Abstract
European societies are expressing growing concern about the consequences of migrant family reunification on their soil for the management of their borders and the success of the integration process. Many policy makers assume that most migrants intend to bring their relatives to Europe as soon as possible, and argue that it might be difficult for reunified migrants to integrate into their host societies. Our results concerning the process of reunification of Senegalese couples in France, Italy, or Spain strongly challenge this view. Using MAFE (Migration between Africa and Europe) data with a life event history approach, we show that (1) separation is often a long-lasting situation among Senegalese couples; (2) separated couples do not only reunify in Europe but also quite commonly in Senegal; (3) the couples who reunify in Europe tend to be those who adapt most readily to the European culture and economy.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
The Senegalese part of the Migration between Africa and Europe (MAFE) project is coordinated by INED (C. Beauchemin), in association with the Université Cheikh Anta Diop (P. Sakho). The project also involves the Universitat Pompeu Fabra (P. Baizán), the Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (A. González-Ferrer), and the Forum Internazionale ed Europeo di Ricerche sull’Immigrazione (E. Castagnone). The survey was conducted with the financial support of INED, the Agence Nationale de la Recherche, the Région Ile de France and the FSP program “International Migrations, territorial reorganizations and development of the countries of the South.” The MAFE-Senegal project is now being extended to Ghanaian and Congolese migrations, thanks to funding from the European Community’s Seventh Framework Programme under grant agreement 217206. For more information (including the questionnaires), see: http://www.mafeproject.
Families that do not fit to the dominant nuclear Western model are especially stigmatized, as illustrated by the statements of the French Minister of Employment who, during the Paris suburbs riots in 2005, pointed the finger at polygamy as the main reason for the discrimination faced by ethnic minorities in the French job market: “overly large polygamous families sometimes led to anti-social behavior among youths who lacked a father figure, making employers wary of hiring ethnic minorities” (Financial Times, 15 November 2005).
“De facto” reunification refers to reunification not only by irregular migrants but also by migrants who enter the country where their relatives reside via a legal mode of entry other than family reunification, such as migration for employment purposes or seasonal work, for instance.
Long-lasting separations and the possibility of recurrent circulation or repeated migration as a way of diversifying risk are compatible with the theoretical model developed by NELM, although Stark and his colleagues never explicitly developed this point; in addition, they also seemed to view reunification at destination as the sign of permanent settlement that may explain, among other thing, the decline in remittances (Stark and Lucas 1985).
However, she framed the study within the context of circular or repeat migration, focused on visits to the family in the country of origin that interrupts spouses’ separation and, therefore, excluded from the analysis couples who were separated for all twelve months in the year.
In a study of parent–child reunification, Gonzalez-Ferrer et al. (2012) have already shown that parents who end separations by returning to Senegal belong to families that clearly depart from the Western nuclear model, whereas Senegalese families in which the parents decide to bring their children to Europe conform more closely to Western family arrangements.
At least one of the partners was born Senegalese in Senegal, the other may or may not have the same citizenship.
For the sake of simplicity in writing and reading, we will refer in the rest of the text to “Europe” rather than mentioning these three different destination countries.
A perfect survey on Senegalese migration would have covered the whole of Senegal and all countries in the world where Senegalese migrants are present. For practical reasons, this was obviously impossible. However, the places covered by the MAFE-Senegal survey offer a good coverage of Senegalese people. First, France, Spain, and Italy accounted for 45 percent of the international Senegalese migrants reported in the 2002 Senegal Census; second, the region of Dakar was home to about a quarter of the national population in the 2002 Senegal Census and was the region of origin of 31 % of the international migrants reported in 2001-2002 by Senegalese households in the ESAM-II survey. More information on the MAFE project design can be found in Beauchemin (2011).
Note that 64 individuals were in several unions, either successively or simultaneously (due to the practice of polygamy). As a result, the number of transnational couples under study (546) is higher than the number of respondents (459).
Among all years of partnership recorded in the survey, 89 % correspond to periods of marriage vs. 11 % to periods of consensual union. Note that homosexual couples are not considered in our analyses: no respondent reported this kind of partnership in the MAFE survey.
This should not be confused with the place of interview that can be either Senegal or Europe for both men and women.
395 interviewees experienced one spell of separation (period as a transnational couple); 42 individuals had two spells of separation, 21 had three spells, and only one had four spells. Note that we analyze only the first spell of transnational life of every couple, bearing in mind that only 5 % of our analytical sample of individuals experienced several periods of transnational life with the same partner. This is why we have more spells of separation than individuals.
Pseudo-survival functions refer to a process that can have two possible outcomes, modeled as competing risks outcomes. In this case, the graph depicts couple’s separation “survival”, until the separation ended either by a reunification in Senegal or by a reunification in Europe.
Since 64 individuals were in more than one transnational union because of polygamy or second or higher order unions, we also estimated multi-level models to account for potential correlation of multiple outcomes for the same individuals (Barber et al. 2000). However, these models did not provide substantively different results from those presented below. These multilevel models are available on request.
Similarly, the probability does not vary significantly with the duration of residence in France/Italy/Spain, or with the duration of union (not shown in the specifications presented).
This variable was based on the following subjective question: “When you lived in this room/house: on average, would you say that the financial situation of the household regarding the purchase of basic goods was… (1) More than sufficient, (2) Sufficient, (3) Just sufficient, (4) Insufficient”. Individuals that responded “Insufficient” were considered to have a “bad financial situation.”
Note that a lasting separation may lead to changes in living arrangements for the partner left behind (we thank an anonymous reviewer for this comment).
None of the Christians in our sample reunified in Senegal.
References
Barber, J., Murphy, S., Axinn, W., & Maples, J. (2000). Discrete-time multilevel hazard analysis. Sociological Methodology, 30, 201–235.
Beauchemin, C. (2011). Migrations between Africa and Europe (MAFE): Rationale for a survey design. MAFE Methodological Working Paper 1, p. 42.
Beauchemin, C., & Gonzalez-Ferrer, A. (2011). Sampling international migrants with origin-based snowballing method: New evidence on biases and limitations. Demographic Research, 25(3), 103–134.
Bledsoe, C. H. (2008). “No Success without Struggle” revisited: West African models of socialization and transnational life in Spain. Researching transnational families, their children and the migration-development nexus. University of Amsterdam.
Bledsoe, C. H., & Sow, P. (2008). Family reunification ideals and the practice of transnational reproductive life among Africans in Europe. MPIDR Working Paper, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research.
Blossfeld, H.-P., & Rohwer, G. (2002). Techniques of event history modeling. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Borjas, G. J. (1990). Friends or strangers. The impact of immigrants on the US economy. New York: Basic Books.
Bryceson, D., & Vuorela, U. (Eds.). (2002). The transnational family. New European frontiers and global networks. Oxford: Berg.
Celikaksoy, A. et al. (2003). Marriage migration: Just another case of positive assortative matching? Aarhus School of Business Working Papers Series (03-27).
Constant, A., & Massey, D. (2002). Return migration by German guestworkers: Neoclassical versus new economic theory. International Migration Review, 40, 5–38.
Courgeau, D. (1990). Migration, family and career: A life-course approach. In P. B. Baltes, D. L. Featherman, & R. M. Lerner (Eds.), Life-span development and behaviour (pp. 219–255). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Dupire, M. (1977). Funérailles et relations entre lignages dans une société bilinéaire: les Serer (Sénégal). Anthropos, 72(3–4), 376–400.
Findley, S. (1997). Migration and family interactions in Africa. In A. Adepoju (Ed.) Family, population and development (pp. 109–138). London: Zed Books.
González-Ferrer, A. (2006). Who do immigrants marry? Partner choice of single immigrants in Germany. European Sociological Review, 22, 171–185.
González-Ferrer, A. (2007). The reunification of partners and children by male labor immigrants in Germany. Special issue of Zeitschrift für Familienforschung on the topic Immigrant Families in Europe, 3, 10–33.
González-Ferrer, A., Baizán, P., & Beauchemin, C. (2012). Child-parents separation among Senegalese migrants to Europe. Migration strategies or cultural arrangements? The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 643(1), 106–133.
Grasmuck, S., & Pessar, P. R. (1991). Between two islands: Dominican international migration. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.
Grillo, R., & Mazzucato, V. (2008). Africa<>Europe: A double engagement. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 34(2), 175–198.
Gupta, P. (2003). Marriage at a distance: Spouse separation and the migrant family. Philadelphia, PA: Population Studies Center, University of Pennsylvania.
Hondagneu-Sotelo, P. (1992). Overcoming patriarchal constraints. The reconstruction of gender relations among Mexican immigrant women and men. Gender and Society, 6, 393–415.
Hondagneu-Sotelo, P. (1994). Gendered transitions: Mexican experiences of immigration. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Hondagneu-Sotelo, P. (1999). Gender and contemporary US migration. American Behavioral Scientist, 42, 565–576.
Hooghiemstra, E. (2001). Migrants, partner selection and integration: Crossing borders? Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 32, 609–626.
Kalmijn, M. (1998). Intermarriage and homogamy: Causes, patterns and trends. Annual Review of Sociology, 24, 395–421.
Kalter, F., & Schroedter, J. (2010). Transnational marriage among former labour migrants in Germany. Zeitschrift für Familienforschung [Journal of Family Research], 22(1), 13–38.
Kofman, E. (2004). Family-related migration: A critical review of European studies. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 30(2), 243–262.
Kraler, A. (2010). Civic stratification, gender and family migration policies in Europe. Final Report. Vienna: International Centre for Migration Policy Development (ICMPD).
Lievens, J. (1999). Family-formation migration from Turkey and Morocco to Belgium: The demand for marriage partners from the countries of origin. International Migration Review, 33, 717–744.
Mincer, J. (1978). Family migration decisions. Journal of Political Economy, 86, 749–773.
Mondain, N. (2009). Assessing the effects of out-migration on those left behind in Senegal: Local family dynamics between change and continuity. Paper presented at the XXVI International Population Conference.
Mulder, C. H., & Wagner, M. (1993). Migration and marriage in the life course: A method for studying synchronized events. European Journal of Population/Revue européenne de Démographie, 9(1), 55–76.
OECD. (2001). SOPEMI. Trends in international migration.
Poiret, C. (1996). La famille africaine en France. Paris: L’harmattan.
Reyneri, E. (2006). De la economía sumergida a la devaluación profesional: nivel educativo e inserción en el mercado de trabajo de los inmigrantes en Italia. Revista Española de Investigaciones Sociológicas, 116, 213–237.
Riccio, B. (2001). From ‘ethnic group’ to ‘transnational community’? Senegalese migrants ambivalent experiences and multiple trajectories. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 27(4), 583–599.
Rodríguez-García, D. (2006). Mixed marriages and transnational families in the intercultural context: A case study of African-Spanish couples in Catalonia. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 32(3), 403–433.
Sandell, S. H. (1977). Women and the economics of family migration. Review of Economics and Statistics, 59, 406–414.
Schoumaker, B., Mezger, C. et al. (2013). Sampling and computation weights in the MAFE surveys.
Sørensen, N. N., & Olwig, K. F. (Eds.). (2002). Work and migration: Life and livelihoods in a globalizing world. London: Routledge.
Stark, O. (1988). On marriage and migration. European Journal of Population, 4, 23–37.
Stark, O. (1991). The migration of labour. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Stark, O., & Lucas, R. E. B. (1985). Motivations to remit: Evidence from Botswana. The Journal of Political Economy, 93, 901–918.
Stark, O., & Lucas, R. E. B. (1988). Migration, remittances and the family. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 36, 465–481.
Sy, M. (1991). Migrations féminines selon les ethnies au Sénégal. In Conference on “Women, family and population”. Spontaneous papers/Union pour l’Etude de la Population Africaine (pp. 285–304). Ouagadougou, April 24–29 1991. Dakar: UEPA.
Todaro, M. P. (1976). Internal migration in developing countries. Geneva: International Labour Office.
Vause, S., & Toma, S. (2012). International migrations of Congolese and Senegalese women: New forms of autonomous mobility or persistence of family migration patterns. Comparative and multi-sited approaches to international migration. Paris: INED.
Vázquez Silva, I. (2010). El impacto de la migración en las tareas de cuidado dentro de las familias senegalesas: ¿la emergencia de las “nueras transnacionales”?. Bilbao: VIII Congreso Vasco de Sociología y Ciencia Política.
Wimmer, A., & Glick Schiller, N. (2002). Methodological nationalism and beyond: Nation-state building, migration and the social sciences. Global Networks, 2(4), 301–334.
Yamaguchi, K. (1991). Event history analysis. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Acknowledgments
Previous versions of this paper have been presented to the conference “Migration: A World in Motion” (Maastricht, 18–20 February 2010), the European Population Conference (Vienna, 1–4 September 2010), the Workshop on Spatial Mobility, Family Lives and Living Arrangements (IMISCOE-MIGREMUS, Bremen, 17–18 November 2011), and the Sixth African Population Conference (UAPS, Ouagadougou, 5–9 December 2011). We thank the participants to these events for their comments and suggestions. We also thank the anonymous referees. The research reported here has been founded by European Commission, Seventh Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development, and the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation, National Program of Research and Development (CSO2009-12816).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Baizán, P., Beauchemin, C. & González-Ferrer, A. An Origin and Destination Perspective on Family Reunification: The Case of Senegalese Couples. Eur J Population 30, 65–87 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10680-013-9305-6
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10680-013-9305-6