Although they had always planned for permanent reunification in their villages of origin, migrant wives moving alone and their left-behind husbands were often uncertain about the timing of this reunification. Surprisingly, many of them in the 2013 MFMS had not
discussed or negotiated the matter. Nha (household # 17), for example, had engaged in migrant work for five years. Her husband in the meanwhile had agreed to stay home to take care of their children. They both agreed that: “We have not brought the return matter up as it is still too early to talk about it.” Tuan and his wife had also been living apart for more than five years. Tuan (household # 11) had recently wanted his wife to return and work closer to home so that their family could be together, but he “never asked her to return, even though I want to.” He explained: “Since she has migrated for this family how can I keep her at home? How can I ask her to stay?”
As negotiation and discussion had generally not taken place, migrant wives living on their own and left-behind husbands tended to have different timings for family reunification. For example, while Tinh (household # 1) suggested that in one to two more years’ time his family would all live together again in the village, his wife, Nga said: “I don’t know when I will return. Now I only know that I need to earn more money.”
Even when there was negotiation and discussion it was not unusual for left-behind husbands to find that, with new needs for financial support, their migrant wives did not follow agreements they had reached. Xem, who had asked his wife to return many times, reported:
I have no idea when she will return. I have asked her many times but she just makes different promises. Two years ago she told me that she needed to earn some more money to finance our first son’s marriage, and would return after that. Then she told me that she would stay a little longer to financially support our son and his
153 wife to deliver their first child. (Xem, 53 years old, farmer, father of 3 children aged12, 27 & 30, husband of a 49 year-old freelance caregiver who had migrated for 11 years, household # 21)
Tuan and Xem were not exceptional cases. Some other left-behind husbands in this study, even though they wanted their wives to end their migration and return home, did not use threats, such as of divorce, to pressure or force them to return. They tended to let their wives make the decision. This suggests that economic contributions to household incomes and urban experience had empowered married female lone migrants. If before they had had to collectively make migration decisions with their husbands and other family members, now they could make return decisions on their own.
Being able to act as decision-makers did not make it easier for migrant wives to specify when they would return. Many of them ambiguously said that they would continue migrant work for a few more years until they had saved some more money. Others stated that they would not return in the near future but would stay and work until they were no longer able to work. Truong (household # 19), for example, had done migrant work for 13 years while her husband stayed home to farm and raise their four children. At the time of the interview all of her children had already married and moved out. Truong’s financial burden, which was very heavy when her children were younger, had now been lifted, but she still had no plan to return home soon. She explained:
My children have already got married and have their own families to take care of. I do not want to ask them for financial assistance. ... I am still strong enough to work, but if I return to the village no one there would want to hire an old lady like me. That is why I want to stay here, until I am no longer able to work. (Truong, married female migrant, 57 years old, freelance caregiver, migrant for 13 years, mother of 4 children ranging in age from 28 to 38 years, wife of a 60 year-old farmer for 39 years, household # 19)
In another example Xoan was a freelance caregiver and mother of six. Four of her children had already married and moved out. One, after divorcing his wife was living at home and helping Xoan’s husband with the farming. The youngest one was also living at home and going to school. She observed:
I have six children who could care for me in my old age. But as their lives are not easy, I will try to be independent. I will work here for a few more years. When I
154 save some more money, I will stop migrating and return home to live with my husband. We will rely on each other. (Xoan, 58 years old, domestic worker, migrant for 10 years, mother of 6 children with the youngest now 17 years old, wife of a 61 year-old farmer for 37 years, household # 9)
These two excerpts show that even though children were perceived to be the main source of old-age support, some migrant wives did not want to burden them financially. They were actively strategizing to prolong their migrations so that they and their husbands could be financially independent in their old age.
Being a little more specific about the time for family reunion, several lone migrant wives stated that they would wait until their last child graduated from high school or university to return home. This strengthens an observation made in Chapters 4 and 7 that education is highly valued among rural parents, who see it as an effective way, and probably the only way, for their children to obtain good off-farm jobs. For example, Trong (household # 22), a mother of two, noted: “The first priority of my husband and me is our children. I will stay as long as necessary to support their education. If they want to go to university, we will work hard to send them there.”
Although migrant wives had often planned to return when their children finished studying, it was quite common for them to have extended their migration beyond this point,
especially with the increase in their families’ financial needs and their ability to manage those families from a distance via regular remittances, frequent home visits and phone calls and a strong social support system at home.
These findings of uncertainty about when the whole family would permanently settle in the home village and of the likelihood of migrant wives extending their migration seem entirely consistent with the household strategy approach (see Chapter 1), which suggests that migrants will return once they have achieved their goals (such as to improve household income and living conditions). If for any reason (such as low incomes or unemployment) migrants have not reached their goals, they will delay returning and stay longer at their destinations.
The household strategy approach, however, fails to acknowledge that returnees, just like migrants, are not the same but heterogeneous. Some married female lone migrants went back to their villages after achieving their goals, and as successful returnees who flourished at their destinations, chose to return and had positive impacts on their villages of origin.
155 Others returned as failed returnees who had not achieved their migration goals, but were forced to return and had negative impacts on their villages of origin (Gmelch, 1980; Constant & Massey, 2002; Cassarino, 2004; Wang & Fan, 2006). There were also some married female lone migrants who returned as neither successful nor failed returnees, but to fulfil their reproductive roles, mostly to take care of sick family members or to supervise their school-age children. For example, Loan (household # 26) returned home after
working for three years in the city to take care of her daughter, who was diagnosed with stomach cancer. And Yen (household # 6) had returned home to take care of her husband, who was injured in a motorbike accident.
Family demands were a prominent reason for married female migrants returning. However, the conventional success-failure dichotomy approach provides no room for this scenario. Thus, in agreement with the suggestion of Wang and Fan (2006), this study raises a need to add the family circumstances dimension to the success-failure approach. It further calls for attention to the roles of gender relations and social norms in shaping return decisions as it has found that to fulfil their reproductive roles women in rural areas not only strategize to migrate but also to return whenever necessary.