In many marginalized rural areas, labour migration has become the main subsistance strategy. Migration enhances the security of the household economy because it provides a more important and stable income than local production. However, migration rarely induces a sustainable development dynamic of sending communities. In some immigrant communities, migrants’ associations have been created in order to promote in their communities of origin a better collective management of remittances for the public good. This paper proposes to identify the main effects of these institutions through the example of three migrants’ associations based in Los Angeles from two Oaxacan rural communities: San Pablo Macuiltianguis (SPM) and San Juan Teitipac (SJT)2.
|
Profile of Oaxacan Migrant Associations Migrants are rarely insolated. They are linked to their households by a migratory " contract " which regulates the relation between family, community and the migrant. Moreover, they are often part of migratory social networks structured around belonging to a same community, or, in a more developed form, of migrant associations (MA). Migrant associations appear in immigrant communities as relatively homogenous groups, caracterized by a great identifying attachment to their sending community, as are the Zapotec MAs to which the SPM and SJT migrants belong. As in the case of most migrant associations, the oldest association of Macuiltianguenses in Los Angeles, the Organizaciòn Pro-ayuda Macuiltianguense (OPAM) and the SJT's migrant association, Nueva Esperanza, were created and are administered by the immigrants. The sending community authorities may also stimulate the creation of an association in order to maintain the immigrants’ connection to the village and/or to capture a part of the remittances, as in the case of the second Macuiltianguense association: Asociaciòn 2 de Abril (A2A). These associations represent the relatively simple organization which caracterizes most Mexican migrant associations in the United States. They are characterized by the constitution of a ruling committee (mesa directiva) composed by a president, an executive secretary, a treasurer and, depending on the association, one or more vocales, responsible for the organization of a specific activity (e.g. dances, sport events). In the case of NE and OPAM no registration or financial contribution is required for membership: eligibility only depends on belonging to the same sending community3. Thus, the characteristics of the membership reflect the immigrant community itself: a young population (average age is close to 30 years), composed by a relative majority of men, which tends, however, to disminish with the increase of the family reunification process. Urban-based immigrants are mostly employed in low level services. Three levels of participation can be identified within the SPM and SJT migrant associations. The first level is constituted by the ruling committee members. They are more long-standing immigrants, better integrated in the US, and those who belong to influential groups in the community. A second level includes a reduced number of active members who help to organize the fundraising events. They constitute the association's hard core, the ones who participate regularly in general meetings. Among them can be found ex-leaders or members of their families. The third level of participation is constituted by the majority of the sending community migrants, whom might better be called " friends " rather than " members " because of their less vigorous participation in the association's life. They do participate more or less regularly in the dances and sport events. Within the three associations, women are excluded from the posts of major responsability, although they can vote. Women are often involved in the organization of entertainment events, to which they dedicate a lot of time and effort. The organization and the functioning of these associations fit with the relatively modest objectives that they have been promoting until now. The two SPM associations dedicate most of their efforts to the organization of entertainment events in order to collect funds for the annual cultural festival at home (la Guelaguetza). These activities are aimed at maintaining the migrants' attachment to the community. Social services, such as sharing information on migrants' rights, are also organized. No development projects for SPM have been implemented, however, collection of remittances, with a strong symbolic connotation, are regularly sent for charity and social works (e.g. remittances were sent by A2A to help the victims of the Paulina hurricane) or to finance the patron's festival. In contrast, the main objective of the migrant association NE is promotion of development initiatives in the sending community. For the moment, NE has only completed one project: the purchase (US$17 000) of a van in order to convert it to an ambulance. The association organized a few entertainment events to gather this amount of money. The rapidity with which this project was realized makes the leaders confident of the realization of more important and complex projects in the future. The relationship between the sending communities and their associations, as well as the sending area context, determine the orientation of the MA towards development initiatives. The examples of SJT and SPM are illustrative. At the beginning of the 1980s, the SPM immigrant community in Los Angeles was united, leading to the creation of the OPAM. In 1995, the public engagement of OPAM leaders in defense of a minority faction within SPM divided the immigrants' community. The SPM authorities, associated with the majority faction, reacted by creating the alternative MA, A2A. The new leader of this association was designated by the SPM authorities. Since then, the SPM authorities and the new association have no contact with OPAM and are against any intervention of the latter in the community. Within SPM, the migrant association is not seen as a factor of transformation of the community and its livelihood systems. The existence of forestry activities in SPM, which provide income for micro-projects for the community (CRIM, 1999), reduces considerably the MA's role as an actor in development. However, the sending community is aware that it can rely, during a crisis, on the solidarity and the capacity of the immigrant community to collect funds quickly. In contrast, the determination of the MA, Nueva Esperanza, to implement development projects in the sending area and the success of their first initiative seem to have allowed the emergence of the association as a contributing factor to social transformation. At the level of the immigrant community, a strong leader was instrumental in forming the MA and promoting its orientation. The ability with which he led the first initiative, by beginning with a simple, low-risk mobilization project that could be implemented quickly, has dispelled the migrants’ reservations and criticisms. Moreover, the will, from the outset, to incorporate the leaders of the different institutions of the sending community in the different steps of the project cycle contributes to legitimize the association within SJT. An official document now recognizes the NE association and its role as an actor in local development. This role is important since the absence of community-based remunerative activities within SJT precludes it’s independent financing of development projects. Several meetings were organized in SJT to define the main future axis of collaboration between the diverse local institutions and NE. In order to facilitate this collaboration and to insure a better follow-up to future projects, NE is thinking of creating in SJT an association of ex-migrants which would represent NE in the community. At present, several projects are being studied with the different local actors of the community (e.g. financial help for the kindergarden, the drainage system, the construction of a dam for irrigation, or the creation of a tourist corridor in order to promote local handicraft activities). A tacit deal was struck between NE and the local institutions: the association provides the financial, technical and logistic support, and in return the community provides the labour force and keeps the ventures in good order. |
In both communities, migration plays an important role: more than half of the population lives outside the community, mainly in Los Angeles. This migration concerns the more active part of the population, which has important implications for the economic and social life of both communities. The departure of a large part of the labour force increases the importance of remittances for the households: three-quarters of the immigrants send regularly to their household an average of US$100 per month. Thus, the challenge that out-migration poses for the households and communities of origin explains the formation of institutions that regulate migration activity and whose objective is to mantain links between the sending community and the migrants.
The administration of President Salinas (1988-1994) implemented several programmes geared towards the Mexican immigrant communities under the Programa de Atenciòn a la Comunidad Mexicana en el Extranjero (PACME)4. Concurrently, the role of the Mexican Consulates in the U.S. was strengthened in order to coordinate PACME implementation. Through PACME, Mexican Consulates have stimulated the formation of migrant associations and have encouraged the latter to invest in their sending communities. Also known as "two for one", the Solidardidad Internacional Programme proposes that for each dollar that the migrant association invests in the sending area, the federal and state governments add two additional dollars. The sending communities that have taken best advantage of the programme are from Zacatecas and Jalisco. In both states, the "two for one" allowed the construction of public infrastructure (roads, a rural hospital), the donation of equipment (ambulances, etc.); and the promotion of education (school construction, educational materials).5
The migrant associations play an important role, although indirect, for household welfare. They strengthen the migratory networks and foster solidarity and selfhelp mechanisms among immigrants, and offer a range of social services. In this way, the MAs contribute to reduce the costs and the risks of the migration process, and the likelihood of success in finding and retaining work. Moreover, at a minimum, the MAs, through their capacity to collect and generate funds, play a role of "insurer" in case of local crises and urgent needs of cash in the sending communities.
Furthermore, some migrant associations, such as NE, want to play an expanded economic role, and propose alternative uses of remittances oriented towards local development. Their actions can complement and multiply the effect of individual/household remittances by creating better conditions for local investment. Their projects can stimulate local initiative by fostering in the sending communities a more positive attitude towards change. Nevertheless, the capacities of NE and the community to implement some important projects (such as a dam) are limited without any external support. The success of the association's initiatives, in the long run, will depend on its capacity to generate a more significant participation of its members, to manage well its relation with the sending community, and to win the support of other development actors.
Some recommendations can be derived from our study. The migrant associations’ capacity to collect and generate important amounts of money, and their double identity as members of the sending community and potential development actors, give them numerous advantages. However, to realize the full beneficial potential of MAs, they need to strengthen their negotiating capacity for obtaining funding and political influence by scaling up to federation level. Government policies and programmes that encourage the formation of both migration associations and federations, and the resolution of obstacles to such formation (e.g. training in conflict management, building social bridges/capital, participatory community planning, fund-raising, and others), would likely enhance the already enormous contribution of migration to the economic and social welfare of sending areas, while minimizing some of the costs of migration.
Endnotes
|
1 |
Prepared by Guillaume Lanly while at SDAR/FAO, with original research carried out in Oaxaca and Lost Angeles, CA. |
|
2 |
In the United States, there are more than 300 Mexican migrant associations, of which 170 are located in Los Angeles where we surveyed 16 migrant associations originating in Oaxaca. |
|
3 |
In 1995, following the worsening of a conflict in the community of origin (SPM), a second association of immigrants was created with different membership criteria, linked more to local community politics. |
|
4 |
PACME covers sectors as diverse as health, education and culture, the protection of migrants in the United States and in Mexico, and support for immigrant entrepreneurs. |
|
5 |
It is interesting to note that decentralization has encouraged other states to set up their own support programmes for channelling remittances from migrants and their associations (e.g., the Mi Comunidad Programme of the State of Guanajuato). |
