Asian Population Studies
ISSN: 1744-1730 (Print) 1744-1749 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/raps20
LIVING WITH MIGRATION Maruja M. B. Asis To cite this article: Maruja M. B. Asis (2006) LIVING WITH MIGRATION, Asian Population Studies, 2:1, 45-67, DOI: 10.1080/17441730600700556 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17441730600700556
Published online: 02 Feb 2007.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 1446
View related articles
Citing articles: 33 View citing articles
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=raps20 Download by: [Australian National University]
Date: 04 May 2016, At: 02:44
LIVING WITH MIGRATION Experiences of left-behind children in the Philippines
Downloaded by [Australian National University] at 02:44 04 May 2016
Maruja M. B. Asis
In the Philippines, large-scale overseas migration has raised concerns about left-behind children, who are perceived to be most affected by the absence of fathers, mothers or both. Without their ‘real’ parents (especially mothers) to rear and guide them, left-behind children are perceived to bear the brunt of the social costs of migration. Based on data collected from a 2003 nationwide study, this article examines how left-behind children (specifically those aged 10 12 years old and adolescents) cope without their migrant parents. Three questions are explored: (1) how children are raised in the absence of one or both migrant parents; (2) how children (re)configure family, family life and family practices; and (3) what roles children have, if any, in how the family unit copes with the migration of one or both parents. Although migration creates emotional displacement for migrants and their children, it also opens up possibilities for children’s agency and independence. KEYWORDS: family-Philippines; children of migrants-Philippines; impact of migrationPhilippines; socialization of children-Philippines; care work-Philippines
Unclear and Future Dangers? The relentless migration of Filipinos for jobs and/or better income to foreign shores has resulted in the separation of many families. Without the possibility for family reunification, migrant workers toil abroad, leaving their families behind until their return at the end of their work contracts; those who renew their contracts may visit their families at the end of two years in the case of land-based workers or after ten months for seafarers.1 The separation may be extended for longer than two years when working abroad becomes routinized as ‘regular’ work providing the major or steady source of income for the families left behind. As families increasingly depend on migration for shoring up or maximizing economic resources, and as families acquire more knowledge about migration processes and destinations, other working age family members can also be drawn into taking a chance in the global labour market. In the process, family members become distributed in different sites across the world, with the Philippines as ‘home’ and other countries as ‘workplaces’. This ‘new geography of family life’ (Jastram 2003)2 has been part of Filipino society since the 1970s, the beginnings of large-scale, more organized and more diverse labour migration from the Philippines. A major source country of workers for the world, the Philippines sees both men and women leaving as migrant workers. As of December 2004, Asian Population Studies, Vol. 2, No. 1, March 2006 ISSN 1744-1730 print/1744-1749 online/06/010045-23 – 2006 Taylor & Francis DOI: 10.1080/17441730600700556
Downloaded by [Australian National University] at 02:44 04 May 2016
46
MARUJA M. B. ASIS
the stock of migrant workers based outside the Philippines was at 3.6 million out of the 8.1 million overseas Filipino population *these are the workers who left the country with work contracts. In addition, there are some 3.2 million permanent migrants, and about 1.3 million irregular migrants (POEA 2005). The trend is likely to continue. As observers in the Philippines have ruefully noted, wanting to work abroad has become not just an individual inclination but a national obsession.3 The transformation of the Philippines into a country of migrants has bred alarm, angst and anxieties about the future of the family, and, by extension, Filipino society in general. The link is understandable given the widely held view in the Philippines that the country can only be strong if the family, the basic unit of society, is rock-solid.4 Migration is viewed as a destabilizing factor, and one that transgresses the idea of Filipino families as closely knit units. A central concern pertains to the left-behind children, who are perceived to be most affected by the absence of fathers, mothers or both. Without their ‘real’ parents (especially mothers) to rear and guide them, it is feared that the children will become delinquents, drug addicts or school drop-outs, and that they will be emotionally scarred. In short, popular perceptions *including images and representations of migration in popular culture *typically offer a dark prognosis of the impacts of parental absence on the children left behind. Findings from research suggest that the outcomes for left-behind children are not as dark or gloomy as feared (e.g. Cruz 1987; Asis 1995; Battistella & Conaco 1996, 1998; Parren˜as 2002; UP, Tel Aviv University & Kaibigan 2002; Asis et al. 2004). Without minimizing troubled areas (particularly the impact of mothers’ departure), research findings, in general, suggest that children of migrants are coping with the absence of their parents. In the same vein, initial findings from a 2003 Children and Families Study indicate that the children of migrant workers are not disadvantaged *and even fare better in terms of some well-being indicators *compared to the children of non-migrants (ECMICBCP/AOS-Manila, SMC & OWWA 2004)5. Echoing the findings of the 1996 study on young children left behind, the 2003 study found that care-givers and the extended family provide care and support to the children. Moreover, although migrant parents may be physically absent, they continue parenting from afar. Today, access to cheap and readily available communication facilities, especially cellular telephones, facilitates contacts and links not easily accessible or affordable in the past. Migrants and their families can communicate more frequently and more instantaneously these days, a development that opens up new possibilities for maintaining family ties despite separation by migration.
Objectives and Data This article takes up the issue of parental absence due to migration and the arrangements for the care-giving and socialization of young children.6 As mentioned earlier, this question has taken centre stage in discussions about the impact of large-scale migration on the family. This preoccupation is understandable in a society where parent child relations are considered among the most enduring social ties. In the Philippines, the birth of a child is key to the definition of the family. Until a couple bears a child, the couple is referred to in the Filipino language as mag-asawa (couple); the addition of a child renders the unit a mag-anak (family) (Ong 2001). It is interesting to note that the term mag-anak is centred on anak , meaning child.7 Thus, couples without children often have to parry questions as to why they are childless and when they intend to have children.
Downloaded by [Australian National University] at 02:44 04 May 2016
LEFT-BEHIND CHILDREN IN THE PHILIPPINES
In this milieu, the decision of parents to leave their children marks a departure from the ideal of parents as the best care-givers. When it is the mothers who leave, the situation is deemed more problematic because of the mothers’ role as the ‘light of the home’ (Asis et al. 2004). Invested with the task of nurturing and guiding the young, the migration of mothers implies more fundamental changes in the organization of family life than does the migration of fathers. As the ‘pillars of the home’, fathers in Filipino society are primarily regarded as providers. If they have to work abroad, their migration is in keeping with their role as providers. The situation is not ideal, but it is not unthinkable *and not as worrisome *because mothers are around to keep the family together. Thus far, the discussions in the Philippines assume that left-behind children are passive recipients of changes resulting from migration. Studies of migration focusing on children typically take this view (see, for example, various studies looking into outcomes such as the impact of migration on the educational achievements or health conditions of children of immigrants). An alternative view is to posit children as agents or actors who can exert some agency in shaping their migration experience. This was the track suggested in a study of the role played by the children of Mexican immigrants in their families’ adjustment in the United States (Valenzuela 1999). For example, the children’s knowledge of the English language was helpful in their families’ dealings with schools and other institutions in the United States. Children also provided help, such as minding their younger siblings, while their parents worked. This article explores the angle of children’s agency in the experiences of families left behind. Cultural assumptions in the Philippines about parent child relationships invest considerable authority as well as responsibility on parents in defining their children’s wellbeing. Descriptions of children, such as walang malay or walang alam (lacking in sense or knowledge), for example, emphasize their innocence, vulnerability and defencelessness. The assumption that a parent knows what is best for his or her child runs the risk of ignoring children’s concerns *which could lead to abusive situations. In a study exploring definitions of child abuse in the Philippines, parents’ concepts of children’s rights were largely couched in terms of survival and development (hence, the premium placed on providing children with food, shelter and education). The idea of participation rights as a component of children’s rights was not part of how parents conceive children’s rights; nor did parents consider the idea of granting children greater participation as part of good parenting (Ong 2001). Based on the notion of children as passive subjects, the migration of parents may leave children more vulnerable; alternatively, based on the notion of children as actors, migration may lead to children taking a more active part in crafting responses to the absence of one or both parents. This article attempts to provide some empirical basis for examining the following questions: 1.
2.
How are children raised and socialized when their fathers, mothers or both parents are working abroad? Specifically, what are the arrangements for childcare among families of migrants and what kinds of values are emphasized in the raising of children among the families of migrants? How do the children of migrants view their care-giving and family arrangements? What notions about the family, parent child relations and family life are emerging among children in trans-national families?
47
48
MARUJA M. B. ASIS
Downloaded by [Australian National University] at 02:44 04 May 2016
3.
What indicators of the children’s agency, if any, are there in the way they and their families cope with the demands of trans-national family life?
Data for this article came from the 2003 Children and Families Survey (hereafter, the 2003 study), a research project jointly undertaken by the Episcopal Commission for the Pastoral Care of Migrants and Itinerant People-Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines/Apostleship of the Sea-Manila, the Scalabrini Migration Center and the Overseas Workers Welfare Administration. The 2003 study was part of efforts aimed at understanding the impacts of migration on families, with a view towards developing programmes and policies to support the family members left behind. The study had two major components: a survey of 1443 children aged 10 12 years old and qualitative data collected from focus group discussions (FGDs) with adolescent children of migrants (n / 11), left-behind care-givers (n /8) and community workers involved in organizing families of migrants (n /4). Data collection, including preparatory work, was conducted between June 2003 and January 2004. The 2003 study built on an earlier study conducted in 1996 that probed into the relationship between parental absence and children’s well-being (Battistella & Conaco 1996, 1998). It attempted to overcome the limitations of earlier studies by endeavouring to provide a national portrait of children and families (earlier studies were mostly based in Luzon), using probability sampling in the selection of survey respondents, including the children and families of seafarers, and having a comparison group of children of nonmigrants. The survey was conducted in seven areas/provinces in Luzon, Visayas and Mindanao: the National Capital region, Bulacan, Cavite, Laguna, Cebu, Negros Occidental and Davao del Sur. Sampling proceeded in several stages: first, areas or provinces were sampled per major island grouping; second, two areas were randomly selected within a province; third, schools *both public and private *were then randomly selected; fourth, sections of Grades 4, 5 and 6 were randomly selected where the school population was large; and fifth, respondents were drawn randomly from a sampling frame of children from five different categories. These categories consisted of children of migrant mothers (MM), children of migrant sea-based fathers (FS), children of migrant land-based fathers (FL), children with both migrant parents (BP) and children of non-migrants (NM). Children of migrants referred to those whose parents were working abroad (which was defined in the study as working abroad for at least a year) at the time of the survey. Children of nonmigrants, on the other hand, were defined as children whose parents had never worked abroad, or children whose parents (one or both) had worked abroad but had returned to the Philippines for at least a year at the time of the survey.8 The 1443 respondents were distributed as follows: 347 MM (24.1 per cent), 319 FL (22.1 per cent), 309 FS (21.4 per cent), 150 BP (10.4 per cent) and 318 NM (22 per cent). The survey was limited to children whose parents were living together (as a proxy for ‘stable’ families), or in the case of children of migrants, their parents were not together because of migration. The children in the study, thus, belonged to two-parent families. Limiting the study to this group of children helped control for variations that could be introduced by different family structures. On the down side, the results can only hold for children belonging to two-parent families, which are just one of several types of family. Some background information about the survey respondents is presented in Table 1. The survey results presented here are based on weighted data.
Children of migrants
Variable Gender Female Male Age 9 years & younger 10 years 11 years 12 years 13 years & older Mean SD Type of school Public Private (sect & non-sect) Grade level Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Section Middle & upper Lower Mixed Household profile Mean household size SD Mean no. of adults SD
Total
Children of non-migrants
Children of migrants
MM
FL
FS
BP
54.0 46.0
54.0 46.0
53.5 46.5
50.5 49.5
53.7 46.3
52.5 47.5
59.7 40.3
15.2 29.7 30.3 19.9 5.0 10.72 1.15
15.2 29.6 30.3 19.9 5.1 10.72 1.15
16.2 30.9 30.8 19.9 2.2 10.63 1.14
12.6 23.6 37.1 24.2 2.6 10.81 1.05
18.7 34.4 25.4 18.9 2.5 10.56 1.23
18.3 30.2 33.0 17.3 1.2 10.52 1.05
11.6 34.2 33.2 19.1 1.8 10.65 1.01
84.4 15.6
85.1 14.9
59.1 40.9
67.4 32.6
60.5 39.5
42.6 57.4
62.7 37.3
35.6 29.7 34.6
35.7 29.7 34.6
33.9 31.0 35.2
31.6 27.3 41.1
37.0 29.1 33.9
33.0 33.6 33.4
29.3 40.0 30.7
25.4 8.5 66.1
25.2 8.6 66.2
30.4 5.0 64.6
30.9 5.6 63.4
30.7 5.6 63.7
27.4 2.8 69.8
32.5 5.3 62.2
6.52 2.10 2.44 1.04
6.52 2.10 2.45 1.03
6.67 1.98 2.14 1.37
6.83 2.11 2.50 1.61
6.31 1.83 2.04 1.26
6.25 1.76 1.82 1.23
8.19 1.69 2.24 1.25
LEFT-BEHIND CHILDREN IN THE PHILIPPINES
Downloaded by [Australian National University] at 02:44 04 May 2016
TABLE 1 Background information of the children.
49
MARUJA M. B. ASIS
Downloaded by [Australian National University] at 02:44 04 May 2016
50
TABLE 1 (Continued) Children of migrants
Variable Mean no. of workers SD Mean no. of children SD
Total 2.08 1.08 3.67 1.66
Children of non-migrants 2.07 1.08 3.69 1.66
Children of migrants 2.28 1.25 2.99 1.29
MM 2.69 1.32 2.92 1.44
FL 1.98 1.13 3.00 1.24
FS 1.76 0.91 2.99 1.18
BP 3.26 1.09 3.05 1.27
Children of migrant mothers (MM), children of migrant sea-based fathers (FS), children of migrant land-based fathers (FL), children with both migrant parents (BP) and children of non-migrants (NM).
LEFT-BEHIND CHILDREN IN THE PHILIPPINES
Findings
Downloaded by [Australian National University] at 02:44 04 May 2016
Well-being Indicators How do children of migrants and children of non-migrants compare? The 2003 study found that children of migrants were indeed better off than the children of non-migrants in terms of material indicators (Table 2). As far as perceptions of their family’s economic status went, children of migrants typically considered their families in the middle of the line or not poor, whereas most children of non-migrants placed their families in the middle or poor. In terms of more objective indicators of economic status, children of migrants reported higher levels of home ownership and ownership of consumer durables than did the children of non-migrants. In the light of the value migrants and families attach to keeping communication lines open, it is important to stress that families of migrants were much more likely to own communication facilities than non-migrant families: 63 per cent of overseas Filipino workers (OFW) families had a landline telephone compared to 29 per cent among non-OFW families. Moreover, about nine out of 10 OFW families had a cellular telephone compared to six out of 10 among non-OFW families. The children of migrants were three times more likely to have their own cellular telephones than the children of non-migrants (35 per cent vs 12 per cent). Contrary to popular perception, the children of migrants fared just as well, if not better, than the children of non-migrants in non-material realms. Table 3 presents a summary of selected dimensions of well-being: academic performance, physical health, incidence of abuse and emotional health. Various indicators of academic performance * grades, awards received and being part of the honour roll *point to children of migrants doing better than children of non-migrants. This finding differs from the 1996 study, which observed children of OFW trailing behind non-OFW children (Battistella & Conaco 1996, 1998). What is consistent in the two studies is the observation that children of migrant mothers were not faring well compared to the children of other migrants. However, other than being the least likely to be in the honour roll, children of migrant mothers did better than the children of non-migrants in other indicators of academic performance. Likewise, indicators of physical health *height, weight and incidence of common illnesses *show children of migrants having an edge over children of non-migrants. Among children of migrants, those left behind by mothers reported more illnesses than the others. In terms of height and weight, the children of migrant mothers are somewhat better off than the children of land-based migrant fathers. The better showing of children with both parents abroad suggest that they may have developed better coping skills to deal with the separation than those left behind by migrant mothers. It is also possible that the extended family that assumes the role of surrogate parents may (over)compensate when both migrant parents are absent.9 The advantage of the children of seafarer fathers compared to those of land-based fathers may reflect the material advantages made possible by the higher incomes of seafarers. In general, the findings on physical health in the 2003 study do not exactly replicate the poor showing of children of migrant mothers in the 1996 study (Battistella & Conaco 1996, 1998). The study tried to probe into current abuse. Following the measure of current abuse used by the Department of Health (n.d., p. 182), it is defined as ‘a person’s experience of any form of abusive or violent behavior at least once during the current year of his/her life, inflicted by a family member or other people, or both’. In the study, ‘current year’ was defined as the ‘past 12 months’. Abuse was measured in terms of a child’s experience of
51
52
Downloaded by [Australian National University] at 02:44 04 May 2016
Children of migrants
Variable Own house/lot Yes No Other Appliances owned Major appliances Landline (tel.) Jeep/car Motorcycle/tricycle Air condition Child has cellular telephone Other appliances TV Gas/electric stove VHS/VCR/DVD Cellular telephone Washing machine Refrigerator Component/stereo Mean SD Perceived economic status Mahirap (poor) Sa linya (on the line) Hindi mahirap (not poor)
Children of non-migrants
Children of migrants
MM
FL
FS
BP
50.2 42.6 7.2
50.1 42.7 7.3
56.3 38.6 5.1
55.1 40.6 4.3
56.1 37.5 6.4
59.8 35.4 4.8
54.3 42.9 2.8
30.1 17.2 15.5 14.3 13.1
29.2 16.9 15.5 33.6 12.5
63.0 26.8 15.3 26.1 35.0
53.5 29.6 20.6 30.7 32.6
59.0 21.4 8.5 48.6 31.4
75.5 36.3 20.9 35.3 42.0
76.1 25.5 19.7 * 41.1
91.6 72.5 64.2 60.9 58.5 55.4 53.7 5.72 3.12
91.4 72.0 63.6 60.0 57.9 54.5 53.0 5.65 3.11
98.4 90.7 86.5 93.7 81.4 88.4 81.7 8.41 2.35
97.6 83.1 79.8 91.5 81.0 82.5 77.5 7.97 2.60
98.4 93.2 86.5 94.8 77.4 87.5 82.3 8.13 2.32
99.3 94.4 92.4 96.2 88.8 95.9 88.7 9.40 1.86
98.5 91.3 90.5 90.4 85.3 91.4 77.8 8.70 2.12
30.6 50.1 19.2
31.2 49.8 19.0
12.0 60.0 28.0
14.2 58.3 27.5
12.2 60.2 27.5
9.6 63.6 26.8
10.4 57.2 32.3
Total
Children of migrant mothers (MM), children of migrant sea-based fathers (FS), children of migrant land-based fathers (FL), children with both migrant parents (BP) and children of non-migrants (NM).
MARUJA M. B. ASIS
TABLE 2 Social economic status indicators.
Children of migrants
Indicator Academic performance GWA:2002 2003 Below 75 75 79 80 84 85 89 90 and up Mean SD Received school awards? Yes, any award Yes, academic award Among honour roll/top 10? Yes Physical health Child’s height (cm)* Female Mean SD Male Mean SD Both sexes Mean SD Child’s weight (kg)** Female
Total
Children of non-migrants
Children of migrants
MM
FL
FS
BP
0.5 24.6 47.78 21.3 5.8 82.37 4.26
0.6 24.8 17.8 21.1 5.7 82.34 4.26
0.1 16.8 42.0 32.0 9.2 83.72 4.15
0.0 20.8 44.4 31.2 3.6 82.95 3.85
0.0 13.4 42.7 34.8 9.2 83.96 3.86
0.1 16.7 38.0 31.4 13.8 84.27 4.49
0.3 20.0 40.5 25.6 13.5 83.66 4.85
20.5 13.0
20.3 12.7
30.6 22.9
22.9 16.2
37.5 29.0
30.6 22.3
22.1 16.0
20.2
20.1
23.9
18.9
23.9
30.5
24.0
134.47 8.54
134.40 8.49
140.98 10.65
140.17 8.71
138.14 12.09
145.32 8.69
140.12 11.25
132.17 8.26
132.07 8.19
141.10 9.46
139.16 9.46
138.67 10.24
143.00 8.77
143.36 8.43
133.61 8.51
133.52 8.45
141.03 10.17
139.75 9.04
138.30 11.56
144.27 8.80
142.00 9.84
LEFT-BEHIND CHILDREN IN THE PHILIPPINES
Downloaded by [Australian National University] at 02:44 04 May 2016
TABLE 3 Well-being Indicators.
53
54
Downloaded by [Australian National University] at 02:44 04 May 2016
Children of migrants
Indicator
Total
Mean 33.57 SD 12.71 Male Mean 30.76 SD 7.14 Both sexes Mean 32.51 SD 11.04 No. of ailments 0 4.7 1 7.6 2 14.1 3 24.3 4 22.4 5 14.1 6 12.7 Mean 3.45 SD 1.61 Experience of current abuse or violence Cursed at Female 43.6 Male 54.0 Total 48.4 Belittled Female 30. 6 Male 43.8 Total 36.7 Scared Female 39.2
Children of non-migrants
Children of migrants
MM
FL
FS
BP
33.52 12.72
38.19 10.71
36.54 8.50
34.86 10.05
42.45 11.52
42.12 10.48
30.76 7.01
38.36 12.12
37.00 9.74
31.00 8.56
44.00 13.26
38.36 11.39
32.45 11.02
38.26 11.32
36.73 9.04
33.70 9.78
43.15 12.35
39.95 11.16
4.7 7.5 14.0 24.3 22.4 14.1 12.9 3.76 1.61
4.1 11.7 18.0 25.3 19.7 13.8 7.3 3.16 1.55
2.5 9.4 16.2 26.6 23.3 14.0 8.0 3.33 1.47
3.8 14.2 16.7 26.6 18.0 13.6 7.1 3.10 1.56
4.7 10.5 20.1 24.6 20.0 12.4 7.7 3.13 1.55
7.4 9.9 22.7 19.5 18.2 16.2 6.1 3.04 1.63
43.6 54.1 48.4
44.3 50.6 47.2
44.9 45.3 45.1
46.5 54.3 50.1
36.5 51.6 43.7
46.7 47.4 48.4
30.6 43.9 36.7
31.0 41.3 35.8
27.4 39.7 33.5
31.1 44.2 37.2
33.8 41.2 37.4
32.6 34.0 33.2
39.1
40.4
44.6
34.9
47.6
40.5
MARUJA M. B. ASIS
TABLE 3 (Continued)
TABLE 3 (Continued)
Indicator
Total
Male 45.5 Total 42.1 Hurt Female 32.8 Male 53.0 Total 42.1 Abandoned Female 11.1 Male 11.4 Total 11.2 Touched in sensitive/private areas Female 7.6 Male 9.6 Total 8.5 Emotional health Self-report: happiness Very unhappy 0.0 Somewhat unhappy 8.0 Somewhat happy 42.8 Very happy 49.1 Mean 3.41 SD 0.64 Social anxiety scale (range 0 12) Mean 5.17 SD 2.30 Loneliness scale (range 2 24) Mean 10.73 SD 4.19
Children of non-migrants
Children of migrants
MM
FL
FS
BP
45.6 42.1
44.1 42.1
46.4 45.5
46.8 40.4
47.4 47.5
22.5 33.3
32.8 53.3 42.2
32.4 41.6 36.6
27.5 34.7 31.1
33.3 46.6 39.4
32.8 42.1 37.2
36.9 37.9 37.3
11.2 11.4 11.3
9.1 10.3 9.7
9.5 11.6 10.6
9.2 10.0 9.6
8.6 8.3 8.5
8.9 11.8 10.0
7.7 9.5 8.5
3.6 10.4 6.8
5.3 7.9 6.6
1.3 12.4 6.4
4.6 8.4 6.4
6.1 12.7 8.7
0.0 8.1 42.8 49.2 3.41 0.63
0.6 7.8 45.4 46.2 3.37 0.65
0.3 13.4 45.2 41.1 3.27 0.69
0.9 4.6 46.0 48.5 3.42 0.63
0.4 8.6 41.0 50.0 3.41 0.66
0.6 6.6 50.3 42.5 3.35 0.63
5.18 2.30
4.77 2.45
4.97 2.63
4.84 2.42
4.37 2.23
4.75 2.41
10.75 4.19
9.95 4.03
11.01 4.36
9.68 3.99
9.47 3.79
9.49 3.42
55
Children of migrant mothers (MM), children of migrant sea-based fathers (FS), children of migrant land-based fathers (FL), children with both migrant parents (BP) and children of non-migrants (NM).
LEFT-BEHIND CHILDREN IN THE PHILIPPINES
Downloaded by [Australian National University] at 02:44 04 May 2016
Children of migrants
Downloaded by [Australian National University] at 02:44 04 May 2016
56
MARUJA M. B. ASIS
being cursed at, belittled, scared (or intimidated), hurt (physically), abandoned and being touched on sensitive or private parts of the body. Children who reported experiencing abuse ranged from a low of 8.5 per cent (being touched) to a high of 48.4 per cent (being cursed at). Interestingly, the differences are more marked by gender (in general, more boys reported experiencing abuse than girls) rather than by the migration status of the children’s parents. Where there are differences between the children of migrants and the children of non-migrants, the former tended to report fewer abuses. Emotional health was measured by way of children’s responses to a global statement on happiness, social anxiety and loneliness, and responses to statements on feeling states (Table 3). The data on the global assessment of happiness suggest that the children of migrants were slightly less happy than the children of non-migrants (3.37 versus 3.41). However, the results of the social anxiety and loneliness scales indicate better outcomes for children of migrants, i.e. they are less anxious and less lonely vis-a`-vis their counterparts in non-migrant families. In terms of specific feeling states, however, reports of feeling angry, confused and worried were higher among children of migrants (for details, see ECMI-CBCP/AOS-Manila, SMC & OWWA 2004). Compared to the 1996 findings, some differences and continuities are also notable In the 1996 study, children of OFW scored higher in anxiety and loneliness scores compared to children of non-OFW. The more regular and more frequent communication between migrants and their children is proposed as a factor explaining the better showing of children of migrants compared to the children of non-migrants in the 2003 study. In both studies, however, the children left behind by mothers showed more difficulties (i.e. in terms of academic performance, physical health indicators and emotional health) compared to children of migrants of other groups. But when compared with the children of non-migrants, the children left behind by migrant mothers were somewhat better off than children of non-migrants in terms of academic performance, physical health and indicators of abuse or violence, advantages that may accrue from the better socio-economic standing of OFW families. When we turn to emotional health indicators, however, children of non-migrants reported being happier, less anxious and less lonely than children of migrant mothers.10 Thus, far from being low-achieving, sickly, abused, and lonely, the 2003 study points to children of migrants adjusting to the situation of not having a ‘complete’ family, i.e. having both parents around. The good news, however, is tempered by persistent indications of children of migrant mothers not doing as well as the other groups of children.
Care-giving and Socialization Processes An examination of care-giving and socialization processes may provide some clues on the better than expected outcomes of children of migrants. Earlier studies tended to look at the outcome variables but did not pay much attention to the ‘input’ side of the equation. Perhaps what is often overlooked is the fact that although the ‘real’ parents are not present, there are persons who assume care-giving responsibilities. The absence of one or both parents can have implications not only on the arrangements but also on the content of care-giving and socialization of the left-behind children. First, let us take a look at the care-giving arrangements of children in non-migrant families. According to the survey data, 85 per cent of the children identified their mothers as their primary care-givers, i.e. as the person who looks after them and their siblings. Only
Downloaded by [Australian National University] at 02:44 04 May 2016
LEFT-BEHIND CHILDREN IN THE PHILIPPINES
10 per cent mentioned their fathers; the rest mentioned other relatives as their primary care-givers. The fathers’ role in care-giving is thus peripheral even when they are physically present. Data from the survey also bear this out. When asked which family member takes care of the following tasks in their families *taking care of the children, preparing food, taking care of the house, helping with school work, attending programs/meetings in school, disciplining the children, teaching about God and faith, teaching good manners, teaching about right and wrong and earning money *it was only the last task that was mostly associated with fathers; for everything else, the respondents pointed to their mothers as the person engaged in the various tasks. Such involvement has also forged closer ties between mothers and children. Although there are some indications that young fathers are expanding the parameters of fatherhood beyond their role as providers (e.g. see Aguiling-Dalisay 1983), to this day, care-giving remains the primary responsibility of mothers. Even if the fathers were not as involved in the details of everyday life, the participants expressed preference for both their parents to be around: If both are around, if the mother and father were present, you have a balanced relationship with them. There is a chance for the father son relationship to develop. (Sam, M, age 19, MA)11
The participants, however, also articulated that if fathers were away, mothers could take on the roles and functions of fathers: It doesn’t make a difference [if fathers are away]. I say there is no difference because my mother, it seems that she can handle two roles. But my father, he cannot. (Mark, M, age 17, FA) I think my mother can be both father and mother. I sometimes see her climbing to the rooftop. I see her doing things that should be done by a father. But if my father were here, perhaps he cannot cook as well as my mother. (Don, M, age 19, FL) As they say, it is better to lose 100 fathers than a single mother. (Aris, M, age 18, FL)
When fathers leave to work abroad, there may be emotional displacement, but the impact on care-giving functions is not as felt, especially from the point of view of the children. When the fathers were the ones who left for abroad, 85 per cent of leftbehind children named their mothers as primary care-givers; about the same proportion of children in non-migrant families also named their mothers. Other relatives did not figure as much as care-giver figures when mothers were around. Instead, it would appear that nonrelatives (most likely, paid domestic workers) help out with the care-giving and domestic chores in the absence of fathers. Interestingly, even if their fathers were away, some seven per cent of respondents considered their fathers as the primary care-givers. When the mothers were the ones who went to work abroad, the reshuffling of caregiving functions becomes more evident. Half of the children left behind identified their fathers as the primary care-givers, a situation that suggests a reversal of roles and a new role for fathers, at least during the time of migration. The difficulty (and perhaps the lack of readiness) of fathers to take on the care-giving role of mothers is suggested by the fairly large proportion *36 per cent *of children who mentioned other female relatives as their primary care-givers. Likewise, some eight per cent of the children regarded their mothers as their primary care-givers, even when their mothers were working abroad. In
57
Downloaded by [Australian National University] at 02:44 04 May 2016
58
MARUJA M. B. ASIS
her work on left-behind children, Parren˜as (2005) concluded that the migration of women has not changed how left-behind husbands viewed their place in the family. Other studies have noted that some fathers have become more involved in domestic tasks with the departure of mothers, including some who have become full-time care-givers or househusbands (e.g. Basas-Concepcion 1998; Mojica 1998; Pingol 2003; Asis et al. 2004). However, the change seems temporary (Mojica 1998; Asis 2001; Asis et al. 2004).12 In cases where both parents were abroad, parents had to relinquish care-giving to other persons. Sixty-three per cent of left-behind children in two-parent families mentioned other female relatives as their primary care-givers. About a quarter of the children *23.3 per cent *indicated their mothers as the primary care-givers. This parallels the notion of trans-national mothering where, even from a distance, migrant mothers perform ‘mothering’ functions. In general, care-giving persists as a woman’s responsibility, even under conditions of migration. Although the migration of mothers is unsettling for left-behind families, it is not unsettling enough to create fundamental changes in mother child relations and in the realignment of gender roles in the family. As the quotations above suggest, the construction of care work is still very much a woman’s (mother’s) job. Left-behind husbands continue to exert minimal participation in the care-giving aspect, which is probably why children intensely feel the absence of their mothers,13 and why mothers, for their part, feel emotional dislocation (e.g. Asis 2001; Parren˜as 2001). Turning to the content of socialization, we examined two areas: the values transmitted to the children, and responsibility training. Table 4 presents the values that are emphasized in the rearing of children. All the values mentioned were conveyed to almost all the children. Notably, the values of responsibility and independence seem to be less emphasized compared with the others. In contrast, those values that emphasize harmony and good relationships recorded the highest percentages, both for children of migrants and children of non-migrants. Early on, children are socialized to develop pakiramdaman or empathy given the web of family relationships that they have to navigate (Arellano-Carandang 2001). Spiritual or religious socialization is also an important part of the socialization of children in Filipino families. Faith in God is among the most important components of the Filipino concept of well-being (SyCip et al. 2000). Not surprisingly, almost all the respondents said that they believed in God, and almost all of them rated the importance of God in their lives as a 10 (most important). In the survey, among children of migrants, mothers and other female relatives came out as the persons who taught them about God; among the children of migrant mothers, other female relatives were mentioned more often than fathers. In the FGDs with the adolescent participants, grandmothers were frequently mentioned as the person who taught them about faith matters. Those who attended Catholic schools mentioned learning about God from their religion classes. According to the adolescent participants, believing in God was important as it provides them with guidance and direction in living their lives: When you have faith, you can face life without fear in what you do because you are being guided. (Risa, F, age 17, FS) For me, when you have faith, no matter how down you are, you will not be burdened by your problem, you will always be happy. (Cara, F, age 16, FS)
Children of non-migrants Variable
Children of migrants
Total
Values taught at home (% yes) Good manners 98.6 98.6 Generosity 95.7 95.6 Obedience 95.6 95.5 Industry 95.2 95.1 Faith in God 94.7 94.7 Respect for others 93.0 92.9 Patience 91.5 91.5 Thrift 90.6 90.5 Responsibility 90.8 90.7 Independence 89.2 89.2 Religion Roman Catholic 81.7 81.7 Iglesia ni Cristo 4.5 4.4 Protestant 2.0 2.1 Born Again 4.4 4.4 Islam 0.6 0.6 Other 6.6 6.7 None 0.1 0.1 Believe in God? % yes 98.6 98.6 How important is God to you? (10 /most important) 10 93.1 93.1
Children of migrants MM
FL
FS
BP
98.7 96.0 98.5 98.1 95.9 97.7 92.5 93.6 93.7 89.1
97.4 94.8 98.1 97.2 94.8 97.6 91.0 89.8 92.7 85.6
100.0 95.6 98.8 98.9 95.6 98.0 91.4 95.4 94.6 89.8
98.8 96.5 98.1 97.5 96.3 97.7 94.9 92.0 93.3 92.1
96.8 98.7 98.7 97.9 98.5 96.5 95.5 97.0 93.6 89.2
81.6 5.8 0.7 6.3 1.6 4.1 0.0
82.3 4.8 0.4 6.7 1.3 4.4 0.0
79.2 6.7 0.9 6.6 2.4 4.2 0.0
87.8 4.4 0.7 3.7 0.0 3.4 0.0
79.5 6.6 0.6 7.8 1.4 4.2 0.0
99.5
99.3
99.9
99.2
98.9
94.8
93.2
96.2
94.1
94.0
Children of migrant mothers (MM), children of migrant sea-based fathers (FS), children of migrant land-based fathers (FL), children with both migrant parents (BP) and children of non-migrants (NM).
LEFT-BEHIND CHILDREN IN THE PHILIPPINES
Downloaded by [Australian National University] at 02:44 04 May 2016
TABLE 4 Values and spiritual formation.
59
60
MARUJA M. B. ASIS Of course, it is very important to us . . . we are Catholic, all of us. Isn’t it we have a saying, ‘put God first in everything’? Without God’s blessings in the family, there won’t be a good family life. (Lito, M, age 18, FS)
Downloaded by [Australian National University] at 02:44 04 May 2016
You learn to fear God and when you have the fear of God, you will also be afraid to do things that should not be done. (Issa, F, age 19, FS)
Childrearing in the Philippines has been described as ‘gentle, permissive, indulgent and unhurried’ (Enrile-Santiago 1977, cited in Liwag et al. 1998). When children reach around six or seven years old, they may be given some light domestic chores as part of responsibility training. On the whole, the children of migrants were involved in fewer chores compared with children of non-migrants (3.63 versus 4.17) (ECMI-CBCP/AOSManila, SMC & OWWA 2004, p. 57). Table 5 summarizes the domestic tasks assigned to children *it is interesting because it provides not only comparisons between children of migrants and non-migrants but it also presents some gender differentials. The most common chore assigned to children is the cleaning of the house; heavier tasks such as washing/ironing clothes and cooking/marketing are assigned less frequently. In general, girls tended to participate more in domestic chores than boys. This also came out in the FGDs *as the girl participants had related, their brothers did not do much at home. The greater involvement of daughters in domestic chores *in both migrant and non-migrant families *also suggests that parents’ migration, especially that of mothers, does not radically change the responsibility training of young children.
The Transnational Family Life: Children’s Perspective The most common reason why Filipino migrants work abroad is to provide a better life for their families. It is in this light that the Filipino ‘penchant’ for working abroad can be understood. When Filipinos leave for abroad, the separation from their families renders migration as a sacrifice. Data from the 2003 study indicate that the children of migrants understand their parents’ migration as something that their parents had to do in order to prepare a better future for them. In the survey, most children said that they had accepted why their parents had to work abroad (60 per cent); some 37 per cent said that they had difficulty, but they understood why their parents had left, and four per cent said that their parents’ migration was against their will. Based on the survey data, the mean number of years that fathers had been working abroad was 6.62 years compared to 4.83 years for mothers. There were, however, a significant number of cases where the migrant parents had been away for an extended period of time *some children, for example, reported that their parents had been working abroad even before they were born. This was especially true for those whose fathers were seafarers. Across all groups, children rated their relationship with their parents positively. The fact that parents (especially mothers) were frequently considered as role models also reflects how parents loom large in the lives of their children. In the FGDs, some children whose parents had been working abroad for a long time said that they were already used to their situation because that was how it has always been. For some children, particularly the children of seafarers, the cycle of departure and return14 can still be painful:15
LEFT-BEHIND CHILDREN IN THE PHILIPPINES TABLE 5 Chores at home
Downloaded by [Australian National University] at 02:44 04 May 2016
Non-migrant Taking care of siblings Female 48.1 Male 49.0 Helping with siblings’ assignments Female 45.2 Male 44.1 Cleaning the house Female 92.0 Male 86.6 Cooking/marketing Female 30.3 Male 25.4 Buying certain item Female 53.9 Male 45.1 Watering the plants/taking care of animals Female 41.0 Male 49.0 Washing/ironing clothes Female 27.2 Male 13.5
Migrant
Total
56.2 29.8
48.3 48.5
43.9 30.9
45.2 43.8
89.7 84.7
91.9 86.6
22.0 17.8
30.0 25.2
45.4 45.6
53.7 45.2
38.9 40.9
40.9 48.7
23.7 9.7
27.2 13.4
I would rather that my father does not leave. When he leaves, I would rather be in school and not see him go so that I don’t have to think that he is leaving. When I get home, they would ask me, ‘Why did you not come with us?’ I would say, ‘I just don’t want to.’ I don’t like going through that. It’s like that every year. I would rather enjoy, I don’t want to think about it. (Missy, F, age 15, FS) In my case, when my father leaves, he does not want us to go with him to the airport. He said he finds it difficult to take his step when we are there. (Cara, F, age 16, FS)
In the FGDs, it became apparent that, over time, the children learned to adjust to the absence of one or both parents. Understanding why their parents had to leave was important. My mother would explain to me, ‘Your father works abroad, etc. etc. for your future. You should study well.’ [Q: What was your reaction to that explanation?] That’s it; I have to do this and that, even if it is against my will. (Aris, M, age 18, FL) . . . It was really sad. I just thought that it was for us so that we could study in good schools. My older sister finished nursing; I finished elementary, high school, college, all in Notre Dame. I realized that it [mother’s departure] was for us, for all of us. What mother would leave without any reason and leave many children behind? (Farid, M, age 20, NI) We are OK, because we know in our everyday activities, in our hearts, we know that our father is still with us. (Missy, F, age 15, FS)
In addition, regular communication and involvement in school activities and friends were mentioned as factors that helped them adjust.
61
Downloaded by [Australian National University] at 02:44 04 May 2016
62
MARUJA M. B. ASIS
The FGDs also revealed that the absence of one or both parents elicited different reactions from the participants. Many participants indicated that they would rather have both of their parents with them, especially during this period in their lives. Some of them thought that their parents can be interfering, or were always on their case, but they also said that they missed their parents’ constant reminders and ‘sermons’. Comparing themselves with their peers whose parents are with them, they sometimes felt a tinge of jealousy that their families were not complete *this feeling was heightened on special occasions like Christmas, birthdays and graduations. Honey (F, age 13, FL), for example, said: ‘You get envious of the other children because you see them, when they go out; they are a complete family, while I only have one (parent).’ Other participants, however, mentioned that there are disadvantages if both parents were around: they had to deal with two strict parents; they get scolded twice; and things could get confusing as one parent would say one thing, and the other one would say another. Regarding the question on who they would prefer migrated if one of their parents had to, the majority would prefer their fathers to leave and for their mothers to stay with them. The reasons were varied: they felt closer to their mothers; their mothers could also be fathers; and they perceived their mothers as better care-givers. In the words of the participants: But of course, a mother’s care is different, isn’t it? A mother has a different way of giving a sermon than a father [laughter]. A father speaks more harshly than a mother; the impact is more hurtful. Especially when they give a sermon, like my father, for example, we are not close . . . not like my mother who is always with me, (when she scolds me), I know and would understand, not like my father, when I do something wrong, he will just scold me. It can be hurting. (Maris, F, age 19, FS) Because, for us, we need our mother more. (Gina, F, age 16, FS) I would prefer mother to be here and would rather that my father were working abroad. It can’t be avoided, the conflict between fathers (and sons). That will happen for things like chores around the house or school, or choosing friends. He is so strict that sometimes I feel stifled. Sometimes I wish papa were not here and mama were here instead because she could understand us better. (Sam, M, age 19, MA)
Regular communication has kept families together and made possible the maintenance of family ties. Some participants felt that regular communication was sufficient, while for others, presence was the better option. The following is an excerpt from the participants’ discussion on the question: Can you say your family is complete even if one parent is not around? For me, yes, because my father calls us often. And every time he calls, he is very sweet. He always tells us that he loves us, that’s why it seems OK even if he is away. Sometimes when he is abroad, he would call every two days. There is no particular schedule, but each time they dock in one place, he would call. He would talk to us for a long time, until his load runs out. (Cara, F, age 16, FS) [Laughs] No, it is not just communication; it is really different, the touch [cries]. There is still a difference because . . . why am I crying . . . drama [crying] . . . can I have a tissue . . . it is different when he is there . . . it’s because when you call, in a call, you can only tell the good things, right? It is frustrating, you do not see the facial expression,
LEFT-BEHIND CHILDREN IN THE PHILIPPINES so it’s really different [crying]... it’s really different if from the time that you were small and he is working here. Your ways are different; when he comes home and you’re already grown up, you are no longer close. . . (Maris, F, age 19, FS)
Downloaded by [Australian National University] at 02:44 04 May 2016
Children as Actors In this section, I explore the idea that children may have some part in determining migration outcomes than previously acknowledged. What are some indications pointing to children’s agency? The assumption about children not knowing much about what is going on around them is not supported by the findings of the 2003 study. The children had their own views and had a stance about their parents’ migration. This was further elaborated in the FGDs where participants expressed a range of pros, cons and ambivalences about their parents’ migration (with the caveat that the FGD participants were an older group compared with the survey respondents). The finding that the children’s well-being was not seriously undermined by the absence of one or two parents suggests the family’s capacity to adjust to the displacing impacts of migration. Much of the credit goes to the left-behind parent or care-giver and the extended family, who fill the void left by the migrant. Children can also play a role in promoting their well-being during their parents’ absence. Children across the age range reported that when they encountered problems with family members, school-related matters or boy girl relationships (in the case of the older children) they fashioned ways of coping. Many sought out family members, teachers, friends and classmates to discuss their situation; some said that they resolved the problems by themselves; and some said that they resorted to prayer or placed their problems in God’s hands. In the FGDs, some of the older participants shared that in consideration of their migrant parents’ situation abroad, they did not share their problems with them. Some of the younger children in the survey also indicated that they did not present or share their problems with their migrant parents for various reasons: for fear of being reprimanded, because they were far away, or in order not to burden their parents. Children are also part of the family enterprise that tries to keep the family together at a time of migration. The tasks assigned to children at home may be part of responsibility training, but they are also concrete contributions to ‘home work’ and ‘care work’. It is interesting to re-visit, for example, the data on the chores undertaken by young children. Particularly among girls, close to about half reported being involved in taking care of younger siblings; girls were also quite involved in helping their siblings with school work. In the FGDs with the adolescents, some of them reported that they were responsible for their younger siblings. More possibilities for communication with migrant parents may enhance children’s agency as they relate with their migrant parents. Although the absence of their parents ushers in emotional displacement from the viewpoint of the adolescent children, it also provides a breather from otherwise over-whelming parental control. The experiences of left-behind children suggest that they cannot be neatly categorized as either positive or negative. Taking the children’s perspective, we get a glimpse of how children make sense of the challenges and opportunities presented by their parents’ migration and how they grow from the experience.
63
64
MARUJA M. B. ASIS
NOTES 1.
2.
Downloaded by [Australian National University] at 02:44 04 May 2016
3.
4.
5. 6.
7. 8.
9.
10.
This restriction applies only to less skilled migrant workers. Highly skilled and professional migrants are extended special privileges, such as permanent residence and family reunification. This refers to family life resulting from the expanding realm of family and work under conditions of globalization (Jastram 2003). One example is this recent commentary: ‘Elias [a character in Jose Rizal’s novel, Noli Me Tangere ] is the prevailing antithesis of the prevailing mind-set today, which is to leave and desert the country at the first opportunity to do so. To take the easy way out and never to bother about those who will be left behind. Those who think a sense of country is for fools and a deep sense of country is only for the desperate’ (Ronquillo 2005). According to Section 12, Article III (Declaration of Principles and State Policies) of the 1987 Constitution, part of state policies provides that: ‘The State recognizes the sanctity of family life and shall protect and strengthen the family as a basic autonomous social institution. It shall equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception. The natural and primary right and duty of parents in the rearing of the youth for civic efficiency and the development of moral character shall receive the support of the Government.’ Also available online at http://www.smc.org.ph/heartsapart.index.html In his study of the left-behind wives, elderly and children in China, Xiang (2005) raises the issue of institutional factors in explaining the conditions of the left-behind population. In general, he found that their situation is not much worse when compared to the situation of the family of non-migrants. He argues that the major factor is the rural-urban divide rather than migration. In the case of left-behind children, for example, studies that compare the children of migrants and of non-migrants do not show significant differences in school attendance and academic performance between these two groups. More significant differences have been noted between rural children and urban children in terms of psychological and behavioural problems, with the former registering more problems (Xiang 2005, p. 28). Another term is pamilya , which is a Filipinized version of the Spanish term, familia . In the absence of readily available data on the migrant status of the children’s parents, the study had to invest in the construction of a sampling frame, which involved listing Grades 4 6 students in a sampled school, and classifying the students according to the migration status of one or both parents. A series of screening questions was administered prior to the interview to validate the information gathered during the pre-survey screening. Children who were initially classified as children of migrants, but whose parents were working abroad for less than a year, were not interviewed and were replaced by respondents who met the criteria. In our FGD with care-givers (i.e. aunts and grandparents who look after the children of migrants), we observe an outpouring of love and sympathy for the children left behind by migrants. Xiang’s (2005) comment on institutional factors may also provide some explanation as to why children of migrant mothers are more disadvantaged compared to other groups of migrants. Migrant women in domestic work may not have easy access to communication than other workers. Also, the destination may be a factor, e.g. a domestic worker in Italy is likely to have more access to communication than a domestic worker in Saudi Arabia.
LEFT-BEHIND CHILDREN IN THE PHILIPPINES
11.
Downloaded by [Australian National University] at 02:44 04 May 2016
12.
13.
14.
15.
The work conditions of migrant mothers may not promote access to communication, one of the key factors in maintaining family ties, particularly mother child relationships. The names are fictitious. The notations are as follows: M or F means male or female; MA, mother absent; FL, father absent, land-based; FS, father absent, seafarer; FA, father absent, not known whether FL or FS; BP, both parents are migrants; NM, both parents are non-migrants. NI means no information on the parents’ migration status. A survey of 2000 households by a market research company, A.C. Nielsen, estimated that about seven per cent of households in the Philippines are run by househusbands, most of whom belong to the C-D-E classes (or lower socio-economic classes). Some 45 per cent are househusbands by force of circumstances, such as not being able to find jobs and thus, having to tend to the home while their wives worked outside the home; some 41 per cent are those who willingly perform the role of homemakers; another seven per cent were termed as ‘consummate hubbies’, i.e. men ‘who have a lofty standard of running the household and implementing their own style of management’ (Malaya 2005 ). I thank Chee Heng Leng for her observation that ‘Migration may create the conditions for change, but while this may be necessary, they may be insufficient for gender roles and relations to change in the direction of gender equality.’ Seafarers’ contracts typically have a 10-month assignment and two months’ vacation. During their vacations, seafarers’ time with their families are cut short because they have to attend training and refresher courses. Some participants, both male and female, also shared that they have become used to the situation to the extent that even if they sent messages by ‘text’ (the expression in the Philippines for sending SMS is ‘texting’) to their fathers, they would not get a reply.
REFERENCES AGUILING-DALISAY, G.
(1983) Fathers as Parents: An Exploratory Study , MA thesis, University of the
Philippines. (2001) Filipino Children Under Stress: Family Dynamics and Therapy , 5th edn, Ateneo de Manila University Press, Quezon City, Philippines. ASIS, M. M. B. (1995) ‘Overseas employment and social transformation in source communities: findings from the Philippines’, Asian and Pacific Migration Journal , vol. 4, no. 2 3, pp. 327 346. ASIS, M. M. B. (2001) ‘The return migration of Filipino women migrants: home, but not for good’, in Female Labour Migration in South-East Asia: Change and Continuity , eds C. Wille & B. Passl , Asian Research Centre for Migration, Bangkok, pp. 23 93. ASIS, M. M. B., HUANG, S. & YEOH, B. (2004) ‘When the light of the home is abroad: unskilled female migration and the Filipino family’, Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography , vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 198 215. BASAS-CONCEPCION, S. (1998) Structures and Processes of Families in a Labor Exporting Community , PhD Dissertation, University of the Philippines, Philippines. BATTISTELLA, G. & CONACO, M. C. G. (1996) Impact of Labor Migration on the Children Left Behind , Research report submitted to the National Secretariat for Social Action, Justice and Peace, Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines, Scalabrini Migration Center, Quezon City, Philippines. ARELLANO-CARANDANG, M. L.
65
66
MARUJA M. B. ASIS & CONACO, M. C. G. (1998) ‘The impact of labour migration on the children left behind: a study of elementary school children in the Philippines’, Sojourn , vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 220 241. CRUZ, V. (1987) Seasonal Orphans and Solo Parents: The Impact of Overseas Migration , Scalabrini Migration Center, Quezon City, Philippines. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH (n.d.) Baseline Surveys for the National Objectives for Health: Philippines 2000, Vol. 1 , Department of Health, Manila, Philippines. BATTISTELLA, G.
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 , ECMI-CBCP/AOS-Manila, SMC and OWWA, Manila, Philippines. JASTRAM, K. (2003) ‘Family unity: the new geography of family life’, Migration Information Source , 1 May, [Online] Available at: http://www.migrationinformation.org/Feature/ display.cfm?ID /118 (accessed 27 Feb. 2004). LIWAG, E. M., DELA CRUZ, A. S. & MACAPAGAL, M. E. J. (1998) ‘How we raise our daughters and sons: child rearing and gender socialization in the Philippines’, Philippine Journal of Psychology , vol. 31, pp. 1 46. MALAYA (2005), ‘Househusbands by force and choice’, 15 June, p. B9. MOJICA, M. B. (1998) Kapag Wala ang Ina: Pagharap sa Pagiging Ina: Pakikipagkuwentuhan sa mga Ama ng Magallanes, Cavite [When the Mother is Out: Dealing with Motherhood: Interviews with Fathers in Magallanes, Cavite], MA Thesis, University of the Philippines. ONG, M. (2001) The Role of the Family in Philippine Society and in the Protection of Children’s Rights , [Online] Available at: http://www.childprotection.org.ph/monthlyfeatures/ archives/jun2k1b.html (accessed 20 Feb. 2005). PARREN˜AS, R. (2001) Servants of Globalization: Women, Migration and Domestic Work , Stanford University Press, Palo Alto, CA. PARREN˜AS, R. (2002) ‘The care crisis in the Philippines: children and transnational families in the new global economy’, in Global Woman: Nannies, Maids and Sex Workers in the New Economy , eds B. Ehrenreich & A. R. Hochschild , Metropolitan Books, Henry Holt & Company, LLC, New York, pp. 39 54. PARREN˜AS, R. (2005) Children of Global Migration: Transnational Families and Gendered Woes , Stanford University Press, Palo Alto, CA. PHILIPPINE OVERSEAS EMPLOYMENT ADMINISTRATION (POEA) (2005) ‘Stock of Overseas Filipinos as of December 2004’, [Online] Available at: http://www.poea.gov.ph/docs/STOCK%20 ESTIMATE%202004.xls (accessed 1 Oct. 2005). PINGOL, A. T. (2003) Remaking Masculinities: Identity, Power and Gender Dynamics in Families with Migrant Wives and Househusbands , University of the Philippines Center for Women’s Studies, Quezon City, Philippines. RONQUILLO, M. V. (2005) ‘Of Dr. Rizal, loving and leaving’, The Manila Times , 2 Jan., [Online] Available at: http://manilatimes.net/national/2005/jan02/yehey/opinion/20050102opi3. html (accessed 3 Feb. 2005). SYCIP, L., ASIS, M. M. B. & LUNA, E. (2000) The Measurement of Filipino Well-being , University of the Philippines Center for Integrative Studies, Quezon City, Philippines. UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES (UP), TEL AVIV UNIVERSITY & KAIBIGAN (2002) The Study on the Consequences of International Contract Labor Migration of Filipino Parents on Their Children , Final Scientific Report to the Netherlands-Israel Development Research Programme.
Downloaded by [Australian National University] at 02:44 04 May 2016
(ECMI-CBCP/AOS-MANILA, SMC AND OWWA)
LEFT-BEHIND CHILDREN IN THE PHILIPPINES VALENZUELA, A., JR.
(1999) ‘Gender roles and settlement activities among children and their immigrant families’, American Behavioral Scientist , vol. 42, no. 4, pp. 720 743. XIANG BIAO (2005) ‘How far are the left-behind left behind?’, Working Paper No. 12, Centre on Migration, Policy and Society, University of Oxford, [Online] Available at: http:// www.compass.ox.ac.uk/publications/papers/Xiang%20Biao%20WP0512.pdf (accessed 4 Sept. 2005).
Downloaded by [Australian National University] at 02:44 04 May 2016
Maruja M. B. Asis, Scalabrini Migration Center, PO Box 10541, Broadway Centrum, 1113 Quezon City, The Philippines. E-mail: marla@smc.org.ph
67