Gender Differences in the Migration Process: A Narrative Literature Review

Anastasiadou, Athina; Kim, Jisu; Sanlitürk, Ebru; de Valk, Helga A. G.; Zagheni, Emilio Article — Published Version Gender Differences in the Migration Process: A Narrative Literature Review Population and Development Review Provided in Cooperation with: John Wiley & Sons Suggested Citation: Anastasiadou, Athina; Kim, Jisu; Sanlitürk, Ebru; de Valk, Helga A. G.; Zagheni, Emilio (2024) : Gender Differences in the Migration Process: A Narrative Literature Review, Population and Development Review, ISSN 1728-4457, Wiley Periodicals, Inc., Hoboken, NJ, Vol. 50, Iss. 4, pp. 961-996, https://doi.org/10.1111/padr.12677 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/313688 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Gender Differences in the Migration Process: A Narrative Literature Review ATHINA ANASTASIADOU ,JISU KIM ,EBRU SANLITÜRK , HELGA A. G. DE VALK AND EMILIO ZAGHENI Migration scholars agree that migration is a highly gendered process. While the literature on this topic is increasing, the knowledge produced remains fragmentary and has not been synthesized systematically yet. This literature review aims at summarizing the current findings of quantitative migration research comparing migration patterns between genders and highlighting gaps and patterns in the literature over time. Following a reproducible and systematic approach, 6032 articles have been scanned and 170 were considered for in-depth content analysis. The review of the literature revealed that women have a lower propensity than men to realize their migration aspirations conditional on migration intentions. Moreover, many articles analyzing migration flows by gender do not support the common narrative of a feminization of migration. Finally, evidence from the migration literature supports the assumption that migrant women experience a double burden of discrimination in the destination country labor market based on their gender and their migration status. It becomes apparent that gender-based comparisons between migration outcomes have received the most attention in the literature followed by the comparison of determinants. The stage of the journey received only little attention. This literature review also focuses on the data sources used to produce our knowledge on gender differences in the migration process. Thereby, it stands out that the majority of papers rely on survey data for the analysis. Digital trace data are a promising source for gender-disaggregated data and can potentially complement the scarce aggregate migration data landscape. Athina Anastasiadou, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, 18057 Rostock, Germany and Netherlands Interdisciplinary Demographic Institute (NIDI) – KNAW/University of Groningen, 2511 CV Den Haag, The Netherlands. Email: [email protected]. Jisu Kim, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, 18057 Rostock, Germany. Ebru Sanlitürk, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, 18057 Rostock, Germany. Helga A. G. de Valk, Netherlands Interdisciplinary Demographic Institute (NIDI) – KNAW/University of Groningen, 2511 CV Den Haag, The Netherlands. Emilio Zagheni, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, 18057 Rostock, Germany. POPULATION AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 50(4): 961–996 (DECEMBER 2024) 961 © 2024 The Author(s). Population and Development Review published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Population Council. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 962 GENDER DIFFERENCES IN THE MIGRATION PROCESS Introduction Migratory movements are highly gendered processes. Migrant women and men exhibit different migration aspirations and determinants, report different experiences throughout their journeys and at the destination, rely on different network structures, and their integration outcomes vary (Van Praag 2022; Buján 2015; Meyer et al. 2019; Ager, Ager, and Long 1995; Curran and Rivero-Fuentes 2003; Hoang 2011; Treuren, Manoharan, and Vishnu 2021; Salikutluk and Menke 2021; Pérez and Freier 2022). While some of the mechanisms for these differences are known, as they have been discovered mainly through qualitative research, quantifying these heterogeneities in migration patterns remains mostly underexplored. In the late 20th century and early 2000s, there has been a growing effort to better understand women’s migration and its unique characteristics. The development of research on women’s migration underwent several stages. Initially, there was a lack of research on female migration until the mid-1970s. This was followed by a period when family migration gained attention, but women’s presence received limited focus. In the 1980s, significant works emerged highlighting women’s agency in migration while recognizing gender differences in the process and settlement. Finally, in the late 1990s onward, the term “feminization of migration” became commonly used to describe the increasing participation of women in migration flows (Casas and Garson 2005). After initial studies in the field had focused on women’s migration, by the 1990s a paradigm shift took place acknowledging migration as a gendered process (Christou and Kofman 2022). In the realm of academic journals, several notable special issues have emerged over the years, highlighting specific topics within the field of migration studies on gender differences. It began in 1984 with the International Migration Review on female labor migration (Morokvasic 1984). Then, in 2006, the same journal released another special issue, this time dedicated to gender in migration studies (Donato et al. 2006). Building upon this trend, the Asian and Pacific Migration Journal joined the fold, producing its own special issue (Sim 2009). This particular edition showcased various works examining labor migration and the mobility of women in East and South Asia. Later, in 2013, the Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies released a special issue that explored gendered mobilities within the context of Europe (Andall 2013). These and other works have drawn increasing attention to the gender dimension of migration. The interdisciplinary nature of this growing field resulted in relevant publications appearing in various journals addressing different audiences. While viewing sex as a biological categorization and gender as a product of social relations in the origin and destination country of the migrant, the present work aims at connecting and structuring the current state of this research. Thereby, it contributes to the field of demography and migration studies by providing an overview of ATHINA ANASTASIADOU ET AL.963 the already existing knowledge and by synthesizing the key findings of this heterogeneous research area. Several works have aimed to synthesize the research on gender and migration, including those by Chant (1992), Willis and Yeoh (2000), Curran et al. (2006), Donato and Gabaccia (2015), Fleury (2016), and more recently, Christou and Kofman (2022). All these works serve as important viewing points over the landscape of gender and migration literature. While Chant (1992) and Fleury (2016) collate studies on gender and migration situated in the Global South, other works like ours are not restricted to a geographical area (but tend to focus more strongly on the Global North due to the overrepresentation of this study area in the literature that can be found on Scopus and Web of Science). In their book, Donato and Gabaccia (2015) provide a historical overview of the evolution of migration studies and the inclusion of gender and sex. Unlike Curran et al. (2006) who focus on publications in a number of sociological journals, we cover articles from various disciplines within the social sciences. Christou and Kofman’s (2022) book provides an exhaustive overview of gender and migration studies and carves out the gendered dimensions of labor, family, and forced migration. With the present contribution, we aim to provide a snapshot of the current state of gender and sex in migration research with a close look at differences by gender and sex. By employing a systematic approach to the collection and selection of studies and by limiting our analysis to quantitative research, we hope to complement the existing works by combining an overview of the literature with a discussion of data availability. This literature review is divided into two thematic parts. In the first part, we aim to outline what quantitative research has found about and gender differences that persist throughout the migratory process and summarize them according to the stages of the migration process (pre-, during, and postmigration stages as defined by Boyd and Grieco 2003). In the second part, we provide an overview of some of the existing sex- and genderdisaggregated migration data sources and carve out the most widely used data types. Therefore, this study aims to address the following questions: (1) What has quantitative research revealed about the role of sex and gender in the migration process? (2) What are the primary data types and sources that have contributed to our knowledge of gender-based differences in the migration process experienced by migrants? A systematic approach to answer this question is crucial for understanding the knowledge gaps persisting in the migration literature as well as the underlying data gaps preventing researchers from closing those gaps. Our continued interest in the gender dimension of the migration process is best explained in the introduction to Christou’s and Kofman’s (2022) book. Women do not only makeup almost half of the international migrants but also because “gender is one of the key forms of differentiation within societies which interacts with other social divisions such as age, class, 964 GENDER DIFFERENCES IN THE MIGRATION PROCESS ethnicity, nationality, race, disability, and sexual orientation” (Christou and Kofman 2022, 1). Consequently, the gender of migrants can influence the migration process in many possible ways. Boyd and Grieco (2003) provided an overview of how migration theories have incorporated gender over time. Thereby, the authors describe potential entry points of gender along the different stages of the migration process. The first stage is the “premigration stage,” where the decision and preparation to migrate takes place at the origin, followed by the “perimigration stage,” the stage of the migration journey from the place of origin to the destination. The third stage in Boyd and Grieco’s framework is the “postmigration stage,” namely the phase of integration and settlement of the migrant in the place of destination. The framework also includes the optional stage of return. This literature review is structured along these stages of migration processes, aiming to provide a comprehensive overview of the extensive body of quantitative research conducted in recent decades. By synthesizing this research and its findings, our goal is to fill in the gaps in knowledge and address unanswered questions in the field. The relevance of the discipline of demography is apparent. To incorporate migration into demographic projections, demographers need to understand its gendered dimension and composition which impacts fertility and mortality in origin and destination countries. Therefore, we repeat long-voiced claims of incorporating gender in migration theories by conceptualizing its impact on the selection, realization, and outcomes of migration processes. Selection process and methods To ensure transparency and facilitate reproducibility, we employed a systematic article selection approach. This section aims to explain the decisionmaking process we employed at each step, offering a clear understanding of our methodology. The approach was inspired by the PRISMA guidelines and corresponds to items 2–8 in the associated checklist (Page et al. 2021). First, we retrieved articles from the literature databases Scopus and Web of Science that matched the following search query: Title: (women* OR woman* OR female* OR gender* OR sex) AND (migra* OR immigra* OR emigra* OR mobilit* OR relocat* OR mov* OR displac* OR refugee* OR “asylum seeker*”) AND NOT (nutr* OR medic* OR migraine OR nurs* OR health* OR diet* OR contraceptiv* OR fertil* OR sexuality) Abstract: (women* OR woman* OR female* OR gender* OR sex) AND (migra* OR immigra* OR emigra* OR mobilit* OR relocat* OR mov* OR displac* OR refugee* OR “asylum seeker*”) ATHINA ANASTASIADOU ET AL.965 Keywords: (women* OR woman* OR female* OR gender* OR sex) AND (migra* OR immigra* OR emigra* OR mobilit* OR relocat* OR mov* OR displac* OR refugee* OR “asylum seeker*”) AND NOT (nutr* OR medic* OR migraine OR health* OR sexuality) During the first round of scanning, the lead author read the titles and abstracts of the retrieved articles. Using the information contained in the abstracts and titles, we decided based on the predefined eligibility criteria whether to keep the studies for a second round of scanning or not. When the information contained in the title or abstract was sufficient to make a judgment about the eligibility of the article, the article was included or excluded. When the eligibility was not clear from reading the title and the abstract, the article remained on the list for a full-text scan. The definition of migrant and migration applied in this review is based on the combined definitions of migrants as developed by the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (Recommendations on Statistics of International Migration, Revision 1, 1998) and the International Organization for Migration (IOM 2019). Accordingly, “a person is considered a migrant when they leave their place of usual residence (within or across national borders) temporarily or permanently for a period of at least a year..” We restrict this definition to exclude residential mobility as we expect the experiences of mobility over longer distances to differ notably from those within one’s usual environment. In the second round of scanning, the remaining articles were subjected to a full-text examination. Thereby, the complete text of each article was consulted to determine its inclusion in the analysis. To ensure consistency in the article selection process, a random subsample comprising 20% of the results was independently reviewed by two of the authors different from the lead author. Figure 1 illustrates the selection process that led to the inclusion of 170 articles in this review. In order to ensure that the analysis is focused on sex- and gender-based differences with a comparative perspective, it is required that the articles include the outcomes for all genders (usually women and men). Papers that analyze samples that only include women or men were categorically excluded from this review. In this review, 9 out of the 170 papers included in the analysis refer in their title or abstract to the term “sex,” 138 use the term “gender,” while 18 refer to both terms. The distinction between gender and sex was initially formulated by second-wave feminists who acknowledge the existence of physical bodily differences between men and women but agree that social conventions dictate behaviors of men and women (Oakley 2016; Butler, 1986). We use the terms “gender” and “sex” in accordance with the World Health Organization’s (WHO) definition. According to the WHO, gender is distinct from sex, and the two terms have different meanings. Sex refers 966 GENDER DIFFERENCES IN THE MIGRATION PROCESS FIGURE 1 Flow chart illustrating the process of the article selection to biological and physiological characteristics, whereas gender refers to socially constructed characteristics. By adhering to this definition, we recognize the distinction between biological attributes and socially constructed roles and identities (WHO, n.d.). By referring to both terms, we acknowledge the wider societal discourse around those concepts of social and biological characteristics attributed to men and women. Most migration data either refer to “gender” or to “sex” (usually only allowing for binary classification); therefore, both terms will be referred to in the remainder of this review. Regarding the synthesis of the results, we chose to follow a narrative approach. This choice was justified to cover the large number of eligible papers and to answer the rather broad research questions that could not be answered by applying a meta-analysis. A direct quality assessment is not part of the article selection process of the present review. We relied on an indirect assessment of the articles’ quality by selecting those that have undergone a peer-review process as well as those listed in the databases Scopus and Web of Science. ATHINA ANASTASIADOU ET AL.967 FIGURE 2 Number of publications published in each year from 1984 to 2022 Note that this literature review is not meant to be an inventory of all published works that investigate gender differences in the migration process but to highlight some outstanding findings and clear gaps in the literature and to put that into context with the availability of gender- and sex-disaggregated migration data. Gendered migration patterns: A literature review Over the last decades, the interest in gender differences throughout the migration process gained momentum. Figure 2 illustrates how the number of yearly publications rose over the years while the postmigration stage received the most attention. The timeline of publications about the pre- and the perimigration stage exhibits no clear trends over time. The most studied countries of destination and origin across the articles in our sample are Global North (GN) countries. As Table 1 shows, depending on the stage of migration the popularity of study areas changes. Many articles study multiple origin and destination countries at the same time, while others focus on one origin or one destination country for their analysis. Relatively more Global South (GS) countries are studied as migrant origins in the premigration stage (GN: 9, GS: 28) while relatively more Global North countries are studied as destinations in the postmigration stage (GN: 59, GS: 27). This hinges upon the fact that South–North migration has been historically of larger interest to migration scholars and is also reflected by the United States as most studied destination country in the postmigration stage (see Table 2). Nevertheless, some South–South corridors have been studied more extensively by scholars. For instance, China is the most 968 GENDER DIFFERENCES IN THE MIGRATION PROCESS TABLE 1 Eligibility criteria met by the articles included in the literature review Year No time restriction applied Publication type Primary research, peer-reviewed and published scientific articles and book chapters Subject area Social sciences broadly conceived (excluding health sciences, social work) Language No language restriction applied Migration As defined in the above paragraph Method This review focuses solely on quantitative approaches to assess the differences in migration patterns based on sex or gender (applied in full-text scan) TABLE 2 List of most studied areas of origin and destination for international migration by migration stage International migration Premigration Perimigration Postmigration Origin Destination Origin Destination Origin Destination Multiple (7) Multiple (15) Multiple (14) Multiple (5) Multiple (46) United States (20) Mexico (4) United States (4) Kazakhstan, Russia (1) OECD (4) Mexico (5) Spain (5) Thailand (2) OECD (2) United States (3) Argentina, Bangladesh (1) Canada (4) NOTE: Numbers in parentheses denote the number of articles that study the respective countries. “Multiple” stands for a heterogeneous group of countries studied at the same time. TABLE 3 List of most studied areas for internal migration by migration stage Internal migration Premigration Perimigration Postmigration China (3) United Kingdom (3) China (10) Ecuador, United States (2) United States (2) Germany, Sweden, United States (2) Belgium (1) Australia, Brazil, China, Germany (1) Colombia, Malaysia (1) NOTE: Numbers in parentheses denote the number of articles that study the respective countries. “Multiple” stands for a heterogeneous group of countries studied at the same time. covered area in the pre- and postmigration stage for internal migration which is owed to the fact that the literature on Chinese internal labor migration is growing (see Table 3). The geographical area and the corridors under study also reflect which migration types have been studied more than others. For example, in the postmigration stage, research to date focuses almost entirely on the labor market integration of migrants therefore the keywords for labor migration appear in 68 out of 87 studies in that stage (see Table 4). The 170 studies included in this review cover a broad range of time periods in their analyses. As Figure 3 shows, most study periods date back ATHINA ANASTASIADOU ET AL.975 ties to women were more important for migration from countries where gender equity and the number of female-led families were high (Côté et al. 2015). In the case of Congo and Senegal, Toma and Vause (2014) confirmed that men and women rely on different ties suggesting that the mechanisms through which networks affect mobility differ across genders. Curran and Rivero-Fuentes (2003) also included a comprehensive comparison of the role of networks between international and internal migration in Mexico concluding that female family migrant networks were more important for moves within Mexico than male networks. This opens possible avenues of research exploring how migrant networks matter for internal migration compared to international migration and how their influence varies by gender. Many of the studies included in this review highlight the importance of gendered social capital and network structures for the decision to migrate. Some evidence agrees that close-kin networks abroad do influence female migration positively while leaving male migration unaffected. Perimigration stage The gendered decision-making process in the premigration stage influences the transition of migrants across borders and thereby shapes the sex composition of migration flows. Furthermore, the national restrictive or protective policies of the origin country as well as immigration laws and regulations of the country of destination influence the gender composition of migration flows additionally to the factors that influence the decision to migrate (Boyd and Grieco 2003). According to Donato and Gabaccia (2015), the composition of flows and their directions are additionally affected by gendered and sex-discriminatory migration systems. On the individual level, the experiences made by migrants along their journeys most likely differ by gender, a topic mainly analyzed and discussed in the social work literature. Quantifying these transitions by gender is only possible with accurate origin–destination migration data which are rarely provided by statistical offices and have limited geographic and time coverage. The scarcity of data sources from which flows can be derived leads to a homogeneous and narrow quantitative literature strand on the migration transition process. The main findings of the literature on the transition stage of migration suggest that there was no significant feminization of migration observed toward the end of the 20th century. The gender composition of flows merely mirrors the immigration policies of the destination countries as well as the demand for female labor force (Zlotnik 1995). Some specific cases like the increased out-migration of highly skilled women from former Eastern Germany to the Western part of the country have created the popular perception that skilled women are more migratory than their male counterparts (Kroehnert and Vollmer 2012). However, skilled women are in general not found to be more migratory than skilled men (Docquier, Lowell, and 976 GENDER DIFFERENCES IN THE MIGRATION PROCESS Marfouk 2009; Docquier et al. 2012). Another major finding highlighted by this review is that migrant women and men tend to respond differently to labor market factors both in their home countries and at their destination (Greenwood 2008; Hofmann and Reiter 2018). The remainder of this section presents findings from the literature that support the conclusions made above. Thereby, it will answer the questions of whether a notable feminization has taken place in migration and whether this holds true also for highly skilled migrants. Moreover, it seeks to lay out evidence of whether traditional pull and push factors have a gendered impact on the migration process. Is a feminization of migration taking place? One of the earliest assumptions about female migration was formulated by Ravenstein (1889). Based on the British censuses from 1871 and 1881, he derived a number of hypotheses that formed the basis of migration theory in the past century. In one of the so-called “Ravenstein’s laws of migration,” he stated that females are more migratory than males. After female migrants have been overseen or disregarded as dependents of men, many researchers have started wondering about the actual gender composition of migratory moves. Many scientific papers written in the late 20th century aimed at identifying a potential “feminization” of migration flows. However, in this review 5 out of 170 papers use the term “feminization” in their abstracts. One of these is the work of Zlotnik (1995). Comparing migration flows from the Global South to Belgium, Germany, the United Kingdom, and the United States, she found that the proportion of women in gross immigration is lower from developing countries than from developed countries. Nevertheless, women surpassed men in terms of net migration but at relatively low levels in the period from 1975 to 1984. Therefore, she concluded that no notable feminization of migration can be traced in the data. These observed trends might be strongly influenced by the immigration policies of the receiving countries as well as the expatriate population in the destination country (Zlotnik 1995). The pioneering work of Zlotnik (1995) plays a crucial role in quantifying the patterns of female migration. Donato et al. (2011) adopted a historical perspective by using data dating as far back as 1850 to analyze immigration to 27 countries, including the United States. The authors noted that over time, there have been dynamic and complex shifts in the sex ratios of immigrants to the United States and worldwide, rather than a consistent trend toward feminization. However, the authors recorded upward shifts in the female share in immigration for most world regions, except for Africa and North America, from 1960 onwards (Donato et al. 2011). Gender selectivity of international migration has clearly transformed over time, and worldwide immigrant populations have become more female (Donato et al. 2011). This can be due to genderselective admission policies as well as gendered obstacles and motivations as argued in the section on the premigration stage. ATHINA ANASTASIADOU ET AL.977 The post-Soviet space with its special gender dynamics and major migration channels was studied by Becker et al. (2003) and Hofmann (2017). For the case of Kazakhstan, Becker et al. (2003) examined gender ratios in emigration rates 10 years after the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Their analysis revealed a slight gender imbalance in emigration rates, with women from urban areas outnumbering men in the emigration process. However, instead of concluding that women were more migratory than men in this period in Kazakhstan, this gender imbalance in emigration rates might reflect demographic imbalances due to premature male mortality (Becker et al. 2003). Hofmann (2017) looked at the broader picture and profiles of migrants from Azerbaijan, Georgia, Tajikistan, Ukraine, and Vietnam to Russia. The author found no clear evidence that migration flows from these origins to Russia are feminizing over time. However, the sex composition varied depending on the origin as well as on destination country factors (Hofmann 2017). A more recent study by Florinskaya (2022) arrived at a similar conclusion, stating that labor migration to Russia is unlikely to undergo feminization in the foreseeable future. In order to provide a clearer answer to the question of whether migration has been feminized over the years, it is critical to have a complete time series of migration flow data disaggregated by gender which only very few countries can provide. Nevertheless, in some migration corridors, women are increasingly participating in migration but an overall feminization cannot be sufficiently supported by evidence with the current state of data. Are the gender-based discrepancies in migration trajectories of the highly skilled? Overall, men continue to outnumber women in international migration, indicating that women have not yet surpassed men in terms of overall migration numbers. In the specific case of high-skilled migration, researchers argued that women play a significant role in brain drain, especially from low-income countries (Dumont, Martin, and Spielvogel 2007). This motivated Docquier, Lowell, and Marfouk (2009) to develop a dataset that provides emigration stocks and rates broken down by educational attainment and gender. Based on this dataset, Docquier et al. (2012) aimed to answer the question of whether skilled women are more migratory than skilled men. Despite the increased participation of women in international migration and their advancements in education, the authors’ conclusion suggests that skilled women were less likely to migrate internationally compared to men (Docquier, Lowell, and Marfouk 2009; Docquier et al. 2012). The disparity in the rate of highly skilled migration between genders was closely tied to the discrepancy in educational attainment within the source population, indicating unequal opportunities for education (Docquier, Lowell, and Marfouk 2009). 978 GENDER DIFFERENCES IN THE MIGRATION PROCESS Even though education crystallized as a stronger driver for female rather than male migration throughout the literature, the country of origin as well as the legal requirements at the country of destination play a gendered role in the gender discrepancies of migration (Hofmann 2017; Donato 2010). One of such origin–destination country factor could be trade. It appears that there is a strong positive association between the intensity of trade and the migration of high-skilled women (Uprety 2020). Uprety (2020) analyzed the drivers of the gender and skill composition of migrants from developing countries to OECD countries. The results indicated that trade seemed to have a more positive correlation with female highly skilled emigration from that country than it had for males (Uprety 2020). To address data limitations and explore the migration patterns of scholars, researchers utilized bibliometric data. The migration of scholars reflects high-skilled migration only to a certain extent as scientists only constitute a subset of all professionals. This innovative data source is generated by reconstructing scholars’ migration histories based on their publications’ meta data. Utilizing this data source, Malakhov (2019) compared the international mobility of Russian researchers by gender. The author found that female scientists tended to stay in Russia and their academic networks seemed to be less international than those of their male colleagues. Female scientists seemed to be held back in pursuing international academic careers by their care-taking roles and by their lower participation in STEM disciplines which are more demanded in the international labor market (Malakhov 2019). Bibliometric data opens many new avenues for research of the migration trajectories of scholars and allows for a gender classification based on names. It has been utilized only by one other work included in this review (Zhao et al. 2022). In contrast to the findings stating that high-skilled women are not more migratory than their male counterparts, UK female graduates have been found to be indeed more migratory than their male counterparts. Based on survey data from 1997 to 2000, Faggian, McCann, and Sheppard (2007) concluded that female UK graduates engaged more in migratory behavior partially to compensate for gender biases in the labor market. This might contrast the previously mentioned findings but considering that young graduates are probably not experiencing gendered mobility constraints due to caring responsibilities to the same extent, the findings do seem complementary. Overall, the majority of the literature refutes the common assumption that highly skilled women are more migratory than men, likely driven by gender-based labor market discrimination and caring responsibilities. Do traditional pull and push factors play a different role for migrant women and men? Traditional gender roles and societal expectations play a significant role in shaping the types of work that women engage in. As a result, the labor market structure in the origin and destination country can impact ATHINA ANASTASIADOU ET AL.979 the gender composition of the flows (Boyd and Grieco 2003). The neoclassical migration theory accounts for differences in the return to human capital when undertaking migration (Bircan et al. 2020). But it does not consider, like many other theories, the gender wage gaps in the destination and origin of the migrant as well as gendered access to education. Models incorporating pull and push factors therefore neglect the different effects these might have on migrant women compared to men. For instance, migrant women have been found to be less sensitive to traditional determinants such as distance between origin and destination (Beine and Salomone 2013). Job opportunities have been found to be gender-sensitive in migration patterns (He and Gober 2003). Women tended to be more responsive to perceived economic disparities in different regions, particularly in rural areas. Male migrants, on the other hand, were more drawn to job prospects in urban areas and opportunities offered by foreign enterprises. The presence of previous migrants and the development of light manufacturing industries are factors that attracted female migrants more than their male counterparts (He and Gober 2003). Consequently, such factors can shape the gender composition of migration flows by influencing the sex selectivity of migration corridors. Greenwood (2008) focused on immigration from Europe to the United States in 1870–1910 and found that the sex composition of migration flows from European countries to the United States depended on the labor market structure in the origin country at that time. Where the service sector was well established, female labor force was demanded, and that incentivized men to move abroad in search of traditionally male employment (Greenwood 2008). Using later data on immigrant populations in the United States, Hofmann and Reiter (2018) identified sources of the geographic variation in sex ratios. The variations could be, in some cases, explained by the migrants’ age or country of origin but this explanation is insufficient. The authors concluded that potential drivers of these patterns might be gendered networks, the type of jobs available in the destination, the legal status of the migrants, and the quality of life (Hofmann and Reiter 2018). When reviewing the perimigration literature on gender differences, it crystallizes that the pull and push factors that lead to migration are gendered and might hence differ in their effect size and direction for women and men. A perspective for future research could be to further enhance our understanding of gender sensitivity of traditional pull and push factors. Postmigration stage Every migratory move ends (at least temporarily) with the postmigration stage. In this stage, the integration outcomes of migrants can be influenced by several factors, like the migrants’ entry status, employment opportunities, and occupational status (Boyd and Grieco 2003). All of these factors 980 GENDER DIFFERENCES IN THE MIGRATION PROCESS have different effects by gender and are intertwined with the overall migration experience and its outcomes. As in previous stages of the migration process, the main theoretical concept at play in migration outcomes is intersectionality. Migrants experience different forms of discrimination based on their migrant status, gender identity, social class, and other social categories. While reviewing the literature on sex- and gender-based differences in the postmigration stage, it crystallized that the gender gaps in occupational status persist after granting legal status to migrants as women are more likely to stay employed in the informal sector (Kreisberg and Jackson 2023; Powers, Seltzer, and Shi 1998; Powers and Seltzer 1998; Donato et al. 2008). Moreover, migrant women experience a double disadvantage in the labor market in some countries—a penalty on their earnings for being a woman as well as for having migrant status (Ryazantsev, Rostovskaya, and Peremyshlin 2019; Lopez 2012; Hayfron 2002). The literature agrees that despite the discrimination they experience in the labor market, migrant women tend to remit relatively more in the form of goods and money to their dependents back in their place of origin compared to their male counterparts (Khamkhom and Jampaklay 2020; Osaki 1999). In the following, this section covers selected literature supporting the above-stated findings. Does legal status have a gendered effect on migrants? As migrant women generally tend to work in more precarious and oftentimes informal occupational arrangements, they seem to benefit less in terms of earnings, occupational status, and occupational mobility from authorization as migrant men do (Powers, Seltzer, and Shi 1998; Powers and Seltzer 1998). The durable disadvantage resulting from being undocumented prior to authorization also varied by gender. Kreisberg and Jackson (2023) found that women had a smaller disadvantage when undocumented than men compared to their documented counterparts, while their predicted durable disadvantage after authorization widened rather than persisted as it did for men. Explanations for this observation can differ depending on the legal pathways and human capital. Whether migrants start off with unauthorized status in the destination country’s labor market depends highly on the respective immigration policies. In the case of Mexico–United States migration, Donato et al. (2008) found that when legal avenues to visas disappeared, female migrants experienced a larger wage deterioration and a stronger push toward informal sector employment than male migrants. Such findings indicate a gendered effect of immigration policies on migration outcomes and thus an increase in migration costs for women. A closer look at the working conditions of mostly unauthorized women migrants reveals that many suffer from not being registered due to a lack of access to social protection and health care, especially reproductive ATHINA ANASTASIADOU ET AL.981 health care. This leads to the conclusion that migrant women experience a double burden of discrimination in the labor market of the destination country, one for being a woman and one for being a migrant (Ryazantsev, Rostovskaya, and Peremyshlin 2019). Gaps in the literature persist as most data used for analysis are about 20 years old. Furthermore, it remains challenging to study a population that is as invisible in records as undocumented migrants are. However, we can expect that changes in the legal status have a different effect by gender and are further enhanced by gender discrimination in the labor market. What are the differences in labor market discrimination based on gender? Upon arrival in the destination country, women and men exhibit different integration trajectories in the labor market. The majority of papers included in this sample analyze labor market outcomes of migrants, namely 68 in the postmigration stage. One commonly observed pattern is a double penalty for migrant women, which occurs as migrant women earn less than local women due to migrant status and less than migrant men due to gender discrepancies in wages. Across many destination countries, namely Norway, United States, Russia, and the Gulf states, consistent findings point to a double earnings penalty experienced by migrant women (Lopez 2012; Hayfron 2002; Alfarhan and Al-Busaidi 2020). In the United States, highly skilled immigrant women have been found to experience a disadvantage in earnings compared to local men of which a larger share could be explained by their immigrant status and only the smaller share could be attributed to gender meaning that migrant men also experienced a sizeable disadvantage in earnings (Lopez 2012). On the contrary, for Norway Hayfron (2002) found that a larger share of disparities was explained by gender than by ethnicity. However, Hayfron also highlighted the important role of the average age of migrant women which was lower than the average age of male natives in the Norwegian labor market (Hayfron 2002). Alfarhan and Al-Busaidi (2020) investigated the contribution to the earnings gap across the income range in the Gulf states and found that the wage gap at the lower end of the earnings distribution could be attributed mainly to immigrant status and hence points to a general disadvantage for migrants while at the higher end of the distribution this effect was declining and even on par with the gender effect. Rebhun’s (2008, 2010) work refuted the notion of a double earnings disadvantage in the Israeli labor market. Beyond the gender disadvantage, immigrant women did not experience discrimination in the labor market in Israel. However, this was dependent on their region of origin and their labor force participation there. As the findings for Israel show, such results highly depend on the status of the immigrant in the labor market and the human capital that a person acquired before migrating. Nevertheless, such relationships should be further investigated as they have the potential to not only improve policy 982 GENDER DIFFERENCES IN THE MIGRATION PROCESS making but also to improve migration predictions by sex assuming potential migrants take such disadvantages into account. The findings point consistently toward gender differences in the labor market integration of immigrants, perpetuated through a double burden on migrant women’s earnings. Are there differences in the remittance-sending behavior of migrants by gender? The literature in development studies has investigated the relationship between remittance sending patterns of migrants and their gender for a long time. The studies consistently indicate that women tend to be more reliable as remittance senders. Women seem to consistently remit a larger proportion of their income, which is typically smaller in comparison to men’s income. And they remit more frequently than male migrants (Khamkhom and Jampaklay 2020; Mizanur Rahman 2013; Osaki 1999). Possible explanations argue with women’s cultural obligations and social pressure as mothers. Moreover, women are more committed senders due to their ability and the societal expectation to sacrifice for the family and save more (Khamkhom and Jampaklay 2020; Mizanur Rahman 2013). In accordance with the new economics of labor migration theory, households in the Global South use migration as a strategy to ensure their survival (Osaki 1999). Based on the above studies, migrant women have been found to be more active remittance senders than their male counterparts despite earning less on the destination labor market. Since many major migration theories include the labor market and potential outcomes as crucial determinants in the decision-making process in migration selectivity (neoclassical migration theory, new economics of labor migration, dual labor market theory), these economic considerations also become important for demographic projections. The employment prospects in sectors that are traditionally occupied by women (for instance, service and care) can attract more female labor migrants than men. Employment is among the key motivations for migration (Labour Migration 2022). Nevertheless, the gender composition of these flows and their demographic implications on the destination countries remain understudied. Theroleofdata In order to reflect the complex nature of the vulnerabilities, mobilities, and gendered findings, migration researchers clearly need to generate more gender-disaggregated data (Kofman 2019). The findings of the literature reviewed above reflect the scarce gender- and sex-disaggregated migration data availability. The need to collect and provide migration data by gender has been acknowledged by researchers and international organizations. The United Nations Secretariat recognized that the “lack of readily available information on the participation of women in international migration ATHINA ANASTASIADOU ET AL.983 is probably at the root of the conventional view that the typical migrant is a young, economically motivated male” (United Nations 1995, 56). Moreover, they acknowledge that the deficiencies of migration statistics make it difficult to challenge such false conclusions. In 2004, the UN World survey on the role of women in development produced a report with special attention to women in international migration. The report repeatedly points out the dearth of data on migration classified by sex and age which hampers a thorough understanding of the migration process for women (United Nations 2004). Migration data disaggregated by sex or gender are required by the Global Compact for Safe and Orderly Migration (United Nations General Assembly 2018). Unfortunately, the availability of harmonized aggregated migration data is scarce. Recently, there has been a growing emphasis on the importance of collecting gender-disaggregated data to better understand vulnerabilities, mobilities, and gender-specific outcomes and to inform gender-responsive policy-making (Kofman 2019; Christou and Kofman 2022; Hennebry, KC, and Williams 2021). Multiple studies, including those by Morokvasic (1984), Donato and Gabaccia (2015), and Zlotnik (1995), have contributed to this focus on female migrants, while a separate body of literature has emerged that examines and compares the migration patterns of both female and male migrants. This increase in attention also mirrors the availability of sexdisaggregated data for migration studies. The first paper presenting data to analyze the potential feminization of migration was written by Zlotnik (1995). These sex-specific migration data provided by the UN Population Division became available to the public in 2002 (Boyd 2021). Gender statistics are necessary for thorough gender analyses; however, sex-disaggregated data are the best alternative at this stage and an essential first step toward gender statistics but they come with availability and quality issues (Bircan and Yilmaz 2022). As Donato and Gabaccia pointed out in their book, collecting bivariate data on sex does not preclude gender analysis per se but it enables researchers to measure the composition of populations (Donato and Gabaccia 2015). There exist a number of major data sources on sex and international migration at the global level (Hennebry et al. 2021). Namely, the UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs’ estimates of international migration stocks for the years 1990–2019, the Counter-Trafficking Data Collaborative providing information on human trafficking cases from the 2000s to 2020, the International Labor Organization’s statistics on international migrant workers for the years 1991–2018, and, lastly, the Refugee Data Finder containing estimates of refugees, asylum seekers, other displaced populations from 1951 to 2019 (Hennebry et al. 2021). Besides that, there exists the OECD databank on immigrant populations and international migration 984 GENDER DIFFERENCES IN THE MIGRATION PROCESS flows for the 28 member countries of the OECD. This dataset also includes some demographic and labor market characteristics of the migrants (Bircan and Yilmaz 2022). Such datasets can have quality limitations, as countries apply different definitions of international migration in their methodologies for official statistics (Sırbu et al. 2021). Moreover, such methodologies can change over time creating inconsistencies in the measurement. Also, different sources of data can lead to different estimates and measures for similar phenomena. However, compatibility and consistency are crucial to measure inequalities between female and male migrants. That said, striving for improved sexdisaggregated statistics can only be the first step to collect data rather on gender than on biological sex alone (Boyd 2021). Data in the premigration stage By reading the literature, it becomes clear that more than half of the papers included in the premigration stage literature review study countries in the Global South. This reflects the South–North dimension of migration and the emphasis on labor migration among all forms of migratory movements in the scientific literature. When assessing the state of a research area, we should also inspect the data sources used by the studies to generate the knowledge. A general observation is that data availability dictates the area under study and data scarcity is the main obstacle, as is usually the case for research on migration. The study areas covered by the papers include a notable number of countries in the Global South, unlike the peri- and postmigration stage literature. Especially for countries in the Global South, authors relied on smallsample survey data (Yilma and Regassa 2019; Gray 2010) but also longitudinal survey projects like the Mexican Family Life Survey and the Mexican Migration Project (Hughes 2019; Chort 2014; Côté et al. 2015; Curran and Rivero-Fuentes 2003; Cerrutti and Massey 2001). While survey data are prominent and useful for establishing causal relationships and answering narrower research questions, their coverage is usually low and their representativeness threatens the external validity of the findings. Census data as well as register data were used rarely. No study used social media data such as Twitter or Facebook data. However, two works made use of bibliometric data as novel data sources to understand patterns of scholarly migration (Malakhov 2019; Zhao et al. 2022). Two papers in the sample employed online surveys as data collection methods (Orosová et al. 2018; Akopova and Ignatjeva 2012). Some studies combined several data sources for their analysis such as national administrative or survey data together with migration datasets from international organizations (Grönlund and Fairbrother 2022; ATHINA ANASTASIADOU ET AL.991 Cerrutti, Marcela, and Douglas S. Massey. 2001. “On the Auspices of Female Migration From Mexico to the United States.” Demography 38 (2): 187–200. https://doi.org/10.1353/dem. 2001.0013. Chandra, Dharma. 2004. “International Migration From Fiji: Gender and Human Development Issues.” Asian and Pacific Migration Journal 13 (2): 179–204. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 011719680401300203. Chant, Sylvia. 1992. Gender and Migration in Developing Countries. London: Belhaven Press. Chort, Isabelle. 2014. “Mexican Migrants to the US: What Do Unrealized Migration Intentions Tell Us About Gender Inequalities?” World Development 59: 535–552. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. worlddev.2014.01.036. Christou, Anastasia, and Eleonore Kofman. 2022. “Gender and Migration: An Introduction.” In Gender and Migration: IMISCOE Short Reader, edited by Anastasia Christou and Eleonore Kofman, 1–12. IMISCOE Research Series. Cham: Springer International Publishing. https: //doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-91971-9 1. Côté, Rochelle R., Jessica Eva Jensen, Louise Marie Roth, and Sandra M. Way. 2015. “The Effects of Gendered Social Capital on U.S. Migration: A Comparison of Four Latin American Countries.” Demography 52 (3): 989–1015. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13524-015-0396-z. Curran, Sara R., and Estela Rivero-Fuentes. 2003. “Engendering Migrant Networks: The Case of Mexican Migration.” Demography 40 (2): 289–307. https://doi.org/10.1353/dem.2003.0011. Curran, Sara R., Shafer, Steven, Donato, Katharine M. and Garip, Filiz. 2006. “Mapping Gender and Migration in Sociological Scholarship: Is It Segregation or Integration?” International Migration Review, 40: 199–223. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-7379.2006.00008.x Davis, B., and P. Winters. 2001. “Gender, Networks and Mexico–US Migration.” The Journal of Development Studies 38 (2): 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/002203804123.31322251. Docquier, Frédéric, B. Lindsay Lowell, and Abdeslam Marfouk. 2009. “A Gendered Assessment of Highly Skilled Emigration.” Population and Development Review 35 (2): 297–321. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1728-4457.2009.00277.x. Docquier, Frédéric, Abdeslam Marfouk, Sara Salomone, and Khalid Sekkat. 2012. “Are Skilled Women More Migratory Than Skilled Men?” World Development 40 (2): 251–265. https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2011.05.004. Donato, Katharine M. 2010. “U.S. Migration From Latin America: Gendered Patterns and Shifts.” The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 630 (1): 78–92. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/0002716210368104. Donato, Katharine M., Joseph T. Alexander, Donna R. Gabaccia, and Johanna Leinonen. 2011. “Variations in the Gender Composition of Immigrant Populations: How They Matter.” International Migration Review 45 (3): 495–526. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-7379.2011.00856.x. Donato, Katharine M., and Donna Gabaccia. 2015. Gender and International Migration.NewYork: Russell Sage Foundation Donato, Katharine M., Donna Gabaccia, Jennifer Holdaway, Martin Manalansan, and Patricia R. Pessar. 2006. “A Glass Half Full? Gender in Migration Studies.” International Migration Review 40 (1) (March): 3–26. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.17477379.2006.00001.x. Donato, Katharine M., Chizuko Wakabayashi, Shirin Hakimzadeh, and Amada Armenta. 2008. “Shifts in the Employment Conditions of Mexican Migrant Men and Women: The Effect of U.S. Immigration Policy.” Work and Occupations 35 (4): 462–495. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0730888408322859. Dumont, Jean-Christophe, John P. Martin, and Gilles Spielvogel. 2007. “Women on the Move: The Neglected Gender Dimension of the Brain Drain.” IZA Discussion Paper no. 2920 (July). https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1001216. Faggian, Alessandra, Philip McCann, and Stephen Sheppard. 2007. “Some Evidence That Women Are More Mobile Than Men: Gender Differences in U.K. Graduate Migration Behavior.” Journal of Regional Science 47 (3): 517–539. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467–9787.2007.00518.x. Fleury, Anjali. 2016. “Understanding Women and Migration: A Literature Review.” KNOMAD Working Paper Series, no. 8 (February). http://www.atina.org.rs/sites/default/files/ KNOMAD%20Understaning%20Women%20and%20Migration.pdf 992 GENDER DIFFERENCES IN THE MIGRATION PROCESS Florinskaya, Yulia F. 2022. “Female Labor Migration to Russia: Number, Donor Countries, Niches in the Labor Market.” Studies on Russian Economic Development 33 (1): 55–65. https://doi.org/ 10.1134/S1075700722010075. Gray, Clark L. 2010. “Gender, Natural Capital, and Migration in the Southern Ecuadorian Andes.” Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space 42 (3): 678–696. https://doi.org/10.1068/ a42170. Greefs, Hilde, and Anne Winter. 2016. “Alone and Far From Home: Gender and Migration Trajectories of Single Foreign Newcomers to Antwerp, 1850–1880.” Journal of Urban History 42 (1): 61–80. https://doi.org/10.1177/0096144215611092. Greenwood, Michael J. 2008. “Family and Sex-Specific U.S. Immigration From Europe, 1870–1910: A Panel Data Study of Rates and Composition.” Explorations in Economic History 45 (4): 356– 382. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eeh.2008.02.001. Grönlund, Anne, and Malcolm Fairbrother. 2022. “No Escape From Tradition? Source Country Culture and Gendered Employment Patterns Among Immigrants in Sweden.” International Journal of Sociology 52 (1): 49–77. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207659.2021.1978192. Hanmer, Lucia, Eliana Rubiano, Julieth Santamaria, and Diana J. Arango. 2020. “How Does Poverty Differ Among Refugees? Taking a Gender Lens to the Data on Syrian Refugees in Jordan.” Middle East Development Journal 12 (2): 208–242. https://doi.org/10.1080/17938120.2020. 1753995. Hayfron, John E. 2002. “Panel Estimates of the Earnings Gap in Norway: Do Female Immigrants Experience a Double Earnings Penalty?” Applied Economics 34 (11): 1441–1452. https://doi. org/10.1080/00036840110101429. He, Canfei, and Patricia Gober. 2003. “Gendering Interprovincial Migration in China.” International Migration Review 37 (4): 1220–1251. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.17477379.2003.tb00176.x. Heering, Liesbeth, Rob van der Erf, and Leo van Wissen. 2004. “The Role of Family Networks and Migration Culture in the Continuation of Moroccan Emigration: A Gender Perspective.” Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 30 (2): 323–337. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 1369183042000200722. Hennebry, Jenna, KC Hari, and Kira Williams. 2021. “Gender and Migration Data: A Guide for Evidence-based, Gender-responsive Migration Governance.” Geneva: International Organization for Migration (IOM). https://publications.iom.int/system/files/pdf/Gender-and- Migration-Data.pdf. Hoang, Lan Anh. 2011. “Gendered Networks and Migration Decision-Making in Northern Vietnam.” Social & Cultural Geography 12 (5): 419–434. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649365.2011. 588800. Hofmann, Erin T. 2017. “Who Goes to Russia? Understanding Gendered Migration Patterns.” Eurasian Geography and Economics 58 (1): 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/15387216.2017. 1280690. Hofmann, Erin T, and E. Miranda Reiter. 2018. “Geographic Variation in Sex Ratios of the US Immigrant Population: Identifying Sources of Difference.” Population Research and Policy Review 37 (3): 485–509. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11113-0189469-1. Hughes, Christina. 2019. “Reexamining the Influence of Conditional Cash Transfers on Migration from a Gendered Lens.” Demography 56 (5): 1573–1605. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13524-019- 00815-0. Hugo, Graeme. 1992. “Women on the Move: Changing Patterns of Population Movement of Women in Indonesia.” In Gender and Migration in Developing Countries, edited by Sylvia Chant, Chap. 9, 174–196. London: Belhaven Press. IOM. 2019. “International Migration Law: Glossary on Migration.” Accessed February 28, 2022. https://publications.iom.int/books/international-migration-law-ndeg34-glossary-migration de Jong, Gordon F. 2000. “Expectations, Gender, and Norms in Migration Decision-Making.” Population Studies 54 (3): 307–319. https://doi.org/10.1080/713779089. Khamkhom, Nara, and Aree Jampaklay. 2020. “Gender Differences in Remittances Behavior Among Migrants in Thailand.” Kasetsart Journal of Social Sciences 41 (3): 493–500. ATHINA ANASTASIADOU ET AL.993 Kim, Junmo, Seung-Bum Yang, and Ador R. Torneo. 2012. “Marriage Immigration and Gender in South Korea: Accounting for Gender Disparities in International Marriages.” Asia-Pacific Social Science Review 12 (2): 14–32. https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db= sih&AN=87317454&site=ehostlive&scope=site. Kim, Jisu, Emilio Zagheni and Ingmar Weber. (2023). “Augmenting Migration Statistics Using Social Media.” In Practitioner’s Guide on Harnessing Data Innovation for Migration Policy. 42–50. Geneva: IOM. Kofman, Eleonore. 2019. “Gendered Mobilities and Vulnerabilities: Refugee Journeys to and in Europe.” Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 45 (12): 2185–2199. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 1369183X.2018.1468330. Kreisberg, A. Nicole, and Margot Jackson. 2023. “Durable Disadvantage: Gender and the Mark of Unauthorized Status in Immigrants’ Occupational Trajectories.” Sociological Perspectives 66 (1): 145–172. https://doi.org/10.1177/07311214221117296. Kroehnert, Steffen, and Sebastian Vollmer. 2012. “Gender-Specific Migration From Eastern to Western Germany: Where Have All the Young Women Gone?” International Migration 50 (5): 95–112. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2435.2012.00750.x. Leibert, Tim. 2016. “She Leaves, He Stays? Sex-Selective Migration in Rural East Germany.” Journal of Rural Studies 43: 267–279. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2015.06.004. Litchfield, Julie, and Barry Reilly. 2009. “Modeling Migration Attempts and the Role of Gender in Albania.” Economic Annals 54 (182): 7–39. http://www.doiserbia.nb.rs/Article.aspx?ID=0013- 32640982007L. Lopez, Mary J. 2012. “Skilled Immigrant Women in the US and the Double Earnings Penalty.” Feminist Economics 18 (1): 99–134. https://doi.org/10.1080/13545701.2012.658429. Malakhov, V. A. 2019. “Gender Aspect of International Academic Mobility of Russian Scientists.” Woman in Russian Society 4: 89–99. https://doi.org/10.21064/winrs.2019.4.8. http://ivanovo. ac.ru/upload/medialibrary/e34/JRO/2019-4.pdf#page=89. Massey, Douglas S., and Felipe García España. (1987). “The Social Process of International Migration.” Science 237 (4816): 733–738. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.237.4816.733 Meyer, Sarah R., W. Courtland Robinson, Casey Branchini, Nada Abshir, Aye Aye Mar, and Michele R. Decker. 2019. “Gender Differences in Violence and Other Human Rights Abuses Among Migrant Workers on the Thailand–Myanmar Border” Violence Against Women 25 (8): 945–967. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801218805587. Labour Migration. 2022. Accessed June 19, 2023. https://www.migrationdataportal.org/themes/ labour-migration. Mizanur Rahman, Md. 2013. “Gendering Migrant Remittances: Evidence from Bangladesh and the United Arab Emirates.” International Migration 51: e159–e178. https://doi.org/10.1111/j. 1468-2435.2012.00763.x. Morokvasic, Mirjana. 1984. “Birds of Passage are also Women…” The International Migration Review 18 (4): 886–907. https://doi.org/10.2307/2546066. Nawrotzki, Raphael J., and Leiwen Jiang. 2015. “Indirectly Estimating International Net Migration Flows by Age and Gender.” Historical Methods: A Journal of Quantitative and Interdisciplinary History 48 (3): 113–127. https://doi.org/10.1080/01615440.2014.999150. Neumayer, Eric, and Thomas Plümper. 2021. “Women’s Economic Rights in Developing Countries and the Gender Gap in Migration to Germany.” IZA Journal of Development and Migration 12 (1): 1–13. https://doi.org/10.2478/izajodm-2021-0013. Oakley, Ann. 2016. Sex, Gender and Society. New York: Routledge. Orosová, Ólga, Jozef Benka, Lucia Hricová, and Marta Kulanová. 2018. “Gender, Rootedness, Normative Beliefs and Emigration Intentions of Slovak University Students.” International Migration 56 (4): 172–196. https://doi.org/10.1111/imig.12441. Osaki, Keiko. 1999. “Economic Interactions of Migrants and Their Households of Origin: Are Women More Reliable Supporters?” Asian and Pacific Migration Journal 8 (4): 447–471. https: //doi.org/10.1177/011719689900800402. Page, Matthew J., Joanne E. McKenzie, Patrick M. Bossuyt, Isabelle Boutron, Tammy C. Hoffmann, Cynthia D. Mulrow, Larissa Shamseer., et al. 2021. “The PRISMA 2020 Statement: An Up- 994 GENDER DIFFERENCES IN THE MIGRATION PROCESS dated Guideline for Reporting Systematic Reviews.” BMJ 2021: 372. https://doi.org/10.1136/ bmj.n71. Pedraza, Silvia. 1991. “Women and Migration: The Social Consequences of Gender.” Annual Review of Sociology 17 (1): 303–325. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.so.17.080191.001511. Pérez, Leda M., and Luisa F. Freier. 2022. “Of Prostitutes and Thieves: The Hyper-Sexualisation and Criminalisation of Venezuelan Migrant Women in Peru.” Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 49 (3): 715–733. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2022.2047907. Powers, Mary G., and William Seltzer. 1998. “Occupational Status and Mobility Among Undocumented Immigrants by Gender.” International Migration Review 32 (1): 21–55. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/019791839803200102. Powers, Mary G., William Seltzer, and Jing Shi. 1998. “Gender Differences in the Occupational Status of Undocumented Immigrants in the United States: Experience before and after Legalization.” International Migration Review 32 (4): 1015–1046. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 019791839803200408. Rampazzo, Francesco, Marzia Rango, and Ingmar Weber. 2023. “New Migration Data: Challenges and Opportunities.” In Handbook of Computational Social Science for Policy, edited by Eleonora Bertoni, Matteo Fontana, Lorenzo Gabrielli, Serena Signorelli, and Michele Vespe, 345–359. Cham: Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-16624-2 18. Ravenstein, Ernst. G. 1889. “The Laws of Migration.” Journal of the Royal Statistical Society 52 (2): 241–305. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2979333. Raymer, James, and Arkadiusz Wi´ sniowski. 2018. “Applying and Testing a Forecasting Model for Age and Sex Patterns of Immigration and Emigration.” Population Studies 72 (3): 339–355. https://doi.org/10.1080/00324728.2018.1469784. Rebhun, Uzi. 2008. “A Double Disadvantage? Immigration, Gender, and Employment Status in Israel.” European Journal of Population /Revue européenne de Démographie 24 (1): 87–113. https: //doi.org/10.1007/s10680-007-9137-3. Rebhun, Uzi. 2010. “Immigration, Gender, and Earnings in Israel.” European Journal of Population /Revue européenne de Démographie 26 (1): 73–97. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10680-009-9192-z. Recommendations on Statistics of International Migration, Revision 1. 1998. https://www. migrationdataportal.org/resource/recommendations-statistics-internationalmigration- revision-1. Rodriguez Rico, Reynier. 2018. “Diferencias de g´enero en la migraci´on interna hacia La Habana durantelasegundamitaddelsigloXX.”RIEM: Revista Internacional de Estudios Migratorios 8(2): 195–222. http://hdl.handle.net/10835/6369. Ryazantsev, Sergey, Tamara Rostovskaya, and Sergey Peremyshlin. 2019. “Gender Aspects of Labor Migration in Russia: Trends, Implications, Regulation.” Woman in Russian Society 2019 (4): 53– 65. https://doi.org/10.21064/WinRS.2019.4.5. Salikutluk, Zerrin, and Katrin Menke. 2021. “Gendered Integration? How Recently Arrived Male and Female Refugees Fare on the German Labour Market.” Journal of Family Research 33 (2): 284–321. https://doi.org/10.20377/jfr-474. Shen, Tianyu, James Raymer, Qing Guan, and Arkadiusz Wi´ sniowski. 2024. “The Estimation of Age and Sex Profiles for International Migration Amongst Countries in the Asia-Pacific Region.” Population, Space and Place 30 (1): e2716. https://doi.org/10.1002/psp.2716 Sim, Amy. 2009. “Introduction: Women, Mobilities, Immobilities and Empowerment.” Asian and Pacific Migration Journal 18 (1): 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1177/011719680901800101. Singhanetra-Renard, Anchalee, and Nitaya Prabhudhanitisarn. 1992. “Changing Socioeconomic Roles of Thai Women and Their Migration.” In Gender and Migration in Developing Countries, edited by Sylvia Chant, Chap. 8, 154–173. London and New York: Belhaven Press. Sîrbu, Alina, Gennady Andrienko, Natalia Andrienko, Chiara Boldrini, Marco Conti, Fosca Giannotti, Riccardo Guidotti., et al. 2021. “Human Migration: the Big Data Perspective.” International Journal of Data Science and Analytics 11 (4): 341–360. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41060- 020-00213-5. ATHINA ANASTASIADOU ET AL.995 Smith, Michael D., and Maria S. Floro. 2020. “Food Insecurity, Gender, and International Migration in Low- and Middle-Income Countries.” Food Policy 91: 101837. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. foodpol.2020.101837. Szczepanikova, Alice. 2006. “Migration as Gendered and Gendering Process: A Brief Overview of the State of Art and a Suggestion for Future Directions in Migration Research.” MigrationOnline. Last accessed June 30: 2014. https://aa.ecn.cz/img_upload/ 6334c0c7298d6b396d213ccd19be5999/migration-as-gendered-and-gendering-process.pdf Toma, Sorana, and Sophie Vause. 2014. “Gender Differences in the Role of Migrant Networks: Comparing Congolese and Senegalese Migration Flows.” International Migration Review 48 (4): 972–997. https://doi.org/10.1111/imre.12150. Treuren, Gerrit JM, Ashokkumar Manoharan, and Vidya Vishnu. 2021. “The Gendered Consequences of Skill-Discounting for Migrants.” Journal of Industrial Relations 63 (1): 73–97. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022185620951830. United Nations. 1995. “International Migration Policies and the Status of the Female Migrant.” Accessed June 22, 2023. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED412144.pdf. United Nations. 2004. “2004 World Survey on the Role of Women in Development: Women and International Migration.” Accessed June 22, 2023. https://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/ public/WorldSurvey2004-Women&Migration.pdf United Nations General Assembly. 2018. “Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration,” A/RES/73/195. https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N18/451/99/ PDF/N1845199.pdf?OpenElement. Uprety, Dambar. 2020. “The Impact of International Trade on Migration by Skill Levels and Gender in Developing Countries.” International Migration 58 (4): 117–139. https://doi.org/10.1111/ imig.12666. Van Praag, Lore. 2022. “Gender, Environmental Change, and Migration Aspirations and Abilities in Tangier and Tinghir, Morocco.” Human Ecology 50 (1): 23–34. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745- 021-00296-z. Wang, Qingbin, Yang Zou, and Dan Fan. 2019. “Gender Imbalance in China’s Marriage Migration: Quantitative Evidence and Policy Implications.” Economic Modelling 83: 406–414. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.econmod.2019.09.040. Weinreb, Alexander, Guy Stecklov, and Aslihan Arslan. 2020. “Effects of Changes in Rainfall and Temperature on Age- and Sex-Specific Patterns of Rural-Urban Migration in Sub-Saharan Africa.” Population and Environment 42 (2): 219–254. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11111-020- 00359-1. Williams, Nathalie. 2009. “Education, Gender, and Migration in the Context of Social Change.” Social Science Research 38 (4): 883–896. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2009.04.005. World Health Organization. (n.d.) “Gender and Health.” https://www.who.int/health-topics/ gender#tab=tab_1 Yang, Xiushi, and Fei Guo. 1999. “Gender Differences in Determinants of Temporary Labor Migration in China: A Multilevel Analysis.” International Migration Review 33 (4): 929–953. https://doi.org/10.1177/019791839903300405. Yildiz, Dilek, Arkadiusz Wi´ sniowski, Guy J. Abel, Ingmar Weber, Emilio Zagheni, Cloé Gendronneau, and Stijn Hoorens. (2024). Integrating Traditional and Social Media Data to Predict Bilateral Migrant Stocks in the European Union. International Migration Review. https://doi.org/10.1177/01979183241249969 Yilma, Million, and Nigatu Regassa. 2019. “Gender Differentials in Internal Migration Decisions: The Case of Dilla Town, Southern Ethiopia.” Journal of Nursing and Social Sciences Related to Health and Illness 21 (3): 303–325. https://doi.org/10.32725/kont.2019.026. Zagheni, Emilio, Venkata Rama Kiran Garimella, Ingmar Weber, and Bogdan State. 2014. “Inferring International and Internal Migration Patterns from Twitter Data.” In Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on World Wide Web, 439–444. https://doi.org/10.1145/2567948.2576930. Zagheni, Emilio, Ingmar Weber, and Krishna Gummadi. 2017. “Leveraging Facebook’s Advertising Platform to Monitor Stocks of Migrants.” Population and Development Review 43 (4): 721–734. 996 GENDER DIFFERENCES IN THE MIGRATION PROCESS Zhao, Xinyi, Samin Aref, Emilio Zagheni, and Guy Stecklov. 2022. “Return Migration of German- Affiliated Researchers: Analyzing Departure and Return by Gender, Cohort, and Discipline Using Scopus Bibliometric Data 1996–2020.” Scientometrics 127 (12): 7707–7729. https://doi. org/10.1007/s11192-022-04351-4. Zlotnik, Hania. 1995. “The South-to-North Migration of Women.” The International Migration Review 29: 229–254. https://doi.org/10.2307/2547003. Willis, Katie, and Brenda Yeoh. 2000. Gender and migration. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.