Abstract

The Modern Slavery Act was passed in 2015, ostensibly to tackle exploitation. Despite being promoted for its ‘world-leading’ qualities, the legislation’s weaknesses have, even at this relatively early stage of its implementation, been well documented. This is unsurprising; legislators were aware they were passing a bill that could have had stronger enforcement mechanisms, opting instead for a weaker alternative. This article takes these shortcomings as its starting point to ask who, or what, benefits from the Modern Slavery Act, if not those it is purportedly aimed to help. The response is that the main beneficiaries of the Modern Slavery Act are capitalism, and the Conservative government that created the bill. The Modern Slavery Act operates through the modern slavery discourse that positions unfree forms of labour as aberrations that operate outside of capitalism, and once unfree labour practices have been framed in this way, the capitalist free market is identified not as a causal factor but as the solution. In addition, the Conservative government used the Modern Slavery Act domestically as a counterpoint to its hostile environment policy to soften their image for part of the electorate. When viewed as an artefact of capitalist thinking and state management, it becomes clear that the Modern Slavery Act makes a not insignificant contribution to the legitimacy of both capitalism and the government by conferring upon them a degree of legitimacy as the routes through which the unfree will be liberated.

Highlights

  • Theresa May (2016) set out her stall on modern slavery as Home Secretary and as Prime Minister, calling it a ‘barbaric evil’ and ‘the great human rights issue of our time’

  • This article has put to one side this assumption and concomitant judgements regarding efficacy, approaching the Modern Slavery Act (MSA) instead as an artefact of capitalism and capitalist state management

  • The first highlights how the MSA contributes to the view of unfree labour as being incompatible with capitalism

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Theresa May (2016) set out her stall on modern slavery as Home Secretary and as Prime Minister, calling it a ‘barbaric evil’ and ‘the great human rights issue of our time’. This is not a view that would be surprising even to the government that created and passed the Act. The particular form the legislation took was the outcome of a process through which other, more robust proposals for the TISC clause element were rejected that would have introduced criminal liability for modern slavery in supply chains, requiring companies to take significant steps to address this (English 2019: 109; Gadd & Broad 2018: 1445; O’Connell Davidson 2015: 155–156).

Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call