There has been little systematic empirical research on the well-being of children in transnational households in South-East Asia—a major sending region for contract migrants. This study uses survey data collected in 2008 from children aged 9, 10, and 11 and their caregivers in Indonesia, the Philippines, and Vietnam (N = 1,498). Results indicate that while children of migrant parents, especially migrant mothers, are less likely to be happy compared to children in nonmigrant households, greater resilience in child well-being is associated to longer durations of maternal absence. There is no evidence for a direct parental migration effect on school enjoyment and performance. The analyses highlight the sensitivity of results to the dimension of child well-being measured and who makes the assessment.
As a significant supplier of labour migrants, Southeast Asia presents itself as an important site for the study of children in transnational families who are growing up separated from at least one migrant parent and sometimes cared for by 'other mothers'. Through the often-neglected voices of left-behind children, we investigate the impact of parental migration and the resulting reconfiguration of care arrangements on the subjective well-being of migrants' children in two Southeast Asian countries, Indonesia and the Philippines. We theorise the child's position in the transnational family nexus through the framework of the 'care triangle', representing interactions between three subject groups- 'left-behind' children, non-migrant parents/other carers; and migrant parent(s). Using both quantitative (from 1010 households) and qualitative (from 32 children) data from a study of child health and migrant parents in Southeast Asia, we examine relationships within the caring spaces both of home and of transnational spaces. The interrogation of different dimensions of care reveals the importance of contact with parents (both migrant and nonmigrant) to subjective child well-being, and the diversity of experiences and intimacies among children in the two study countries.
BackgroundThere has been a dramatic increase in internal migrant workers in China over recent decades, and there is a recent concern of poor mental health particularly amongst younger or “new generation” migrants who were born in 1980 or later.MethodsA cross-sectional study was conducted in Guangzhou city between May and July in 2012. Mental wellbeing was measured using the World Health Organization Five-item Well-Being Index Scale and the 36 Item Short Form Health Survey mental health scale. Linear and logistic regression models were used to investigate the differences between migrant workers and their urban counterparts and between younger and older migrants.ResultsMigrant workers (n = 914) showed a small but significant advantage in mental wellbeing compared to their urban counterparts (n = 814). There was some evidence for age modification effect (p for interaction = 0.055-0.095); better mental wellbeing in migrants than urbanites were mainly seen in the older compared to the younger group, and the difference attenuated somewhat after controlling for income satisfaction. Older migrants showed better mental health than younger migrants. Factors that were independently associated with poor mental health in migrants included being male, longer working hours, and income dissatisfaction, whilst older age, factory job, high income, and increased use of social support resources were associated with reduced risk.ConclusionsEfforts to promote mental health amongst migrant workers may be usefully targeted on younger migrants and include measures aimed to improve working conditions, strengthen the social support network, and address age-specific needs.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.