In the context of historical materialism, labour migration is understood as an integral component of capitalist development. The capitalist mode of production implies the replacement of extra-economic coercion as the basis for the mobilisation of labour with the
“dull compulsion of economic relations” (Marx and Engels 1969[1848]:2). Given that, in its turn, the latter is ensured by dispossession and proletarianisation, the geographical mobility of workers is understood as a reflection and dimension of their ‘social mobility’, in the sense of the workers being ‘free’ (and compelled) to sell their labour-power to any capitalist. As already mentioned, Marx addressed at length the process of primitive
86 accumulation whereby this comes about, as well as the possibilities that this gives rise to – and, consequently, metaphorically but clearly identified the role of labour migrants as “the light infantry of capital” (Marx 1982[1867]:728). Drawing on these central propositions of Marxist theory, the general relationship between migration and development in this theoretical framework is therefore clear: (labour) migration constitutes development, insofar as it is one of the dimensions of the process of primitive accumulation whereby the transition to capitalism is achieved.
However, in the specific context of social formations in the early or intermediate stages of the transition to capitalism, i.e. where the latter co-exists with other modes of production that maintain a significant presence, it has been abundantly argued by certain strands of Marxist thought (particularly anthropologists like Claude Meillassoux and P.-P.
Rey) that the articulation between the capitalist and other modes of production is such that the conservation of the non-capitalist modes is necessary in order to ensure the viability of capitalist development, namely through the provision of labour-power (at first seasonally) and means of subsistence. In the words of Bedford (1981:220):
“A vitally important component of the articulation of capitalist and pre- capitalist modes in many parts of the Third World [is] therefore, a deliberate reliance on the indigenous village socio-economic system to reproduce cheap labour for capitalist enterprises rather than destroying the pre-capitalist mode (…)”
If that is the case, then migration patterns (between the “village system” and the loci of capitalist production) are “in large measure a function of the articulation of capitalist and pre-capitalist modes” (id ibid:220). We thus find an important modification to be superposed upon the basic Marxist schema: (i) the uprooting and dispossession of independent producers turns them into proletarians, many of whom are forced to migrate, and this accounts for mass migration and urbanisation; (ii) however, the transition to capitalism is protracted and, in its early stages, requires the preservation of non-capitalist modes of production, with geographical mobility back and forth between the loci of the
“village system” and capitalist production as the main mechanism through which this comes about.
I find this interpretation to be convincing, but it is also highly functionalist: the preservation of non-capitalist modes of production is depicted as occurring because it is in the interests of, and a requirement for, capital; presumably, if and when the latter ceases
87 to be the case, those modes are simply wiped out. That would seem to suggest that the development of the ‘labour reserve’ areas of largely non-capitalist production is exclusively determined externally, as a function of the development of the social formation as a whole.
However, two objections may be raised to the latter interpretation: i) as with any functionalist schema, it is less than convincing unless the specific mechanisms are identified through which the ‘final cause’ is achieved; and ii) regardless of the function served vis-à-vis the wider totality (social formation or world system), it is unquestionably the case that migration brings about changes to the social organisation of production in the areas of origin of the migrants in a variety of ways, thereby affecting the development trajectory of those areas with relative autonomy. In fact, the latter is precisely the key focus of our interest. So how does it take place?
Arguably the most systematic theoretical contribution on the direct impacts of labour circulation upon social-productive organisation has been that of Guy Standing (1981, 1982, 1984), which constitutes a major theoretical foundation of this research project. In addition to discussing the mobility implications of different modes of labour exploitation and different forms of the transition to capitalism, Standing also dissects and discusses the obverse relationship, of greatest interest to us: the implications of mobility and migration for the social organisation of production. This author puts forth seven main channels through which these impacts come about, i.e. seven main ways in which migration accelerates the transition to the capitalist mode of production (Standing 1981:192-201):
(i) “accelerating the decay of customary labour relations, undermining the legitimacy of peasant obligations and allowing landlords to withdraw from custom-bound obligations”, i.e. undermining the implicit non-capitalist social contracts;
(ii) “contributing to rural class differentiation”, most notably through remittances;
(iii) “stimulating rural wage employment”, since rural labour employers become both more able and more constrained to rely on hired labour as opposed to other forms of labour mobilisation;
(iv) “increasing the social division of labour”, because the greater availability of migrant labourers facilitates the extensification of production as well as
88 technological change, compared to the alternative of sole reliance on
‘autochthonous’ labour;
(v) “concentrating workers with similar skills, thus allowing the development of the detailed division of labour”, which in practice takes place through the process of urbanisation and the complex division of labour rendered possible by the concentration of numerous workers;
(vi) “stimulating the 'taste' for commodities produced by capitalist industry and homogenising social tastes”, thus expanding the domestic market; and (vii) “constituting a labour reserve”, which amounts to the ‘classical’ and most
commonly mentioned function of migration in the context of the transition to capitalism (as discussed in the context of Chapter 2).
The reader will perhaps notice that only some of these impacts, or functions, directly concern the areas from which the migrants originate (namely functions i, ii, iii, iv and, to a certain extent, v). Nevertheless, those ones provide the missing component enabling the micro-level assessment of the impact of migration upon the social organisation of production, particularly in rural areas, that we shall be mobilising in the context of the case-study of Guinea-Bissau in the following chapters. They also make it possible to bridge the macro-micro divide in this particular field of application of historical materialist theory, by linking, through specific theoretical propositions, such broader theoretical discussions like Marx’s on primitive accumulation, Lenin’s on class differentiation and the new economic anthropologists’ on migration in the context of the articulation of different modes of production.
With this in mind, and as a direct consequence of the theoretical framework adopted in this research project, in Part II of this thesis I shall not be concerned with seeking to assess or estimate most of the ‘migration-development’ linkages identified in Section 4.1. Building on the theoretical consideration that the structure and dynamics of social-productive relations, especially but not exclusively in the agrarian space, constitute the key determinants of the economic development of Guinea-Bissau, I shall be drawing on macro- and micro-level evidence to examine the role played by migration in the conservation and/or dissolution of non-capitalist productive arrangements, and on the transition to capitalism more generally. The major focus will therefore be on the
89 contribution of migration, and its second-order consequences, to the processes of class differentiation, dissolution of customary labour relations, generalisation of wage labour and modernisation of production.
90
Theoretical foundations: a recapitulation
In the first part of this thesis, I have sought to present introductory overviews of the key theoretical debates in three topics that are of central interest in the context of this research project: migration, development and the migration-development nexus. In each of the three chapters that make up this first part, the presentation followed a similar format: a summary presentation of the main competing theoretical perspectives, followed by an explanation of my own options in terms of adhering to, or rejecting, each of those perspectives.
The unifying thread linking these theoretical choices, in all three topics, consists of my endorsement of a materialist, historical and structural perspective. In other words, I have implicitly argued that the most appropriate way for enquiring into any social process is one that:
i) seeks to identify the ‘deeper’ structural causes of that process (as opposed to focusing on the epiphenomenal issue of individual choice);
ii) draws on the consideration that, to a very significant extent, these deep structural causes consist of, or result from, the dynamics of material reproduction of societies; and
iii) regards the historical method (in other words, the analysis of historically- and geographically-concrete data) as the necessary entrypoint for both idiographic analysis and nomothetic generalisation.
At the same time, however, I have cautioned on several occasions against the teleological overdetermination of the concrete by abstract theory – a common flaw in structuralist approaches. The concrete, being complex and largely indeterminate, should not be used selectively as a mirror in which to reflect a priori theory, but as the locus for assessing the variability and contingency of abstract categories and theoretical insights, making it possible to revise and improve those categories and insights.
Thus it was that the theoretical chapter on the determinants of migration concluded with a call for a renewed historical-structural synthesis that asserts the primacy
91 of political-economic factors (namely, the uneven development of capitalism) in accounting for both the ‘production’ of migratory populations and the geographical patterns exhibited by migration flows; but which, at the same time, also acknowledges the interplay of numerous other factors (including culture, history, politics and the inertia of migration systems and networks) in bringing about concrete outcomes.
In the subsequent chapter, the overarching conclusion was that enquiring into what is usually referred to under the nebulous term “development” requires investigating the structure and dynamics of social-productive relations. This implies addressing the quantitative process of accumulation, but also the qualitative processes of change in those relations in ways permitting or constraining accumulation. Given the unique character of capitalist production in terms of its dynamics of accumulation, the issue of the transition to commodity and capitalist relations (or the lack of such a transition) thus becomes the pivotal point on which hinges the explanation for differential development outcomes – while acknowledging both the need to take external factors into account (for no social formation develops unconstrained) and the meta-theoretical importance of rejecting determinism and teleology.
From this theoretical understanding of development also follows a specific understanding of the migration-development nexus, whereby migration and its second- order consequences (remittances and other transnational practices, return migration, etc.) are deemed to affect development in the migrants’ areas of origin to the extent that they facilitate or constrain accumulation – both quantitatively and qualitatively. As a consequence, sole reference to the quantitative (e.g. macroeconomic) impacts of migration provides a very incomplete picture of the latter’s development consequences. In addition to those macro-level quantitative impacts, endorsing this theoretical perspective thus entails looking at the various ways in which migration advances (or hinders) commodification and the transition to capitalism at the micro level.
In Part II of this thesis, we shall turn to the case-study of contemporary Guinea- Bissau, and we shall focus on migration, development and the migration-development nexus in the context of this social formation. In accordance with what has been summarised above, this will be done from a historical, structural and materialist perspective, by deploying the analytical categories and theoretical insights that we have been referring to in a non-dogmatic and non-deterministic way in order to gain a better understanding of the phenomena under analysis.
92