Decline in female labour migration; beyond the numbers
For decades, female labour migrants, the majority of whom were “housemaids” constituted the largest labour migrant population from Sri Lanka. In 1997, women accounted for 75 per cent of all migrant labour. However, the tide has now turned, with the Sri Lanka Bureau of Foreign Employment (SLBFE) pointing out that male migrants are fast outpacing their female counterparts – by 2015, women constituted around 35 per cent of the migrant labour population. Women continue to migrate, however, in relatively smaller numbers and mostly as domestic workers.
Government institutes have been quick to point out the impact of state-led interventions in changing the gender composition. Male migration was encouraged through the promotion of skilled migration and to regions beyond the traditional Gulf Cooperation countries. But with regard to the women, the introduction and subsequent successful implementation of the Family Background Report (FBR) is cited as the main reason for the declining numbers. In short, the FBR prevents women of a certain age and women with young children and/or children with disabilities from seeking work overseas. But whether the numbers alone capture the story of women’s migration overseas as workers is doubtful.
The women who opt to migrate as domestic workers are from marginalised, economically-deprived communities and regions of Sri Lanka. Over the years, research has established that for many of the women migrants, employment as a domestic worker is a way out of economic hardship. In the absence of alternative livelihood options in the locality or due to the meagre income they eke out by engaging in a livelihood activity, these women opt to seek work elsewhere for a higher wage. With low education levels and poor skills, domestic work is a viable option. In making the choice to migrate, the women are performing their role as caregiver and extending it to the economic sphere and assuming the role of a bread winner as well.
Unofficial statistics offer a glimpse as to how women have responded to the restrictive nature of the FBR. Despite the Bureau’s contention that its databases “capture” all migrant workers leaving Sri Lanka’s shores, there appear to be loopholes through which the women continue to migrate. This was evidenced in recent media reports that women were using tourist visas to leave the country. The Minister of Foreign Employment herself has pointed out that women are increasingly forging documents to overcome the existing restrictions and that a FBR can also be “bought” for the right price. These rather quiet trends then raise the spectre of trafficking of women and if indeed the FBRs an effective means of regulating women’s migration.
One of the core problems is that the FBR does not have an accompanying, complementary tool to address the primary reason for women to seek work overseas. At the point of rejection, what other options are women offered? Is there access to funding or programmes that offer alternative income generating activities? The knee-jerk response of promoting micro-finance as a panacea for the women’s difficult socio-economic conditions is also problematic. More pressingly, if women are seeking work overseas as a means to escape abusive conditions at home, how are such women directed to seek support?
The lack of options or viable solutions offered to women helps explain why women would risk using alternative means to seek work overseas. However, by circumventing the established procedure to migrate, the women lose state protection and are rendered completely invisible within a system designed to offer them some form of protection while working overseas. At the same time, the women become more vulnerable to exploitation, particularly at the hands of the sub-agent and also risk falling into debt, by attempting to raise funds to secure a favourable FBR.
The government also finds itself walking a tightrope. Since its introduction, ground support for the FBR has been strong. Partly coloured by the media’s depiction of female labour migration and its adverse effects, there is a cursory understanding among the public that the FBR helps ensure that young children are not separated from their mothers – the socially-accepted primary caregiver. Keeping the women at home, the logic goes, helps ensure the children are protected and the family unit kept intact.
Therefore, it is difficult to perceive this policy of controlling women’s out-migration changing any time soon. However, there has been talk of “tweaking” the existing procedures to respond to the newer trends that have been noted. Towards this end, it is of critical importance to understand how the state policy has led to changes in the migration trajectories of women. Without more nuanced knowledge of women’s own understanding of their roles as primary caregiver and a breadwinner, such state action will continue to be counter-productive to both the women and the very families the policy aims to protect.
(WALK the LINE is a monthly column for the Development Page of the Business Times contributed by CEPA, an independent, Sri Lankan think-tank promoting a better understanding of poverty related development issues. CEPA can be contacted by visiting the website www.cepa.lk or via info@cepa.lk)