Aging within Transnational Families: The Case of Older Peruvians

By Vincent Horn

'Aging within Transnational Families' is the first book to provide a multi-method approach to studying aging across borders. By asking how, why and to what extent do older Peruvians engage in transnational family ties and practices, the book enhances our knowledge about aging across borders. Drawing on the care circulation framework and the capacity and desire approach, it explores the motivations of older Peruvians’ transnational involvement as well as the factors influencing the scope and propensity of their cross-border practices. From a lifecourse perspective, the book asks how age relates to older Peruvian migrants’ integration into the host society and engagement in the sending of remittances and visits of family members in Peru. Exploring the prevalence and structuring features of family-related transnational practices against the backdrop of different migration regimes 'Aging within Transnational Families' shows how policies affect transnational family configurations and the role of older people within them.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Anthem Press
• Release date: Mar 15, 2019
• ISBN: 9781783089086

Book preview

Aging within Transnational Families

Aging within Transnational Families

The Case of Older Peruvians

Vincent Horn

Anthem Press

An imprint of Wimbledon Publishing Company

www.anthempress.com

This edition first published in UK and USA 2019

by ANTHEM PRESS

75–76 Blackfriars Road, London SE1 8HA, UK

or PO Box 9779, London SW19 7ZG, UK

and

244 Madison Ave #116, New York, NY 10016, USA

Copyright © Vincent Horn 2019

The author asserts the moral right to be identified as the author of this work.

All rights reserved. Without limiting the rights under copyright reserved above, no part of this publication may be reproduced, stored or introduced into a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means (electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise), without the prior written permission of both the copyright owner and the above publisher of this book.

British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.

ISBN-13: 978-1-78308-906-2 (Hbk)

ISBN-10: 1-78308-906-7 (Hbk)

This title is also available as an e-book.

To Joki and Adi

CONTENTS

List of Illustrations

Acknowledgements

1. Introduction

2. Theoretical Framework

2.1 Transnationalism

2.2 Transnational Families

2.3 The Connected Family

3. Aging within Transnational Families

3.1 The Stayers

3.2 The Transnational Travellers

3.3 The Late in Life Family Joiners

3.4 The Ones Aging Abroad

4. Fieldwork and Methodology

4.1 Data Collection and Analysis

4.2 Methodological Considerations

5. Care Circulation

5.1 Patterns of Older Family Members’ Involvement in Transnational Family Care

5.2 Care Circulation and Transnational Families

5.3 The Political and Economic Contexts of Spain and Peru

5.4 Data and Methods

5.5 Empirical Insights from the Peruvian ‘Zero Generation’

5.5.1 Rita: ‘Always Available Material’

5.5.2 Ursula: ‘One Cannot Travel to Spain’

5.6 Case Study Analysis

5.7 Conclusion

6. Migration Regimes Matter

6.1 Older Peruvians in Spain and the United States

6.2 Institutional Contexts and Transnational Family Activities

6.3 Data and Methods

6.4 Migration Regimes in Spain and the United States

6.4.1 Migration Cultures and Entry and Residence Rights

6.4.2 The Older Peruvians’ Insertion into the Labour Market and Welfare Regime

6.5 Migration Regimes and Family-Related Transnational Activities

6.5.1 Family Visits

6.5.2 Remitting Behaviour

6.5.3 Ability to Use Communication Technologies

6.6 Conclusion

7. Sending Remittances

7.1 Older Migrants and the Sending of Remittances

7.2 The Framework of Capacity and Desire

7.3 Data and Methods

7.4 Findings from Statistical Analysis

7.5 Conclusion

8. Family Visits and the Life Course

8.1 A Review of the Literature on Migrant Visits to the Country of Origin

8.2 The Development of a Conceptual Framework

8.3 Data and Methods

8.4 Results of Regression Analysis

8.5 Conclusion

9. Situating Transnational Activities: Family Visits in a Comparative Perspective

9.1 Migrants’ Family Visits

9.2 Theoretical Framework

9.3 Data, Methods and Variables

9.4 Scope and Determinants

9.5 Cross-Country Analysis

9.5.1 MFVs from Chile and Argentina

9.5.2 MFVs from Italy, Spain and the United States

9.6 Conclusion

10. Concluding Remarks

Appendix

Notes

References

Index

ILLUSTRATIONS

Figures

7.1The conceptual framework of capacity and desire applied to the sending of remittances

8.1The migrant’s capacity and desire to visit family members in Peru

9.1Configurations of capacity and desire to engage in transnational activities

Tables

2.1Types of transnational social spaces

2.2Factors increasing individual capabilities to participate in the reconstruction of the home country

5.1Short- and long-term visas issued to Peruvians between 2007 and 2012 by age group

6.1Older Peruvians in Spain and the United States

6.2Arrival periods of older Peruvians in Spain and the United States

6.3Time of arrival and migration status

6.4Socioeconomic profiles of Peruvians aged 50 years and above in Spain and the United States

6.5Family visits of Peruvians aged 50 years and above in Spain and the United States

6.6Peruvians aged 50 years and above in Spain and the United States sending remittances

6.7Peruvians aged 50 years and above in Spain and the United States using the internet for communication purposes

7.1Peruvian migrants by age groups

7.2Frequency and amount of Peruvian migrants’ remittances by age groups

7.3Descriptive measures and variables

7.4Odds ratios from binary regression analysis with the dependent variable: sent remittances during the past year, 18–49 years

8.1Characteristics of Peruvian migrants in main destination countries

8.2Descriptive measures and variables

8.3Odds ratios from binary regression analysis with the dependent variable: visits family members in Peru at least every two years

9.1Frequency of family visits by main destination countries

9.2Results from multinomial regression analysis: likelihood of frequent family visits

9.3Cross-country analysis: never vs. frequent MFV

9.4Peruvian migrants in Argentina and Chile

9.5Peruvian migrants in Italy, Spain and the United States

A.1Odds ratios from binary regression analysis with the dependent variable: sent remittances during the past year, 18–49 years

A.2Descriptive measures and variables

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This study would not have seen the light of day without the support and sacrifice of many individuals. From the very first idea taking shape in Seville, until the last sentence written in Mainz, I was advised and accompanied by experienced researchers, who encouraged and stimulated my work. I still have the folder with the first set of chapters on transnational family care that Angeles Escrivá transferred to my USB flash drive when I was visiting her in Huelva in 2009. Her openness to my idea was key to developing a research proposal and her willingness crucial for getting in contact with the wider research community.

I would like to thank Loretta Baldassar for her positive feedback on my early work and also the members of the IMISCOE Standing Committee on Ageing Migrants: Demography, Agency and Welfare for the stimulating exchanges during our inspiring annual meetings. Valuable advice and feedback came also from the members of the Research Training Group ‘Transnational Social Support’ at the Universities of Hildesheim and Mainz. The Research Training Group offered excellent conditions for conducting my research as well as for growing as a researcher.

My special gratitude goes to my supervisor Cornelia Schweppe. Her contributions of time, ideas and confidence made this study a productive and fulfilling experience. Thanks to her, the study felt less like an immense burden and more like a surmountable, perhaps even enjoyable challenge. I am very much looking forward to collaborating and discovering new grounds together. I am also very grateful to my two other supervisors, Anita Böcker and Matthias Witte. Their experience, creativity and reliability are highly appreciated. That this study has become readable is owed to Manuela Popovici and her outstanding proofreading skills.

Last, I would like to thank my parents and family-in-law for their emotional, practical and hands-on support in both difficult and smooth times. The unconditional care received from Julia and Prescilia after the birth of Joki and Adrian still impresses me. I take my hat off to Karina’s courage and effort in moving to Germany and passing through a seemingly never-ending and frustrating process of professional and personal recognition. That she took on all the hurdles makes me very proud and optimistic for the future. Also invaluable has been the time I spent with Joki and Adrian, whose laughter, love and liveliness made worries vanish and reminded me of the really important things in life.

Chapter 1

INTRODUCTION

Transnational migration studies experienced a veritable boom during the past few decades. Several strands of related research emerged in different academic fields, studying a multitude of migrants’ economic, cultural, social and political practices and relationships across national borders (Levitt & Jaworsky 2007). At least until recently, the primary focus of these studies was on relatively younger people, especially (unskilled) labour migrants from the so-called Global South. In contrast, the question of how old age and different degrees of mobility relate to transnational practices and orientations has only been addressed very sporadically (Da 2003; King et al. 2014; Nedelcu 2009; Plaza 2000). Similarly, scholars looking at processes of aging rarely approached the lives of older people from a transnational vantage point (Montes de Oca et al. 2009; Lamb 2002; Treas & Mazumdar 2004; Zechner 2008). Various researchers, however, emphasize that a transnational perspective on age and aging substantially contributes not only to our understanding of older peoples’ ways of life, but also to our knowledge about globalization and transnationalism (Gustafson 2001; Kobayashi & Preston 2007; Treas 2008).

A series of symposia, several conference panels and a rapidly increasing number of book chapters (Torres 2013; Tiaynen-Qadir 2015), journal chapters (King & Lulle 2016; Zickgraf 2017; Zontini 2015) and special issues (Baldassar et al. 2017; Ciobanu & Hunter 2017; Horn et al. 2013; Näre et al. 2017) demonstrate that this call has been heard by the wider research community. The appearance of (at least) five edited books within the past three years is another indicator of the growing academic interest in transnational aging phenomena (Dossa & Coe 2017; Horn & Schweppe 2015; Hromadžić & Palmberger 2018; Karl & Torres 2016; Walsh & Näre 2016). In a literature review, Horn and Schweppe (2015) identified four broad and often overlapping strands of research: a first strand focusing on aging labor migrants in wealthier countries (Bolzman et al. 2006; De Coulon & Wolff 2010; De Haas & Fokkema 2010); a second strand, emerging in the field of international retirement migration (Ackers & Dwyer 2002; Gustafson 2008; Lardiés et al. 2016; Toyota & Xiang 2012); a third strand comprising studies on transnational mobilities of care (Bender et al. 2014; Degiuli 2007; Huang et al. 2012); and a fourth strand coming from transnational family research (Baldock 2000; Deneva 2012; Díaz Gorfinkiel & Escrivá 2012; Yarris 2017). This study is primarily aligned with the fourth strand of research.

A primary interest of researchers in this field is the ‘multifaceted and asymmetric character of relationships between family members and how these relationships transform by being subjected to spatial separation’ (Sørensen & Vammen 2014: 92). In other words, transnational family scholars ask how and why family members – primarily migrants – maintain ties across borders, focusing on changing patterns, practices and dynamics underlying their transnational family life. According to Bordone and de Valk (2016: 268), transnational families are an ‘increasingly important group, and the way in which they negotiate support across borders as well as the interplay between policies and personal ties needs more attention’. In line with this observation, this study focuses on a particular and often forgotten group within transnational families: older people (Kofman & Raghuram 2009).

Older family members ‘left behind’ in the country of origin are generally not considered as active participants in the making of transnational family life. However, the ‘non-migrant grandparent who, along with her migrant children, is jointly responsible for income generation and raising children across borders engages in comprehensive, core transnational behaviours, although she may only travel once a year’ (Levitt 2001: 1999). Similarly, older family members residing abroad may still maintain close ties with relatives in the country of origin, identify with earlier communities, send remittances, accommodate visitors or move frequently across national borders (Baykara-Krumme 2013; Bolzman et al. 2016; Zontini 2015). Thus, in an era where ‘[a]‌ll the world seems to be on the move’ (Sheller & Urry 2006: 207), older people also appear to be manifoldly entangled in transnational processes and relationships.

However, empirical evidence of the scope and structuring features of older peoples’ transnational family involvement remains scarce. In fact, the bulk of research in this field is in the form of qualitative case studies. While these studies scrutinize the complexity of older peoples’ transnational behaviour and identities, they say little about the spread of this phenomenon. Also rather little is known about the relationship between age and/or specific stages in the life course and the type and extent of family members’ transnational engagement. Likewise scarcely researched is the association between different migration regimes and transnational families’ lives (Merla & Baldassar 2011). Accordingly, there is a lack of studies that explore the effects of different migration regimes on transnational family practices and dynamics over time (Mazzucato & Schans 2011). At the same time, there have been few efforts to conceptualize the relationships between the well-being of transnational families and the structural and temporal conditions of their situations. Such insights, however, would be relevant for ‘a better understanding of the kinds of social service and public policy […] that help to strengthen transnational family bonds’ (Zentgraf & Stoltz Chincilla 2012: 362).

This cumulative study aims to narrow some of these research gaps through the study of older Peruvians’ transnational family ties and practices. It does so in the form of five chapters which are framed by the overall research question of how, why and to what extent older Peruvians engage in family-related cross-border activities and relationships. Besides the older Peruvians’ motivations and experiences, a particular analytic focus lies on the political and institutional contexts surrounding their transnational involvement. Accordingly, some of the research questions addressed in the different chapters are: Why and to what degree do older Peruvians engage in transnational practices, and how is this engagement shaped by local and transnational contexts? How do stages in life relate to specific types of transnational involvement, and how is this relationship mediated by the Peruvian migrants’ structural integration and transnational ties? What is the impact of geographical distance and factors related to different host societies on Peruvian migrants’ patterns and structuring features of cross-border mobility and immobility?

Theoretically, this study draws on the care circulation framework as proposed by Baldassar and Merla (2014) and the capacity and desire approach to transnational involvement as introduced by Al-Ali and colleagues (2001) and further developed by Carling and Hoelscher (2013). Methodologically, qualitative and quantitative approaches are used, as well as combinations of both. The qualitative data have been collected through interviews with older Peruvians in Spain and Peru in 2012. To analyse the interview data, theory-driven content analysis was employed. For quantitative analysis, secondary data from a survey on Peruvian migrants around the globe was explored using regression analysis. The survey was conducted by governmental Peruvian institutions and the International Organization for Migration in 2012. By describing, comparing and quantifying ‘the real empirical extent of transnational social phenomena’ (Pries 2007: 4), the study adds empirical insights into the role and activities of individual actors within transnational families.

The book is structured as follows: In Chapter 2, the key concepts of this research on transnational migration and transnational families are introduced and discussed. Special emphasis is put on virtual modes of communication as a distinctive feature of transnational family life. Chapter 3 provides a review of literature in the research area of aging within transnational families. Based on the literature review, an ideal-typical distinction between four ways of older family members’ positioning in transnational families is elaborated. In the last section of this chapter, the contribution of this study to the current state of the field is emphasized. Chapter 4 reflects upon transnational migration research methodologies and discusses the strengths and weaknesses of the data and methods of data analysis used in this study. In Chapters 5–9 the empirical outcomes are presented in the form of five essays on different aspects of transnational family life in old age. The book closes with some concluding remarks about research on aging within transnational families.

Chapter 2

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

Within migration research, ‘transnationalism’ or the adjective ‘transnational’ are widely used terms to refer to all kinds of connections between migrants and their places of origin (Pries 2010). This indistinct use led to researchers warning about transnationalism becoming a ‘catch-all and say-nothing’ term (Pries 2007). Indeed, no agreement seems to exist so far about its conceptual implications or empirical peculiarities (Lee 2011; Vertovec 2004a). The conceptual confusion urges scholars to reflect upon its use and application in this specific area of investigation, namely, older family members within the context of transnational migration. Therefore, this chapter first outlines the significance of a transnational perspective in migration research and provides an overview of the conceptualizations and theoretical debates surrounding the concept of transnationalism. Second, it introduces the concept of transnational families as a way of describing and analysing the border-crossing experiences and practices explored in this research.

2.1 Transnationalism

Glick Schiller and her colleagues (1992) were among the first to theorize about transnational migration and the concept of transnationalism. In their seminal work, they define ‘transnationalism’ as ‘the process by which transmigrants, through their daily activities, forge and sustain multi-stranded social, economic and political relations that link together their societies of origin and settlement’ (Basch et al. 1994: 6). Thus, instead of gradually adapting to the host society and cutting ties with the country of origin as assumed by the integration/assimilation paradigm, transmigrants ‘develop and sustain multiple relations – familial, economic, social, organizational, religious, and political – that span borders’ (Glick Schiller et al. 1992: IX). Through ceaseless back-and-forth movement, transmigrants seem to manage to be present in two or more nation states and be able to make use of the economic, political and social opportunities arising from such pluri-local lives (Portes & DeWind 2004). Soon, an extensive debate flared up among migration scholars on the significance and theoretical rigor of transnationalism and the relabelling of immigrants as transmigrants, which will not be reproduced in detail here.¹ Still, some of the merits and shortcomings of a transnational approach to migration are elaborated upon below.

Transnationalism adds in at least two important ways to previous approaches in migration studies. First, because it focuses on migratory flows and processes within an increasingly globalized economy, and second because it questions the regulatory power of nation states regarding the migrants’ activities and identities (Mazzucato 2010a). While not neglecting the enduring impact of nation states on migrants’ lives (e.g., via migration laws and policies) (Levitt & Glick Schiller 2004), the transnational approach challenges absolute notions of space that assume the overlap of social and political spaces with territorially bounded areas (Gupta & Ferguson 1992; Pries 2010). In so doing, transnational migration scholars question deeply rooted methodological nationalism in social sciences according to which nation states are the quasi-natural container or fundamental frame for social practices (Wimmer & Glick Schiller 2003). In the words of Wimmer and Glick Schiller (2002: 307), ‘The social sciences have become obsessed with describing processes within nation state boundaries as contrasted with those outside, and have correspondingly lost sight of the connections between such nationally defined territories.’

Rather than detecting a historically new phenomenon, transnationalism means to take a different perspective on social phenomena. Indeed, migrants have presumably engaged in transnational networks and practices since the very beginning of nations, states and national societies (Foner 1997). However, the existence of a phenomenon should not be confused with the existence of a perspective in the theoretical as well as methodological fields. Thus, ‘if transnational life existed in the past but was not seen as such, then the transnational lens does the new analytical work of providing a way of seeing what could not be seen before’ (Smith 2003: 724). Moreover, there is wide consensus that migrant transnationalism ‘is not an exact replica of the old, but a different configuration of circumstances’ (Joppke & Morawska 2003: 20). In fact, never in history has there been such a variety of factors – especially the advancement in transportation and information and communication technologies (ICTs) – which facilitate the maintenance of social contact across distance and over time. Border-crossing social networks are accordingly a distinctive feature of transnationalism (Mazzucato 2010a).²

Another distinctive feature of transnationalism is simultaneity. Simultaneous presence ‘enables linkages to tighten between dispersed people, new livelihood opportunities to emerge, social institutions to change and hybrid identities to develop’ (Mazzucato 2010a: 207). In a similar vein, Tsuda (2012) contends that it is the simultaneous nature which makes cross-border activities truly transnational. According to Levitt and Glick Schiller (2004), this simultaneity can be conceptualized by the theoretical perspective of transnational social fields. Basch et al. (1994) have argued that migrants construct social fields through transnational social practices. These social fields are characterized not only by overcoming the logic of the nation, but also by being shaped by at least two different national regimes and social formations.³ Building on this intellectual ground, Levitt and Glick Schiller (2004: 1009) define the ‘social field as a set of multiple inter locking networks of social relationships through which ideas, practices, and resources are unequally exchanged, organized, and transformed’.

Earlier anthropological studies gave the impression that migrants’ transnationalism had become a widespread, nearly ubiquitous phenomenon (Portes 2001). This has been put into question especially by sociologists’ critiques that by studying cases of the phenomenon (i.e., transnationalism), anthropological scholars have been failing to provide empirical evidence beyond a few descriptive examples of migrants’ transnational engagements (Portes et al. 2002).⁴ Findings of the first large-N studies attenuated previous enthusiastic assumptions about the scope and intensity of migrant transnationalism. Great attention was given to the study of Portes and colleagues (2002), who conducted one of the few studies based on random samples of migrants who may or may not be involved transnationally. Comparing migrants from three different Latin American populations in the United States, they found that only a relatively small share (one-fifth) was regularly involved in regular cross-border activities. Based on these results, Portes (2003: 884) concluded that ‘transnationalism is not the normative or dominant mode of adaption of these immigrant groups. Most of their members pursue lives in the new country in relative oblivion of those that they left behind.’

Another often-cited study was provided by Waldinger (2008). Analysing Pew Research survey data, he contended that ‘neither transnationalism as condition of being, nor transmigrants, as distinctive class of people, is commonly found’ (3). A similar conclusion was drawn by Rumbaut (2002), who analysed longitudinal data to explore transnationalism among second-generation Asian and Latin American migrants in the United States. Rumbaut came to the conclusion that ‘there is little evidence that kinds of attachments that are fundamental to pursuing a meaningful transnational project of dual lives are effectively sustained’ (91) in the second generation. In contrast, comparing the transnationalism of different migrant populations in the Netherlands, Snel and colleagues (2006) found that engagement in sociocultural activities (e.g., visits to the country of origin) constituted a substantial part of their lives. Schunck (2011) also found that some migrant populations in Germany showed a relatively strong propensity to spend larger periods of time in their countries of origin.

There are, however, different theoretical and methodological problems with these studies. A crucial aspect is the issue of how transnationalism is envisioned and operationalized. Thus, according to their vision of transnationalism as occupations and activities based on ‘regular and sustained social contact over time and across borders’ (Portes et al. 1999: 219), Portes and colleagues (2002) narrowed their research in a second stage to a specific group, namely, entrepreneurs. A ‘transnational entrepreneur’ was then defined as a person who owned their own business and travelled abroad more than twice a year for business reasons. In addition, the person had to give a positive answer to the questions of whether or not the success of their business depended on regular