"Not like everyone else"? Transnational families relationship in their home society - between stigma and dialogue

“If you compared 5 years ago and 2 years ago, two years ago the wave of migration, I would say that went into decline because we have increased the average salary in the region and a significant number of vacancies ” (Ukraine, expert, local employment agency).

Also, the knowledge comprises the appreciation of existing legislation and policy:

“Any package, any aid [at the local administration] that is given first and foremost, is given to children whose parents have gone abroad” (Republic of Moldova, expert, local administration), while also being aware of shortcomings:

“This is a vulnerable category because children are our future, and if we as people do not get informed and don't invest in their comfort in their education, then we have nowhere to expect a future. If leverage is not identified from the very beginning, it is then very difficult, and I think that it is necessary for this priority area” (Republic of Moldova, expert, national administration). Indeed, the respondents also display a capacity to offer constructive suggestions:

“[T]here are people who have gained relevant experience and can start a job here. enterprise, even social enterprise, because there is a lot of social business abroad. Create jobs here” (Ukraine, expert, local employment agency);

“It is necessary to organize extra-curricular activities for children (sports, creative), including attending creative centres, creative schools to have a higher involvement” (Republic of Moldova, expert, national administration);

“One proposal would be [that]... at the central level, legislation should be adjusted so that the responsibility of parents abroad is not lost” (Republic of Moldova, expert, local administration).

But this perspective has its practical limits, even limits of competence:

“I cannot specify, and now I give my advice, recommendations, I am not prepared” (Ukraine, expert, local administration).

The perspective of experts is, at the same time, entirely exterior to transnational families; hence they project a supposed lack of responsibility:

“It is necessary to tighten the legislation on the duties of migrant workers or their responsibility, and this will naturally raise the issue of a kind of register or database to understand who, what and how, what needs and what is the situation” (Ukraine, expert, national NGO).

2. Family members' proposals. Conversely, migrant family members, as “experts by experience”, present critical perspectives about the institutional context of their migration. On one end, these manifest outright indignation about the state's perceived passivity, indeed anti-migrant measures (such as the proposed taxation of remittances):

“[in Poland] there is a system of benefits. We don't have that, I don't know that we have one. They will not help us, they will drown us” (woman, Ukraine, works in Poland). On the other, they offer a soft and tolerant criticism:

“I don't know how to tell you. With the social service, I have such an idea about this organization that there should be some kind of help, but on their part... they are looking for moments where something is wrong with you... ” (man, Ukraine, his wife works in Poland).

In this situation, they mainly provide proposals that are often general or counterfactual - such as more jobs, more political support, and reduction of corruption:

“Maybe more jobs. Let the people have a place to work; that's why people leave the country because there are few jobs, you really don't have a place to work, there are not so many jobs, it's not even a job [...]” (woman, Republic of Moldova, works in Poland) or minimalist and defensive:

“Although, once G.R. A person mentioned by the respondent; initials are used for anonymization.arranged for us a free children's camp, in my opinion, in Feldman. Now that was helpful! And I also took vouchers for children to the sea, also for free. This is also social assistance, also G.R.” (man, Ukraine, his wife works in Poland);

“Legal advice is always needed because we are people who are not legally savvy, so we often encounter ignorance of the law, and free consultations would be very necessary” (man, Ukraine, his wife works in Poland);

“I would say that until the children are minors, there should be free travel” (woman, Ukraine, works in Poland).

In contrast, they point to their own foreign experiences, to how migrants are (positively) treated abroad: interpreters, migrant workers' unions, better institutional communication, child monitoring, and migrant pensions, without finding definite corresponding measures to be implemented at home or transnationally:

“I don't know if there are any migrant workers' unions there. Here in Poland, yes. [...] This lawyer, as it were, and free travel - already helped me” (woman, Ukraine, works in Poland).

As argued by Ianioglo et al. [54] for the Moldovan case, the trust deficit of migrants towards institutions leads to a failure to apply to existing support mechanisms, which our data in the form of deep scepticism about such proposals can attest. Namely, transnational family members also highlight the epistemological scepticism to communicate effectively:

“It is impossible to say. It's all connected. It is impossible to say a few words, let's do it, and everything will be fine. We are smart people. We understand that this is not real” (woman, Ukraine, works in Germany).

Dedicated measures in support of transnational families appear as dubitable as well since they might mean implicit discrimination:

“I think that a separate organization would humiliate me that we are not like everyone else ” (woman, Ukraine, her husband works in Poland).

Indeed, this may lead to a renouncement of expectations:

“We no longer believe and rely on the country. We rely only on ourselves, and this is not normal. No one needs you, and the laws will not help us” (man, Ukraine, works in Germany).

transnational family migration authoritie

Conclusions

We believe that migrants' restraint in proposing more daring support measures is an expression of the full responsibility of the family for the well-being of its vulnerable members, in this case, the children. It is an outcome of a diminishing welfare state in post-socialist countries. A further explanation for the low-key nature of proposals may be rooted in how people assess authorities' responsiveness and/or ability to deliver. Let us remember that both countries under discussion are characterized by low confidence in institutions, which is hardly an enabling context for people to imagine far-reaching interventions that public bodies would be willing to take on.

One of our concerns in this paper was identifying the causes of mistrust in the context of transnational families and their relationship with public authorities. After analyzing the data, we noticed that distrust results from specific indicators for Ukraine and Moldova: negativism built on perceptions of high corruption, lack of cooperation or poor communication, feelings of insecurity, reluctance, and hostility. Moreover, it is crucial to mention that transnationalism also brings the possibility of comparing the state care between the home and host countries. Mild forms of criticism were found through comparative opinions. Conversely, we believe that trust can be increased by: support measures aimed to support, not intervene in the family, positive interaction and efficient communication with representatives of institutions, transparency, less bureaucracy and more information on rights.

From all the sections that we have presented to best capture the practices that illustrate the presence of a certain degree of stigmatization of parents in transnational families, the inventory of all the stakeholders' attitudes shows the highest ambivalence. However, this characteristic of attitudes illustrates the considerable pressure placed on transnational families by society, representatives of the authorities, and by members of the immediate social environment by the family and the community.

The findings concerning the level of trust, attitudes and proposals raise two important further issues. First, to inform the transnational transfer of good practices, real-life experience is needed, such as that of migrants, if it is not to remain a hollow imitation. However, this experience can only be conveyed through dialogue within conditions of trust and acceptance - which was not the case at the moment of our research. Second, the underlying biases in perspective, especially on the side of institutions, hinder the building of trust and are often lamentably also structurally reinforced by research [8; 55]. Therefore, it is imperative to continue dialogue-based fieldwork with primary stakeholders, the families themselves, to deconstruct and prospectively avoid the structural construction of stigma - namely, the stigma inherent in the way the question itself is asked.

References

1. Parrenas R. (2001). Mothering from a Distance: Emotions, Gender, and Intergenerational Relations in Filipino Transnational Families. Feminist Studies, 27 (2), 361-390.

2. Parrenas R. (2005). Long Distance Intimacy: Class, Gender and Intergenerational Relations Between Mothers and Children in Filipino Transnational Families. Global Networks, 5, 317-336.

3. Piperno F. (2007). From Care Drain to Care Gain: Migration in Romania and Ukraine and the rise of transnational welfare. Development, 50, 63-68.

4. Solari C. (2014). `Prostitutes' and `Defectors': How the Ukrainian State Constructs Women Emigrants to Italy and the USA, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 40 (11), 1817-1835.

5. Tolstokorova A. (2008). Locally Neglected, Globally Engaged: Ukrainian Women on the Move. In R. Anderl, B. Arich-Gerz, R. Schmiede (Eds.), Technologies of Globalization. International Conference Proceedings (pp. 44-61). Technical University Darmstadt.

6. Tolstokorova A. (2009). Who Cares for Carers? Feminization of Labor Migration from Ukraine and its Impact on Social Welfare. International Issues & Slovak Foreign Policy Affairs, XVIII (1), 62-84.

7. Ducu V. (2013). Strategies of Transnational Motherhood: the Case of Romanian Women). Cluj-Napoca: Argonaut [in Romanian]

8. Cojocaru S., Islam M., Timofte D. (2015). The Effects of Parent Migration on the Children Left at Home: The Use of Ad-Hoc Research for Raising Moral Panic in Romania and the Republic of Moldova. Anthropologist, 22, 568-575.

9. Vanore M. (2015). Family-Member Migration and the Psychosocial Health Outcomes of Children in Moldova and Georgia. Boekenplan: Maastricht.

10. Zhurzhenko T. (2004). Families in Ukraine: Between postponed modernization, neofamilialism and economic survival. In M. Robila (Ed.), Families in Eastern Europe (pp. 187-209). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

11. Robila M. (2004). Families in Eastern Europe: Context, Trends and Variations. In M. Robila (Ed.), Families in Eastern Europe, Contemporary Perspectives in Family Research (pp. 1-14). UK: Emerald Group Publishing.

12. Dutchak O. (2018). Crisis, War and Austerity: Devaluation of Female Labor and Retreating of the State. Berlin: Rosa-Luxemburg-Stiftung.

13. Saraceno C., Keck W. (2010). Can We Identify Intergenerational Policy Regimes in Europe? European Societies, 12 (5), 675-696.

14. Burlacu I. (2008). Welfare State Regimes in Transition Countries: Romania and Moldova Compared. CEUPolitical Science Journal, 2 (3), 302-318.

15. Vasyltsiv T., Lupak R., Kunytska-Iliash M. (2019). Social Security of Ukraine and the EU: Aspects of Convergence and Improvement of Migration Policy. Baltic Journal of Economic Studies, 5 (4), 50-58.

16. Marchetti S., Venturini A. (2014). Mothers and Grandmothers on the Move: Labour Mobility and the Household Strategies of Moldovan and Ukrainian Migrant Women in Italy. International Migration, 52, 111-126.

17. Baldassar L. (2008). Missing Kin and Longing to be Together: Emotions and the Construction of Co-presence in Transnational Relationships. Journal of Intercultural Studies, 29 (3), 247-266.

18. Parrenas R.S. (2010). Transnational Mothering: A Source of Gender Conflicts in the Family. N.C.L. Rev. - North Carolina Law Review, 88, 1825.

19. Parrenas R.S. (2009). The Gender Revolution in the Philippines: Migrant Care Workers and Social Transformations.

20. Toma S., Tesar C., Foszto L. (2018). Romanian Roma at home: Mobility patterns, migration experiences, networks, and remittances. In Ya. Matras, D.V. Leggio (Eds.), Open Borders, Unlocked Cultures Romanian Roma Migrants in Western Europe (pp. 57-82). London and New York: Routledge.

21. Kaczmarczyk P., Okolski M. (2005, July 6-8). International Migration in Central and Eastern Europe - Current and Future Trends. United Nations Expert Group Meeting on International Migration and Development. New York.

22. Wallace C., Stola D. (2001). Introduction: patterns of migration in Central Europe. In C. Wallace, D. Stola (Eds.), Patterns of Migration in Central Europe (pp. 3-44). London: Palgrave Mac Millan.

23. Wallace C. (1999). Economic Hardship, Migration, and Survival Strategies in East-Central Europe. Sociological Series 35. Vienna: Institute for Advanced Studies.

24. Okolski M. (2001). Incomplete Migration: a New Form of Mobility in Central and Eastern Europe. The Case of Polish and Ukrainian Migrants. In: Wallace, C., Stola, D. (Eds.), Patterns of Migration in Central Europe. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

25. Triandafyllidou A. (2013). Circular migration at the periphery of Europe: choice, opportunity or necessity? In A. Triandafyllidou (Ed.), Circular migration between Europe and its neighbourhood: choice or necessity (pp. 212-236). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

26. ILO. (2017). Migrant Workers: the case of Moldova.

27. ILO. (2021). Youth employment: a systems analysis for Moldova's decent work country programme 2021-2024.

28. UNDP. (2017). Youth on the Labour Market in the Republic of Moldova: Competences and Aspirations. Chisinau.

29. IOM. (2020). Profile and current challenges of Moldovan migrant workers (main findings). Chisinau.

30. Gorny A., Kindler M. (2016). The Temporary Nature of Ukrainian Migration: Definitions, Determinants and Consequences. In O. Fedyuk, M. Kindler (Eds.), Ukrainian Migration to the European Union (pp. 91-112). Cham: Springer.

31. Kupets O. (2016). Economic Aspects of Ukrainian Migration to EU Countries. In O. Fedyuk, M. Kindler (Eds.), Ukrainian Migration to the European Union (pp. 35-50). Cham: Springer.

32. Lapshyna I., Duvell F. (2018). We Can Only Dream about Europe': Perceptions of Social Policy as a Driver of Migration Aspirations. The Case of Ukraine. The Journal of Social Policy Studies, 6 (3), 639-654.

33. Pienkowski J. (2020). The Impact of labour migration on the Ukrainian economy. Discussion paper 123. April 2020. European Commission.

34. ILO. (2020). Decent work country programme 2020-2024. Ukraine.

35. IOM. (2021). Migration in Ukraine. Facts and Figures, 2021.

36. Badescu G., Uslaner E. (Eds.). (2003). Social Capital and the Transition to Democracy (1st ed.). London: Routledge.

37. Mishler W., Rose R. (2001). What Are The Origins of Political Trust? Testing Institutional and Cultural Theories in Post-Communist Societies. Comparative Political Studies, 34 (1), 30-62.

38. Kupets O., Vakhitov V., Babenko S. (2012). Ukraine case study: Jobs and Demographic Change. Background paper prepared for the World Development Report 2013.

39. Sapsford R., Abbott P., Haerpfer C., Wallace C. (2015). Trust in Post-Soviet Countries, Ten Years On. European Politics and Society, 16 (4), 523-539.

40. Gaidyte T. (2013). Trust in Mature and Post-communist Democracies. Sociopedia.isa, 1-13.

41. Nannestad P. (2008). What Have We Learned About General Trust, If Anything? Annual Review of Political Science.

42. Knack S. (2003). Groups, growth and trust: Cross-country evidence on the Olson and Putnam hypotheses. Public Choice, 117 (3-4), 341-355.

43. Hardin R. (2001). Conceptions and explanations of trust. In K.S. Cook (Ed.), Trust in society (pp. 3-39). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

44. Ahn T., Esarey J. (2008). A Dynamic Model of Generalized Social Trust. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 20 (2), 151-180.

45. Offe C. (1999). How can we trust our fellow citizens.

46. Kurki M. (2020). International Relations in a Relational Universe. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

47. Yamagishi T., Yamagishi M. (1994). Trust and commitment in the United States and Japan. Motiv Emot, 18, 129-166.

48. Lorenz, E. (1999). Trust, Contract and Economic Cooperation. Cambridge Journal of Economics.

49. Farrell H., Knight J. (2003). Trust, Institutions, and Institutional Change: Industrial Districts and the Social Capital Hypothesis. Politics & Society, 31 (4), 537-566.

50. Oskarsson S., Svensson T., Oberg P. (2009). Power, trust, and institutional constraints: Individual level evidence. Rationality and Society, 21 (2), 171-195.

51. Uslaner E. (2002). The Moral Foundation of Trust. SSRN Electronic Journal.

52. Ducu V., Haragus M., Angi D., Telegdi-Csetri A. (2023). Asserting children's rights through the digital practices of transnational families. Family Relations.

53. Frenyo E. (2019). Transnational families. The right to family life in the age of global migration. In B. Stark, J. Heaton (Eds.), Routledge handbook of international family law (pp. 295-315). London: Routledge.

54. Ianioglo A., Tabac T., Pahomii I., Ceban A., Onofrei N. (2021). Return migration in the Republic of Moldova: main issues and opportunities. International Migration, 59 (3), 162-176.

55. Dumitru S. (2023). The ethics of immigration: How biased is the field? Migration Studies.

Размещено на Allbest.ru