Investigating the Well-Being of Migrant Care Workers in Taiwan from the Perspective of Social Inclusion

  • Lih-Rong Wang
  • Michael P. H. Liu
Part of the Series in Asian Labor and Welfare Policies book series (Series in Asian Labor and Welfare Policies)


This chapter focuses on measuring the well-being of migrant caregivers who primarily provide caregiving for the elderly and disabled at home. The assumption is that “social inclusion” of migrant care workers can be a strong interventional element affecting the well-being of those who are hired in a “home-based” model. After face-to-face data collection in Taiwan, some social inclusion indicators have clearly shown the power of factors affecting migrant domestic workers’ well-being, such as family life inclusion, social activity participation, and so on. They also reflect this social work and point to policy implications, for instance that the families who hire migrant domestic workers might need to provide better and more structured opportunities for social participation for their employees, and that policymakers might need to facilitate more flexible employment of migrant workers from the human rights perspective, including allowing other employment styles such as out of the home.


  1. Berkman, L.F., and T. Glass. 2000. “Social Integration, Social Networks, Social Support, and Health.” Social Epidemiology 1: 137–173.Google Scholar
  2. Burt, R.S. 1982. Toward a Structural Theory of Action: Network Models of Social Structure, Perception, and Action. New York, NY: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Department of Household Registration, The Executive Yuan. 2016. Population Policy White Paper – Reduced Birthrate, Aging Population and Immigration. Retrieved from:
  4. Diener, E. 1984. “Subjective Well-being.” Psychological Bulletin 95 (3): 542–575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Diener, E., E.M. Suh, R.E. Lucas, and H.L. Smith. 1999. “Subjective Well-being: Three Decades of Progress.” Psychological Bulletin 125 (2): 276–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Directorate General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics. 2016. Labor Force Participation Rate. Retrieved from:
  7. Fischer, C.S. 1977. Networks and Places: Social Relations in the Urban Setting. New York, NY: Free Press.Google Scholar
  8. Fischer, C.S. 1982. To Dwell Among Friends: Personal Networks in Town and City. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  9. Forrest, R., and A. Kearns. 2001. “Social Cohesion, Social Capital and the Neighbourhood.” Urban Studies 38 (12): 2125–2143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Friedkin, N.E. 2004. “Social Cohesion.” Annual Review of Sociology 30: 409–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Huxley, P., S. Evans, S. Madge, M. Webber, T. Burchardt, D. McDaid, and M. Knapp. 2012. “Development of a Social Inclusion Index to Capture Subjective and Objective Life Domains (Phase II): Psychometric Development Study.” Health Technology Assessment 16 (1): 1–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. International Labour Organization (ILO). 2011. Domestic Workers Convention. Retrieved from:
  13. Keyes, C.L.M. 1998. “Social Well-being.” Social Psychology Quarterly 61 (2): 121–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Laumann, E.O. 1973. Bonds of Pluralism: The Form and Substance of Urban Social Networks. New York, NY: Wiley-Interscience.Google Scholar
  15. Ministry of the Interior. 2016. Weekly Statistical Bulletin of the 3rd Week of 2016, August 3. Retrieved from:
  16. Ministry of Labor. 2016a. Monthly Bulletin of Labor Statistics (August 20, 2016). Retrieved from
  17. Ministry of Labor. 2016b. Statistical Results of Survey on Management and Employment of Migrant Care Workers (August 25, 2016). Retrieved from:
  18. Mitchell, J.C. 1969. “The Concept and Use of Social Networks.” In Social Networks in Urban Situations, edited by J.C. Mitchell, 1–50. Manchester: University of Manchester Press.Google Scholar
  19. Parker, R.N. 1983. “Measuring Social Participation.” American Sociological Review 48 (6): 864–873.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Reeve, J. 2009. Understanding Motivation and Emotion. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  21. Sarason, I.G., H.M. Levine, R.B. Basham, and B.R. Sarason. 1983. “Assessing Social Support: the Social Support Questionnaire.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 44 (1): 127–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Stanley, D. 2003. “What Do We Know about Social Cohesion: The Research Perspective of the Federal Government’s Social Cohesion Research Network.” Canadian Journal of Sociology/Cahiers Canadiens de Sociologie 28 (1): 5–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Veiel, H.O., and U. Baumann. 1992. “The Many Meanings of Social Support.” In The Meaning and Measurement of Social Support, edited by H.O.F. Veiel and U. Baumann, 1–9. New York, NY: Hemisphere Publishing.Google Scholar
  24. World Health Organization. 1998. WHO (Five) Well-Being Index (1998 version). Retrieved from:

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lih-Rong Wang
    • 1
  • Michael P. H. Liu
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Social WorkNational Taiwan UniversityTaipeiTaiwan
  2. 2.Graduate Institute of Public AffairsNational Taiwan UniversityTaipeiTaiwan

Personalised recommendations