1. The Problem: Why Are People Treated as Labor?
Much of the discourse surrounding migrant workers still relies on the notion of “labor force.”
People are positioned as units to fill shortages, and institutions are designed accordingly.
This perspective is fundamentally limited.
When humans are treated as labor, they become part of a short-term supply-demand mechanism:
they are deployed, utilized, and eventually discarded.
This structural logic produces instability, exploitation, and what may be called “drift” at the margins of the system.
These are not accidental failures, but outcomes of a system that treats people as flows.
2. “Labor Is Not a Commodity”
Historically, this issue has been addressed by the ILO principle:
“Labor is not a commodity.”
This principle rejects the reduction of labor to market exchange and places human dignity at the center.
However, while essential, it remains a negative principle.
It tells us what labor is not—but not what humans should be understood as.
3. The Perspective of Human Capital
The concept of human capital offers a more constructive lens.
It refers to the accumulation of knowledge, skills, experience, and social relations over time.
Unlike labor, which is consumed, human capital is built and sustained.
- Labor is a flow
- Human capital is a stock
This shift fundamentally transforms migration policy.
Migrants are no longer seen as temporary inputs, but as contributors to long-term societal value.
4. The Risk of Human Capital Thinking
Yet, this concept carries risks.
Human capital is often used to justify:
- Selection of high-skilled individuals
- Economic valuation of human worth
- Prioritization of “useful” migrants
In this sense, people risk becoming commodified once again—
not as cheap labor, but as premium assets.
5. Redefining Human Capital in the BCM
The Balanced Coexistence Model redefines human capital.
It is not an inherent trait of individuals, nor a mere market value.
Rather, it is:
a value co-created through interaction with institutions.
Human capital emerges when individuals can access systems,
participate in labor markets, and build relationships within society.
Thus, it is not owned solely by the individual,
but jointly produced by individuals, institutions, and society.
6. Institutional Responsibility
If people are to be treated as capital,
institutions bear responsibility for preserving and nurturing that value.
Yet in reality, we observe:
- Lack of support from employers
- Instability in residence status
- Limited access to social systems
These do not build human capital—they destroy it.
7. The Question of Sequence
This connects directly to the issue of institutional sequencing.
If migration policy is to treat people as human capital,
the correct order must be:
- Rights and stability
- Institutional access
- Market participation
When reversed, human capital is not accumulated—it is depleted.
8. Conclusion: If We Call People “Capital”
To call people “human capital” is not a semantic shift—it is a normative demand.
A society that treats people as capital must ensure that their value is accumulated, preserved, and transmitted.
This requires:
- Stable residence
- Fair labor conditions
- Social integration
- Explainable and predictable systems
The BCM frames these as trust infrastructure.
Humans are not commodities.
But neither are they mere labor inputs.
They are beings whose value is formed through institutions and society.
This is the foundation for a new phase of migration policy.
*This post is positioned as a chapter that makes up the table of contents in the Balanced Coexistence Model.