Social Capital, Migration and Development in The Valles Centrales of Oaxaca, Mexico: Non-Migrants and Communities of Origin Matter

Bulletin of Latin American Research, Vol. 29, No. 2, pp.
187–207, 2010
Social Capital, Migration

and Development in the Valles
Centrales of Oaxaca, Mexico:
Non-Migrants and Communities
of Origin Matter
MARIANA GABBAROT
Instituto Tecnológico y de Estudios Superiores de Monterrey,
Mexico
COLIN CLARKE
Oxford University, UK
This article investigates the importance of place-of-origin communities

to an understanding of the impact of migrant remittances on local
development, employing the concept of social capital. Two aspects of
social capital (each present prior to migration) are shown to be of
significance – family relationships and community organisation. Drawing
on recent research in two peasant communities in Oaxaca, Mexico, social
capital is used to examine the relevance of non-migrants in shaping the
outcomes of migration in communities of origin. Evaluation of migrant
remittances and home-town associations demonstrates the developmental
significance of non-migrants and communities of origin.
Keywords: communities of origin, community organisations, home-town

associations, migration, social capital, Oaxaca.
Introduction
The impact of migration on the home community is almost always evaluated through the
agency of the migrants themselves and their families. If migrants and their households
of affiliation spend money in the local economy, invest in productive activities or
organise the supply of public goods to their villages of origin, the consequences of
migration are considered to be positive – or the opposite (Massey and Parrado, 1998;
Smith, 1998a; Taylor, 1999; Al-Ali and Koser, 2002; Nyberg-Sorensen, Van Hear
and Engberg-Pedersen, 2002). However, the role that non-migrants and the social
© 2010 The Authors

Journal compilation © 2010 Society for Latin American Studies. Published by Blackwell Publishing,
9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA. 187
Mariana Gabarrot and Colin Clarke
organisation of migrants’ communities of origin play in shaping these outcomes has not
been sufficiently discussed in the literature.
The aim of this article is to highlight the role of non-migrants in shaping the
developmental outcomes of remittances expended in communities of origin through
the analysis of two case studies in the Valles Centrales of Oaxaca. The municipios of
Dı́az Ordaz and San Juan Teitipac, both located in the drought-ridden Tlacolula arm
of the Valles Centrales, were chosen because they have high migration rates and share
the socio-economic characteristics of adjacent Oaxacan peasant communities. Each
community has just over 2500 inhabitants, traditional peasant agriculture predominates
as a source of livelihood and a substantial proportion of the population speaks Zapotec,
an indigenous language (80 per cent in Dı́az Ordaz and 15 per cent in San Juan Teitipac).
In addition, each community has a corporate form of government and is considered
indigenous by the Oaxaca state.
Fieldwork by the lead author (for nine months in 2002) involved ethnographic
techniques, such as participant observation and in-depth interviews, as well as a random
household survey of just over 100 households in each community (or roughly 15 per
cent of units), which were interviewed about well-being and migration. As shown
in Table 1, all persons within households were included in the data set; those with
migration experience were considered as migrants (whether living in the United States
or in the communities at time of survey); and household units with one or more members
having migration experience in the United States were considered migrant households.1
The article begins by establishing the potential significance of social capital to
understand the agency of non-migrants in determining the level of remittances to,
and development prospects of, sending communities. Attention then turns to the role
Table 1. Population, Households and Migrants in the Sample Communities
Dı́az Ordaz San Juan Teitipac
Household level data

Total inhabited households according to Mexican census 633 660
Households surveyed 104 105
Internal migration only –13 –17
Total households included in analyses 91 88
Sampling fraction (%) 14.4 13.3
Individual level data
Total population according to Mexican census 2683 2827
Total sample 503 621
Internal migrants –40 –80
Total individuals included in analyses 463 541
Sample fraction (%) 17.2 19.1
Source: Fieldwork survey, Oaxaca, 2002.
1 The questionnaire survey design was based, with permission, on the ethno-survey that
has been used in the Mexican Migration Project (MMP, http://mmp.opr.princeton.edu/)
by Douglas Massey, Jorge Durand and their multidisciplinary research team in the
United States and Mexico since the 1980s (Massey, 1987a; Massey and Zenteno, 2000).
Information related to internal migration was also explored, but the number of internal
migrants in each commnunity was small, and the money they sent home was found to be
of no particular relevance to this study.
© 2010 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2010 Society for Latin American Studies
188 Bulletin of Latin American Research Vol. 29, No. 2
Social Capital, Migration and Development in the Valles Centrales
of migration in Mexico, before focusing on the two case studies, where family and
community social capital are shown to be vital in the socialisation of migrants and
non-migrants alike.
Investment in households of origin in the source community is revealed to be a
major concern of migrants as individuals. In addition, collectivities of migrants at their
destination replicate the organisations of their communities of origin, and, through
them, frequently invest their remittances in community projects back home. The use
of social capital in helping to identify the crucial role of non-migrants in the flow of
remittances to households and communities of origin in Mexico, and in development
more generally, is discussed further in the conclusion.
Communities of Origin and Social Capital

The failure to deal with non-migrants in studies of the impact of migration on
development is a result, first, of the fact that researchers have largely been concerned
with migrant networks. Research has focused on issues treating migrants’ motives
for moving and the resources they are able to draw upon (Massey, 1987b; Massey,
Goldring and Durand, 1994; Massey and Espinosa, 1997; Massey and Zenteno, 1999;
Phillips and Massey, 2000); integration processes in destination countries (Glick Schiller,
Basch and Blanc-Szanton, 1999; Guarnizo, 2003; Haller and Landolt, 2005); migrant
communities (Kearney, 1995; Goldring, 1999; Marcelli and Cornelius, 2001); and
labour-force participation (see for example the compilation in Piore, 1979; Alba, 1992).
The second reason why non-migrants are omitted from consideration is that migra-
tion and development debates related to communities of origin have focused too sharply
on migrants and their actions. Studies of the impacts of migration have concentrated on
remittances, who spends them and the outcome for the local economy (Reichert, 1982;
Stark, Taylor and Yitzhaki, 1986; Stark and Lucas, 1988; Husholf, 1991; Jones, 1992;
Conway and Cohen, 1998; Taylor, 1999). The effects of migration are not necessarily
positive or negative, and may vary locally (Nyberg-Sorensen, Van Hear and Engberg-
Pedersen, 2002). These variations have been explained, for instance, by analysing local
market failures and structural conditions that foster migrants’ entrepreneurship in their
home communities (Massey and Parrado, 1998; Taylor, 1999). However, there is an
increasing awareness that the social organisation and social dynamics of individual
localities are crucial when explaining these differences (Levitt, 2001; Al-Ali and Koser,
2002; Van Wey, Tucker and Diaz McConell, 2005).
These debates about migration and place coincide with a line of thought in develop-
ment studies, which recognises that local social factors affect the productivity of regions
and individual settlements. Understanding the importance of social relationships for
development at various scales has been addressed in both academic and policy discus-
sions by using the concept of social capital (Portes, 1993; Stiglitz, 1998; Narayan, 1999;
Portes and Landolt, 2000; World Bank, 2006).
There is widespread agreement about the value of human relationships and social
networks in contemporary development studies. Thus, social capital has been considered
a valuable asset, along with human and economic capital. However, while human capital
may be analysed in terms of individual skills that increase the value of labour (know-
how), and economic capital is clearly defined as monetary or material possessions, social
capital is found in people’s relationships, the value of which is difficult to conceptualise
and measure (Coleman, 1997; Moser, 1998).
Bulletin of Latin American Research Vol. 29, No. 2 189
Based on substantial consensus in the literature, we understand social capital as

residing in social networks that give individuals access to certain resources (Bourdieu,
1986; Coleman, 1997; Portes, 1998). In addition, relationships should entail a certain
degree of mutual benefit. Motivations for returning favours may vary, but two of the
key aspects of social capital that ensure the continuity of reciprocity are closure and
enforceable trust (Coleman, 1997). For example, if the person chooses not to return a
favour, other members of a network may find out and refuse to help in future.2
Within migration studies, social capital has been used to highlight how migrant
networks provide resources to potential migrants and to support migrants in their
places of destination (Massey, 1987b; Massey and Espinosa, 1997; Massey, 1998;
Massey and Parrado, 1998; Massey and Zenteno, 1999; see also Faist, 2000). However,
broadening the analytical scope and thinking about migration and development in
terms of social capital also helps us to understand the kind of environment in which
migrants are socialised in their communities of origin. Moreover, social capital helps
to account for the agency of people who do not migrate, but who engage in sustaining
relationships that affect their own well-being and development. Finally, international
and national development-policy decisions may be influenced by the existence of a stock
of social capital within communities that may enhance (or inhibit) the positive impacts
of remittances – as the following accounts from Oaxaca, Mexico, demonstrate.
Migration Flows in Oaxaca

Several factors have been important in making migration to the United States a relatively
recent phenomenon in Oaxaca. First, Oaxaca’s location in the south-west of Mexico – in
contrast to the border states – has ensured that migration to the United States is longer
distance and more difficult. Second, the proximity of Mexico City and the labour
demands of commercial agricultural areas in neighbouring states, such as Puebla and
Veracruz, have made Oaxaca a source of internal, rather than international, migration
(Alcalá and Reyes Couturier, 1994). Nonetheless, case studies have traced US migration
to the bracero years of the Second World War and its aftermath (Young, 1976;
Gregory, 1986) and have also highlighted its increase since the 1980s (Husholf, 1991;
Kearney, 1996; Klaver, 1997).3 This more recent movement has probably been caused
by worsening living conditions in Oaxaca’s urban and rural areas, and the declining
capacity of Mexico City to accommodate new arrivals since the economic crisis of 1982
(Wyman, 1983; Cornelius, 1991).
Overall, Mexican migration to the United States has been increasing in absolute
terms since it started at the end of the nineteenth century (Taylor, 1928; Martı́nez,
1957; Cardoso, 1980; Cornelius, 1991; Loaeza and Martin, 1997). Furthermore, the
geography of migrant flows has diversified (Durand, Massey and Charvet, 2000).
According to the National Survey on Emigration at the Northern Border, there was an
average flow of 563,788 migrants to the United States per year from 1993 to 2004,
and, while the bulk of the share is accounted for by traditional migrant states such as
2 The pressure generated to comply with expectations in closed networks has been consid-
ered a ‘downside’ or negative aspect of social capital.
3 For an historical approach to migrant flows within regions, see Gamio (1930) and
Hancock (1959).
Figure 1. Regions of Oaxaca
Guanajuato (13.6 per cent), Michoacán (11.70 per cent), Sonora (8.80 per cent), Jalisco
(7.22 per cent), and Zacatecas (4.25 per cent), other states such as Chihuahua (4.74
per cent), Oaxaca (4.13 per cent) and San Luis Potosi (3.14 per cent) are among the 10
largest contributors (Consejo Nacional de Población, 2004).
However, the number of municipalities in Oaxaca with high out-migration is still
small – accounting for 77 out of a total of 570 units, and concentrated in three out of
the eight regions into which the state is divided (Table 2).4 The Mixteca and Valles
Centrales (Figure 1) contain almost half of Oaxaca’s municipalities, as well as most
of those with high migration – 32 out of 155 in the former region and 24 out of
121 in the latter (Table 2). However, when considering the proportion of migrant-
sending municipalities within each region, the Sierra Norte also becomes significant,
with 15 migrant municipios out of its 68. Not surprisingly, the high-migration areas
coincide with the less prosperous, isolated, temperate-to-cold highlands of the state – or
in the case of the more accessible and developed Valles Centrales, its own backward
sub-regions (Clarke, 1992).
What effect does migration have in different regions and in particular communities
(Massey and Parrado, 1998; Taylor, 1999; Waterbury, 1999)? Data on remittances
provided by the Bank of Mexico show that the money inflow to Oaxaca from the
4 The migration intensity index used in this analysis combines four components based on
the proportion of households at the municipal and state level that in the last five years
have: (a) received remittances; (b) have a migrant member in the US; (c) have a migrant
member who travels to the United States frequently; (d) have a returned migrant member.
Statistical analysis is used to combine these four components in a correlation matrix
and then rank them in five intervals: Very Low (−1.2, 0.88); Low (0.88, .49); Medium
(0.49–0.27); High (0.27, 1.04) and Very High (1.04, 2.5). Details as to the statistical
methods used to generate the index are available on the internet (CONAPO, 2000).
Table 2. Oaxaca State: Concentration of Municipalities with High Migration
Total Number of municipalities

Region municipalities with high migration % within region
Cañada 45 0 0
Costa 50 2 4.0
Istmo 419 0 0
Mixteca 155 32 20.6
Papaloapan 20 0 0
Sierra Norte 68 15 22.1
Sierra Sur 70 4 5.7
Valles Centrales 121 24 19.8
Total Oaxaca State 570 77 13.5
Source: CONAPO 2004.
United States has almost doubled in recent years, from 658.3 million dollars in 2003 to
1,198.2 million in 2006. Given that migration is concentrated in just a few municipios
that are located in traditionally poor areas of the state, the local impact of these
remittances is likely to have been dramatic, even in the early 2000s, when this research
was carried out (Stephen, 2007 and Banco de México, 2009).
Family Social Capital and Socialisation

Oaxaca is the state with the highest proportion of rural population in Mexico. Out
of a total of 3.4 million inhabitants, more than half live in rural communities with
less than 2500 people (INEGI, 2003). As is common in peasant communities, families
have developed diversified livelihood strategies to ensure their survival, based on strong
norms of reciprocity (Cook and Binford, 1990; Klaver, 1997). Peasant values require
all adult children to remain in their parents’ home until they marry, and it is common
for married females to be integrated in their in-laws’ households.
Survey results indicate that, in Dı́az Ordaz and San Juan Teitipac, all members
of the family who are not students usually contribute to household subsistence. As a
consequence, more than half the households have at least two occupants working
to sustain livelihood. The number of individuals engaged in productive activities per
household may vary from one to six, depending on the number of members and their
ages. Overall, employment in agriculture – main crops being the traditional triad of
maize, beans and squash – still predominates in both communities (Table 3), followed
by rural artisan activities or construction labour (jornalero)5 (Stark and Lucas, 1988;
Taylor and Philip, 1998).
These arrangements do not change when there is an absent migrant member
associated with the household. In fact, migration is the third most popular livelihood
alternative in Dı́az Ordaz (10.8 per cent of household providers) and the second in San
Juan (16.8 per cent), being preferred to traditional work, such as oficios – or artisan
5 People who work as jornaleros alternate between construction jobs and rural activities,
according to availabilty.
Table 3. Livelihood Alternatives in all Households per Community
Dı́az Ordaz San JuanTeitipac
Total households surveyed 91 88

Households with more than one provider (%) 58.2 64.7
Occupation of providers within households (%)
Peasant 28.3 56.6
Jornalero 21.6 2.8
Migrant 10.8 16.8
Crafts 0.8 2.1
Petty commerce 10.8 13.9
Construction 9.1 2.1
Oficios 9.1 4.9
Others 9.1 0.7
Source: Fieldwork survey, Oaxaca 2002.
jobs (9.1 per cent in Dı́az Ordaz and 4.9 per cent in San Juan) – taught mostly from
generation to generation, such as carpentry, tailoring, bread baking and ice-cream
making. These small-scale entrepreneurs are almost as numerous as the petty traders,
who have small convenience stores on the front porch of their homes (10.8 per cent in
Dı́az Ordaz, and 13.9 per cent in San Juan Teitipac).
In Dı́az Ordaz, a sizeable part of the male population engages exclusively in
construction work (9.1 per cent). This is because construction is sustained by migrants
who are building houses in the community, though some of the labourers may travel
to the adjacent town of Tlacolula to make good the lack of local jobs in Dı́az Ordaz.
In the case of San Juan, construction activity also takes place as a result of remittance-
spending by the households. Nevertheless, it is more difficult to abandon agriculture,
because the only main source of work in construction is in Oaxaca City, which is an
hour-and-a-half away by bus, and the ticket costs 6 pesos. Hence the small proportion
of construction workers in San Juan (2.1 per cent).
Although agriculture is the most common occupation in both communities, it is
important to bear in mind that plots are rarely sold. Land ownership is mediated by
family inheritance, and all land available within the municipio – excluding communal
land – has an owner. In general, husbands and wives leave land in equal portions to
their children. Moreover, the patrilocal residence pattern and inheritance system entail
reciprocal obligations. First, young parents contribute to their children’s subsistence, as
part of the livelihood strategy. Then, all children must contribute to the care of their
elderly parents because they could otherwise be deprived of their inheritance rights.
Reciprocity between the generations, which is common to many cultures, has a
strong meaning in both communities, and is enforced through the inheritance system,
which, in turn, gives access to limited land resources.6 As Sra. Francisca demonstrates,
sometimes social capital is the only means of obtaining a place to live:
6 As a result, landed property is highly fragmented, and no plot is larger than a hectare. On
average, each household in both villages owns 0.29 hectares; there is no household in Dı́az
Ordaz owning as much as 1 hectare, and only one household in San Juan. Dı́az Ordaz
has some ejido (land reform) land: of the total 63 households in the survey that owned
land, 22 had only ejido property, 20 had a mixture of private and ejidal land and 18 had
‘My mother-in-law never liked me and my father never liked my husband,

so we had nowhere to live. When we got married we had no land, we went
to Mexico city. It was after his father died that we inherited the house and
some land, so we had to wait six years until we inherited something.’
Thus, people within these communities are socialised in a domestic environment

where throughout their lives kinship ties represent social capital, and social capital is
essential to gain access to basic resources – arable plots and food.
The notion of the importance of socialisation is even more salient if we consider the
age and experience of migrants prior to migration. As in many other parts of Mexico,
migrants from the two communities were two-thirds males, were aged from 15 to 44 at
the point of departure and had received mainly primary education (around 60 per cent),
though some also had secondary schooling (30 per cent) (Table 4). Men and women
migrants living in the United States work predominantly in the domestic or service
sectors (Cornelius, 1991; Massey, Goldring and Durand, 1994; Durand, Massey and
Zenteno, 2001).7 Consequently, there is a substantial loss in human capital through
migration indicated by the 12 per cent of the total sample population in Dı́az Ordaz
and the 27 per cent in San Juan who were migrants and living in the United States.
Social Capital, Remittances and Development

The fact that migrants are still contributing to household reproduction indicates that
there is compensation for the loss in community production in the shape of social capital.
More than half the sample in each community consists of migrant households, of whom
76.7 per cent in Dı́az Ordaz and 88.9 per cent in San Juan Teitipac receive remittances
(Table 5). The continuation of kin relationships creates social capital for communities
through migrant families by giving them access to an income in the form of dollars.
The pattern is for migrant families to have one or two members in the United States
who send remittances, while the rest keep working (and reproducing) in the village.
Although 23.9 per cent of the households in Dı́az Ordaz consider a migrant member
as one of their providers – as do 18.4 per cent in San Juan Teitipac, the proportion of
households depending solely on remittances is very low (6.5 per cent in Dı́az Ordaz
and 3.1 per cent in San Juan Teitipac – Table 5). This shows that although migrants
remain committed to their reciprocity obligations, remittances complement rather than
displace locally-generated household income, in the process increasing the wellbeing of
migrant vis-à-vis non-migrant households.
In order to confirm differentiation between migrant and non-migrant households, a
simple index was created using the three most salient characteristics of relative wealth
just private plots (there were three missing cases). San Juan has only private property. In
practice, the land corresponding to an ejido share has always been unofficially inherited
on equal terms by the sons and daughters of the ‘owners’. Additionally, both Dı́az Ordaz
and San Juan have communal land. However, this land is poor and is used only for raising
cattle, or collecting wood.
7 Although no specific data were gathered on income, field interviews indicate that the
amount of money earned is quite variable. For instance, a migrant worker can earn 80
dollars a day cleaning dishes, which might add up to 1600 dollars a month if he or she
works five days a week.
Table 4. Migration Experience of Individuals by Community
Total sample population 463 541

Migrant population 85 179
Migrant population as percentage of total population 18.3 33.1
Population living in the United States (%) 12.0 27.4
Returned migrants (%) 6.3 5.7
Male migrants (%) 67.1 67.0
Female migrants (%) 32.9 33.0
Age of migration (%)
0–14 8.2 10.6
15–29 63.5 61.5
30–44 18.8 25.1
45–59 7.1 2.8
60 or more 0.2 –
Schooling (%)
No schooling 1.2 1.7
Primary 65.9 58.7
Secondary 29.4 30.9
High school 2.4 7.6
Undergraduate 1.2 1.2
Occupation of migrant male population in the United
States (%)
Agriculture 15.6 6.1
Construction 17.8 –
Service sector 35.6 86.7
Domestics 22.2 –
Factory worker 6.7 3.1
Other 2.1 4.0
Occupation of migrant female population in the United
States (%)
Service sector – 44.9
Domestics 87.5 22.4
None 8.3 20.4
Factory – 2.0
Other 4.2 10.1
for households in the two communities – household construction, household appliances

and size of land holding. All values were added and scaled from 0 to 10 to reflect
the well-being of each household in the samples. Most migrant households in both
communities are distributed in categories 5 to 8, while non-migrants concentrate in
categories 3 to 6.
An important distinction is the amount remitted annually to migrant households;
about 10 per cent get nothing, while 40 per cent in Dı́az Ordaz and 24 per cent at San
Juan receive more than US $2,000, and a few get in excess of US $8,000 (Table 5).
Remittance distributions show that in Dı́az Ordaz migrant households receive more
money per unit than in San Juan Teitipac. The variation is probably related to the
number of migrants per household and the kind of incomes they have (Stark and Lucas,
Table 5. Livelihood and Remittances within Migrant Households
Dı́az Ordaz San JuanTeitipac
Migrant households within total sample 46 65

Proportion of migrant households in relation to 50.5 73.9
total sample (%)
Households considering migrant as provider (%) 23.9 18.4
Households with migrant as only provider (%) 6.5 3.1
Migrant households receiving remittances (%) 76.7 88.9
Distribution of households according to the amount
of remittances received per annum in US dollars (%)
None 13.0 10.8
1–1000 19.6 43.1
1001–2000 26.1 18.5
2001–3000 19.6 10.8
More than 3000 . 19.6 13.8
Remittance spending (%)
Daily expenses 42.5 41.9
Construction 25.0 41.9
Education 17.5 6.5
Health 15.0 8.1
Land purchase 0 1.6
1988). Most of the money, in both communities, is destined for daily expenditures
(42 per cent). In Dı́az Ordaz the remainder of the remittances is channelled towards
education (17.5 per cent), health (15 per cent) and construction (25 per cent), while in
San Juan Teitipac it goes mainly into construction (41.9 per cent).
The kind of relationship that households in the villages establish with migrants sheds
light on the overall spending priorities. The nature of the migrants’ kinship ties is differ-
ent in the two communities (Table 6). While, in Dı́az Ordaz, most migrants are heads
of household/spouses (36.5 per cent) or children (58.8 per cent), in San Juan Teitipac
they are predominantly children (86.6 per cent). Furthermore, a higher proportion of
migrants participate in the decision-making process regarding remittance-spending in
Dı́az Ordaz than in San Juan. An illustrative case is Paco, a returned migrant from Dı́az
Ordaz, who explains the motives for his migration: ‘My daughter got sick. She had
bronchitis, that is why I left [for the United States] in the first place. When I started
working, I sent money so that she could go to the doctor and she got better, then she
could go to school.’
In contrast, children of the head of household tend to send money to build their
own houses in the community, leaving their relatives to decide how best to make the
expenditure (such as hiring a jornalero or buying construction materials). For example,
Sra. Florencia is in the process of building her son’s house in San Juan Teitipac and she
explains the process:
‘He calls me and says, ‘‘Oh mum! My ambition is that you fix my house,
put some tiles on the roof and build another bathroom.’’ He sends money
and I buy bricks, I buy sand.’
Table 6. Family Social Capital in Dı́az Ordaz and San Juan Teitipac
Migrant population in sample 85 179

Undocumented migrants (%) 88.2 83.8
Kinship relationships of migrants with non-migrants (%)
Head or spouse 36.5 11.7
Children’s of head of household 58.8 86.6
Other relatives 4.7 1.7
Decision making concerning remittance spending (%)
Head of household 41.0 37.7
Spouse 18.0 27.9
Shared between head and spouse 0 24.6
Migrant 15.4 6.6
Father (or in law) 15.4 0
Other 10.2 3.2
Frequency of phone calls (%)
Once within two weeks to five months 91.7 77.6
No contact with their homes 4.8 14.4
Proportion of returned migrants (%) 34.1 17.3
Migrants who have made the trip to the United States 71.8 77.1
more than once (%)
Furthermore, parents are not only responsible for the construction of their childrens’
houses but also for the caring of the building once it is finished. For instance, Sr Ernesto
explains his role in sustaining his childrens’ homes in Dı́az Ordaz:
‘They have their house but it is abandoned. If we weren’t here maybe they
had nothing, but now we are here and we live here, so we clean their
properties and take care of them.’
Remittances are part of complex family relationships that are also sustained in other
ways – mainly through phone calls. Only about 20 per cent of migrant households
in both communities have a phone. So, to receive a phone call, non-migrants use
a telephone service. This service is provided either by a wealthier member of the
family or by people who have a small store and a landline. Although migrants pay
for the call, their relatives are charged a fee for the use of the phone in Oaxaca.
Usually, transnational families have a regular, agreed day and time for these telephone
conversations.
A majority of migrants in Dı́az Ordaz (91.7 per cent) contact their homes at least
once within a period of two weeks to five months, whereas, in San Juan Teitipac,
77.6 per cent of migrants do so (Table 6). Furthermore, 14.4 per cent of migrants
from San Juan Teitipac have lost contact with their household, compared to only 4.8
per cent from Dı́az Ordaz. By maintaining long-distance relationships, the structure of
households is altered. Migrants are the ones calling home; non-migrants are obliged to
wait for phone calls, sometimes at the expense of their own activities. Juana, a woman
who has a convenience store in Dı́az Ordaz, explains how she needed to attend her
husbands’ calls while he was away:
‘He used to call on Wednesday – even if my store was full of clients, me

and the children had to leave everything and go to my parents’ to wait and
talk to him.’
Through these conversations, experiences from both sides of the border are shared
and joint decisions are made – not only regarding remittance-spending, but other aspects
of household reproduction, such as the education of children and improvements to the
house (see for example Hondagenu-Sotelo and Avila, 2000). For instance, Eve (who
lives in Dı́az Ordaz), explains how her father (who is currently living in the US),
influenced his childrens’ decision to stay in school: ‘My other sister is working, but
Misael [my brother] and I depend fully on my father. He sends us money and we have
told him we want to work. But, my father told us to focus on just one thing, either we
study or we work, so I decided to study to be a teacher.’
Two important aspects to be considered in terms of social capital are return migrants
and visits to the community. The proportion of households with return migrants in
Dı́az Ordaz is 34.1 per cent. Most of them travelled to the United States within
the last twenty years. However, the proportion is much lower in San Juan Teitipac
(17.3 per cent) (Table 6). Since both communities have similar levels of economic
development, kinship ties (heads and spouses in Dı́az Ordaz and children in San Juan
Teitipac) probably explain the variable motives for return. Although 80 per cent of
migrants are undocumented (Table 6), the proportion who circulate is over 70 per cent.
The idea of social capital also points to the importance of household and family
ties as assets for development. This idea challenges some conceptions regarding the
role of remittances at the local level. That remittances improve household conditions
because of an increase in consumption has been widely acknowledged; but when
remittances are spent in this manner, their positive effects on development have been
generally questioned (Reichert, 1981; Reichert, 1982; Taylor and Philip, 1998; for a
different opinion regarding this issue see Taylor, 1999). However, if we consider the
reproduction of the household and family ties as social capital, remittances represent
another, valuable, type of resource that may be accessed through social capital in
peasant communities along with food and land.
As a result, it is clear that kinship and remittances cannot be separated from
each other. This seems rather obvious, particularly when speaking about peasant
households – and gender specialists have already underlined the importance of analysing
migrant households’ dynamics in order to understand the transnational processes leading
to a re-negotiation of gender and family roles both in Mexico and the United States
(Hondagenu-Sotelo, 1992; Hirsch, 1999; Mahler, 1999; Pessar, 1999; Hondagenu-
Sotelo and Avila, 2000; Pessar and Graham, 2001). Nonetheless, the significance that
kinship has for linking migration to development has not been fully grasped – nor has
the corporate nature of communities of origin.
Community Organisation, Reciprocity and Social Capital

Closure and enforceable trust are themes central to the history of Oaxacan commu-
nities. Peasant settlements have been foci of social life since pre-hispanic times, and
many were able to retain their lands in the Spanish colonial period or to re-acquire
them in the early twentieth century after the Mexican Revolution (Clarke, 2000). A
significant proportion of the Oaxacan population speaks an indigenous language (37.2
per cent). There is also a high degree of social closure associated with the strong sense
of identity that is related to territory: settlement (the nucleated village or town is usually
laid out in a grid pattern) and community usually coincide, and conditions of mem-
bership depend on participation in traditional forms of communal government (Clarke,
2000).
Community organisation in Oaxacan villages, too, may be traced back to the
colonial period. Many functions are performed in an indigenous language – Zapotec in
the two case-study communities. In 1995, the Oaxacan state government recognised
this system, known as usos y costumbres, as the political practice appropriate for
indigenous municipalities. In 1997, the organisation of community elections and other
local voting procedures were transferred from the federal authority (State Electoral
Institute) to the municipalities. Today, 418 of the 570 municipalities in Oaxaca have
legally adopted this corporate form of government as their system for electing public
officials and administering local public services (IEEO, 2009 and Anaya Muñoz,
2004).
Corporate government is based on the cargo system, and is sustained by reciprocity.
Public posts, or cargos, are assigned by communal assembly, in which all adult males
participate. The governing body of the municipio is composed of the presidente, a
sı́ndico and several regidores. The municipal president acts as the executive branch.
The sı́ndico is the legal representative and is also in charge of the budget. Regidores
take decisions regarding the administration of the municipality. There is also another
form of public serviced called tequio, in which all adult males may be summoned
for a day or two to collaborate in a specific activity, such as road repairing (Clarke,
2000).
The assembly rotates public responsibilities among adult men in the community.
No salary is offered to public officials; they comply because it is considered to be their
duty. Community members rarely refuse, though there is no state or federal legislation
to oblige them to participate. Nonetheless, enforceable trust is evident, as those who try
to avoid cargos are ostracised and excluded from community life. On the other hand,
cargos are also a source of status and recognition, and the responsibility of the post
held is proportional to a man’s experience and seniority.
Many male migrants in the selected communities have participated in the cargo
system before migrating – women are excluded from the male-dominated system.
In Dı́az Ordaz 50 per cent of men had performed a junior cargo before travelling,
whereas in San Juan Teitipac only 23 per cent had done so. This is partly because
migrants in San Juan Teitipac are younger and the vast majority had accepted no
cargo obligations before leaving. But it is also important to note that Dı́az Ordaz
has a better organised cargo system. As a result, migrants from Dı́az Ordaz in the
United States keep their commitment to the cargos, whereas migrants from San Juan
Teitipac do not. Almost half of Dı́az Ordaz’s migrants have fulfilled a cargo duty
while in the United States, most of whom have asked a member of their family to
perform it on their behalf. In San Juan Teitipac there are no migrants participating in
cargos.
Many specific public tasks in local government are handled by committees. Each must
have a president, a secretary and a treasurer. The number of committees varies according
to the needs of the municipality. Some committees are permanent; for example, specific
committees are in charge of the school buildings, the tractor and the water services.
Some are established on an ad hoc basis; for example, when a basketball court is built,
a committee is formed to supervise the construction.
Migrant Committees
In Dı́az Ordaz a group of young people decided to form an organisation to improve local
living conditions. The group adopted the name Collage, and consisted of 45 members,
including children. As is the norm, the members of newly formed Collage presented
themselves to the municipal president and asked for the community’s approval and coop-
eration. While endorsing Collage’s existence and objectives, the authorities were reluc-
tant to give them any money to support their plans, so the members of Collage decided to
mention their lack of funds to their families in the United States, and they offered to help.
Collage’s president and secretary drew up a work-plan and faxed it to the migrants
in California.8 This document was photocopied and circulated to every member of Dı́az
Ordaz in the United States, asking for their voluntary contributions. Two thousand
dollars were raised and sent back to Collage. The money was used to finance three
activities: first, the presentation of the group to the community by organising a Collage
dance performance during the annual August festival to celebrate the community’s
patron saint;9 second, the purchasing of waste bins for the town centre; and third,
the design, purchase and installation of street-names. After these initial successes, a
home town association (HTA) was formally set up in California, thus creating exactly
the same type of organisation that set up ‘the ambulance business’ in San Juan Teitipac.
San Juan Teitipac has a basic clinic funded by the federal government, but those who
cannot be treated there have to be taken to the Tlacolula Rural Hospital or, if the person
is in a serious condition, to Oaxaca City (each trip is approximately a 30-minute drive).
San Juan migrants in California decided to buy an ambulance to make the journey from
the community to hospital easier and safer. According to the municipal president, a
committee (HTA) in Los Angeles was formed, and 35 per cent of the cost was donated
towards the purchase of the ambulance – the rest came from municipal funds. Money
was allegedly raised from get-togethers held in Los Angeles where food and drink were
sold to people from San Juan Teitipac. After the objective was achieved, the committee
was dissolved, either because its members moved away to live in other parts of the
United States, or because they got married and had other obligations.
Although the ambulance is fully equipped, and a driver has been assigned to it by
the municipality through the cargo system, the federal government has not provided the
paramedics to operate it. People refuse to pay for fuel when they need to use the
ambulance, and there is no fund to cover the mechanical check-ups required by
the vehicle. However, it is worth noting that everybody spoken to was proud of the
ambulance, and convinced that it had been a good investment. It does not seem that
there has been disagreement over ‘the ambulance business’, as has happened with public
investment in other communities (Levitt, 2001). There is, however, a problem in that
migrants’ participation is needed to monitor the ambulance’s proper usage, and this
8 Faxes are sent for a small fee through an exchange in Tlacolula that offers money transfers.
9 Catholic rituals are crucial within the social fabric of Oaxacan indigenous settlements,
and consist of celebrations or fiestas in honour of various saints, especially the patronal
saint of each community. Fiestas are observed according to the dates established in the
Catholic calendar. Each saint has a person in charge of its festivities called a mayordomo.
In general, fiestas involve decorating the church with flowers on the appropriate day,
paying for food and drink for community members, and sometimes paying for mass
(Clarke, 2000).
has been undermined by the HTA’s ephemeral condition; moreover, the municipality’s
participation has been short term, and lacking state or federal support.
Conclusion
Overall, migration has had a similar impact in Dı́az Ordaz and San Juan Teitipac, even
where there are differences between the communities in the household members who
migrate and their involvement with the cargo system. Members of migrant families
receive remittances, thus improving their well-being in comparison to non-migrant
households. Each community has a HTA in the United States that has attempted to
improve communal living conditions by buying public goods.
These impacts are to be found in other Oaxacan – and Mexican – migrant commu-
nities, and have been well documented for other case studies around the world; our
findings coincide with many of them (Massey, Goldring and Durand, 1994; Kearney,
1995; Levitt, 2001; Muttersbaugh, 2002; Levitt, De Wind and Vertovec, 2003; Smith,
2003). However, an evaluation of the social capital existing in the villages, and of
conditions prior to migration, helps us to understand the importance of communities
of origin in administrating resources and in influencing the impacts of migration on
development at the local level. The latter has analytical as well as policy implications.
Variations in the articulation of family relationships within the communities of origin
represent distinct stocks of social capital, which, in turn, represent different capacities
of families to access valuable resources (such as remittances). Thus, it is important
to consider both the sites of destination and origin when evaluating the effects of
migration on development; remittances are part of broader transnational processes in
which non-migrants play an important role. Understanding the socialisation of migrants
and the conditions prior to migration in communities with relatively recent migrant
flows permits us to gain a more complete view of the reasons for the positive or negative
experiences of HTA’s enterprises (Levitt, De Wind and Vertovec, 2003).
From the policy perspective, Oaxacan communities provide an interesting case.
Communities’ reciprocity norms have a long history that may help them accomplish
many development goals. It is no coincidence that Oaxacans have been amongst
the most successful groups in creating transnational organisations, and establishing
influential activist organisations in the United States, such as the Frente Indigena
Oaxaqueño Binacional (Rivera-Salgado, 1999). Furthermore, remittances have been
shown to contribute to community reproduction in Oaxaca by the participation of
migrant families in the corporate government system (Cohen, 2001). Thus, realising
local potential social capital may be an alternative to enhancing the positive effects of
migration in the communities of origin by using what is already there (for a similar
argument within development see Portes and Landolt, 2000).
Some attempts have been made at joint investment with the 3 × 1 programme run
by the Secretariat of Social Development, where the federal and state governments as
well as the municipality and the HTAs all participate in funding community projects,
but these are oriented to specific infrastructural needs (Fernández de Castro, Garcı́a
Zamora and Villa Freyer, 2006). Public works may be essential, but more could be
achieved by considering a flexible framework for the programme. For example, by
encouraging investments to improve communications and the Internet, 3 × 1 may
enhance bonds that could yield long-term commitments to development enterprises.
Thus, by facilitating communications between HTAs and the villages of origin, a group
such as Collage might be able to tackle more ambitious projects.
In communities such as San Juan Teitipac, public policy might foster the social
capital bridging local, state or federal authorities needed to sustain transnational
initiatives. Furthermore, the long-standing commitment of migrants to their families
might be copied by longer-term policies directed towards migrant source communities:
for example, remittances could be focused on, and fortify, long-term social policies,
such as those run by the Secretariat of Social Development involving health provision
and welfare for the elderly (SEDESOL, 2009).
The relevance of social ties, particularly family ties, for development, has not
previously been fully explored. Although the quantitative analysis of remittances has
shown that households and household strategies are the main factor in remittance-
sending (Reichert, 1981, 1982; Stark, Taylor and Yitzhaki, 1986; Todaro and Maruzko,
1987; Stark and Lucas, 1988; Taylor, 1999), it has to be understood that remittances
are part and parcel of broader social relations (Van Hear, 2002). These relationships
are sustained by migrants through visits and phone calls as well as by non-migrants
through their attention to, and inclusion of, their ausentes in locally-bound decisions
(Smith, 1998b; Levitt, 2001).
A large part of the literature on migration has a sharp focus on the migration process
and how it takes place, but is deficient when considering wider issues. Even though there
are some exceptions (see Goldring, 1999; Levitt, 2001; Pessar, 2001; Nyberg-Sorensen,
Van Hear and Engberg-Pedersen, 2002), most studies do not include a broader analysis
of the implications that migratory practices have for the local or national context. The
focus in this article, therefore, has been on the place of origin, by analysing the links
that migrants establish with their source families and communities, and showing the
way these transnational relationships are articulated (see for example the articles in
Riccio, 2001; Al-Ali and Koser, 2002).
Recent research on transnationalism has contributed to this debate mainly by
discussing the relevance of migrant organisations and HTAs to philanthropic projects
and public works in their communities of origin (Faist, 2005; Moctezuma Longoria,
2005; Portes, Escobar and Walton, 2007). Overall, transnational approaches have
helped researchers to consider social fields as a continuum in order to overcome the
conceptual dichotomy between places of origin and destination, and this has been
crucial to broadening our initial understanding of migration. This article contributes
to the research on transnational social processes by highlighting communities of origin
and thus emphasizing the danger of underestimating the problematic nature of the
origin-destination continnum.
Transnational social spaces are created within two very distinct contexts of devel-
opment (in our study – the United States and rural Mexico). As a result, the way that
people who have not migrated experience the social field is radically different from
those who have, and so is their contribution. Yet, non-migrants’ agency is crucial in
sustaining transnational fields and it must be acknowledged in order to fully understand
the diverse outcomes of transational social processess.
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank the people who participated in the survey in Dı́az Ordaz and
San Juan Teitipac. They are also grateful to Dr. G. Zafra and Prof. A. Knight for their
comments emphasising the historical context of Oaxaca migration.
References
Al-Ali, N. and Koser, K. (2002) ‘Transnationalism, International Migration and Home’, in
N. Al-Ali and K. Koser (eds.) New Approaches to Migration: Transnational Communi-
ties and the Transformation of Home. Routledge: London and New York, 1–14.
Alba, F. (1992) ‘Migrant Labour Supply and Demand in Mexico and the United States:
A Global Perspective’, in J. A. Bustamante, C. W. Reynolds and R. A. Hinojosa Ojeda
(eds.) US–Mexico Relations: Labor Market Interdependence. Stanford University Press:
Stanford, 243–256.
Alcalá, E. and Reyes Couturier, T. (1994) Migrantes Mixtecos. El Proceso Migratorio de la
Mixteca Baja. Instituto Nacional de Antropologia e Historia: México.
Anaya Muñoz, A. (2004) ‘Explaining the Politics of Recognition of Ethnic Diversity and
Indigenous Peoples’ Rights in Oaxaca, Mexico’. Bulletin of Latin American Research
23(4): 414–433.
Banco de México (2009) Las remesas familiares en 2008 [WWW document]. URL
http://www.banxico.org.mx/AplBusquedasBM2/busqwww2.jsp [accessed 8 April 2009].
Bourdieu, P. (1986) ‘The Forms of Capital’, in J. J. Richardson (ed.) Handbook of Theory
and Research for the Sociology of Education. Greenwood Press: London, 241–258.
Cardoso, L. (1980) Mexican Emigration to the United States 1897–1931. The University of
Arizona Press: Tucson.
Clarke, C. (1992) ‘Migration and Urban-Rural Differentiation in Oaxaca, Mexico’. America
Latina: Local y Regional, Vol. 4. Latin American Studies Center, University of Warsaw:
Warsaw, 163–177.
Clarke, C. (2000) Class, Ethnicity, and Community in Southern Mexico: Oaxaca’s Peas-
antries. Oxford University Press: Oxford.
Cohen, J. H. (2001) ‘Transnational Migration in Rural Oaxaca, Mexico: Dependency,
Development, and the Household’. American Anthropologist 103(4): 954–967.
Coleman, J. S. (1997) ‘Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital’, in A. H. Halsey,
H. Lauder, P. Brown and A. Stuart (eds.) Education Culture Economy and Society.
Oxford University Press: Oxford, 80–95.
Consejo Nacional de Población. (CONAPO) (2000) Indices de Intensidad migratoria México-
Estados Unidos [WWW document]. URL http://www.conapo.gob.mx/index.php?
option=com content&view=article&id=317&Itemid=15 [accessed 8 July 2004].
Consejo Nacional de Poblacion (CONAPO) (2004) Encuesta sobre emigración en la Frontera
Norte de México [WWW document]. URL http://www.conapo.gob.mx/mig int/3.htm
[accessed 8 July 2008].
Conway, D. and Cohen, J. (1998) ‘Consequences of Remittances for Mexican Transnational
Communities’. Economic Geography 74(1): 26–44.
Cook, S. and Binford, L. (1990) Obliging Need: Rural Petty Industry in Mexican Capitalism.
University of Texas Press: Austin.
Cornelius, W. A. (1991) ‘Los Migrantes de la Crisis: The Changing Profile of Mexican
Migration to the United States’, in M. González De La Rocha and A. Escobar Latapı́
(eds.) Social Responses to Mexico’s Economic Crisis. University of California: San
Diego, 155–194.
Durand, J., Massey, D. S. and Charvet, F. (2000) ‘The Changing Geography of Mexican
Immigration to the United States 1910–1996’. Social Science Quarterly 81(1): 1–15.
Durand, J., Massey, D. S. and Zenteno, R. M. (2001) ‘Mexican Immigration to the United
States: Continuities and Changes’. Latin American Research Review 36(1): 107–127.
Faist, T. (2000) The Volume and Dynamics of International Migration and Transnational
Social Spaces. Clarendon Press: Oxford.
Faist, T. (2005) ‘Espacio Social Transnacional y Desarrollo: Una Exploración de la Relación
Entre Comunidad, Estado y Mercado’. Migración y Desarrollo segundo semestre (5):
2–34.
Fernández De Castro, R., Garcı́a Zamora, R. and Villa Freyer, A. (eds.) (2006) El Programa
3×1 Para Migrantes. ITAM/UNAM/Porrúa: México.
Gamio, M. (1930) Mexican Immigration to the United States. The University of Chicago
Press: Chicago.
Glick Schiller, N., Basch, L. and Blanc-Szanton, C. (1999) ‘Transnationalism: A New Ana-
lytic Framework for Understanding Migration’, in S. Vertovec and R. Cohen (eds.)
Migration, Diasporas and Transnationalism. Edward Elgar: Cheltenham, 26–49.
Goldring, L. (1999) ‘The Power of Status in Transnational Social Fields’ in M. P. Smith and
L. E. Guarnizo (eds.) Transnationalism from Below, Vol. 6. Transaction Publishers:
London.
Gregory, L. M. (1986) Rural Out-Migration in Oaxaca, Mexico. An Historical Perspective.
Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Georgia: Athens.
Guarnizo, L. E. (2003) ‘The Economics of Transnational Living’. International Migra-
tion Review 37(Special Issue: Transnational Migration: International Perspectives):
666–699.
Haller, W. and Landolt, P. (2005) ‘The Transnational Dimensions of Identity Formation:
Adult Children of Immigrants in Miami’. Ethnic and Racial Studies 28(6): 1182–1214.
Hancock, R. H. (1959) The Role of the Bracero in the Economic and Cultural Dynamics of
Mexico: A Case Study of Chihuahua. Hispanic American Society, Stanford: California.
Hirsch, J. S. (1999) ‘En el Norte la Mujer Manda: Gender, Generation, and Geography in a
Mexican Transnational Community’. American Behavioral Scientist 42(9): 1332–1349.
Hondagenu-Sotelo, P. (1992) ‘Overcoming Patriarchal Constraints: The Reconstruction of
Gender Relations among Mexican Immigrant Women and Men’. Gender and Society
6(3): 393–415.
Hondagenu-Sotelo, P. and Avila, E. (2000) ‘‘‘I’m here but I’m there’’: The Meaning of Latina
Transnational Motherhood’, in K. Willis and B. Yeoh (eds.) Gender and Migration.
Edward Elgar: Cheltenham, 331–356.
Husholf, M. (1991) ‘Zapotec Moves: Networks and Remittances of US -Bound Migrants
from Oaxaca, Mexico’. Nederlandse Geografische Studies 128( special issue).
Instituto Nacional de Estadı́stica Geografı́a e Informática (INEGI) (2003) Anuario Estadı́stico
de los Estados Unidos Mexicanos [WWW document]. URL http://www.inegi.org.mx/
prod serv/contenidos/espanol/biblioteca/default.asp?accion=2&upc=702825160173&
seccionB=bd [accessed 11 August 2003].
Instituto Estatal Electoral de Oaxaca (IEEO) (2009) Usos y Costumbres [WWW document].
URL http://www.iee-oax.org.mx/index.php?option=com content&task=view&id=29&
Itemid=42 [accessed 30 November 2009].
Jones, R. (1992) ‘US Migration: An Alternative Economic Mobility Ladder for Rural Central
Mexico’. Social Science Quarterly 73(3): 496–510.
Kearney, M. (1995) ‘The Effect of Transnational Culture, Economy, and Migration on
Mixtec Identity in Oaxacalifornia’, in M. P. Smith and J. P. Feagin (eds.) The Bubbling
Cauldron: Race, Ethnicity, and the Urban Crisis. University of Minnesota Press:
Minneapolis, 226–243.
Kearney, M. (1996) Reconceptualizing the Peasantry: Anthropology in Global Perspective.
Westview: Boulder and Oxford.
Klaver, J. (1997) From the Land of the Sun to the City of Angels: The Migration Process
of Zapotec Indians from Oaxaca, Mexico to Los Angeles, California. Koninklijk
Nederlands Aardrijksundig Genootschap/Instituut voor Sociale Geografie Universiteit
van Amsterdam: Utrecht.
Levitt, P. (2001) The Transnational Villagers. University of California Press: Berkeley,
London.
Levitt, P., De Wind, J. and Vertovec, S. (2003) ‘International Perspectives on Transna-
tional Migration: An Introduction’. International Migration Review 37(Special Issue:
International Perspectives on Transnational Migration): 565–575.
Loaeza, E. and Martin, S. (eds.) (1997) Estudio Binacional Mexico – Estados Unidos Sobre
Migracion. Secretariá de Relaciones Exteriores: Mexico.
Mahler, S. J. (1999) ‘Engendering Transnational Migration. A Case Study of Salvadorans’.
American Behavioral Scientist 42(4): 690–719.
Marcelli, E. A. and Cornelius, W. A. (2001) ‘The Changing Profile of Mexican Migrants to
the United States: New Evidence from California and Mexico’. Latin American Research
Review 36(3): 105–131.
Martı́nez, J. (1957) Mexican Emigration to the United States 1910–1930. University of
California: San Francisco.
Massey, D. S. (1987a) ‘The Ethnosurvey in Theory and Practice’. International Migration
Review 21(4): 1498–1522.
Massey, D. S. (1987b) Return to Aztlan : the Social Process of International Migration from
Western Mexico. University of California Press: Berkeley.
Massey, D. S. (1998) Worlds in Motion : Understanding International Migration at the End
of the Millennium. Clarendon Press: Oxford.
Massey, D. S. and Espinosa, K. E. (1997) ‘What’s Driving Mexico – US Migration?
A Theoretical, Empirical, and Policy Analysis’. American Journal of Sociology 102(4):
939–999.
Massey, D. S. and Parrado, E. A. (1998) ‘International Migration and Business Formation in
Mexico’. Social Science Quarterly 79(1): 1–20.
Massey, D. S. and Zenteno, R. M. (1999) ‘The Dynamics of Mass Migration’. Proceedings
of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 96(9): 5328–5335.
Massey, D. S. and Zenteno, R. (2000) ‘A Validation of the Ethnosurvey: The case of
Mexico–US Migration’. International Migration Review 34(3): 766–793.
Massey, D. S., Goldring, L. and Durand, J. (1994) ‘Continuities in Transnational Migration:
An Analysis of Nineteen Mexican Communities’. American Journal of Sociology 99(6):
1492–1533.
Mexican Migration Project (2003) [WWW document]. URL http://mmp.opr.princeton.edu
[accessed 30 January 2003].
Moctezuma Longoria, M. (2005) ‘Morfologı́a y Desarrollo de las Asociaciones de Migrantes
Mexicanos en Estados Unidos. Un Sujeto Social y Polı́tico Extraterritorial’. Migración y
Desarrollo 5: 59–85.
Moser, C. (1998) ‘The Asset Vulnerability Framework: Reassessing Urban Poverty Reduction
Strategies’. World Development 26(1): 1–19.
Muttersbaugh, T. (2002) ‘Migration, Common Property and Communal Labour: Cultural
Politics and Agency in a Mexican Village’. Political Geography 21: 473–494.
Narayan, D. (1999) Bonds and Bridges: Social Capital and Poverty. World Bank:
Washington.
Nyberg-Sorensen, N., Van Hear, N. and Engberg-Pedersen, P. (2002) ‘The Migration-
Development Nexus Evidence and Policy Options State-of-the-Art Overview’. Inter-
national Migration 40(5): 5–43.
Pessar, P. (1999) ‘Engendering Migration Studies. The Case of New Immigrants in the United
States’. American Behavioral Scientist 42(4): 577–600.
Pessar, P. (2001) ‘Women’s Political Consciousness and Empowerment in Local, National,
and Transnational Contexts: Guatemalan Refugees and Returnees’. Identities: Global
Studies in Culture and Power 7: 461–500.
Pessar, P. and Graham, P. M. (2001) ‘The Dominicans: Transnational Identities and Local
Politics’, in N. Foner (ed.) New Immigrants in New York. Columbia University Press:
New York.
Phillips, J. A. and Massey, D. S. (2000) ‘Engines of Immigration: Stocks of Human and Social
Capital in Mexico’. Social Science Quarterly 81(1): 33–48.
Piore, M. J. (1979) Birds of Passage: Migrant Labor and Industrial Societies. Cambridge
University Press: New York.
Portes, A. (1993) ‘Embeddedness and Immigration: Notes on the Social Determinants of

Economic Action’. The American Journal of Sociology 98(6): 1320–1350.
Portes, A. (1998) ‘Social Capital: Its Origins and Applications in Modern Sociology’. Annual
Review of Sociology 24: 1–24.
Portes, A., Escobar, C. and Walton, A. (2007) ‘Immigrant Transnational Organizations
and Development: A Comparative Study’. The International Migration Review 4(1):
242–281.
Portes, A. and Landolt, P. (2000) ‘Social Capital: Promise and Pitfalls of its Role in Devel-
opment’. Journal of Latin American Studies 32: 529–547.
Reichert, J. (1981) ‘The Migrant Syndrome: Seasonal US Wage Labour and Rural Develope-
ment in Central Mexico’. Human Organization 40(1): 56–66.
Reichert, J. (1982) ‘A Town Divided: Economic Stratification and Social Relations in a
Mexican Migrant Community’. Social Problemas 29(4): 411–423.
Riccio, B. (2001) ‘Transnationalism and Identity’. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies
27(4): 581–599.
Rivera-Salgado, G. (1999) ‘Mixtec Activism in Oaxacaliformia’. American Behavioral
Scientist 42(9): 1439–1458.
Secretarı́a de Desarrollo Social (Sedesol) (2009) Programas Sociales [WWW document]. URL
http://www.sedesol.gob.mx/index/index.php?sec=801503 [accessed 1 January 2009].
Smith, R. (1998a) ‘Los Ausentes Siempre Presentes’, in S. Zendejas and P. De Vries (eds.)
Las Disputas por el Mexico Rural. El Colegio de Michoacan: Mexico.
Smith, R. (1998b) ‘Transnational Localities: Community, Technology and the Politics of
Membership within the Context of Mexico and US Migration’, in M. P. Smith and
L. E. Guarnizo (eds.) Transnationalism from Below. Transaction Publishers: London,
196–238.
Smith, R. (2003) ‘Migrant Membership as an Instituted Process: Transnationalization,
the State and the Extra Territorial Conduct of Mexican Politics’. International Migration
Review 37: 297–813.
Stark, O. and Lucas, R. E. B. (1988) ‘Migration, Remmittances, and the Family’. Economic
Developement and Cultural Change 36(3): 465–481.
Stark, O., Taylor, E. and Yitzhaki, S. (1986) ‘Remmittances and Inequality’. The Economic
Journal 96(383): 722–740.
Stephen, L. (2007) Transborder Lives: Indigenous Oaxacans in Mexico, California and
Oregon. Duke University Press: Durham, NC.
Stiglitz, J. E. (1998) Towards a New Paradigm for Development: Strategies, Policies, and
Processes. Prebisch Lecture at UNCTAD, October 19, 1998, Geneva.
Taylor, P. S. (1928) Mexican Labor in the United States. Vol. I–[III, no. 1-10]. University
of California Press: Berkeley.
Taylor, E. (1999) ‘The New Economics of Labour Migration and the Role of Remmittances
in the Migration Process’. International Migration 37(1): 63–86.
Taylor, E. and Philip, L. M. (1998) ‘Human Capital: Migration and Population Change’,
in B. Gardner and G. Rausser (eds.) Handbook of Agricultural Economics. Elsevier
Science Publishers: New York, 457–511.
Todaro, M. P. and Maruzko, L. (1987) ‘Illegal Migration and US Immigration Reform: A
Conceptual Framework’. Population and Development Review 13(1): 101–114.
Van Hear, N. (2002) ‘Sustaining Societies Under Strain: Remmittances as a Form of Transna-
tional Exchange in Sri Lanka and Gahana’, in N. AL-Ali and K. Koser (eds.) New
Approaches to Migration: Transnational Communities and the Transformation of
Home. Routledge: London and New York, 202–223.
Van Wey, L. K., Tucker, C. M. and Diaz Mcconell, E. (2005) ‘Community Organization,
Migration, and Remmittances in Oaxaca’. Latin American Research Review 40(1):
83–107.
Waterbury, R. (1999) ‘Lo que dice el Mercado: Development Without Developer in a

Oaxacan Peasant Community’, in W. Locker (ed.) Globalization and the Rural Poor in
Latin America. Lynne Reinner: London, 61–92.
World Bank (2006) Social Capital for Development [WWW document]. URL http://www1.
worldbank.org/prem/poverty/scapital/ [accessed 29 August 2007].
Wyman, D. L. (1983) Mexico’s Economic Crisis: Challenges and Opportunities. Center for
US–Mexican Studies University of California San Diego: La Jolla.
Young, C. (1976) The Social Setting of Migration: Factors Affecting Migration from a
Sierra Zapotec Village in Oaxaca, Mexico. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, London
University, London.

Social Capital, Migration and Development in The Valles Centrales of Oaxaca, Mexico: Non-Migrants and Communities of Origin Matter

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Social Capital, Migration and Development in The Valles Centrales of Oaxaca, Mexico: Non-Migrants and Communities of Origin Matter

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Bulletin of Latin American Research, Vol. 29, No. 2, pp.

Social Capital, Migration

This article investigates the importance of place-of-origin communities

Keywords: communities of origin, community organisations, home-town

© 2010 The Authors

Table 1. Population, Households and Migrants in the Sample Communities

Dı́az Ordaz San Juan Teitipac

Household level data

Source: Fieldwork survey, Oaxaca, 2002.

Communities of Origin and Social Capital

Based on substantial consensus in the literature, we understand social capital as

Migration Flows in Oaxaca

Figure 1. Regions of Oaxaca

Table 2. Oaxaca State: Concentration of Municipalities with High Migration

Total Number of municipalities

Source: CONAPO 2004.

Family Social Capital and Socialisation

Table 3. Livelihood Alternatives in all Households per Community

Dı́az Ordaz San JuanTeitipac

Total households surveyed 91 88

Source: Fieldwork survey, Oaxaca 2002.

‘My mother-in-law never liked me and my father never liked my husband,

Thus, people within these communities are socialised in a domestic environment

Social Capital, Remittances and Development

Table 4. Migration Experience of Individuals by Community

Dı́az Ordaz San Juan Teitipac

Total sample population 463 541

Source: Fieldwork survey, Oaxaca 2000.

for households in the two communities – household construction, household appliances

Table 5. Livelihood and Remittances within Migrant Households

Dı́az Ordaz San JuanTeitipac

Migrant households within total sample 46 65

Source: Fieldwork survey, Oaxaca 2002.

Dı́az Ordaz San Juan Teitipac

Migrant population in sample 85 179

Source: Fieldwork survey, Oaxaca 2002.

‘He used to call on Wednesday – even if my store was full of clients, me

Community Organisation, Reciprocity and Social Capital

Portes, A. (1993) ‘Embeddedness and Immigration: Notes on the Social Determinants of

Waterbury, R. (1999) ‘Lo que dice el Mercado: Development Without Developer in a

Вам также может понравиться