Migration Planning Among Female Prospective Labour Migrants from Nepal: A Comparison of First‐Time and Repeat‐Migrants
| Published date | 01 August 2018 |
| Author | Ligia Kiss,Cathy Zimmerman,Joelle Mak,Bandita Sijapati,Tanya Abramsky |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/imig.12449 |
| Date | 01 August 2018 |
Migration Planning Among Female
Prospective Labour Migrants from Nepal:
A Comparison of First-Time and
Repeat-Migrants
Tanya Abramsky*, Joelle Mak*, Cathy Zimmerman*, Ligia Kiss* and Bandita Sijapati**
ABSTRACT
As international female labour migration has increased, so too have efforts to prevent the
exploitation of labour migrants. However, evidence to underpin prevention efforts remains lim-
ited, with little known about labour migrants’migration planning processes. Using data from a
survey of female prospective labour migrants from Nepal, this article compares socio-demo-
graphics and migration-planning processes between first-time and repeat-migrants. We identi-
fied several factors which might increase repeat-migrants’vulnerability to exploitation during
the migration process, or obstruct their engagement in pre-migration interventions: more rapid
migration planning than first-time migrants; lower involvement in community groups; and a
perception that they already have the knowledge they need. Only one-third of repeat-migrants
planned to go to the same destination and 42 per cent to work in the same sector as previ-
ously. With repeat-migration a common livelihoods strategy, it is crucial that interventions are
guided by evidence on the needs of both first-time- and repeat-migrants.
BACKGROUND
For millions of people in Asia, and indeed globally, labour migration is a key livelihood strategy.
In contrast to earlier decades, this migration is often temporary, and many people migrate multiple
times during their working lives (International Labour Organization, 2010). A flexible means of
addressing labour surpluses and shortages across countries, temporary labour migration also allows
migrants to take advantage of employment opportunities abroad, whilst maintaining traditions, fami-
lies and citizenship in their countries of origin (GFMD, 2007; Vertovec, 2007; Wickramasekara &
Abella, 2003).
Recent decades, however, have seen growing recognition among the international community of
the nature and scale of exploitation experienced by some migrant workers. The International
Labour Organisation (ILO) estimates that 16 million migrants worldwide were working in situations
of forced labour in 2016 –victims of human trafficking or otherwise coerced to work through, for
example, violence, intimidation, confiscation of identity papers or debt accumulation (International
Labour Organization, 2017). Alongside mounting evidence on the extent and consequences of such
exploitation –including long-lasting physical and mental health problems (Kiss et al., 2015;
* London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine
** Social Science Baha, Kathmandu
doi: 10.1111/imig.12449
©2018 The Authors. International Migration
published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf
of International Organization for Migration
International Migration Vol. 56 (4) 2018
ISSN 0020-7985
This is an open access article under the terms of the
Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use,
distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the
original work is properly cited.
Ottisova et al., 2016; Tsutsumi et al., 2008), and in some cases even death –efforts to strengthen
responses to human trafficking and forced labour have intensified (Foot et al. 2015).
As labour migration has increased overall, so too has female labour migration. Women now
account for almost half of emigrants from the Asia-Pacific region (United Nations, 2013). Work-
ing predominantly in the domestic, hospitality, health, care, garment and entertainment sectors,
they face specific types of risks, and suffer a disproportionate burden of exploitation (UN
Women, 2013). The ILO estimates women and girls to make up 58 per cent of the victims of
forced labour worldwide, and highlights their additional vulnerability to particular forms of
exploitation such as sexual exploitation (International Labour Organization, 2017). Policies and
programmes to prevent trafficking and forced labour among women and girls therefore deserve
special attention.
Some efforts to prevent trafficking aim to discourage women from migrating altogether by raising
awareness of the risks involved (Nieuwenhuys & P
ecoud, 2007). Several countries, such as Nepal,
Bangladesh and the Philippines have even imposed legislation to ban younger women from migrat-
ing, or to proscribe certain destinations or work sectors for female migrants (International Labour
Organization, 2015; Sijapati, 2015; UN Women, 2013). However, there is now a growing realiza-
tion that “push factors”such as economic necessity, natural disasters, political or family violence,
and a desire to see the world, often outweigh migration-related fears or restrictions. Many commu-
nity programmes have thus shifted their emphasis towards empowering women to migrate “safely”
(Zimmerman et al., 2015).
To date, there remains little evidence about which structural constraints, individual and group
factors put women at risk of adverse migration outcomes and what actions individuals and groups
can take to protect themselves in diverse migration contexts (Zimmerman et al., 2015). At a simi-
larly basic level, we also lack solid understanding of how prospective migrants plan their migra-
tions –their migration-related knowledge, who they seek information from, and who helps them
plan their journey and arrange employment. Where repeat migration is common, this is com-
pounded by limited information about how migration planning may differ between repeat- and
first-time migrants. At present, programmes acknowledge the importance of returnee migrants as a
way to reach and share experiences with prospective migrants (Siddiqui et al., 2008) –through, for
example, the establishment of migrant networks or returnee-led activities –but little consideration
is given to the information needs and migration planning processes of repeat-migrants themselves.
Although there is an implicit assumption that repeat migrants “know more”, have more extensive
networks and are better prepared for their impending migration, there remains a dearth of quantita-
tive research to support this view or inform how returnees’knowledge and experiences can be posi-
tively integrated into safe migration programmes.
Indeed, evidence suggests that repeat-migrants are at significant risk of exploitation. Recent work
among Nepali male returnees found that 65 per cent of those who had migrated more than once
had experienced forced labour during their most recent migration (Mak, 2017). Risks of re-traffick-
ing among previously trafficked persons have also been recognized (Jobe, 2010; Kelly, 2002; Sen
& Nair, 2004), with a range of factors implicated in their increased vulnerability. These include
lack of access to employment in communities of origin, prior migration-related debts, subsequent
rejection by family/community, and continuing control by their past traffickers (Jobe, 2010).
We use data from a cross-sectional survey of female prospective labour migrants, conducted in
three districts in Nepal, to compare prospective first-time and prospective repeat-migrants. We
examine how these two groups differ with respect to socio-demographic and household characteris-
tics, as well as migration-related knowledge, information-seeking, sources of influence, and plan-
ning. The survey forms part of the South Asia Work in Freedom Transnational Evaluation, a
programme of research to inform and assess the community intervention component of the ILO’s
“Work in Freedom”(WiF) intervention to minimise women’s vulnerability to labour trafficking in
South Asia and the Middle East.
198 Abramsky, Mak, Zimmerman, Kiss, Sijapati
©2018 The Authors. International Migration published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of
International Organization for Migration
To continue reading
Request your trial