c

 

p
pp
p p p  p pp p  pp

Mexican migrants have travelled north to the United States in search of employment for over

100 years, it is estimated that around 11.5 million currently reside there (Pew Hispanic

centre, 2009). This migration has had many impacts on both Mexican and North American

society. One of the greatest of these impacts for Mexico is the remittances that Mexican

immigrants send back home to their families. Statistics tell us that Mexicans received 21,132

million dollars in remittances in 2009 (Inter-American Development Bank, 2010). These

figures give us an overview of the magnitude of this phenomenon but tell little if anything

about the impact this money can have on the lives of the Mexican people.

In recent decades the high increase in remittance flows has sparked huge interest in their

potential for development. Development in itself is a complex concept and its sheer meaning

is debated widely among academics of all disciplines, for the purpose of this assignment I

will look at Amartya Sen¶s notion of development as freedom. Sen (1999) approaches

development µas a process of expanding freedoms that people enjoy¶ (3). For Sen, freedom is

the expansion of the capabilities of people to control their own lives. Sen¶s approach

contrasts with views on development that associate it with growth of gross domestic product

or technological advance. He acknowledges that income can be a great contribution to the

expansion of freedoms, but notes that income indicators alone are inadequate to measure the

quality of people¶s lives. Sen measures development through 5 different types of freedom in

his book, however he notes there are more. This assignment will address three of these;

economic facilities, social opportunities and political freedoms.



c

 


Families and households are direct beneficiaries of remittances; early studies in the 1980¶s

explored the direct effects of remittances and argued that these groups are more likely to

spend remittances on current consumption than for productive uses and that in turn

remittances lead to dependency and lack of development.

In the early 1980¶s Reichert looked at the impact of remittances on Guadelupe, a poor

farming community that had 80 years¶ experience of migration. He divided the community¶s

population into three groups; legal migrants, illegal migrants and non-migrants. Reichert

carried out a survey of housing stock and access to consumer goods, and found inequalities

among these groups µlegal migrants occupied the highest economic stratum in Guadalupe

followed by illegal immigrants, non-migrants tended to be the poorest people in town¶

(Binford, 2003: 307). He found that legal migrants invested in the improvement of the

community but at the same time, they were the ones that mostly benefited from these. In

Guadelupe, legal migrants were also investing in land, which provoked a hike in land prices

putting land beyond the reach of the most non-migrants. Reichert noted that this growing

inequality had an effect on the younger generations who came to see migration as a positive

way on enhancing opportunities, which provoked a desire to migrate instead of carrying on

with their education in Mexico. These observations led Reichard to see migration to the U.S

as a syndrome µhouseholds had become dependent on the income from migration, and

trapped, perhaps unknowingly, in a vicious circle in which only migration provided the

means for sustaining the very materially improved lifestyles that the remittances had made

possible¶(Binford, 2003: 308).



c

 


Similar studies were carried out by Wiest (1979) in the rural town of Acuizio, Michoacán and

Mines (1981) in the community of Las Animas, Zaxateca, both observations came to similar

conclusions to those made by Reihert. Wiest came to view migration from Mexico to U.S as

an addiction, his study demonstrates that µ migration from Acuzio was accompanied by

material improvement, migration- based socio-economic divisions, invidious comparison,

inflated land prices and declining corporate kin group control over resources¶ (Binford, 2003:

308). Mine¶s study concluded that migration was as a µdouble edged sword¶ that allows

migrants to achieve higher living standards but has become solely dependent on continued

migration to the U.S (Binford, 2003: 309). All of these studies agreed that remittances were

spent most frequently on current consumption rather than productive investment and

demonstrated that remittances caused social and economic inequalities. They all viewed the

impact of remittances on development as negative, but more recent studies have explored

these assumptions in different ways and have more positive views on this phenomenon.

Durand and Massey (1992: 27-29) argue that instead of making generalisations regarding the

lack of productive use of remittances it is important to address why productive investment

occurs in some communities and not in others. Their analysis of four different Mexican

communities demonstrates that the community, to which one belongs, is one of the strongest

determinants of productive investment. Some locations have limited opportunities to invest in

production due to factors such as isolation from natural markets and unsuitable land or lack

of water for agriculture. Their analysis also found that at certain stages of people¶s lives they

tend to prioritize their income on certain things. It showed that while young adults are more

inclined to spend on µfamily maintenance, housing and medical care¶ as migrants get older

they are more µlikely to invest in agricultural inputs that raise productivity, such as

machinery¶. Their final finding shows that different eras present different opportunities for



c

 


investment. Durand and Massey give us an insight into some of determinants of productive

investment however they fail to give us a full picture of all the determinants that affect a

household¶s ability to invest in productive uses.

Zárate- Hoyos (2005: 166) shows some of the characteristics of remittance receiving

households found in the National Survey of Demographic Dynamics (ENADID). This survey

found that 23 percent of households that receive remittances are benefactors of remittances

from migrants that do not belong to their households and that in 44 percent of these

households the head was over 64 years old. Zárate- Hoyos suggests that this indicates that

these households might not use remittances for productive investment, because they lack

working age adults with the ability to invest. Further data from this study indicates that

approximately one third of remittance receiving households have at least one other relative

living with them and four in ten households that receive remittances do not receive any

income from other members of the household (167). Further analysis by Zárate- Hoyos (168)

looks at the data from the National Income and Expenditure Survey (ENIGH), this data

informs that migrant households are more likely to house their extended family than non

migrant households and that remittance receiving households have a higher inactive part of

the population than non-remittance receiving households. This data would suggest a certain

dependency on remittances but more data would be required to evaluate whether these

households have become dependent on remittances, or whether remittances are a necessity

for the survival of the household. Age of the non active µdependents¶ and employment

opportunities in the local area, are things to keep in mind when assessing how dependent

households are on remittances.



c



M l t t t l l i t t t

ti t t ti i t t it l t t l ill

t t l i t i l t i t ti l

lit t t i t t i i t t t l ti i t t t l

l t t i ti t t i t t t t t ti

t t itt i i l i

i t ti l

it :i

t : i

i i ti t itt i i

l ti i t l

t t ll i

itt iti

l l t t i ti

t i t i ti i ti

i lt i l

il t t i ti i t t i t tt t

t t t itt i i l lt ti l

i i t t i t t ti t t l

i t ti t t tti i t t t i i

l t i i itt l tt i

i t ti t t t ll l ii Bi : i li t

t i t

i i itt l ti ti
ti i t t t i l i l i it
l t t i ti i t i t t it t t ti l t
c

 


yield some benefit ± whether social, economic or even psychological ±

and a narrower conception of µproductive investment.¶

Binford argues that in order to determine whether an investment is productive or not,

repeated surveys of the same households or long-term ethnographic studies would be needed.

He suggests that in lack of such studies it would be advisable to use a µconservative approach

to investment¶. Such an approach however would lead to an incomplete vision of the impact

that remittances can have on development. Consider the following statement by Zárate-

Hoyos (2005: 183)

Funds allocated to new housing and housing improvement have a positive

impact on hygiene and physical well-being, raise labour productivity and
enhance property values. Outside observers may overlook productive
enhancements funded by remittances, and argue instead that these
expenditures fuel inflation without adding to the capital stock of the
nation.
(2005: 183)

If we were to dismiss money spent on housing, education or health for example as

investments, we could miss the importance they have on the development at household level

and may simply view them as detrimental to the overall economy.

It is important not to over -generalize when talking about the phenomenon of remittances in

Mexico as it is very heterogeneous. Indeed, many households do not invest productively in

business, but there are also many success stories. The migrants in San Francisco del Rincón,

Guanajuato invested their remittances in workshops that produce trainers and shoes that have

now become the leading local product. The migrants of Ario de Rayón, Michoacán have

invested amongst other things in the manufacture of wedding decorations made with orange

blossoms and are now selling these both in Mexico and the United States (Durand, Parrado

and Massey, 1996: 426) in both of these cases direct investment has had a positive impact on

households, communities and the Mexican economy. Furthermore even households that



c

 


spend all their remittances on current consumption can produce an indirect positive effect on

local, regional and national economies

By focusing narrowly on the share of migradollars spent on consumption...

prior research has grossly undervalued the role of US earnings in promoting
economic development within Mexico. By ignoring the varied and substantial
multiplier effects of consumer spending, investigators have failed to appreciate
how migradollars contribute to growth indirectly as they work their way through
national, regional and local economies.
(Binford, 2003: 314)

Remittances allow households to spend more on food and clothing, most of these items

have been produced or manufactured in Mexico, more demand allows for more

production which in turn allows Mexican entrepreneurs to expand business and therefore

create more jobs. Spending on education, health and housing creates a demand for more

teachers, nurses, doctors, architects and builders as well as a demand for housing

materials which are largely produced in Mexico (Durand, Parrado and Massey, 1996:

425).

Although this demonstrates a positive and promising vision of how remittances can

benefit others and not just those who receive remittances, one must question if these

indirect effects really benefit communities or if money created by these direct effects

bypasses communities and goes straight into the pockets of wealthy entrepreneurs in

urban cities. Durand, Parrado and Massey, (1996) studied the indirect effects of

remittances on three rural communities, La Yerbabuena (Guadelupe), Chavinda and

Ario all situated in the state of Michoacán. In Yerbabuena they estimated that $499,000

in remittances from the U.S, raised the village income by $877,000, this in turn meant

that 51% of Yerbabuena¶s income came directly or indirectly from remittances (437).

The other communities gave similar results, in Chavinda it was estimated that $1,841 in



c

 


remittances raised the village income by $3,271 while in Ario $2,091 raised the income

by $3,716. Once the indirect and direct effects of remittances were considered it showed

that they accounted for 93% of local income of Chavinda, and 62 % of the total local

income of Ario (38). Although this study was on a small sample of Mexican remittance

receiving communities, it demonstrates that U.S migration has the potential to stimulate

and improve economy at community level, not just at regional and national levels.

While addressing the potential that remittances possess for boosting local economies, it

is still unclear as to whether everyone benefits from remittances. Discussions

surrounding the impact of remittance on inequality in Mexico have led to ambiguous

findings. I have already discussed that early research in the 1980¶s like Reichard¶s

showed that remittances increased inequality. More recent studies have looked at the

factors that can increase or decrease inequality.

A study by Taylor and Yitzhaki (1989 and 1988) looked at the impact of remittances on

inequality in two villages in Mexico, one with a long history of migration and another

that was newer to the migration scene. Their findings show that the effect of remittances

on inequalities can change over time and is dependent upon how accessible migration

information and contacts become to the village population. If migration contacts and

information are spread freely among households, migration and receipt of remittances in

poorer households is likely to happen and can reverse the effects on remittances on the

inequality of incomes (Rapoport and Docquier, 2005: 67).

Another study on the impacts of remittances on inequality was undertaken by McKenzie

and Rapaport (2004) in which they looked at two different sets of data, one which



c

 


consisted of data from 57 rural Mexican communities and another which gave a

representative sample of 97 rural Mexican communities. From this data they found that

the presence of migration networks increased the chances of migration, and that

communities with a higher level of migration experienced less inequality. They also

noted that migration can increase inequality in communities with lower rates of

migration; however the inequality reduces as the migration levels increase. (Rapoport

and Docquier, 2005: 69).

Binford (2003) argues that discussions that show remittances as reducing inequality are

flawed, he believes that as the sending of remittances increase so will the inequalities

(Cohen, Jones and Conway, 2005: 90). This on-going debate has yet to be resolved but

Cohen, Jones and Conway (2005) shed a positive light on the argument as they note that

many current studies have demonstrated that class differences in Mexico are decreasing.

They also point one simple but important piece of information µrural Mexican

communities were stratified socially and economically long before the onset of

migration¶ (90).

The arguments surrounding the positives and negatives of the impacts of remittances

upon devoplment and the increase or decrease of inequality they may cause, sometimes

overshadows the real potential they can have for improving the life of many people. In a

research report by López, Escala-Rabaden and Hinojosa-Ojeda (2001) on the state of

Oaxaca, they inform us of the living conditions of some of the Mexican population. This

demonstrates how migration becomes a necessity, rather than a luxury for some

Mexican households. They report that0 in the state of Oaxaca µover 46 percent of the

municipalities have a high degree of poverty, only 59% of households have a sewer



c

 


system, about 35% of households lack portable water, and more than 10% of households

have no electricity¶ (11). It is therefore understandable that Oaxaca has a high rate of

emigration compared to other Mexican states. In their Research López, Escala-Rabaden

and Hinojosa-Ojeda interviewed migrants on the reasons they choose to emigrate

All of our participants provided us with extensive narratives

portraying their communities as dead-end paths, characterized
by recurrent unemployment and a lack of opportunities.
One of them mentioned that ³the worst problem that prevails in Oaxaca,
and I guess that everyone from there knows it, is unemployment, that was
the key thing that made us leave our hometown behind´ (12).

Oaxaca is just one example of how bad situations can be in rural Mexico. Other reports

estimate that µmore than half of rural Mexican lives in poverty and 25 percent live in extreme

poverty¶ (Wainer, 2011). So it really comes as no surprise that these people choose to migrate

and send back remittances to provide the basic needs to their families. It is evident that for

some Mexicans, migration is a key factor to their household¶s well-being and survival. One

must question how these people would survive without the option of migration.

Scholarly discussions surrounding remittances while failing to show the real necessity of

survival for some households also tend to fail to take into consideration some of the lengths

people go to, to survive and some of the dangers they are faced with. The decision to migrate

is no easy one and crossing the border is no simple task as migrants become victims of rape,

theft, murder and accidental death in the process. (Binford, 2003: 323). In 2005, 465 people

trying to cross the border from Mexico into the U.S died of cold, heat, thirst, hunger, or were

shot (Hall, A: 308). This can leave families faced with devastating consequences and having

to cope with worst conditions than they were originally in.

c

c

 


The practice of using remittances as a tool for survival may work well as a palliative for the

immediate needs of some households, but this is by no means a cure to the real problem.

With the strengthening or borders controls, growing insecurity in the economy of the U.S and

the growing pressure from U.S nationals on the government to curb immigration we are left

to wonder what lies in the future for Mexican immigrant households and their communities.

The increase in Home Town Associations (HTAs) and government matching schemes

appears to be having positive impacts on some communities, the next part of this assignment

will explore these and ask the question of just how capable they are of channelling some

remittances, to aid a more sustainable development that creates new opportunities and

decreases the need for Mexicans to migrate.

In recent years some scholars have turned their attention towards the growing phenomenon of

HTAs. Home Town Associations are organisations formed by Mexican migrants in the U. S

to raise funds and organize projects in their hometowns in Mexico. HTA¶s raise money

through private donations and fundraising activities such as raffles, dances and rodeos, some

of the HTAs also have membership funds that contribute to the donations they send back

home. These funds are sent back to their hometown in the form of collective remittances to

invest in projects in their local community, such as the construction or renovation of schools,

streets and health care facilities, funding of schools, old people¶s homes and nurseries,

donations of supplies for hospitals and schools and the setting up of local businesses. To

assist the HTA¶s in their projects the government has set up fund matching programmes such

as the 3x1 Program for Migrants, a program implemented in 2002 to match the funds from

the HTAs at federal, state and municipal level.

The purpose of the programme is to increase the coverage and the quality of
basic social infrastructure in localities with a high proportion of population
living in poverty, social backwardness or high migration, following the
investment initiatives of migrants abroad. It also aims to strengthen links



c

 


between migrants and its communities through collaborative development projects

and the organization of migrants abroad.
(Aparicio and Meseguer, 2008: 11)

The different levels of government act foremost as financial sponsors and have no

involvement in the decisions made by HTAs and their hometowns. All projects are decided

by the migrants, however different HTAs have different organising structures. Some HTAs

will make the decision of what projects to implement back in U.S and just have a contact

person in the hometown; this set-up can be criticized as migrants in the U.S might lack

awareness of the real need of their hometowns. Other HTAs choose to work with counterpart

associations in their hometown, giving them an increased knowledge of the needs of their

communities. The final part of this assignment will focus on the impact that HTAs can have

on community development and some of the scholarly arguments this has provoked

Orozco and Welle (2006) conducted a study in four rural communities in Jerez, Zacateca to

find the extent to which HTA matching grant projects were enhancing community

development. For the study they created a scorecard in which they intended to rank each

project on four criteria; ownership, correspondence, sustainability and reliability. The

assessment they used for each criteria is in the table below.



c

 


The four projects they investigated were as follows:

ap The San Juan de Centro, School Rehabilitation Project, a renovation project on an

adjoining primary and secondary school that had been in a bad condition for over a

decade. This project also enabled the school to now offer adult education and

computer classes This project was overseen by students¶ parents who later went on to

join the school board and still play a part in the decision making of the school. The

school is maintained by local government and state government welfare programmes,

members of the community also assist by donating a small fee for computer classes

and the school continues to receive funds from the HTA to keep up the repairs and

invest in new equipment.

ap Jomulquillo: Microenterprise Project. This project was designed to build a workspace

for seven ladies who had set up a sowing cooperative. The women oversaw the

construction of this project and then applied for a government loan to assist with the

set-up costs. Jomulquillo is a community with limited investment opportunities and

jobs for women are very scarce. So opportunities like this are really capable of

changing these ladies lives.

ap Sauz de los García: Potable Water Project. After 25 years of trying to bring potable

water to the community, a project funded by HTAs and the 3X1 program made this a

reality. This installation is very sustainable due to its simple maintenance and a long

life span. More importantly it serves a basic need that all the community can benefit

from.

ap El Briseño: Lamb Producing Project: This project allowed a cooperative set up by

nine residents of the community to produce lambs for the market, they purchased 200




c

 


lambs, corrals and feed with their initial funding. Since this project was launched it

has raised enough income to sustain itself and now has a livestock of 1000 lambs.

These projects provide an insight of how collective remittances and government matching

programs can enhance communities and everyday people¶s lives. After analysing the projects

with their ownership, correspondence, sustainability criteria, Orozco and Welle concluded

that HTAs were increasingly playing a part in the development of Mexican communities. All

these projects had involved and enhanced the lives of some members of the community;

however the degree of participation and ownership is dependent on the dynamics of the

project. They gave good scores for correspondence on all of these projects, but although they

found that these projects met the basic needs of the people, one must question if projects

based on 7 ± 9 people really benefit the basic needs of all the community. They note that the

lamb producing and water producing projects show great hopes of being sustainable, but the

micro enterprise has yet to be able to sustain itself which causes some worry, as other people

could be benefitting from the money invested in this and putting it to better uses. Also the up

keeping of the school is dependent on donations, so if this ceases the school could face

returning to its original state. The score card below demonstrates how these projects measure

up against the criteria used for this research. Orozco and Welle suggest using these

scorecards to measure future projects. It is clear that some research into the potential of these

projects should be done before projects are given investment to ensure that some long term

benefits can be gained by the project.



c

 


Although it is questionable if some of these projects were putting the basic needs of the

community first, they have all enhanced the life of their participants in some ways. I have yet

to address however if these projects are really enhancing the lives of the most needed in

society.

Aparicio and Meseguer (2008) undertook a study to evaluate the capacity of the 3x1 program

to target the poorest municipalities as they were concerned that the program was favouring

municipalities with long histories and high levels of migration which were therefore better

organized. Analysing data of municipal participation in the 3x1 program they discovered that

µvery poor municipalities receive lower amounts and fewer projects than wealthier localities

with similar levels of migration¶ (3). They note that even though the most likely to participate

in the 3x1 program were the poor, they received fewer projects and less quantities of money

than better off municipalities, indicating that those with real need were not the main

benefactors of these projects. Aparicio and Meseguer were also concerned that clientelistic

practices were occurring within the program, as previous research had found that local

politicians in Jalisco had used the 3x1 programme to try and buy votes and that in Moreal¶s

election in Zacatecas migrants had been given positions in cabinet in acknowledgement to the

 

c

 


electoral support he had received from HTAs. They found that states and municipalities ruled

by ½

 
 (PAN), the governing political party in Mexico µwere more

likely to participate and to receive more projects¶ (25). It is important to acknowledge that it

is the better off municipalities that tend to vote for PAN, which places a doubt on the 3x1

program to satisfy the needs of the most needed Mexican communities.

Villacrés (2008) suggests that scholars should move beyond arguments of political influence

on HTAs and instead consider their ability to deepen democracy. She argues that µHTAs

have the potential to deepen democracy in four significant ways¶. Firstly by nurturing civil

society through the creation of strong networks of civic engagement between migrants,

community residents and local government in which they are all working together towards a

same objective. µthis nurtures civic consciousness and fosters a sense of community¶ (9), This

in turn promotes inclusion and gives a sense of citizenship that is crucial to the deepening of

democracy. Secondly she notes that HTAs foster the active practice of politics. Political

participation is a key factor in inclusion of citizenship and the intertwined deepening of

democracy. HTA¶s encourage citizens to practice politics enabling them to make claims for

development needs in their communities and proposing solutions for these, this opens up

spaces that facilitate communication and engagement between actors at all levels in which

hierarchal hegemonic power structures become relaxed, opening up spaces for more parallel

power relations. Villacrés¶s third argument is that HTA state partnerships increase state

accountability and transparency. Like in most Latin American countries, Mexico¶s state-

civil society relations have been characterised by patronage and populism in which citizens

become clients and lack means of holding the government accountable for their actions.

µHTAs facilitate consultation between the local state and civil society through constant

feedback and negotiation... allow migrants and hometown residents to break clientelistic

 

c

 


chains and effectively engage the state as autonomous but equal actors¶ (11) These new

relationships have the potential to increase accountability and transparency however there is a

risk of state becoming more accountable to the HTA but not the community at large, again

this demonstrates that community members must play a bigger part in these projects

especially if a deepening of democracy is to be achieved. The final point that Villacrés raises

is that HTAs can reduce inequality and social exclusion by promoting popular participation

through institutions that allow migrants and community members to play an active and equal

role in their own futures. However HTAs must take responsibility and encourage avoiding

use of their new found positions for personal benefit. Villacrés provides a good argument of

how HTAs can deepen democracy and enhance citizenship in rural communities but this is

completely dependent on HTAs becoming more involved with people in their hometowns,

creating spaces of equal deliberation and therefore promoting participation of all members of

society.

This assignment has provided an insight into how individual and collective remittances can

impact on the development of communities, and households. Returning to Sen¶s development

as freedom it will now assess the weaknesses and strengths of remittances as a means of

development by looking at economic facilities, social opportunities and political freedoms.

Sen (1999: 39) categorizes economic facilities as µopportunities that individuals respectively

enjoy to utilize economic resources for the purpose of consumption, or production, or

exchange¶. Remittances are primarily an economic resource that allows its benefactors to

enhance their lives; the level of enhancement however is dependent upon many factors, like

the number of dependents, age of household members and investment opportunities in the

community. For a household with very limited resources remittances become a great source

of freedom and even though their chances to invest productively are limited, the impact of

development on these households has been positive just as it has been to those who have had



c

 


the ability to invest productively and embark on projects that will bring extra benefits for

their households and communities.

However remittances can also be seen as a way of enhancing un-freedoms as households

become over dependent on these and members of some households choose not to continue in

or look for employment. Increased inequality would also constrict the positive impact that

remittances can have on household and community development but considering that

inequalities are usually consequences of previous conditions in society any improvement to

the economic capacity of the poorest households can be regarded as beneficial.

Sen refers to social opportunities as µthe arrangements that society makes for education,

healthcare and so on, which influence the individual¶s substantive freedom to live better¶.

Remittances show great potential for enhancing development in this way. Many remittance

receiving households invest in education, healthcare and improved housing which in turn also

creates more opportunities for employment of teachers, doctors, builders and so on. HTAs

can potentially have a huge impact on development in this sense investing in schools,

ambulances, churches etc. However they must engage fully with the community to ensure

that the basic needs of these are taken into consideration and ensure the main benefactors

become those who are most in need. Governments could assist by creating a structure of

allocation of matching funds in which the worst off and most in need receive the most

investment, it appears unfair that small groups are receiving funds to set up small businesses

when other members of the population are struggling with basic resources and infrastructure.

A score card similar to that used by Orozco and Welle (2006) in their study would help to

assess the potential strengths and weaknesses of future projects. Sustainability and

correspondence should be main factors in whether projects receive investment or not.



c

 


HTAs show great potential as a means of enhancing political freedom. They have allowed

migrants and their benefactors to become political agents of their communities and they

provide immense opportunities for enhanced citizenship and the deepening of democracy.

However, this is dependent on them promoting political pluralism and creating stronger ties

and enhanced communication with their home communities. They must aim to empower

there communities as a whole as not utilize their new found power in self interest. It is also

important that they are actively involved in discussion with their communities to assess the

most important needs of these.

Remittances show the potential to have a positive long lasting impact on rural communities in

Mexico, and for many Mexicans are tools for survival. As HTAs grow in numbers one can

envisage huge developmental change in rural communities, however HTAs must take

responsibility along with the government to ensure that projects are worthwhile and benefit

communities as a whole while prioritising those most in need. However it is of great

importance to remember that remittances to Mexico are heavily dependent on the U.S, and

that the period of economic instability we live in is full of uncertainties. It seems that the U. S

will continue to need immigration to sustain their economy but the Mexican Government and

HTAs need to promote sustainable development to improve and secure the livelihoods of

migrant communities.



c

 


º 
p

p
Aparicio, F.J and Meseguer, C. (2008) µCollective Remittances and the State: The 3x1
programme in Mexican Municipalities¶ Visiting Resource Professor papers. The University
of Texas at Austin. September 15th 2008. http://repositories.lib.utexas.edu/handle/2152/4059
Accessed 29th December 2010.

Binford, L. (2003) µMigrant Remittances and (Under) Development in Mexico¶ Critique of

Anthropology, Vol.23, No. 3, 305-336.

Cohen, J., Jones, R. and Conway, D (2005) µWhy Remittances Shouldn¶t Be Blamed for
Rural Underdevelopment in Mexico: A Collective Response to Leigh Binford¶ Critique of
Anthropology, Vol. 25, No. 1, 87-96.

Durand, J. and Massey, D.S (1992) µMexican Migration to the United States: A Critical
Review¶ Latin American Research Review, Vol. 27, No.2, 3-42.

Durand, J., Parrado, E.A and Massey, D.S. (1996) µMigradollars and Development: A
Reconsideration of the Mexican Case¶ International Migration Review, Vol. 30, No. 2, 423-
444.

Hall, A.L. (2007) Moving Away from Poverty: Migrant Remittances, Livelihoods, and
Development, in Narayan, D. and Petesch, P. O 
½ 




½
 
OPalgrave Macmillan: Hampshire.

Inter-American Development Bank (2010) Remittances to the Latin America and the
Caribbean in 2009: The impact of the global financial crisis. 
http://www.iadb.org/document.cfm?id=35101526 Accessed 5th Jan 2011.

López, F.H., Escala-Rabaden, L. and Hinojosa-Ojeda, R. (2001) µMigrant Associations,

Remittances, and Regional Development between Los Angeles and Oaxaca, Mexico¶ North
American Integration and Development Center, Los Angeles. Research Report 10.
http://naid.sppsr.ucla.edu Accessed 7th January 2011.

Orozco, M. and Welle, K. (2006) µHometown Associations and Development: A Look at

Owverdhip, Correspondence, and Replicability¶ Social Science Research Council Brooklyn,
March 2009. http://www.ssrc.org/publications/view/6A12F169-3F55-DE11-AFAC-
001CC477EC70/ Accessed Jan 3rd 2011.

c

c

 


Pew Hispanic Centre. (2009) Mexican Immigrants: How Many Come? How Many Leave?
http://pewhispanic.org/reports/report.php?ReportID=112 Accessed 5th Jan 2011.

Rapoport, H. and Docquier, F. (2005) µThe Economics of Migrant¶s Remittances¶ Discussion

Paper No. 1531, March. IZA: Germany
http://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/21307/1/dp1531.pdf Accessed 23rd December 2010.

Sen, A. (1999)  

 
Oxford University Press: Oxford.

Villacrés, D.N. (2008) µFrom Subjects to Citizens: Migrant Hometown Associations as

Vehicles for deepening Democracy¶ Paper submitted for III Coloquio Internacional sobre
Migración y Dessarollo. Costa Rica, December 2008
http://estudiosdeldesarrollo.net/coloquio2006/documentos/8975Villacres.doc Accessed 3rd
January 2011.

Wainer, A.(2011) µDevelopment and Migration in Rural Mexico¶ Bread for the World
Institute Briefing Paper, No. 11, January 2011. www.bread.org Accessed 13th January 2011.

Zaráte- Hoyos, G.A. (2005) The Development Impact of Migrant Remittances in Mexico, in
D. Terry and S.R. Wilson 
 
O 
O

!

Inter-
American Development Bank: Washington D.C .