Keywords

1 Introduction

Connecting three continents and bridging a multiplicity of cultures, the Mediterranean Basin is a major migration arena globally. Moreover, the Mediterranean contains one the greatest lines of divide and proximity in the world with regards to migration, while also posing significant challenges for establishing connections between its Northern and Southern shores (Wihtol de Wenden, 2015; Zapata-Barrero, 2020; Montanari, 2021). Being physically unique in the manner of most geographical regions, the Mediterranean needs to be considered both as a bioregion and as a spatial system (Cooke, 1999). Braudel’s name is interwoven with the Mediterranean, and his legacy remains strong when delving into the region’s turbulent history, socioeconomic developments, political deliberations, and environmental changes. There has been an extensive discussion on the characteristics of ‘Mediterraneanism’, the Mediterranean exceptionalism, together with the particularity of the Mediterranean Sea in terms of bioclimate, geomorphology, landscape, cultural diversity, and human geography (King et al., 1997a; Horden & Purcell, 2000; Harris, 2006; Chambers, 2008; Burke, 2012). Whether the Mediterranean is seen as an entity with a capacity for ‘homogenizing diversity’ (Cooke, 1999), as densely fragmented and approachable only through an ever-shifting kaleidoscope (Horden & Purcell, 2000), or whether it is perceived as an arena for building an intermediate perspective aiming at balancing local ecologies with the whole region (Albera, 2020), the Mediterranean offers fertile ground for researching human (im)mobility, connectivity, and cultural exchanges.

In this context, it is important to give equal credit to the urban and rural transformations in the Mediterranean region, and to problematise the complexity of social change. Investigating Mediterranean ‘rurality’ (or ‘ruralities’) becomes a manifestly fruitful path towards researching places and localities in their interaction with wider processes and scales (Papadopoulos, 1999; Albera, 2020). Interestingly, despite his explicit skepticism regarding the essentialist ‘Mediterraneanism’, Herzfeld (2006: 58) invokes the idea of the Mediterranean culture area “as a heuristic device in which its inherent limitations are turned to advantage, [and] gives way to a sophisticated rethinking of globalization from the perspective of the regionalisms”. In terms of its rural landscape and agriculture, the Mediterranean region has been shaped by human activities, while these have also been maintained by traditional land use practices over centuries. However, in recent decades, rapid changes have occurred in the Mediterranean’s natural and rural environment which have affected the traditional landscape, the cultural environment, and the human perception of nature, as well as having an immense (modernising) impact on agriculture (Pratt & Funnell, 1997; Moragues-Faus et al., 2013; MediTERRA, 2019).

In this chapter, our approach to migration in the Mediterranean region postulates two major components: The first is the socio-spatial aspect, based on the historical and geographical long durée perspective of the Mediterranean. Understanding the region as conflating diverse (or rather opposite) features such as water and land, shores and hinterland, fixity, and fluidity, etc. leads us to illustrate it as a network of reflections, connections and intersubjectivities coupled with a geopolitical site (King, 1996; Cooke, 1999). Chamber (2008: 5) offers an ingenious formulation to reflect this socio-spatial element: “So the borders are porous, particularly so in the liquid materiality of the Mediterranean. The outcome of historical and cultural clash and compromise is that borders are both transitory and zones of transit”.

The second aspect concerns the fragmented rurality and low-intensity agriculture of the region which, together with the close interconnections between urban and rural areas, is considered part and parcel of the Mediterranean landscape imaginary. Moreover, in terms of agriculture, just 14% of land overall is suitable for cultivating crops, with this figure averaging more than one third (over 34%) in the Northern Mediterranean countries (EUMed) and just 5% in the Southern and Eastern Mediterranean countries (MENA). Specifically, nearly two thirds of these territories are ‘marginal land’ which, being characterised by natural constraints -it is mountainous, isolated, or semi-arid--cannot be used for intensive agriculture (Nori, 2019).

Aside from being a manifestation of diversity across urban and rural settings, migrants are also considered as a key labour force in the rural Mediterranean. Since the early 2000s, international migration to rural areas in Greece has emerged as a major research field for the study of migrant labour in non-urban, peripheral, agricultural, and/or remote regions (Kasimis et al., 2003; Kasimis & Papadopoulos, 2005). It would not be long before the increasing role of migrant labour in agriculture drew the attention of scholars in other European countries within the Mediterranean area and the rest of Europe. The broadening of the relevant discussion has included various new aspects, while it has also led to the discarding of the wider socioeconomic, political, and cultural features that underlie this process. Meanwhile, migrant labour is now treated predominantly as a leverage for intensive agriculture, and is therefore being problematised in sectoral terms, as if rurality and agriculture were overlapping realities (Gertel & Sippel, 2014; Corrado et al., 2017; Nori & Farinella, 2020; Rye & O’Reilly, 2020). Overall, a more nuanced approach to migrant labour in Mediterranean agriculture is needed, which would take care not to merge socio-spatial and/or agricultural features, while remaining attentive to Mediterranean ‘rurality’ (or ‘ruralities’).

2 Reflections and Theorisation on Migrant Labour

Since the late 1980s, some theorists have been seeking to explain the new international migration flows towards Europe in relation to the increased demand for low-skilled labour. Meanwhile, migrant labour was linked to the operation of the informal economy and to the increased fragmentation in Southern European societies (Pugliese, 1992; Mingione, 1995). The Southern European countries that received most of these flows had recently joined the EU and were concerned with comparable sectoral and labour market needs. Similarly, these countries were transformed into new immigration countries, due to their demographic, social and economic structure characteristics, along with their interconnections.

A “Mediterranean model of migration” was suggested, as it combined major aspects of the new developments which were enabling and facilitating migrant labour flows into Southern European countries. This model, introduced and elaborated by Russell King and various co-authors (King et al., 1997b; King, 2000), was further discussed (Ribas-Mateos, 2004; Peixoto et al., 2012) and criticised in terms of its heuristic value (Baldwin-Edwards, 2012). Despite its difficulties explaining the migrant labour flows into Greece, Italy, Portugal and Spain, the model later included Cyprus, Malta, Slovenia, and Croatia (King & Thomson, 2008). More recently, the model was reiterated to integrate changes brought about by the economic recession (King & DeBono, 2013).

Attempts to understand and theorise the role of migrant labour in rural areas in Southern Europe were initiated by Hoggart and Mendoza (1999), who utilised Piore’s (1979) approach. They argued that the availability of migrant labour was crucial for filling the existing ‘holes’ in rural labour markets. Such arguments were also relevant to Greek agriculture, where migrants responded to the demand for low-skilled migrant labour (Kasimis et al., 2003; Kasimis & Papadopoulos, 2005). In addition, systematic empirical studies illustrating various aspects of the inclusion of migrant labour in the rural labour market. Due to the demographic, social and economic challenges, migrant labour is considered important not only for assisting small family farms to cope with labour demands, but more importantly for increasing the competitiveness of medium and large family farm businesses. When migrant labour is institutionalised in the agricultural sector, it is possible for migrants to seek opportunities to pursue their social and spatial mobility, either within agriculture or across other economic sectors. Two factors are considered relevant here: (a) permanent / seasonal employment in agriculture offers an axis around which researchers can explore divisions and hierarchies among migrant labourers; and (b) the socio-spatial mobility trajectories of migrants need to be viewed within agriculture, across economic sectors, and across the urban/rural space (Kasimis et al., 2010).

In this context, ethnic migrant labour networks are created and sustained by labour contractors and employees to ensure that agricultural labour market needs are covered. In practice, migrant labourers are recruited by ethnic social networks, so they are ‘matched’ with specific jobs in the secondary labour market (Parks, 2005). There are two interconnected aspects in the functions of migrant social networks: First, migrant social capital is a resource which is often used both to gather knowledge about living abroad and to facilitate job seeking in the host country. This social capital allows them to be placed in specific job positions in the labour market in the host country (Lusis & Bauder, 2010). Second, migrant social networks are important as recruiting mechanisms which function to the benefit of the agricultural employers, while the latter organize themselves, so they behave in a unitary way towards migrant labour (Krissman, 2005). Labour contractors ensure that migrant labourers are connected to employers, but also the labour arrangements determine what information is given to the prospective labourer and what negotiating space is allowed. Bargaining before and after the harvest determines the labourers’ daily earnings, but if these earnings are perceived as being ‘too low’, unsuitable labourers may respond with sloppy work, absenteeism or other ‘everyday forms of resistance’. There is a literature on migrant labour control that highlights the connection between modes of control, contestation, and confrontation with social realities beyond the workplace (Ortiz, 2002).

In fact, migrant practices and strategies are continuously reconstructed based on the available policy measures, which are--directly or indirectly--pivotal in creating regular, semi-regular and irregular tiers within the migrant labour force (Papadopoulos et al., 2018). The capacity of migration policies to allow for regularized migrant labour and/or to cater for various seasonal, temporary or ad hoc requirements, therefore creates a complex canvas for employing migrant labourers (Castles, 2006). Policy schemes allowing for seasonal, flexible, and temporary migrant labour are particularly relevant in the case of Mediterranean agriculture, which requires a sizeable labour force to accomplish its role within an increasingly globalized economy (MediTERRA, 2019).

It is well-documented that migrants’ “illegality” and/or irregularity leads to the construction of a cheap labour reserve army that is also flexible, vulnerable, and prone to heavy exploitation (De Genova, 2002). There is a rapidly expanding discussion on the precarious migrant status which includes undocumented and documented ‘illegality’ as well as other forms of insecurity and irregularity (Goldring et al., 2009). Migrant labourers are increasingly undertaking precarious jobs, meaning that their work is uncertain, unpredictable, and risky (Kalleberg, 2009; Anderson, 2010). Precarious employment refers to engagement in non-standard and contingent work; its main component is the employment insecurity that arises from at least four types of employment: part-time, temporary, own account, and multiple job holding. The increasing casualisation of employment, increasing job insecurity, and the downward pressure on earnings and conditions of work reflect much of what is described by ‘precarious employment’. The precariousness of migrant labour becomes a wider trend reflected in the proliferation of precarious migrant statuses and employment (Goldring et al., 2009; Arnold & Bongiovi, 2013).

Intensive agricultural production necessitates labour control, which remains the main instrument for governing migrant labour; life precariousness and labour precarity thus remain key components of labour control (Papadopoulos et al., 2018). Recent research conducted in an intensive agricultural production area in Western Greece depicted a situation where the exploitation of migrant labour has been a central feature of agricultural intensification and specialisation (Kasimis et al., 2015; Papadopoulos & Fratsea, 2017); at the same time, there is evidence that apart from subjugating and controlling the work of migrants, migrant labour precarity also triggers the political mobilisation of migrant workers, whose position and functions in the productions system shapes their agency.

In those Mediterranean areas where intensive agricultural production functions in particular export-oriented rural localities, the presence of large numbers of migrant labourers has been instrumental in strengthening the production dynamics by keeping labour costs low and securing an adequate supply of medium- and low-skilled labour (Gertel & Sippel, 2014; Corrado et al., 2017; Rye & O’Reilly, 2020); both are needed, since the agricultural producers seek to be competitive in international markets. This intensive agricultural production regime is supported by formal networks of labour recruitment, but informal brokers who organize and secure the continuation of new migrant flows into those areas also play an important role (De Genova, 2002; Krissman, 2005).

In tandem with the notion of precarity, the notion of ‘mobilities’ has become central to the structuring and enacting of people’s lives. Far from simplifying migration to movement, we argue that the discussion around the dynamics of mobilities is informative for the study of the socio-spatial mobilities of migrant labour. There is frequent reference to the ‘mobility turn’ in sociology (Urry, 2007) and to the ‘new mobilities paradigm’ (Sheller & Urry, 2006), which have sparked certain inspiring modes of thinking and looking at social phenomena--and specifically migration--through the lens of movement (Hannam et al., 2006). Mobilities need to be seen as a complex assemblage of movement, social imaginaries and experience (Glick Schiller & Salazar, 2013; Salazar, 2017), while they aim to bring together the purely ‘social’ concerns of sociology (inequality, power, hierarchies) with the ‘spatial’ concerns of geography (territories, borders, scale) and the ‘cultural’ concerns of anthropology (discourses, representations) (Sheller, 2011, 2014).

Overall, the above discussion on migrant labour in Mediterranean agriculture has highlighted two major strands in the relevant literature: The first strand underlines the key role migrant labour plays in intensive agriculture, which in turn prioritises specialised agriculture and export-oriented production and instrumentalises migrant labour to increase its effectiveness through (highly or less) sophisticated control mechanisms that include variable types of precarity, ethnic hierarchies, racialisation, manipulation, and exploitation (Rye & Andrzejewska, 2010; Gertel & Sippel, 2014; Kasimis et al., 2015; Corrado et al., 2017; Kilkey & Urzi, 2017; Papadopoulos et al., 2018; Rye & O’Reilly, 2020; Kalantaryan et al., 2021; King et al., 2021; Fonseca et al., 2021; Pereira et al., 2021; Rogaly, 2021). This strand has been more popular in recent years, due to its visibility and those global features that connect Mediterranean agriculture to the international agri-food markets. The second strand underlines the multifunctionality of migrant labour in Mediterranean rural areas which connects migrants to the socio-spatial and agricultural characteristics of places (Kasimis & Papadopoulos, 2005; Papadopoulos, 2009; Kasimis & Papadopoulos, 2013; McAreavey, 2012; Hedberg & do Carmo, 2012; McAreavey, 2017; Papadopoulos et al., 2021). In this connection, migrant labour is seen from the perspective both of the host places and the migrants’ own needs, expectations, and aspirations (Papadopoulos & Fratsea, 2022). Finally, this strand maintains its focus on the interactions between the receiving rural society and the migrants, the responses of migrants to external conditions, their agency, and the rural well-being of migrants and locals.

3 Migrant Labour in Greek Agriculture

Greece has major comparative advantages in the agri-food sector which can be attributed to the Mediterranean climate, the favourable conditions in the natural environment of its plains, the significant variety of agricultural products that grow here, the quality and nutritional value of a relatively wide spectrum of agricultural products (olives, grapes, legumes, citrus fruits, etc.) and the country’s internationally recognized food traditions. It is often said that several persistent structural weaknesses need to be addressed vis-à-vis the modernisation of the agri-food sector in the country (IOBE, 2020). The main weaknesses include the small and fragmented farm holdings, low productivity, inefficient organization, the low integration of new technologies and equipment, insufficient vocational training, a low level of R&D, a dependency on subsidies, and a lack of branding. In various ways, agriculture is the country’s ‘reference point’, alternating between being a ‘sector of departure’--in times of rapid economic modernization and economic expansion--and occasionally serving as a ‘sector of arrival’, especially for those seeking a better quality of life and agriculture as a gateway to it, but also in times of economic crisis when agriculture is linked to an alternative development pathway (Papadopoulos et al., 2021).

When reviewing the characteristics and role of agriculture in the Greek economy and Greek society, we see that agricultural employment has declined significantly since the mid-1990s, due to agriculture’s low attractiveness for young people and to older generations of farmers retiring. However, the share of wage labour in agriculture has increased, a fact related to the increased contributions of migrant labour in the sector. While agricultural employment accounted for 10.9% of total employment prior to the economic crisis, by 2013, it had risen to 12.3%, but had dropped back to 10.9% by 2019. Currently, the agricultural sector employs around 516,000 people and contributes approximately 4% of the country’s GDP. More specifically, salaried employment accounted for between 19.1% and 19.8% of total agricultural employment in the period 1995–2004, before declining for a few years due to the rise of the construction sector. By 2010, salaried agricultural employment had climbed back to its previous level (20.2%) and has since increased. By 2019, salaried employment accounted for 30.5% of agricultural employment, which is the highest it has ever been (Fig. 22.1).

Fig. 22.1
A multi-line graph of the primary sector employment from 1995 to 2021 for 4 categories. Persons employed decline, wage labor percent rises from 2009, percent among the total employed decline, and contribution percent in the G D P drops till 2008 and rises minimally after.

Evolution of primary sector employment, salaried labour, and contribution to GDP, 1995–2021. (Source: ELSTAT, National Accounts, 1995–2021 (authors’ own elaboration))

Full size image

The size and characteristics of agricultural migrant labour have changed a good deal over the last two decades. Papadopoulos et al. (2021) identify the following factors that contributed to these changes: First, the Greek legalization programmes of 2001 and 2005/2007 allowed a significant proportion of the migrants living and working in Greece to legalize their residence/status; this was followed by an increase in an intra-sectoral (within agriculture) and/or inter-sectoral occupational mobility (moving from agriculture to construction and services). In this way, agriculture served as a source of secondary income for many migrants in low construction-season periods. Second, by the beginning of 2000, migratory flows towards Greece had become highly differentiated as geographic accessibility steadily replaced geographical proximity to Albania, Bulgaria, and Romania as the key factor in shaping these flows (Papadopoulos, 2012). Albanians remained the predominant nationality, while the numbers of A2 migrants (Bulgarians and Romanians) and Asians increased considerably. Due to their unstable legal status, many of the recently-arrived migrants found work in agriculture, where they frequently performed the more dangerous, unskilled and low-paying jobs. The continuing abandonment of agricultural employment by young people and women, especially in rural areas where the local economy had begun to offer more employment possibilities beyond agriculture, was paralleled by the entry of migrant workers into the primary sector. In the years following the ‘migration/refugee crisis’ (2015–2019) which resulted in many asylum seekers and refugees being stranded in Greece, agriculture was offered as an option for those who sought employment opportunities as low-skilled and precarious labour.

Before discussing the empirical findings in detail, it is worthy briefly referencing the three periods in the study of migrant labour in Greek agriculture. In the late 1990s, the theme of migrant labour in rural Greece was introduced and emphasised their role as ‘saviours’ of Greek agriculture who provided the main source of low-skilled ‘hands’ in rural areas (Lianos et al., 1996; Vaiou & Hadjimichalis, 1997; Kasimis et al., 2003; Kasimis & Papadopoulos, 2005). In line with a state immigration policy that treated migrants in the light of their purely economic functions for the national economy, irregular migrant labour was seen as a ‘labour reserve army’ that contributed to low production costs. However, it became evident that migrant labour was not a unified category, but rather an aggregation of different migrant nationalities and/or migrant groups who constructed more elaborate coping strategies within local/rural societies. The first regularization schemes launched in the second half of the 1990s offered an opportunity for migrant labour inclusion, allowing the migrants to gain respect and a more secured position in the host country.

In the 2000s, the study of the dynamics of migrant labour showed that there were increased benefits for migrant labourers who remained in local/rural labour markets long-term, either allowing them to move up the social ladder in rural areas or to move out of the agricultural sector (Papadopoulos, 2009; Labrianidis & Sykas, 2009). The continuation of migrant flows allowed for the-low status tasks to be allocated to the newly arrived and more vulnerable migrants. In this context, ethnic employment networks were pivotal for securing upward social mobility for migrants and consolidating longer-resident migrant labourers as a ‘labour aristocracy’ (Papadopoulos, 2012; Papadopoulos & Fratsea, 2017). For spatially mobile migrant labour, participation in ethnic labour networks enabled them to remain in employment and, in some cases, also implied medium-term gains. By 2008/9, the economic and social gains migrants had made which enabled them to be emplaced in local societies were jeopardised due to the economic crisis, which affected both Greek nationals and migrant labour.

In the 2010s, the economic recession acted as a catalyst for the dynamics of migrant labour in rural Greece (Papadopoulos et al., 2018). The insecurity and precarity of migrant labour increased considerably, surpassing that of Greek nationals, while the size of the informal economy increased due to the country’s economic contraction. It became evident to migrants themselves that they needed to come up with effective resilience strategies for their own and/or their families’ survival/ wellbeing; they also mobilised to defend their incomes and maintain their dignity in the face of employer pressure to reduce their wages further. At the same time, migrant labour and mobility depended on social and regional inequalities, while the latter increased or diminished migrant flows.

4 Outlining Mediterranean Migrations in Greek Agriculture

Even though rural areas were an important halt and/or destination for various migrant groups originating from the Mediterranean or crossing the Mediterranean on their way to other European countries, international migration into rural parts of Greece would not become the subject of systematic study until recently. In what follows our analysis draws on two multi-sited studies conducted consecutively in rural Western Greece in 2017–2021: One examines the social and spatial trajectories of migrants over the course of their lives in rural and urban areas, while the other focuses on the relationship between different forms of mobilities and spatial inequalities. In both studies, data collection was mainly qualitative, while statistical data from Eurostat and censuses were used to triangulate information from the interviews. Approximately 60 qualitative interviews, life histories, and semi-structured interviews were conducted with migrants originating from Mediterranean countries (e.g., Albanians), transiting Mediterranean countries towards Western Europe (e.g., Syrians), and/or settled in Greece. Similarly, interviews were conducted with EU migrants, internal migrants, especially from urban centres to rural areas, and locals in rural areas. Ethnographic observations and interviews with stakeholders and key informants such as farmers and local authorities at the national and local level were used to triangulate the information from the interviews.

For more than a decade, the region has been the focus of the authors’ studies and analysis of socio-spatial mobilities and rural change. In combination with our long-standing presence in the region, recording migrants’ experiences by tracing their trajectories along the Mediterranean has enabled us to closely monitor and critically assess social trends as well as national political and economic developments; we have thus responded to the need of including historical perspective in Mediterranean migration research (Zapata-Barrero, 2020).

Our familiarity with the region, as well as the fact that our research team represented a wide range of personal characteristics in terms of gender, languages spoken, age group and rural/urban background, contributed to a climate of trust and connectedness among research participants. What is more, this type of collaboration is thought to combine the benefits of easy access to ‘insiders’ with the fresh perspective of ‘outsiders’, especially when research is conducted in multiple locations and languages (Fitzgerald, 2006; Wong & Poon, 2010).

International migration into the region began in the early 1990s, mainly due to the fall of socialist regimes. Hence, a small number of Albanians, Egyptians and a few Bangladeshis arrived in the area, followed by Romanians and Bulgarians. Albanians currently make up the largest share of migrants, followed by EU migrants and Asians. In 2016, a refugee camp was established in the village of Myrsini, a former tourist resort called “LM Village”, after the Syrian refugee/migration crisis in 2015. This small camp now houses 280–300 Syrian refugees. The following two sections shed light on the ways the various mobilities and trajectories intersect in the Mediterranean.

4.1 Illustrating the Contribution(s) of Migrant Labour to Mediterranean Agriculture

The contribution of migrant workers to Mediterranean agriculture in Greece has provoked heated debate, especially during the years of economic crisis in the country. From the interviews conducted with farmers, key informants, and residents of rural areas, it appears that immigration (i.e., the influx of people into rural areas from both other parts of the country and other countries) is seen by the majority as beneficial to the rural economy. In this context, residents emphasise the impact of the migrants’ presence on well-being in rural areas in terms of demographic rejuvenation, especially in more remote places and small villages which the younger generation has abandoned. Furthermore, residents emphasised the migrant’s contribution to the local economy in terms of increasing consumption and supporting other seasonal activities (e.g., tourism) during peak periods (Papadopoulos & Fratsea, 2021). In this respect, some locals look back with nostalgia at the earlier years when the village was “full of life”, there were children playing in the playgrounds, and the economy was flourishing. This image is in stark contrast to the picture they paint of the situation in small villages, especially in the winter months when tourism is limited. Aris (73 years old) says emphatically, “[in the late 1970s] it was a different village, there were people moving around … it was a lively village, it had young people, lots of them … now it’s a graveyard … you go to the cafeteria, 2 to 3 people, the same people every day. You never meet a new person”.

In this discourse, Albanians are usually presented as part of the local community, as ‘people like us’. Unlike other migrant groups living in the area, Albanians are married and have their families with them in the village. Their children attend the school, and over their long presence in the area they have learnt the Greek language and established strong ties with locals. Equally, Albanian’s strategies for career advancement within agriculture and/or in other economic sectors is recognised as evidence of hard work and commitment.

A more ‘utilitarian’ approach is taken, however, to migrants who have recently arrived in Greece by crossing the Mediterranean, and who work in intensive agriculture. These migrant groups are mainly represented by single men who -on their way to Western countries- found temporary employment in local agriculture. They have a limited presence in the everyday life of the village. Although their contribution to the local agribusiness is often acknowledged, their presence in everyday life is often overlooked or seen as temporary. Issues relating to the integration of the different migrant groups in the region, and concerns about the migration’s future contribution, are evident. Thus, as agriculture is the cornerstone of the local economy, residents emphasise the role of migrants in providing the necessary labour in a sector in which local youth are reluctant to work: “… with migration things have changed, … the farmer who has the harvest has no problem finding workers. If he waited for the Greeks, everything would have rotted in the fields … there are no Greeks for that… [task]” (Aris 73 years old).

Farmers, on the other hand, often point to the expansion, intensification, and increased competitiveness of farms, as well as to the crucial issue of labour availability, particularly in harvesting seasons. Issues of migrant labour quality and ethnic hierarchy, segregation, and housing conditions, are equally important. For instance, it was argued that the expansion and competitiveness of intensive agriculture in Western Greece is highly dependent on the availability of cheap and ‘just in time’ labour. “This is a key to developing the export-oriented market for fruits and vegetables” (Key Informant ID 58, farmer).

During the interviews, farmers often emphasised that migrants working in Mediterranean agriculture are a highly heterogeneous group. A distinction is made between the permanent agricultural workers and temporary/seasonal agricultural workers. Within agriculture, there is also an ethnic and occupational hierarchy: Often the more skilled and specialized tasks are assigned either to a small number of Greeks who returned to agriculture during the years of recession (Papadopoulos et al., 2019), or to migrants with a better knowledge of Greek, who have been living for longer period in the area and are more ‘trusted’ by the farmer.

Migrant workers in Mediterranean agriculture are praised as ‘good workers’, but this description carries a different meaning, depending on the migrant group the workers belong to. Thus, ‘good worker’ can relate to the quality of work and to increased productivity, which is implicitly linked to other features of labour division and social position in the occupational hierarchy within agriculture, such as income, prestige, power, and trust: “A good worker gets a good wage” (Key Informant ID 58, farmer). These workers, mainly of Albanian origin, are long-term employees. They are trusted by the farmers, who have invested time in passing on their knowledge and expertise to them. As time goes by, this permanent personnel climbs the agricultural ladder and starts to supervise the temporary workers on the farm. They thus become important human capital for the farm’s operation: “We do not change them over the years … we work with certain people… because if you change the permanent workforce, you cannot pass on the know-how in farming practices” (Key Informant ID 58, farmer).

However, in other cases, ‘good worker’ can mean cheap, exploitable, disciplined and ‘just in time’. As they are often seen as temporary in the region, the precarious situation of the workers and their uncertain legal status as undocumented immigrants detracts from their position when it comes to their claiming payments and social rights. As we will see in the next section, there are cases where Syrian refugees working in the fields have not been paid by farmers, creating a vicious circle of uncertainty, limbo, and precariousness.

For migrant groups crossing the Mediterranean to reach Europe, such as Asian migrants, their housing and living conditions are often poor and their inclusion in the lower strata of the labour market is accompanied by spatial segregation; they live in huts near the greenhouses, away from the daily life of the village.

4.2 Narratives of Mediterranean Trajectories

This section focuses at the trajectories of migrants originating from Mediterranean countries, crossing Mediterranean countries towards Western Europe, and/or settled in Greece. Agriculture is perceived differently in the context of their social and spatial journeys: either as a sector of arrival, offering a springboard for their integration into the labour market, or as a sector of departure, serving as a steppingstone for career advancement into other sectors of the economy. To illustrate the characteristics of the trajectories, this section uses emblematic vignettes of Albanian and Syrian migrants that shed light on the complex interplay between mobilities in the Mediterranean.

Nikos was born in 1960 in a town in Northern Albania. After graduating from university, he was placed in Southern Albania to work. Like other Albanian migrants at the time, after the collapse of the socialist regime, he takes the decision to come to Greece in 1994. Through family networks and acquaintances, he finds work in a village in Western Greece. Over the years, Nikos lives and works in Western Greece, but also moves around rural areas in mainland Greece, harvesting cotton, apricots, and vegetables. Along with a group of other Albanians, he follows the crops and moves wherever there is an opportunity for work. After a few years, he legalises his status and brings his wife and children to Greece. Starting from agricultural employment, he gains experience of working in Greece and slowly learns the Greek language; after some years building networks with both Albanians and Greeks, this leads to him finding a job in construction. Fifteen years later, his occupational trajectory takes on a new dynamic: “Then I started working on my own, because I met people in the industry, I also learned the craft of painting houses, and little by little I took on my own projects”. Nevertheless, employment in agriculture remains a safety net for Nikos, a secure job and income in times when employment in the construction sector is limited. However, he argues that his employment in agriculture has different characteristics now. By earning a reputation as a hardworking and trustworthy member of the local community, by learning the language and expanding his social network, Nikos returns to agriculture as a foreman, supervising other migrant groups who are ‘trying to get ahead’ by working in the fields.

Nikos’ life story sheds light on the role agriculture plays in integrating migrants into the labour market. While agriculture was initially a sector of arrival, over time it was transformed into a sector of departure, towards other sectors in the economy. However, unlike other migrant groups, Nikos saw his future in rural Greece. By combining agricultural employment with secondary employment in rural areas, Nikos’ trajectory illustrates how migrant workers can become a multifunctional labour force for rural Greece (Kasimis & Papadopoulos, 2005), meeting needs beyond the primary sector.

Unlike the Albanian immigrants in rural Greece, for most Syrian refugees the country was a stopover on their journey in search of safety and a better life in Western Europe. According to our research, for a significant number of the Syrians interviewed, agriculture was either their main occupation in Syria, a casual job they did during their stay in Turkey to raise the necessary financial capital to move to Europe, or a temporary occupation during their stay in Greece pending recognition of their refugee status and resettlement in other countries.

Mohammad was born in 1979 in a village near Latakia. In 2007, he moved to Damascus to work in public relations. “It was a good job… until the war. Then all the companies closed”. In 2017, he makes the decision to leave Syria. As it was for many other Syrian refugees, Turkey served as a ‘migration hub’ where he could gather information about routes to Europe (Papadopoulos & Fratsea, 2019). After crossing the Aegean, Mohammad reaches Chios and is resettled in the Myrsini camp. Two years passed as he was waiting for his asylum application to be processed. However, he did not attend the Greek classes offered in the camp during this time, preferring English classes, as he considered his stay in Greece to be temporary.

During our conversation, he emphasised that it was difficult for him to find a job due to the economic crisis. He received monthly support from the CASH programme but was looking for alternative employment opportunities to increase his income and finance his migration plans. “There was no way to find work… I just took the 150 eurο and waited…”.

Eventually, he found a job in local agriculture. However, he felt exploited. His experience sheds light on the precarious and vulnerable situation of Syrian refugees working in agriculture (see also Pelek, 2019). “[I was]… talking to people and trying to find work, but I had no luck. Someone offered me work. Olive trees. We worked for about 20 days, and he did not give any money… [he said] I’ll pay tomorrow, I’ll pay tomorrow, 20 days and he disappeared. … We worked for 20 days for nothing. That’s what happened. We cannot work on contract”.

These life stories illustrate aspects of the ethnic hierarchies that emerge in the Greek agricultural sector. For some migrant groups, employment in agriculture is a strategy that allows them to integrate into the labour market and find new opportunities to survive and improve their social and economic status. For others, it is a temporary solution to support the move on to other migration destinations.

5 Conclusion

The Mediterranean region is a prominent field for addressing the contribution of migrant labour to agriculture and rural areas more generally. Given the truism that migrants mostly contribute to economic development in urban settings, it took time for researchers to begin investigating the impact of migrant labour in rural areas.

A review of the relevant literature reveals two major strands of thought in the field: the first underlines the key role migrant labour plays in intensive agriculture, and the way in which farmers instrumentalise migrant labour to increase the effectiveness of specialised agricultural and agri-food systems; the second emphasises the multifunctionality of migrant labour in rural areas and sheds light on the interactions between receiving rural areas and the migrants themselves, while also delving into the migrants’ agency and aspirations. Both perspectives are valid and relevant for researching Mediterranean migrations and their effect on agriculture and rural areas, but it is important to differentiate analytically between agriculture and rurality as relatively distinct research domains. Migrants’ employment and/or movement(s) within agriculture and/or among different sectors across rural areas or across the urban/rural divide remains important in the Mediterranean context.

Our empirical research indicates the interactions between the socio-spatial and the agricultural aspects which remain as essential components of rurality. Specifically, the functionalist understanding of migrant labour as a key factor for intensive agriculture remains important albeit partial because it offers a fragmented interpretation of migrants’ real contribution to the receiving societies. We suggest that the contribution of migrant labour to agriculture should be seen in the light of the interplay between the receiving society and the migrants themselves, and by looking more deeply at how migrants aspire and take actions impacting on their present and future.

In addition, the various waves of migration into the Mediterranean region and receiving rural areas should be seen in tandem with the structural characteristics of the agricultural sector. The desires and aspirations of the migrant groups themselves, for social advancement or movement into other economic sectors and places in Greece and abroad, give rise to the emergence of different ethnic hierarchies. To explore the migrant contribution to Mediterranean agriculture, we therefore need to understand how that contribution is perceived by employers and rural residents. We should pay greater attention to the experiences and trajectories of migrants originating from Mediterranean countries, crossing the Mediterranean and/or settled in Greece.