Social participation and support network patterns ... - SAGE Journals

Article

Social participation and support network patterns among marriage migrants in South Korea: Does place of residence matter?

Chinese Journal of Sociology 2018, Vol. 4(2) 236–261 ! The Author(s) 2018 Reprints and permissions: sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/2057150X18769222 journals.sagepub.com/home/chs

Hsin-Chieh Chang

Abstract Using the case of female marriage migrants in South Korea, one new immigrant destination hosting the majority of East Asia’s marriage migrants, this article examines the associations between social participation, place of residence, and support network patterns among the six largest migrant groups (n ¼ 64,972): ethnic Koreans (Korean Chinese) born in China, Vietnamese, Han Chinese from China, and those from the Philippines, Japan, and Cambodia. The results show that both participation in community meetings and membership in non-governmental organizations are significantly associated with more types of Korean support networks and co-ethnic support networks, after controlling for demographics, immigrant characteristics, marital status, health status, perceived discrimination, and ethnicity or country of origin. Using Seoul City as a reference location, those who lived in Jeolla Province were less likely to have support networks composed of Koreans yet were more likely to have support networks of co-ethnics, after holding all other covariates constant. With the identification of significant interactions between marriage migrants’ place of residence and ethnicity, stratified ordered logistic models demonstrate how place of residence matters for marriage migrants of certain ethnicities or countries of origin. In conclusion, this article demonstrates the importance and the benefits of social participation for marriage migrants as a pathway to building support networks of local people and co-ethnics.

Institute of Health Behaviors and Community Sciences, National Taiwan University, Taiwan, People’s Republic of China Corresponding author: Hsin-Chieh Chang, No. 17, Xu-Zhou Road, Taipei City, 100, Taiwan, People’s Republic of China. Email: [email protected]

Chang

237

Keywords Social participation, social networks, social support, marriage migration, South Korea

Introduction Immigrants’ community lives and civic engagement in their host societies have been an enduring research interest among scholars studying immigrant integration and social cohesion (Abada et al., 2007; Bloemraad and Terriquez, 2016; Fong and Hou, 2015; Fong and Shen, 2016; Handy and Greenspan, 2009; Stoll and Wong, 2007; White, 1997). Regardless of a migrant’s motivations for migrating and economic capital, changes in physical and social environments from the sending to the receiving contexts, such as the loss of support networks in the home country, language barriers in the destination country, and gaps in the migrant’s social status before and after migration, may create a significant level of social stress, especially in the initial phases of his or her settlement (Berry, 1992, 1997; Spallek et al., 2014). Providing platforms to build reciprocal social relationships and support networks for migrants either in residential neighborhoods or through social participation in voluntary community-based organizations will benefit newly-arrived migrants regardless of their social and economic backgrounds. For migrants of marginalized social or legal status or with limited economic resources, having such platforms is even more crucial for their physical and mental wellbeing and long-term social integration trajectories (Bloemraad and Terriquez, 2016; Kadushin, 1983). Since the turn of the century, the social phenomenon of intra-Asia marriage migration has received considerable attention from migration and family scholars (Be´langer, 2010; Jones, 2012; Tseng, 2010). Compared to other types of migrants in traditional Western immigrant societies, female marriage migrants typically marry into the lower strata of the East Asian new immigrant societies, where states are in the early phases of policy-making and of shaping governance paradigms related to immigration (Be´langer et al., 2010; Iwabuchi et al., 2016; Seol and Skrentny, 2009). Marriage migrants from other Asian societies are situated in multi-dimensional disadvantaged structural hierarchies of age, gender, social class, and globalization. In the first few years, marriage migrants’ everyday activities are often constrained by marital roles and familial obligations, which may prevent them from establishing support networks outside the marital family, leading them to different levels of social isolation and being vulnerable to integration-related abuses (Choi et al., 2012; Merali, 2008). In the existing literature concerning the social integration of intraAsia marriage migrants, little has been revealed about marriage migrants’ social lives outside their marital families, and about whether place of residence matters. In this article, I use a unique data set from South Korea, one new immigrant destination hosting the majority of the region’s marriage migrants, to examine the associations between marriage migrants’ social participation, place of residence,

238

Chinese Journal of Sociology 4(2)

and two types of support networks: support from co-ethnics; and support from Koreans. My analytic subsamples include the six largest groups of female marriage migrants residing in Korea (n ¼ 64,972): ethnic Koreans (Korean Chinese) born in China, Vietnamese, Han Chinese from China, and those from the Philippines, Japan, and Cambodia. Examining the associations between social participation, place of residence, and support network patterns among marriage migrants in South Korea, a new immigrant destination that is pursuing ‘multiculturalism,’ carries several important research and policy implications. First, for marriage migrants who come from different countries of origin in Asia, with different notions and norms of social participation, a description of their patterns of social participation in the migration destination society shows their level of civic engagement, which may be considered a form of structural integration and is of interest to scholars studying immigrant integration. Second, if social participation is associated with more active support networks among marriage migrants in an ethnically homogeneous country such as South Korea, this demonstrates the positive consequences of civic engagement for immigrants coming from less advantageous socioeconomic backgrounds and enriches the civic engagement literature in newly democratized nations. Finally, by identifying variations in support network patterns among marriage migrants across different regions, policy-makers at the local level could design and adjust relevant policies and programs in the third sector. For example, recreating an active civic atmosphere that encourages the social participation of marriage migrants and local people could provide a sustainable platform upon which natives and migrants could build reciprocal social relationships and in the long run, reciprocal inter-ethnic group relations.

Literature review In advancing the focuses of immigrant integration literature over the past decades, scholars have proposed several research questions on immigrant integration that merit reconsideration (Rodrı´ guez-Garcı´ a, 2015; Song, 2016; Wingens et al., 2011). First, in contrast with the previous few decades, there is a need to update the definition of ‘mainstream society.’ In other words, it is not always clear which segments of the society are considered ‘mainstream’ for new immigrants to integrate with. Furthermore, in addition to traditional dimensions of integration such as education, housing, and labor market participation, Rodrı´ guez-Garcı´ a (2015) proposed that immigrant integration should consider social, cultural, and political dimensions, including religion, gender equality, and identity. Third, it is important to move on to a ‘fusion process’ of mutual understanding between old and new citizens of diverse backgrounds, rather than following the dominant assimilation paradigm in some traditional migrant societies (Huddleston et al., 2013). Finally, it is time to move from a strong emphasis on integration policy measures to measuring actual integration outcomes such as the acquisition of new values and norms, and whether life satisfaction has improved after migration (Locke and Zhang, 2010; Rodrı´ guez-Garcı´ a, 2015).

Chang

239

In agreement with the research questions raised in the previous paragraph, I consider civic participation, or civic engagement – either through obtaining formal membership in non-governmental organizations (NGOs) or through less formal modes of participation in community meetings – an important and less-addressed dimension. Civic participation not only provides migrants with opportunities outside formal institutions to interact with local residents or migrants from other countries, it also may allow migrants to build support networks beyond their own ethnic groups or co-workers, that is, weak ties that may provide bridging social capital for them. However, for migrants with limited language proficiency, or those of vulnerable social, economic, and legal status, building support networks requires extra resources – time, efforts, and opportunities – that may not be available if they are occupied with work and family obligations (Stewart et al., 2008). Below, I engage two bodies of literature that concern social participation and support networks among migrants. The first body explores the sources and definitions of support networks among migrants, and the second looks at immigration and civic engagement in the West versus the East.

Needs and sources of social support among migrants The concept of social support and its various dimensional functions has been wellstudied since the 1970s. In Thoits’ widely-cited work, she defined social support as ‘the degree to which a person’s basic social needs are gratified through interaction with others’ (Thoits, 1982). Here, basic needs refer to ‘affection, esteem or approval, belonging, identity, and security.’ These needs are important for everyone and especially for immigrants who migrate across national borders, because they have to rebuild a social support system by navigating all possibilities in the new community and society. For example, migrant women residing in rural Queensland experienced social isolation and lack of sense of belonging due to lack of social support networks nearby (Kelaher et al., 2001). Thoits defines ‘social support system’ as ‘a subset of persons in the individual’s total social network upon whom he or she relies for socioemotional aid, instrumental aid, or both’ (Thoits, 1982). According to Thoits, the people in one’s social support system, or support networks, may consist of one’s spouse, colleagues, or relatives as well as counselors or social workers from formal institutions (Thoits, 1982). In other words, there may be or may not be a reciprocal relationship, as long as the people in the system provide esteem support, informational support, instrumental support, and social companionship that directly benefit the individual, or indirectly provide buffering effects for wellbeing when one experiences adversity (Brissette et al., 2000; Cohen, 2004). Focusing on the experiences of Chinese immigrants and Somali refugees in Canada, Stewart et al.’s (2008) study identified important variables that demonstrate cultural meanings of and diverse needs for social support. One major obstacle for immigrants when seeking support has been discrimination and racism being reflected in both unfriendly attitudes among local people and unequal opportunities within formal institutions and labor markets (Stewart et al., 2008). As for newcomers, they

240

Chinese Journal of Sociology 4(2)

may seek support from families and ethno-cultural communities for two reasons. First, co-ethnic migrants who had arrived earlier went through similar processes in navigating the Canadian social systems and understood the need for the settlement processes. Second, when newcomers sought support from formal institutions, they experienced discrimination and thus turned to co-ethnic networks for comfort and empathy. However, over time, immigrants began to realize that they needed to further integrate into the socioeconomic and thought patterns of the host society and that they needed more diverse support networks that included local people or personnel from formal institutions (Stewart et al., 2008). The idea of seeking social support from co-ethnic networks was challenged by migration scholars who studied Spanish-speaking, working-class enclave neighborhoods (Bankston III, 2014). Ethnic enclaves of migrants from different countries of origin demonstrate various forms of inter-ethnic support and logic in sharing resources. While one may assume that an immigrant may be most willingly to provide support to his or her co-ethnics, Ivan Light’s work (2006) on shifting places of immigration showed that it may be the opposite. HernandezLeon et al. (2007) pointed out that in Deflecting Immigration, Light (2006) suggested that, ‘an immigrant’s greatest rival is, or potentially can be, a co-ethnic immigrant, especially if both are poor’ (Light, 2006). He meant that in ethnic enclaves where low-skilled migrants compete for jobs and affordable housing, their willingness to provide support for newcomers is likely to decrease (Light, 2006). Nevertheless, newcomers may identify varied support-seeking strategies, such as establishing reciprocal relationships with neighbors, securing job positions that may be beneficial to language learning, volunteering either in organizations that offer (or may potentially offer) opportunities for employment or in a mainstream agency so as to better understand the social systems of the host society, and in the case of those with more resources or social capital, joining a professional association to obtain ‘status support’ (Fong and Hou, 2015; Stewart et al., 2008), which leads to the theme of civic engagement in the following section.

Immigration and civic participation: the West versus the East Generally speaking, civic participation refers to ‘membership and involvement in organizations such as neighbourhood associations, faith-based groups, educational associations, and ethnic organizations’ (Ramakrishnan and Viramontes, 2010). In traditional immigrant societies such as the United States and Canada, where there is an established culture of civic participation, volunteering at community-based organizations serving both the native and immigrant populations may be considered a stepping stone to integrating into the community and also a sign of increased cultural capital for integrating into the competitive labor market (Handy and Greenspan, 2009). Depending on the primary functions of and resources available at different community-based organizations, research in the US has identified social and economic hierarchies within these organizations (Ramakrishnan and Viramontes,

Chang

241

2010). For example, ethnic organizations which serve the native-born ethnic minorities are considered more disadvantaged in relation to White mainstream organizations, because the latter gain more political visibility and thus have more resources of various types available. However, ethnic organizations are considered more advantaged than hometown associations, which serve recent immigrants, including undocumented immigrants and those with limited local language proficiency (Ramakrishnan and Viramontes, 2010). Civic engagement slightly advances the notion of civic participation for the mechanism and the consequences of ‘engagement’ involving the idea of ‘participatory democracy’ (Son and Lin, 2008). Son and Lin identified some commonalities of civic engagement across different studies, including membership in civic associations, community social services, volunteering and charity, and percentages of populations in civically engaged denominations (Putnam, 2000; Son and Lin, 2008; Tolbert et al., 1998). However, in some countries, such as South Korea and other East Asian societies that are under the influence of Confucian ideology, formal membership or institutional affiliation are forms of organizational social capital, which may be restricted to certain social positions or social ties that were built on attending the same school or church in the region and thus exclude migrants who were educated abroad or lack such education backgrounds (Bian and Ikeda, 2014; Son, 2016). Since the incoming migration flows became visible in Taiwan and Korea at the turn of the century, various migrant-serving NGOs have been established to advocate for the legal and social rights of marriage migrants and migrant workers from less-developed Asian societies. Unlike migrant-serving organizations in Western traditional immigrant societies that are organized by a specific migrant ethnic group in fairly well-established third-sector governance, migrant-serving NGOs in Taiwan (China) and Korea are initiated and led by native social activists a few years before both governments allocate funds to accommodate marriage migrants. A majority of native social activists who advocate for migrant rights were previously engaged with different aspects of social movements, contributing to raising the awareness of the general population on the importance of third-sector governance and the making of the civil society in two regions: Taiwan and Korea (Hsia, 2008, 2009; Yamanaka, 2010). Considering that these migrant-serving organizations were established for marriage migrants from other Asian societies, barriers to becoming a member or participating regularly are less of an issue than migrants’ lack of access or time to utilize social services provided by these organizations and the fact that in some cases, they experience social discriminations while acquiring services at these migrant-serving organizations.

Marriage migration to South Korea: an overview The growing phenomenon of intra-Asia marriage migration reflects the movement of women from less developed to wealthier countries (Hugo, 2005; Jones and Shen, 2008). Drivers of these migration flows include globalization, regional social inequalities, East Asian demographic transitions, and the increase in commercial

242

Chinese Journal of Sociology 4(2)

matchmaking agencies. Common destinations include Taiwan, South Korea, Singapore, Hong Kong, and Japan. These societies share similar demographic features such as low fertility, aging, postponed age at first marriage, etc. Major sending societies include China, Vietnam, the Philippines, Indonesia, and Cambodia. In these emerging economies, the large economic divide between rural and urban areas is one of the major reasons that rural young women and men seek out-migration opportunities through various channels. Transnational marriages in Korea represented 4.6% of total marriages in 2001; the number increased sharply to 13.6% in 2005, and slightly decreased to 10.5% in 2010 (Jones, 2012; Lee, 2008). Marriage migrants from different Asian countries have entered at different times and have been driven by varied incentives. Such migration started due to the ‘bride deficit phenomenon’, referring to Korean men in rural areas, who are disadvantaged in the domestic marriage market. More recently, urban areas have also come to attract transnational migrant women for marriage with the demand coming from divorced men of low socioeconomic status and, most recently, never-married men (Lee et al., 2006). The Unification Church, which advocates interethnic marriages, introduced brides from Japan into Korea during the 1970s and the 1980s (Lee et al., 2006). Chinese women of Korean ancestry began to enter Korea in the early 1990s after local Korean governments initiated ‘marriage tours’ to recruit them as a solution for otherwise unmarriageable men in rural villages (Kim, 2007). Once Korea established formal relations with China in 1992, Han Chinese women in Northeastern China were also recruited to Korea as marriage migrants (Lee, 2008). In the early 2000s, marriage migrants started to arrive from Vietnam and later from Cambodia, mostly through commercial arrangements involving Korean men who take ‘marriage tours’ of Southeast Asia, where the matchmaking takes place. These arrangements include overseas tours for prospective grooms, recruitment and training of potential brides, matching activities and group weddings, and subsequent services to complete the bride’s paperwork for emigration (Wang and Hsiao, 2009). Other major migrant groups are women from the Philippines, Mongolia, and Central Asia. According to the 2015 statistics of foreign residents in South Korea, migrants made up 3.4% of the total population, while in 2009, when the survey used in this paper was undertaken, migrants composed 2.2% of the total population (shown in Table 1). In 2006, the Korean government enacted legislation to integrate marriage migrants, claiming that ‘a diverse, multicultural society’ is where Korea is heading (Be´langer et al., 2010). For example, the ‘Grand Plan’ in 2006 required all official documents to replace ‘biracial families’ and ‘mixed blood children’ with ‘multicultural families’ and ‘multicultural children’ (Lee, 2008); and the ‘Laws to Support Multicultural Families’ in 2008 clearly stated that only a family consisting of an immigrant by marriage and a native-born Korean can be protected by these laws. The First Basic Plan for Multicultural Family Support Policy took place between 2010 and 2012, setting up over 200 multicultural family support centers across every district in Korea.

Chang

243

Table 1. Geographical distribution of foreign residents and female marriage migrants of major ethnicities/countries of origin in 2009. Korean Han Chinese Chinese Vietnamese Filipinas

All Japanese Others FMM

Grand Total

46,639 (31.1)

44,765 (29.9)

30,614 (20.4)

9,595 (6.4)

4,817 (3.2)

13,423 (9.0)

149,853 3.0 (100.0)

Seoul

17,313

7,655

3,042

991

1,149

2,408

32,558 3.2

Busan

1,399

2,656

1,659

410

182

627

6,933 1.9

Daegu

1,189

1,314

1,327

193

147

387

4,557 1.8

Incheon

2,355

4,440

1,070

376

195

808

9,244 3.4

Gwangju

685

971

694

320

105

306

3,081 2.2

Daejeon Ulsan

439 649

1,378 600

848 1,092

232 157

84 50

347 239

3,328 2.2 2,787 2.5

Gyeonggi

14,430

12,990

5,186

1,765

1,166

3,597

39,134 3.5

Gangwon

934

961

982

551

141

418

3,987 2.6

Chungbuk

1,047

1,251

1,318

425

145

491

4,677 3.1

Chungnam

1,219

2,294

2,307

852

255

710

7,637 3.8

1,314 998

1,841 1,603

1,762 2,279

822 1,104

202 366

604 796

6,545 3.5 7,146 3.7

Gyeongbuk

1,261

1,789

3,266

542

253

653

7,764 2.9

Gyeongnam

1,167

2,613

3,422

673

322

928

9,125 2.8

240

409

360

182

55

104

1,350 2.4

% of FMM

Metropolitan cities

Chungcheong

Jeolla Jeonbuk Jeonnam Gyeongsan

Jeju

Source: http://dlps.nanet.go.kr/DlibViewer.do?cn¼MONO1200971143&sysid¼nhn. Secondary population statistics from the Ministry of Interior, South Korea, calculation by the author.

The blueprint of Korea’s immigration policy, the First Basic Plan for Immigration Policy (FBPIP), was implemented between 2008 and 2012. It went hand in hand with the Grand Plan policies, including the Act on Regulation of Marriage Brokerage Industry and the Act on Treatment of Foreigners, which were passed in 2007. The FBPIP was followed by the Second Master Plan for Multicultural Family (2013– 2017). One of the major implementation plans for 2017 was to increase the number of ‘multicultural kindergartens’ for children of foreign backgrounds from 60 to 90 kindergartens across seventeen cities and provinces.1 A few shocking death cases of Vietnamese marriage migrants (VMMs) who were brutally killed by their husbands in the Daegu and Busan areas between the years 2008 and 2011 raised severe concerns over the issues of the human rights of VMMs, triggering the Korean government to implement strict regulations of brokerage agencies, such that they must reveal the actual situation of the Korean family to a foreign bride, and vice versa. In 2014, the Korean government tightened the procedures for

244

Chinese Journal of Sociology 4(2)

international marriages, including the requirement that marriage migrants must pass a level 1 examination of the Test of Proficiency in Korean before applying for a marriage visa in their home country, so they would arrive in Korea with basic language proficiency. Furthermore, the Korean husband must provide certificates for health checkups, proof of annual income, and official proof that he has no criminal record, etc.2 After the Korean government reinforced these rules in 2014, the number of commercial broker agencies decreased rapidly, from over 1500 to around 380 agencies that continue to provide matchmaking services. Although the survey used in this paper was undertaken in 2009, here I review the milestones of immigration policies after 2009 to provide the reader with more contextual understanding. In 2009, most marriage migrants were considered newcomers in a new immigrant destination, with minimal resources and measures to integrate them into Korean society. In consequence, the support network patterns they had in 2009 illustrate an early phase of marriage migrants’ settlement in South Korea. If social participation played an important role in building support networks outside the marital family at that time, regardless of the discrimination experienced in migrants’ everyday lives, then collective efforts to build an encouraging civic atmosphere may carry important policy implications for contemporary South Korea and other marriage migrant-receiving societies in Asia.

Methods Data The 2009 National Survey of Multicultural Families in South Korea was undertaken by the Korea Ministry for Health, Welfare, and Family Affairs to study the living conditions and welfare needs of marriage migrants. The survey identified 167,000 married immigrant residents in Korea, including both naturalized citizens and non-citizens. When marriage migrants whose spouses were foreign born are excluded, there were a total of 130,001 female marriage migrants living in Korea in 2009. Survey agencies recruited interviewers to conduct face-to-face interviews through home visits. The questionnaire was available in ten languages, including Chinese, Vietnamese, Japanese, Tagalog, Cambodian, etc. The interviewers attempted to interview all female marriage migrants. Ultimately, 73,669 questionnaires were collected, with a response rate of 56%. The analytic subsamples of this article are: total n ¼ 64,972; Korean Chinese n ¼ 24,561; Han Chinese n ¼ 9,292; Vietnamese n ¼ 19,363; Japanese n ¼ 3,618; Filipinas n ¼ 6,212; and Cambodian n ¼ 1,924. I exclude other migrant groups because of their relatively small group sizes residing across different regions of South Korea, which may limit their ability to establish co-ethnic networks.

Independent and dependent variables Social participation. I include two survey questions to measure marriage migrants’ social participation. The first question concerns the frequency of participation in

Chang

245

community meetings over the past year; I code those who ever participated in community meetings during the previous year as 1, never as 0. The second question refers to formal membership status in NGO groups: ‘Have you joined an NGO group in Korea as a member?’ This is a yes/no question, so I coded yes as 1, no as 0. Support networks. I created two variables to measure marriage migrants’ two types of support networks: from co-ethnics and from Koreans. Two questions in the survey identified marriage migrants’ social relationships with others. Respondents were asked, ‘Whom do you spend time with when you have personal or family trouble?’ and ‘Whom do you spend leisure time with or do recreation activities with?’ Each respondent could choose one or more of the following answers: ‘people from my home country;’ ‘Korean people;’ or ‘other foreigners’. With these six possible answers, I used principal component analysis and confirmed that four answers represent two different and negatively correlated dimensions of support networks among marriage migrants: (1) Support networks composed of Koreans: measured by (a) whether marriage migrants would go to a Korean friend when they are in trouble; and (b) whether marriage migrants spend leisure time with Koreans. (2) Support networks composed of co-ethnics: measured by (a) whether marriage migrants would go to a co-ethnic friend when they are in trouble; and (b) whether marriage migrants spend leisure time with co-ethnic friends. Respondent could have from 0 to 2 types of support networks from Koreans, and from 0 to 2 types of support networks from co-ethnics. Place of residence. In Son’s study that considered regional differences in measuring memberships in voluntary associations, he combined the ‘buk-do’s’ (referring to the northern provinces) and ‘nam-do’s’ (referring to the southern provinces) of the above regions (Son, 2016). Yet he did not distinguish metropolitan cities from their respective provinces. Through fieldwork, Son found that marriage migrants who reside in urban areas demonstrate different patterns of social life compared to those in less urbanized areas. In order to seek a balance between different levels of administrative division in South Korea while considering degrees of urbanization that shape residents’ social lives, a reasonable analytic unit from the data, and the number of marriage migrants residing in each area, I reference Son’s categorization of places of residence and further separate six metropolitan cities from the administrative provinces as another category. The following eight categories of place of residence were applied: (1) Seoul, as a special city; (2) Metropolitan cities, including Busan, Daegu, Incheon, Gwangju, Daejeon, and Ulsan; (3) Gyeonggi province; (4) Gangwon province; (5) Chungcheong Province, including buk-do and nam-do; (6) Jeolla Province, including buk-do and nam-do; (7) Gyeongsan Province, including buk-do and nam-do; and (8) Jeju Province. Table 1 provides numbers of marriage migrants of different ethnicities/countries of origin residing in these eight regions in the year of 2009. The yearbook archive did not include specific numbers of marriage migrants from Cambodia in 2009. I include the information on the numbers of female marriage migrants by 1000

246

Chinese Journal of Sociology 4(2)

registered residents of each area to demonstrate that South Korea overall was an ethnically homogeneous society in 2009.

Other covariates Marriage migrants’ socioeconomic characteristics. Marriage migrants’ education in the home country, age, and employment status were included to measure their own socioeconomic status, as these variables may affect their social participation and social relationships in South Korea. Marital family-level factors. Based on correlation analysis, I include marital status, marriage channels, co-residence with parents-in-law, and husbands’ disability as a set of marital family-level factors that might affect marriage migrants’ social lives outside of marital families. Living with extended families may reduce wives’ space to exercise their power compared to wives who live in nuclear households (Rodman, 1972). And in some cases, household duties, including taking care of disabled husbands or in-laws with illnesses, may limit marriage migrants’ time and freedom to build their own support networks. Immigrant characteristics. Based on previous studies focusing on intra-Asian marriage migrants’ social integration and wellbeing (Chang, 2016; Chang and Wallace, 2016; Choi et al., 2012), I include the following variables measuring immigrant characteristics: Korean language proficiency; length of stay in South Korea; and citizenship status. Language proficiency is a 3-item scale measuring how fluently the respondent speaks, reads, and writes Korean on a Likert scale of (1) very good to (5) very poor. These items were reversed, summed, and averaged to create a Korean language proficiency score. The Cronbach a value of the Korean proficiency scale is 0.94. Years in Korea was coded into four groups, with three cut-off points at 2 years (around the time when marriage migrants typically give birth to their first child), five years (an estimated average time for marriage migrants to obtain citizenship), and ten years. Citizenship status is based on whether respondents report Korean citizenship at the time of survey (yes ¼ 1/no ¼ 0). In a similar fashion, those who have ever attended Korean language classes as part of social services were coded as 1. I further include the following variables that may affect marriage migrants’ social participation: (1) perceived discrimination; (2) economic hardship, measured by whether they had to borrow money for living expenses and whether they could afford to see a medical doctor; (3) self-reported health status; and (4) attendance of Korean language classes.

Analytic strategy Ordered logistic regression models were used to assess the associations between social participation and support network patterns and other key covariates. Results from multilevel ordered logistic models show that the intraclass correlation

Chang

247

coefficient of full models that include the area variable (models 1f and 2f) appears to account for less than 1% of the variance. Thus, I display results of standard ordered logistic regression models. To examine whether there are significant interaction effects between social participation, ethnicity, and area of residence, I include interaction terms and recognize that ethnicity plays an important role in the analysis. I further stratified the ordered logistic regression models by six migrant ethnic groups to examine how place matters to marriage migrants of different ethnicities or countries of origin.

Results Descriptive statistics of social participation and support pattern networks The first part of Table 2 describes overall social participation across eight different areas of residence and variations across six migrant groups. Since I decided to use the most lenient standard to capture marriage migrants’ community participation, the percentages of those who ever participated in community meetings and those who have officially joined a NGO appear to be quite distinct. Overall, 27% of marriage migrants included in this study had participated in at least one community meeting, yet only around 3% joined a NGO group as a member. There exists an urban and rural contrast in both measures of social participation. In Seoul and all metropolitan cities, 14% and 22% had ever participated in community meetings, yet in the provinces of Gangwon, Gyeongsan, Jeolla, and Chungcheong, the percentages ranged between 36% and 41%. Regarding NGO membership, around 3% of the study population were members of a NGO group, yet the figures were higher in less urbanized areas such as Gangwon (5.7%) and Jeolla (5.1%) than in Seoul (1.3%) and in the metropolitan cities (1.9%). Marriage migrants coming from different countries of origin may possess different ideas about engaging in civic activities and about whether they might benefit from them. Table 2 shows that when considering the social participation of different ethnic groups, there may be some linkages between this and the source country’s civic atmosphere. For example, marriage migrants from the Philippines are more active in social participation regardless of where they live. 46% of them had participated in community meetings and 9% were members of NGOs. In contrast, Han Chinese marriage migrants were less active in both dimensions of social participation: around 14% had been to a community meeting and 1.4% belonged to NGOs. Those from Vietnam were less active in NGOs (1%) but were moderately active in community meeting participation (35%). The second part shows the patterns of two different types of support networks across eight different areas of residence. Regarding support network patterns, there appeared to be less variation across areas of residence than there was with patterns of social participation. In Seoul, all metropolitan cities, and Gyeonggi Province, those to whom Korean networks provided two aspects of social support were above 30%, while those in less urbanized areas had less support from Korean

21.5 17.1 10.6 28.2 40.4 26.5 19.3 1.9 1.5 1.0 0.8 7.2 7.4 3.0 24.0 30.5 26.1 26.5

1.3 0.8 0.8 1.0 5.5 5.2 0.0

22.4 31.3

27.7 22.6

Metropolitan cities 14,047

13.9 10.8 9.3 23.1 32.5 22.8 14.6

Note: NGO, non-governmental organization.

Community meeting Ever participated Korean Chinese Han Chinese Vietnamese Filipinas Japanese Cambodian NGO Membership Being a member Korean Chinese Han Chinese Vietnamese Filipinas Japanese Cambodian Korean support network One aspect of social life Two aspects of social lives Co-ethnics support network One aspect of social life Two aspects of social lives

n

Seoul 9,457

23.7 25.2

23.2 31.5

2.1 1.5 1.3 0.9 6.9 9.2 2.8

20.5 15.3 12.1 31.0 42.6 33.9 16.1

Gyeonggi 13,740

25.2 29.2

25.8 28.9

5.7 6.2 2.4 0.8 10.5 15.2 2.8

40.5 36.0 29.0 37.2 53.9 56.3 25.5

Gangwon 2,392

25.4 30.2

25.3 25.4

3.6 4.3 1.8 0.9 7.2 12.1 4.3

36.1 30.6 19.5 39.3 49.6 42.5 28.6

Chungcheong 6,489

24.8 32.8

23.4 22.8

5.1 5.9 1.6 1.0 13.3 10.2 4.3

37.2 30.9 16.9 39.3 49.9 49.1 30.7

Jeolla 7,962

26.5 29.3

25.9 26.9

3.3 3.9 2.6 1.1 10.2 10.0 1.9

35.7 30.0 17.8 39.5 49.0 44.6 26.7

Gyeongsan 10,171

25.1 35.3

22.4 25.8

2.2 2.4 4.2 0.4 4.1 3.5 0.0

27.5 22.8 25.4 26.6 37.9 20.7 26.9

Jeju 714

24.8 27.4

24.0 28.7

2.8 2.2 1.4 1.0 9.0 9.4 3.1

26.5 18.7 13.5 34.6 45.7 38.3 24.4

All 64,972

Table 2. Descriptive statistics of social participation and support network patterns among female marriage migrants by area of residence, 2009 Survey of Multicultural Families in Korea.

248 Chinese Journal of Sociology 4(2)

Chang

249

networks. Yet in the provinces of Gangwon, Chungcheong, Jeolla, Gyeongsan, and Jeju, marriage migrants to whom co-ethnic networks provided two aspects of social support were above 29%, yet those in more urbanized areas had less support from co-ethnic networks.

Associations between social participation and support network patterns with Koreans and with co-ethnics Tables 3 and 4 provide results of odds ratios (ORs) of ordered logistic regression models while considering different covariates that may be associated with social participation and support network patterns. In Table 3, Model 1a shows that those who ever participated in community meetings were 1.26 times more likely to establish Korean support networks (p < 0.001) than those who never participated, while the OR for being a NGO member was 1.37 (p < 0.001). Across Models 1a to 1f, associations between two measures of social participation and Korean support networks remain statistically significant; the ORs for community meeting participation even increase as I include more covariates in the regression models, but not so for NGO membership. Concerning whether and how area of residence matters, it appears that except for those in Gyeonggi Province, those who lived outside Seoul City were significantly less likely to establish more types of Korean support networks. After considering marriage migrants’ ethnicity in Model 1c, I find that only Chungcheong and Jeolla Provinces remain statistically different from Seoul City, with ORs of 0.89 (p < 0.01) and 0.91 (p < 0.001). Compared to Korean Chinese, marriage migrants of other ethnicities were less likely to establish more types of Korean support networks, among the five ethnicities, those from Vietnam (OR ¼ 0.42, p < 0.001) and the Philippines (OR ¼ 0.39, p < 0.001) having the least likelihoods. The differences between Korean Chinese and these two ethnicities decrease in Model 1f, after we consider more covariates into the regression models: for Vietnamese, the OR is 0.66 (p < 0.001); and for women from the Philippines, the ratio is 0.52 (p < 0.001). Table 4 indicates that participation in community meetings is significantly associated with more types of support network patterns with co-ethnics, yet this is not always the case for NGO membership when I introduce different sets of covariates into the model. Regarding different areas of residence, in Model 2b, in contrast to what is shown in Model 1b from Table 3, those who reside outside Seoul City were more likely to establish more types of co-ethnic support networks. Yet when ethnicity is introduced into the model, only provinces of Jeolla (OR ¼ 1.2; p < 0.001) and Jeju (OR ¼ 1.3, p < 0.01) remain statistically different from Seoul City. In Model 2f, the significance of Jeju Province disappears, leaving Jeolla Province the only place that is significantly different from Seoul. When looking at the difference across marriage migrants’ ethnicity, Japanese women stand out in being more likely to establish co-ethnic support networks: The ORs were 6.8 (p < 0.001) in Model 2c and gradually decrease to 5.14 (p < 0.001) in Model 2f, referencing Korean Chinese in the models. Another interesting finding is the shift in ORs for Cambodian women. In Model 2c, they were 1.12 times (p < 0.05) more likely to

250

Chinese Journal of Sociology 4(2)

Table 3. Associations between social participation and different support patterns with Koreans. Korean support networks Observations

Model 1a Model 1b Model 1c Model 1d Model 1e Model 1f 50,618 50,618 50,618 49,743 44,750 40,248

Community meeting Never participated Ever participated

1.00 1.26***

1.00 1.35***

1.00 1.56***

1.00 1.55***

1.00 1.51***

1.00 1.48***

NGO membership Not being a member Being a member

1.00 1.37***

1.00 1.43***

1.00 1.35***

1.00 1.34***

1.00 1.35***

1.00 1.32***

1.00 0.90*** 0.96 0.79*** 0.69*** 0.62*** 0.77*** 0.69***

1.00 1.05 1.03 0.97 0.89** 0.81*** 1.02 0.87

1.00 1.06* 1.04 1.00 0.91** 0.83*** 1.04 0.90

1.00 1.00 0.99 0.91 0.84*** 0.78*** 0.97 0.86

1.00 1.00 1.00 0.88* 0.82*** 0.81*** 0.96 0.85

1.00 0.62*** 0.42*** 0.39*** 0.74*** 0.67***

1.00 0.61*** 0.45*** 0.34*** 0.64*** 0.75***

1.00 0.58*** 0.47*** 0.36*** 0.64*** 0.80***

1.00 0.82*** 0.66*** 0.52*** 0.87* 1.11

Age 18 years old to 29 years old 30 years old to 44 years old 45 years old and older

1.00 1.05* 1.08*

1.00 1.14*** 1.34***

1.00 1.08** 1.30***

Employment status Not employed Employed

1.00 0.97**

1.00 1.00

1.00 1.00

1.00 0.36*** 0.54***

1.00 0.33*** 0.51***

Area of residence Seoul Metropolitan cities Gyeonggi Gangwon Chungcheong Jeolla Gyeongsan Jeju Ethnicity Korean Chinese Han Chinese Vietnamese Filipinas Japanese Cambodian

Marital status Married Divorced Widowed

(continued)

Chang

251

Table 3. Continued Korean support networks Observations Length of stay Less than two years Two to five years Five to ten years More than ten years Korean language class Never taken Ever taken Perceived discrimination Never Ever Self-rated health Worse Better

Model 1a Model 1b Model 1c Model 1d Model 1e Model 1f 50,618 50,618 50,618 49,743 44,750 40,248 1.00 1.02 1.10* 1.35*** 1.00 0.83*** 1.00 0.82*** 1.00 1.53***

Notes: After controlling for education, marital family factors, economic difficulty, language proficiency, and citizenship status. *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001; NGO, non-governmental organization.

build co-ethnic networks than Korean Chinese; however, in Model 2f, after all other covariates are taken into account, there is a reduction of 0.34% in Cambodians’ likelihood of building co-ethnic networks (p < 0.001). One reason for this may be that in 2009, the number of Cambodians residing in South Korea was considered small compared to people of other ethnicities; Cambodians did not have a large enough pool in each region to establish coethnic networks. In comparing Table 3 and Table 4, two age gradients can be observed. Marriage migrants above age 45 were more likely to build support networks with Koreans and less likely to build co-ethnic support networks, followed by those between ages 30 and 44, when the reference group is those below age 30. Being employed is important (OR ¼ 1.09, p < 0.001) in establishing co-ethnic support networks (Model 2f), but not for Korean networks (Model 1f). In terms of marital status, divorcees and widowers had less Korean support but more co-ethnic support. Marriage migrants who had been living in Korea for more than 10 years had more Korean support (OR ¼ 1.35, p < 0.001) and less co-ethnic support (OR ¼ 0.67, p < 0.001). Attending Korean language classes, ever experiencing discrimination, and reporting better health presented opposite and significant effects on marriage migrants’ outcomes, revealing some distinctions in their characteristics in obtaining these two types of support networks.

252

Chinese Journal of Sociology 4(2)

Table 4. Associations between social participation and different support patterns with co-ethnics. Co-ethnic support networks Observations Community meeting Never participated Ever participated NGO membership Not being a member Being a member Area of residence Seoul Metropolitan cities Gyeonggi Gangwon Chungcheong Jeolla Gyeongsan Jeju Ethnicity Korean Chinese Han Chinese Vietnamese Filipinas Japanese Cambodian Age 18 years old to 29 years old 30 years old to 44 years old 45 years old and older Employment status Not employed Employed Marital status Married Divorced Widowed

Model 2a Model 2b Model 2c Model 2d Model 2e Model 2f 50,619 50,619 50,619 49,744 44,750 40,247 1.00 1.41***

1.00 1.33***

1.00 1.12***

1.00 1.12***

1.00 1.13***

1.00 1.14***

1.00 1.29***

1.00 1.24***

1.00 1.08

1.00 1.08

1.00 1.11

1.00 1.15*

1.00 1.20*** 1.12*** 1.30*** 1.37*** 1.67*** 1.33*** 1.66***

1.00 1.06 1.05 0.96 1.01 1.20*** 0.98 1.30**

1.00 1.02 1.04 0.95 0.99 1.18*** 0.95 1.28**

1.00 1.04 1.03 0.97 1.01 1.20*** 0.97 1.28**

1.00 1.05 1.02 0.99 1.00 1.18*** 0.98 1.15

1.00 1.81*** 2.78*** 3.19*** 6.80*** 1.12*

1.00 1.65*** 2.31*** 2.67*** 6.67*** 0.91

1.00 1.71*** 2.26*** 2.64*** 6.44*** 0.93

1.00 1.28*** 1.73*** 1.95*** 5.14*** 0.66***

1.00 0.75***

1.00 0.74***

1.00 0.83***

0.56***

0.52***

0.58***

1.00 1.09***

1.00 1.085***

1.00 1.09***

1.00 1.78*** 1.29**

1.00 1.97*** 1.39** (continued)

Chang

253

Table 4. Continued Co-ethnic support networks Observations Length of stay Less than two years Two to five years Five to ten years More than ten years Korean class Never taken Ever taken Perceived discrimination Never Ever Self-rated health Worse Better

Model 2a Model 2b Model 2c Model 2d Model 2e Model 2f 50,619 50,619 50,619 49,744 44,750 40,247 1.00 0.93** 0.89** 0.67*** 1.00 1.50*** 1.00 1.26*** 1.00 0.82***

Notes: After controlling for education, marital family factors, economic difficulty, language proficiency, and citizenship status. *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001; NGO, non-governmental organization.

How place matters: social participation and support network patterns, stratified by marriage migrants’ ethnicity Table 5 focuses on the interactions between social participation, marriage migrants’ ethnicity, and place of residence, while holding all other covariates constant. From Models 3b, 3c, 4b, and 4c, significant interaction terms exist involving ethnicity, showing that marriage migrants’ ethnicities may complicate the associations between independent and dependent variables in several ways. Thus, I further stratify the ordered logistic models by the six migrant groups in Tables 6 and 7. To facilitate a comparative understanding of the stratified models for both Korean support and co-ethnic support, below I will compare the effects of key variables in Tables 6 and 7. Regarding Korean support networks, community participation shows significance for Korean Chinese, Han Chinese, Vietnamese, and Japanese, but not for migrant women from the Philippines and Cambodia. NGO membership is associated with more Korean support only for Korean Chinese (OR ¼ 1.98, p < 0.001), yet showed a negative association for Cambodians (OR ¼ 0.33, p < 0.05). Concerning co-ethnic support networks, building such networks by participating in community meetings proved helpful for Vietnamese and Filipina women (Models 6c and 6d), but not for others. As I previously showed that Japanese were much more likely to build co-ethnic support networks than

254

Chinese Journal of Sociology 4(2)

Table 5. Associations between social participation and different support patterns with Koreans and co-ethnics, interaction terms considered. Korean support Observations Community meeting Never participated Ever participated NGO membership Not being a member Being a member Area of residence Seoul Metropolitan cities Gyeonggi Gangwon Chungcheong Jeolla Gyeongsan Jeju Ethnicity Korean Chinese Han Chinese Vietnamese Filipinas Japanese Cambodian Interaction NGO membership and area of residence Community meeting and area of residence NGO membership and ethnicity Community meeting and ethnicity Ethnicity and area of residence

Ethnic support

Model 3a 40,248

Model 3b 40,248

Model 3c 40,248

Model 4a 40,247

Model 4b 40,247

Model 4c 40,247

1.00 1.58***

1.00 2.05***

1.00 1.57***

1.00 1.16**

1.00 0.92*

1.00 1.19***

1.00 1.522**

1.00 1.84***

1.00 1.50**

1.00 1.25

1.00 0.77*

1.00 1.29

1.00 1.00 1.00 0.89* 0.84*** 0.83*** 1.00 0.88

1.00 1.00 1.00 0.87** 0.82*** 0.80*** 0.95 0.84

1.00 1.01 1.03 0.93 0.90* 0.91 1.12 1.00

1.00 1.05 1.02 0.99 1.01 1.20*** 0.99 1.16

1.00 1.05 1.02 1.00 1.01 1.19*** 0.98 1.16

1.00 1.03 0.97 0.91 0.89* 1.01 0.81*** 0.92

1.00 0.82*** 0.66*** 0.51*** 0.87* 1.10

1.00 0.85*** 0.71*** 0.59*** 1.01 1.46***

1.00 0.84*** 0.70*** 0.56*** 0.97 1.46**

1.00 1.28*** 1.73*** 1.95*** 5.14*** 0.66***

1.00 1.25*** 1.65*** 1.76*** 4.61*** 0.54***

1.00 1.23*** 1.56*** 1.66*** 4.23*** 0.40***

0.97

0.97

0.98

0.98

0.98

0.99

0.99

0.99

0.90**

1.14***

0.89***

1.08*** 0.99**

1.01***

Notes: After controlling for education, marital family factors, economic difficulty, perceived discrimination, selfrated health, employment length of stay, Korean language proficiency, and citizenship status. *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001; NGO, non-governmental organization.

Chang

255

Table 6. Associations between social participation and different support patterns with Koreans, stratified by ethnicity. Korean support

Observations

Model 5a Korean Chinese 15,342

Model 5b Han Chinese 5,931

Community meeting Never participated

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.98***

1.94***

1.21***

0.96

1.62***

1.06

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.64***

1.43

1.32

1.18

1.21

0.33*

Ever participated NGO membership Not being a member Being a member Area of residence Seoul

Model 5c

Model 5d

Model 5e

Model 5f

Vietnamese 11,344

Filipinas 3,526

Japanese 3,000

Cambodian 1,104

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

Metropolitan cities

1.07

0.94

0.96

0.82

1.01

0.73

Gyeonggi

1.08

0.92

0.82*

1.06

0.92

0.68

Gangwon

0.93

1.02

0.68***

0.84

0.93

0.58

Chungcheong

0.89

0.86

0.66***

0.69*

0.99

0.61

Jeolla

0.91

0.82

0.65***

0.72*

0.98

0.48**

Gyeongsan

1.02

1.00

0.78**

0.91

1.13

0.60

Jeju Age 18 years old to 29 years old

0.69*

1.07

0.78

0.67

2.66

0.67

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

30 years old to 44 years old

1.07

1.09

1.01

1.02

0.98

1.21

45 years old and older

1.39***

1.21

1.17

0.94

0.89

0.61

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

0.97

1.03

0.97

1.03

1.15**

0.98

Employment status Not employed Employed Marital status Married

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

Divorced

0.33***

0.42***

0.70

0.48*

0.79

1.40

Widowed

0.41***

0.26**

0.63

0.89

1.58

0.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

0.79***

0.65***

1.02

0.77**

1.01

0.90

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

0.77***

0.76***

0.82***

0.91

1.15

1.00

Korean language class Never taken Ever taken Perceived discrimination Never Yes Self-rated health Worse Better

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.61***

1.55***

1.53***

1.29***

1.14

1.49**

Notes: After controlling for education, marital family factors, economic difficulty, length of stay, Korean language proficiency, and citizenship status. *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001; NGO, non-governmental organization.

256

Chinese Journal of Sociology 4(2)

Table 7. Associations between social participation and different support patterns with co-ethnics, stratified by ethnicity. Ethnic support Model 6b Han Chinese 5,931

Model 6c

Model 6d

Model 6e

Model 6f

Observations

Model 6a Korean Chinese 15,342

Vietnamese 11,344

Filipinas 3,526

Japanese 3,000

Cambodian 1,104

Community meeting Never participated

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

Ever participated

0.95

0.92

1.28***

1.48***

1.12

1.30

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

0.95

1.17

0.90

1.19

1.64***

1.80

NGO membership Not being a member Being a member Area of residence Seoul

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

Metropolitan cities

0.91*

1.06

1.27

1352

0.92

2.91***

Gyeonggi

0.96

1.02

1.14

1.14

1.28

1.24

Gangwon

0.74**

1.17

1.35

1.16

0.93

2.18*

Chungcheong

0.82**

1.13

1.22*

1.35*

0.99

1.44

Jeolla

0.81**

1.23*

1.51***

1.72***

1.23

1.91*

Gyeongsan

0.92**

1.00

1.17*

1.28

1.10

1.84

1.28

0.84

1.08

2.07

0.62

3.67*

Jeju Age 18 years old to 29 years old

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

30 years old to 44 years old

0.77***

0.82***

0.95

0.92

1.18

0.91

45 years old and older

0.53

0.63

0.60

0.85

0.93

0.39

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.11***

1.05

1.09***

1.06

1.15**

1.22*

Employment status Not employed Employed Marital status Married

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

Divorced

1.86***

2.09***

3.07**

1.79

0.14

0.00

Widowed

1.34*

1.26

1.31

1.36

2.08*

3.53

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.50***

1.58***

1.41***

1.45***

1.53***

2.02***

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.33***

1.37***

1.18***

1.09

1.08

1.27

Korean language class Never taken Ever taken Perceived discrimination None Yes Self-rated health Worse Better

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

0.87***

0.85**

0.76***

0.87*

0.86

0.83

Notes: After controlling for education, marital family factors, economic difficulty, length of stay, Korean language proficiency, and citizenship status. *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001; NGO, non-governmental organization.

Chang

257

Korean Chinese, Model 6e of Table 7 shows that they obtain such networks mostly by becoming members of NGOs. Taking a closer look at the role of place of residence in the stratified models, there are some variations for the Vietnamese’s Korean networks (Model 5c) and the Korean Chinese’s co-ethnic networks (Model 6a) across the eight areas of residence in South Korea. Compared to Vietnamese who live in Seoul City, those who reside in metropolitan cities show no significant differences, yet those in all provinces except for Jeju were less likely to build Korean support networks (Model 5c). Considering the influence of place on co-ethnic networks (Model 6c), only in Chungcheong and Jeolla provinces were marriage migrants more likely to hold more types of co-ethnic networks than those in Seoul. As for Korean Chinese who reside in metropolitan cities, they are less likely to build more types of co-ethnic support, as are those in the provinces of Gangwon, Chungcheong, Jeolla, and Gyeongsan. The province of Gyeonggi is an exception, perhaps due to the large migrant presence of Korean Chinese who migrated for other reasons than marriage. The fact that the place does not matter for Japanese in both Table 6 and Table 7 indicates that coming from a more resourceful sending country alone may be a key factor in forming co-ethnic networks. Similarly, as for other marriage migrants whose better health is associated with more types of Korean networks, it appears to be insignificant for the Japanese (Model 5e). Other covariates presented in Tables 6 and 7 indicate that it is important to consider ethnicity or country of origin when considering certain factors that may be linked to different support network patterns. For example, having attended Korean language classes is a significant factor for all groups in enabling marriage migrants to meet co-ethnics, yet divorcees of different ethnicities, including Korean Chinese, Han Chinese, and Vietnamese, share more similarities than the other three ethnic groups in gaining co-ethnic support – such was the effect of perceived discrimination for these three migrant groups in obtaining two types of support networks.

Conclusion Using the 2009 National Survey of Multicultural Families in South Korea, this study demonstrates the importance of social participation in having more types of support networks from local people and from co-ethnics. Among the two measures of social participation, participating in community meetings and membership in NGO groups show slightly different outcomes after I stratify the analysis by marriage migrants’ ethnicities or countries of origin. Nevertheless, while controlling for ethnicity, I find that both measures of social participation are associated with having more types of Korean support networks, indicating that having social lives outside of marital families may build network ties with local people who provide informational or emotional support, which may enhance marriage migrants’ sense of belonging, especially given the fact that they may be stigmatized by the fact that some of these intermarriages were commercially arranged. Although the percentages belonging to NGO groups were relatively small in

258

Chinese Journal of Sociology 4(2)

2009, these may increase as marriage migrants stay longer in South Korea and become freer of caregiving duties for young children. Covariates associated with more types of Korean networks and fewer types of co-ethnic support network, such as greater length of stay and being older, merit further attention from migration scholars and policy-makers, particularly because as marriage migrants grow older or stay longer and become more integrated into Korean society, they no longer need support networks from co-ethnics as greatly as when they were newcomers, as Stewart et al. (2008) observed in their research project. From a life-course perspective, marriage migrants who raise bi-ethnic children in the Korean education system may seek local mothers’ advice about child-rearing strategies instead of that of other migrant mothers. In other words, they may begin building Korean networks because of their children or their own welfare needs. The positive links between more types of co-ethnic networks and experiences of discrimination as well as worse health indicate a possibility of marginalization or isolation for those who would turn to co-ethnic instead of Korean support networks. More context-specific explanations on the interplay between Korean support and co-ethnic support would require further study through qualitative research. In terms of how place of residence matters, marriage migrants who reside in Seoul City may have quite unusual urban dwelling experiences compared to those residing in other metropolitan cities, especially those who reside in less-urbanized provinces. Not exclusively because it has a slightly higher percentage of foreign residents, the life pace and interpersonal relationships in the highly urbanized Seoul City have developed into patterns that are similar to those in other megacities in Asia rather than those in rural South Korea. On the one hand, marriage migrants in Seoul City may experience less discrimination than in other areas because there are more foreigners in that city. On the other hand, they may experience more indifferent attitudes when they are in need of help on the street. A few of my informants who were marriage migrants from Vietnam described their interpersonal experiences in Seoul this way: ‘It’s not that people in Seoul are nicer to us, it’s that they simply don’t care about others.’ Limitations of this paper include the cross-sectional nature of the data and a lack of measurement from the survey that further captures different types of NGO memberships and roles played in community meetings. The major concern of this study is whether marriage migrants were able to reach out to social resources outside the marital family, rather than whether different types of social participation may contribute to different support network patterns. Marriage migrants from the Philippines may attend church meetings more often than others, but the potential benefits of social participation are considered equally important whether the migrant is attending church meetings or weekend events at migrant centers. As I mentioned earlier, the year 2009 was in an early phase of marriage migrants’ settlement in Korea, with the exception of Korean Chinese. This paper establishes a crucial starting point for policy-makers and civil society groups to understand the ‘participatory landscape’ among marriage migrants of different ethnicities across

Chang

259

different places of residence in South Korea. Future studies should continue observing the trends of marriage migrants’ social participation as well as the distinctive characteristics of those who participate more than others in order to design community-based programs and increase incentives for social participation. Funding This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Acknowledgements The author would like to thank Ms. Tzu-Yen Su for her excellent research assistance.

Notes 1. Ministry of Gender and Equality: ‘Multicultural Family, Move from Settlement Stage to Capacity Development Stage’ – Confirmation of ‘2017 Implementation Plan.’ See: http://www.mogef.go.kr/eng/pr/eng_pr_s101d.do;jsessionid¼bUWYAIyX3uFRGyJI935Kjyc.mogef20?mid¼eng001&bbtSn¼704980 2. South Korea regulates marriage with foreigners. See: http://www.gmanetwork.com/ news/news/pinoyabroad/356324/south-korea-regulates-marriage-with-foreigners/story/

References Abada T, Hou F and Ram B (2007) Racially mixed neighborhoods, perceived neighborhood social cohesion, and adolescent health in Canada. Social Science & Medicine 65(10): 2004–2017. Bankston III CL (2014) Enclaves, neighborhoods, and communities. In: Bankston III CL (ed.) Immigrant Networks and Social Capital. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 91–114. Be´langer D (2010) Marriages with foreign women in East Asia: Bride trafficking or voluntary migration? Population and Societies 1(469): 1–4. Be´langer D, Lee H-K and Wang H-Z (2010) Ethnic diversity and statistics in East Asia: ‘Foreign brides’ surveys in Taiwan and South Korea. Ethnic and Racial Studies 33(6): 1108–1130. Berry JW (1992) Acculturation and adaptation in a new society. International Migration 30(Supplement 1): 69–85. Berry JW (1997) Immigration, acculturation, and adaptation. Applied Psychology 46(1): 5–34. Bian Y and Ikeda K (2014) East Asian social networks. In: Alhajj R and Rokne J (eds) Encyclopedia of Social Network Analysis and Mining. Berlin, Germany: Springer, 417–433. Bloemraad and Terriquez (2016) Cultures of engagement: The organizational foundations of advancing health in immigrant and low-income communities of color. Social Science & Medicine 165(September): 214–222. Brissette I, Cohen S and Seeman TE (2000) Measuring social integration and social networks. In: Cohen S, Underwood LG and Gottlieb B (eds) Social Support Measurement and Intervention: A Guide for Health and Social Scientists. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 53–85.

260

Chinese Journal of Sociology 4(2)

Chang H-C (2016) Marital power dynamics and wellbeing of marriage migrants. Journal of Family Issues 37(14): 1994–2020. Chang H-C and Wallace SP (2016) Migration processes and self-rated health among marriage migrants in South Korea. Ethnicity & Health 21(1): 20–38. Choi SYP, Cheung YW and Cheung AKL (2012) Social isolation and spousal violence: Comparing female marriage migrants with local women. Journal of Marriage and Family 74(3): 444–461. Cohen S (2004) Social relationships and health. American Psychologist 59(8): 676–684. Fong E and Hou F (2015) Neighbours helping neighbours in multi-ethnic context. Population, Space and Place 23(2): e1991. Fong E and Shen J (2016) Participation in voluntary associations and social contact of immigrants in Canada. American Behavioral Scientist 60(5–6): 617–636. Handy F and Greenspan I (2009) Immigrant volunteering: A stepping stone to integration? Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 38(6): 956–982. Hsia HC (2008) The development of immigrant movement in Taiwan: The case of alliance of human rights legislation for immigrants and migrants. Development and Society 37(2): 187–217. Hsia HC (2009) Foreign brides, multiple citizenship and the immigrant movement in Taiwan. Asian and Pacific Migration Journal 18(1): 17–46. Huddleston T, Niessen J and Tjaden JD (2013) Using EU indicators of immigrant integration. Final Report for Directorate-General for Home Affairs, Brussels. Hugo G (2005) The new international migration in Asia: Challenges for population research. Asian Population Studies 1(1): 93–120. Iwabuchi K, Kim HM and Hsia H-C (2016) Multiculturalism in East Asia: A transnational exploration of Japan, South Korea and Taiwan, Asian cultural studies: Transnational and dialogic approaches. London: Rowman & Littlefield International. Jones GW (2012) International marriage in Asia: What do we know, and what do we need to know? Working Paper Series No. 174, Asian Research Institute, National University of Singapore. Jones GW and Shen H (2008) International marriage in East and Southeast Asia: Trends and research emphases. Citizenship Studies 12(1): 9–25. Kadushin C (1983) Mental health and the interpersonal environment: A reexamination of some effects of social structure on mental health. American Sociological Review 48(2): 188–198. Kelaher M, Potts H and Manderson L (2001) Health issues among Filipino women in remote Queensland. Australian Journal of Rural Health 9(4): 150–157. Kim HM (2007) The state and migrant women: Diverging hopes in the making of ‘multicultural families’ in contemporary Korea. Korea Journal 47(4): 100–122. Lee HK (2008) International marriage and the state in South Korea: Focusing on governmental policy. Citizenship Studies 12(1): 107–123. Lee YJ, Seol DH and Cho SN (2006) International marriages in South Korea: The significance of nationality and ethnicity. Journal of Population Research 23(2): 165–182. Light I (2006) Deflecting Immigration: Networks, Markets, and Regulation in Los Angeles. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation. Locke C and Zhang HX (2010) A better life? Migration, reproduction and wellbeing in transition. Society, Biology, and Human Affairs (SBHA) – Special Edition: Space, Movement, and Health: Biosocial Perspectives 75(2): 51–71.

Chang

261

Merali N (2008) Theoretical frameworks for studying female marriage migrants. Psychology of Women Quarterly 32(3): 281–289. Putnam RD (2000) Bowling alone: America’s declining social capital. In: Crothers L and Lockhart C (eds) Culture and Politics. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan, 223–234. Ramakrishnan SK and Viramontes C (2010) Civic spaces: Mexican hometown associations and immigrant participation. Journal of Social Issues 66(1): 155–173. Rodman H (1972) Marital power and the theory of resources in cultural context. Journal of Comparative Family Studies 3(1): 50–69. Rodrı´ guez-Garcı´ a D (2015) Intermarriage and integration revisited international experiences and cross-disciplinary approaches. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 662(1): 8–36. Seol DH and Skrentny JD (2009) Why is there so little migrant settlement in East Asia? International Migration Review 43(3): 578–620. Son J (2016) Institutional affiliation as a measure of organizational social capital: A case study of Korea. Social Indicators Research 129(2): 699–716. Son J and Lin N (2008) Social capital and civic action: A network-based approach. Social Science Research 37(1): 330–349. Song M (2016) Multiracial people and their partners in Britain: Extending the link between intermarriage and integration? Ethnicities 16(4): 631–648. Spallek J, Zeeb H and Razum O (2014) Life course epidemiology: A conceptual model for the study of migration and health. In: Schenker MB, Castan˜eda X and Rodriguez-Lainz A (eds) Migration and Health: A Research Methods Handbook. Oakland, CA: University of California Press, 38–55. Stewart M, Anderson J, Beiser M, et al. (2008) Multicultural meanings of social support among immigrants and refugees. International Migration 46(3): 123–159. Stoll MA and Wong JS (2007) Immigration and civic participation in a multiracial and multiethnic context. International Migration Review 41(4): 880–908. Thoits PA (1982) Conceptual, methodological, and theoretical problems in studying social support as a buffer against life stress. Journal of Health and Social Behavior 23(2): 145–159. Tolbert CM, Lyson TA and Irwin MD (1998) Local capitalism, civic engagement, and socioeconomic well-being. Social Forces 77(2): 401–427. Tseng YF (2010) Marriage migration to East Asia: Current issues and propositions in making comparisons. In: Yang WS and Lu MC (eds) Asian Cross-border Marriage Migration: Demographic Patterns and Social Issues. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Amsterdam University Press, 31–45. Wang HZ and Hsiao HM (2009) Cross-border Marriages with Asian Characteristics. Taipei, China: Center for Asia-Pacific Area Studies, Research Center for Humanities & Social Sciences, Academia Sinica. White JB (1997) Turks in the new Germany. American Anthropologist 99(4): 754–769. Wingens M, De Valk H, Windzio M, et al. (2011) The sociological life course approach and research on migration and integration. In: Wingens M, Windzio M, De Valk H, et al. (eds) A Life-Course Perspective on Migration and Integration. New York, NY: Springer, 1–26. Yamanaka K (2010) Civil society and social movements for immigrant rights in Japan and South Korea: Convergence and divergence in unskilled immigration policy. Korea Observer 41(4): 615–647.