Abstract
The movement of migrant domestic workers constitutes an important aspect of migration flows in Asia. We identify and outline three major research gaps in this area: (1) their unique working environment and the consequences of working under these conditions, (2) formal and informal sources of support, and (3) policies implemented by local government in response to the working environment of migrant domestic workers. We discuss how the articles in this special issue address these major gaps in migration research.
Introduction
According to the International Labor Organization (2015), there are about 11.5 million migrant domestic workers in the world labor force, a number that has increased steadily over recent decades. About one third of these workers can be found in the Asia-Pacific countries, and the large majority (73.4%) are female. In the Asian region in particular, migrant domestic workers constitute an important aspect of intraregional migration flows, as a result of growing demand in the more developed countries for migrant labor to fill housework and care deficits that have emerged with the shift of reproductive work from the household to the market (Fong et al., 2019). In response to this rising demand for waged domestic labor, developing countries such as the Philippines, Indonesia, and Sri Lanka have increasingly promoted overseas labor migration as a development strategy to address issues of poverty, domestic unemployment, and underemployment at home, as well as to grow foreign exchange income through remittances (Yeoh et al., 2015). Meanwhile, in the destination economies within the region such as Hong Kong, Singapore, and Taiwan, domestic work performed by migrant labor is often devalued, poorly paid, and continue to be shunned by locals (Koh et al., 2017; Yeoh & Huang, 2018). Although migrant domestic workers provide services that are considered indispensable to resolving care gaps in the household in host societies, they face a broad spectrum of vulnerabilities that can affect their social, physical, and psychological well-being.
Despite the steadily growing literature on migrant domestic workers, significant knowledge gaps remain. In this special issue, we advance the understanding of migrant domestic workers by exploring three areas: (1) their unique working environment and the consequences of working under these conditions, (2) formal and informal sources of support, and (3) policies implemented by local government in response to the working environment of migrant domestic workers. Under work conditions governed by retrogressive employer–employee relations and minimal occupational mobility, migrant domestic workers often find their labor devalued as unskilled and lowly paid work. Faced with highly challenging working environments in host societies where they are unable to exercise citizen rights, they mobilize their social networks and tap into informal resources in order to find support. At the same time, the local policy context is also of key interest as the constellation of migration policies and foreign labor regulations work both to aggravate particular concerns while addressing others. Together, these issues are key to understand the social, psychological and economic well-being of migrant domestic workers.
Blurring of Working and Living Environments
Understanding migrant domestic workers’ unique working environment has been an important focus of the related literature. Studies have suggested that there is a strong relationship between their working and living environments and their social, emotional, and physical well-being (Fong & Shibuya, 2020). For live-in migrant domestic workers, the line between workplace and living place tends to be blurred. As Constable (1997, p. 89) puts it, “the confluence of home and workplace makes it more difficult for household workers than factory workers to separate work spatially, it is also more difficult temporally to distinguish time on and off.” The overlapping ground between treating waged domestic work as a market transaction and as a familial relationship between a superior and a social inferior can also work against domestic workers, allowing employers to “elide the more personal side of the relationship at whim” (Arat-Koc & Giles, 1994, p. 7). Migrant domestic workers live with a family but are not treated as real members of the family, which exposes them to a high risk of privacy intrusion. These conjoined working and living arrangements render migrant domestic workers vulnerable, as they may face constant work demands within the confines of the home, long and unspecified working hours with no payment for overtime work, and high levels of stress. Often employed to take care of the elderly, children, or the disabled, migrant domestic workers are expected to perform care work that is physically and emotionally demanding. Such work also involves considerable uncertainty in tasks and responsibility, especially when it involves daily intensive care. And when expectations for the quality of care are not met, migrant domestic workers are often easy targets for blame.
To date, most studies on the working environments of migrant domestic workers in the Asian context have relied on qualitative case studies and ethnographies, providing in-depth analysis of their experiences, practices, and relationships with members of the household (Constable, 1997; Fong & Shibuya, 2020; Killias, 2010; Raghuram & Momsen, 1993; Yeoh & Huang, 2010). However, there is a paucity of scholarship using quantitative methodologies to document general patterns in the factors that shape migrant domestic workers’ experiences of unique working environments where home and work are indistinguishable. This special issue aims to fill this gap in the literature.
Several papers in this collection draw on large-scale survey data recently collected for over 2,000 migrant domestic workers from Indonesia and the Philippines in Hong Kong (Chung et al., this special issue, pp. 709-721). The article by Lai and Fong (this special issue, pp. 722-739) draws on these data to show that both the working conditions (e.g., childcare or eldercare) and the workplace environment (e.g., the size of the home) are related to migrant domestic workers’ experiences of abusive behaviors perpetrated by employers. Based on the same data, Liao and Gan (this special issue, pp. 740-764) explore the migration trajectories over the life course of Filipino and Indonesian domestic workers in Hong Kong. They found that Indonesian domestic workers are more likely than their Filipino counterparts to participate in serial migration. They also found that, for migrant domestic workers, having a more complex migration history is associated with higher job satisfaction.
Formal and Informal Sources of Support
Another set of literature on migrant domestic workers focuses on the availability of social support for these workers, given their experience of high levels of vulnerability in their disadvantaged working environments. Most of these studies document the interplay between the state (both sending and receiving governments) and civil society (such as nongovernmental organizations) in reducing or moderating the vulnerability of migrant domestic workers (Devasahayam, 2010; Hsiao-Chuan, 2009; Yee, 2009; Yeoh & Annadhurai, 2008). There are fewer studies that have explored how migrant domestic workers use their own informal resources, in particular their social networks, to alleviate challenging situations. In particular, how different kinds of social networks are related to the social, psychological, economic, and physical well-being of migrant domestic workers has not attracted systematic attention.
In filling this gap, the studies presented in this special issue draw on a mix of quantitative and qualitative methodologies. The article by Ye and Chen (this special issue, pp. 765-783) finds that the presence of family members and daily connection with them are associated with better self-reported health among migrant domestic workers in Hong Kong. It also shows that family networks and friend networks are related to each other in facilitating better health among these workers. In another article, Baig (this special issue, pp. 784-801) draws on both qualitative and quantitative findings to explore ethnic differences in developing formal and informal social support among to Filipino and Indonesian domestic workers in Hong Kong. She shows that the workers’ intertwining ethnicity, gender, religion, and work identities shape their understanding and expectations of the roles of formal and informal social support. She finds that migrant domestic workers seek informal help from relatives and friends, while formal help is sought from the consulate and host government. At the same time, she also notes that the knowledge of how to contact these formal organizations is obtained through their own churches and nongovernmental organizations. Chang and Mak (this special issue, pp. 802-822) analyze the relationships between different aspects of employment conditions (i.e., working/living conditions and material circumstances) and physical and mental health status among migrant domestic workers in order to discover whether social and family networks moderate these associations. Their study shows that participation in religious activities and daily contact with friends are positively related to the physical and mental health of migrant domestic workers. In a different article, Tong (this special issue, pp. 823-840) explores whether workers’ accumulated human and social capital can help them bargain for better working environments. The study suggests that human capital does not improve their labor market returns, but helps them improve their bargaining power for better salaries, working conditions, and the protection of their rights.
Policy Responses to Migrant Domestic Workers’ Disadvantaged Working Environments
A third set of articles in this special issue turns attention to policy responses emerging out of the multi-level interaction between state entities and civil society actors. Focusing on Singapore, Yeoh et al. (this special issue, pp. 841-858) argue that despite increasing levels of concern over the welfare of migrant domestic workers emanating from international organizations, the social protection of migrant domestic workers still depends largely on the host society. They illustrate this argument by reference to the expanding scope of criminal law in taking into account the specific vulnerabilities of migrant domestic workers that has limited effects on curbing “maid abuse,” as well as civil society’s campaign for a “mandatory” rest day for domestic workers which has had limited success. In an article focusing on the migrant domestic workers in the United Arab Emirates, Silvey and Parreñas (this special issue, pp. 859-877) show that policy gaps are themselves a source of some of the issues and problems that migrant domestic workers confront. More generally, they argue that the policy context cannot be analyzed in a social vacuum but must be treated as integral to migrant domestic workers’ larger social worlds.
Taken together, this collection of articles on migrant domestic workers advances the study of the group in three different ways. First, to the best of our knowledge, some of the studies are the first to apply multivariate statistical models to understanding the various patterns that can be discerned in exploring factors shaping the experiences of migrant domestic workers. Statistical analysis allows us to move one more step toward delineating the factors related to the social and physical well-being of this group. Second, some of these studies provide careful and detailed analyses of how migrant domestic workers use a range of different social networks to alleviate disadvantaged working environments. These studies provide detailed analysis illustrating the complex relationship between migrant domestic workers’ social networks and their social and physical well-being. Third, the articles rounding off the special issue provides an up-to-date analysis of the policy environments and serve to evaluate the effectiveness of policies initiated by the state and civil society to enhance the welfare and working conditions of migrant domestic workers.
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article:The funding for preparing this special issue, including organizing a workshop and holding meetings, as well as the funding for collecting the survey data on Migrant Domestic Workers in Hong Kong, used by a few papers in this issue, came from the Research Centre on Migration and Mobility at the Chinese University of Hong Kong.
