Female genital mutilation and migration in Mali: do return migrants transfer social norms?

Abstract

In this paper, we investigate the power of migration as a mechanism in the transmission of social norms, taking Mali and Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) as a case study. Mali has a strong FGM culture and a long-standing history of migration. We use an original household-level database coupled with census data to analyze the extent to which girls living in localities with high rates of return migrants are less prone to FGM. Malians migrate predominantly to other African countries where female circumcision is uncommon (e.g., Côte d’Ivoire) and to countries where FGM is totally banned (France and other developed countries) and where anti-FGM information campaigns frequently target African migrants. Taking a two-step instrumental variable approach to control for the endogeneity of migration and return decisions, we show that return migrants have a negative and significant influence on FGM practices. More precisely, we show that this result is primarily driven by the flow of returnees from Cote d’Ivoire. We also show that adults living in localities with return migrants are more informed about FGM and in favor of legislation. The impact of returnees may occur through several channels, including compositional effects, changes in return migrants’ attitudes toward FGM, and return migrants convincing stayers to change their FGM practices.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Notes

  1. 1.

    Levitt (1998) was the first paper to define the concept of “social remittances.”

  2. 2.

    Emigration can affect political institutions via three other channels: (i) emigration provides people with exit options and a safety net in the form of remittance income, which can lower their incentives to voice on the domestic front and eventually delay democratic reform and political change; (ii) emigrants can voice from abroad and support various political groups and views at home; and (iii) given that migration is a non-random process, emigration alters various aspects of the home country population’s composition (especially education and ethnicity), which can in turn affect democracy at home.

  3. 3.

    These practices include the partial or total removal of the female external genitalia or other injury to the female genital organs.

  4. 4.

    Source: DHS report on Mali, 2012–2013. Prevalence rates among women aged 15 to 49 are also over 90% in Djibouti, Egypt, Guinea, Sierra Leone, Somalia, and North Sudan. They are over 70% in Eritrea, Ethiopia, Burkina Faso, and Mauritania (Yoder and Wang 2013; WHO 2013).

  5. 5.

    In this paper, we deliberately restrict the literature review to papers using statistical data to identify the extent to which migration is a vehicle for the transfer of norms.

  6. 6.

    However, this positive impact is canceled out for a set of countries when the negative impact of emigration on the stock of human capital is taken into account.

  7. 7.

    See, for instance, Blau (1992), Khan (1994), Lindstrom and Saucedo (2002), Parrado and Morgan (2008), and Adsera and Ferrer (2013).

  8. 8.

    Note that the impact of remittances is ambiguous. Although more income can induce a greater desire to have more children, remittances can reduce the parents’ need to have a large number of children to take care of them when they are older.

  9. 9.

    Fargues (2007) focuses on migration from Morocco, Turkey, and Egypt. He posits that there is a transfer of fertility norms between the host countries and these countries. However, he does not control for alternative channels.

  10. 10.

    Norm transmissions have also been studied involving other channels. For instance, Asadullah and Wahhaj (forthcoming) investigate whether female early marriage in Bangladesh is a conduit for the transmission of social norms, specifically norms relating to gender roles and rights within the household.

  11. 11.

    However, potential ethnic group and level of education differences, which might explain the difference in FGM prevalence between immigrants and non-migrants, are not controlled for.

  12. 12.

    A slight increase in prevalence in Mali has been observed since 2006, when it stood at 85.2% following a downturn. The rate posted 94.0% in 1995–1996 and 91.6% in 2001 (Yoder and Khan, 2008; Yoder and Wang, 2013).

  13. 13.

    Yet FGM as a social coordination norm has been questioned, as some researchers observe enormous heterogeneity in cutting practices within and across communities (Efferson et al. 2015).

  14. 14.

    A second estimate in late 1989, at the request of GAMS (Women’s Group for the Abolition of Sexual Mutilation), set the number at approximately 27,000 women.

  15. 15.

    FGM is an offense under Article 222 of the Criminal Code on violence. The first case to be prosecuted was in 1979.

  16. 16.

    This could be either a village (in rural areas) or a neighborhood in a town or city.

  17. 17.

    Countries where FGM is practiced as much as in Mali are Burkina Faso, Chad, Djibouti, Egypt, Eritrea, Guinea, Equatorial Guinea, Mauritania, Niger, and Nigeria. Countries where FGM is prohibited and/or is practiced less than in Mali are European, American, and Asian countries plus African countries with the exception of Burkina Faso, Chad, Djibouti, Egypt, Eritrea, Guinea, Equatorial Guinea, Mauritania, Niger, and Nigeria.

  18. 18.

    This score is an aggregate of indicators of the material used to build the walls, floor, and roof of the housing and the type of toilet it has.

  19. 19.

    For instance, FGM was condemned by the government during the socialist period (from the 1960s to the end of the 1970s). The FGM debate subsequently waned and the practice was more or less accepted.

  20. 20.

    Even though religion is far from the main correlated factor, we introduce this variable as Muslims appear to practice FGM more widely than Christians or Animists.

  21. 21.

    The British Empire ran campaigns to ban female circumcision, especially in Kenya in the 1920s and 1930s (Hetherington, 1998; Thomas, 2000, and Boddy, 2007).

  22. 22.

    With the share of returnees from other countries as a control variable for the two last regressions.

  23. 23.

    Sources: Acled database https://www.acleddata.com/.

  24. 24.

    In addition to the questions on their knowledge of health consequences for girls and in adulthood, the interviewees were asked to list the type of health issues that came to mind. Concerning health issues for the circumcised girls, hemorrhage is cited first followed by decease and HIV infection. In adulthood, the most cited health issue is delivery problems followed by hemorrhage, decease, and HIV infection and other diseases.

  25. 25.

    The list experiment is based on the idea that if a sensitive question is asked indirectly, the truthful response will be given by the respondent. A list of items is proposed and interviewees have to indicate the total number of items with which they agree. Respondents are divided into two groups: a control group that receives a list of non-sensitive items and a treatment group asked to answer the same non-sensitive questions plus a sensitive question. The difference in mean response between the two groups provides the proportion of respondents who agree with the sensitive question.

  26. 26.

    Tests are shown in Table 4 and the first-stage regression results (column 4, Table 5) validate the instrumental strategy.

  27. 27.

    Ethnic group is measured by the household head’s mother tongue.

  28. 28.

    Similar results are found when these variables are measured for the daughter’s mother rather than for the household head.

  29. 29.

    It is worth noting that the adults who attended school are more informed and in favor of a law to ban FGM. Likewise, variables measuring their access to media are, for the most part, also significantly correlated with all these variables describing the interviewee’s opinion (cf. Table 12 in the appendices).

  30. 30.

    First-stage results are reproduced in column (2) of Table 13 in the appendices and the identification tests at the bottom of Table 7. Two in three instrumental variable coefficients are significant, and two in three instrumentation tests (Sargan and underidentification tests) validate the empirical strategy. As the Stock and Yogo tests do not reject the potential weak instrument hypothesis, the 2SLS results need to be viewed with caution.

  31. 31.

    Uneducated returnees are those who never attended school.

  32. 32.

    Educated and uneducated as well as male and female return migrant variables are the percentage of each of these categories in the population of each village as a whole.

  33. 33.

    Given that the current migrant variables can be correlated with the percentage of female household heads in the village, we test the robustness of this result when the latter variable is not included in the specification. It appears that the current migrant variables remain statistically non-significant (results available on request from the authors).

  34. 34.

    The robustness of the baseline results should also be controlled for when internal migration is included in the regressions. Unfortunately, this information is not available from the census data. However, FGM on adult women (15 to 49 years old) in Mali is practiced equally in urban and rural areas (see DHS report, p. 294 https://dhsprogram.com/pubs/pdf/FR286/FR286.pdf) and practiced more in cities on young girls as shown by the data used in this analysis: 78.9% in urban areas as opposed to 75.0% in rural areas. This means that the baseline results should not be biased by this potential omitted variable.

  35. 35.

    And elsewhere, but they are very few.

References

  1. Adsera A, Ferrer A (2013) Fertility adaptation of child migrants to Canada. Population Studies 68(1):65–79

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Amselle J-L (2010) Rétrovolutions: Essais sur les primitivismes contemporains. Stock, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  3. Asadullah MN, Wahhaj Z (Forthcoming) Early marriage, social networks and the transmission of norms. Economica. https://doi.org/10.1111/ecca.12291

  4. Barsbai T, Rapoport H, Steinmayr A, Trebesch C (2017) The effect of labor migration on the diffusion of democracy: evidence from a former Soviet Republic. Am Econ J Appl Econ 9(3):36–69. https://doi.org/10.1257/app.20150517

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Batista C, Vicente PC (2011) Do migrants improve governance at home? Evidence from a voting experiment. World Bank Econ Rev 25(1):77–104. https://doi.org/10.1093/wber/lhr009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Beine M, Docquier F, Schiff M (2013) International migration, transfers of norms and home country fertility. Can J Econ 46(4):1406–1430

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Beine M, Sekkat K (2013) Skilled migration and the transfer of institutional norms. IZA Journal of Migration 2(9):2–19

    Google Scholar 

  8. Bellas Cabane C (2006) Fondements sociaux de l’excision dans le Mali du XXIème siècle. Revue Asylon n°1, Réseau scientifique TERRA, 22 p. http://www.reseau-terra.eu/article485.html. Accessed 24 August 2018

  9. Berg RC, Denison E (2012) Effectiveness of interventions designed to prevent female genital mutilation/cutting: a systematic review. Stud Fam Plan 43(2):135–146. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1728-4465.2012.00311.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Berg R C, Denison E (2013) Interventions to reduce the prevalence of female genital mutilation/cutting in African countries, International Initiative for Impact Evaluation (3ie) systematic review 009, January

  11. Bertoli S, Marchetta F (2013) Bringing it all back home—return migration and fertility choices. World Dev 65:27–40

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Blau FD (1992) The fertility of immigrant women: evidence from high fertility source countries. In: Freeman BGJ, R.B. (eds) Immigration and the work force: economic consequences for the United States and source areas. UCP, Chicago, pp 93–133

    Google Scholar 

  13. Boddy J (2007) Civilizing women: British crusades in colonial Sudan. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  14. Camilotti G (2015) Interventions to stop female genital cutting and the evolution of the custom. Evidence from age at cutting in Senegal. J Afr Econ 25(1):133–158

    Google Scholar 

  15. Chauvet L, Gubert F, Mesplé-Somps S (2016) Do migrants adopt new political attitudes from abroad? Evidence using a multi-sited exit-poll survey during the 2013 Malian elections. Comparative Migration Studies 4(19):1–32

    Google Scholar 

  16. Chauvet L, Mercier M (2014) Do return migrants transfer political norms to their origin country? Evidence from Mali. J Comp Econ 42:630–651. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jce.2014.01.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Chesnokova T, Vaithianathan R (2010) The economics of female genital cutting. The BE J Eco An & Pol 10(1):1–28

    Google Scholar 

  18. Coffman K B, Coffman L C, Ericson K M M (2013) The size of the LGBT population and the magnitude of anti-gay sentiment are substantially underestimated, NBER Working Paper No. 19508

  19. Coyne CJ, Coyne RL (2014) The identity economics of female genital mutilation. J Dev Areas 48(2):137–152. https://doi.org/10.1353/jda.2014.0036

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. De Cao E, Lutz C (2018) Sensitive survey questions: measuring attitudes regarding female genital cutting through a list experiment. Oxf Bull Econ Stat:0305–9049. https://doi.org/10.1111/obes.12228

  21. Docquier F, Lodigiani E, Rapoport H, Schiff M (2016) Emigration and democracy. J Dev Econ 120(C):209–223

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Efferson C, Vogt S, Elhadi A, Ahmed HEF, Fehr E (2015) Female genital cutting is not a social coordination norm. Science 349(6255):1446–1447. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaa7978

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Fargues P (2007) The demographic benefit of international migration: a hypothesis and its application to Middle Eastern and North African countries. In: Schiff OC, M. (eds) International migration, economic development and policy. World Bank and Palgrave Macmillan, Washington DC

    Google Scholar 

  24. Farina P, Ortensi LE (2012) Female genital cutting in home countries and among African immigrant population: the case of Italy, conference presentation, fact beyond figures: communi-care for migrants and ethnic minorities. 4th Conference on Migrant and Ethnic Minority Health in Europe, June

  25. Farina P, Ortensi LE (2014) The mother to daughter transmission of female genital cutting in emigration as evidenced by Italian survey data. Genus 70(2–3):111–137

    Google Scholar 

  26. Gele AA, Johansen EB, Sundby J (2012) When female circumcision comes to the West: attitudes toward the practice among Somali immigrants in Oslo. BMC Public Health 12(1):697

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Gele AA, Sagbakken M, Kumar B (2015) Is female circumcision evolving or dissolving in Norway? A qualitative study on attitudes toward the practice among young Somalis in the Oslo area. Int J Women's Health 7:933–943

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Gillette-Faye I (1998) La polygamie et l’excision dans l’immigration africaine en France analysée sous l’angle de la souffrance sociale des femmes. Presses Universitaires du Septentrion, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  29. Gubert F (2000) Migration as a collective risk-coping strategy. Evidence from the Kayes area (Western Mali). Ph.D. thesis, University of Auvergne

  30. Guiné A, Moreno Fuentes FJ (2007) Engendering redistribution, recognition, and representation: the case of female genital mutilation (FGM) in the United Kingdom and France. Polit Soc 35(3):477–519

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Hetherington P (1998) The politics of female circumcision in the central province of colonial Kenya, 1920–30. The J Imp & Com Hist 26(1):93–126. https://doi.org/10.1080/03086539808583017

    Google Scholar 

  32. Johnsdotter S, Moussa K, Carlbom A, Aregai R, Essén B (2009) “Never my daughters”: a qualitative study regarding attitude change toward female genital cutting among Ethiopian and Eritrean families in Sweden. Health Care Wom Inter 30:114–133

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Jones H, Diop N, Askew I, Kaboré I (1999) Female genital cutting practices in Burkina Faso and Mali and their negative health outcomes. Stud Fam Plan 30(3):219–230. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1728-4465.1999.00219.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Kahn J (1994) Immigrant and native fertility during the 1980s: adaptation and expectations for the future. Int Migr Rev 28(3):501–519

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Karlan DS, Zinman J (2012) List randomization for sensitive behavior: an application for measuring use of loan proceeds. J Dev Econ 98:71–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdeveco.2011.08.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. LaBrie JW, Earleywine M (2000) Sexual risk behaviors and alcohol: higher base rates revealed using the unmatched-count technique. J Sex Res 37:321–326. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224490009552054

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Levitt P (1998) Social remittances: migration driven local-level forms of cultural diffusion. Int Migr Rev 32(4):926–948

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Lindstrom DP, Saucedo SG (2002) The short-and long-term effects of US migration experience on Mexican women’s fertility. Social Forces 80(4):1341–1368. https://doi.org/10.1353/sof.2002.0030

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Lodigiani E, Salomone S (2015) Migration-induced transfers of norms. The case of female political empowerment. University Ca’ Foscari of Venice, Dept. of Economics Research Paper Series No. 19/WP/2015

  40. Morison L, Dirir A, Elmi S, Warsame J, Dirir S (2014) How experiences and attitudes relating to female genital circumcision vary according to age on arrival in Britain: a study among young Somalis in London. Ethn Health 9(1):75–100

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Moseson H, Massaquoi M, Dehlendorf C, Bawo L, Dahn B, Zolia Y, Vittinghoff E, Hiatt RA, Gerdts C (2015) Reducing under-reporting of stigmatized health events using the list experiment: results from a randomized, population-based study of abortion in Liberia. Int J Epidemiol 44:1951–1958. https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyv174

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Nikolova M, Roman M, Zimmermann KF (2017) Left behind but doing good? Civic engagement in two post-socialist countries. J Comp Econ 45(3):658–684. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jce.2016.04.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. OFPRA (2008) Les mutilations génitales au Mali. Rapport de mission, novembre

  44. Ouédraogo D (2009) Mali, enquête nationale sur le phénomène de l’excision, volet quantitatif, Décembre, 108 p. Programme National de Lutte contre l’Excision (PNLE), Ministère de la promotion de la femme, de l’enfant et de la famille, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0008410

  45. Parrado EA, Morgan SP (2008) Intergenerational fertility among Hispanic women: new evidence of immigrant assimilation. Demography 45(3):651–671. https://doi.org/10.1353/dem.0.0023

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Pérez-Armendáriz C, Crow D (2010) Do migrants remit democracy? International migration, political beliefs, and behavior in Mexico. Comparative Political Studies 43(1):119–148

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Pfutze T (2012) Does migration promote democratization? Evidence from the Mexican transition. J Comp Econ 40(2):159–175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jce.2012.01.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Porgès L (2000) Un thème sensible : l’excision en Afrique et dans les pays d’immigration africaine. Afrique contemporaine 196:49–74

    Google Scholar 

  49. Redlawsk DP, Tolbert CJ, Franko W (2010) Voters, emotions, and race in 2008: Obama as the first black president. Polit Res Q 63:875–889

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Shell-Duncan B, Wander K, Hernlund Y, Moreau A (2013) Legislating change? Responses to criminalizing female genital cutting in Senegal. Law & Soc Rev 47(4):803–835. https://doi.org/10.1111/lasr.12044

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Spilimbergo A (2009) Democracy and foreign education. Am Econ Rev 99(1):528–543. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.99.1.528

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Thomas L (2000) “Ngaitana (I will circumcise myself)”: lessons from colonial campaigns to ban excision in Meru, Kenya. In Shell-Duncan B. and Hernlund Y. (ed) Female “circumcision” in Africa: culture, controversy, and change, directions in applied anthropology: adaptations and innovations. Boulder, CO, and London, UK: Lynne Rienner Publishers pp 129-150

  53. Tuccio M, Wahba J (2015) Can I have permission to leave the house return migration and the transfer of gender norms, IZA working paper n°9216, 47 p.

  54. Tuccio M, Wahba J, Hamdouch B (2019) International migration: driver of political and social change. Evidence from Morocco. Journal of Population Economics, forthcoming

  55. UNICEF 2005. Female genital mutilation/cutting: a statistical exploration. New York., 53 p., ISBN-13:978-92-806-3941-4;ISBN-10:92-806-3941-2

  56. United Nations Children’s Fund (2013) Female genital mutilation/cutting: a statistical overview and exploration of the dynamics of change. UNICEF, New York

    Google Scholar 

  57. Vogt S, Efferson C, Fehr E (2017) The risk of female genital cutting in Europe: comparing immigrant attitudes toward uncut girls with attitudes in a practicing country. Soc Sc & Med Pop Health 3:283–293

    Google Scholar 

  58. Wahba J (2015) Selection, selection, selection: the impact of return migration. J Popul Econ 28:535–563. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00148-015-0541-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. WHO (2013) Female genital mutilation and other harmful practices, http://www.who.int/reproductivehealth/topics/fgm/prevalence/en/index.html. Accessed 1 Mar 2013.

  60. Winter B (1994) Women, the law, and cultural relativism in France: the case of excision. Feminism and the Law 19(4):939–974

    Google Scholar 

  61. Yoder P S, Wang S (2013) Female genital cutting: the interpretation of recent DHS data, DHS Comparative Reports No. 33, September, 73 p

  62. Yoder P S, Kahn S (2008) Numbers of women circumcised in Africa: the production of a total, DHS Working Paper No. 39, March, 19 p

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Lisa Chauvet and Marion Mercier for providing some of the data used in this paper. We also acknowledge Flore Gubert, Jean-Noël Senne, Simone Bertoli, and participants in “Regards de Scientifiques sur le Mali Contemporain” (Bamako), the “Following the Flows, Transnational Approaches to Intangible Remittances” workshop (Princeton University), the University Paris-Dauphine/Singapore Management University workshop, and the workshop on International Migration at CERDI (Clermont-Ferrand) for their helpful discussions and comments. We are also grateful to Editor Klaus F. Zimmermann, five anonymous reviewers, and the Managing Editor Madeline Zavodny. Any remaining errors are ours.

Funding

This study was funded by the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the French Inter-Establishment Agency for Development (AIRD) (“FSP Mali Contemporain”).

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Idrissa Diabate or Sandrine Mesplé-Somps.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Responsible editor: Klaus F. Zimmermann

Appendices

Appendices

Table 11 Baseline model
Table 12 Baseline model on FGM attitudinal/perception measures
Table 13 First-stage regression, adult sample

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Diabate, I., Mesplé-Somps, S. Female genital mutilation and migration in Mali: do return migrants transfer social norms?. J Popul Econ 32, 1125–1170 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00148-019-00733-w

Download citation

Keywords

  • Female genital excision
  • Social transfers
  • Migration
  • Mali

JEL codes

  • I15
  • O55
  • F22