Negotiating the Wild West: Variegated neoliberalisation of the Swedish labour migration regime and the wild berry migration industry

Abstract

Neoliberalisation processes have long permeated Western societies, including a common direction towards neoliberal migration regimes. This paper combines the perspective of variegated neoliberalisation with the recent literature on migration industries, to investigate the neoliberalisation of the Swedish labour migration regime and how it affected and interacted with the wild berry migration industry. It shows how neoliberalisation as a historical and spatially contingent process resulted in the distinct phases of intertwined policymaking and enactment of the industry. The ‘roll back’ phase included mutual interests and ‘intimate relations’ between state and industry, which both empowered and increased the number of private actors, creating structures that remained during the regular restructuring phase of ‘roll out’ neoliberalisation. While adding the perspective of variegated neoliberalisation, the paper deepens the analysis of migration industries by pointing at neoliberalisation as a spatial and temporal process, where the interplay between state and industry, an enlarged number of intermediaries and the increased responsibility of private actors are central cornerstones. The Swedish case shows how the role of intermediaries in the wild berry migration industry was reconstructed in order for the neoliberal migration regime to regulate a previously irregular migration industry. It is concluded that strong but spatially contingent links exist between neoliberal political economies, migration regimes and migration industries.

Spatial shifts in migration governance: Public-private alliances in Swedish immigration administration

“…A wide range of commercial actors are increasingly involved in the global circulation of differentially skilled labour. These include immigration lawyers (Khan, 2019), recruitment agencies (Kern and Müller-Böker, 2015; Xiang, 2007, 2012; Zhang and Axelsson, 2021), multinational corporations (Ewers, 2007; Millar and Salt, 2007), temporary staffing agencies (Alberti and Danaj, 2017; Coe et al., 2007; Enright and Pemberton, 2016; Hedberg and Olofsson, forthcoming; Knox, 2018), executive search firms (Beaverstock, 2018; Faulconbridge et al., 2009) and a variety of actors delivering cross-cultural training and accommodation, real-estate investment and travel services to the highly skilled (Cranston, 2014; Koh and Wissink, 2018). Of late, there is a recognition that one of the roles of these actors is to engage with immigration policy and practice.…”

Re-visiting the ‘black box’ of migration: state-intermediary co-production of regulatory spaces of labour migration

“…Indeed, the December 2008 reform sought to reduce state involvement to a minimum and, instead, entrust employers to identify labour shortages (Frank 2014). As noted earlier, this extensive neo-liberalisation of Sweden's labour immigration policy, in turn, should trigger growth in the number of private actors, including different shades of intermediary actors, in the governance of labour migration (Hedberg and Olofsson 2021).…”

“…Representatives for the Tax Agency, the police service and trade unions were also present at the meetings. Dialogue between state actors and SBIF resulted in the introduction of a work permit requirement for seasonal non-EEA labour in the wild berry industry in 2007a move intended to regularise work in the wild berry industry (Hedberg and Olofsson 2021). Consequently, there is plenty of evidence that, at the time, key intermediaries in the wild berry industry and state actors collaborated to regularise labour migration in the industry.…”

“…SBIF also had an informal agreement with the Migration Agency about the number of non-EEA workers who could work in the wild berry industry each year. Accordingly, for a couple of years, an association of private actors asserted direct influence over who could bring seasonal workers to Sweden and how many workers they could invitea role even SBIF itself felt gave too much influence over migration (Hedberg and Olofsson 2021).…”

“…Sweden is a particularly interesting case to consider because, as we explain in more detail below, in December 2008, it adopted one of the most neo-liberal labour migration policies among the OECD countries (OECD 2011). Neo-liberal reform tends to result in a growing involvement of private actors, including migration intermediaries, in the governance of migration (Hedberg and Olofsson 2021;Menz 2013). Consequently, in Sweden, we can expect a large number of private actors to exert an influence on the regulation of labour migration.…”