Transnational perspectives and political transnationalism

Major accounts of transnational perspectives to migration started emerging in the 1990s (Basch et al., 1994; Levitt, 2001; Portes et al., 1999). They are located within pluralist or hybrid approaches to the comprehension of the migration and development nexus (de Haas, 2010a). One of the fundamental contributions of transnational perspectives to migration studies is that migration happens to be understood as a social process linking together countries of origin and destination.

Thus, the approaches of transnationalism towards migration could be characterised as moving away from a binary comprehension of the phenomena whereby migrants are either seen as immigrants or emigrants (Nyberg-Sørensen et al., 2002, p. 14).

Therefore, by questioning dichotomies such as origin/destination, or categories such as ‘permanent’, ‘temporary’ or ‘return’, transnationalism has challenged assimilationist approaches to immigrant integration, ‘as well as the modernist political construct of the nation-state and citizenship’ (de Haas, 2010a, p. 247).

The present project is concerned with transnationalisation and the transnational perspective to migration. In fact, I consider that international development processes constitute, generally, a transnational activity. The concept of transnationalism can be defined as referring to ‘occupations and activities that require regular and sustained social contacts over time across national borders for their implementation’ (Portes et al., 1999, p. 219). Another more relational definition understands transnationalism as

‘sustained cross-border relationships, patterns of exchange, affiliations and social formations spanning nation-states’ (Vertovec, 2009, p. 2). Bearing in mind these two previous definitions, migrant transnationalism refers to those transnational practices, social relations or structures initiated/led by migrants (Goldring, 2002). Besides this, transnationalisation involves processes where not only states, but also non-state actors, maintain ‘cross-border ties, events and processes across the borders of several national states’ (Faist, 2010, p. 1668).

There are objections directed to transnational accounts because, when analysing the relationship between migrant agency and transnational social structures, these accounts tend to neglect how this agency is embedded in governmental public institutions. Therefore, they lean towards looking at processes as detached from the state, and thus transnational perspectives are being used mostly ‘to characterise social systems that were closed around themselves, finding the resources to reproduce themselves in the areas of informality, dubious legality and avoidance of national legislation’ (Lacroix, 2009, p. 1666). In the case of this dissertation, transnational processes are participated in, modified by and created by, not only migrant actors and non-migrant civil society, but also by governments and especially at the local level.

This interest can be connected to the concern for finding evidence on whether

transnational ties and formations can produce institutional change at local, national and international levels of transnational spaces (Faist, 2010, p. 1666).

Meanings of political transnationalism

Work undertaken on civic and political engagement of migrant collectives and migrant transnationalism feeds into this research. This subsection focuses on comprehensions of migrant political transnationalism that emerge from the literature.

In chapter 2 the focus is placed on strands of various sets of explanatory factors that are related to migrant transnationalism by existing scholarship.

Scholarly accounts derived from Europe and North America have different traditions regarding the subject, and therefore have examined these dynamics from different angles (Martinello and Lafleur, 2008; Østergaard-Nielsen, 2003a; Portes, 2015). For instance, there has been less research and attention to the transnational dimension of politics in Europe than in America, and even less has arisen from a comparative analysis of dynamics in origin and host contexts of migrants. Yet, in Europe, the debates have been mainly focused on immigrant political participation, referring to political participation in host countries. Also, post-national citizenship debates and the connections of immigration to state regimes have been more predominant in Europe than in North-America (Bloemraad et al., 2008; Østergaard-Nielsen, 2003a;

Portes, 2015).

In this research, comprehension of the agency of migrant associations and migrant political transnationalism are closely linked. What then is migrant political transnationalism? There is some discussion regarding the scope of the concept. I differentiate two main threads of literature. On the one hand, some authors defend the utility of taking a narrower definition of political transnationalism, based on electoral participation and influence of electoral processes or politics (Morales and Pilati, 2014). On the other hand, there are works that take a broader stance to migrant political transnationalism, covering both electoral and non-electoral forms of participation in civic and political realms (Goldring, 2002; Iskander, 2015; Itzigsohn and Villacrés, 2008; Østergaard-Nielsen, 2003a). Within this latter type of contribution, migrant practices aiming at the development of contexts in origin countries are within the boundaries of migrant political transnationalism. Following

this understanding, in this research I understand political transnationalism in a broad way, and thus the study is not mainly focused on electoral politics or electoral processes.

Indeed, the afore-mentioned research shows that, by undertaking development projects, migrants and migrant associations interact with local governments and have a role in, and capacity to, influence local politics. In particular, North-American scholarship has put more focus on exploring migrant transnationalism performed through hometown associations and the impact that these activities have on countries of origin. In this regard, there has been an important array of findings that are related to research on Mexican hometown associations based in the USA. This literature accounts for a range of different context-dependent cases, and shows how migrant involvement in their communities of origin through hometown activities often encompasses conflictual dynamics between both sides of the transnational process. In fact, the research accounts for the sometimes blurred boundaries between civic and political migrant practices, and for the evolution of migrant organisations from social and kin-based to political organisations (Fox and Bada, 2008; Goldring, 2002;

Guarnizo et al., 2003; Iskander, 2015; Itzigsohn and Villacrés, 2008). In this regard, European ethnographic accounts have, a bit later in time than the US-based literature on similar social phenomena, begun to focus on migrant political transnationalism related to development interventions by finding different ways by which kin, lineage or traditional authorities intersect with migrants and migrant associations in countries such as Ghana, Northern Senegal and Nigeria (Kleist, 2011; Lampert, 2014; Lavigne Delville, 2010; Marabello, 2013).

Concerning the capacity for social change of migrant transnationalism, the literature has moved between initial views picturing migrant transnational political actors as challenging power structures in origin and the status quo, to more nuanced views showing the rather limited scope of migrant involvement in transnational politics, and the way it is often co-opted by governments at different levels (Itzigsohn and Villacrés, 2008, p. 667). Even so authors have pointed to the potential capacity of migrants to subvert power-relations in origin, although this should not be overstated (Goldring, 2002; Itzigsohn and Villacrés, 2008; Østergaard-Nielsen, 2003a).

Regarding migrant transnational practices, their influence is often measured in terms

of exporting values and democratisation. Some of the observed processes related to democratisation are: exchange of social and political remittances; increased participation; procedures to take decisions; incorporation of new issues in the official agenda; higher degrees of openness; and greater transparency and accountability in countries of origin (Goldring, 2004; Itzigsohn and Villacrés, 2008; Levitt, 1998;

Levitt and Lamba-Nieves, 2011; Østergaard-Nielsen, 2003a).

Apart from this, when undertaking an analysis of the role played by diasporas in homeland politics, problems are raised with regard to the representativeness and lack of efforts to be accountable that arise from these attempts (Bakewell, 2009;

Østergaard-Nielsen, 2003a). Moreover, the development ideology that migrants may sustain is questionable, as is the extent to which co-development can challenge current practices and views (Bakewell, 2009; Marabello, 2013; Nijenhuis and Broekhuis, 2010). Other research focused on development interventions in Nigeria by migrant organisations in the UK stresses the relevance attributed to internal migrants by local communities in origin, rather than international migrants, in the development of communities (Lampert, 2014)

Another important finding of research assessing the relationship between migrant transnationalism and incorporation in destination countries points to the constructive, positive interaction between the two processes (Bermudez, 2010; Lacroix, 2009;

Østergaard-Nielsen, 2003a; Portes et al., 2008). However, the research also shows civic and political stratification of migrant communities and organisations in host countries, and migrant transnationalism (Cebolla-Boado and López-Sala, 2015;

Guarnizo et al., 2003; Morales and Jorba, 2010; Morales and Pilati, 2014; Østergaard-Nielsen and Acebillo-Baqué, 2016; Ramakrishnan and Bloemraad, 2008b). The concept of civic and political stratification points to the idea that not all migrants and migrant collectives engage with public and political institutions, and transnationalism, in the same way and intensity. In this sense, chapter 2 reviews the different explanations posed by scholars regarding how external and internal factors relating to migrant collectives shape these organisations' transnational practices.

Regarding the latter, for the purposes of this research, it is of special interest to understand the debates on, first, how migrant collectives become civic actors

engaging with sub-national governments and, second, what processes lead to public officials recognizing immigrants as targets of public policy and thus being eligible actors to manage public funds (de Graauw et al., 2012; Fennema, 2004; Fennema and Tillie, 1999; Ramakrishnan and Bloemraad, 2008b). For this reason, particular attention in this research is given to the framework that accounts for the components of civic and political stratification affecting migrant organisations proposed by Ramakrishnan and Bloemraad (2008). Hence, even though their definition of civic and political engagement is quite open and their study is only focused on host contexts, they propose comparing resources of organisations, their presence, and weight in order to measure civic and political stratification (Ramakrishnan and Bloemraad, 2008a, pp. 19–22). The dimensions of presence and weight are adapted for the operationalization of migrant association’s agency in this research.

To sum up, while the reviewed literature contributes greatly to the comprehension of migrant transnationalism, there are three weaknesses that this present research attempts to address. First, it is worth recalling that the engagement of migrants in organisations is often shown in the literature as a key element for understanding civic and political engagement at an individual level in host countries (Eggert and Giugni, 2010; Jones-Correa and Leal, 2001). Besides, ethnographic accounts show how the axes of social stratification that are prevalent in countries sending migrants are also structuring migrant actions in residence and at transnational level⁹. Nevertheless, the literature on migrant political transnationalism and migrant civic and political engagement in host countries does not often question if, and how, these cleavages may affect the internal power configurations of migrant associations and migrant civic and political engagement in origin and settlement. In this respect, in the case of Sub-Saharan migrants in Europe, research shows the extent to which certain cleavages are worth being explored further when analysing migrant political transnationalism (Bierschenk et al., 2010a; Daum, 1998; Grillo and Mazzucato, 2008;

Grillo and Riccio, 2004; Kleist, 2011; Lampert, 2014; Lavigne Delville, 2010;

Marabello, 2013).

9 For instance, regarding Sub-Saharan migrants, scholarship has discussed how gender (Baizán et al., 2014; Sinatti, 2014; Toma and Vause, 2014; Vives and Silva, 2016); ethnic systems and religious membership (Diedhiou, 2015; Riccio, 2011, 2008); allegiance/slavery systems (Pelckmans, 2013);

chieftaincy (Kleist, 2011); or kin and gender (Sinatti, 2014); are all renegotiated or influenced by migration.

Second, in connection to the latter point, while North American based scholarship has given attention to local political dynamics and organisational-related dynamics of migrants in sending countries, European scholars have still plenty of scope to address this related phenomena using data collected from the perspectives of sending countries. Moreover, overall, when research concerning migrant political transnationalism in sites within the Global South is undertaken, it is geographically inclined towards South America, Turkey and Morocco. Yet, even if there is an increasing research interest in these aspects, there remains less political interest from scholarship concerned with Sub-Saharan migrants.

Third, the literature has tended to disregard local institutional political structures in contexts of origin and how migrant transnationalism interacts with it. Moreover, I contend that, at least in the case of Sub-Saharan sending contexts, a view on political participation or institutions– that is uniquely based on conventional Western categories and cleavages – may not be able to grasp the range of dynamics with which migrants interact. The main reason for this difficulty is due to the specific post-colonial state configuration and its uneven penetration in peripheral contexts (Beck, 2001; Kleist, 2011; Mamdani, 1996).