migration, remittance and development in central america

Maria Lauridsen Jensen: 20116208 January 2015

Anthropology: Global Studies and Development

1

Contents

Migration, Remittance and Development in Central America ......................................... 2

What is development? ................................................................................................... 3

Remittance as a Governmental Strategy ....................................................................... 4

Remittance as a Source of (Un)Certainty ..................................................................... 7

A Gift That Binds People Together or Splits them Up ................................................. 9

Remittance as Development ....................................................................................... 11

Conclusion .................................................................................................................. 15

References ................................................................................................................... 16



2

Migration, Remittance and Development in Central America

Migration is huge part of the Central American societies. Migration is common both

between the countries in the region, and from Central America to the United States of

America, Canada and Europe. Migration to other regions, especially to the United

States, has increased since the 1960 because transportation has become easier. Initially

migration was mostly a male phenomenon, but since the 1990s female work migration

has grown remarkably (Bull 2010:128-131).

Remittance, the money and goods migrants send to family or friends in their

countries of origin, is part of many Central American house hold economies, and it

constitutes the most important source of foreign currency. In 2007 remittance

constituted 26.6 percentage of the GNP in Honduras and about 17 percentage of the

GNP in El Salvador and Nicaragua according to Bull (2010:80-81). BID/FOMIN,

however, holds that the numbers are 15 percentage for Honduras, 16 percentage for El

Salvador and 12 percentage for Nicaragua (cf. Sørensen 2010:12). The discrepancy

between the statistics has to do with the difficulty of measuring the informal

transactions of remittance (cf. Coutin and Hernandez 2006:192-194). Nevertheless, the

high numbers make the practice of remitting interesting to development strategies.

Drawing mainly on ethnographic material from Central America, I will argue that

the value of remittance should not be measured solely from an economic perspective. I

will provide the reader with a perspective on remittance respectively as a governmental

strategy, an investment, an income, a social tie and uncertainty. Since remittance in

several discourses is referred to as gifts, I will draw in the anthropological classic The

Gift by Marcel Mauss (2002 [1954]) and thereby unravel the social and moral

complexities inherent in the practice of remitting. Finally, I will discuss to what extend

remittance contributes to development in Central America. In order to make the final

discussion, a definition of development is required, hence that will be my point of

departure.

Benedicte Bull, whose data I have used here in the introduction, is a political

scientist; otherwise the authors I will mention are anthropologists unless stated



3

otherwise. The reader must note that since Central America is a region, this paper does

not give a detailed ethnographic account, but rather draws some general lines. This does

not mean that I am unaware of the variations from one country to another; from

community to community; or from individual to individual.

What is development?

‘Development’ is a term that is often used without further consideration of its meaning.

Development connotes progress, improvement, advancement and evolution, and the

ring of the word is positive. When used to compare countries or societies, as we do

when we talk about the developing countries, we implicitly judge those countries as

being less advanced. The scale used to measure development is first and foremost a

comparison: The developed countries are the industrialized, capitalistic Western

countries, and the developing countries are the rest. Gross National Product is the

official measuring scale of development; GNP is, however, constructed by the United

Nations in 1945 which makes it a Western invention (McMichael 2012:2-7,46).

Arturo Escobar argues that the development discourse is an instrument of the

Western world to control the so called Third World economically, socially and

culturally:

The development discourse undoubtedly brought about a new hegemonic

formation that has since significantly defined what can be thought and done

– or even imagined – when dealing with the economies and societies of

Asia, Africa, and Latin America. This hegemonic discourse transformed the

system through which identities were defined. What we now have is a vast

landscape of identities […] all of them created by the development

discourse and cataloged among the many abnormalities that development

would treat and reform through appropriate "interventions" (for instance,

literacy campaigns, the Green Revolution, birth control, basic needs

programs, and integrated rural development projects). [Escobar 1992:65-66]

Historical sociologist Philip McMichael (2012:46) likewise notes that the concept of

development throughout time has been used to make colonization and interventions by

the Western World licit.



4

I will not abandon the term development, but I will kindly ask the reader to bear in

mind that development towards capitalism is not necessarily the right development. As

McMichael (2012:11) points out through his term ‘development paradox’, development,

as we know it today, is made possible through the exploitation of human as well as

natural resources, whereby it is worthy to consider alternatives to capitalistic

development. Never the less, when contemporary governments, economists and a great

number of the general public refer to development, they refer to a movement towards

capitalism and consumerism.

Remittance as a Governmental Strategy

With a departure in the point that development is a social construction, I will in this

chapter draw attention to how politics and remittance are entangled in each other. The

focus of the chapter is governmental discourses on remittance.

Since the 1980s neoliberalism has spread throughout Latin America due to the

structural adjustment programs that the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank

and the Interamerican Development Bank require in exchange for loans. The intention

with the structural adjustment programs is to make the Third World Countries part of

the global economy in order to make them capable of financing their own development.

The programs especially aim to attract foreign investors. The structural adjustment

programs have additionally caused displacement; a worsened access to healthcare, food

resources and workers’ rights for the lower social classes; more violence and organized

crime; and a widened gap between rich and poor. On top, the engagement with the

world market creates new needs for commodities that can only be purchased if one

holds money. Whereas civil wars beforehand have been a major reason for migration,

the regional inclusion in the world economy and the additional costs of the structural

adjustment programs are now the main catalysts (Coutin and Hernandez 2006:188,199-

200; McMichael 2012:112-135; Sørensen 2010:6-9).

Even though the Central American states have opened up for the free and global

market, the freedom is limited to goods and money. People on the other hand, should be

limited by state borders – at least officially. From a theoretical perspective, however,



5

illegal migrants are very close to pure neoliberalism, since they can receive no social

benefits from any stat, and are left to make their labor competitive to the powers of the

free market. Besides, some studies argue that illegal migrants generally remit the most

(cf. Coutin and Hernandez 2006:191). Furthermore, illegal migrants provide jobs for

security and jail personal as well as smugglers and others involved in underground

businesses; and each time an illegal migrant is caught and has to pay extradition/release

fees, it is economically beneficial for the state that requires the fee (Nail 2013:125-126).

It thus seems preferable, from an economic perspective, that nation-states keep

migration illegal, but attractive.

Susan B. Coutin and Ester Hernandez (2006) have analyzed the academic and

policy discourses on remittance with a focus on remittance from the United States to El

Salvador. Coutin and Hernandez (2006:188-189,194,201) find a close connection

between neoliberal policies and remittance, and describe remittance as the ideal

neoliberal currency because they appear ‘cost-free’ and as ‘pure profit’ in the

discourses of states and international financial institutions. Coutin and Hernandez does,

however, point out that remittance is not cost-free for the migrants.

Ninna Sørensen also gives a critical perspective on the discourses on remittance.

She highlights the inconsistency between the public image of a migrant and the reality

of a migrant’s life. According to Sørensen (2010:15-17) the migrant is often portrayed

as a superhuman while abroad, but if forced to return the ex-migrant becomes deportee

trash in the public view. The superhuman image derives from the fact that many

migrants work for long hours under poor working conditions to provide for their

families at home, and the image describes what have become the moral obligations of

migrants in the view of the governments of their home countries as well as in the view

of social relations at home. Due to the public image, the migrant is also likely to be

socialized to find remitting natural – at least in the beginning of the migration. Later I

will touch upon the frustrations some migrants experience when navigating between

personal circumstances and opinion and the expectancies and opinions of the members

of their home community, and I will point out how the frustrations potentially can lead

migrants to the choice of ending the practice of remitting.



6

Both Sørensen (2010:8,12-13) and Coutin and Hernandez (2006:186-190) explain

that remittance has appeared as a national resource in governmental discourses since the

mid-1980s. The migrant is claimed to be a national resource of the home country when

he or she lives up to the superhuman image, and viewed as trash when failing to do so.

In this discourse migrants are treated as a national export of labor, and it is assumed that

the nation should be compensated for the lost labor and the loss of citizens in whom the

nation has invested in regards to for example education. Paradoxically, the countries of

origin simultaneously view remittance as a cost-free income (Coutin and Hernandez

2006:195). I interpret the two stances as an expression of the opinion that a government

on the one hand provides a basis standard of living for its citizens whom are then

expected to carry on the country, but on the other hand makes no further investment to

facilitate migration and thereby the reception of remittance. The nation state’s profit is

gained when remittance is transferred through formal banking systems. Moreover, the

remittance gradually makes it possible for the Central American governments to remove

more and more social benefits, as the migrants, in the view of the governments, seem to

provide a satisfactory alternative, namely self-financing (Coutin and Hernandez

2006:201-202). Since the 1990s several Central American governments have

incorporated remittance into their governmental strategies. They have for example

attempted to ensure and strengthen the practice of remitting by promoting transnational

communities in order to provide migrants with economic and social support abroad. The

governmental aim of transnational communities is to ease the migrant’s adaption to the

host country which makes it more attracting to go. The aim is moreover to provide the

migrant with a social network of people with the same cultural roots, whereby the

cultural tie to the home country is maintained or even strengthened, and thereby makes

remitting appealing (Sørensen 2010:8,11).

In the discourse of the U.S. government remittance is likewise claimed to be a

national resource. As a difference to the discourse of Central American governments,

the U.S. government talks about remittance as foreign aid, gifts or products of love

rather than products of exchange. The U.S. government takes credit for remittance by

arguing that it provides the migrant with an income or a (temporary) legal status (Coutin

and Hernandez 2006:186-187,190-192). Nevertheless, looking at the multiplier effect of

remittance, Leigh Binford (2003:316-317) points out that the U.S. economy gains more



7

from hosting migrants than the community of origin gains. Migrants support the U.S.

economy through their living expenses such as food and clothes, from using U.S. owned

banks to transfer money to Central America, and by being cheap labor. He also notes

that at times remittance is used to purchase U.S. produced goods in Central America

which is also beneficial for the economy of the United States. This leads him to argue

that migration and remittance widen the economic gap between the USA and the

Central American countries and thereby preserves the Central American incentive to

migrate.

Governments and analysts, proponents as well as opponents of neoliberalism, put

great effort into influencing how migrants should distribute the remittance (Coutin and

Hernandez 2006:192). But as I will get more into later, migrants cannot always control

how remittance is spent. And besides, who’s right is it to choose how migrants’ money

is spent? And if remittance is given and/or perceived as a gift, can migrants then decide

what it is used for?

Remittance as a Source of (Un)Certainty

Even though remittance in some discourses, as those described in the previous chapter,

is treated as cost-free income, it is not. Migration, which is the prerequisite of

remittance, has financial, social and psychological costs. In this chapter I will outline

how the practice of remitting is connected to a great amount of uncertainties.

Due to poverty, many Central American migrants are illegal. Migration is therefore

connected to exploitation and dangers: many pay a human smuggler to guide them, but

they still risk facing dangers such as the pandillas (narco gangs), starvation, falling of

freight trains that transport them, or drowning in one of the rivers they must cross. They

are also at the constant risk of being deported. Factors like these can traumatize a

migrant. Moreover, migrants who have successfully crossed the border to the country of

destination, and who are lucky enough to actually get a job, most likely become

exploited as cheap labor with no workers’ rights or social protection of the state; and in

some instances they must deal with racism. Also, illegal migrants cannot visit their

families at home without having to redo the route of migration (Binford 2003:325;



8

Coutin and Hernandez 2006:196; McMichael 2012:161-166; Sørensen 2010:17-20;

Stoll 2010:124,128). David Stoll (2010:130), who has done fieldwork in Guatemala,

compares migration to sending a family member off to war in the sense that there is a

great risk that the migrant will never return. Migrants miss and worry about people at

home, and those at home miss and worry about the migrants they know – neither know

if they will ever meet again (Yarris 2011). As this paragraph shows, there are many

uncertainties connected to migration.

Coutin and Hernandez (2006:196-197) explain risk taking and uncertainties to be

part of the neoliberalist project. Migration is on the one hand a response to social

insecurities, and on the other hand it is uncertain whether the migrant will succeed the

route of migration, remit, or keep remitting. In the minds of the receivers, in contrast,

remittance can be interpreted as a proof of North American prosperity, and thereby

catalyze more migration. According to McMichael (2012:163), remittance constitutes a

more stable income than other types of external income. Migration must in this

connection be seen as the quest for a better life either for oneself or for one’s family.

Migration can on the contrary, as Stoll (2010) points out, create circles of debt. Stoll

focuses on migration financed by microcredit, but no matter who the migrants borrow

money from in order to pay a smuggler, the process is the same. Exploitation and

blackmailing on the migratory route combined with debts and the cost of living in the

country of destination make it difficult for migrants to earn a surplus to send home.

Moreover, the financial transaction in itself decreases the amount of money the home

community receives (Coutin and Hernandez 2006:193). If the process of migration has

been financed by a loan that continuously grows, the migrant has even less to remit to

family and friends. Ethnographic data from across the globe reveal that migration often

is an investment of the family, because export of labor seems to be the most reliable

source of income. Being a family investment, the migrant ought to send back money

and spend less money on own needs (Stoll 2010:129; Dalsgaard 2013:291; Rasmussen

2015:5). However, as I have pointed out in this chapter, migration does not provide the

migrant with a certainty in regards to financial income, and hence the reception of

remittance in the home community is also uncertain. From this perspective, migration

appears as a bad investment.



9

A Gift That Binds People Together or Splits them Up

In this chapter I will focus on migrants who have successfully arrived at their

destination in order to describe the social aspects of remitting. By applying the theory of

Marcel Mauss I will also give an analysis of the moral aspects of remittance.

Much ethnographic data reveal that migrants are faced with strong financial

expectations and even requests from family members at home (Coutin and Hernandez

2006:196-198; Dalsgaard 2013:288-292). The expectations form a pressure that those

migrants who potentially want to return need to take into account in order to not be

exposed from their home community. This is an aspect where the migrant should act as

a superhuman, to use Sørensens (2010) term, because as accounted for in the previous

chapter financial prosperity is not a guaranteed result of migration. Besides from the

direct expectations, several ethnographic accounts point out that migrants have a wish to

help family members who cannot provide for themselves, and to contribute in times of

need. In this regard remittance functions as a kind of welfare system or insurance

system (Coutin and Hernandez 2006:198, England 2006:166-169).

Anders Emil Rasmussen (2015:2), who has worked in Papua New Guinea, explains

that villagers in the home community view remittance as being a visible manifestation

of the migrant who has sent them. Coutin and Hernandez (2006:202) similarly hold that

remittance is an absent present. Both texts agree that remittance can be a way to help in

a visible manner; remitting is a way migrants can show that they contribute to and care

about their home communities without actually being there themselves. Migrants

become present by giving money. In addition, I want to point out an interesting

observation of the English language in which the word present can be used in the

following forms: ‘to be present’ with the meaning of ‘being there’; ‘to present’ meaning

‘to hand something over’; and as a noun ‘a present’ meaning ‘a gift’ (oxforddictionaries

2015).

Rasmussen (2015:1) points out that the receivers perceive the remittance as a proof

of a social bond between sender and receiver, and he notices that to some, a migrant is

socially dead or invisible if remittance is not received. In a similar vein, Stoll

(2010:130) describes that migration is hard on marriages, because the physical distance

between spouses makes it hard for them to understand each other’s behavior. In that



10

way, the lack of remittance can lead to that the spouse at home accuses the migrant

spouse of drinking up the money or having found a new family, and that the migrant

accuses the spouse at home of infidelity. Data from Mexico also suggests that migration

is the major cause of a rising divorce rate (cf. Bull 2010:134). The breakup of families

can potentially influence the remitting practice. If the migrant establishes and has to

provide for a new family, there will be less money to remit. If the migrant distrust his or

her spouse, or if the couple breaks up, the drive to provide for the (former) spouse will

most likely decline.

The social invisibility in the home community of the migrant who fails to remit,

described by Rasmussen, is similar to the discourse of the Central American

governments that I have described earlier, in which the Central American nation states

perceive the citizens who do not remit as invisible. The point also corresponds to the

notion of ‘deportee trash’ that Sørensen (2010) has found in public discourses. Yet is to

add that remittance is a visible presence of social inequalities whereby they are symbols

of power (Sørensen 2010:14).

The social expectations surrounding the practice of remitting, the perspective that

remitting can be a visible manifestation of social as well as power relations, and the

discourse of remittance as gifts, call on the classic anthropological theory in The Gift

written by Marcel Mauss (2002 [1954]). Mauss finds that societies across the globe

share some principles in connection to the practice of giving and receiving gifts. He

(2002:3,94) argues that no gift is disinterested, and that all gifts are part of a system of

counter-services, that among other things maintain social alliances. In regards to the

practice of remitting, this corresponds to how the sponsors of for example a migrant’s

education, food, upbringing, and migration itself, expect remittance in return; it likewise

explains that migrants remit because they have interests such as maintaining social

relations, returning to the home community, or being provided for when old or sick. The

mutual exchange can create an alliance, whereby remittance functions as a binder.

Mauss also argues that morality is a central part of gifts:

The unreciprocated gift still makes the person who has accepted it inferior,

particularly when it has been accepted with no thought of returning it […]

Charity is still wounding for him who has accepted it, and the whole



11

tendency of our morality is to strive to do away with the unconscious and

injurious patronage of the rich almsgiver. [Mauss 2002:83]

Mauss’s words shed light on how remittance also as has potential to split up social

relations. On the one hand, a migrant can feel inferior to his or her sponsor if unable to

remit; on the other hand a migrant can appear dominant if giving back too much. This

questions the argument commonly hold by grass root workers that remittance is a

resource of the poor to determine their own destiny and to overcome social hierarchies

(cf. Coutin and Hernandez 2006:192). As the quote shows, Mauss’s suggestion to

overcome the establishment of unequal power relations is to be aware of the moral code

embedded in gifts, namely that they must be returned. The practice of giving and

receiving should be balanced so that no one’s dignity is on the line.

Remittance as Development

In the following I will discuss to what extend the practice of remitting has potential to

contribute to development in Central American communities. I will make use of the

findings above, but I will also draw in some new perspectives.

In an article in the Danish Foreign Ministry’s magazine “Udvikling”, journalist

Tone Aguilar (2014) portrays the Mexican village Santa María Guelacé. The village is

mainly populated by elderly, and the main source of income (besides from remittance)

is farming. Due to a lack of job opportunities, the majority of the young villagers

(female as well as male) have migrated to the USA to earn money. Some young

villagers have left their children with the grandparents until they themselves become

established in their country of destination. According to Aguilar (2014:36) only 15

percentage of the migrants from the poorest Mexican districts return from the USA. She

(2014:34-35) points out, that the high age of average results in a lack of initiative and

energy to develop the village. Aguilar (2014:37) writes that 13 percentage of the Santa

María Guelacé villagers are directly dependent on remittance, and that 80 percentage of

the village economy is indirectly influenced by remittance. As a consequence, a decline

in remittance leads to less trade in the village, the closure of shops and a decline in jobs.

The case is not unique. Robson and Wiest (2014:107,110) confirm how some Mexican



12

villages are mostly inhabited by elderly and dependent on the reception of remittance,

and that less migrants return.

The empty Mexican villages illustrate that migration and remittance do not

guarantee development. Rather, the option of migration can potentially be fatal for a

village. Binford (2003:322-323) argues that remittance is beneficial in regards to

development when it is used to support local economic activities to the extent that

migration will no longer be a necessity, and the Santa María Guelacé case strengthens

his argument by showing what can happen if local economic activities are not

supported, and when migration keeps rising.

Yet, Binford’s proposal is hard to carry out in practice, because as Stoll (2010:136)

points out, ‘most poor people are not budding entrepreneurs. Most people in wealthy

countries are not budding entrepreneurs’. Another complication of remittance as a

facilitator of development is described by Sarah England, who has worked

transnationally among Garifunas (a Central American ethnic group). England (2010:-

149-176) finds that some Garifuna in New York City are frustrated with their relatives’

and friends’ ways of spending the remittance they send them. They wish that

remittance, besides from providing for children and elderly, is spent on establishing

businesses in their home communities, but instead they see an increasing dependency on

remittance combined with the removal of family members’ incitement to work for

themselves. This takes us back to Mauss’s (2002:3) theory that no gift is voluntary in

reality. All gifts must be returned, whereby gifts create a continuous reciprocal relation.

In connection to the practice of remitting, it is in the interest of the senders/gift givers

that the money is used in a certain way. What the receiver is then expected to return to

the giver, in the view of the sender of remittance, is the practice of using the money as

the giver wishes. The frustrations of the senders can be explained by following quote by

Mauss:

The producer who carries on exchange feels once more—he has always felt

it, but this time he does so acutely— that he is exchanging more than a

product of hours of working time, but that he is giving something of

himself—his time, his life. Thus he wishes to be rewarded, even if only

moderately, for this gift. To refuse him this reward is to make him become

idle or less productive. [Mauss2002:99]



13

The quote reflects Rasmussen’s (2015:2) notion that remittance is not just money, but

also ‘familial love, relations of kin and, ultimately, personhood, in perceptible forms’.

The migrant who sends remittance puts his soul, love, ideas etc. into the process, and

one might say that the practice of remitting is a personal project. It is to outlive the

desire to carry out certain processes in the community of origin. Therefore, it is

frustrating to see ones project fall to the ground, and it thereby becomes demotivating to

keep the project alive. The practice of remitting might stop as a result of the frustrations.

If remittance is to foster development this potential issue must be acknowledged and

worked on.

Another issue England (2010:149-176) points out is that there are several

discourses within the transnational Garifuna community of how local culture and

development should be, and she explains that the discourses are not determined by

locality. Sørensen (2010:14) also provides an example of a conflict between discourses

on tradition and development. She writes that during her fieldwork in Santiago Atitlan

in Guatemala, elderly inhabitants have told her that remittance is welcome if it is used

to develop the community in a way that rebuilds the social structures that existed before

the civil war. On the contrary, Sørensen witnesses how young migrants, during the

indigenous tradition of dressing Maximón, dress the Maya deity in a style that the local

elderly describe as ‘Tex-Mex’ and interpret as a sign of the decline of their culture. Yet,

because the migrants have money, they have the final word. Similarly, Steffen

Dalsgaard (2013:283,293-294), who has done fieldwork in Papua New Guinea,

describes that migrant returnees often claim elite status, and that they throughout the

period of migration are likely to acquire a different view on life that makes it hard for

them to help develop the home community in a way that corresponds to the values of

the inhabitants who have stayed. Though Dalsgaard’s data is from a different region, it

is compatible with Sørensen’s and England’s findings. The difference between the cases

is that the migrants in the case from Guatemala and Papua New Guinea are physically

present in their home communities whereby they personally can spend money there.

The Garifunas, on the other hand, refer to money they send while they are in New York.

Clearly it is harder for a migrant to manage how money is spent when a direct purchase

cannot be made, and even if the migrant can decide how the money should be spent,

conflicting world views as well as power relations make cooperation hard. Hence the



14

three cases suggest that the moral and economic gap between migrant/returned migrant

and the inhabitants who have stayed is a source of tension that potentially can destroy

both the social and financial bond between members of a community.

As noted above, the Garifunas debate on whether remittance leads to financial

dependency or self-sufficiency; consumerism or a more locally grounded development

in the home community. This is also a debate that is present among analysts and

proclaimed experts. So is the debate on whether remittance contributes to the formal or

informal economy (Coutin and Hernandez 2006:186). Most anthropologists do

recognize that remittance may be a resource for development, but they go beyond the

economic aspect and underline the many complications that are entangled in the practice

of remitting (cf. Binford 2003:323-324; Sørensen 2010:11,19). Financial and

governmental institutions as well as organizations affiliated with the United Nations

tend to ascribe more agency to individual migrants than most anthropologist find

possible. Sørensen (2010:5,20) argues that it is necessary to take cultures of violence,

insecurity, deportations and the securitization of migration (as stricter border control

and a heightened rate of deportations) into account when calculating the effects of

remittance. Similarly, Coutin and Hernandez (2006:203) argue that the valorization of

remittance should take the lack of opportunities in the home country, the exploitation of

migrant labor, and the personal pain of the migrant into account. Never the less,

remittance is a source of hard currency in form of dollars (Coutin and Hernandez

2006:188; McMichael 2012:163); and migration can have a positive impact on

education, health and home economics (Bull 2010:81; McMichael 2012:163; Dalsgaard

2013:286; Sørensen 2010:13). Migrants have potential to influence the development in

their home communities while away by paying for e.g. friends’ or family members’

school fees, health bills, food, the establishment of shops, houses, ferries or fishing gear.

Moreover, migrants who have returned from North America or Europe provide the local

community with skills such as education, English language skills, and knowledge of life

in another part of the world – expertise that become more and more useful as the local

community becomes part of the global market or engages with foreign development

workers or tourists. Yet, Sørensen (2010:17,19) underlines that if the migrants return as

deportees, they will face discrimination that will make it hard to act out those skills. She

also explains that returned migrants who are not deportees often encounter extortion and



15

robberies. The last point makes it hard to imagine that a village such as Santa María

Guelacé in Mexico will ever develop further, if anything it seems to die out with the

elderly generation that currently inhabits it.

Last but not least it is worth questioning if the current circle of increased

privatization – increased migration – increased privatization, a circle that is built on the

neoliberal notion of the free market, is sustainable development (cf. Coutin and

Hernandez 2006:202). Interestingly, there is an alternative view on human development

in the old anthropological literature. Mauss (2002:105-106) suggests that human beings

have developed from practicing warfare to laying down the spear in order to trade; to

gradually learn how to defend interest, oppose and give without literally sacrificing

themselves to one another. However, he writes that human beings yet have to develop to

the stage of solidarity, mutual respect and reciprocation of generosity. Let this be food

for thought.

Conclusion

It seems to be a general tendency that anthropologists are more skeptical than the

economists towards relying too much on remittance in regards to development.

Anthropologists do not only regard money as value, they also take social relationships

and personal costs into consideration. Throughout this work I have demonstrated how

the practice of remitting is entangled in politics, discourses, morality, social

circumstances and personal opinion.

I have clarified that development is a social construction that politicians,

economists, development workers, migrants and other interested can use to achieve

certain goals. In regards to this point, I have accounted for how nation-states promote

remitting in order to cut down on public expenses, and to support the national economy.

I have also accounted for how migration can be seen as investment in a steady income

that can be used to support oneself, family and friends economically. Furthermore, I

have accounted for how the practice of remitting can be an investment in social ties, or

in a more powerful social position.



16

I have, however, argued that migration does not provide migrants with financial

security, and hence does not guarantee that the home community receives remittance.

The route of migration as well as the destination is filled with uncertainties. It is

uncertain whether or not the migrant will live or die on the route; succeed in entering

the destination country or be deported; achieve a job; gain a surplus to remit; or be able

to visit or move back home. Furthermore, I have pointed out that migration and its many

uncertainties can cause distrust and family breakups that potentially can be harmful to

the practice of remitting.

By applying theory of Marcel Mauss, I have pointed out that discourses that

consider remittance as free gifts are incorrect. The moral code of gift giving is that gifts

always must be returned. Moreover, until the gift has been returned, the giver has power

over the receiver. Remittance can in this manner be seen as a symbol of power and

control. Another issue I have pointed out in connection to Mauss’s theory is that if the

soul and body of a migrant is put into the work of supporting family and friends, and the

migrant then experiences that the money is used in a wrong manner, it can create

frustration. The practice of remitting might stop as a result of the frustrations over how

the money is used. Therefore, if remitting is to contribute to development, the practice

of giving and receiving should be balanced so that no one’s dignity is on the line.

Remittance can potentially foster development, but do to the dangers, hardship, and

possible psychological costs; I find migration unrecommendable as a developmental

strategy. If, however, the process of migration is succeeded, and the migrant wants to

help the home community by remitting, I find it advisable to create a shared platform

for understanding. I suggest that the sender is made aware of the power relations that are

embedded in the practice of giving and receiving gifts, and with that knowledge in mind

works towards giving the inhabitants in the home community gifts that can promote

self-confidence, self-respect, a reason to work, and maybe even a sense of pride.

References

Aguilar, Tone

2014 Bagsiden Af En Dollardrøm. Udvikling (41:5): 34-37.



17

Binford, Leigh

2003 Migrant Remittances and (Under)Development in Mexico. Critique of

Anthropology 23(3):305.

Bull, Benedicte

2010 Latinamerikanske Utfordringer. 1st ed. Kristiansand, Norge:

Høyskoleforlaget AS.

Coutin, Susan Bibler, and Ester Hernandez

2006 Remitting Subjects: Migrants, Money and States. Economy and Society

35(2):185.

Dalsgaard, Steffen

2013 The Politics of Remittance and the Role of Returning Migrants: Localizing

Capitalism in Manus Province, Papua New Guinea. In Research in Economic

Anthropology, Volume 33: Engaging with Capitalism: Cases from Oceania. Fiona

McCormack and Kate Barclay, eds. Pp. 277-302. Bradford, GBR: Emerald Insight.

England, Sarah

2006 Afro Central Americans in New York City: Garifuna Tales of Transnational

Movements in Racialized Space. Gainesville, Florida, USA: University Press of

Florida.

Escobar, Arturo

1992 Culture, Economics, and Politics in Latin American Social Movements

Theory and Research. In The Making of Social Movements in Latin America:

Identity, Strategy, and Democracy. Arturo Escobar and Sonia E. Alvarez, eds. Pp.

62-85. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press.

Mauss, Marcel

2002 [1954] The Gift: The Form and Reason for Exchange in Archaic Societies.

Translation 1990 W.D. Halls, ed. London: Routledge/Taylor & Francis e-Library.

McMichael, Philip

2012 Development and Social Change: A Global Perspective. David Repetto, Terri

Accomazzo and Lydia Balian, eds. 5th ed. Los Angeles, London, New Delhi,

Singapore and Washington DC: Sage Publications.

Nail, Thomas

2013 The Crossroads of Power: Michel Foucault and the U.S./Mexico Border Wall.

Foucault Studies (15):110-128.

oxforddictionaries

Gift. Electronic

document, http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/gift#gift, accessed

January 6th, 2015.

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/gift#gift



18

Rasmussen, Anders Emil

2015 Visible while Away: Migration, Personhood and the Movement of Money

Amongst the Mbuke of Papua New Guinea. In Objects and Imagination. Berghahn

Books.

Robson, James P., and Raymond Wiest

2014 Transnational Migration, Customary Governance, and the Future of

Community: A Case Study from Oaxaca, Mexico. Latin American Perspectives

41(3):103.

Sørensen, Ninna Nyberg

2010 The Rise and Fall of the "Migrant Superhero" and the New "Deportee Trash":

Contemporary Strain on Mobile Livelihoods in the Central American Region.

Copenhagen: Danish Institute for International Studies.

Stoll, David

2010 From Wage Migration to Debt Migration? Latin American Perspectives

37(1):123.

Yarris, Kristin Elizabeth

2011 The Pain of "Thinking Too Much": "Dolor De Cerebro" and the Embodiment

of Social Hardship among Nicaraguan Women. Ethos 39(2): 226.

migration, remittance and development in central america

Documents