour laws, with some caveats. These changes affected working hours, industrial safety, grievance redressal, formation of trade unions and industrial bargaining, and even social security provisions (Srivastava 2020b ; Shyamsundar and Sapkal 2020 ). Although made individually by states, the changes followed a clear template provided by the central government on the advice of employers (Srivastava 2020b ; PIB 2020 ). States such as MP and UP, which made sweeping changes in the labour laws, specifically claimed that they would create employment opportunities for migrant workers. The claims of higher investment and employment even in normal times have been strongly contested (Srivastava 2016b ; Bhattacharjea 2019 ). Jayaram and Varma point out that the proposed changes were applauded by industry associations because they benefit large industrialists who engage organised workforce in their factories, where workers’ collective bargaining and the state’s regulatory mechanisms are more effective.

Under protests from trade unions that the changes in working hours violated the ILO Convention on working hours and complaint made to the ILO, the ILO Director General wrote to the Government of India. Footnote 1 In July 2020, the central government told the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Labour that it did not concur with the changes proposed by the States, Footnote 2 and in October 2020, the apex court struck down the provisions in the Gujarat ordinance making changes in working hours in factories and stated quite clearly that the pandemic was not a “public emergency” in the sense implied by the legislation, and the provision could not be invoked by the Gujarat government to make changes in maximum working hours and overtime. Although all of this led to a partial roll back, it is noteworthy that the changes were proposed at a time when the migrant crisis was at its peak and its magnitude emanating from employment precarity was clearly evident.

Another part of the answer emerged in September 2020, when the government legislated three labour codes. Industrial Relations, Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions, and Social Security Codes amalgamating central legislations on the above subjects. Coming, as they did, after the migrants’ crisis, they provide a lens on the government’s treatment of the issues mentioned in the preceding section. Footnote 3

The Inter-State Migrant Workmen (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act has now been subsumed in the Code on Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions (in brief, OSH). The provisions of the Code on OSH and the Code on Social Security now suggest that the Codes provide greater visibility on inter-state migrant workers. Their definition has been widened in the Codes to include workers in establishments moving across state boundaries on their own, and, for certain provisions, even self-employed migrants. Further, for registration purposes, establishments will be required to report on inter-state migrants employed by them. The central and state governments will be required to maintain a database of inter-state migrants, and such migrants (including those self-employed) will be able to self-register on that portal. Employers/contractors engaging inter-state-migrant workers in establishments employing ten or more such workers (double of the numbers in the subsumed act) will provide a journey allowance under certain conditions and provide suitable conditions from employers and social security, facility of an annual health check-up if prescribed by government (a new facility). Finally, the state government will ensure that the benefits provided for building and construction workers are portable, and the benefit of PDS is available to the worker either in the source or destination state. An analysis of these provisions shows that while, by making references to inter-state migrant workers in these provisions, the Codes make migrants more visible, very few of them are new, significant or mandatory. The Code on Social Security lays the framework for social security for all workers, including migrants. But no scheme, others than those already pre-existing, is provided for migrants.

It is, however, more significant that most provisions relating to inter-state migrant workers in the Codes are circumscribed by the major provisions relating to industrial relations, working conditions, etc., which are aimed at the removal of the labour protective framework would lead to the informalisation of the small fraction of organised workforce in the country, rather than encourage unorganised units to formalise (Shyamsundar and Sapkal 2020 ).They weaken the scope for legitimate industrial action and jeopardise the right to association and social dialogue. Further, all the Codes weaken an already debilitated inspection system which will no longer even be complaints based.

Following the steps taken earlier in 2018 in the central sphere, the Codes have introduced fixed term employment in all establishments. The employees will have the same wages and leave benefits as permanent employees in the same category and will also be entitled to applicable social security benefits, and pro-rata gratuity benefits if they are employed in an establishment for more than a year. But the fixed term employees will not be able to graduate to being permanent employees and hence will also be denied career progression, thus creating a cadre of permanently insecure employees, unlike the treatment of such employees in several other countries across the world (Srivastava 2016a ). Fixed term employment, it is argued, would encourage employers to increase direct employment replacing employment through contractors. Yet provisions relating to contract labour have been further liberalised, and establishments and contractors dealing with less than fifty contract workers (compared to twenty such workers earlier) will no longer need any permission or registration. The Code on OSH further obfuscates the relationship between worker and employer and the responsibility of the latter by juxtaposing the definition of employer with the contractor (an issue raised by several of the contributors in this issue). Similarly, threshold levels for factories, standing orders on employment, permission for retrenchment have all been raised, significantly enhancing deregulation in all aspects of the labour market and pushing it towards greater flexibility and precarity. Given that circular migrants already form a very large chunk of such workers, this basic tendency is not likely to be reversed by the rather cosmetic references to (only) inter-state migrant workers in the Codes.

The new labour law architecture has been seen by the Indian government as a key factor in promoting competitiveness of industry, “ease of business”, and (in the context of the pandemic) economic revival. Yet, as a number of authors have argued, these arguments are highly debatable as industrial competitiveness depends on much wider range of factors such as infrastructure and the broader policy environment (Sood 2020 ; Srivastava 2016b ; Bhattacharjea 2019 ; Jayaram and Varma, this issue). The current changes are grounded in the logic of a “race to the bottom” and a “low” route to capitalist development, as several contributors in this issues and elsewhere (Srivastava 2011b , 2020b ) have argued, tilting the balance further towards large capital (Sood and Nath 2020 ). Analysts have noted that during July–September 2020, while India’s GDP contracted by 7.5 per cent, the real profit of listed companies increased by 25 per cent, and the share of real wages declined (Chenoy 2020 ). Although the crisis has increased the visibility of migrants, particularly inter-state migrants, in social protection policy, the policy changes aim at increasing flexibility and precarity. Unfortunately, there are no signs that the precarious conditions of circular migrants in India, who faced the brunt of lockdown and occupy highly disadvantageous positions in the labour market, will experience less precarious and less unsafe conditions as a result of these changes.

Jha ( 2020 )

Gupta, Moushumi Das (2020) “Illegal to increase factory work hours from 8 to 12 — parliamentary panel to labour ministry”. The Print. July 20. https://theprint.in/india/governance/illegal-to-increase-factory-work-hours-from-8-to-12-parliamentary-panel-to-labour-ministry/465004/

A useful summary of the changes can be found in PRS Legislative Research 2020b .

Anh, N.T., J. Rigg, L.T.T. Huong, and D.T. Dieu. 2012. Becoming and being urban in Hanoi: Rural-urban migration and relations in Viet Nam. The Journal of Peasant Studies 39 (5): 1103–1131.

Article   Google Scholar  

Bhattacharjea, A. 2019. “Labour Market Flexibility in Indian Industry: A Critical Survey of the Literature,” Working Papers 296, Centre for Development Economics, Delhi School of Economics.

Breman, J. 1996. Footloose labour: working in India’s informal economy . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Book   Google Scholar  

Breman, J. 2009. The great transformation in the setting of Asia. Public lecture to accept honorary doctorate . The Hague: International Institute of Social Studies.

Google Scholar  

Breman, J. 2019. Capitalism, inequality and labour in India . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Chen, C., and C.C. Fan. 2018. Rural-urban circularity in China: Analysis of longitudinal surveys in Anhui, 1980–2009. Geoforum 93: 97–104.

Chenoy, Sajjid Z. (2020). “Canary in the coalmine”. The Indian Express, December 6.

De Haan, A. 1999. Livelihoods and poverty: the role of migration. A critical review of the migration literature. Journal of Development Studies 36 (2): 1–47.

Ellis, F. 1998. Household strategies and rural livelihood diversification. Journal of Development Studies 35 (1): 1–38.

Gramvaani. (2020a). Mobile Vaani: Survey of Resident Workers. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1GNiTsmOJP9W4J-hdgZCNvHa7GgMggnSh/view Accessed November 2020.

Gramvaani. (2020b) Mobile Vaani: Survey of Migrant Workers. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1sCYWaow14pLN0osg8PMRH1PeoepN8-h-/view . Accessed November 2020.

Hu, F., Z. Xu, and Y. Chen. 2011. Circular migration, or permanent stay? Evidence from China’s rural–urban migration. China Economic Review 21: 64–74.

Hugo, G.J. 1982. New Conceptual Approaches to Migration in the Context of Urbanization: A Discussion Based on Indonesian Experience. In Population Movements: Their Forms and Functions in Urbanization and Development. Edited by Morrison, P.A., Liege: Ordina Editions for the international Union for the Scientific Study of Population.

ILO (International Labour Organization). 2020. ILO Monitor: COVID‐19 and the world of work, Sixth Edition, Geneva, September 23, 2020. https://www.ilo.org/global/topics/coronavirus/impacts-and-responses/WCMS_755910/lang--en/index.html .

Jayaram, N., P.Jain and S. Sugathan. 2019. No city for migrant women: construction workers’ experiences of exclusion from urban governance and discrimination in labour markets in Ahmedabad. Gender & Development 27(1):85–104.

Jha, S. 2020. ILO reaches out to PM Modi over labour law changes in various states. Business Standard. May 26. https://www.business-standard.com/article/economic-revival/ilo-reaches-out-to-pmmodi-over-labour-law-changes-in-various-states-120052500335_1.html

Keshri, K., and R.B. Bhagat. 2012. Temporary and seasonal migration: Regional pattern, characteristics and associated factors. Economic and Political Weekly 47 (4): 81–88.

King, R., and R. Skeldon. 2010. ‘Mind the gap!’ integrating approaches to internal and international migration. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 36 (10): 1619–1646.

Kone, Z. L., Liu, M. Y., Mattoo, A., Özden, C., Sharma, S. 2017. “Internal Borders and Migration in India”. Policy Research Working Paper 8244. World Bank Group. Development Research Group. Trade and International Integration Team. November.

Kundu, A., and Niranjan Sarangi. 2007. Migration, employment status and poverty. Economic and Political Weekly 42 (04): 299–306.

Lerche, J., and A. Shah. 2018. ‘Conjugated oppression under contemporary capitalism: Class relations, social oppression and agrarian change in India’, . Journal of Peasant Studies Taylor and Francis 45 (5–6): 927–949.

Lucas, Robert E. B. (2015). Internal Migration in Developing Economies: An Overview, The Global Knowledge Partnership on Migration and Development (KNOMAD) Working Paper 6. https://www.knomad.org/sites/default/files/2017-04/KNOMAD%20Working%20Paper%206_Lucas_Internal%20Migration.pdf . Accessed November 2020.

Lucas, R.E., and O. Stark. 1985. Motivations to remit: Evidence from Botswana. Journal of Political Economy 93 (5): 901–918.

Mazumdar, I., I. Agnihotri, and N. Neetha. 2013. Migration and gender in India. Economic and Political Weekly 48 (10): 54–64.

MoHPA (Ministry of Housing and Poverty Alleviation) (2017). Report of the Working Group on Migration. Ministry of Housing and Poverty Alleviation. Government of India, New Delhi. http://mohua.gov.in/upload/uploadfiles/files/1566.pdf. Accessed 16 August 2020.

NCEUS (National Commission for Enterprises in the Unorganised Sector). 2006. Social Security for Unorganised Workers, Government of India. http://dcmsme.gov.in/Social%20security%20report.pdf.

NCEUS (National Commission for Enterprises in the Unorganised Sector). 2007. Conditions of Work and Promotion of Livelihoods in the Unorganised Sector, National Commission for Enterprises in the Unorganised Sector, Government of India and Academic Foundation, August, New Delhi.

NSSO (National Sample Survey Office) 2010. Migration in India, (July 2007-June 2008). Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation, Government of India, New Delhi. June.

Press Information Bureau. 2020. “Union Labour and Employment Ministry Will Take All Possible Steps to Help Mitigate Problems Faced by The Industry and The Workers Due to Lockdown Announced to Curb Covid-19 Pandemic,” Ministry of Labour and Employment, 8 May, https://pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=1622243 .

PRS Legislative Research. 2020a. “State Changes in Labour Law”. https://www.prsindia.org/theprsblog/relaxation-labour-laws-across-states. Accessed 01 July 2020.

PRS Legislative Research. 2020b. “Overview of Labour Law Reforms”. https://www.prsindia.org/billtrack/overview-labour-law-reforms.

Rajan, S.I., and M. Sumeetha. 2020. Women workers on the move. In Handbook of internal migration in India , ed. S.I. Rajan and M. Sumeetha, 408–414. Delhi: Sage.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Ratha, D., S. De, E.L. Kim, Plaza Kim, S. Plaza, G. Seshan, and N.D. Yamengo. 2020. Migration and development brief 33: phase II: COVID-19 crisis through a migration lens . Washington: KNOMAD-World Bank.

Shah, A. and Lerche, J. 2020. Migration and the invisible economies of care: production, social reproduction and seasonal migrant labour in India. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers. https://doi.org/ https://doi.org/10.1111/tran.12401 Accessed 31 July 2020.

Shyamsundar, K.R., and Sapkal Rahul. 2020. Changes to labour laws by state governments will lead to anarchy in the labour market. Economic and Political Weekly 55 (23): 205.

Skeldon, Ronald. (2012). Going Round in Circles: Circular Migration, Poverty Alleviation and Marginality, International Migration, Vol. 50, Issue.3Anh, N. T., Rigg, J., Huong, L. T. T., and Dieu, D. T. 2012. Becoming and being urban in Hanoi: Rural-urban migration and relations in Viet Nam. Journal Peasant Studies 39 (5): 1103–1131.

Sood. A (2020). “The Silent Takeover of Labour Rights”. The India Forum. December 4.

Sood, A., and P. Nath. 2020. Innocuous Mistakes or Sleight of Hand? Labour Law Changes. Economic and Political Weekly 55: 22–30.

Srivastava, R. 2011. Labour migration in India: recent trends, patterns and policy issues. The Indian Journal of Labour Economics 54 (3): 411–440.

Srivastava, R. 2011. Labour migration, inequality, and development dynamics in India: An introduction. The Indian Journal of Labour Economics 54 (3): 373–385.

Srivastava, R. (2012), “Internal Migration in India: An Overview of its Features, trends, and Policy Challenges”. National Workshop on Internal Migration and Human Development in India Workshop Compendium Vol. II: Workshop Papers October 2012. New Delhi: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation, and UNICEF India Country Office. ISBN 978–81–89218–45–4. pp 1–47.

Srivastava, R. 2016. “Myth and reality of labour flexibility in india and what is to be done? The Indian Journal of Labour Economics. 59 (1): 1–38.

Srivastava, R. 2016. Structural change and non-standard forms of employment in India . Geneva: ILO.

Srivastava, R. 2018. “Building India brick by brick: labourers in the construction industry” Indian exclusion report 2017–18 . New Delhi: Yoda Press.

Srivastava, R. 2019. Emerging dynamics of labour market inequality in India: Migration, informality, segmentation and social discrimination. The Indian Journal of Labour Economics 62 (2): 147–171. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41027-019-00178-5 .

Srivastava, R. (2020a), ‘Vulnerable Internal Migrants in India and Portability of Social Security and Entitlements’ Centre for Employment Studies Working Paper Series. WP02/2020, Institute for Human Development, New Delhi.

Srivastava, R. (2020b) ‘Understanding circular migration in India. Its nature and dimensions, the crisis under lockdown and the response of the state.’ IIHD Centre for Employment Studies Working Paper 04/2020. https://www.ihdindia.org/Working%20Ppaers/2020/IHD-CES_WP_04_2020.pdf .Accessed 16 August 2020.

Srivastava, R. (2020c) Integrating Migration and Development Policy in India: A Case Study of Three Indian States . Centre for Employment Studies Working Paper Series. WP03/2020, New Delhi: Institute for Human Development.

Srivastava, R. 2020. Internal migration in india: recent trends and patterns, vulnerability and policy imperatives . Delhi: Paper prepared for the UNFPA.

Srivastava, R., and A.K. Pandey. 2017. Internal and international migration in South Asia: Drivers, interlinkage and policy issues; Discussion Paper . New Delhi: UNESCO Office.

Srivastava, R., and S.K. Sasikumar. 2005. An Overview of migration in India, its impacts and key issues. In Migration and development: Pro-poor policy choices , ed. Tasneem Siddiqui, 157–216. Dhaka: The University Press.

Srivastava, Ravi, K. Keshri, K. Gaur, B. Padhi, and A.K. Jha. 2020. Internal migration in India and the impact of uneven development and demographic transition across states: A study for evidence based policy” . New Delhi: Institute for Human Development.

Srivastava, R., B. Padhi, and R. Ranjan. 2020. Structural change and increasing precarity of employment in India. In Development challenges of India after twenty five years of economic reforms , ed. N.K. Mishra. New Delhi: Springer Publication.

Zelinsky, W. 1971. The hypothesis of the mobility transition, geographical review 61, 219–249. Progress in Human Geography 17 (2): 213–219.

Download references

Acknowledgements

I am grateful to Alakh Sharma for having given me the opportunity to edit this issue and to S. K. Sasikumar for his critical suggestions and significant contribution to its production.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

New Delhi, India

Ravi Srivastava

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ravi Srivastava .

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Srivastava, R. Labour Migration, Vulnerability, and Development Policy: The Pandemic as Inflexion Point?. Ind. J. Labour Econ. 63 , 859–883 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s41027-020-00301-x

Download citation

Accepted : 07 December 2020

Published : 18 January 2021

Issue Date : December 2020

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s41027-020-00301-x

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research