Skip to main content
NCBI home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2022 Jan 1.
Published in final edited form as: J Ethn Migr Stud. 2019 Sep 24;47(5):1103–1118. doi: 10.1080/1369183x.2019.1669437

Coming back and moving backwards: return migration and gender norms in Egypt

Goleen Samari 1
PMCID: PMC7953847  NIHMSID: NIHMS1540648  PMID: 33716548

Abstract

This study examines how gender norms and household gender dynamics are modified in Egypt as a result of male return migration from other Arab Countries. Data come from the 2006 and 2012 Egyptian Labor Market Panel Survey. For 7,314 married couples in 2006 and 8,992 married couples in 2012, treatment effects regression models of gender norms and household decision-making and return migration are estimated. Egyptian women with spouses who have migrated to an Arab country and returned value more traditional gender norms. Women in households with a spouse who returned also make fewer household decisions compared to women in non-migrant households. Women with spouses who have migrated multiple times also make fewer household decisions compared to women who had a spouse migrate before 2006. The findings suggest transformation of household gender dynamics and reinforcement of traditional gender ideologies by male emigration to and immigration from other Arab countries.

Keywords: Return migration, Gender Norms, Intra-household Power, Family, Egypt

Introduction

Egypt is consistently ranked among the worst countries for gender equality – 135 out of 149 counties in 2018 (World Economic Forum 2018). Egypt, like many Arab states, embodies various patriarchal structures. Major areas of life including sexuality, family, education, and the state are organized according to unequal gender principles and the conflicting hierarchies of power. For example, at all level of incomes, women do the majority of housework, have lower educational attainment, and are less likely to work outside the home than men (Assaad et al. 2018). Men are expected to work outside the home, and men have the opportunity to migrate for work (Wahba 2015). Since the 1970s, Egypt has had massive waves of migration of young men towards oil-producing Arab countries that rank worse than Egypt for gender disparities.

International migration brings about social change, which includes the reconfiguration of gender relations and norms (Dannecker 2009; Donato et al. 2006; Levitt 2001; Rahman 2009). Any pattern of migration is expected to affect the construction of gender and gender dynamics (Itzigsohn and Glorguli-Saucedo 2005; Levitt 2001; Parrado and Flippen 2005; Pessar and Mahler 2003). Since migrants may adopt and bring back ideas that prevail in host countries or nostalgically hold on to norms from sending countries, there is increasing concern that returning labor migrants from other Arab countries reinforce existing patriarchal values and further weaken the status of women in Egypt.

While several studies consider gender roles while the spouse is absent from the household (Hadi 2001; Menjívar and Agadjanian 2007; Rahman 2009), limited quantitative work considers the effects of return migration on gender norms in countries of origin (Shattuck et al. 2019; Yabiku, Agadjanian and Sevoyan 2010). For Egypt, where gender inequality remains a persistent challenge, understanding how migration can shape gender norms and women’s roles in household decisions is particularly important. This study uses the 2006 and 2012 Egyptian Labor Market Panel Survey to examine the construction of gender norms and women’s household decision-making associated with male return migration from other Arab countries.

Background

Gender Norms and Migration

Gender norms, which include the gendered roles that men and women take up in the home, are inevitably influenced by processes of change, including migration (Donato et al. 2006). Migration provides a context for reconstruction of gender norms and negotiations of dynamics between the couple (Levitt 2001). It is increasingly recognized that migration may simultaneously challenge and reinforce patriarchy, presenting women with opportunities in some areas while constraining other areas (Donato, Piya and Jacobs 2014; Flippen and Parrado 2015; Parrado, Flippen and McQuiston 2005; Parrado and Flippen 2005).

A considerable body of research has considered women and families left behind by male migration yet studies have found mixed results for whether out-migration of male relatives and remittances play a part in restructuring gender roles for women who remain at home. In the absence of men, women are responsible for both their own and their husband’s tasks (Boehm 2008). Women left behind or split-household women are likely to take on the productive roles previously carried out by their husbands (Archambault 2010; Desai and Banerji 2008; Majidi 2017; McEvoy et al. 2012). In some cases, out migration of spouses provides women with greater economic opportunities and a more egalitarian environment, elevating their status compared to men (Archambault 2010; Luna and Rahman 2019; Rahman 2009). In the early 1990s in an Egyptian village, spousal labor migration freed women from supervision and increased their ability to make financial decisions, but had no effect on the decision to purchase expensive items (Brink 1991). Results from studies in a variety of settings, such as those in Mexico (De Snyder 1993; Radel and Schmook 2009), Morocco (Ennaji and Sadiqi 2004), Armenia and Guatemala (Menjívar and Agadjanian 2007), Bangladesh (Hadi 2001), and Nepal (Shattuck et al. 2019) suggest greater household decision-making capacities for women left behind.

In contrast, other studies suggest that men ultimately maintain control of household gender dynamics even when abroad through controlling household resources or dynamics (Lopez-Ekra et al. 2011). For example, in Egypt, unreliable remittances made it difficult for women to make any household decisions (Brink 1991). Split household women may also experience policing from extended families and communities and restrictions on their mobility (McEvoy et al. 2012). Desai and Banerji (2008) in India and Hannaford (2017) in Senegal found that women’s household agency was dependent on whether split household women lived with extended family, particularly mothers-in-law or women who are senior to them. These issues of marginalization, family separation and dynamics, and social isolation may actually reinforce patriarchal norm for women. In their comparative analysis of the effect of men’s labor migration on women left behind in Armenia and Guatemala, Menjívar and Agadjanian (2007) conclude that in both settings migration tends to reinforce gender inequality within the household. Thus, while women may take on additional responsibilities, gender inequality remains deeply entrenched (Menjívar and Agadjanian 2007). Empirical research in Turkey (Day and Içduygu 1997), Albania (King, Dalipaj and Mai 2006), Vietnam (Thai 2008), and Burkina Faso (Hampshire 2006) shows that migration does not lead to a permanent shift in patriarchal family norms.

While a considerable body of research has examined the impact of migration on gender (Desai and Banerji 2008; Donato et al. 2011; Donato, Piya and Jacobs 2014; Itzigsohn and Giorguli-Saucedo 2005; Parrado and Flippen 2005), the quantitative effect of migration on gender norms in origin communities remains elusive. Return migration describes a situation where migrants return to countries of origin by their own choice or force after a significant period abroad (Cassarino 2004). In general, compared to non-migrants, return migrants tend to be older, more often married, and better educated (De Vreyer, Gubert and Robilliard 2010). The wellbeing of returnees and their families is known to be dependent on accumulation of resources, relationships with family members, and access to decision-making (Erdal and Oeppen 2017; Vathi and King 2017). However, it remains largely unclear whether return migrants may affect household gender norms in countries of origin upon their return.

The influence of migration on reconstructing gender relations is conditioned by the structural and cultural contexts in both migration origins and destinations (Donato et al. 2006; Flippen and Parrado 2015; Parrado and Flippen 2005). At a macro level, migration towards more egalitarian countries is found to promote gender equality in social institutions at home, while migration towards discriminatory contexts has the reverse effect (Ferrant and Tuccio 2015). Exposure to different gender norms in countries of destination could also transform household gender dynamics in sending countries (Donato, Piya and Jacobs 2014; Lutz 2010). Women who were left behind and made gains in household power while spouses were away (Archambault 2010; Desai and Banerji 2008; Majidi 2017; McEvoy et al. 2012) may or may not retain their improved status upon their husband’s return. Gender relations could revert back to what they were prior to migration as soon as the men return home (Lucas 2005). Migrant communities and households may reinforce “traditional” gender-role behaviors for women as a way of reaffirming the gender hierarchy of the household upon return (Thai 2008). Women may still face large gender inequalities in the household and in society generally owing to the pervasive and entrenched character of these inequalities (McEvoy et al. 2012).

Gender Inequality in Egypt

Parrado and Flippen (2005) argue that the way migration reconstructs gender relations depends on the structural context of migrants’ origin and destination communities. Egypt is a patriarchal, traditionally male-dominated culture, where women face inequalities across policy and community sectors as well as in the household (El-Safty 2004). Egypt is divided into 26 governorates grouped together as the Urban Governorates (Cairo, Alexandria, Port Said, Suez), the governorates of Upper and Lower Egypt (Lower Egypt is primarily the Nile delta, while Upper Egypt is south of the Nile Delta), and the Rural Governorates (all other parts of the country). There are marked regional heterogeneities, mainly due to uneven income distribution and the geographic isolation of some areas. About 25% of the Egyptian population lives in Upper Egypt where 90% of the poorest villages are located (Handoussa 2008). The lower socioeconomic status in Upper Egypt contributes to gender disparities and lower status of women (Samari and Pebley 2018).

In Egypt, married men serve as heads of households and make decisions for the household (Bier 2011; Yount 2005a). Women take on traditional roles in the household and outside labor force participation is infrequent (Assaad et al. 2018). Marriage for women remains universal, a third of women are married before age 18, and less than 2% have never married by age 40 (Crandall et al. 2016; El-Zanaty and Way 2009). Women make very few household decisions on their own, and community gender norms shape women’s access to power in the household (Samari 2017; Samari and Pebley 2018). Domestic violence against women is common (Yount 2005b), and the frequency of spousal abusive in Egypt is indicative of the persistence of unequal gendered realities and patriarchal norms. Questions remain as to whether gender equity can be achieved, whether men and women are willing to challenge the patriarchal society (Fargues 2005), and whether men and women will challenge existing power relations. Egyptian women have expressed the need to cultivate more equitable attitudes about gender in their children in an effort to transform gender norms in the next generation (Henry 2011). Despite the unknown future, gender norm are especially important to address in Egypt.

Migration in Egypt

Since the 1970s, Egypt has had massive waves of migration of young men towards oil-producing Arab countries. These labor migrants towards high-income Arab countries are almost primarily from rural areas, exclusively male, and predominantly temporary (Fargues and Fandrich 2012). Migration to Arab States is all temporary in nature with the mean migration duration of around four years and acquisition of citizenship being effectively impossible for anyone (Lucas 2005). Egyptian temporary migration flows are comprised of both highly skilled and unskilled, predominately males. In rural areas, this increased male emigration for work has led to greater female labor market participation while men are away (Binzel and Assaad 2011). Egyptian returnees who have migrated even for short periods of time, accumulate financial capital on a scale that is otherwise not possible, through acquisition of new skills that increases productive enterprise investment on the return home (Wahba 2004).

Although international emigrants and immigrants may only account for small proportions of the Egyptian population, the local impact on gender norms and other aspects of social change can be significant. There is concern that Egyptian labor migrants bring back more conservative views on women because of the greater gender inequalities in the Arab countries of destination (Wahba 2015; World Economic Forum 2018). Exposure to a more patriarchal gender system in other Arab countries could limit gender dynamics in Egypt relative to that in the destination Arab countries. However, there is also evidence that male migration itself increases patriarchal values regardless of the gender value system of the destination context (Thai 2008). Thus, it is important to examine household gender norms and dynamics for families of returnees. Using a longitudinal Egyptian household survey and measures of gender dynamics among women who were left behind, this study aims to examine the construction of gender norms and to explore household gender hierarchies after male return migration to Egypt other from Arab countries.

Data and Methodology

Data

Data come from the 2006 and 2012 waves of the Egyptian Labor Market Panel Survey undertaken by the Central Agency for Public Mobilization and Statistics, CAPMAS, and by the Economic Research Forum (Assaad and Krafft 2013). Data from the 2006 and 2012 ELMPS is well suited for this research because it is longitudinal and designed to study socioeconomic attributes of households, involves a large nationally representative sample of men and women, and includes a module on the status of women and gender norms administered to women in households. The data contains household migration histories as well as individual-level information about education, age, gender, and many other demographic variables.

In 2006, 8,351 households were included in the survey. The 2012 survey included 12,060 households, including some of the 2006 households and an additional sample of new households. Of all the 37,140 individuals interviewed in 2006, 28,770 (77%) were successfully re-interviewed in 2012. Attrition was primarily from the Cairo region, and an analysis of panel attrition has been discussed elsewhere (Assaad and Krafft 2013). All data were self-reported during a face-to-face interview conducted by a trained field interviewer (Assaad and Krafft 2013). Two analytic samples, one for 2006 and one for 2012, are used as gender norms is only measured in 2006 and household decision-making is measured in both 2006 and 2012. The analytic samples are restricted to married couples where the women are over the age of 14. Women whose spouses are currently absent from the household or whose spouses migrated to a non-Arab country in the past are excluded (13 individuals in 2006 and 37 individuals in 2012). This sample selection criteria allows the focus to be on households with Egyptian returnees from Arab countries. The 7,314 married women with data on spouses comprise the 2006 sample for the study. The 2012 analytic sample, defined in the same way, includes 8,992 women.

Measures

Dependent Variables

Gender norms is a 11-item continuous scale based on questions where respondents were asked to consider aspects of women’s roles and indicate the extent to which they agreed (1=strongly disagree, 2=disagree, 3=indifferent, 4=agree, and 5=strongly agree) that: (a) “a woman’s place is not only in the household but she should be allowed to work”, (b) “if the wife has a job outside of the house then the husband should help her with the children”, (c) “if the wife has a job outside the house then the husband should help her in household chores”, (d) “a thirty year old woman who has a good job but is not yet married is to be pitied”, (e) “girls should go to school to prepare for jobs not just to make them good mothers and wives”, (f) “a woman who has a full-time job cannot be a good mother”, (g) “for a woman’s financial autonomy she must work and have earnings”, (h) “having a full-time job always interferes with a woman’s ability to keep a good life with her husband”, (i) “woman should continue to occupy leadership positions in society”, (j) “boys and girls should get the same amount of schooling”, (k) “boys and girls should be treated equally.” Principal components analysis shows that items all load on one factor. Therefore, item scores are averaged creating a scale ranging from 1 for inequitable attitudes towards gender norms to 5 for egalitarian attitudes (α = .72).

For household decision-making, respondents were asked who in the family had final say on a series of decisions including: (a) making large household purchases, (b) making household purchases for daily needs, (c) visits to family, friends or relatives, (d) food that should be cooked each day, (e) getting medical treatment or advice for the woman herself, (f) buying clothes for herself, (g) taking child to the doctor, (h) sending children to school, (i) sending children to school on a daily basis, (j) buying clothes for children. The reliability coefficient is 0.74 implying a reasonable to high level of correlation among these items. Because the response categories (6=respondent; 5=respondent and husband; 4=respondent, husband, and in-laws; 3=husband; 2=in-laws; and 1=others) do not create an interval, a count variable captures household decision making. A count of the number of times the respondent herself participates in decisions (response category 6), and the number of times the respondent and somebody else within the household participate in decisions (response categories 4 and 5) make a decision are totaled. This count ranges from 0 to 10, with a higher count indicating participation in a greater number of household decisions.

Independent Variables

For return migration, any individual who report to have worked abroad before the survey are identified. Specifically, the ELMPS contains questions about the places of residence and locations of the previous two jobs held by the respondents. A returnee is identified as an individual who reports a foreign country in the answer to any of these questions.

Year of migration is represented by dummy variables for the year in which a returnee took up a job position abroad coded as non-migrant, 2006, 2006 to 2012, or multiple migration episodes to include those who migrated before 2006 and between 2006 and 2012.

Covariates

The model includes individual-level variables that have been identified in the literature as potential determinants of women’s status and migration: age, education, age at marriage, and having ever worked. Woman’s age is measured as age in years. Education is also measured in years of education. Having ever worked is a dichotomous variable indicating whether or not a woman has ever worked for pay. Age at marriage is dichotomized to indicate whether the respondent was married before age of 18 or at 18 years or older.

Household variables in my models include region of residence, household wealth, and number of children, and household size. Region is coded ‘0=greater Cairo’, ‘1=Alexandria and Suez’, ‘2=Urban Lower Egypt’, 3=Rural Lower Egypt’, ‘4=Urban Upper Egypt’, and ‘5=Rural Upper Egypt’. The household wealth index is estimated from asset variables using principal components analysis and divided into quintiles: poorest, poor, middle, rich, and richest. Number of children and household size are continuous measures based on the number of children and total inhabitants in a household. Also included are variables related to the women’s spouse’s characteristics including age and education.

Analysis

The analysis has two parts. First, I examine the frequency distributions of the variables in the analysis for the samples of married women in 2006 and 2012. I also examine the bivariate relationship between return migration and each dependent variable for each year. In the second part of the analysis, I estimate several multivariate models to examine the associations between return migration and gender norms and decision-making while accounting for individual and household characteristics in 2006 and 2012.

When estimating the effect of return migration on gender equality in the household, important determinants of migration may be unobserved, and these unobservable effects may be correlated with the random component in the model predicting gender equality, leading to biased results. It is important to recognize that individuals are generally not randomly selected into voluntary migration. For instance, if men from more egalitarian households have a higher propensity to migrate to Arab countries for work and a simultaneously higher propensity to maintain more-egalitarian gender relations, then the failure to account for the positive correlation between return migration and gender norms and household decision-making would cause endogeneity bias and lead to inconsistent parameter estimates. Thus, when tests for endogeneity were significant, the analysis includes treatment effects regression models that have endogenous switching with controls for omitted and unobserved factors. These models treat return migration as an endogenous dummy variable to the outcome (gender norms or household decision-making). The model jointly estimates a linear equation predicting egalitarian responses and a logit equation predicting the likelihood of return migration. The model accounts for the endogeneity of migration to gender equality by allowing the random error terms to be correlated across equations. Full models control for age, education, age at marriage, ever having worked, region of residence, household wealth, household size, spouse’s age, and spouse’s education. Models for 2012 also control for decision making in 2006 and year of migration.

Results

Sample Characteristics

Table 1 shows the individual sample characteristics for married women in 2006 (N=7,314) and married women in 2012 (N=8,992). In 2006, sampled women are in their late 30s and were married around age 21. About half the respondents completed a secondary or technical secondary education (not shown). Two-thirds never worked for pay. For household characteristics, a quarter of the respondents live in rural Lower Egypt and a fifth live in rural Upper Egypt. Only 15% are in the greater Cairo area. Households are fairly evenly distributed across assets/wealth categories with a fifth falling into each category. The characteristics of the 2006 and 2012 samples are similar with some variations. Compared to 2006, women in the 2012 sample are younger, have one year more education, are slightly less likely to have ever worked, and reside in smaller households.

Table 1.

Sample Characteristics (Means (SE) or %) of Married Women, 2006 and 2012 Egyptian Labor Market Panel Survey

Married Women in 2006 N=7,314 Married Women in 2012 N=8,992
Key Variables N % or Mean (SD) N % or Mean (SD)
Return Migration
 Arab Country 435 5.95 1,245 13.9
 No Migration 6,879 94.1 7,747 86.1
Year of Migration
 Before 2006 435 100 886 9.85
 Between 2006 and 2012 - - 241 2.68
 Multiple Migration Episodes - - 118 1.31
Current Age in years 7,314 37.2 (13.1) 8,992 34.3 (11.5)
Years of Education 7,314 6.94 (5.85) 8,992 8.09 (5.50)
Age of Marriage 7,314 20.7 (4.47) 8,992 21.0 (4.28)
Ever Worked
 No 5,092 69.6 6,559 72.9
 Yes 2,222 30.4 2,433 27.1
HOUSEHOLD VARIABLES
Household Size 7,314 5.21 (2.68) 8,992 3.87 (2.13)
Number of Children 6,651 2.35 (1.62) 6,801 2.45 (1.23)
Region
 Greater Cairo 1,107 15.1 900 10.0
 Alexandria & Suez Canal 806 11.0 768 8.54
 Urban Lower 969 13.3 1,070 11.9
 Urban Upper 1,056 14.4 1,269 14.1
 Rural Lower 1,886 25.8 2,700 30.0
 Rural Upper 1,490 20.4 2,285 25.4
Household Wealth Index
 Poorest 1,232 16.8 1,680 18.7
 Poorer 1,467 20.1 1,881 20.9
 Middle 1,536 21.0 1,943 21.6
 Richer 1,529 20.9 1,866 20.8
 Richest 1,550 21.2 1,622 18.0
Spouse’s Age in years 7,314 44.0 (13.9) 8,992 40.7 (12.6)
Spouse’s Years of Education 7,314 8.32 (5.77) 8,992 9.10 (5.17)
Open in a new tab

In 2006, 435 men have migrated and returned from another Arab country. In 2012, 14% (1,245) have migrated and returned from another Arab country. Majority of the migration occurs before 2006, but 118 men report multiple migration episodes, including before and after 2006. Table 2 shows the distribution of migration episodes by destination country. The top four destinations of Egyptian returnees in 2006 and 2012 include Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Libya. In 2012, there is more reported migration to Kuwait and the Emirates. These countries all rank below Egypt in Global Gender Gap Report, indicating even greater gender disparities than Egypt (World Economic Forum 2018).

Table 2.

Distribution of Migration Episodes by Destination Country, 2006 and 2012 Egyptian Labor Market Panel Survey

Country 2006 2012
Episodes Share Episodes Share
Iraq 142 31.7 314 24.5
Saudi Arabia 137 30.6 352 27.5
Jordan 52 11.6 173 13.5
Libya 45 10.0 222 17.3
Kuwait 23 5.13 62 4.84
Emirates 13 2.90 70 5.46
Lebanon 8 1.79 14 1.09
Qatar 6 1.34 17 1.33
Yemen 4 0.89 12 0.94
Oman 3 0.67 1 0.08
Syria 1 0.22 5 0.39
Algeria 1 0.22 - -
Bahrain - - 3 0.23
Open in a new tab

In 2006, women are involved in about half of all the household decisions, with the average score for respondents making household decisions equivalent to making only five to six decisions (Mean=5.81, SD=2.68). Nonetheless, there is still variation with scores ranging from 0 to 10. In both 2006 and 2012, a minority of married women make individual decisions on their own: 24% and 32% report that they make no decisions by themselves (not shown). In 2006, on average, women feel anywhere between indifferent to average to the statements regarding gender norms (Mean=3.71, SD=0.57). The modal score is closer to average (3.82); however, there is significant variation and responses range from strongly disagree to strongly agree. In 2012, on average women make about five decisions on their own or with a spouse (Mean=5.23, SD=3.41). There are significant differences in decision-making and gender norms by return migration in 2006 and 2012 (p<0.001).1

Multivariate Analysis

Gender Norms in 2006

Table 4 reports estimates from an OLS model predicting gender norms that controls for unobserved and omitted variables and treats return migration as endogenous. After accounting for the endogeneity of return migration and gender norms, Egyptian women with spouses who have migrated to an Arab country and returned do not support gender equality. The less egalitarian gender norms remain ever after taking into consideration several individual and household characteristics.

Table 4.

Linear Endogenous Treatment Effect Models Predicting Gender Norms in 2006, 2006 Egyptian Labor Market Panel Survey N=7,327

Gender Norms
Key Variables b (SE)
Return Migration from Arab Country −0.76*** (0.046)
Age (years) 0.002 (0.001)
Education (years) 0.018*** (0.002)
Older than 18 at First Marriage 0.035* (0.017)
Ever Worked 0.092*** (0.015)
Number of Children −0.027*** (0.006)
Region (Ref=Greater Cairo)
 Alexandria & Suez Canal −0.11*** (0.027)
 Urban Lower −0.049 (0.026)
 Urban Upper 0.046 (0.025)
 Rural Lower −0.067** (0.023)
 Rural Upper −0.066* (0.026)
Household Wealth Index (Ref=Poorest)
 Poorer 0.021 (0.023)
 Middle 0.049* (0.024)
 Richer 0.021 (0.025)
 Richest 0.054 (0.028)
Household Size −0.001 (0.003)
Spouse’s Age −0.003* (0.001)
Spouse’s Education (years) 0.008*** (0.002)
rho 0.679 (0.027)
Likelihood Ratio Chi Square Statistic 270.66***
Open in a new tab

Notes:

*

p<0.05,

**

p<0.01,

***

p<0.001. Standard errors in parentheses

Of substantive importance is the association between return migration and gender norms as measured by ρ. The results show a large significant and positive association that remains, indicating that migrants are negatively selected with respect to gender norms. Women in return migrant households have 0.76 less belief in gender equality. Models that do not control for this association underestimate the negative association between return migration and gender norms.

The results also attest to the importance of women’s individual characteristics to gender norms. For each additional year of education, women have more egalitarian beliefs (p<0.001). Women who were married after the age of 18 and who have ever worked also have more egalitarian beliefs compared to those who have not (p<0.001). Region is an important household predictor of gender norms as those in rural areas as compared to Cairo have less egalitarian beliefs.

Decision-Making in 2006 and 2012

Table 5 shows estimates from Poisson models predicting household decision-making in 2006 and 2012 that controls for unobserved and omitted variables and treats return migration as endogenous. The association between return migration and household decision-making as measured by ρ shows a large significant and positive association remains, indicating that migrants are negatively selected with respect to household decisions. The coefficients for Poisson models can be interpreted as the effect of a given variable on the logged number of decisions. Substantively, positive coefficients indicate a higher number of household decisions.

Table 5.

Poisson Endogenous Treatment Effect Models Predicting Decision-Making, 2006 and 2012 Egyptian Labor Market Panel Survey

2006 Decision-Making 2012 Decision-Making
Key Variables b (SE) b (SE)
Return Migration from Arab Country −0.26*** (0.033) - -
Year of Migration (Ref=Before 2006)
 No Migration - - 0.90*** (0.042)
 2006 to 2012 - - −0.21*** (0.043)
 Multiple Migration Episodes - - −0.12* (0.056)
Decision-Making in 2006 - - 0.07*** (0.003)
Age (years) −0.01 (0.001) −0.05*** (0.002)
Education (years) 0.01*** (0.001) 0.01*** (0.002)
Older than 18 at First Marriage −0.01 (0.014) 0.06** (0.021)
Ever Worked 0.12*** (0.012) 0.17*** (0.017)
Number of Children 0.88*** (0.005) 0.04*** (0.005)
Region (Ref=Greater Cairo)
 Alexandria & Suez Canal −0.04* (0.020) −0.07 (0.040)
 Urban Lower −0.10*** (0.020) 0.03 (0.038)
 Urban Upper −0.19*** (0.020) −0.22*** (0.037)
 Rural Lower −0.11*** (0.018) 0.05 (0.034)
 Rural Upper −0.32*** (0.021) −0.19*** (0.037)
Household Wealth Index (Ref=Poorest)
 Poorer −0.028 (0.019) 0.07* (0.029)
 Middle −0.027 (0.019) 0.13*** (0.030)
 Richer −0.032 (0.020) 0.13*** (0.032)
 Richest −0.01 (0.022) 0.13*** (0.037)
Household Size −0.03*** (0.002) −0.01*** (0.004)
Spouse’s Age −0.01** (0.001) 0.01* (0.002)
Spouse’s Education (years) 0.01** (0.001) 0.01* (0.002)
rho 0.672 (0.012) 0.649 (0.017)
Likelihood Ratio Chi Square Statistic 83.30*** 112.63***
Open in a new tab

Notes:

*

p<0.05,

**

p<0.01,

***

p<0.001. Standard errors in parentheses

In 2006, women in households with a spouse who migrated to an Arab country make fewer household decisions compared to women in non-migrant households (p<0.001). Being in a return migrant household decreases the number of household decisions by 23% (exp(0.26)). Similarly, in 2012, women in migrant households make fewer household decisions compared to women in non-migrant households (p<0.001). The 2012 model can also account for decision-making in 2006 and year of initial migration. As expected, women who make more household decisions in 2006 are more likely to make more decisions in 2012 (p<0.001). However, women who had a spouse migrate between 2006 and 2012 make 19% fewer decisions compared to women who had a spouse migrate before 2006 (p<0.001). Women in households with multiple migration episodes also make fewer household decisions (11% fewer decisions) compared to women in households that experienced migration prior to 2006.

There are a few important individual and household characteristics for women’s participation in decision-making. As expected, with each additional year of education, women make more household decisions (p<0.001). Women who have ever been employed also make more household decisions compared to those who have never been employed (p<0.001). Women in households with more children make more decisions (p<0.001), but in larger households make fewer decisions (p<0.001). Women in rural and urban Upper Egypt make fewer decisions compared to women in Cairo (p<0.001). In 2012, women in wealthier households also make more household decisions compared to women in the poorest households (p<0.001).

Discussion

This study demonstrates the relationship between return migration and gender norms and household gender dynamics in Egypt. This is the first analysis of return migration and gender norms and dynamics in Egypt. This paper advances issues in the study of migration, gender, and families by demonstrating the construction and transmission of gender norms and household decision making in response to return migration. Additionally, this study focuses on the Middle East, where migration is vastly changing the social landscape, but studies on migration are extremely limited. While many recognize that the relationship between migration and gender depends on structural constraints in sending and receiving communities (Donato, Piya and Jacobs 2014; Flippen and Parrado 2015; Parrado and Flippen 2005), limited studies consider the impacts of migration on gender in communities of origin (Yabiku, Agadjanian and Sevoyan 2010). These findings are particularly important given the explicit measures on gender norms and insights into how migration can affect household dynamics while paying close attention to the Egyptian social context.

Taking into account the potential endogeneity of migration and gender norms, this study shows that return migration from Arab countries is associated with less egalitarian beliefs and more restrictive gender norms for women. This aligns with qualitative work that finds for Egyptian sending communities, the position of women might have worsened due to social remittances brought back by return migrants because of the growing influence of conservative interpretations of Islam in Egyptian rural areas (Taylor 1984). Egyptian returnees also have a number of children that is closer to the level that prevails at the destination context and higher fertility compared to non-migrants (Bertoli and Marchetta 2015). While there is heterogeneity in Arab destination contexts for Egyptian labor migrants, the top four destinations in 2006 and 2012 have greater gender disparities compared to Egypt (World Economic Forum 2018). Thus, this lends some support for the concern that return migration to Egypt imports worse attitudes about women and conservative patriarchal ideals from Arab countries. The results align with studies that found while women in migrant households have more household responsibilities while spouses are absent, this does not necessarily translate to greater beliefs in gender equality (Menjívar and Agadjanian 2007; Radel and Schmook 2009).

Return migration is also associated with limiting women’s roles within the household as women in migrant households have less decision-making capacities in both 2006 and 2012. This is in contrast to a study in Mozambique that speculated that women’s elevated decision-making capacities while husbands were gone persisted even after husband’s returned (Yabiku, Agadjanian and Sevoyan 2010). Women play a role in the decision for spousal migration and the decision to stay behind (Nobles and McKelvey 2015). Women left behind take on roles previously assumed by the men (Archambault 2010; Boehm 2008; Desai and Banerji 2008; Majidi 2017; McEvoy et al. 2012). Importantly, this study shows that even after the spouse returns, migration is associated with a change in the household gender dynamics in Egypt. In 2012, household decision-making is suppressed for women in return migrant households even when accounting for prior decision-making capacities.

Importantly, when accounting for the time period of migration, women in households with return migrants from 2006 to 2012 make fewer decisions compared to households with migrants from before 2006. This could demonstrate important period effects. Those that migrated prior to 2006 could have migrated many years before, while returnees from 2006 to 2012 are from a very recent time period and a period of war and upheaval in the region. Perhaps, men who returned to Egypt from 2006 to 2012 were forced out of work and exert their roles as primary decision makers in the household. There could also be something distinct about this cohort of male returnees as these men tend to be younger and less educated compared to returnees from before 2006. The period of instability may have led returning husbands to reinforce traditional gender dynamics within the household. Women in household with men who have migrated to Arab countries and returned multiple times also make fewer decisions. This could indicate that repeated exposure to the vastly gender unequal contexts in other Arab countries is associated with household gender dynamics in Egypt.

This study is the first to consider return migration and gender dynamics in Egypt. However, there are some limitations. While the data on household decision-making is longitudinal, the on gender norms is only from 2006, and thus, cross sectional. It would be important to examine the current findings on gender norms over multiple time points, and useful to consider the relationship between return and circular migration and additional dimensions of gender dynamics over time. Additionally, the survey included limited measures of migration, and in additional to knowing when spouses left, it would be useful to know exactly when spouses returned. Importantly, the questions pertaining to gender norms and household decision-making were only asked of women in each household. The male spouse perspective could offer additional insights on household gender dynamics. However, decision-making captures only some of the gender power dynamics in a married relationship. Having a final say in household decisions may have its own cost in other aspects of the gendered married relationship. The questions on household decision-making provide little contextual insight into discussions women may have had with partners about those household decisions.

Despite these limitations, and given the current lack of data on migration in the Middle East and North Africa, this study demonstrates associations between return migration and gender norms and dynamics in Egypt. The 2012 analysis also utilizes the longitudinal nature of the data to account for prior household decision-making. The analysis highlights the importance of taking into consideration unobserved characteristics and migrant selectivity that affect migration and gender dynamics. Failing to control for unobserved characteristics when test of endogeneity are significant underestimates the negative association between return migration and gender norms. Overall, this analysis shows the importance of return migration as part of the social determinants of gender norms and dynamics, meriting further research on migration to and from other contexts and mechanisms to help explain the relationship.

Promoting gender equality is a global development priority. This study advances understanding of the relationship between migration and gender norms and dynamics for a large sample of women in Egypt. Given the vast labor migration to Arab countries, understanding these relationships are important for researchers and policy makers. Egypt has substantial influence in the Middle East and North Africa and the results are likely to be relevant to other historically gender unequal, rapidly changing contexts. That said, the results are only representative of Egypt in 2006 and 2012. Policies and programs should consider that return migration to Egypt might challenge gender norms and egalitarian household dynamics.

Table 3.

Mean (SD) Decision-making and Gender Norms by Return Migration, 2006 and 2012 Egyptian Labor Market Panel Survey

2006 2012
Return Migration
 Return Migration
Entire Sample N=7,314 Never Migrated N=6,879 Arab Country N=435 Entire Sample N=8,992 Never Migrated N=7,747 Arab Country N=1,245
Household Decision-Making (0 - 10) 5.81 (2.68) 5.77 (2.68) 6.57*** (2.61) 5.23 (3.41) 5.21 (3.38) 5.35*** (3.57)
Gender Norm Beliefs (1 – 5) 3.71 (0.57) 3.71 (0.58) 3.78*** (0.53) - - -
Open in a new tab

Notes:

*

p<0.05,

**

p<0.01,

***

p<0.001 to indicate tests for group differences by return migration. Standard errors in parentheses

Acknowledgments

Funding details: The research was supported by Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health & Human Development training grants at the University of Texas at Austin (T32HD007081) and the Population Research Center at the University of Texas at Austin (R24HD041022). The content is solely the responsibility of the author and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.

Biographical Note:

Goleen Samari is an assistant professor at the Heilbrunn Department of Population and Family Health at Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health. She is an affiliate of the Columbia Population Research Center. She received her Ph.D. in Public Health (concentration in Demography) from the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA). She also has an M.A. in Islamic Studies from UCLA and an MPH in Community Health Sciences from UCLA. She earned B.As in Middle Eastern Studies and Plan II Honors from the University of Texas at Austin. Her research considers how migration, discrimination, and gender inequities shape population health both domestically and globally with a particular focus on women’s status and reproductive health. She is one of a few demographers focused on populations in and from the Middle East and North Africa. Her training and research uniquely position her for understanding the health needs of migrant and displaced populations from the region.

Footnotes

Disclosure of Interest: The authors report no conflict of interest.

Data availability statement: The Egyptian Labor Market Panel data are available by request through the Economic Research Forum.

1

For the 13 households in 2006 and 37 household in 2012 with return migrants from non-Arab destination countries, distribution of gender norms is 2006: Mean=3.81, SD=0.52 and household decision-making is 2006: Mean=5.00, SD=1.76; 2012: Mean=5.70, SD=3.14.

References

  1. Archambault Caroline S. 2010. “Women Left Behind? Migration, Spousal Separation, and the Autonomy of Rural Women in Ugweno, Tanzania.” Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 35(4):919–42. [Google Scholar]
  2. Assaad Ragui, Hendy Rana, Lassassi Moundir, and Yassin Shaimaa. 2018. “Explaining the MENA Paradox: Rising Educational Attainment, Yet Stagnant Female Labor Force Participation.” IZA Discussion Paper No. 11385. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Assaad Ragui, and Krafft Caroline. 2013. “The Egypt labor market panel survey: introducing the 2012 round.” IZA Journal of Labor & Development 2(1):1–30. [Google Scholar]
  4. Bertoli Simone, and Marchetta Francesca. 2015. “Bringing It All Back Home – Return Migration and Fertility Choices.” World Development 65(0):27–40. [Google Scholar]
  5. Bier Laura. 2011. Revolutionary womanhood: feminisms, modernity, and the state in Nasser’s Egypt: Stanford University Press. [Google Scholar]
  6. Binzel Christine, and Assaad Ragui. 2011. “Egyptian men working abroad: Labour supply responses by the women left behind.” Labour Economics 18, Supplement 1(0):S98–S114. [Google Scholar]
  7. Boehm Deborah A. 2008. ““Now I Am a Man and a Woman!”: Gendered Moves and Migrations in a Transnational Mexican Community.” Latin American Perspectives 35(1):16–30. [Google Scholar]
  8. Brink Judy H. 1991. “The Effect of Emigration of Husbands on the Status of Their Wives: An Egyptian Case.” International Journal of Middle East Studies 23(2):201–11. [Google Scholar]
  9. Cassarino Jean-Pierre. 2004. “Theorising return migration: The conceptual approach to return migrants revisited.” International Journal on Multicultural Societies (IJMS) 6(2):253–79. [Google Scholar]
  10. Crandall AliceAnn, VanderEnde Kristin, Fai Cheong Yuk, Dodell Sylvie, and Yount Kathryn M.. 2016. “Women’s age at first marriage and postmarital agency in Egypt.” Social Science Research 57:148–60. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Dannecker Petra. 2009. “Migrant visions of development: a gendered approach.” Population, Space and Place 15(2):119–32. [Google Scholar]
  12. Day Lincoln H., and Içduygu Ahmet. 1997. “The Consequences of International Migration for the Status of Women: A Turkish Study.” International Migration 35(3):337–72. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. De Snyder V Neily Salgado. 1993. “Family life across the border: Mexican wives left behind.” Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences 15(3):391–401. [Google Scholar]
  14. De Vreyer Philippe, Gubert Flore, and Robilliard Anne-Sophie. 2010. “Are There Returns to Migration Experience? An Empirical Analysis using Data on Return Migrants and Non-Migrants in West Africa.” Annals of Economics and Statistics (97/98):307–28. [Google Scholar]
  15. Desai Sonalde, and Banerji Manjistha. 2008. “Negotiated identities: male migration and left-behind wives in India.” Journal of Population Research 25(3):337–55. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Donato Katharine M., Alexander Joseph T., Gabaccia Donna R., and Leinonen Johanna. 2011. “Variations in the Gender Composition of Immigrant Populations: How They Matter1.” International Migration Review 45(3):495–526. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Donato Katharine M., Gabaccia Donna, Holdaway Jennifer, Manalansan Martin, and Pessar Patricia R.. 2006. “A Glass Half Full? Gender in Migration Studies.” International Migration Review 40(1):3–26. [Google Scholar]
  18. Donato Katharine M., Piya Bhumika, and Jacobs Anna. 2014. “The Double Disadvantage Reconsidered: Gender, Immigration, Marital Status, and Global Labor Force Participation in the 21st Century.” International Migration Review 48:S335–S76. [Google Scholar]
  19. El-Safty Madiha. 2004. “Women in Egypt: Islamic Rights Versus Cultural Practice.” Sex Roles 51(5–6):273–81. [Google Scholar]
  20. El-Zanaty Fatma, and Way Ann. 2009. “Egypt Demographic and Health Survey 2008.” Cairo, Egypt: Ministry of Health, El-Zanaty and Associates, and Macro International [Google Scholar]
  21. Ennaji Moha, and Sadiqi Fatima. 2004. “The impact of male migration from Marocco to Europe on women: a gender approach.” Finisterra: Revista portuguesa de geografia 39(77):59–76. [Google Scholar]
  22. Erdal Marta Bivand, and Oeppen Ceri. 2017. “Forced to return?: Agency and the role of post-return mobility for psychosocial wellbeing among returnees to Afghanistan, Pakistan and Poland.” Pp. 39–55 in Return Migration and Psychosocial Wellbeing: Routledge. [Google Scholar]
  23. Fargues Philippe. 2005. “Women in Arab Countries: Challenging the Patriarchal System?” Reproductive Health Matters 13(25):43–48. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Fargues Philippe, and Fandrich Christine. 2012. “Migration after the Arab Spring.” [Google Scholar]
  25. Ferrant Gaëlle, and Tuccio Michele. 2015. “South–South migration and discrimination against women in social institutions: A two-way relationship.” World Development 72:240–54. [Google Scholar]
  26. Flippen Chenoa A, and Parrado Emilio A. 2015. “A Tale of Two Contexts: US Migration and the Labor Force Trajectories of Mexican Women.” International Migration Review 49(1):232–59. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Hadi Abdullahel. 2001. “International migration and the change of women’s position among the left-behind in rural Bangladesh.” International Journal of Population Geography 7(1):53–61. [Google Scholar]
  28. Hampshire Kate. 2006. “Flexibility in Domestic Organization and Seasonal Migration among the Fulani of Northern Burkina Faso.” Africa: Journal of the International African Institute 76(3):402–26. [Google Scholar]
  29. Handoussa Heba. 2008. “Egypt human development report 2008, Egypt’s social contract: The role of civil society.” United Nations Development Program: Egypt. [Google Scholar]
  30. Hannaford Dinah. 2017. Marriage without borders: Transnational spouses in neoliberal Senegal: University of Pennsylvania Press. [Google Scholar]
  31. Henry Hani M. 2011. “Egyptian women and empowerment: A cultural perspective.” Women’s Studies International Forum 34(3):251–59. [Google Scholar]
  32. Itzigsohn J, and Glorguli-Saucedo S. 2005. “Incorporation, transnationalism, and gender: Immigrant incorporation and transnational participation as gendered processes.” International Migration Review 39(4):895–920. [Google Scholar]
  33. Itzigsohn José, and Giorguli-Saucedo Silvia. 2005. “Incorporation, Transnationalism, and Gender: Immigrant Incorporation and Transnational Participation as Gendered Processes1.” International Migration Review 39(4):895–920. [Google Scholar]
  34. King Russell, Dalipaj Mirela, and Mai Nicola. 2006. “Gendering migration and remittances: evidence from London and northern Albania.” Population, Space and Place 12(6):409–34. [Google Scholar]
  35. Levitt Peggy. 2001. The transnational villagers: Univ of California Press. [Google Scholar]
  36. Lopez-Ekra Sylvia, Aghazarm Christine, Kötter Henriette, and Mollard Blandine. 2011. “The impact of remittances on gender roles and opportunities for children in recipient families: research from the International Organization for Migration.” Gender & Development 19(1):69–80. [Google Scholar]
  37. Lucas Robert EB. 2005. International migration and economic development: Lessons from low-income countries: Edward Elgar Publishing. [Google Scholar]
  38. Luna Sabnam Sarmin, and Rahman Md Mizanur. 2019. “Migrant wives: dynamics of the empowerment process.” Migration and Development 8(3):320–37. [Google Scholar]
  39. Lutz Helma. 2010. “Gender in the migratory process.” Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 36(10):1647–63. [Google Scholar]
  40. Majidi Nassim. 2017. “The return of refugees from Kenya to Somalia: gender and psychosocial wellbeing.” Pp. 149–64 in Return Migration and Psychosocial Wellbeing: Routledge. [Google Scholar]
  41. McEvoy Jamie, Petrzelka Peggy, Radel Claudia, and Schmook Birgit. 2012. “Gendered Mobility and Morality in a South-Eastern Mexican Community: Impacts of Male Labour Migration on the Women Left Behind.” Mobilities 7(3):369–88. [Google Scholar]
  42. Menjívar Cecilia, and Agadjanian Victor. 2007. “Men’s Migration and Women’s Lives: Views from Rural Armenia and Guatemala*.” Social Science Quarterly 88(5):1243–62. [Google Scholar]
  43. Nobles Jenna, and McKelvey Christopher. 2015. “Gender, Power, and Emigration From Mexico.” Demography 52(5):1573–600. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Parrado Emilio A., Flippen, and McQuiston C. 2005. “Migration and relationship power among Mexican women.” Demography 42(2):347–72. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Parrado Emilio A., and Flippen Chenoa A.. 2005. “Migration and Gender among Mexican Women.” American Sociological Review 70(4):606–32. [Google Scholar]
  46. Pessar PR, and Mahler SJ. 2003. “Transnational migration: Bringing gender in.” International Migration Review 37(3):812–46. [Google Scholar]
  47. Radel Claudia, and Schmook Birgit. 2009. “Migration and gender: The case of a farming ejido in Calakmul, Mexico.” Yearbook of the Association of Pacific Coast Geographers 71(1):144–63. [Google Scholar]
  48. Rahman Mizanur. 2009. “Temporary migration and changing family dynamics: implications for social development.” Population, Space and Place 15(2):161–74. [Google Scholar]
  49. Samari Goleen. 2017. “Women’s Agency and Fertility: Recent Evidence from Egypt.” Population Research and Policy Review 36(4):561–82. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  50. Samari Goleen, and Pebley Anne R.. 2018. “Longitudinal determinants of married women’s autonomy in Egypt.” Gender, Place & Culture:1–22. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  51. Shattuck Dominick, Wasti Sharada P., Limbu Naramaya, Chipanta Nokafu Sandra, and Riley Christina. 2019. “Men on the move and the wives left behind: the impact of migration on family planning in Nepal.” Sexual and Reproductive Health Matters 27(1). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  52. Taylor Elizabeth. 1984. “Egyptian migration and peasant wives.” Merip reports 124:3–10. [Google Scholar]
  53. Thai Hung Cam. 2008. For Better or For Worse Vietnamese International Marriages in the New Global Economy: Rutgers University Press. [Google Scholar]
  54. Vathi Zana, and King Russell. 2017. Return migration and psychosocial wellbeing: discourses, policy-making and outcomes for migrants and their families: Taylor & Francis. [Google Scholar]
  55. Wahba Jackline. 2004. “Does international migration matter? A study of Egyptian return migrants.” Pp. 179–99 in Arab Migration in a Globalized World. Geneva: International Organization for Migration. [Google Scholar]
  56. —. 2015. “Through the keyhole: International migration in Egypt.” The Egyptian Labor Market in an Era of Revolution:198–217. [Google Scholar]
  57. World Economic Forum. 2018. “Global Gender Gap Report “. Geneva: World Economic Forum. [Google Scholar]
  58. Yabiku ST, Agadjanian V, and Sevoyan A. 2010. “Husbands’ labour migration and wives’ autonomy, Mozambique 2000–2006.” Popul Stud (Camb) 64(3):293–306. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  59. Yount Kathryn M. 2005a. “The Patriarchal Bargain and Intergenerational Coresidence in Egypt. .” Sociological Quarterly 46(1):137–64. [Google Scholar]
  60. —. 2005b. “Resources, Family Organization, and Domestic Violence against Married Women in Minya, Egypt.” Journal of Marriage and Family 67(3):579. [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES