Metadata of the chapter that will be visualized online
Chapter Title Child Well-Being and Transnational Families
Copyright Year 2013
Copyright Holder Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
Corresponding Author Family Name Mazzucato
Particle
Given Name Valentina
Suffix
Division/Department Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences
Organization/University Maastricht University
Street Grote Gracht 90-92
City Maastricht
Postcode 6211 SZ
Country The Netherlands
Email v.mazzucato@maastrichtuniversity.nl
Comp. by: V.ARUNA Stage: Galleys Chapter No.: 3870 Title Name: EQLR
Date:17/11/12 Time:08:43:07 Page Number: 1
1
C
2 Child Well-Being and Transnational
3 Families
4 Valentina Mazzucato
5 Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, Maastricht
6 University, Maastricht, The Netherlands
7 Synonyms
8Au1 Astronaut families; Left-behind children; Para-
9 chute children
10 Definition
11 Transnational families are families in which one
12 or more members live in another country or
13 region. The term “family members” usually
14 refers to a nuclear family comprising parents
15 and their children. Sometimes, elderly grandpar-
16 ents are also included. A broader array of family
17 members is included in studies that take into
18 account extended family systems prevalent in
19 developing countries.
20 Transnational families have members who
21 live for an extended period of time in different
22 countries. For example, the research discussed
23 here studies families living with members spread
24 between the USA and Mexico, the Philippines
25 and Italy, or Congo and Mali. An increasing
26 body of literature studies internal Chinese
27 ▶ migration. This migratory flow spans large
28 geographic distances and involves administrative
29hurdles that make it comparable to other cases
30of transnational families and is therefore included
31here.
32▶ Child well-being is loosely defined in qual-
33itative anthropological or sociological studies in
34terms of children’s ▶ emotions and responses to
35living in a transnational family. Quantitative
36family sociology and child psychology studies
37define child well-being more narrowly in terms
38of emotional, behavioral, and ▶ health outcomes.
39Educational and economic outcomes for children
40are sometimes included. These latter two
41outcomes will be considered in this overview to
42the extent that they are included in findings on
43emotional, behavioral, or health outcomes.
44Description
45Introduction
46Increasingly, migration has given rise to transna-
47tional families whose members live in different
48nation-states and face the challenges of organiz-
49ing the care of family members across borders.
50Through this process, the roles and relationships
51between spouses, parents, children, and elderly
52relatives can change. An emerging concern in
53both the academic and policy arenas is in the
54effects of separation on migrant parents and
55their children. In most instances, one or both
56parents migrate, leaving one or more children in
57the country of origin to be raised by a local care-
58giver. In other cases, children migrate as unac-
59companied minors, either clandestinely such as
A.C. Michalos (ed.), Encyclopedia of Quality of Life Research,
DOI 10.1007/978-94-007-0753-5, # Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013
Comp. by: V.ARUNA Stage: Galleys Chapter No.: 3870 Title Name: EQLR
Date:17/11/12 Time:08:43:07 Page Number: 2
60 through the Mexico-US border or officially in
61 pursuit of educational opportunities as in the
62 case of Chinese children of migrant workers in
63 Australia or the USA (Waters, 2005). Families
64 and children in the latter circumstances are
65 referred to as “astronaut families” or “parachute
66 children.” Most of the studies that focus on the
67 well-being of children center on the more preva-
68 lent phenomenon of “left-behind” children,
69 which is the focus of this essay.
70 Defining a New Field of Research
71 Transnational family studies have emerged since
72 the turn of the twenty-first century and have
73 focused on the consequences of living in transna-
74 tional families for the relationship between
75 children and their parents (Bryceson & Vuorela,
76 2002; Dreby, 2007; Parren˜as, 2005;
77 Schmalzbauer, 2004). These studies have
78 focused on Latin America and Asia and are
79 predominantly qualitative in nature. They have
80 addressed questions of how long-distance
81 separations affect the daily life of different-
82 members of transnational families, the types of
83 relationships they produce, and the ways in which
84 gender and intergenerational relationships
85 change as a result of the separation. Some studies
86 focus specifically on the children’s relationships
87 with relevant others, such as the migrant parent,
88 the caregiver at home who takes care of their
89 daily needs, and others involved in the care
90 network, such as aunts, uncles, and grandparents.
91 While the initial focus of the studies was on
92 eliciting information from parents, especially
93 mothers, and their experiences with being sepa-
94 rated from their children, later studies have
95 focused on the children’s own accounts (Dreby,
96 2007; Schmalzbauer, 2004). Most studies
97 indicate that there are some negative conse-
98 quences for children and parents, such as con-
99 flicts and depressive symptoms (Dreby, 2007;
100 Fog-Olwig, 1999; Levitt, 2001; Parren˜as, 2005)
101 and behavioral problems such as joining gangs
102 (Smith, 2006), loneliness, and feelings of aban-
103 donment (Dreby, 2007; Parren˜as, 2005). Younger
104 children are found to have more emotional diffi-
105 culties dealing with separation from their biolog-
106 ical parents than older ones, while the older
107children tend to show behavioral problems, such
108as drinking and rebellious behavior. These stud-
109ies emphasize that how a child feels about living
110far from one or both biological parents depends
111on the quality of the relationship with the parent
112overseas; whether and how often they communi-
113cate; the quality of the relationship with the local
114caregiver, which includes how cared for a child
115feels; the support the child receives from the
116wider community or ▶ care network; and
117whether it is the mother or father who migrated.
118Virtually, all studies agree that children are worse
119off in terms of their ▶ emotional well-being when
120mothers migrate; however, mothers are found to
121remit more than fathers. Despite these nuances,
122this literature tends to emphasize negative
123outcomes for children when their parents migrate
124(Yeoh & Lam, 2007).
125While identifying some general dynamics,
126these studies focus solely on the phenomenon of
127transnational families without including control
128groups (Mazzucato & Schans, 2011). The ques-
129tion therefore remains: to what extent are the
130observed dynamics particular to transnational
131families or to what extent are they part of broader
132dynamics that pertain to other family types?
133Furthermore, the focus on the migratory status
134of children’s parents in qualitative studies does
135not address the extent to which other factors
136might explain the observed effects on children.
137Are there characteristics common to transna-
138tional families other than parental migration that
139might explain the observed effects on children?
140More recently, and largely independently of
141the above qualitative studies, scholars from
142family sociology and child psychology have
143turned their attention to the phenomenon of
144left-behind children. Before these studies, trans-
145national family situations had been largely
146ignored in these disciplines. Much of the previous
147literature addressing parent–child separation is
148based primarily on clinical data and derives
149from studies that focus on parental ▶ divorce,
150death, or a problematic separation, such as aban-
151donment. Family sociology and child psychology
152studies focus less on migrants’ children, and
153when they did, they focused mainly on those
154children living with one or both of their parents
C 2 Child Well-Being and Transnational Families
Comp. by: V.ARUNA Stage: Galleys Chapter No.: 3870 Title Name: EQLR
Date:17/11/12 Time:08:43:08 Page Number: 3
155 in the migrant receiving country. The gaps in
156 these disciplines were due to the guiding concept
157 of the family, which emphasizes proximity as
158 a prerequisite for meaningful interaction and
159 exchange within families (Mazzucato & Schans,
160 2011). As a result, transnational family practices
161 were ignored or assumed unfeasible (Baldassar &
162 Baldock, 1999). Recently, however, there
163 has been a shift in attention to transnational fam-
164 ilies, with many studies focusing on China and
165 Latin America.
166 Important Analytical Categories
167 The recent shift in attention by quantitative
168 researchers has led to a narrower definition of
169 child well-being and has focused predominantly
170 on emotional, behavioral, and health outcomes as
171 well as educational and economic outcomes.
172 These studies draw primarily from theories in
173 family studies and child psychology, such as
174 ▶ attachment theory or social cognitive theory,
175 and they seek to test whether transnational fami-
176 lies result in particular child well-being outcomes
177 as compared to non-transnational families. Such
178 studies are also designed to assess whether
179 factors other than parents’ migratory status
180 might explain these outcomes. These studies
181 have different and sometimes conflicting find-
182 ings, depending on what outcome is focused
183 upon, which region of the world is studied, and
184 what variables are included. Here, we present
185 some of the most important findings.
186 Who Migrates
187 Whether the father or mother migrates makes
188 a difference for a child’s well-being. In general,
189 studies find that children are worse off when
190 mothers migrate. Battistella and Conaco (1996)
191 find that children in the Philippines with migrant
192 mothers have more educational difficulties,
193 decreased emotional well-being, and health prob-
194 lems. This is corroborated by Parrenas’ (2005)
195 qualitative study in the Philippines where this
196 effect is found to be stronger for girls than for
197 boys.Au2 Dreby and Stutz (2012) argue that educa-
198 tional ▶ aspirations are also affected, depending
199 on which parent migrates. They find that when
200 single mothers migrate, children’s educational
201aspirations are higher because they see their
202mother’s migration as a sacrifice and want to
203reward her through their good educational
204achievement. The opposite is true when both
205parents or only fathers migrate. Some of the
206mechanisms at work are explained by Kandel
207and Massey (2002), who find that Mexican
208children aim to join their migrant parents in the
209USA and perceive their Mexican education as
210irrelevant in this process, thus lowering their
211motivation.
212While much of the literature focuses on
213▶ mother-child relationships, Nobels (2011)
214expressly makes a distinction between absence
215due to migration and absence due to divorce.
216Mexican migrant fathers are more present in
217left-behind children’s lives via communication
218technologies than divorced fathers. She finds
219that the frequency of interaction is correlated
220with better schooling outcomes, which attests
221not only to the significance of paternal migration
222but also to the importance of communication
223between the parent and child during the migration
224process.
225Some of the most recent and interesting stud-
226ies come from China. In their study of Chinese
227left-behind children, Wen and Lin (2012) make
228a distinction between migrating parents. Similar
229to the Mexican case, they find that children left
230behind by migrant mothers show worse health
231behavior and less engagement with school than
232those whose fathers migrated. Overall, in these
233respects, both types of children are worse off
234relative to non-left-behind children.
235Few studies define the role of migrant parents
236in ways other than their biological relationship to
237the child (i.e., mother/father). However, given the
238findings from qualitative transnational family lit-
239erature that identify the importance of the quality
240of the relationship between migrant parents and
241their left-behind children, this is an important
242area to investigate. Heymann et al. (2009),
243for example, look at whether the migrant family
244member formerly occupied a primary caregiver
245role before migrating, and they find that there
246are no negative well-being consequences for
247left-behind children if the migrant family mem-
248ber was not a primary caregiver. The primary
Child Well-Being and Transnational Families 3 C
Comp. by: V.ARUNA Stage: Galleys Chapter No.: 3870 Title Name: EQLR
Date:17/11/12 Time:08:43:08 Page Number: 4
249 caregiver could be a sibling or an aunt or one of
250 the biological parents. However, if the migrant
251 family member was a primary caregiver, then
252 children were more frequently and chronically
253 ill and had more emotional and behavioral
254 problems.
255 The Characteristics of the Caregiver
256 The relationship between a child and a migrant
257 parent is important as well as the relationship
258 between a child and a caregiver. This relationship
259 has been the subject of family and child psychol-
260 ogy studies, but only as it relates to separated
261 families living in the West. In the case of trans-
262 national families, this has recently been explored
263 and represents a new direction for well-being
264 studies of left-behind children. Jia and Tian
265 (2010) find that Chinese children left by their
266 parents are at higher risk of being lonely and
267 therefore are at risk for low ▶ mental health
268 when their caregiver is a grandparent, among
269 other factors. Fan, Su, Gill, and Birmaher
270 (2010) compare Chinese left-behind children
271 and find that there are differences between
272 children who are cared for by a relative,
273 a nonrelative, and those who live with their
274 biological parents after a period of separation.
275 Children whose caregivers are nonrelatives are
276 at the greatest risk of showing emotional and
277 behavioral problems. Qualitative transnational
278 family studies point to the importance of care-
279 givers in helping children to experience parental
280 absence in a positive way. This area of study,
281 in which distinctions are made in caregiver
282 types, is a potentially productive area for future
283 quantitative research.
284 Nonmigratory Characteristics
285 Some of the most recent studies investigate other
286 potential factors that could contribute to observed
287 outcomes on child well-being in transnational
288 families. Wen and Lin (2012) base their study in
289 social cognitive theory and find that a child’s
290 psychosocial environment, defined by the
291 family’s socioeconomic status, peer and school
292 ▶ support, and the child’s psychological traits
293 and socializing skills, is more important in
294 explaining their findings of decreased health
295behavior and school engagement among
296left-behind children than the parents’ migratory
297status. Furthermore, they find no evidence of
298decreased emotional well-being among
299left-behind children. Fan et al. (2010) note that
300left-behind children show more psychopatholog-
301ical and less pro-social behavior than their
302counterparts who live with their biological
303parents. Yet, these differences disappear after
304controlling for age, ▶ education levels, and the
305socioeconomic status of parents and caregivers
306and teacher involvement. The authors show that
307left-behind children tend to come from poorer
308families with older and less-educated caregivers,
309and it is these factors, more than the parental
310separation, per se, that influence the negative
311emotional well-being among left-behind
312children.
313These findings help to provide nuance for
314the discussion of left-behind children, which
315tends to be negatively framed in ways such that
316left-behind children are portrayed as always
317being at a disadvantage (Yeoh & Lam, 2007).
318These findings show that other factors can be at
319least as important, if not more so, than parental
320migratory status in influencing the well-being of
321left-behind children. In some cases, these other
322factors explain the variations in well-being that
323have been associated with living in
324a transnational family.
325The Importance of Time
326For transnational families, time is an important
327dimension in various respects. First, the length of
328separation between children and their parents and
329the age of the child at separation are important in
330determining the effects of migration on children.
331Studies find more psychopathology and greater
332▶ anxiety and depression levels among children
333who experience a longer separation (Fan et al.,
3342010) and who were separated from their parents
335at a younger age (Fan et al., 2010; Au3Liu and Ge
3362009). Second, mediating factors are affected by
337the length of separation between children and
338parents. Attachment theory posits that the
339psychological well-being of a child is determined
340by the level of parent–child bonding; the less
341bonding, the worse the psychological well-being
C 4 Child Well-Being and Transnational Families
Comp. by: V.ARUNA Stage: Galleys Chapter No.: 3870 Title Name: EQLR
Date:17/11/12 Time:08:43:08 Page Number: 5
342 of children. Smith, Lanlonde, and Johnson (2004)
343 find that migration can disrupt ▶ parent–child
344 bonding, and this disruption leads to negative
345 psychological outcomes for children.
346 A third way in which time is important for
347 transnational families is that children’s
348 well-being in the present may be dependent on
349 things that happened before or during the migra-
350 tion of their parents. Indeed, once children are
351 reunited with their parents, such effects can
352 continue to operate or change. Both Smith et al.
353 (2004) and Sua´rez-Orozco, Todorova, and Louie
354 (2002) find that the time after reunion does not
355 necessarily repair parent–child relationships.
356 In fact, Dreby (2007) shows how reunion itself
357 can increase conflicts and tensions between
358 parents and children when children feel torn
359 away from the caregivers with whom they had
360 bonded or are suddenly faced with an authority
361 figure they no longer recognize.
362 The stage of the parent’s migration trajectory
363 can also be of relevance. Donato, Kanaiaupuni,
364 and Stainback (2003) find that Mexican girls’
365 health outcomes become more equal to those of
366 boys when one or both parents are currently on
367 migration. However, when the parent returns to
368 Mexico from the USA, they no longer find this
369 health benefit for girls, suggesting that upon
370 return, girls’ health outcomes worsen. This find-
371 ing is corroborated by Antman (2011) who looks
372 at the division of household resources between
373 girls and boys while their fathers are away on
374 migration. She finds that girls receive a larger
375 share of household resources while fathers are
376 away, but when fathers return, the household
377 resources revert to the boys. Girls’ health
378 outcomes became more equal to those of boys
379 when one or both parents are away on migration;
380 however, they do not find this outcome for
381 children whose parents have returned
382 Cross-Country Comparisons: Policy and
383 Cultural Contexts
384 There are very few studies that compare child
385 well-being across countries. Graham and Jordan
386 (2011) are the only ones to our knowledge who
387 have compared different migrant-sending coun-
388 tries. They compare well-being outcomes for
389children in four countries in Southeast Asia and
390find that children of migrant fathers are more
391likely to have poor psychological well-being in
392Indonesia and Thailand but not in the Philippines
393or Vietnam. Possible explanations for these
394differences are because parental migration in
395Vietnam is a relatively recent phenomenon,
396while the issue of left-behind children in the
397Philippines has been in place long enough to
398have received attention from government and
399nongovernmental agencies, resulting in specific
400programs that address their needs. In some cases,
401especially as recorded in African contexts,
402cultural ▶ norms around family and child rearing
403may lead parents to prefer to leave or send their
404children back to their countries of origin (Bledsoe
405& Sow, 2011; Whitehouse, 2009). These expla-
406nations attest to the importance of policy and
407cultural contextual factors and the importance of
408including them in models of the effects of paren-
409tal migration on child well-being (Mazzucato &
410Schans, 2011). In countries where migration is
411more established and the condition of children
412living without one or both parents due to migra-
413tion is more common, there may be no social
414stigma associated with being a left-behind child
415and more programs that aim to help caregivers or
416schools to better address their needs.
417Discussion and Conclusion
418Important developments have been made in
419the study of transnational families and child
420well-being since the inception of transnational
421family studies at the turn of the twenty-first
422century. Qualitative studies have drawn the atten-
423tion of scholars to the increasing phenomenon of
424families operating across nation-state or regional
425borders, raising the question what impact this has
426for different family members. Qualitative
427accounts of different family members indicate
428that children tend to suffer from separation from
429their parents, yet various factors affect the sever-
430ity of these outcomes, such as the quality of the
431relationship between children and parent both
432before and during migration, the quality of the
433relationship between children and the left-behind
434caregiver, and the frequency of communication
435between children and parents. More recently,
Child Well-Being and Transnational Families 5 C
Comp. by: V.ARUNA Stage: Galleys Chapter No.: 3870 Title Name: EQLR
Date:17/11/12 Time:08:43:09 Page Number: 6
436 scholars from family and child psychology stud-
437 ies have pursued the question of the effects of
438 migration-induced separation on children using
439 quantitative approaches. Important elements of
440 these studies show that the migrant’s relationship
441 to the child (mother vs. father, primary caregiver
442 vs. non-caregiver) and the characteristics of
443 the caregiver (grandparent, nonrelative) are
444 important in determining the effects on child
445 well-being.
446 Another important development is the inclu-
447 sion of ▶ control groups of children who live with
448 both of their parents. Such control groups allow
449 for the exploration of the degree to which the
450 negative findings on child well-being in transna-
451 tional families are due to migration or to other
452 characteristics. Factors, such as socioeconomic
453 status and the educational background of parents
454 and caregivers, are found to be as important if not
455 more important in explaining child well-being
456 outcomes. This is an important recent contribu-
457 tion to the literature as it points to the need to
458 focus the discussions around left-behind children,
459 which, until recently, have tended to be framed in
460 negative terms due to the lack of specific analysis
461 controlling for various factors. Furthermore, the
462 findings indicate the need to search for policy
463 solutions not only directed at migration but also
464 at helping parents to find optimal caregivers and
465 to provide adequate support services for those
466 who stay behind to care for their children.
467 The findings that time is an important dimen-
468 sion that influences child well-being outcomes
469 underscore the need for ▶ longitudinal studies.
470 Currently, all studies on transnational families
471 and child well-being are cross-sectional. Those
472 that include time dimensions do so by including
473 variables such as length of separation and age at
474 separation or they rely on historical recall.
475 Longitudinal studies are needed to identify the
476 conditions of the family before migration to accu-
477 rately account for possible selection effects and
478 to obtain measurements over time of child
479 well-being outcome variables to establish
480 whether migration does impact child well-being
481 and what it means for future child development.
482References
483Antman, F. M. (2011). International migration and gender
484discrimination among children left behind. The
485American Economic Review, 101, 645–649.
486Baldassar, L., & Baldock, C. (1999). Linking migration
487and family studies: Transnational migrants and the
488care of ageing parents. In B. Agozino (Ed.), Theoret-
489ical and methodological issues in migration research
490(pp. 57–74). Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.
491Battistella, G., & Conaco, C. G. (1998). The impact of
492labour migration on the children left behind: A study
493of elementary school children in the Philippines.
494Sojourn, 13, 220–241.
495Bledsoe, C., & Sow, P. (2011). Back to Africa: Second
496chances for the children of West African immigrants.
497Journal of Marriage and Family, 73, 747–762.
498Bryceson, D. F., & Vuorela, U. (2002). The transnational
499family: New European frontiers and global networks.
500Oxford: Berg.
501Donato, K., Kanaiaupuni, S. M., & Stainback, M.
502(2003). Sex differences in child health: Effects of
503Mexico – U.S. migration. Journal of Comparative
504Family Studies, 34, 455–477.
505Dreby, J. (2007). Children and power in Mexican transna-
506tional families. Journal of Marriage and Family, 69,
5071050–1064.
508Dreby, J., & Stutz, L. (2012). Making something of the
509sacrifice: Gender, migration and Mexican children’s
510educational aspirations. Global networks, 12, 71–90.
511Fan, F., Su, L., Gill, M. K., & Birmaher, B. (2010).
512Emotional and behavioral problems of Chinese
513left-behind children: A preliminary study. Social Psy-
514chiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 45, 655–665.
515Fog-Olwig, K. (1999). Narratives of the children left
516behind: Home and identity in globalised Caribbean
517families. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies,
51825(2), 267–284.
519Graham, E., & Jordan, L. P. (2011). Migrant parents and
520the psychological well-being of left-behind children in
521Southeast Asia. Journal of Marriage and Family, 73,
522763–787.
523Heymann, J., Flores-Macias, F., Hayes, J. A., Kennedy,
524M., Lahaie, C., & Earle, A. (2009). The impact of
525migration on the well-being of transnational families:
526New data from sending communities in Mexico. Com-
527munity, Work & Family, 12, 91–103.
528Jia, Z., & Tian, W. (2010). Loneliness of left-behind
529children: A cross-sectional survey in a sample of
530rural China. Child Care Health Development, 36,
531812–817.
532Kandel, W., & Massey, D. S. (2002). The culture of
533Mexican migration: A theoretical and empirical anal-
534ysis. Social Forces, 80, 981–1005.
535Levitt, P. (2001). The transnational villagers. Berkeley,
536CA: University of California Press.
537Liu, Z., & Ge, X. (2009). Left too early: The effects of age
538at separation from parents on Chinese rural children’s
C 6 Child Well-Being and Transnational Families
Comp. by: V.ARUNA Stage: Galleys Chapter No.: 3870 Title Name: EQLR
Date:17/11/12 Time:08:43:09 Page Number: 7
539 symptoms of anxiety and depression. American
540 Journal of Public Health, 99, 2049–2054.
541 Mazzucato, V., & Schans, D. (2011). Transnational fam-
542 ilies and the well-being of children: Conceptual and
543 methodological challenges. Journal of Marriage and
544 Family, 73, 704–712.
545 Nobles, J. (2011). Parenting from abroad: Migration, non-
546 resident father involvement, and children’s education
547 in Mexico. Journal of Marriage and Family, 73,
548 729–746.
549 Parren˜as, R. (2005). Children of global migration: Trans-
550 national families and gendered woes. Stanford, CA:
551 Stanford University Press.
552 Schmalzbauer, L. (2004). Searching for wages and moth-
553 ering from afar: The case of Honduran transnational
554 families. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66,
555 1317–1331.
556 Smith, R. C. (2006). Mexican New York: Transnational
557 lives of new immigrants. Berkeley, CA: University of
558 California Press.
559 Smith, A., Lanlonde, R. N., & Johnson, S. (2004). Serial
560 migration and its implications for the parent-child
561 relationship: A retrospective analysis of the
562experiences of the children of the Caribbean immi-
563grants. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psy-
564chology, 10, 107–122.
565Sua´rez-Orozco, C., Todorova, I. L. G., & Louie, J. (2002).
566Making up for lost time: The experience of separation
567and reunification among immigrant families. Family
568Process, 41, 625–643.
569Waters, J. (2005). Transnational family strategies and
570education in the contemporary Chinese diaspora.
571Global Networks, 5, 359–377.
572Wen, M., & Lin, D. (2012). Child development in rural
573China: Children left behind by their migrant parents
574and children of nonmigrant families. Child Develop-
575ment, 83, 120–136.
576Whitehouse, B. (2009). Transnational childrearing and the
577preservation of transnational identity in Brazzaville,
578Congo. Global Networks, 9, 82–99.
579Yeoh, B., & Lam, T. (2007). The costs of (Im)mobility:
580Children left behind and children who migrate with
581a parent. In United Nations ESCAP (Ed.), Perspectives
582on gender and migration (pp. 120–149). New York:
583United Nations.
Child Well-Being and Transnational Families 7 C
Comp. by: V.ARUNA Stage: Galleys Chapter No.: 3870 Title Name: EQLR
Date:17/11/12 Time:08:43:09 Page Number: 8
Author Query Form
Encyclopedia of Quality of Life Research
Chapter No: 3870
___________________________________________________________________
Query Refs. Details Required Author’s response
AU1 Please check if identified heading levels are okay.
AU2 The citation Dreby et al. (2012) has been changed
to Dreby and Stutz (2012). Please check if
appropriate.
AU3 The citation Liu et al. (2009) has been changed to
Liu and Ge (2009). Please check if appropriate.