Migrant Workers as Living Infrastructure: A Novel Policy Lens for Real Estate and Construction Management

Abstract

Purpose

Migrant workers constitute the backbone of real estate and construction sectors, yet remain marginal within public policy frameworks that prioritize physical assets over social systems. This article advances a novel conceptual framing of migrant labour as living infrastructure, arguing that workers’ housing, mobility and welfare are integral to project delivery, alongside land, materials and finance.

Study Design/Methodology/Approach

The study adopts a mixed-method empirical design conducted between 2020 and 2024, covering the pandemic and post-pandemic recovery period. Data were collected from six major urban construction projects in India and the Gulf region. Methods included semi-structured interviews with 120 migrant workers, 20 contractors and 10 policymakers, supplemented by documentary analysis of labour codes, housing schemes and digital welfare platforms.

Findings

The analysis reveals three persistent dynamics. First, fragmented governance and weak enforcement undermine labour protections. Second, construction systems rely structurally on informal housing and multilayered subcontracting that externalize welfare costs. Third, selective inclusion through digital registration platforms systematically excludes highly mobile workers. Together, these dynamics generate workforce instability, heighten compliance risks for firms and disrupt project timelines.

Originality/Value

The article contributes original theoretical value by reframing migrant workers as living infrastructure within construction management and urban policy scholarship, moving beyond narratives of precarity toward infrastructural citizenship.

Research Limitations/Implications

The study focuses on selected projects in India and the Gulf, limiting generalizability across regions. Future research could extend the framework to other labour-intensive sectors and comparative national contexts.

Practical Implications

Integrating worker welfare into project planning can improve workforce stability, regulatory compliance and delivery efficiency.

Social Implications

Recognizing migrant labour as living infrastructure supports more inclusive urban development and strengthens social sustainability in rapidly expanding cities.

Keywords

Migrant workers infrastructural citizenship gap construction management real estate sector digital welfare systems urban policy reform labour governance

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Adusei

(2022). Labour mobility and welfare exclusion in Sub-Saharan Africa’s construction sector. Journal of African Development Studies , 18(3), 145–160. https://doi.org/10.1080/JADEV.2022.145160

Anand

(2023). Hydraulic citizenship: Water and the infrastructure of belonging in Mumbai. Anthropology and Urbanism Review , 12(2), 55–73. https://doi.org/10.1177/1878103123120345

BHR Stern Centre. (2023). Migrant labour and reform under the Gulf’s Kafala system . Stern Business and Human Rights Resource Centre. https://www.business-humanrights.org

Brookings Institution. (2024). Gulf migration governance: Challenges and pathways for reform . Brookings Doha Center Policy Report. https://www.brookings.edu/research/gulf-migration-reform

CAG. (2022). Audit report on labour welfare and housing in the construction sector . Comptroller and Auditor General of India. https://cag.gov.in

Cheah

, & Ting

K. H.

(2023). Migrant workers and housing regulation in Singapore and Malaysia. Asia Pacific Journal of Management Research and Innovation , 19(4), 241–259. https://doi.org/10.1177/2319510X23105233

Choudhury

, & Saha

(2024). E-governance and welfare access among unorganised workers in India. Economic & Political Weekly , 59(12), 45–53.

Creswell

J. W.

, & Plano Clark

V. L.

(2018). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.). Sage Publications.

Desai

(2025). Housing precarity among internal migrants in Indian cities. Urban Affairs Review , 61(2), 332–349. https://doi.org/10.1177/1078087424120458

10.

Godwitt

(2025). Informality, welfare and precarity in migrant housing. Habitat International , 139, 103950. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2025.103950

11.

Gooptu

(2022). The precarious city: Informality and labour in urban India . Oxford University Press.

12.

Government of Kerala. (2024). Apna Ghar and Awas housing initiatives for migrant workers . Department of Labour and Skills. https://labour.kerala.gov.in

13.

Graham

, & Marvin

(2001). Splintering urbanism: Networked infrastructures, technological mobilities and the urban condition . Routledge.

14.

Guest

, Bunce

, & Johnson

(2006). How many interviews are enough? Field Methods , 18(1), 59–82. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X05279903

15.

Hasin

(2025). Digital exclusion and migrant registration: Lessons from India’s e-Shram portal. Information Technology for Development , 31(1), 67–84. https://doi.org/10.1080/02681102.2025.146202

16.

Hiranandani

(2025). Workforce shortages and skill formation in India’s construction sector. International Journal of Construction Management , 25(3), 245–259. https://doi.org/10.1080/15623599.2025.1148322

17.

International Labour Organization (ILO). (2021). World employment and social outlook: The role of migrant labour . ILO Publications. https://www.ilo.org

18.

International Labour Organization (ILO). (2023). Building fair recruitment systems in the Gulf construction sector. ILO Regional Office for Arab States . https://www.ilo.org/beirut

19.

Jayaraman

, & Raj

(2023). Labour market transitions and urban migration in India. Journal of Development Policy and Practice , 8(1), 89–106. https://doi.org/10.1177/2455133323120146

20.

Jha

(2022). Barriers to implementation of the Building and Other Construction Workers Act. Indian Journal of Labour Economics , 65(4), 675–689. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41027-022-00382-x

21.

Kapoor

, & Thomas

(2024). Migrant welfare in the Gulf: Digital systems and social exclusion. Migration and Development , 13(2), 211–230. https://doi.org/10.1080/21632324.2024.118223

22.

Kapur

(2023). Rethinking infrastructure: Human systems and the political economy of labour. Development and Change , 54(5), 1210–1232. https://doi.org/10.1111/dech.12833

23.

Kumar

, & Narayan

(2022). Urban transformation and the real estate sector in India. Cities , 120, 103465. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2021.103465

24.

Larkin

(2013). The politics and poetics of infrastructure. Annual Review of Anthropology , 42, 327–343. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-anthro-092412-155522

25.

Lemanski

(2024). Infrastructural citizenship and the right to the city. Urban Studies , 61(1), 3–21. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098023112015

26.

Lyu

, Singh

, & Patel

(2025). Informality and safety management in construction. Safety Science , 178, 106445. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2025.106445

27.

Mezzadri

, & Srivastava

(2021). Labour regimes and social reproduction in India’s urban economy. Cambridge Journal of Economics , 45(6), 1201–1225. https://doi.org/10.1093/cje/beab033

28.

Migration Letters. (2023). Construction labour and digital welfare registration in India. Migration Letters , 20(3), 431–439. https://doi.org/10.33182/ml.v20i3.3051

29.

Miles

M. B.

, Huberman

A. M.

, & Saldaña

(2019). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (4th ed.). Sage Publications.

30.

Ministry of Labour & Employment. (2023). Annual report on the implementation of the e-Shram portal and unorganised sector registration . Government of India. https://labour.gov.in

31.

Misra

(2023). Labour, urbanity, and the infrastructure of everyday life. Sociological Review , 71(4), 812–832. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038026123120374

32.

Nair

(2022). Migrant housing policy and social inclusion: Lessons from Kerala. Indian Journal of Urban Affairs , 8(2), 97–115.

33.

Nanda

(2023). Labour governance and informality in Indian cities. International Labour Review , 162(3), 451–470. https://doi.org/10.1111/ilr.12354

34.

Nanda

(2024). Digital governance and the limits of inclusion: Lessons from e-Shram. Public Policy and Administration , 39(2), 180–198. https://doi.org/10.1177/09520767241208933

35.

Ramesh

(2024). Co-responsibility in construction welfare governance. Journal of Public Policy and Management , 44(2), 215–234. https://doi.org/10.1080/07343764.2024.130512

36.

Roy

(2022). Migrant precarity and the politics of infrastructure. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space , 54(7), 1289–1305. https://doi.org/10.1177/0308518X22109826

37.

Roy

, & Menon

(2024). Infrastructural citizenship: Rethinking labour and the right to the city. Urban Studies , 61(2), 356–374. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098023120349

38.

Santhya

, Deshpande

, & Jain

(2022). Migration, livelihoods, and social protection in India’s construction sector [Report]. Population Council Research. https://www.popcouncil.org

39.

Sharma

(2022). Structural invisibility and migrant labour in South Asia. Journal of Contemporary Asia , 52(4), 551–568. https://doi.org/10.1080/00472336.2021.20118

40.

Simone

(2004). People as infrastructure: Intersecting fragments in Johannesburg. Public Culture , 16(3), 407–429. https://doi.org/10.1215/08992363-16-3-407

41.

Singh

(2023). The e-Shram initiative and social protection for unorganised workers. Labour & Development , 30(1), 23–39.

42.

Standing

(2011). The precariat: The new dangerous class . Bloomsbury Academic.

43.

Sutradhar

(2022). Health, safety, and informality in construction work. Safety Research Journal , 85, 106238. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsr.2022.106238

44.

Times of India . (2023, October 5). Construction labour housing audit reveals poor compliance . https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com

45.

West Bengal Portal Report. (2023). State Labour Department’s progress on e-Shram registration . Government of West Bengal. https://wblabour.gov.in

46.

WIEGO. (2024). Digital inclusion and informal work: Challenges in India’s welfare architecture . https://www.wiego.org

47.

World Bank. (2024). Sustainable construction and labour welfare: Global practices for inclusive growth . World Bank Group. https://www.worldbank.org

48.

World Health Organization (WHO). (2023). Occupational health, housing, and sanitation standards for construction workers . WHO South-East Asia Regional Office. https://www.who.int/india