Empowering Absence? Assessing the Impact of Transnational Male Out-Migration on Left behind Wives

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

“Empowering Absence?” draws on cross-sectional survey and unstructured interviews with 373 respondents from three different locations in Nepal. The author argues that left-behind women, married to men engaged in transnational labor migration (TLM), exhibit more empowerment. This argument is especially clear when the discussion centers on women who live in a nuclear rather than extended family households. I enjoyed reading this paper and would like to see it develop a bit further. Below, I have some comments, which I hope are generative rather than discouraging. 

 

At present, I struggle on two fronts related to the main argument. First, I am unsure as to the analytical contribution. This confusion is tied to the second issue, which is, to what extent does this article engage with existing works on left-behind women? As it stands, the literature section is embedded within the “Contextual Background” section and does not tell us what the broader theoretical story is. Based on how the literature section is currently set up, we know more about the context of Nepal and less about existing arguments in the relevant scholarship that have offered important insights into what it means to be left behind. More importantly, what is missing is the “so what”? Why should we care about the lack of discussion of women in Nepal, besides an empirical addition to current scholarship? Here, I would encourage the authors to move away from a scarcity approach (of missing works and filling in the empirical gaps) and instead, discuss what can be leveraged and what can be contributed to enlighten our current understanding about those left behind. Whether literature on the left behind is sparse or not is not as important as how this work would clarify migration and immobility in ways we have yet to consider. 

 

This leads me to my second issue. Although scholarship on those left behind is not as abundant as the prevailing focus on those who migrant, there are still notable studies that are worth discussing. I would encourage the author to engage with these works to better lay out the analytical map upon which the case of Nepal can be used to clarify women’s empowerment. For example, works on left-behind women in regions of Latin America, East and South Asia, and the Middle East, to name a few, are noticeably absent from the current paper:

 

Aghajanian A., Alihoseini J., Thompson V. 2014. “Husband’s circular migration and the status of women left behind in Lamerd district, Iran.” Asian Population Studies.

 

Bever S. 2002. “Migration and the transformation of gender roles and hierarchies in Yucatan.” Urban Anthropology and Studies Cultural of Systems and World Economic Development

 

Biao X. 2007. “How far are the left-behind left behind? A preliminary study in rural China.” Population, Space and Place.

 

Brink J. H. 1991. “The effect of emigration of husbands on the status of their wives: An Egyptian case.” International Journal Middle Eastern Studies.

 

Desai S., Banerji M. 2008. “Negotiated identities: Male migration and left-behind wives in India.” Journal of Population Research.

 

de Snyder V. N. S. 1993. “Family life across the border: Mexican wives left behind.” Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences.

 

Graham E., Jordan L. P., Yeoh B. S. A. 2015. “Parental migration and the mental health of those who stay behind to care for children in Southeast Asia.” Social Science & Medicine.

 

Nguyen, L., B.S.A. Yeoh and M. Toyota, 2006. “Migration and the wellbeing of the ‘left behind’ in Asia: Key themes and trends.” Asian Population Studies.

 

In addition to the current setup regarding works on the left behind, I also disagree with the claim that the body of literature on transnational labor migration and gender has “slowly” been growing. It is a HUGE and vibrant field! Please look at Rhacel Parrenas, Andy Chang, Cinzia Solari, Pierrette Hondagneu-Sotelo as well as the most recent publication by Christou and Kofman (2022) which reviews existing works on gender and migration. In this latest publication, Christou and Kofman note the prevalence of scholarship on labor migration and gender and offer analysis of works that would be extremely relevant to this paper. As such, this paper would be significant stronger with more engagement with the literature on gender and labor migration as well as the one on the left behind.

 

There is one analytical thread in this paper that shows promise, and I would like to see the author develop it, which is the discussion of women’s empowerment and separation from the extended family rather than the migrant husband. At present, I am not fully convinced about the significance of the findings. Is it that women exhibit greater empowerment because their husbands are away or that their greater empowerment is tied to their escape from the extended family? At a glance, it might appear that the husbands’ absence is an important factor but perhaps too much attention on the husbands’ absence can obscure discussion of how the organization of familial arrangements can impede or enable women’s empowerment. Put another way, what is the relationship between women’s empowerment and the structure of an extended family versus the structure of a nuclear family? My sense from this current paper is that male outmigration precipitated some changes to women’s rights and obligations, which is consistent with the authors’ claim. However, the overemphasis on women’s separation from their husbands ignores an equally important distance, that is, women’s separation from the extended family. One part of this argument ties back to what the author commented on page 11 out of 18 that left behind women would move their families to urban centers. Might that also inform what levels of empowerment can be achieved? How might the cosmopolitan culture or urban notion of gender and work affirm or challenge the ideologies and norms of non-urban sites from which the women and their families came from? I think these are noteworthy finds in the paper that could help weave together a more nuanced map of women’s empowerment and engaging with the culture, environment, and structure of the household in addition to the husbands’ absence. 

 

Lastly, please entertain this existential musing as a means to provoke further discussion about what left-behind means rather than a criticism of the paper. I hope the editors will consider this last comment without any negative effect on the authors’ work. Specifically, I am wary of the tendency to discuss men in the same conversation as mobile and cast women as those left behind and/or immobile. This focus runs the risk of ignoring Donato and Gabaccia’s (2016) contention that women have been significantly involved in migration and feeds into previous works that cast men as “natural” migrants and women as those who are bounded to the home. Perhaps this is a consequence of the larger fixation on the masculinization of migration and the feminization of those who stay behind. In whatever case, I would encourage the authors to consider how their paper might reinforce or challenge the narrative of women as left behind while reinserting men into the role of those who can traverse national and spatial boundaries. 

 

Minor comments:

 

1.     There are minor grammatical inconsistences throughout the paper. These inconsistences do not detract from the argument, nonetheless, I would recommend working with a copy editor for ease of reading and coherence.

2.     On page 5 of 18, the authors write that there are “numerous definitions of women empowerment in academic discourse.” The lack of a definition of women’s empowerment is notable and most apparent in the section “Women Empowerment – concept and framework” which is confusing and does not tell us how the authors define this key concept, just that they are electing to study it as an indicator for third world women. A more detailed discussion of some of those definitions would be helpful followed by how the author defines and applies this concept to in their analysis.

Author Response

I would like to thank the editor and the reviewers for their valuable time and effort on reading and providing detailed feedback on the original manuscript. I find the comments and suggestions from all reviewers not only comprehensive but also constructive and encouraging. I have tried to incorporate most of the suggestions from all the reviewers and made following changes to the original manuscripts during the major revision. The changes are marked-up with the track-change function in the revised file.

1. As reviewers indicated, I agree that the original manuscript misses the broader theoretical context of the issue. It is also true that the article does not clearly articulate the analytical contribution and how it engages with existing works on left-behind women. A new paragraph is added on page 1 & 2 and a new section 2.4 (page 4 and 5) has been added to provide more contextual background of the study.
2. As reviewer suggested, arguments/clarification on why study of left-behind women in Nepal matters and how it contributes to our understanding of migration and immobility has been added to the article.
3. Statements are added to the discussion (page 15) and the conclusion section as suggested by the reviewer (page 16).
4. All the additional notable studies were reviewed, and relevant articles were made a part of discussion at page 1 & 2 and page 5.
5. A paragraph was added to the conclusion section that suggest what can be done, or based on the results and discussion of the article what can be suggested/recommended to make situation better for left-behind wives of migrant labours.
6. I have re-assessed the use of the phrase “left-behind” and although there might be negative connotation to the phrase, it has been already extensively used and well defined/established in the literature. Formation/use of new phrase might affect the discussion and I decided to keep the phrase as it is in the manuscript.
7. References added to the list of references (page 16).

I would like to request the editor and the reviewers to provide, if necessary, further suggestions/comments for any required changes they would like to see in the article, in case they consider current revised version is still not sufficient or requires changes. I would be happy to work more the manuscript, as recommended by the reviewers.

yours truly,

Corresponding author

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This article has lots of potential and its survey methodology administered in multiple sites provides a strong complement to a lot of qualitative studies on the condition of stay-behind women/wives. There are a number of areas where the article can be improved in order to make a stronger contribution to this specific migration topic.

First, section 1 should be strengthened. A more systematic synthesis of the literature could provide the article with a more clearly defined framework. The discussion of the impact of TLM on women who stay should be strengthened by looking at what is specific to Nepal, which would allow the authors to position their work more effectively. What does their study provide in terms of new insights? This could be done by examining the factors in Nepal that might exacerbate or lead to these consequences. A prominent finding is the move to a nuclear household structure but this is not prominently discussed in the lit review section. Why do the authors use 'left-behind' women? There are negative connotations to the phrase so have the authors examined their use of 'left-behind'? 

Second, strengthen the discussion provided in sections 2.2 and 2.3. As is currently written, I am not sure of how useful they are. They are general statements and have little substantive discussion of TLM's consequences on Nepali society. There's some mention of impacts on socio-cultural and agroecological aspects -- why not provide a more in-depth discussion of these particular aspects and make a strong link to the topic of the article? What are the specific gendered consequences of Nepali TLM? Why aren't these specified in the section to foreshadow the findings of the article?

Third, Section 3.2 and parts of 3.3 should be moved to the lit review part of the paper.  Explain why group discussions were conducted in addition to the survey. 

Fourth, Explain how the WEI was developed. How is it linked to the survey questionnaire? 

Fifth, a concluding paragraph should be added to section 4 comparing and contrasting the study's findings with the wider literature on Nepali or South Asian TLM. Is there anything distinctive with the findings? If so, what are the study's contributions to the literature? I think this is a missed opportunity to position the study and to highlight its potential contribution. 

Finally, the conclusion needs to be stated in a better way to avoid the contradiction in the statement made. The conclusion that migration status and household structure play a detrimental role should be more properly worded to capture the nuances -- they also have positive consequences on the women.

Author Response

I would like to thank the editor and the reviewers for their valuable time and effort on reading and providing detailed feedback on the original manuscript. I find the comments and suggestions from all reviewers not only comprehensive but also constructive and encouraging. I have tried to incorporate most of the suggestions from all the reviewers and made following changes to the original manuscripts during the major revision. The changes are marked-up with the track-change function in the revised file.

1. As reviewers indicated, I agree that the original manuscript misses the broader theoretical context of the issue. It is also true that the article does not clearly articulate the analytical contribution and how it engages with existing works on left-behind women. A new paragraph is added on page 1 & 2 and a new section 2.4 (page 4 and 5) has been added to provide more contextual background of the study.
2. As reviewer suggested, arguments/clarification on why study of left-behind women in Nepal matters and how it contributes to our understanding of migration and immobility has been added to the article.
3. Statements are added to the discussion (page 15) and the conclusion section as suggested by the reviewer (page 16).
4. All the additional notable studies were reviewed, and relevant articles were made a part of discussion at page 1 & 2 and page 5.
5. A paragraph was added to the conclusion section that suggest what can be done, or based on the results and discussion of the article what can be suggested/recommended to make situation better for left-behind wives of migrant labours.
6. I have re-assessed the use of the phrase “left-behind” and although there might be negative connotation to the phrase, it has been already extensively used and well defined/established in the literature. Formation/use of new phrase might affect the discussion and I decided to keep the phrase as it is in the manuscript.
7. References added to the list of references (page 16).

I would like to request the editor and the reviewers to provide, if necessary, further suggestions/comments for any required changes they would like to see in the article, in case they consider current revised version is still not sufficient or requires changes. I would be happy to work more the manuscript, as recommended by the reviewers.

yours truly,

Corresponding author

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf