2 Emilyzen Ignacio and esenia Mejia
The methodology for research includes a literature and law review; the development and administration of a survey tool administered to foreign domestic helpers (FDHs) in Hong Kong, as well as informational interviews with key government officials and civil society organization (CSO) service providers in the country of destination. Data from the 162 observations collected were analyzed to understand whether differences between two sending country migration infrastructures could lead to observable variations in the protection and welfare of their overseas workers in one designated migrant-receiving state.
The use of snowball sampling, which includes disproportionate representation of migrants in shelters, inhibits the use of broad generalizations about the impact of migration infrastructures. Additionally, future studies should control for variables that also influence migrant workers’ welfare, such as education, income prior to migration, language skills, prior experience with labor migration, etc.
Traditional frameworks for addressing labor migration issues, such as the UN Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and their Families have placed all responsibility for the protection of migrant worker rights on sending and receiving states. Today, however, the role of the state in facilitating migration for employment (from recruitment to placement abroad) has lessened amidst the private sector’s increasing hand in steering this profit-driven market. Consequently, a new framework is needed to understand how states can balance the various stakeholders’ (state, employment agencies and migrants) economic interests with the protection of migrant rights.
The framework below was employed
selected. These infrastructures:
in this report and into typologies,
case study states their migration
Type of State
Type of Migration Infrastructure
Indonesia Philippines Hong Kong