temporary migration and changing family dynamics: implications for social development

Temporary Migration and Changing Family Dynamics: Implications for Social DevelopmentMd Mizanur Rahman*Department of Sociology, Sociology, National University of Singapore, Singapore

for instance denying the rights of family unifi ca-tion, long-term residence and settlement. As a result, the common pattern for migrant families is to live under ‘transnationally split’ conditions where non-migrating family members are ‘left behind’ (Yeoh et al., 2002; Piper 2006). Such migra-tion has its own dynamics and often turns out to be less temporary as many migrants extend their contracts a number of times and/or re-migrate upon return at regular intervals. The repeated interactions with fellow workers at the destina-tion country and, on return, with family members and other villagers in the origin country consti-tute signifi cant social interactions which are a potential source for change (Abril and Rogaly, 2001). This phenomenon can be broadly con ceptualised within a ‘social development’ framework.

The relationship between international migra-tion and economic development in the migrant origin country has been traditionally explained from two contrasting theoretical approaches: the convergence point of view and the divergence point of view (Papademetriou and Martin, 1991; Appleyard, 1992a; Battistella, 1992; Fischer et al., 1997; Sørensen, 2004; Cohen, 2005; Faist, 2008). The convergence school, rooted in neo-liberal economic theory, states that sending areas obtain major benefi ts from out-migration for their devel-opment process (Hermele, 1997). This approach primarily posits that emigration leads to an improvement in ‘resource availability’ and ‘income distribution’ in origin areas (Spaan et al., 2005). On the other hand, the divergence school argues that out-migration hinders development of the sending regions because it perpetuates a state of economic dependency that undermines prospects for development (Hermele, 1997).

Apart from these two perspectives, there also exists a third approach referred to as the ‘time

POPULATION, SPACE AND PLACEPopul. Space Place 15, 161–174 (2009)Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com) DOI: 10.1002/psp.537

Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

ABSTRACT

Drawing upon longitudinal data, this research documents the relationship between migration and development by highlighting the conditions which promote changes in social and familial relations, social positioning, and intergenerational relationships within the families who experience temporary out-migration and the return of at least one male member. The fi eldwork data (based on two surveys) derive from research conducted on Bangladeshi temporary migrants in Singapore and in an ‘origin’ village in Bangladesh in 2001 and 2006. The study reports that male labour migration has contributed to social changes in their own families and villages over time that are most likely to stimulate, in turn, macro-changes in Bangladeshi society in the long run. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Received 4 November 2007; revised 9 July 2008; accepted 15 July 2008

Keywords: temporary migration; labour migration; social development; family relations; social mobility; family dynamics; Bangladesh; Singapore

INTRODUCTION

In Asia, temporary contract migration is a pre-dominant type of international migration, typically regulated by strict control measures,

* Correspondence to: Md Mizanur Rahman, Department of Sociology, Sociology, National University of Singapore, Singapore. E-mail: [email protected]

162 M. M. Rahman

Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Popul. Space Place 15, 161–174 (2009) DOI: 10.1002/psp

perspective’. According to this perspective, in the short term, negative factors dominate the impact of migration, while in the long term positive factors come to stimulate development (Russel et al., 1990; Appleyard, 1992b; Hermele, 1997). In methodological and empirical terms, there is a clear lack of studies with a longer-term perspec-tive and longitudinal research on the migration–development nexus, not only in a distinctly Asian labour migration context but also in the global South at large. Most existing studies on labour migration have not looked adequately at devel-opment as a long-term social process; therefore they tend to give a snap-shot glimpse without considering processual changes over time at the same locality. Different types of migration have different impacts on the process of development in sending countries, and therefore should be examined in a disaggregated manner in order to understand the role that each specifi c type of migration actually plays in the process of development.

My study is informed by both the convergence model and the time perspective. This paper argues in favour of the convergence school on the grounds that migration produces benefi ts for both migrants and their families left behind in a substantial way. However, some of the benefi ts are not immediately tangible; they surface over time, for example as investment in human capital, the ‘upward social mobility’ outcome of migra-tion, or changing gender relations. Therefore, this study also espouses the time perspective. So far, pioneers of the time perspective have mainly documented the economic development potential of migration by focusing on ‘remittances, skill acquisition and higher agricultural productivity in the long run’ (cited in Hermele, 1997: 140). My research concentrates on the social development impact of migration by highlighting social, cultural and political along with economic implications of migration in the longer run.

This study attempts to advance the migration–development debate by focusing on the role of migration in social development at the family level. More specifi cally, by drawing upon longi-tudinal data, this research documents the rela-tionships between migration and development by showing how migration and resultant remit-tances1 create conditions that promote upward social mobility as well as changes in intergenera-tional and broader social relations. In doing so, it

builds upon existing studies of migration which have shown that any assessment of the impact of out-migration on sending communities cannot be understood outside of the context of the family in the non-Western context (Asis, 1995; Hugo, 2003; Wong et al., 2003). Asis (2003: 105) main-tained that the migration of individuals in the developing world is part and parcel of family strategies for survival or mobility. Yeoh et al. (2002) also highlighted that the principle of ‘for the sake of the family’ is clearly embedded in the Asian migration process.

The existing literature on the impact of migra-tion on the family is fairly robust (Islam, 1991; Gunatilleke, 1992; Foster, 1995; Zlotnik, 1995; Erman, 1998; Zachariah et al., 2001; Gamburd, 2002; Hugo, 2002; Asis, 2003; Pfl egerl et al., 2003; Emilio et al., 2005; Rahman, 2000). To broadly summarise some signifi cant implications of migration for families, the following observations have been made: moderate changes in headships and gender roles within families; a vehicle for upward social mobility; families adjust well in the absence of male or female migrants; improved education, healthcare and quality of life for migrant families; the women left behind take on the roles previously assumed by the men; left-behind children learn to be more independent in the migration process; and so on. We also fi nd negative implications like misuse of remittances, broken families, and lack of parenting for chil-dren. These studies increase our understanding about the impact of migration on families. What these studies rarely do is approach this subject matter from a social development perspective.

This paper goes beyond the typical works on ‘impacts on families’ that have so far focused mostly on children and left-behind wives. I look at temporary labour migration of male members of families who may or may not be married, and thus I investigate the impact of migration on changes within broader familial relations beyond spousal relations, as well as changes within the practice of family formation. From this, the fol-lowing issues arise: (1) impact of this migration on returning migrants’ relationships with their families (wives, fathers); (2) impact of migration on the social relations within a village, that is inside and outside of the immediate families; (3) impact of migration on the upward social mobil-ity of immediate family members; (4) impact of migration in terms of changing power relations

Temporary Migration and Family Dynamics 163


in which parents benefi t from their son’s migra-tion, for example in terms of socio-political lever-age (status claim, insertion into local politics), and at the same time lose power over their sons, such as in terms of choosing the bride or control-ling the remittances. These issues are looked at from a processual perspective in the case of tem-porary migration from Bangladesh to Singapore, on the basis of two surveys conducted over fi ve years (see below).

BANGLADESHI MIGRATION TO SINGAPORE – THE EMPIRICAL SURVEY DATA

To benefi t from the increasing migration of workers and subsequent remittances, some less developed countries have pursued policies and diplomatic efforts to take advantage of the regional labour market. Bangladesh is not running behind in this race. According to available data, the total cumulative fi gure for Bangladeshi documented migrants overseas until 2007 was approximately 4.5 million, and for East and Southeast Asia alone, it was roughly half a million.2 On average, around 200,000 Bangladeshis annually migrated overseas for temporary employment in the 1990s (Lian and Rahman, 2006). In turn, remittances have been a major source of foreign currency earnings. According to offi cial data, Bangladesh received around US$41 billion as remittances between 1976 and 2006.3 Remittances thus exceed the net earnings of the garment industry, the highest foreign exchange generator and leading source of employment in Bangladesh, which amounts to more than US$3.5 billion per year in recent years (Ullah and Panday, 2007).

Singapore has devised a sophisticated foreign manpower policy based on a ‘demand-driven system’ to allow for regular circulation of foreign labour (see Rahman, 2008). There were around 1,005,500 non-resident foreigners in Singapore in 2007 (Business Times, Singapore, 5 February 2008, ‘Singapore population hits 4.6 million’). Singapore’s foreign labour management relies upon immigration regulations in the form of work passes (see Teo and Piper, this volume, for details). This framework provides longer-term employment opportunities for temporary migrant workers by allowing the extension of contracts with corresponding economic rewards and regular visits ‘home’ for the migrant workers. As

a result, Singapore is a sought-after destination for Bangladeshi low-skilled migrant workers (Rahman, 2004b). Presently, there are estimated to be as many as 50,000 Bangladeshi migrant workers in Singapore, and almost all of them are male (Rahman and Lian, 2005). Reasons for dominance of male migration are specifi c labour demands at the destination, and restrictive poli-cies on single female labour migration by the Bangladesh government based on cultural norms (Dannecker, 2005).

Bangladeshi labour migration is a ‘location-specifi c phenomenon’4 in the sense that most of the Bangladeshi migrants in Singapore hail from some selected districts in Bangladesh (Rahman, 2004a). Again, there are some villages in these districts from which most of the migrants origi-nated. I selected such a village, namely Gurail, in Tangail district. Like most villages in Bangladesh, Gurail presents a picture of serenity, a portrait of tranquillity. But the appearance of unparalleled natural beauty hides the hard reality of its politi-cal economy. Paradoxically, nature is at the same time both bountiful and punishing. During the rainy season, most arable land in this village is under water, and most villagers become unem-ployed for a period of almost three to four months. Most villagers’ livelihood hinges primarily on agricultural activities for their yearly income (Table 1). Generally speaking, despite rich soil, ideal growing conditions and potential and abun-dant supply of labour, agricultural yields in Bangladesh are amongst the lowest in the world (Karim, 1992: 112). Given the socioeconomic situation in the village, it is safe to assume that villagers are left with hardly any option to make economic progress except by international migration.

Gurail is home to a few hundred Singapore-destined migrants. To understand how migration developed in a remote village like Gurail, we need to explore the history of migration in Gurail. Emigration from Gurail changed from a trickle to a fl ood after a few men migrated to Singapore in the late 1990s. The fi rst few migrants returned and on subsequent trips initiated others into the migration process. Every new migrant created a new connection to Singapore. For example, through in-depth interviews of 12 pioneer migrant workers in Singapore in 2001, I found that these 12 pioneers assisted 101 migrants by providing both fi nancial support and

164 M. M. Rahman


information, and 182 migrants by providing either fi nancial support or information (Rahman, 2004b).

The Two Surveys

I fi rst carried out ethnographic fi eldwork in this village for my PhD dissertation in 2001. During this survey in 2001, I met many returnees who

came back after working in Singapore for one to two years. I then decided to interview them to examine the impact of migration on their fami-lies. For this purpose, I conducted a question-naire survey among 50 returnees who had worked in Singapore for a period of two years or less than two years (but above six months). The question-naire contained both structured and unstructured questions and produced a rich data-set. In order

Table 1. Socio-economic characteristics of migrant families, Gurail, surveys of 2001 and 2006 (n = 50).

Socio-economic attributes of migrant families

2001 (%)

2006 (%)

Socio-economic attributes of migrant families

2001 (%)

2006 (%)

1.1. Person interviewed 1.8. Earning members (family) Returnees 92 0 One member 50 18 Wives 0 84 Two members 12 6 Other members 8 14 Three to four members 6 0 Missing data 0 2 No local earning member 32 72

Missing data 0 41.2. Age structure of migrants Below 20 14 1.9. Economic activities 21 to 25 48 Self-employed of families 64 24 26 to 30 24 Wage-employed 4 0 31 to 35 10 No local work 32 72 Above 35 4 Missing data 0 4

1.3. Types of family 1.10. Families’ cultivable lands Nuclear 30 68 Before migration Extended 70 32 No land 14 16

Below 50 decimal 24 241.4. Marital status 51 to 100 decimal 22 20 Married 32 86 101 to 150 decimal 18 18 Unmarried 68 14 151 to 200 decimal 16 14

Above 201 6 61.5. Religion Missing data 0 2 Islam 94 94 After migration Hindu 6 6 No land 42 14

Below 50 decimal 12 241.6. Education level of migrants 51 to 100 decimal 24 26 Primary (5 yrs) 38 – 101 to 150 decimal 16 20 Secondary (5–10 yrs) 44 – Above 151 decimal 6 12 Higher secondary (10 + 2 yrs) 6 – Missing data 2 4 Graduate (12 + 2 yrs) 6 – Illiterate (cannot read/write) 6 – 1.11. Outcome of migration

Positive 8 941.7. Occupation of migrants(prior to migration) Negative 90 4 Self-employed 60 No comment 2 2 Wage-employed 4 Unemployed 14 1.12. Role in family sustenance Student 20 Primary role 86 56 Returnee (overseas) 2 Secondary role 8 32

No role 4 12 Missing data 2 0



to investigate the impact of migration over time, I carried out a second questionnaire survey con-sisting of both structured and unstructured ques-tions in the same village in September–October 2006. I interviewed 50 selected migrant families with one migrant worker who had been in Singapore for at least fi ve years. During the second survey, I observed that most of the migrants who were unmarried in 2001 had married and formed a family, usually with one or two children. In the second survey, therefore, I mostly interviewed wives of migrants left behind and, in cases of unmarried migrant workers, their parents.

This is a quasi-panel design, with about 60% overlap. Additionally, I conducted some in-depth and small focus group interviews with returnees, wives of migrants, parents of migrants, and some community members including local political elites and mosque Imams (religious elites) to explore the dynamics of migration outcomes. However, I could not include non-migrant families in my surveys because there were few non-migrant families in this village. Besides, the boundary between migrant and non-migrant families is complicated, especially in the bari setting – the complexity of households inhabited by a number of families which share the same courtyard and whose male heads are usually patrilineally related to each other.5 I have men-tioned elsewhere that, in an attempt to select non-migrant families in 2001, I found fi ve non-migrant families (Rahman, 2003). Of them, two families had no male members (one family had 5 daugh-ters); one had one under-age male member and the remaining two families were too poor to arrange the fi nancial cost of migration to Singapore. Although I do not have a control group (that is, non-migrant families) to make a useful comparison in some respects, given the socioeconomic situation in Gurail and the type of arguments I attempt to advance in this paper, especially (social) development implications for the migrant-sending families and communities over time, I believe such data limitations will not signifi cantly infl uence my analysis.

I use migrant families’ responses to questions about quality of life, income and wedding oppor-tunities over time as indicators of change in their social positioning. I enquired about uses and management of remittances to capture changing family dynamics over time. Thus, the data were

collected through a combination of different research methods: questionnaire survey, small focus group interviews, and participant observa-tion. In total, these data provide good ground for getting a sense of the processual changes over time. However, I would like to acknowledge the fact that the duration of fi eldwork was limited due to fi nancial and time constraints. The follow-ing section compares and contrasts some basic socio-demographic characteristics of migrant families based on the data collected during the 2001 and 2006 surveys in Gurail.

The 2001 Survey Results6

Refl ecting the fact that Bangladesh is predomi-nantly a Muslim country, 94% of the respondents were Muslims and 6% Hindus (Table 1). As most migrant worker-receiving countries prefer younger foreign workers, it is not surprising that 62% of migrants were below 25 years of age. A large number of migrants were also unmarried (68%). Migrants tended to be fairly or compara-tively (vs non-migrants) well-educated; 94% were literate compared with the 59% adult literacy rate in Bangladesh.7 Regarding their occupational pursuits before migration, the majority of the migrants, 64%, were earning their livelihood by means of self-employment. By ‘self-employment’, I refer to working in farming, informal economic activities or traditional arts (household industries such as weaving and pottery).

In the rural setting, families are keen to empha-sise their status as ‘self-employed’ because local cultural notions of work associate waged employ-ment with inferior status. Prior to the migration of a family member, 14% of families had no cul-tivatable land8 and 20% had 151–400 decimal land. A family of 6 to 8 members usually requires approximately 400–500 decimal arable land for subsistence living in this area.9 Eighty-six per cent of the families relied primarily on remit-tances for family maintenance. The 2001 survey documents a sobering picture. Only 8% reported positive outcomes. Many of these migrants were affected by the regional fi nancial crisis that swept across East and Southeast Asia in 1997–1998 (Rahman, 2003: 88–120).

The 2006 Survey Results

Migrants who undertook remigration after the fi rst survey, or who migrated for the fi rst time in

166 M. M. Rahman


the interim between the two surveys, benefi ted in various ways from the earlier migration expe-rience. I found that many more people were involved in the migration process in 2006 than in 2001 in terms of number of migrants and length of stay in Singapore. The number of migrant families with more than one son in Singapore was higher in 2006 than in 2001. Around 64% of the surveyed families had one member working in Singapore for 5 to 7 years and 34% had one member working in Singapore for 7 to 9 years. About 56% and 32% of the migrant families were dependent on remittances for primary and sec-ondary living expenses respectively, which is a sharp decline from the fi ndings (86% and 8% respectively) of the 2001 survey (Table 1).

This decline in dependency on remittances suggests that migrant families may depend upon remittances exclusively in the early phase of migration because the family’s fi nancial resources were usually being used to fi nance the migration of a member. Later they tend to depend upon local incomes to maintain the families. This ten-dency in using local incomes for family mainte-nance demands attention because it suggests that families tend to show less dependence on remit-tances over time, as opposed to the situation described as ‘dangerous dependency’ or ‘addic-tion’ in the divergence school (see Wiest, 1979; Reichert, 1981). In terms of absolute land-holding pattern before and after migration, I found a slight increase in land holding. With regard to the overall impact of migration, 94% reported a posi-tive impact in the 2006 survey, a rise from 8% in the 2001 survey.

CHANGING SOCIAL AND FAMILIAL RELATIONS

Temporary labour migration induces many-fold processes in social relationships among the family members left behind. The existing literature has broadly identifi ed two domains wherein most obvious changes in social and familial relations are noticed: division of labour between women and men, and women’s participation in decision-making (see Hugo, 2002; Asis, 2003; Pfl egerl et al., 2003; Kaspar, 2004). The data from my two surveys indicate broader changes in institutional patterns of ‘the family’ (intra-familial) as well as changing social positioning of family members vis-à-vis the origin community (inter-familial) as

the result of economic betterment due to mone-tary remittances. In order to assess the impact of migration on intra-familial relations, it is impor-tant to distinguish nuclear families from extended families. By nuclear family, I refer to a family consisting of the migrant husband (at home or away) and his wife (with or without children). In some cases, one or more individuals (usually in-laws) may reside with them on occasions. An extended family consists of the migrant couple (with or without their children), parents and other members (in-laws). They may live in one or more houses and have a common hearth.

Changing Family Patterns

In the 2001 survey, 32% of the migrants were married and 30% of the migrants lived in nuclear families; in other words, the majority of the migrants were unmarried and lived in extended families. In my 2006 sample, 86% of the male migrants were married and 68% of the migrant families were living in nuclear families. Like many other factors contributing to the rise of the nuclear family, such as poverty, landlessness and fertility (Adnan, 1993; Kabeer, 1994; Amin, 1998), international migration perhaps also promotes nucleation of families in rural Bangladesh. This might be because migration generates remit-tances that allow many migrant sons and wives to lead a more autonomous lifestyle, and thus escape patriarchal control over the distribution of remittances and the upbringing of their children.

With the formation of nuclear families, con-comitant changes can be expected to occur in family headship, receipt and control of remit-tances, decision-making, and division of labour. The data show that 72% of the migrant families were headed by wives of the migrants left behind. Interestingly, migrants’ wives were also found to occupy the position of family head in extended families, although this varied depending on age of wives, number of children, and other personal attributes of wives of migrants. One way to explore intra-family relations is by documenting the extent of control that men and women have over family resources. Seventy-eight per cent of the wives of migrants were the principal recipi-ents of the remittances. With regard to the control over uses of remittances, 72% of the wives left behind enjoyed exclusive privileges over the uses



of remittances (Table 2). In both nuclear and extended households, a mixed type of receipt and control of remittances was found.

A gender division of labour is clearly present in Gurail: household chores and childcare are exclusively carried out by women, while outside activities, for example economic and social activi-ties, are largely performed and maintained by male members. In addition, there are some specifi c tasks within the family that are often performed by both parties, such as livestock and traditional family businesses like weaving, although women often take on heavier and com-plicated tasks, for example storing rice straw, traditional rice-processing activities, managing vegetation around the home area, preparing of cow-dung cake, calf-rearing, and cleaning of cowsheds. Most wives assumed the tasks for-merly carried out by their husbands in the case of the nuclear family.

Wives of migrants, especially those who are family heads, are loaded with extra work. This is because in addition to practically replacing her husband in all his roles inside and outside the home, the wife also had to fulfi ll her ‘normal’ tasks. Sometimes, wives of migrants accept the help of other women in the village usually in exchange for non-monetary payments, such as food, clothes, or other trivial things. Most of the wives interviewed did not view their workload as negative, and conveyed a feeling of being successful de facto family heads, even though their husbands remained formal household heads. Being recipients and administrators of

remittances, most wives of migrants had a clear role in family decision-making. Eighty-two per cent of married migrants’ wives reported having a primary role in family decision-making. The remaining 16% who had a more limited role were mostly newly-wed wives living in extended fam-ilies. Therefore, women’s increasing power seems mainly in the case of nuclear families. This also explains the different fi ndings in my study as opposed to other studies on the impact of male out-migration on women left behind.10

This study is limited to the analysis of migrant families. As a result, it is not possible to compare and contrast the data with non-migrant families to ascertain the changes in women’s position within the family. However, given the access to remittances and authority over management of remittances, it is understandable that wives of migrants enjoy considerable leverage in the divi-sion of labour and decision-making in their own families over and above their non-migrant coun-terparts. As I discuss below, the access to foreign labour markets or migration should be equated not only with remittances, but also with ‘migra-tion-specifi c social capital’ or ‘migration capital’ that wives of migrants and other members of migrant families possess over non-migrant fami-lies. The key characteristic of ‘migration capital’ is its convertibility – it may be translated into other forms of capital (Faist, 2000). The access to, and convertibility of, migration capital particu-larly provides migrant families with the op -portunity to expand social relations beyond traditional boundaries, especially with those who

Table 2. Migration and family dynamics, Gurail, 2006 (n = 50).

% %

Marital status of migrants (overseas) Control over remittances Married 86 Wives 72 Unmarried 14 Male heads 22 Divorced 0 Mixed 46Types of family Recipients of remittances Nuclear 68 Wives (principal) 78 Extended 32 Male heads of family (principal) 22Heads of the family 72 Mixed recipients 48 Migrants’ wives 28 Role in family decision-making (wives of migrants) (n = 43)Senior male members Yes (overwhelming) 82

No 16 Missing data 2

168 M. M. Rahman


aspire to enter the Singapore labour market, con-tributing to changing social and familial relations at the community level.

Outward and Upward Social Mobility

While male family members may invest remit-tances in a wide range of ventures within the village or beyond, a wife of a migrant usually encounters diffi culties in establishing contact with the world outside the home and family, due to cultural barriers. As a result, the scope of invest-ment of remittances varies by the gender of the person making the investments. In order to make lucrative investments locally without violating cultural norms of gender, most wives of migrants invest in a type of business popularly known as ‘dhadon’ in rural Bangladesh. The dhadon is a money-lending business where one lends money for profi t and the whole operation is run from one’s home, thereby requiring minimal contact with the outside world, and thus appropriate for women. Dhadon generally serves to the rural pop-ulation whose credit needs are not met or taken into consideration by the formal credit institu-tions. Theoretically, Muslims should not engage in dhadon or money-lending business. Islam pro-hibits riba – the taking of interest. In spite of reli-gious obstruction, dhadon is a commonly accepted practice in rural Bangladesh.

The inadequate institutional response to the huge unmet credit needs of the rural population has partly contributed to the rise of many well-known microcredit organisations like Grameen Bank and the Bangladesh Rural Advancement Committee (BRAC). Most microcredit organisa-tions usually offer credit to targeted groups, such as the poorest of the poor (Hashemi and Morshed, 1997), but the amount of credit is very low, demands so-called ‘group formation’ which acts as ‘social collateral’ for the recovery of such loans (see Johnson and Rogaly, 1997; Khadria, 2007), and still leaves a vast section of the status-conscious rural population out of their reach. Dhadon fi lls this gap. It operates in line with social networks. It hardly requires ‘collateral’ or so-called ‘social collateral’ but sometimes ‘individ-ual guarantors’, in which an individual instead of a group takes the responsibility of payment for default, allowing borrowers’ social standings to be unaffected at the community level. There is a huge demand for dhadon in migration source villages because an increasing number of people

seek loans to fi nance the expenses of overseas employment which range between US$3500 and US$6000 for each potential migrant (Rahman, 2004a,b). In general, potential migrants arrange the fi nancial cost of migration by selling off valu-able resources including arable land and other resources of the households, and thus leave the family with fi nancial constraints. As a result, families left-behind also require loans to fi nance their daily expenses during the early phase of their members’ migration.

Villagers take up credit from wives of migrants for a myriad of purposes, and the interest rates for borrowed money vary depending on the pur-poses of borrowing, usually up to 100% per annum. If money is borrowed for consumption purposes like food, weddings or agricultural investment, interest rates will be low; if the loan is for international migration, the interest rate will be high, in anticipation that the overseas employment will yield higher rewards for the borrower. In Gurail and many other migration-source villages, dhadon has been increasingly known as a migrants’ wives business. Interest-ingly, a good portion of borrowers are also women who often take up a loan for personal business ventures, such as small poultry fi rms, vegetable gardening and so on. This contributes not only to the empowerment of individual wives of migrants, but also to rural women in general, as women borrow from other women. On the com-munity level, this credit arrangement binds them in reciprocal relations. The social impact of dhadon is that it produces a sense of social obligation on the part of the benefi ciaries, or prospective benefi ciaries, for wives of migrants left behind, contributing to improved social and familial relationships in the migrant-sending villages.

Migration not only relates to the movement from one society to another, but it can also entail a change in social class and status (Ucok, 2006). Piore (1979) commented that migration is not just a ‘step out’, but also a ‘step up’. Migration and mobility is usually studied from the immigrant country perspective. However, recent literature suggests that migration can induce upward social mobility for migrant families in the countries of origin (Asis, 1995). In the Bangladeshi context, as early as 1981 Leen Boer reported that rural–urban migration produced a more rigid social structure, in which the opportunities for upward mobility



for the village poor increased and the risks of downward mobility for the village rich decreased (Boer, 1981: 28). Focusing on a source village in Bangladesh of migrants to London, Gardner (1995) has shown the increasing presence and importance of overseas migration in village life. As Gardner (1992, 1995) illustrated, while the ‘homeland’ in Bangladesh refers to spirituality and religiosity, the idea of ‘abroad’ is linked to material bounty and economic transformation, and local desire has become centred on work abroad as the only route to material prosperity. In my own work, I found that international migration is considered ‘a status symbol’, and migrant families envisage migration as a key strategy – in addition to marriage, education, house-building and economic prosperity – to reposition themselves in the rural social class/caste hierarchy (Rahman, 2003).

Although a male migrant worker moves over-seas as an individual, he views his trip not only for his own well-being but also for the well-being of his family and other close groups like the bari. The reputation of the bari depends upon the action, occupation and achievement of bari members. It is the moral and social responsibility of the bari members to uphold the bari tradition over the individual interests, and failures meet shame (Wood, 1994). Therefore, migration out-comes are customarily shared with the family and bari. This family orientation of migrants has far-reaching implications for social mobility beyond individual migrants. To examine the role that migration plays in social mobility, I provide data on migrant families’ status in relation to ‘quality of living’, ‘incomes’ and ‘wedding oppor-tunities’ in 2001 and 2006.11 On the whole, changes in family status over time should provide a clear picture of whether or not migration leads to upward social mobility and, if it does, what is the dominant trend (Table 3).

I employ ‘wedding opportunity’ as an indica-tor of social mobility because, in the context of rural Bangladesh, marriage is not simply a union of two individuals. It is also a merger of two baris and their broader social networks. Marriage opens up opportunities for both parties to expand and share one’s previously inaccessible resources embedded in social networks. In the rural context, migration increases the opportunity of marriage for migrant family members because of their possession of valuable migration-specifi c social

capital. The marriage ceremony is also a show-case for economic success in a rural setting. When it comes to a marriage ceremony, who can spend what amount of cash for the community feast and other cultural arrangements is always a topic of hot discussion among villagers and bride-grooms, while migration experiences, or brides who have brothers or parents or other close rela-tives overseas, are often considered to produce the most eligible partner. During the 2001 survey, migrant families reported a downward social mobility in all three indicators (Table 3). However, over time migrant families consolidated their social standing. Table 3 demonstrates that longer stays overseas have a clear bearing on upward social mobility. All migrant families in the 2006 survey reported better conditions in relation to standard of living, incomes and wedding oppor-tunities. It is thus understandable that, because of the access to foreign labour markets and result-ing migration-specifi c social capital, a number of migrant families experienced substantial upward social mobility over time.

Generational Dynamics

The effect of migration on intergenerational dynamics is a complex process: on the one hand migration provides grounds for sons to exercise their right of choice of a marriage partner, nucle-ation of family and management of remittances;

Table 3. Socio-economic position of migrant families: a comparison, 2001 and 2006 (n = 50)

2001 (%) 2006 (%)

Standard of living Better 6 88 Same 16 6 Worse off 82 4 Missing data 0 2Incomes of family Better 2 90 Same 16 6 Worse off 80 4 Missing data 2 0Wedding opportunity Better 4 64 Same 32 22 Worse off 22 4 No comment 40 6 Missing data 2 2

170 M. M. Rahman


on the other hand, in a situation ‘where landless-ness puts stress on intergenerational relations’ (Amin, 1998: 1), it opens up doors for migrant parents to claim benefi ts and privileges in the broader communities. In rural Bangladesh his-torically, the extended family was the fundamen-tal unit of social organisation as well as the unit of production, and the patriarch had exclusive rights to organise the work tasks, deploy the family’s labour, accumulate the earnings, and distribute them for family welfare (Pryer, 1992; Faraizi, 1993; Wood, 1994; Baluja, 2003). Pres-ently, parents are rarely the sole holders of eco-nomic assets or the only persons with the privilege of decision-making. Structural changes in the economy have forced members of a family to look for work outside the country, which is seen as eroding the authority of traditional senior fi gures and giving individual family members more freedom in decision-making (see also Hugo, 2003).

‘In former times, the bridegroom’s father or grandfather chose the bride he was to marry. When the grandfather was still alive he had the last word because he was the senior person in the family and everybody had to listen to him. At that time, the father paid for everything, because the money was in his hand, and he also had his son in his hand because he was living with him before and after marriage. The father decided what the son had to do. Today things have changed. Many migrants choose their bride on their own. They no longer listen to their parents. He is free because he pays the marriage expenses on his own.’ (A village man, Gurail, interviewed in 2001)

Women’s role as independent labour migrants has been well-documented (see e.g. Parker, 2005). My fi ndings shift attention to a different type of newly gained independence: that of male return migrants in the context of the patriarchal family. In the traditional context, the bridegroom’s father and other senior male family members were responsible for choosing the bride for younger male members of the family. Sons in the extended families were obliged to obey the decision imposed on them. This situation has changed over time and due to many factors, migration among them (Naved et al., 2001). The seniors’ right to choose a daughter-in-law based on their

own interests – for example, the additional input of labour power and source of cash (dowry) – has gradually been questioned because migration has given sons an economic position substan-tially independent of their traditional seniors. Possessing his own source of cash, the migrant son increasingly claims for himself the right to choose his own marriage partner. I have argued elsewhere that the younger generation’s wish to realise their own aspirations against the will of parents has always existed, and it is through migration that they have gained the economic power to have their own, independent voice (Rahman, 2003).

An often neglected but important domain of social development outcomes of migration for families is the privileges that the parents and senior male relatives (usually uncles) of migrants enjoy in the social and political domains of many migration-source villages. Migration outcomes permeate throughout the village’s social struc-ture, affecting the traditional power structure. Many social committees at the local level that were previously dominated and headed by tradi-tional leaders have experienced a change of lead-ership, challenging traditional power relations. In 2006, three major committees – one mosque (brick-built), one primary school and one maddrassa (religious school) committee – were headed by migrant parents and fi rst uncles. What is interesting is that all these parents and fi rst uncles of migrants assumed the headships of these committees after successful migration inci-dences in their family between 2001 and 2006.

In the political life of Gurailians, migrant parents and uncles are found increasingly infl u-ential. Many of them were actively involved in political mobilisation in the 2003 Union Parishad election (usually one chairman and nine ward members from each Union Parishad are elected). They campaigned for their own candidates in this election. Informants composed of non-migrant family members, migrant parents and ward member candidates often conveyed the impression that it was virtually impossible to win in the Union Parishad election without the active support from migrant-sending families in the village. This is because migrant-sending families not only possess ‘migration capital’ necessary to infl uence villagers’ voting behaviour, but also hold cash to spend in gaining support for the



concerned candidate. Political support of the migrant families also adds weight to the polling decision-making of non-migrant families who are often tied by credit relations and the prospect of overseas (Singapore) migration because of migrant families’ access to migration networks, a valuable source for insertion into foreign labour markets in rural Bangladesh.

In addition, a community sentiment based on the common migration experience to a specifi c destination (Singapore) has also been found among the migrant parents, returnees and migrants overseas when they were supporting a Singapore returnee, Taher, for a ward member post in the 2003 election. Taher joined politics in 1999 upon returning from Singapore almost empty-handed. His involvement in local politics is rather interesting: it fi rst started with minor logistic assistance to some prospective migrants. Subsequently, he took an interest in left-behind families and returnees by providing support and counselling. Over time, his friendliness and unreserved support for migrant families, poten-tial migrants and even returnees made him popular among the migrant families in Gurail and the Gurailian migrant community in Singapore.

CONCLUSION

This paper has addressed the migration–development nexus with specifi c emphasis on social developmental outcomes at the level of the family through a case study of a temporary labour migration source village, Gurail, in Bangladesh. The paper has shown that when the impact of migration is examined as a social process over time, a myriad of social and rela-tional changes can be observed within families and village communities. Both the migrants and their families reap certain benefi ts from the out-migration in numerous ways. The panel survey data show that although temporary in terms of policies, migration becomes a longer-term phe-nomenon due to renewed migration and also in terms of becoming a socially expected ‘thing to do’. In this way, migration has implications for broader changes within familial and social rela-tions over time. Among the many aspects of family life that have been affected by out-

migration, nucleation of the family, socially outward mobility for women, socially upward mobility, changing generational dynamics among male members of the family, the nature of mobil-isation in local politics, and sources of local polit-ical power are noteworthy.

I used the concrete example of the ‘dhadon’ as a vehicle for women’s entry into the public sphere, and as a signifi er of their socially outward mobility. This new role for left-behind women has also led to changing women-to-women rela-tionships. Older male members of a left-behind family also benefi ted from male out-migration by gaining socio-political infl uence within the village. In total, this paper has thus documented how members of the left-behind families enjoy social privileges in the origin communities. At the same time, this paper has pointed out how parents may lose power over their migrant sons in terms of not being able to choose the bride any longer. This has broader implications for the management of remittances and family affairs. It can therefore be said that temporary migration of millions of Bangladeshi men has contributed to social change in their own families and commu-nities over time – a process which will most likely in turn stimulate macro-changes in Bangladeshi society in the near future.

However, research on social development implications of labour migration in Asia is still in its infancy, and much work is required to develop an appropriate methodology. This study should be seen as an early attempt to conceptualise the impact of migration on migrant-sending families as a social process that impinges on social, politi-cal as well as economic domains of migrant fami-lies and communities. Some of the questions that I could not address in this research are suggested for future analysis. For instance, as most of the migrants are obliged to play their role as sons and brothers, it will be interesting to explore the role of migration in the rise of the educational status of migrant source villages. It will also be interesting to examine the involvement of migrant families in the local political process, to investi-gate the participation of wives of migrants in economic activities beyond rural areas, to scruti-nise intra-family tensions over the control of remittances, and to see whether international migration generates rural–urban migration for better education, healthcare and other facilities,

172 M. M. Rahman


especially on the part of the migrant-sending families.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I wish to thank Brenda S.A. Yeoh, Nicola Piper, Lian Kwen Fee, Habibul Haque Khondker, Gaetano Arianne, Shapan Adnan, Binod Khadria, A.K.M. Ahsan Ullah, C.R. Abrar (RMMRU, Ban-gladesh), and Khurshed Alam (BISR, Bangladesh) for their support and encouragement. I wish to extend my thanks to the anonymous reviewers of Population, Space and Place for their insightful comments on the draft version of this article.

NOTES

(1) I use the term ‘family remittances’, also referred to as ‘worker remittances’ (Goldring, 2004), to imply simply that these are workers’ remittances, usually destined for relatively poor rural regions that are most in need of fi nancial capital (Kapur, 2003: 7).

(2) This cumulative fi gure comes from the BMET (Bureau of Manpower, Employment and Train-ing), the offi cial body responsible for keeping records of authorised migrant workers. Available at http://www.bmet.org.bd/Reports/Flow_Migration.htm [accessed on 7 May 2007].

(3) See http://www.bmet.org.bd/Reports/Flow_Migration.htm [accessed on 7 May 2007].

(4) The phenomena of location-specifi c migration is often explained with the help of social and sym-bolic ties. See Faist (2000) for details.

(5) Bari is a Bengali word which denotes a group of families sharing the same courtyard. Members of the bari are generally blood related and belong to the same lineage. It is the moral and social respon-sibility of the bari members to uphold the bari tradition over individual interests, and failures meet shame (for details, see Wood, 1994).

(6) It is noteworthy that I conducted an extensive survey in 2001 for my PhD thesis. The detailed data have been presented in my thesis (Rahman, 2003: 88–120). I present here the most relevant data to substantiate my argument.

(7) According to the World Development Report 2003 of the World Bank, adult literacy in Bangla-desh was 59%. People’s Progress Report on Bangla-desh MDG 2005: An Overview, p. 22. Available at http://www.millenniumcampaign.org [accessed 9 May 2007].

(8) The land holding pattern is skewed, with about 50% of households being functionally landless:

SAAPE Poverty Report 2003, Bangladesh, avail-able at http://www.saape.org.np/resources/publications/poverty_report03/pov_report03.htm [accessed 15 April 2007].

(9) The fertility of the land varies from one place to another. Villagers in Gurail reported that a family of six to eight members would need between 400 and 500 decimal land for subsistence living.

(10) It has to be added to this that the nature of the destination country might also play an important role. Studies that fi nd a negative outcome on women left behind are typical of men’s out-migration to Middle Eastern countries with strict Muslim practices on women’s mobility in the context of relative affl uence, whereas in my study the destination country is Singapore, a culturally ‘Westernised’ country where the majority of the population (70%) is Chinese.

(11) The striking differences found between the 2001 and 2006 surveys are mainly due to the time factor: the social and fi nancial benefi ts of migra-tion are supposed to increase over time because migrants get enough time to offset the initial cost of migration and to accrue savings.

REFERENCES

Abril ER, Rogaly B. 2001. Migration and Social Relations: An Annotated Bibliography on Temporary Migration for Rural Manual Work. Working Paper No 16. IIAS/IISG CLARA: Amsterdam.

Adnan S. 1993. Birds in a case: institutional change and women’s position in Bangladesh. In Women’s Posi-tion and Demographic Change, Fererici N, et al. (eds). Clarendon Press: Oxford; 285–318.

Amin S. 1998. Family structure and change in rural Bangladesh. Population Studies 52: 201–213.

Appleyard R. 1992a. Migration and development: a critical relationship. Asian and Pacifi c Migration Journal 1: 1–18.

Appleyard R. 1992b. International migration and development – an unresolved relationship. Interna-tional Migration 30: 251–266.

Asis MMB. 1995. Overseas employment and social transformation in source communities: fi ndings from the Philippines. Asian and Pacifi c Migration Journal 4: 327–346.

Asis MMB. 2003. International migration and families in Asia. In Migration in the Asia Pacifi c: Population, Settle-ment and Citizenship Issues, Iredale R, Hawksley C, Castles S (eds). Edward Elgar: Cheltenham; 99–120.

Baluja RF. 2003. Gender Roles at Home and Abroad: The Adaptation of Bangladeshi Immigrants. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC: New York.

Battistella G. 1992. Migration: opportunity or loss? In Philippine Labour Migration: Impact and Policy,



Battistella G, Paganori A (eds). Scalabrini Migration Center: Philippines; 113–134.

Boer L. 1981. Migration and social mobility in Bangla-desh: the marginalization of peasant migration. Journal of Social Studies (University of Dacca) 13: 23–30.

Cohen JH. 2005. Remittances outcomes and migration: theoretical contests real opportunities. Studies in Comparative International Development 40: 88–112.

Dannecker P. 2005. Transnational migration and the transformation of gender relations: the case of Bangladeshi labour migrants. Current Sociology 53: 655–674.

Emilio AP, Chenoa AF, Chris M. 2005. Migration and relationship power among Mexican women. Demography 42: 347–372.

Erman T. 1998. The impact of migration on Turkish rural women: four emergent patterns. Gender and Society 12: 146–167.

Faist T. 2000. The Volume and Dynamics of International Migration and Transnational Social Spaces. Clarendon Press: Oxford.

Faist T. 2008. Migrants as transnational development agents: an inquiry into the newest round of the migration–development nexus. Population, Space and Place 14: 21–42.

Faraizi AH. 1993. Bangladesh, Peasant Migration and the World Capitalist Economy. Sterling Publishers: New Delhi.

Fischer PA, Martin R, Straubhaar T. 1997. Interdepen-dencies between development and migration. In International Migration, Immobility and Development: Multidisciplinary Perspective, Hammar T, Brochmann G, Tamas K, Faist T (eds). Berg: Oxford; 91–132.

Foster J. 1995. The relationship between remittances and savings in small Pacifi c Island states: some econometric evidence. Asian and Pacifi c Migration Journal 4: 117–139.

Gamburd MR. 2002. Transnationalism and Sri Lanka’s Migrant Households: The Kitchen Spoon’s Handle. Vistaar Publications: New Delhi.

Gardner K. 1992. International migration and the rural context in Sylhet. New Community 18: 579–590.

Gardner K. 1995. Global Migrants, Local Lives: Travel and Transformation in Rural Bangladesh. Clarendon Press: Oxford.

Goldring L. 2004. Family and collective remittances to Mexico: a multi-dimensional typology. Development and Change 35: 799–840.

Gunatilleke G (ed.). 1992. The Impact of Labour Migra-tion on Households: A Comparative Study in Seven Asian countries. UNU Press: Tokyo.

Hashemi SM, Morshed L. 1997. Grameen Bank: a case study. In Who Needs Credit? Poverty and Finance in Bangladesh, Wood GD, Sharif IA (eds). Zed Books: London; 217–224.

Hermele K. 1997. The discourage on migration and development. In International Migration, Im -mobility and Development: Multidisciplinary Perspec-tive, Hammar T, Brochmann G, Tamas K, Faist T (eds). Oxford: Berg; 133–158.

Hugo G. 2002. Effects of international migration on the family in Indonesia. Asian and Pacifi c Migration Journal 11: 13–46.

Hugo G. 2003. Migration and Development: A Perspective from Asia. Migration Research Series, No. 14. IOM: Geneva.

Islam M. 1991. Labour migration and development: a case study of a rural community in Bangladesh. Bangladesh Journal of Political Economy 11: 570–587.

Johnson S, Rogaly B. 1997. Microfi nance and Poverty Reduction. Oxfam (UK and Ireland) and ActionAid (UK): Oxford.

Kabeer N. 1994. Re-examining the demand for chil-dren’ hypothesis in the context of fertility decline in Bangladesh. In Poverty Reduction and Development Cooperation. Report for a conference in Copenhagen 23–25 February, organised by the Centre for Development Studies, Sussex, and DANIDA, Mimeograph.

Kapur D. 2003. Remittances: the New Development mantra. Paper prepared for the G-24 Technical Group Meeting, 15–16 September (Palais des Nations: Geneva). Available at http://www.unctad.org/en/docs/gdsmdpbg2420045_en.pdf [accessed 11 March 2007].

Karim MR. 1992. Bangladesh. In Rural Poverty Allevia-tion Programmes in Asia. Report of an APO (Asian Productivity Organization) Study Meeting: Tokyo; 111–124.

Kaspar H. 2004. Impact of International Labour Migration on Gender Relations: A Case Study of Kalabang, Nepal. Master’s thesis, Department of Geography, University of Zurich.

Khadria B. 2007. Social collateral and human capital. Economic and Political Weekly March 31.

Lian KF, Rahman MM. 2006. International labour recruitment: channeling Bangladeshi migrants to East and Southeast Asia. Asia-Pacifi c Population Journal 21: 85–107.

Naved RT, Newby M, Amin S. 2001. The effects of migration on marriage of female garment workers in Bangladesh. International Journal of Population Geography 7: 91–104.

Papademetriou DG, Martin PL (ed.). 1991. The Unset-tled Relationship: Labour Migration and Economic Development. Greenwood Press: London.

Parker L (ed.). 2005. The Agency of Women in Asia. Marshall Cavendish Academic: Singapore.

Pfl egerl J, Siew-Ean K, Yeoh BSA, Koh V (eds). 2003. Researching Migration and the Family. Asian Meta-

174 M. M. Rahman


Centre for Population and Sustainable Development Analysis: Singapore.

Piore MJ. 1979. Birds of Passage: Migrant Labour and Industrial Societies. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.

Piper N. 2006. Economic Migration and the Transnation-alization of the Rights of Foreign Workers – A Concept Note. Working Paper Series No 58, Asia Research Institute, National University of Singapore.

Pryer J. 1992. Purdah, patriarchy, and population movement: perspectives from Bangladesh. In Gender and Migration in Developing Countries, Chant S (ed.). Belhaven Press: London; 139–153.

Rahman MM. 2000. Emigration and development: the case of a Bangladeshi village. International Migration 38: 109–130.

Rahman MM. 2003. Bangladeshi Workers in Singapore: A Sociological Study of Temporary Labour Migration to Singapore. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Department of Sociology, National University of Singapore.

Rahman MM. 2004a. Migration and poverty in Bangla-desh: ironies and paradoxes. In International Labour Migration from South Asia, Hisaya Oda (ed.). Institute of Developing Economies, JETRO, Japan, ASEDP 70: 181–208.

Rahman MM. 2004b. Migration networks: an analysis of Bangladeshi migration to Singapore. Asian Profi le 32: 367–390.

Rahman MM. 2008. Management of foreign man-power in Singapore. In Social Policy in Post-Industrial Singapore, Tong CK, Lian KF (eds). Brill Academic Publishers: Boston.

Rahman MM, Lian KF. 2005. Bangladeshi workers in Singapore: the views from inside. Asia-Pacifi c Popula-tion Journal 20: 63–89.

Reichert JS. 1981. The migrant syndrome: seasonal US wage labour and rural development in Central Mexico. Human Organization 40: 56–66.

Russel SS, Jacobsen K, Stanley WD. 1990. International Migration and Development in Sub-Sahara Africa.

World Bank Discussion Papers no. 101, Vol. 1. World Bank: Washington, D.C.

Sørensen NN. 2004. The Development Dimension of Migrant Remittances. Migration Policy Research, Working Paper Series, No. 1 – June. Department of Migration Policy, Research and Communications.

Spaan E, Naerssen TV, Hillmann F. 2005. Shifts in the European discourses on migration and development. Asian and Pacifi c Migration Journal 14: 35–69.

Üçok M. 2006. Transnational Consumption Practices for Social Mobility: A Study of Turkish Immigrants in Denmark. Academy for Migration Studies in Denmark, AMID Working Paper Series, No. 58/2006.

Ullah AKMA, Panday PK. 2007. Remitting money to Bangladesh: What do migrants prefer? Asian and Pacifi c Migration Journal 16: 121–136.

Wiest RE. 1979. Implications of international labour migration for Mexican rural development. In Migra-tion across Frontiers: Mexico and the United States, Camara F, Van Kemper R (eds). Institute for Mesoamerican Studies, State University of New York: Albany; 85–97.

Wong T, Eu Khim N, Yeoh BSA, Khan HTA. 2003. Migration and the ‘Asian’ family in a globalizing world: a selective review. In Researching Migration and the Family, Pfl egerl J et al. (eds). Asian Meta-Centre for Population and Sustainable Development Analysis: Singapore; 10–33.

Wood GD. 1994. Bangladesh: Whose Ideas, Whose Inter-ests? University Press Limited: Dhaka.

Yeoh BSA, Graham E, Boyle PJ. 2002. Migrations and family relations in the Asia Pacifi c region. Asian and Pacifi c Migration Journal 11: 1–11.

Zachariah KC, Mathew ET, Rajan SI. 2001. Social, eco-nomic and demographic consequences of migration on Kerala. International Migration 39(2): 43–71.

Zlotnik H. 1995. Migration and the family: the female perspective. Asian and Pacifi c Migration Journal 4: 253–271.

temporary migration and changing family dynamics: implications for social development

Documents