By Stacey Nicole Bellido

Global care chains are the often invisible network of care work that underpins the globalized economy. Care covers a wide range of tasks that involve the act of looking after others and helping them meet their everyday needs. Focusing solely on global value chains no longer presents a complete picture of the globalized landscape, requiring us to broaden our lens beyond traditional markers of development and economic success. As the world “deglobalizes” and faces growing uncertainty, there is a need to better understand the movement of care across borders and how policymakers can protect those who are part of it.

The world as we know it is changing. Discussions surrounding globalization often center on global value chains, but a crucial aspect remains overlooked: global care chains. Behind the seamless movement of people, goods, and capital lies a hidden network of care work, performed predominantly by women, that underpins the very foundation of this globalized model. While global value chains (GVCs) map the interconnected flow of goods and services across countries, global care chains (GCCs) shed light on the intricate networks of care work that enable these economic activities to take place. Given that today’s highly globalized world was built on this network of GVCs, talks of deglobalization should also raise questions on how it would affect the human cost that sustains these systems. These care chains provide the invisible infrastructure that enables others to participate in the workforce and make the globalized economy function. However, the impact of GCCs extends far beyond the economic sphere, creating a web of social consequences borne by particular individuals who participate in this essential yet often undervalued labor. 

The concept of the global care chain refers to a pattern of outsourcing care work, often from developing countries to wealthier, developed ones.[1] This creates a chain of caregiving that crosses countries and cultures—a transnational movement of care from one part of the globe to another, often leaving a gap in the place where that caregiving originated. This complex system involves mostly women from low-income households migrating to take up care labor in high-income countries, which, in turn, drives the initial women migrants to hire even poorer women in their home countries to fill in the care gap they left behind with their families. This chain allows those receiving care and those whose care responsibilities have been made lighter to participate in the workforce while care providers send money remittances back home. 

Feminist scholars argue that rising globalization and uneven economic development are driven by existing gender inequalities.[2] Not only does globalization take place alongside gender inequality, but the former actually reinforces the latter because the way men and women migrate continues to reflect the different roles that societies assign to each gender in the workforce. These inequalities, often called the new international division of reproductive labor, are reflected in how women fill migration gaps, often taking on care work as economies change. Through this lens, one could say that globalization relies on the exploitation of women’s cheap labor, especially women from disadvantaged countries. The redistribution of care work through migration carries both emotional and material ripple effects. As the way countries depend on each other economically is changing,  GCCs will also change and it is essential to understand how. Deglobalization is bound to restructure the entire system, which, if not carefully considered, can reproduce already existing inequalities.

According to the OECD, although there is no general trend towards deglobalization, there is a slowdown in the expansion of value chains, mainly owing to growing uncertainty in the global environment.[3] Political instability, health crises, and environmental challenges around the world alongside economic fluctuations are making previous models of globalization obsolete. Focusing solely on GVCs no longer presents a complete picture of the globalized landscape, requiring us to broaden our lens beyond traditional markers of economic success. This is where the significance of GCCs comes to light. Given both chains do not have the same vulnerabilities, they are exposed differently to economic downturns despite being highly intertwined. While value chains face disruption and uncertainty, global caregiving networks can continue to operate, filling the gaps and mitigating the human costs associated with a shifting global landscape.

Global care chains have implications on development at a global level yet remain one of the most invisibilized pillars of development.[4] For instance, migrant care workers—the backbone of GCCs—contribute to the development of both the sending and receiving countries. Back home, remittances can spur economic growth and support families’ unmet livelihood needs while remaining resilient despite crises such as the COVID-19 pandemic.[5] In host countries, they enable others, primarily women, to pursue careers and contribute to the workforce. By filling critical gaps in care for children, the elderly, and the sick, these migrant caregivers enable other families to function and economies to thrive. The rise in female migration resulted from varied developments in migrant-receiving countries.[6] For example, the newfound affluence in the Middle East had created a demand for maids as a status symbol. In East Asian economies, on the other hand, economic expansion brought an increase in labor force participation of native women, thus increasing the demand for caregivers and helpers in their aging societies. Care-intensive labor, often domestic in nature and viewed as an extension of women's traditional roles in a patriarchal society, is often relegated to the periphery of economic discourse. The idea that migrant women are naturally suited to care work is often used to justify their concentration in these jobs.[7] This reinforces the stereotype that caregiving is simply an innate ability of women rather than skilled labor deserving of proper recognition and compensation. Moreover, the complex emotional labor of caregiving, including the sacrifices made by both the caregivers and those left behind, are unaccounted for in traditional development metrics. Overall, the three defining characteristics of care work are that it is overwhelmingly feminized and undervalued, yet it is a vital pillar of our societies. For policymakers to understand the value of care work in the economy, one must begin by seeing how the current global landscape has changed and is already changing these care chains.

Although GCCs demonstrated a surprising degree of resilience compared to traditional value chains during the pandemic, it is important to acknowledge that they are not immune to the effects of an unstable global environment. The slowdown of markets could lead to a possible reshuffling of care work, with countries reassessing their reliance on migrant labor. Labor force participation rates of international migrants have been in decline since 1990 and are expected to continue to decline until at least 2030.[8] This could create a more complex workforce landscape for care workers, with opportunities emerging in some regions while other regions experience a decline.  This is primarily driven by demographic shifts and external shocks to the labor market, as well as evolving immigration policies and technological changes.  Countries with aging populations, like Japan and Italy, are seeing a decline in their labor forces and becoming increasingly reliant on international migrant care workers to meet the growing demand for elder care. In other cases, China and East Asian Tigers like South Korea have reduced their dependency on migrant labor due to domestic job creation and economic development. Meanwhile, instability following Russia’s war on Ukraine has also affected Ukrainian caregivers’ destination countries. Caregivers from Ukraine are now more likely to migrate to Western European countries that are perceived as safer and more stable than neighboring countries directly affected by the war. Poland—the EU country with the greatest shortage of care workers— hosts over 70,000 Ukrainian women as care workers with 60% of them employed in irregular domestic jobs.[9] However, Poland has recently opened a new pathway for care workers from the Philippines as more Ukrainians seek better work conditions in the formal economy in countries like Germany.[10] Advances in automation and technology could also reduce demand for certain caregiving tasks, particularly repetitive ones, and potentially displace some migrant care workers.  For example, there may be a rise in assistive technologies that can help people with daily living activities, reducing the need for some traditional caregiving services. The world is experiencing a host of shifts—social, technological, demographic, and geopolitical— to which GCCs are not immune.

While the complete dismantling of GCCs may not be an immediate feasible goal, policymakers must prioritize adaptation and resilience in the face of an increasingly uncertain global landscape. This calls for a more proactive policy approach with three key pillars: improving data analytics on care migration patterns, strengthening domestic infrastructure, and forging international cooperation. 

First, improved data collection and disaggregation on care migration is crucial to making global care chains visible, providing a clearer and more nuanced understanding of their dynamics. More often than not, reliable and accurate statistics for the number of migrant care workers are difficult to collect, given the informal nature of the work. More robust data collection efforts, disaggregated by factors like gender, origin country, and skill level, would illuminate the true scope and dynamics of GCCs. This includes enhancing national capacities to make such data available and accessible and harmonizing methodologies for collecting data on the care economy. This data would be instrumental in analyzing changing care chain flows, identifying vulnerabilities faced by migrant caregivers, and monitoring their integration into host societies. Better data on these care workers provides another shield of protection as it empowers policymakers to develop targeted, evidence-based interventions to uphold migrant care and domestic workers’ rights. It also serves as a vital tool to hold sending and receiving countries accountable for the care workers on which their economies rely. 

Second, building more resilient global care chains requires investing in domestic infrastructure. This applies to governments in both sending and receiving countries, which have the power to create more attractive career paths, provide more competitive compensation, and offer more opportunities for skills development and career advancement. Investing in training programs that equip caregivers with the necessary skills and knowledge to provide high-quality care is important, as well as having standardized certification programs to further ensure quality and professionalism within the domestic care workforce. On the other hand, creating more job opportunities in sending countries can also attract more local talents to stay, even beyond the care sector. By investing in domestic infrastructure, policymakers can create a more sustainable and resilient caregiving system that reduces reliance on migrant labor, improves the quality of care structures, and ensures the well-being of both care workers and care recipients. Changing global trends also present a window to invest more in local education and training aimed towards upward social mobility. At the same time, governments need to find ways to create more opportunities at home so that people are attracted to stay rather than be forced to migrate out of necessity in search of better opportunities abroad. 

Lastly, the third pillar of building resilient care chains lies in fostering international cooperation between sending and receiving countries. Collaborative efforts between sending and receiving countries are essential to ensuring a more just and sustainable care economy. This involves the development of more bilateral agreements and multilateral frameworks that aim to protect the rights and well-being of migrant caregivers. These would help build a more coordinated response to the challenges that these workers face and address issues like fair wages, ethical recruitment processes, access to grievance mechanisms, as well as facilitate the exchange of best practices and data sharing. Broader international cooperation on global care chains can inform policy development, specifically towards establishing better international standards and monitoring mechanisms for protecting migrant care workers' rights while continuing to meet the needs of care recipients and caregivers alike.

As the world is experiencing a host of shifts—social, technological, demographic, and geopolitical—the care economy should not be ignored as a key driver of development. Analyzing the essential, yet often unseen, movement of care across borders offers a deeper perspective that highlights the human cost of being able to participate and sustain global economic processes. Global care chains allow us to raise new questions and rethink how we measure development. It is not an easy feat to take care of others while leaving behind one’s own home, but for many people worldwide, mostly women, there is no option but to join this structure. Building the resilience of these care chains requires a multi-pronged strategy that addresses the vulnerabilities of care workers, strengthens the infrastructure of sending and receiving countries, and fosters international cooperation. Only then can the invisible threads of care that bind us across borders and the unseen labor that allows us to thrive be fully appreciated for the way it binds the fabric of our global society together.

About the author

Stacey Nicole Bellido is a Diplomacy and Gender Studies graduate from Sciences Po Paris, France. She has previously worked as a consultant for the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s (OECD) Global Relations Directorate and as a Foreign Affairs Research Specialist at the Department of Foreign Affairs of the Philippines.

Endnotes

1. Hochschild, Arlie Russell. 2016. “Global Care Chains and Emotional Surplus Value.” In On the Edge, edited by Anthony Giddens and Will Hutton, 130-146. London: Routledge.

2. Parreñas, Rhacel Salazar. 2002. “The Care Crisis in the Philippines” in Global Woman: Nannies, Maids and Sex Workers in the New Economy edited by Barbara Ehrenreich and Arlie Russell Hochschild 39-54. New York: Henry Holt.

3. Jaax, Alexander, Sébastien Miroudot, and Elisabeth van Lieshout. 2023. “Deglobalisation? The Reorganisation of Global Value Chains in a Changing World.” OECD Trade Policy Papers, no. 272. OECD Publishing, Paris. https://doi.org/10.1787/b15b74fe-en.

4. Orozco, Amaia Pérez. 2016. “Global Care Chains: Reshaping the Hidden Foundations of an Unsustainable Development Model.” In Women Migrant Workers: Ethical, Political and Legal Problems, edited by Zahra Meghani, 101-129. Routledge. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/283663640_Global_Care_Chains_Reshaping_the_Hidden_Foundations_of_an_Unsustainable_Development_Model.

5. The World Bank. 2021. “Defying Predictions, Remittance Flows Remain Strong During COVID-19 Crisis.” World Bank. May 12, 2021. https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2021/05/12/defying-predictions-remittance-flows-remain-strong-during-covid-19-crisis.

6. Encinas-Franco, Jean (2013). “The language of labor export in political discourse: ‘modernday heroism’ and constructions of overseas Filipino workers (OFWs)”, Philippine Political Science Journal, 34(1), pp. 97-112.

7. Ibid.

8. International Labour Organization. 2021. ILO Global Estimates on International Migrant Workers. https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---dgreports/---dcomm/---publ/documents/publication/wcms_808935.pdf.

9. European Economic and Social Committee. N.D. “Report on the EESC Country Visits to UK, Germany, Italy, Poland.” European Economic and Social Committee, n.d. https://www.eesc.europa.eu/sites/default/files/files/report_on_the_eesc_country_visits_to_uk_germany_italy_poland_0.pdf.

10. Ibid.

Disclaimer

The views expressed in this paper are solely those of the author and do not reflect the opinions of the editors or the journal.