Amar, A. 2017. Surrogacy Regulation Bill: parliamentary panel report highlights legislation’s draconian, paternalistic nature. First Post, 6 September 2017. https://www.firstpost.com/india/surrogacy-regulation-bill-parliamentary-panel-report-highlights-legislations-draconian-paternalistic-nature-4015097.html. Accessed 13 Sept 2021.

Armstrong, S. 2022. Labour is labour: What surrogates can learn from the Sex Work Is Work movement. Journal of Law and Society 49 (1): 170–192. https://doi.org/10.1111/jols.12350.

Article  Google Scholar 

Attawet, J. 2022. Reconsidering surrogacy legislation in Thailand. Medico-Legal Journal 90 (1): 45–48. https://doi.org/10.1177/00258172221074246.

Article  Google Scholar 

Barrientos, S.W. 2013. ‘Labour chains’: Analysing the role of labour contractors in global production networks. The Journal of Development Studies 49 (8): 1058–1071. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220388.2013.780040.

Bassan, S. 2015. Shared responsibility regulation model for cross-border reproductive transactions. Michigan Journal of International Law 37: 299.

Google Scholar 

Bassan, S. 2016. Can human rights protect surrogate women in the cross-border market? In Women's Human Rights and the Elimination of Discrimination. ed, M. Jänterä-Jareborg & H. Tigroudja. Leiden: Brill Nijhoff.

Bassan, S. 2018. Different but same: A call for a joint pro-active regulation of cross-border egg and surrogacy markets. Health Matrix 28 (1): 323.

Google Scholar 

Bhadra, B. 2017. Precarity and Surrogacy: The Invisible Umbilical Cord in the Digital Age. In Precarity within the Digital Age, ed. B. Heidkamp, and D. Kergel, 31–68. Wiesbaden: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-17678-5_3

Bromfield, N.F., and K.S. Rotabi. 2014. Global surrogacy, exploitation, human rights and international private law: a pragmatic stance and policy recommendations. Global Social Welfare 1: 123–135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40609-014-0019-4.

Article  Google Scholar 

Cooper, M. 2008. Life as Surplus: Biotechnology and Capitalism in the Neoliberal Era. Washington, DC: Washington University Press.

Google Scholar 

Cooper, M., and C. Waldby. 2014. Clinical labour: tissue donors and research subjects in the global bioeconomy. Durham: Duke University Press.

Book  Google Scholar 

Culley, L., H. Nicky, R. Frances, B. Eric, N. Wendy, and A. Allan. 2011. Crossing borders for fertility treatment: Motivations, destinations and outcomes of UK fertility travellers. Human Reproduction 26 (9): 2373–2381. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/der191.

Article  Google Scholar 

Databridge Market Research. 2019. Global Fertility Services Market—Industry Trends—Forecast to 2026. https://www.databridgemarketresearch.com/reports/global-fertility-services-market. Accessed 28 Sept 2022.

Davies, P., and M. Freedland. 2005. The disintegration of the employing enterprise and its significance for the personal scope of employment law. In Boundaries and Frontiers of Labour Law. ed, Davidov and Langille. Oxford: Hart Publishing.

Dickenson, D. 2007. Property in the body: Feminist perspectives. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

Book  Google Scholar 

Dunaway, W. 2014. Gendered Commodity Chains: Seeing Women’s Work and Households in Global Production. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Google Scholar 

Engels, C. 2010. Subordinate employees or self-employed workers? In Comparative Labour Law and Industrial Relations in Industrialized Market Economies, ed. R. Blanpain. Alphen aan den Rijn: Wolters Kluwer.

Google Scholar 

Fronek, P., and R. Karen. 2020. The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on intercountry adoption and international commercial surrogacy. International Social Work 63 (5): 665–670. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020872820940008.

Article  Google Scholar 

Fudge, J. 2012. Blurring legal boundaries: Regulating work. In Regulating work: Challenging legal boundaries, ed. Judy Fudge, Shae McCrystal, and Kamala Sankaran, 1–26. Oxford: Hart.

Google Scholar 

Gupta, J.A. 2012. Parenthood in the era of reproductive outsourcing and global assemblages. Asian Journal of Women’s Studies 18 (1): 7–29. https://doi.org/10.1080/12259276.2012.11666120.

Article  Google Scholar 

Hibino, Y. 2022. Ongoing commercialization of gestational surrogacy due to globalization of the reproductive market before and after the pandemic. Asian Bioethics Review 14 (4): 349–361. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41649-022-00215-4.

Article  Google Scholar 

Inhorn, M. 2015. Cosmopolitan Conceptions: IVF Sojourns in Global Dubai. London, UK: Duke University Press.

Book  Google Scholar 

Inhorn, M., and P. Pasquale. 2012. The global landscape of cross-border reproductive care. Current Opinion in Obstetrics and Gynecology 24 (3): 158–163. https://doi.org/10.1097/GCO.0b013e328352140a.

Article  Google Scholar 

Karandikar, S., L.B. Gezinski, J.R. Carter, and M. Kaloga. 2014. Economic necessity or noble cause? A qualitative study exploring motivations for gestational surrogacy in Gujarat, India. Affilia 29(2): 224–236. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886109913516455.

Article  Google Scholar 

Kashyap, S., and P. Tripathi. 2023. The Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021: A critique. Asian Bioethics Review 15 (1): 5–18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41649-022-00222-5.

Article  Google Scholar 

Luo, Y., S. Marshall, and D. Cuthbert. 2022. The human rights implications of not-for-profit surrogacy organizations in cross-border commercial surrogacy: An Australian case study. Business and Human Rights Journal 7 (1): 163–167. https://doi.org/10.1017/bhj.2021.49.

Article  Google Scholar 

Margalit, Y. 2016. From baby M to baby M (anji): regulating international surrogacy agreements. Brooklyn Journal of Law and Policy 24(1):41.

Marinelli, S., A. Del Rio, M. Straccamore, F. Negro, and G. Basile. 2022. The armed conflict in Ukraine and the risks of inter-country surrogacy: the unsolved dilemma. European Review for Medical and Pharmacological Sciences 26(16): 5646–5650. https://doi.org/10.26355/eurrev_202208_29497

Marshall, S. 2018. A comparison of four experiments in extending labour regulation to non-standard and informal workers. International Journal of Comparative Labour Law and Industrial Relations 34 (3): 281–311. https://doi.org/10.54648/IJCL2018013.

Article  Google Scholar 

Marshall, S., K. Taylor, and S. Tödt. 2023. Gendered distributive injustice in production networks: Implications for the regulation of precarious work. Industrial Law Journal (london) 52 (1): 107–148. https://doi.org/10.1093/indlaw/dwab039.

Article  Google Scholar 

Meyers-Belkin, H. 2020. Ukraine’s Covid-19 lockdown leads to baby pileup and surrogacy backlash. France 24, 18 June 2020. https://www.france24.com/en/20200618-ukraine-s-covid-19-lockdown-leads-to-baby-pile-up-and-surrogacy-backlash. Accessed 18 Aug 2022.

Millbank, J. 2018. The role of professional facilitators in cross-border assisted reproduction. Reproductive Biomedicine & Society Online 6: 60–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbms.2018.10.013.

Article  Google Scholar 

Mahmud, Tayyab. 2015. Precarious existence and capitalism: A permanent state of exception. Southwestern Law Review 44: 699.

Google Scholar 

Muntaner C. et al. 2020. Precarious Employment Conditions, Exploitation, and Health in Two Global Regions: Latin America and the Caribbean and East Asia. In Handbook of Socioeconomic Determinants of Occupational Health. Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-31438-5_39.

Murphy, F. 2014. Global care chains, commodity chains, and the valuation of care: A theoretical discussion. American International Journal of Social Science 3 (5): 190–199.

Google Scholar 

Nadimpally, S., and A. Majumdar. 2017. Recruiting to give birth: Agent-facilitators and the commercial surrogacy arrangement in India. In Babies for Sale: Transnational Surrogacy, Human Rights and the Politics of Reproduction, ed. Miranda Davies, 65–81. London: Zed Books.

Google Scholar 

Nadimpally, S., and D. Venkatachalam. 2016. Marketing reproduction: Assisted reproductive technologies and commercial surrogacy in India. Indian Journal of Gender Studies 23 (1): 87–104. https://doi.org/10.1177/0971521515612865.

Article  Google Scholar 

Nahavandi, F. 2016. Commodification of body parts in the global south: Transnational inequalities and development challenges. London: Palgrave Pivot. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-50584-2.

Book  Google Scholar 

Nolan, J. 2018. Hardening soft law: Are the emerging corporate social disclosure laws capable of generating substantive compliance with human rights? Brazilian Journal of International Law 15: 65–83. https://doi.org/10.5102/rdi.v15i2.5355.

Article  Google Scholar 

Nossar, I., R. Johnstone, and M. Quinlan. 2004. Regulating supply-chains to address the occupational health and safety problems associated with precarious employment: The case of home-based clothing workers in Australia. Australian Journal of Labour Law 17 (2): 137–160.

Google Scholar 

Pande, A. 2010. Surrogacy in India: Manufacturing a perfect mother- worker. Signs 35 (4): 968–992. https://doi.org/10.1086/651043.

Article  Google Scholar 

Pande, A. 2011. Transnational commercial surrogacy in India : Gifts for global sisters ? Reproductive Biomedicine Online 23: 618–625. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2011.07.007.

Article  Google Scholar 

Pande, A. 2014. Wombs in Labor: Transnational Commercial Surrogacy in India. New York: Columbia University Press.

Book  Google Scholar 

Pascoe, John. 2018. Sleepwalking through the minefield: commercial surrogacy and the global response. Ethos 248: 14–23.

Rabinowitz, A., and C. Goia. 2016. The surrogacy cycle: promising an escape from poverty, transnational surrogacy has left many Indian women with little to show for their efforts. What went wrong? Virginia Quarterly Review 92 (2): 66–81.

Google Scholar 

Rainnie, A., A. Herod, and S. Mcgrath-Champ. 2011. Review and positions: Global production networks and labor. Competition and Change 15 (2): 155–169. https://doi.org/10.1179/102452911X13025292603714.

Article  Google Scholar 

Reliefweb. 2018. Bride and Birth Surrogate Ads in Northern Myanmar Spark Local Anger, Government Investigation. OCHA, 13 December 2018. https://reliefweb.int/report/myanmar/bride-and-birth-surrogate-ads-northern-myanmar-spark-local-anger-government. Accessed 25 Aug 2023.

Rosemann, Achim, Li Jiang, and Xinqing Zhang. 2017. The regulatory and legal situation of human embryo, gamete and germ line gene editing research and clinical applications in the People’s Republic of China. Report, University of Sussex. http://sro.sussex.ac.uk/id/eprint/71149.

Rudrappa, S. 2015. Discounted Life: The Price of Global Surrogacy in India. New York: NYU Press.

Google Scholar 

Rudrappa, S. and C. Collins. 2015. Altruistic agencies and compassionate consumers: Moral framing of transnational surrogacy. Gender & Society 29 (6): 937–959. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243215602922.

Article  Google Scholar 

SAMA. 2012. Birthing a market: a study on commercial surrogacy. New Delhi: SAMA.

Saravanan, S. 2013. An ethnomethodological approach to examine exploitation in the context of capacity, trust and experience of commercial surrogacy in India. Philosophy, Ethics and Humanities in Medicine 8 (1): 10–10. https://doi.org/10.1186/1747-5341-8-10.

Article  Google Scholar 

Saravanan, S. 2015. Global justice, capabilities approach and commercial surrogacy in India. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 18 (3): 295–307. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11019-015-9640-y.

Article  Google Scholar 

Tanderup, M., S. Reddy, T. Patel, and B.B. Nielsen. 2015. Reproductive ethics in commercial surrogacy: Decision-making in IVF clinics in New Delhi, India. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 12: 491–501. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11673-015-9642-8.

Article  Google Scholar 

Vertommen, Sigrid, and Camille Barbagallo. 2022. The in/visible wombs of the market: The dialectics of waged and unwaged reproductive labor in the global surrogacy industry. Review of International Political Economy 29(6): 1945–1966. https://doi.org/10.1080/09692290.2020.1866642.

Article  Google Scholar 

Vertommen, Sigrid, Vincenzo Pavone, and Michal Nahman. 2022. Global fertility chains: an integrative political economy approach to understanding the reproductive bioeconomy. Science, Technology, & Human Value 47 (1): 112–145. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243921996460.

Article  Google Scholar 

Weil, D. 2008. A strategic approach to labor inspection. International Labour Review 147 (4): 349–375. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1564-913X.2008.00040.x.

Article  Google Scholar 

Weis, C. 2021. Changing fertility landscapes: Exploring the reproductive routes and choices of fertility patients from China for assisted reproduction in Russia. Asian Bioethics Review 13: 7–22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41649-020-00156-w.

Article  Google Scholar 

Weis, C. 2017 Reproductive Migrations: surrogacy workers and stratified reproduction in St Petersburg. Doctoral Dissertation, De Montfort University. https://www.dora.dmu.ac.uk/handle/2086/15036. Accessed 20 Aug 2023.

Whittaker, A. 2016. From ‘Mung Ming’ to ‘Baby Gammy’: A local history of assisted reproduction in Thailand. Reproductive Biomedicine & Society Online 7 (2): 71–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbms.2016.05.005.

Article  Google Scholar