Demography

, Volume 49, Issue 2, pp 449–476 | Cite as

International Migration and Educational Assortative Mating in Mexico and the United States

Article

Abstract

This paper examines the relationship between migration and marriage by describing how the distributions of marital statuses and assortative mating patterns vary by individual and community experiences of migration. In Mexico, migrants and those living in areas with high levels of out-migration are more likely to be in heterogamous unions. This is because migration increases the relative attractiveness of single return migrants while disproportionately reducing the number of marriageable men in local marriage markets. In the United States, the odds of homogamy are lower for migrants compared with nonmigrants; however, they do not vary depending on the volume of migration in communities. Migrants are more likely than nonmigrants to “marry up” educationally because the relatively small size of this group compels them to expand their pool of potential spouses to include nonmigrants, who tend to be better educated than they are. Among migrants, the odds of marrying outside of one’s education group increase the most among the least educated. In Mexican communities with high rates of out-migration, the odds of marrying outside of one’s education group are highest among those with the highest level of education. These findings suggest that migration disrupts preferences and opportunities for homogamy by changing social arrangements and normative climates.

Keywords

International migration Marriage Educational assortative mating 

References

  1. Agresti, A. (2002). Categorical data analysis. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Angoa Perez, M., & Fuentes Flores, A. (2006, April). Labor force patterns of Mexican women in Mexico and the U.S.: What changes and remains. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Population Association of America, Los Angeles, CA.Google Scholar
  3. Batalova, J. (2008, April). Mexican immigrants to the U.S. Migration Information Source. Washington, DC: Migration Policy Institute. Retrieved from http://www.migrationinformation.org/USfocus/display.cfm?id=679
  4. Castro Martin, T. (2002). Consensual unions in Latin America: Persistence of a dual nuptiality system. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 33, 35–55.Google Scholar
  5. Cerrutti, M., & Massey, D. (2001). On the auspices of female migration from Mexico to the United States. Demography, 38, 187–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Choi, K. (2011, April). Mexican migration and its effect on the union formation patterns of women in sending communities. Presented at the annual meeting of the Population Association of America, Los Angeles, CA.Google Scholar
  7. Clogg, C. C., & Eliason, S. R. (1988). Some common problems in log-linear analysis. Sociological Methods & Research, 16, 8–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Curran, S., & Rivero-Fuentes, E. (2003). Engendering migrant networks: The case of Mexican migration. Demography, 40, 289–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Donato, K. (1993). Current trends and patterns of female migration: Evidence from Mexico. International Migration Review, 27, 748–771.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Durand, J., Massey, D., & Zenteno, R. (2001). Mexican immigration to the United States: Continuities and changes. Latin American Research Review, 36, 107–127.Google Scholar
  11. Esteve, A. (2005). Tendencias en homogamia educacional en Mexico: 1970–2000 [Trends in educational assortative mating in Mexico from 1970–2000]. Estudios Demograficos y Urbanos, 59, 341–361.Google Scholar
  12. Esteve, A. P., & McCAA, R. (2006). Educational homogamy of Mexicans in Mexico and in the USA: What difference does gender, generation, ethnicity, and educational attainment make in marriage patterns? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Population Association of America, Los Angeles, CA.Google Scholar
  13. Feliciano, C. (2005). Educational selectivity in U.S. immigration: How do immigrants compare to those left behind? Demography, 41, 151–171.Google Scholar
  14. Frank, R., & Wildsmith, E. (2005). The grass of Mexico: Migration and union dissolution in a binational context. Social Forces, 83, 919–947.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hondagneu-Sotelo, P. (1994). Gendered transitions: Mexican experiences in immigration. Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  16. Instituto Nacional de Estadística Geográfica e Informática (INEGI). (2002). XII Censo General de Poblacion y Vivienda. Suplemento de Migraciớn. Retrieved from http://www.inegi.org.mx/est/contenidos/Proyectos/ccpv/cpv2000/default.aspx
  17. Kanaiaupuni, S. (2000). Reframing the migration question: An analysis of men, women, and gender in Mexico. Social Forces, 78, 1311–1347.Google Scholar
  18. Lewis, S., & Oppenheimer, V. (2000). Educational assortative mating across marriage markets: Non-Hispanic whites in the United States. Demography, 37, 29–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lichter, D., Anderson, R., & Hayward, M. (1995). Marriage markets and marital choice. Journal of Family Issues, 16, 412–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Marcelli, E., & Cornelius, W. (2001). The changing profile of Mexican migrants to the United States: New evidence from California and Mexico. Latin American Research Review, 36(3), 105–131.Google Scholar
  21. Mare, R. D. (1991). Five decades of educational assortative mating. American Sociological Review, 56, 15–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Mare, R. (2008). Educational assortative mating in two generations (Working paper). Los Angeles: Department of Sociology, University of California–Los Angeles. Retrieved from http://www.econ.ucla.edu/workshops/papers/History/mare_eam_08.pdf
  23. Mare, R. D., & Schwartz, C. R. (2006). Educational assortative mating and the family background of the next generation: A formal analysis. Riron to Hoho [Sociological Theory and Methods], 21, 253–277.Google Scholar
  24. Massey, D., & Espinosa, K. (1997). What’s driving Mexico-U.S. migration? A theoretical, empirical, and policy analysis. American Journal of Sociology, 102, 939–999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Minnesota Population Center. (2007). Integrated public use microdata series—International: Version 3.0. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota. Retrieved from https://international.ipums.org/international/
  26. Parrado, E. (2004). International migration and men’s marriage in western Mexico. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 35, 51–75.Google Scholar
  27. Parrado, E., & Zenteno, R. (2002). Gender differences in union formation in Mexico: Evidence from marital search models. Journal of Marriage and Family, 64, 756–773.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Qian, Z. (1997). Breaking the racial barriers: Variations in interracial marriage between 1980 and 1990. Demography, 34, 478–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Qian, Z., & Lichter, D. (2007). Social boundaries and marital assimilation: Interpreting trends in racial and ethnic intermarriage. American Sociological Review, 72, 68–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Qian, Z., & Preston, S. (1993). Changes in American marriage, 1972 to 1987: Availability and forces of attraction by age and education. American Sociological Review, 58, 482–495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Raftery, A. (1995). Bayesian model selection in social research. Sociological Methodology, 25, 111–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Riosmena, F. (2005, April). Unraveling the life course: Marriage, family, and U.S. migration in Mexico. Presented at the annual meeting of the Population Association of America, Philadelphia, PA.Google Scholar
  33. Ruggles, S., Sobek, M., Alexander, T., Fitch, C., Goeken, R., Hall, P., . . . Ronnander, C. (2004). Integrated Public Use Microdata Series: Version 3.0 (04/11/07 version) [Machine-readable database]. Minneapolis, MN: Minnesota Population Center [producer and distributor]. Retrieved from http://usa.ipums.org/usa/
  34. Schwartz, C. R., & Mare, R. D. (2005). Trends in educational assortative mating from 1940 to 2004. Demography, 42, 621–646.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Sweeney, M. M. (2002). Two decades of family change: The shifting economic foundations of marriage. American Sociological Review, 67, 132–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Villarreal, A. (2002). Political competition and violence in Mexico: Hierarchical Social control in local patronage structures. American Sociological Review, 67, 477–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Population Association of America 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The Bendheim Thoman Center for Research on Child Wellbeing, Wallace HallPrinceton UniversityPrincetonUSA
  2. 2.Department of SociologyUniversity of California-Los AngelesLos AngelesUSA

Personalised recommendations