The Social Costs (and Benefits) of Migration:
What Happens to Left-Behind Children and Families?
Maruja M.B. Asis
Scalabrini Migration Center - Manila
Would I have set off at all if I had known what the journey would be like or what I was going to find at my destination are questions I have often asked myself, [which] reminded me of the wartime poster which read ‘Don’t waste food! Why did you take it if you weren’t going to eat it?’ To which some wit added a codicil: “I didn’t know it was going to taste like this!’ (Newby, 1999:xi, cited in Butcher, 2004:2)
I thought that I would begin my presentation by sharing the above reflection of a travel writer about travelers’ hopes and expectations at the beginning of a journey. I would imagine that it is not that different for overseas Filipino workers when they contemplate their departure. If migrants knew for sure that their journey was going to taste like bad food, would they have set off at all? Migration entails taking chances. When migrants set off to work abroad, they bank, not so much on the certainty, but rather the possibility of better chances elsewhere. The possibility of better opportunities is part and parcel of why people move – and as such, we cannot discount the possible benefits that can be obtained from the migration project. It is for this reason that I have reworked the topic assigned to me by including also a consideration of the potential benefits of migration. The risks, however, are equally real. Even with the best-laid plans of mice, men and women, things can go awry – and migration is not an exception. Thus, migration is imbued with possibilities for potential benefits and risks, and an appreciation of these outcomes would foster a better understanding of migration’s impacts. The Social Impacts of Migration
The social consequences of labor migration have long been debated in the country. While there is a general consensus that it results in economic benefits, at least in the short term, opinions diverge on the social repercussions of migration on Filipino society. The lack of empirically-based studies examining the social impacts of migration impedes our understanding of such a complex matter. It is difficult to get a handle on social change and migration because oftentimes, there are no research-based data at different points in time that would allow us to compare trends and patterns over time. When a change does happen, there is also a need to separate the effects due to migration, and those due to other factors or processes. The tendency to simplify or pare down a multidimensional, multilayered issue into: benefits=economic (typically remittances), and costs=social (which refers to everything else other than remittances) is also part of the problem. Framed in this manner, it is not surprising that we would end up with a longer list of costs than benefits, simply because the social side of the balance sheet includes many more items compared to the economic side. It is like comparing a set meal (economic benefits) vs. a buffet (social costs). In terms of mapping out the benefits, we need to go beyond the economic aspects while in terms of assessing the social costs, we need to be a little bit more specific in identifying areas of concern. Otherwise, they remain opinions, which may be rendered untenable if they were subjected to further analysis.
Migration and Development Revisited
Recent discussions on migration are revisiting the development potentials of migration. The finding that remittances are larger than official development assistance (Newland, 2003) and tend to be more reliable sources of revenues than foreign direct investments has contributed to the renewed interest on migration and development. In addition, the literature and emerging evidence on transnationalism suggest that migration does not only mean losses for places of origin. The discourse on the brain drain, which was prominent in the 1960s and 1970s, has been revived in recent years in the light of the recruitment of professionals and highly skilled migrants by developed countries. Although there are still concerns about brain drain, there are some indications that migration may also foster brain gain. The migrants who left may return – for good, temporarily or virtually – bringing with them skills, ideas, technology, or capital that can contribute to development processes in the origin. Migrants who have taken up residence (or even citizenship) in other countries may not necessarily cut their ties with the countries of origin. With easy access to communication facilities and travel, scholars have noted the possibility of present-day migrants to develop multiple linkages or belongings. This is suggested by the emergence of transnationals or transnational communities who have ties and commitments to more than one nation-state, creating practices and institutions across social fields or spaces beyond the nation-state. The possibility of dual citizenship is an important development, broadening the scope for multiple belongings for migrants. Thus, migrants (or migrants’ associations) may be “away” from their home countries, but through such practices as regular visits or communication, sending remittances or gifts, sponsoring scholarship programs, undertaking medical missions, or absentee voting, migrants are not completely uprooted from “home” while simultaneously living and working elsewhere and also contributing to their new homes.
Further research on migration and development in the context of globalization and transnational communities is likely to usher in a better appreciation of the beneficial impacts of migration on countries of origin like the Philippines. Social Costs of Migration: What Are We Afraid of?
In very general terms, we can define the social costs of migration as those concerns, anxieties, or unease that could affect the larger society. Of the many things that we worry about as resulting from migration, I would like to mention a few that are attributed to migration.
• Migration further erodes our sense of country or nationalism.
This concern came up because of the seeming readiness of Filipinos to leave the country. Some 10 percent of our population are based abroad; and many of those who are here would want to leave if given the chance. A 2002 nationwide survey by Pulse Asia indicated that 20 percent of adult respondents said they would want to live abroad (Asian Migration News, 15 June 2002). The popularity of nursing or computer science – or caregiver training courses – among young Filipinos is related not so much to life plans or career aspirations, but because these are courses that would enable them to work abroad. Children, too, are already entertaining ideas about working abroad someday, a point that I will return to later.
While Filipinos are not the only ones who wish to go abroad, the national dream or obsession that going abroad has become has stirred much concern. If this trend persists – and all indications suggest that it will – what kind of nation will become of a country where its people envision their future elsewhere? While there are commentaries that rue lack of love of country, others see the departure of Filipinos as a failure of governance. The following commentary is an example:
This is the reason many Filipinos leave without guilt feelings. The main reason is, it’s the economics, stupid, but the government’s failure to give them meaningful lives is what makes it easier for them to go. (Coronel, 2004)
• Migration has a distorting influence on our values.
There is also a lot of concern about the negative influences of migration on our values. For example, remittances are feared to result in materialism as migrant families engage in conspicuous consumption. Migrant parents are also feared to compensate for their absence in their children’s life by money or material things instead of love and guidance. Other than perceptions of growing materialism, reliance on remittances, not just by families and households, but the entire country, has sown anxieties about dependency on overseas employment, raising questions about self-reliance, sustainable development, and dependence on temporary employment. In addition, reliance on overseas employment renders our economic health vulnerable to external forces. Conflicts, economic reversals or political changes in countries of destination may result in hazardous conditions for OFWs, or they may be repatriated untimely, both of which can have adverse consequences for the workers and the whole country.
• Migration can introduce life-threatening diseases.
This was recently demonstrated by the SARS outbreak in Asia in 2003 which fanned fears about the “seemingly obvious” connection between migration and the spread of diseases. The panic created by returning migrants who were diagnosed with SARS stemmed from lack of information in the face of a new and life-threatening situation.
Another indication which seems to demonstrate the health hazards of migration is suggested by the large proportion of OFWs who figure in the surveillance of HIV/AIDS cases in the Philippines. Between January 1984 and October 2004, 34 percent or 709 of the 2,079 HIV-positive cases in the country’s HIV/AIDS registry are OFWs.
The perception of migrants as transmitters or carriers of diseases needs to be explored more fully. Contrary to popular perception, migrants are actually supposed to be healthy; otherwise they cannot be accepted in the countries of destination. In particular, migrants who leave as workers must undergo medical examination, and the unhealthy ones are screened out (hence, the “healthy migrant effect”). In part, many OFWs figure in the HIV/AIDS registry because unlike the general population, OFWs have to undergo a medical examination, which may include HIV-testing as required by some employers.
The relationship between migration and health is one of those phenomena associated with migration that needs to be examined more closely. The spread of diseases is more than the movement of people per se. Studies that have examined the links between migration and health indicate the need to consider many factors that render migrants vulnerable, among others (see, for example, International Migration, 1998; and Asian and Pacific Migration Journal, 2004). Like other anxieties and concerns associated with migration, there is a need to go beyond impressionistic data to understand the role of migration in ushering changes in our society, institutions and way of life.
In the next section, I will confine the discussion to the impacts of migration on the young children and families left behind in the Philippines. I have narrowed the discussion to the family for two reasons. Firstly, the family has been the center of anxieties and fears about the adverse consequences of migration. Given the centrality of the family in the life of individual Filipinos, the concerns raised about the basic unit of Filipino society are fundamentally concerns about the strength of our larger society. If the family is weakened, there are apprehensions that our society will be vulnerable as well. Secondly, various studies have examined the impacts of migration on the family. In particular, I will be sharing the results of a recently concluded study that sheds light on the consequences of migration on the young children and the families left behind.
Focus on the Family: The 2003 Children and Families Study
In 2003, the Episcopal Commission on the Pastoral Care of Migrants and Itinerant People-CBCP/Apostleship of the Sea-Manila, the Scalabrini Migration Center, and the Overseas Workers Welfare Administration cooperated on a nationwide study that explored the impact of migration on the left-behind children and families. The initial results of the study have been published in 2004.7 The findings discussed here are drawn from the 2004 publication.
Noting the limitations of existing studies looking into the impacts of migration on the family, the 2003 study aimed to: provide a national portrait of migrant families (most studies are focused on Luzon); use a probability sample in the selection of respondents; include respondents from non-migrant households for comparative purposes; and include respondents from seafarer families (seafarers have a longer history of migration and they comprise 20 percent of overseas workers leaving the country annually).
The 2003 study built on an earlier study conducted in 1996 which focused on pre-adolescent children, i.e., children 10-12 years old (Battistella and Conaco, 1998, 1996). In general, the 1996 study found that children of migrants were coping with migration – with the exception of the children of migrant mothers who did not compare well with the other children. The 2003 study continued the focus on the same age group, but based on a nationwide sample (the 1996 study was confined to three provinces in Luzon and the National Capital Region). The recent study will also provide an update, considering that access to communication facilities have vastly improved since 1996, and this may have implications on practices of family life. In our approach to the study of the family and migration, we believe that it is important to hear the voices of different family members. Thus far, young children’s voices have not been heard as much. In studying the children of migrants, it is also important to adopt an age criterion because young children, adolescents and young adults have different experiences. For this particular study, the respondents were defined as young children 10-12 years old who come from two-parent families. By limiting respondents to two-parent families, we control for the confounding effects of different types of families. On the one hand, this sharpens the analysis, but on the other hand, it limits the findings to children from two-parent families, which is only one of several types of families.
To assess the impact of migration, the study compared children belonging to five groups:
• Children of migrant mothers (MM);
• Children of land-based migrant fathers (FL);
• Children of sea-based fathers (FS);
• Children whose two parents are migrants (BP); and
• Children of non-migrants (NM).
Children of migrants or OFWs were those whose parents had been working abroad for at least a year at the time of interview.
Objectives and Methods of Data Collection
The general objective of the study was to assess the impact of parental separation due to migration on the well-being of young children left behind.
The specific objectives were:
1. To determine the views and perceptions of children about migration;
2. To determine the impact of migration on selected indicators of the well-being of children left behind; and
3. To assess the factors that contribute to the resilience and vulnerability of the children left behind.
The study employed two methods of data collection: (1) a survey of 1,443 children sampled from 130 schools (public and private) in the following sampled areas: National Capital Region; Bulacan (Angat and Hagonoy), Cavite (Cavite City and Imus), Laguna (San Pedro and Los Banos) in Luzon; Davao (Davao City and Digos) in Mindanao; and Cebu (Cebu City and Liloan) and Negros Occidental (Bacolod City and Binalbagan) in the Visayas; and (2) focus group discussions (FGDs) among adolescent sons and daughters (11), caregivers (8), and community workers/pastoral workers working with migrant families (4).
Data collection, including preparatory work, e.g., the construction of the sampling frame, took place between June and December 2003.
Major Findings: Descriptive Analysis
Background Information
More girls than boys took part in the survey (54 percent vs. 46 percent). On the average, the children had a mean age of 10.72 years.
Among OFW children, the mean years their fathers had been away was 6.62 years compared with 4.83 years that migrant mothers had been away.
The major destinations of migrant parents were Saudi Arabia, the United States and Japan. The migrant fathers were mostly in production (44 percent), professional (24 percent) and service (15 percent) occupations. The migrant mothers were predominantly in service occupations (63 percent). Close to a quarter (23 percent) were in the professions.
Among non-OFW children, fathers were mostly in production (40 percent), while mothers mostly (48 percent) did not work outside the home.
Children’s Views and Perceptions about Migration
More than half of the children were aware that many Filipinos were leaving the country to find work elsewhere. Most of them associated migration with economic realities – the need to find jobs or better incomes abroad.
About half (52 percent) reported that they were part of discussions regarding their parents’ migration; another half said that they were not part of such discussions. It is possible that family discussions regarding migration may have excluded children, based on the notion that they are “too young” to participate in the decision-making process. Another possible reason is that for some children, their parents started migrating when they were still very young (or in some cases, even before they were born); this is particularly true in the case of seafarers.
Among OFW children, 60 percent said that they had accepted their parents’ migration; 37 percent admitted that they had difficulties but understood why their parents had to leave; 4 percent said that their parents’ departure was against their will.
If a family member had to leave, the majority (66.1 percent) would prefer their fathers rather than their mothers (15 percent) to migrate. Selected quotations from the FGDs with adolescent children and husbands suggest why the migration of mothers is less than ideal:
As they say … it’s better to lose 100 fathers than a single mother.
Anthony, 17 y/o from Cavite (FL)
If we had our way, we would not want them to go abroad, but because of our need, because of the difficulties of life, this is what happened to us.
Danny, husband of a domestic worker, Laguna
Danny’s sentiment is shared by other husbands who would have preferred to be the ones who should go abroad, except that the demand abroad was for women migrant workers.
Impact of Migration on the Family
In terms of materials conditions, the 2003 study confirmed what earlier studies had documented: that migration does make a difference in improving the economic conditions of families. This was indicated by the higher levels of home ownership and ownership of consumer durables reported by OFW children compared to non-OFW children. Interestingly, more OFW children reported having a landline telephone and ownership of cell phones than non-OFW children. Moreover, more OFW children had their own cellphones than the non-OFW children (35 percent vs. 12 percent). In terms of self-perceived social class, on the whole, half of the children considered their families as being on the line, i.e., between being poor and not poor. However, more OFW children (60 percent) considered their families as being on the line than non-OFW children (50 percent). More OFW children considered their families as not poor (28 percent) whereas more non-OFW children considered their families as poor (31 percent).
Migration also makes a difference in terms of the gender roles in the family and being a family. Children from non-migrant families were more likely to report their parents as the persons taking care of them and their daily needs. Children of non-migrants reported that their mothers were the ones largely responsible for caregiving, domestic tasks and attending to their school needs; fathers were reported as being responsible only for earning a living and sharing with the mothers the disciplining of children. The same division of labor describes father- absent families. In the case of mother-absent and two-parent migrant families, children also saw their mothers as providers. Caregiving and domestic tasks, however, did not involve many left-behind fathers; instead, these were taken up mostly by other female family members. When mothers are absent, fathers participated more in the areas of disciplining children, teaching them good manners, and teaching the children about right and wrong. Interestingly, left-behind fathers were somewhat less involved in teaching children about faith; other female family members assumed this responsibility. Thus, a rearrangement of gender roles is evident among OFW families, especially when it is the mothers who leave.
While migration has not diminished the importance of the family (Asis, Huang and Yeoh, 2004), it has changed the nature of family life. The FGDs with adolescent sons and daughters and caregivers suggest the sense of being an incomplete family because of the absence of one or both parents. However, despite the distance between them, migrants and those left behind are able to maintain their ties through communication. Earlier studies had identified regular communication as critical in maintaining family relationships (e.g., Asis, 2001). The 2003 study underscored that this has been greatly facilitated by cheaper long-distance calls and access to cellphones. Telephone calls and text messages have replaced letters as the primary means of communication. The immediate and instantaneous access to communication has eased the difficulties of separation, as suggested by the following sentiments:
My father always ends his text messages with ‘I love you’ and how much he loves us. It gives me a nice feeling that he can express his love for us even though through text messages. It would have been very difficult without any communication between us.
Missy, 15 y/o, Manila (FS)
My father gets to go to different countries. We learn a lot about where he is whenever he calls. Once when his ship docked in Europe, he bought a cellphone and a sim card so he could call us at home. He calls often or sends text messages to mama … every minute, every time he is free.
Aris, 18 y/o, Cavite (FL)
In all, family relationships are maintained, thanks in large part to the work undertaken by the left-behind parents and the extended family. Most migrant children reported having a good relationship with their migrant parents (especially mothers). The survey data underscored that children continue to regard their parents as their role models. In the FGDs with the left-behind parents, the idea that their children considered them as role models was a daunting thought for some parents.
Impacts on the Children
To assess the impact on children’s well-being, the study probed into the children’s academic performance, physical health, experience of abuse/violence, and emotional health. The 2003 study found that children of migrants were generally fine and were, in fact, faring better than the children of non-migrants in the indicators mentioned above. The findings suggest that the economic benefits of migration somehow translate into better outcomes for the children of migrants. For example, migrant children’s advantage in academic performance may reflect the investments migrant parents channel into children’s education. The survey indicated that OFW children were more likely to attend private schools; also OFW children were more likely to participate in extra curricular activities than non-OFW children. Like the 1996 study, however, the children left behind by migrant mothers generally lagged behind the other children in the various indicators.
Like the 1996 study, the 2003 study found that the family continues to be the primary provider of care to young children. That children of migrants are not necessarily disadvantaged relative to children of non-migrants runs against prevailing perceptions about left-behind children. The 2003 study also sought to look into the socialization of children and the findings indicate that regardless of the presence or absence of parents, the survey found that children received the same kind of socialization. The values emphasized in the rearing of children were the same for those in migrant and non-migrant families: obedience, good manners and industry topped the list while independence was less emphasized.
Migration appears to have influenced young children’s career and migration aspirations. About half – 47 percent of respondents – said that they would like to work abroadsomeday; the percentage is higher among OFW children, 60 percent. Note that this is higher than the 2002 Pulse Asia survey among adult Filipinos which found that 20 percent of respondents (one in five Filipinos) would like to live abroad. The idea of working abroad someday is further suggested by the courses that children would like to take up in college. The girls were likely to mention medicine/nursing, teaching and engineering/architecture. Similarly, the boys also mentioned medicine/nursing, engineering/architecture, and military. Thus, even in the choice of courses, children considered those that would be marketable in the global labor market. Asked about citizenship, however, nine out of 10 children responded that they would prefer to be Filipinos.9
Conclusion
The findings of the initial analysis suggest that the material benefits of migration provide OFW children with some advantages. Contrary to popular perceptions, on the whole, the survey data suggest that children coming from two-parent families (a proxy for “stable” families) can cope with migration. However, those left behind by migrant mothers tended to be the exception. The generally positive picture is marred by persisting emotional difficulties suggested by FGD data coming from adolescent participants and caregivers. While young children from “stable” families seem to have adjusted to their parents’ absence, as children move into adolescence, it may not be as smooth sailing for the children, the parents and the left-behind caregivers.
The study confirmed that migrant families tend to shy away from seeking external assistance. Instead, they tended to rely on other family members or they relied on faith and prayers in dealing with their problems. In the FGDs with the caregivers, they were generally open when discussing economic problems but they were not as forthcoming when the discussions turned to relational or psycho-social issues.
The findings of the study suggested that the schools could be an important partner in reaching out to migrant families. As shared by community workers and pastoral workers working with migrant families, it is a challenge to organize migrant families and an even greater challenge to sustain programs and activities targeting this sector. As partners, the schools can be vehicles for programs that could reach families more effectively, particularly fathers. The role of the schools in shaping young people’s career and life plans cannot also be overemphasized. The specter of a generation of future “migrant workers” begs many questions on the larger question of nation-building.
As this presentation showed, the impact of migration on young children and families is not as deleterious as popular perceptions suggest. Instead, we see young children and families developing capacities to deal with the costs and benefits brought about by migration. In mapping out the social costs (as well as potential benefits) on other institutions and areas of life in Filipino society, it would be helpful to identify potential costs, specify those which can be mitigated, and develop mechanisms and structures that could minimize their negative impacts. The same strategy may be used in dealing with the potential benefits of migration. Research can serve as an indispensable tool to clarify these issues.
References
Asis, Maruja M.B.
2004 “Unwrapping the Balikbayan Box: Overseas Filipinos and the Homeland.” Paper prepared for the International Conference on State-Diaspora Relations, Mexico City, 18-22 October.
_____
2001 “The Return Migration of Filipino Women Migrants: Home, but Not for Good.” In Female Labour Migration in South-East Asia. Edited by Christina Wille and Basia Passl. Bangkok: Asian Research Center for Migration, Chulalongkorn University.
Asis, Maruja M.B., Shirlena Huang and Brenda Yeoh
2004 “When the Light of the Home is Abroad: Female Migration and Filipino Family,” Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography, 198-215.
Battistella, Graziano and Ma. Cecilia G. Conaco
1998 “The Impact of Labour Migration on the Children Left Behind: A Study of Elementary School Children in the Philippines,” Sojourn, 13(2):220-241.
_____
1996 “The Impact of Labor Migration on the Children Left Behind.” Research report submitted to the National Secretariat for Social Action, Justice and Peace-CBCP. Manila: Scalabrini Migration Center.
Butcher, Andrew
2004 “Departures and Arrivals: International Students Returning to the Countries of Origin,” Asian and Pacific Migration Journal, 13(3): 275-304.
Coronel, Leandro
2004 “Why Filipinos Leave Their Country,” The Manila Times, 15 November.
Episcopal Commission for the Pastoral Care of Migrants and Itinerant People-CBCP/Apostleship
of the Sea-Manila, Scalabrini Migration Center, and Overseas Workers Welfare Administration
2004 Hearts Apart: Migration in the Eyes of Filipino Children. Manila: ECMI-CBCP/AOS- Manila, SMC and OWWA.
International Organization for Migration
1998 “International Migration: Special Issue - Migration and HIV/AIDS,” 36(4).
Newland, Kathleen
2003 “Migration as a Factor in Development and Poverty Reduction,” Migration Information Source, June.
Scalabrini Migration Center
2004 “Asian and Pacific Migration Journal: Special Issue – Migration and Health in Asia,” 13(1).
|
