Is Transnational Labour Migration Empowering for Women? Re-evaluating the Case of Married Sri Lankan Domestic Maids

Case One: Sriyani’s Success Story

Sriyani was in her early 40s and a mother of one grown-up child. Before migration, neither she nor her husband had a permanent source of income or a house in which to live. They shared one room in her parents’ small house, which also sheltered some of her married siblings and their families. Her husband worked on and off as a driver for a wealthy businessman in the village. Therefore, as a family, they were having a hard time trying to make ends meet. In the absence of any good employment opportunities at home, Sriyani was left with no option but to venture to a foreign country for her family’s well-being. Due to their economic need, her husband did not object and consented to her decision. She was encouraged and sponsored by her sister, who was employed as a housemaid in Singapore at that time. With the air ticket sent by her sister, Sriyani finally left for Singapore in 1995.

Her average salary was around $120 per month, nearly five times greater than her husband’s monthly earnings back home. She remitted more than three-fourths of her monthly earnings to her husband, who took good care of her remittances, saving some of it in her name. She maintained a good relationship with her employer and was well-treated. During her 10 years of service in Singapore, she visited her family four times, once in every two and a half years. At home, her husband, mother and sisters took care of the child.

Sriyani’s first achievement was to be able to build a house on a plot of land she bought. It was a two-storey house equipped with all the modern utilities needed for a comfortable life. Her second investment was in jewellery for herself and her daughter, household electrical appliances and furniture. Her relatives, who took care of housework in her long-term absence, also received her ‘blessings’ in terms of remittances and other material forms of gratitude such as gifts and souvenirs. Moreover, during migration, she became fairly conversant in English and was able to sponsor a couple of her Sri Lankan friends and neighbours to Singapore as housemaids by sending them air tickets. In 2006, Sriyani decided to return home for good when she realised that her daughter was not a child anymore. Throughout her stay abroad, her husband remained supportive, encouraging and caring, and appreciative of her significant contribution to family well-being.

Upon her return home, she decided to make a business investment. With the consent and support of her husband, she invested in an auto-rickshaw, the most popular mode of public transportation in Sri Lanka. Her husband ran the daily hires and soon enough they were able to expand their business with two vans, one heavy vehicle and the auto-rickshaw. At the time of survey, their family business, owned jointly by herself and her husband, was thriving with great future prospects. Demonstrating the skills of a successful entrepreneur, she was energetically involved in the business with her husband, giving him advice and guidance. Sriyani did not completely give up the idea of migrating once more. She decided to think about it once her daughter completed her education. She maintained constant contact with her former employer in Singapore, who kept in touch through telephone calls once every now and then. Sriyani wrapped up the interview saying, ‘Migration changed my life and it was for the good…. Now, I have self-confidence as I can face any challenge in life.’

Case Two: Kusuma’s Success and Ambivalence

Kusuma was in her early 50s and a mother of two children. Her husband worked for the city municipal council as a labourer and therefore did not earn a decent living. Living in a small rented house with no source of income of her own, Kusuma found it more and more difficult to meet the needs of her family. She saw foreign employment as the only way out of their financial problems. Seeing that she was determined, her husband did not stand in her way but gave his consent to her decision to migrate. She learnt about foreign employment from her mother, who had worked as a housemaid in Kuwait. With the air ticket being sponsored by her mother, Kusuma left for Kuwait in 1988.

Over the 16 years of service abroad (1988–2004), her monthly earnings increased from $35 to $110. During her long-term absence from home, her sisters, later also her mother, looked after her children and household. Freed from his financial responsibilities by his breadwinner wife, Kusuma’s husband started spending practically all his money on himself and on leisure activities such as drinking and gambling. Therefore, he made no objection to her indefinite stay abroad. Kusuma too spent her overseas earnings lavishly on both her immediate and extended family, not to mention personal extravagances. She soon gained fluency in Arabic.

She also managed to accomplish her major goals of migration: building a family house with modern utilities, investing in her children’s education and purchasing household appliances and jewellery for her daughter. Also, she was able to introduce prospective employers to a few of her Sri Lankan friends and village women who too found employment as housemaids in Kuwait. During the entire period of her employment abroad, she was able to visit her family eight times.

In 2003, despite all the plans for ‘a better future’ for her daughter, Kusuma’s teenage daughter eloped with an unemployed neighbour. This blew all her dreams and she decided to return home for good in 2004. Since then Kusuma has been confronted with frequent accusations from her husband, who holds her responsible for their daughter’s elopement. She was now dependent on her husband as a housewife without any source of income or savings, and began to have mixed feelings about her experience of migration. Her alcoholic husband and her daughter’s elopement filled her with guilt and frustration. At the same time, she showed vestiges of pride in her one-time material success and her role as de facto family provider. She believes that ‘If you have money, you have practically everything.’

Case Three: Infidelity and Family Disorder: Mallika

Mallika was in her mid-40s and a mother of two grown children. Her husband worked as an office assistant for the Railway Department, which ensured him job security, but not a good enough monthly salary. As a result, Mallika worked as a cleaner in a hotel on exploitative terms for a daily payment and yet found herself in deep financial need at home, particularly with two teenage children to provide for. They lived in cramped Railway Department quarters with minimum facilities, which gave them assurance of shelter for two years at a time on contract. Mallika dreamed of having their own house with modern utilities, and an income to comfortably meet the needs of her children. She saw foreign employment as the only way to realise these dreams and learnt about opportunities from her sister, who worked in Kuwait as a housemaid. On request, Mallika’s sister sponsored her by finding an employer in the same country, and despite her children’s objections, she left for Kuwait in 1999. Her husband did not try to stop her.

Her earnings were much higher than her husband’s and stood at around $100 per month. Every month she remitted nearly 80 per cent of her earnings to her husband with two key purposes in mind: to cover their children’s and household expenses, and to save up some money to buy a piece of land for a house. During her absence, childcare and housework were taken care of by her teenage daughter, but her husband was practically no support at all. He took to drinking and gambling given an influx of resources flowing from abroad, remittances of his breadwinner wife. Her children kept her informed about the situation at home, asking her to return for good, but her decision was quite the reverse: she decided to extend her stay abroad and have better control over her money by sending her husband only the amount needed to cover monthly expenses while keeping the rest for herself.

During her four-year service in Kuwait, Mallika visited her family once and then migrated to Singapore for a higher salary and better working conditions with the help of a Sri Lankan migrant woman like herself whom she met in Kuwait. Although she was in an economically sound state and was well-treated by her host, the situation at home worsened. Her husband was involved in an extramarital relationship with an ex-migrant woman in a nearby village and was supporting her with the remittances sent home by Mallika. Also, he had either sold or pawned most of the jewellery and electrical appliances bought with her earnings, planning to send his lover back to the Middle East with the intention of joining her in the future.

Highly disappointed and frustrated, Mallika decided to return home. She returned home in 2007, but by that time, the situation at home had gone out of her control. Her children saw her as being largely to blame for the family chaos and the disruption in their education, and accused her of abandoning the family. Her daughter left home and migrated to work in a garment factory in the Middle East. Her son grew distant and indifferent.

Their endless quarrels did not stop her husband from seeing his lover. Helpless, with no source of income of her own and regretful about her original decision to migrate, at the time of interview Mallika was looking for work as a housemaid in a local household. Their rental contract was due to expire at the end of the month and the family would soon be without shelter. However, she was determined to stick to her husband, hoping that someday he would leave his lover and come back to her.

Case Four: Control of Remittances and the Extended Family: Chandra’s Dilemma

Chandra was in her late 40s and was a mother of five grown-up children. Her husband held the rank of corporal in the army, which secured the family a permanent flow of monthly income, although the amount was hardly sufficient to meet the needs of the family with five school-going children to care for and her husband’s alcoholism. Chandra, with no source of income of her own, went through a daily struggle thinking of ways to manage household expenses. She borrowed money from both relatives and neighbours to make ends meet and was in heavy debt with no means to pay it back. Unable to bear the situation at home any longer, she decided to take up foreign employment and sought help from a relative who was working in Jordan as a housemaid and who sponsored Chandra by finding her an employer and sending her an air ticket.

Her husband thoroughly opposed her decision to migrate, but her mother and unmarried brother came to her rescue. They agreed to fill in for her long-term absence at home and moved into their already overcrowded house, a property built by her husband. Finally, in 2001 Chandra left for Jordan to become a housemaid, dreaming of family prosperity: hoping to build a roomy house with modern utilities and invest in her children’s education.

Her monthly salary in Jordan easily surpassed her husband’s. But the conditions of work were gruelling labour, delayed monthly payments, which were sometimes short of what she was owed, as well as verbal and physical harassment. There were times when she thought of running away from her employer; but determined to provide for her family and unwilling to give in to her husband, she decided to remain as long as she could. Keeping a petty amount for herself, every month she remitted almost her full salary to her husband to cover their children’s and household expenses, and to save up enough money to rebuild their house. Her remittances also supported her mother and unemployed brother, who were of inestimable support at home. She always checked whether her husband gave them enough money for their personal expenses and occasionally sent them gifts as tokens of her appreciation. Everything at home went well as Chandra had planned, in the first year after her departure.

But in course of time, there were confrontations between her husband and her mother and brother because her husband restricted their share of the remittance and used it to support his spendthrift lifestyle. He spent money on alcohol, gambling and friends. Chandra’s mother kept her informed about these matters. Since her husband had not accumulated any savings, Chandra decided to extend her stay abroad by another two years after consulting her mother and brother. She found new employment in Jordan to which her husband objected. Conditions at home worsened to the extent that her mother and brother left the house with her younger children. Left with no other option, Chandra decided to return home for good. She terminated her employment contract and arrived back home in 2004. She brought back her younger children, and reunited her family. With her scanty savings, she managed to settle her debts and purchase a few consumer goods such as jewellery for herself and her daughters, a television set and a cassette recorder. Other than that, all her money earned abroad had been spent on meeting the daily needs of both her immediate and extended family.

Today, her older daughters provide for her and, her husband, now retired from service, continues his usual lifestyle as if he is a loner. The only comforting thought is that with her foreign earnings she could provide for her mother, who had supported her in her decision to migrate. She took care of her mother until she died with the help of her meagre savings, without her husband’s knowledge.

Case Five: Influx of Resources, Extravagance and Family Chaos: Manike’s Remorse

Manike was in her early 50s and a mother of two grown children. Before migrating, she and her husband were both unemployed. They were in deep financial trouble; the most worrying part was taking care of the medical bills of their chronically ill daughter. The irregular income brought home by her husband by doing odd jobs was hardly sufficient for even a hand-to-mouth existence. Manike had no other alternative but to borrow money. She and her family shared a little space in her parents’ small house, which also provided a haven for most of her married siblings. When she learnt about foreign employment from a neighbouring woman migrant, she saw it as the only way out of their miseries. So she borrowed money at an exorbitant rate of interest from a village moneylender, took help from an employment agency and migrated to Saudi Arabia to become a housemaid in 1985. Her husband did not stand in her way, and gave his approval.

In the home of her employer, an oil-exporter, she was well accepted and very well paid with both money and expensive gifts such as gold jewellery and electrical appliances. At home, her mother and sisters took care of her children and the household work. Her husband remained practically unemployed but assisted his female relatives with household duties and responsibilities as much as he could. Every month Manike sent money to her husband and was easy in mind as the needs of both her immediate and extended family were attended to and medical bills, family debts and festival expenses were being paid. Her children were frequently gifted with expensive consumer items, and so were her nieces and nephews.

Manike got used to an extravagant lifestyle, gained fluency in Arabic, and experienced much freedom and autonomy for herself. With her employer she travelled to the United States, the United Kingdom and Australia, and became fairly conversant in English as well. She was able to sponsor a couple of her friends for employment by sending them air tickets. During her 17 year service in Saudi Arabia, she visited home around six times.

In 2002, Manike’s ailing teenage daughter, who was seemingly getting better, passed away. According to doctors, a major cause of her unexpected death was ‘lack of care and attention’. Shocked and saddened by the news, she returned home for good, but soon enough she and her family had reverted to the same state of scarcity as before, so she decided to leave for foreign employment again, this time to Jordan in 2003. As before, her husband did not object. Life was the same as ever before. She earned well, continued providing for both her own family and relatives, and enjoyed a comfortable lifestyle with greater freedom and self-reliance abroad.

However, looking at the consequences of her daughter’s transnationally split household for nearly two decades, Manike’s ailing mother insisted on her returning home. Unable to defy the continuous pressure from home, Manike decided to return permanently and reached home in 2005. At the time of the survey, she and her husband were financially dependent on their son in the Middle East, who had migrated with the help of his mother’s contacts. Manike herself thought of migrating again but found it difficult as she was above the required age limit. Her jewellery sustained the family after her savings were depleted. She finished her interview by recapitulating her migrant experiences: ‘When I was abroad making money, I felt that I had everything. I never realised what I was losing at home and never thought about the future.’

The Role Played by the Spouse

The ex-migrants’ primary motive behind labour migration was their families’ collective well-being rather than their own individual well-being. Their ability to bring about the benefits of migration to their families largely rested upon the roles played by their family members, among which the role of the spouse was identified to be crucial.

As the case studies demonstrate, this spousal role virtually took five different forms of individual behaviour. Sriyani’s husband was cooperative and trustworthy, while Mallika’s was quite the opposite. Upon Mallika’s overseas migration, her husband withdrew financial contributions and set up a new household using both his own earnings and her remittances. In Chandra’s case, her husband took to domestic violence, and misused her remittances mostly on alcohol, while Kusuma’s husband did more or less the same. Manike’s husband played a rather different role from all the others and was more passive.

Male vices such as alcoholism, gambling, womanising and violence against women were seen by the women as the direct consequences of their employment abroad. In their societies, men’s mild alcoholism and occasional expenditure on leisure activities (gambling included but not womanising) are not perceived as social wrongdoing, but tolerated by both women and men alike. But, as the ex-migrants explicitly stated, their migration gave rise to hard drinking among their spouses back home.

Except for Sriyani and Manike, the others expressed great dissatisfaction with their spouses for not helping in household work and other responsibilities during their absence. They recognised lack of spousal support and negative attitudes as major causes of their failure to bring about expected benefits. According to Parreñas (2006), the literature describes the underlying cause that triggers such male behaviour as follows: ‘being dependent on a wife’s earnings threatens some men’s identity as the breadwinner and this can lead men to lower their household contributions’ (p. 105). ‘Men associated with… [breadwinner migrant wives can] assert their masculinity differently’ (Gamburd, 2000, p. 192).

The migration of the women had triggered a masculinity crisis in the men that was reproduced in contradictory behavioural dynamics: either wasteful, violent, neglectful and adulterous or cooperative, caring and committed, or simply passive and indifferent. However, most spouses (Kusuma’s, Mallika’s and Chandra’s) reacted to their crisis of masculinity by being unsympathetic towards their breadwinner wives and trying to exert control over them largely through the misappropriation of remittances. Sriyani’s husband alone showed that he was an ideal marital partner: supportive, caring and committed towards family well-being in harmony with his breadwinner wife. He took good care of her remittances, his thrift and efficient remittance management served as a key to her success. Manike’s husband adopted a rather unique strategy: he presented himself as neither receptive nor resistant toward the changes that occurred in the social order resulting from his wife’s overseas employment and sidestepped his roles as a husband and a father.

On the whole, the men had to accept the migration of their wives in the family interest as local employment opportunities were not easily available to them. In most cases, dependence on wives triggered a male identity crisis leading to a gendered power struggle, putting marriages under strain. Given this situation, the women were inclined to portray themselves as altruistic, self-sacrificing and family-oriented.

Conversely, Sriyani’s and Manike’s spouses displayed a more empathetic or at least a non-violent behavioural approach towards the change in their gender role. Though subtle, often resisted by spouses, and far from being defined as far-reaching or sustainable, these changes carry the promise that with women’s paid employment, traditional gender role expectations, deep-rooted in Sri Lankan society, could be challenged in times to come.

There were other social costs: disruptions also occurred in relationships with children. Kusuma’s teenage daughter eloped with an idling neighbour, devastating all her mother’s efforts to bring about development for the family. In Sri Lankan society, a youth falling in love and eloping with someone not of the family’s choosing throws the elders’ plans into chaos (Gamburd, 2003). It could also bring shame and disgrace to the family as ‘romantic love is not socially perceived as a valid [and an acceptable] motivation for mate selection’ (Ubeysekera and Luo, 2008, p. 11) in Sri Lanka. Instead ‘…family and cultural factors play a substantial role in determining when [and how] young Sri Lankan women enter marriage’ (ibid.).

It was likely that Kusuma’s daughter sought love and comfort elsewhere away from home, with a drunken father and mother who was absent for nearly all her life. Manike’s daughter died according to doctors due to lack of care and attention. In the absence of the mother and despite the presence of their father or substitute mothers, the children lacked the kind of care only a mother can give. Carter and McGoldrick (1988) affirm that

[a]lthough families… have roles and functions, the main value in families [lies]… in the relationships, which are irreplaceable. If a parent leaves or dies, another person can be brought in to fill a parenting function, but this person can never replace the parent in his or her personal emotional aspects.(p. 6)

Overall, the ex-migrants’ economic migration pressured their spouses in two critical ways: first, they were faced with the reality in which they were unable to successfully fulfil the role of traditional family provider, leading to their dependence on the earnings of the wife, and second, they were faced with the challenge of protecting and maintaining their status quo as household heads and family providers. Lack of spousal support and negative behavioural patterns were mainly caused by spouses who felt that their status in the family was threatened.

Family/Household Type and the Role of the Extended Family

As the case studies illustrate, most of the ex-migrants lived in extended natal family households. Members of the extended natal family played key supportive roles in all stages of their migration, from the initial stage of decision-making to the final stage of their return home. For instance, Chandra’s decision to migrate was strongly backed by her mother and brother, while her husband overtly resisted the decision. Natal family relatives often served as the migrant’s initial channel of migration. For example, it was Sriyani’s and Mallika’s sisters, and Kusuma’s mother, who sponsored their first trips. Pagaduan (2006) notes that as the ones responsible for much of kin work, women have more access to information and support through exchanges between family members leading to chain migration which in turn leads to the expansion of their networks.

Family ties were sources of both practical and emotional support to the women. Their employment abroad would not be possible or facilitated without such support before and during migration. In Chandra’s case, during her stay abroad her mother played a crucial role in the face of her husband’s non-cooperative behaviour. The kinship system in Sri Lankan culture is such that it functions to transfer domestic duties and responsibilities to other female relatives since such care-giving duties are traditionally perceived as women’s work. During the migrants’ stay abroad, female relatives (mothers and sisters) played a key role, providing their families left behind with childcare and help in housework, especially in the absence of spousal support. Raising the migrants’ children, taking care of their nutrition, schooling, socialisation, etc., were perceived by women relatives as kinship duties and obligations which are recognised and ‘mapped onto kinship bonds’ (Collier and Yanagisako, 1990, p. 35).

In return for support and help from the extended natal family when they were away, women migrants almost single-handedly took care of all their financial needs. Thus, their remittances supported the extended natal family as well as their own immediate family. These material provisions, both in money and in kind, caused an unforeseen and uncontrollable outflow of remittances, putting pressure and drain on women’s earnings. In financial terms, one could say that extended family members resembled hired domestic help. Therefore, there was mutual benefit when the extended family gave support.

The presence of the extended family also brought on intra-household issues, such as conflict between the spouse and the migrant’s natal family over remittances, posing a threat to the unity and collective well-being of the household. Such differences led Chandra to terminate her employment contract and return home prematurely. Thereafter she had to provide for her mother without letting her husband know. Practically, all her earnings were spent on her family’s conspicuous consumption; this was experienced by Manike too, who later ended up almost entirely depending on her migrant son after having provided for others when she was abroad.

Cultural Ideologies of Gender

Within migrant households, migration redefined and reproduced so-called ‘women’s work and men’s work’, challenging cultural ideologies and gender hierarchies that shape established ways of thinking and behaviour of both men and women. Labour migration brought about changes in both gender identity and gender role of migrant women. In terms of identity formation, ⁵ it has been argued that one’s gender identity is largely influenced by the social learning theory (see Bandura, 1969), which recognises that individuals acquire their gender identity through observing and reproducing gender-linked behaviours. Drawing on previous research, Chae (2001/2002) suggests that ‘… identity development is constructed primarily through the relationships in which one has engaged’ (p. 18). Socialisation and cultural influences have been recognised as key components influencing one’s social learning, and thus identity formation. Prior to migration, women viewed themselves as dependent and subordinate, and internalised their gender role as family caregivers. On the contrary, their spouses’ gender identity lay in their roles of family provider and main decision-maker, who displayed an independent, dominant and assertive social behaviour.

Migration reversed gender roles when women became the providers. Although, consequently, one immediate noticeable positive impact was women’s increased access to and control over household resources and improved decision-making power, neither migration nor its accompanying changes in gender identity/role were able to completely uproot internalised cultural ideologies. Whatever their personal accomplishments or changes, or however critical their family disruptions were, the ex-migrants placed themselves within the framework of family and motherhood, and worked towards the collective welfare of the family. On their return home, Mallika and Chandra faced marital tension and conflicts, and Kusuma’s daughter’s elopement and the blame laid on her by her husband left her unhappy. However serious the issues, none of these women took any step such as separating or filing for divorce which was not perceived as an option on account of the social stigma that attaches not only to women but to their families as well.

Gamburd (2000) notes that regardless of their new consciousness and sharpened awareness of gender hierarchies and power relations, migrant women remained embedded in conservative patterns of thought and behaviour. Women refrained from questioning established norms and cultural ideologies. Rather than view their access to income earned abroad as a new source of power, they viewed it as an opportunity to contribute to family welfare for in family solidarity lay protection for women. Men continued to remain head of the household irrespective of the greater household economic contributions made by the women and less than ideal behaviour of the men. Vogler (1998) notes that, ‘when couples… agreed that the man was the main breadwinner husbands were more powerful than wives regardless of their relative incomes’ (p. 697). Further, when a woman’s migration for employment did not bring about financial well-being overall or when the social consequences of her migration and absence were unpleasant and serious or when maladjustments among family members increased, it was the women who felt guilty and depressed.

Personal Traits and Individual Capacity

Kabeer (2001b) referring to rural Bangladeshi women loanees states that ‘women are not a homogenous group of individuals. …the process of empowerment needs to take into account the important distinction between women as a socially subordinate category and women as a socially diverse group of individuals’ (p. 82). Hence, it is true that certain external conditions are essential for women’s empowerment, but unless women are willing to act and are competent enough, they may remain ineffective even in conditions encouraging to empowerment.

The ex-migrants taken as a social group more or less shared a similar socio-economic background in their home societies. Poverty was the major push for their search for paid employment abroad. ⁶ At their destinations, all of them were similarly employed as live-in housemaids and received more or less a similar monthly remuneration. Gamburd (2010) notes that on average Sri Lanka’s transnational domestic workers earn $100 per month while abroad and ‘this is between two and five times what women could earn working… [locally], and equals or exceeds the wages earned by most village men’ (p. 3).

However, taken as distinct individuals the women responded differently to the changes that occurred as a result of migration. For example, both Sriyani and Manike were unemployed and so were their husbands. Both lived in extended natal family households. Out of deep financial need their search for paid employment abroad was equally desperate and the decision to migrate was made with the consent of their husbands. Both gained increased access to and control over economic resources and they became de facto breadwinners and provided for their immediate as well as extended family. There the similarity ends.

Sriyani was able to bring about sustainable development to her household. After her return home she became a successful entrepreneur, whose business property became the only source of household income. She was content working hand-in-hand with her husband towards her family’s well-being. Her achievement is noteworthy for a person who did not have any formal knowledge of or education in business. Sriyani’s fall-back options also included the goodwill she earned and the bond she had forged with her employer abroad.

On the contrary, Manike was able to bring about only short-term material well-being to her family. In the long run, the consequences of her migration were not positive, both economically and socially. Upon migration she started appreciating the freedom and autonomy that came along with her access to economic resources. She got used to a spendthrift lifestyle, spending most of her remittances on conspicuous consumption, heavily dependent on migration without any clear time frame for returning home or plans for the future.

Labour migration exposed the migrants to new worlds outside of their homes with different cultural practices. In these new worlds, as income earners, they experienced greater heights of freedom, autonomy and self-reliance away from their largely unrewarding traditional duties of motherhood and wifehood at home. Furthermore, they participated in new and more desirable patterns of commodity consumption and gained a fair knowledge of international languages, Arabic and English. These, coupled with their access to economic resources, something that they had never experienced before, tempted them to prolong their stays abroad or go back and forth in migration cycles. Women’s enthusiasm for migration veiled a rather covert interest in themselves and their own well-being. Their later trips abroad were impelled by a sense of individual autonomy.

Manike lacked the aspiration, effort and perseverance, or the potential and individual characteristics needed to take the right action at the right time in the light of the opportunities available. As Sriyani’s and Manike’s experiences demonstrate, the migrant’s individual capacity and personal traits are an important factor in the success/failure of her migration. Migration in itself was not an empowering intervention for the migrant women, but it did indeed provide them with the opportunities to bring about change, to which some were competent and determined enough to respond positively and others were not. Yet, given their broader socio-cultural context, their individual traits and personality remained subject to and strongly influenced by their group culture and practices. Therefore, as a factor of empowerment, the migrants’ personal traits alone were not powerful enough to ensure them benefits of migration or a sense of empowerment in the household.