Topic, research questions and core concepts

This research explores how migrant associations exert influence across transnational processes. It is framed by the dialogue in the literature that aims to understand the relationship between migration and development, and, thus, engages with the so-called migration and development ‘nexus’. This nexus has oscillated between pessimistic and optimistic views over the past five decades, and even though we might be in transition towards a pessimistic new phase at the policy level, the phenomenon researched here can be framed within the optimistic discourse (de Haas, 2010a; Faist, 2008; Skeldon, 2008). Irrespective of whether we are in a pessimistic or optimistic phase, the failure to link the more descriptive field of migration within more general theories of development and social change, as detected more than fifteen years ago by authors in the field, seems to be still on-going (de Haas, 2014;

Nyberg-Sørensen et al., 2002). In relation to this, there are claims for locating either the migration-development debate or migration theories in broader perspectives of social transformation or social change (Castles, 2010; de Haas, 2010a).

Migrants, either individually or organised as transnational collective actors, have emerged as significant development agents in the above debates, especially during the last decade of the emerging nexus that involves migration and development. The policy-making arena has tended to claim that migrants have a strong potential for the development of their countries of origin⁴, and remittances or circular migration have been at the forefront of the debate concerning how to make migration work for the development of the Global South (de Haas, 2010a; Faist, 2008; Portes, 2009). The research in the field takes a more nuanced stance to the on-going processes of migrant participation in the development of societies of origin and residence.

Regarding this topic, and framed within the literature that will be explored further during this chapter and the next, the main research question that this project seeks to address is:

How do migrant associations exert influence, in residence and origin contexts, within transnational (co-development) processes?

The research sub-questions are:

• Which institutional factors and migrant assets underpin the agency of migrant associations?

• How does the agency of migrant associations change across co-development processes?

Exploring these questions entails looking for the key issues behind the variation of the influence of migrant associations across various localities which are, in turn, linked through co-development processes (understood as transnational processes) but also across migrant associations. The influence of migrant associations is exerted

4 In fact, this idea is still present in the newest international and multilateral debates such as those reflected in the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development adopted on 2015 and in the New York Declaration for Refugees and Migrants adopted by the UN General Assembly on September 2016. The latter statement recognises, for instance, ‘the positive contribution made by migrants for inclusive growth and sustainable development’ (The UN General Assembly, 2016, pp. 1–2). In article 46, the declaration expands the point and states that the signatories would like migrant contributions to development ‘to be more widely recognized and indeed, strengthened in the context of implementation of the 2030 Agenda’ (The UN General Assembly, 2016 art.46).

through them exercising their agency. The next subsection gives a definition of the main concepts entailed in this research.

1.1.2 Definition of core concepts

Key concepts in this thesis are ‘co-development processes’, ‘migrant associations’

and ‘agency of migrant associations’. These are now examined in turn.

In a primary, broad approach, co-development processes refer to transnational practices and policies aiming to link migration and development (Østergaard-Nielsen, 2011). In this dissertation, from a more operationalized perspective, a development process is appraised in two main and complementary ways. First, co-development is problematised as a public policy area, involving localities in countries of residence and origin, that aims at an outcome from the interaction between migration and development. On the other hand, it is also understood as a practice encompassing transnational projects and activities that aim to have an impact on development (within which migrants are intended to play a role) and that are (partially or totally) funded by public government institutions in host countries.

Because co-development is funded with public monies – in the form of grants – and aims to foster development goals, these type of practices follow the criteria of what is called official development assistance, or official aid⁵.

To define migrant associations, I will first delineate the meanings of 'migrant' and 'association' respectively. It is important to recognise, when using the term 'migrant', that there is an array of context-dependent inequalities that are related to occupying a subaltern position in host societies. However, the word is also used to refer primarily to those who are foreign-born as this is their main difference in comparison to the

5 The OECD Development Assistance Committee (DAC) defines Official Development Assistance (ODA) as those flows to countries and territories on the DAC List of ODA Recipients which are:

‘i. provided by official agencies, including state and local governments, or by their executive agencies; and

ii. each transaction of which:

a) is administered with the promotion of the economic development and welfare of developing countries as its main objective; and

b) is concessional in character and conveys a grant element of at least 25 per cent (calculated at a rate of discount of 10 per cent).’

(…) ‘ODA can flow directly from a donor to a recipient country (bilateral ODA) or be provided via a multilateral agency (multilateral ODA).’

From: http://www.oecd.org/dac/financing-sustainable-development/development-finance-standards/intro-to-oda.htm [last access March 9 2018]

native-born in terms of legal status and access to formal membership through citizenship (Ramakrishnan and Bloemraad, 2008a). Meanwhile, an association is understood here as an organized named group that is non-profit in nature – and to a certain degree autonomous from the market and the state spheres – whose members join on a voluntary basis with a common aim based on a particular or general interest.

Following this definition, drawing upon the work of Fennema, an association is

‘migrant’ (he calls it ‘ethnic’) when, at a minimum, about half of its members or half of its leadership is of migrant origin, including first and second generations (Fennema, 2004, p. 440). Migrant associations are an expression of migrant civil society, which refers to migrant-led membership organisations or public non-governmental institutions (Fox and Bada, 2008, p. 443). Hometown associations (widely called HTA in the literature focused on this type of actors), is a type of migrant association which is locality-based (Moya, 2005). Some authors also call HTA topophilic associations or organisations, as they are formed by people from the same community of origin (Fox and Bada, 2008; Iskander, 2015). Many of the migrant associations studied in this research are hometown associations.

The definition of migrant associations used in this research does not include associations mainly devoted to work with, or for, migrants when these associations are mostly composed and led by citizens born in the residence country (Spaniards, in this case). All of the associations studied here have accessed local assistance funds from Catalan municipalities. This entails a bias, first, towards formalized organizations (normally, accessing local funds implies, or at least, being registered in local municipal registers) and, second, towards associations that have among their aims the intention to work transnationally with their contexts of origin.

The agency of a migrant association is defined as: the capacity of a migrant association to exert some degree of influence on civic and political affairs. The comprehension used here is informed by accounts on the relationship between structure and agency, and relational views on empowerment and empowerment frameworks proposed by development scholars (Alsop et al., 2006; Kabeer, 1999;

Sewell, 1992). The agency of migrant associations interacts with structures that are defined as formal and informal institutions as well as migrant associations' assets.

These can be understood as financial, organisational or human assets. I observe the

effects of this 'action in origin' and 'action in settlement localities' by looking at two components related to civic and political stratification of organisations as outlined in Ramakrishnan and Bloemraad’s work. These components are, namely, the 'presence' and 'weight' of migrant associations (Ramakrishnan and Bloemraad, 2008a, pp. 19–

22). On the one hand, 'presence' is understood as the visibility and legitimacy of migrant associations in civic and political affairs. On the other hand, 'weight' refers to migrant associations having actual influence on civic and political affairs. Thus, I differentiate between potential and actual performance of migrant associations. The theoretical underpinnings and operationalization of the concept are discussed in chapter 2.

The next subsections sketch the main debates to which the dissertation aims to contribute.