the decision to migrate
the case of the Mexican migrant population
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.30854/anf.v24.n43.2017.355Keywords:
Migración, Decisión de migrar, Migrantes internacionalesAbstract
Objetive: to identify the processes which lead to the decision of migrating abroad, principally, how Mexicans do it and the restrictions they face.
Methodology: interviews were performed to the international migrants from the State of Mexico between December 2012 and February 2013.The analysis was conducted in two stages during the migratory process to the same people: when leaving abroad and returning to their localities.
Results: the results showed that both moments of migration have particular forms: people are firmly pressured due to their economic, emotional and family situations; they have the intention to improve and support their homes; and additional actors and unexpected events interfere as well. When returning, they bring lessons and experiences from abroad: family homesickness, lack of employment.
Conclusions: the migration decisions are made within social and family environments and have particularities that the theoretical coverage misses; therefore, it was necessary to go directly to the voice of the migrants in order to understand such reflection processes and the influences they receive from the environment.
Downloads
References
Arias, P. (2009). La pluriactividad rural a debate. En Hubert De Grammont y Luciano Martínez (Comps.). La pluriactividad en el campo latinoamericano (pp. 171-206). Quito, Ecuador: Flacso.
Baca, N. y Salas, R. (2015). Configuraciones familiares y de género en un contexto de alta migración internacional en el sur mexiquense. En Reyes, P. (Coord.). Perfil de las familias y los hogares del Estado de México (pp. 123-140). México: Porrúa/Universidad Autónoma del Estado de México.
Banco Mundial (2015). Informe sobre el desarrollo mundial 2015: Mente, sociedad y conducta, Washington D.C., Banco Mundial.
Bautista, D., Salas, R., Jiménez, Y. (junio, 2016). Migrantes internacionales del Estado de México: una mirada desde el duelo migratorio y el sentido de la vida, Sociedades y Desigualdades, (2), 75-88. Universidad Autónoma del Estado de México,
Chambers, R. y Conway, G. (1992). Sustainable rural livelihoods: practical conceptsfor the 21st Century. Sussex, University of Sussex.
Cohen, J. (2001). Transnational migration in rural Oaxaca, Mexico: dependency, development and the household. American Anthropologist, 103(4), 954-967.
Davidson, D. (1963). Actions, reasons and causes. Journal of Philosophy (60), 685-700.
Dinerman, I. (1983). El impacto agrario de la migración en Huecorio. Relaciones, 4(15), 29-52. Zamora, El Colegio de Michoacán.
Dixit, A. y Nalebuff, B. (1991). Pensar estratégicamente, Barcelona, Antoni Bosch.
Domínguez, M. y López. L. (2009). Estudio de impacto de las remesas, Bejucos Tejupilco. En Baca N., Herrera. F. y González R. (Coords.). Migración, democracia y desarrollo. La experiencia mexiquense (pp. 175-187). Toluca, Instituto Electoral del Estado de México.
Domjan, M. (2010). Principios de aprendizaje y conducta. México, Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.
Dustmann, Ch. y Kirchkamp, Ol. (2001). The Optimal Migration Duration and Activity Choice After Re-migration. En Journal of Development Economics, (67), 351-372.
Estrada, M. (2008). Diferencia que hace diferencia. Migración y organización familiar. En Desacatos, (28), 89-100. México, CIESAS.
Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Geografía [INEGI] (2016). Encuesta Intercensal 2015. México, INEGI.
Izcara, P. (2010). Redes migratorias o privación relativa: la etiología de la emigración tamaulipeca a través del programa H-2ª. Relaciones, XXXI (122), 245-278. Zamora, El Colegio de Michoacán.
Kirdar, M. (2007). Labor market outcomes, capital, accumulation, and return migration: Evidence from immigrants in Germany, MPRA (Minich Personal RePEc Archive). http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/2028/
Long, N. (2007). Sociología del desarrollo: una perspectiva centrada en el actor. San Luis Potosí: El Colegio de San Luis.
López, G. (2003). Diáspora, circulación y movilidad: notas desde Michoacán. En López, G. (Coord.). Diáspora michoacana (pp. 19-31). Zamora El Colegio de Michoacán/ Gobierno del Estado de Michoacán.
Murphy, R. (2000). Return Migration, entrepreneurship and local state corporatism in rural China: the experience of two counties in south Jiangxi. Journal of contemporary China, 9(24), 231-247.
Ranciere, J. (2010). Dissensus: On politics and aesthetics. London: Continuum.
Reichert, J. (1981). The migrant syndrome: seasonal U.S wage labour and rural development in central Mexico”, Human Organization, 40(1), 56-66.
Robbins. S. y Judge. T. (2009). Comportamiento Organizacional. México, Prentice Hall.
Salas, R., y Cruz. M. (2014). Migrantes retornados, actividades laborales y nuevas habilidades adquiridas en San Miguel Coatlán, Oaxaca, Puebla, Universidad Popular Autónoma del Estado de Puebla.
Simon, H. (1995). The Information Processing Theory of Mind. American Psychologist, 50(7), 507-508.
Simon, H. (1962). Discussion: problems of methodology. American Economic Review, (53), 229-231.
Stark, O. (1982). Research on Rural to Urban Migration in ldcs: the Confusion Frontier and Why We Should Pause to Rethink Afresh. World development, 10(1), 63-70.
Stark, O., y Taylor, E. (1991). Migration incentives, migration tipes: the role of relative deprivation. The Economic Journal, 101(408), 1163-1178. Royal Economic Society.
Zwania, I. (2013). Returning Migrants in Cameroon Challenges, Obstacles and Potentials. En Zwania, I., y Vanya, I. (Eds.). ¿Welcome home? Challenges and chances of return migration (pp. 19-28). Bulgaria: Transatlantic Forum on Migration and Integration.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Once the manuscript is approved, the authors should file and sign the Right Transfer Format.
