Repeat Migration and Remittances as Mechanisms for Wealth Inequality in 119 Communities From the Mexican Migration Project Data

Abstract

To evaluate the distributional impact of remittances in origin communities, prior research studied how migrants’ selectivity by wealth varies with migration prevalence in the community or prior migration experience of the individual. This study considers both patterns; it examines selectivity separately in low- and high-prevalence communities and for first-time and repeat migrants. Based on data from 18,042 household heads in 119 Mexican communities from the Mexican Migration Project, the analyses show that (1) first-time migrants in low-prevalence communities come from poor households, whereas repeat migrants in high-prevalence communities belong to wealthy households; and (2) higher amounts of remittances reach wealthy households. These results suggest that repeat migration and remittances may be mechanisms for wealth accumulation in the study communities. Descriptive analyses associate these mechanisms with increasing wealth disparities between households with and without migrants, especially in high-prevalence communities. The study, similar to prior findings, shows the importance of repeat migration trips, which, given sustained remittances, may amplify the wealth gap between migrants and nonmigrants in migrant-sending communities. The study also qualifies prior findings by differentiating between low- and high-prevalence communities and observing a growing wealth gap only in the latter.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1

Notes

  1. 1.

    Detailed information about the MMP is available online (http://mmp.opr.princeton.edu). The five communities surveyed as part of the pilot study in 1982 are excluded, as are the data collected nonrandomly from a small number of migrants in the United States.

  2. 2.

    Municipality or state average prices are used for communities with missing values.

  3. 3.

    The Ejido indicator is missing for five communities. We set the indicator to 0 in these communities to conserve sample size; however, the results remain identical if these communities are excluded from analysis.

  4. 4.

    We tested the robustness of our findings to two alternative measures of community distance to the United States: (1) distance to the closest international airport in Mexico, and (2) distance to the closest popular border crossing city, which includes Tijuana or El Paso, TX, prior to 1993; and Laredo, TX, El Centro, CA, and Nogales, AZ, thereafter, according to Orrenius (2006) and Singer and Massey (1998). The former measure takes into account the transportation networks in Mexico, and the latter considers the shifting enforcement zones in the United States. Both measures led to similar results in all models (available upon request).

  5. 5.

    Because wage in destination is a critical determinant of remittance behavior, migrants with missing wage information (about one-third of all migrants) are not used in the analysis. Alternative analysis with all the migrants, and without the wage variable, leads to similar wealth coefficient estimates (available upon request).

  6. 6.

    The results suggest the potential endogeneity of wealth indicators to migration or remittance outcomes, which may bias the empirical conclusions. To address this issue, we lag the household wealth indicators by one year. This approach does not solve the endogeneity problem if current migration decisions are correlated with past migration, which affects household wealth in the past, or if there are omitted variables related to both wealth and migration. We test for this possibility with a procedure suggested by Spencer and Berk (1981). We estimate two wealth equations (for land and property indicators, separately) with exogenous regressors (past rainfall and real interest rates, which are likely to affect wealth). We then add the residuals from these equations to the migration and remittance models as extra regressors. The coefficients for the regressors are jointly insignificant in both the migration (F statistic = 1.89, p = .39) and remittance (F statistic = 0.16, p = .85) models, and the null hypothesis that the wealth indicators are orthogonal to the errors cannot be rejected. These results suggest that the lagged wealth indicators can be treated as exogenous to current migration and remittance decisions. Crucially, this treatment does not preclude an association between wealth and past migration and remittances, but such an association does not seem to bias our estimates.

  7. 7.

    Communities were surveyed in different years by the MMP; therefore, our sample contains a different number of communities in each year. The number of communities is 119 in 1975, drops to 85 in 1995, and then drops further to 48 by 2000. Therefore, we restrict this analysis to the 1975–1995 period, during which the majority of the communities are observed consistently.

  8. 8.

    The estimates in Table 5 show that remittances decrease by 6 % per year that a migrant spends in destination. These estimates control for earnings differences among migrants, and therefore are not inconsistent with the raw comparisons presented here.

  9. 9.

    Because of the retrospective nature of the data, older—and consequently wealthier—individuals are observed in later years. To assure that the same age group is compared across time, we restrict the analysis to 25- to 45-year-olds in each year.

References

  1. Acosta, P. (2008). What is the impact of international remittances on poverty and inequality in Latin America? World Development, 36(1), 89–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Acosta, P., Calderon, C., Fajnzylber, P., & Lopez, H. (2006). Remittances and development in Latin America. World Development, 29, 957–987.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Adams, R. (1989). Worker remittances and inequality in rural Egypt. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 38(1), 45–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Adams, R. (1992). The effects of migration and remittances on inequality in rural Pakistan. Pakistan Development Review, 31, 189–203.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Adams, R. H., Jr. (1998). Remittances, investment, and rural asset accumulation in Pakistan. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 47(1), 155–173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Arroyo, J. A., & Berumen, S. S. (2000). Efectos sub-regionales de las remesas de emigrantes mexicanos en Estados Unidos. Comercio Exterior, 50, 340–349.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Assies, W. (2008). Land tenure and tenure regimes in Mexico: An overview. Journal of Agrarian Change, 8(1), 33–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Barham, B., & Boucher, S. (1998). Migration, remittances, and inequality: Estimating the net effects of migration on income distribution. Journal of Development Economics, 55, 307–331.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Berk, R. A. (1983). An introduction to sample selection bias in sociological data. American Sociological Review, 48, 386–398.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Canales, A. I., & Montiel, I. A. (2004). Remesas e inversión productiva en comunidades de alta migración a Estados Unidos. El caso de Teocaltiche, Jalisco. Migraciones Internacionales, 2(3), 142–172.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Castro, J., & Tuirán, R. (2000). Las remesas de los trabajadores emigrantes a Estados Unidos. Comercio Exterior, 50, 318–333.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Cohen, J. (1999). Cooperation and community economy and society in Oaxaca. Austin: University of Texas Press.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Cohen, J. (2001). Transnational migration in rural Oaxaca, Mexico: Dependency, development, and the household. American Anthropologist, 103, 954–967.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Cohen, J. H. (2002). Social responses to migration among Mexican ethnic minorities: Outcomes in sending and receiving communities (Working paper series 3). Aalborg, Denmark: The Academy for Migration Studies.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Cohen, J., & Rodriguez, L. (2005). Remittance outcomes in rural Oaxaca, Mexico: Challenges, options and opportunities for migrant households. Population, Space and Place, 11, 49–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Conway, D., & Cohen, J. (1998). Consequences of migration and remittances for Mexican transnational communities. Economic Geography, 74(1), 26–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. DeWalt, B. R., & Rees, M. W. (1994). The end of agrarian reform in Mexico: Past lessons, future prospects. In Transformation of rural Mexico. Center for U.S-Mexican Studies, University of California–San Diego.

  18. Dinerman, I. (1978). Patterns of adaptation among households of US-bound migrants from Michoacán, Mexico. International Migration Review, 12, 485–501.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Durand, J. (1994). Más allá de la línea. Mexico: Fondo para la Cultura y las Artes.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Durand, J., Kandel, W., Parrado, E. A., & Massey, D. S. (1996a). International migration and development in Mexican communities. Demography, 33, 249–264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Durand, J., & Massey, D. S. (1992). Mexican migration to the United States: A critical review. Latin American Research Review, 27(2), 3–42.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Durand, J., Massey, D. S., & Zenteno, R. M. (2001). Mexican immigration to the United States: Continuities and changes. Latin American Research Review, 36, 107–127.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Durand, J., Parrado, E. A., & Massey, D. S. (1996b). Migradollars and development: A reconsideration of the Mexican case. International Migration Review, 30, 423–444.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Firebaugh, G. (1999). Empirics of world income inequality. The American Journal of Sociology, 104, 1597–1630.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Firebaugh, G. (2000). The trend in between-nation income inequality. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 323–339.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Goldring, L. (1996). The changing configuration of property rights under Ejido reform. In L. Randall (Ed.), The reform of Mexican agrarian reform (pp. 271–287). New York: M.E. Sharp.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Gonzalez, C. P. (1970). Democracy in Mexico. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Hamilton, S. (2002). Neoliberalism, gender, and property rights in rural Mexico. Latin American Research Review, 37(1), 119–143.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Heckman, J. J. (1979). Sample selection bias as a specification error. Econometrica, 47, 153–162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Hoddinott, J. (1994). A model of migration and remittances applied to Western Kenya. Oxford Economic Papers, 46, 459–476.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Hoffman, K., & Centeno, M. A. (2003). The lopsided continent: Inequality in Latin America. Annual Review of Sociology, 29, 363–390.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Huber, E., Nielsen, F., Pribble, J., & Stephens, J. D. (2006). Politics and inequality in Latin America and the Caribbean. American Sociological Review, 71, 943–963.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Jones, R. C. (1995). Ambivalent journey: US migration and economic mobility in North-Central Mexico. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Jones, R. C. (1998). Remittances and inequality: A question of migration stage and geographic scale. Economic Geography, 74(1), 8–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Koechlin, V., & Leon, G. (2007). International remittances and income inequality: An empirical investigation. Journal of Economic Policy Reform, 8, 205–226.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Kuznets, S. (1955). Economic growth and income inequality. American Economic Review, 45, 1–28.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Lowell, B. L., & de la Garza, R. O. (2002). The development role of remittances in U.S. Latino communities and Latin America. In R. de la Garza & B. L. Lowell (Eds.), Sending money home: Hispanic remittances and community development (pp. 3–27). Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Lozano, F. A. (2003). Discurso oficial, remesas y desarrollo en México. Migración y Desarrollo, 1(1), 23–31.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Lozano, F. A. (2007). Migración y desarrollo: Remesas y su impacto en la economía Mexicana. In M. I. Mateos (Ed.), Migración: Reconfiguración transnacional y flujos de población (pp. 135–144). Puebla, Mexico: Universidad Iberoamericana Puebla.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Massey, D. S., & Espinosa, K. E. (1997). What's driving Mexico-U.S. migration? A theoretical, empirical, and policy analysis. The American Journal of Sociology, 102, 939–999.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Massey, D. S., Goldring, L., & Durand, J. (1994). Continuities in transnational migration: An analysis of nineteen Mexican communities. The American Journal of Sociology, 99, 1492–1533.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Massey, D. S., & Parrado, E. A. (1998). International migration and business formation in Mexico. Social Science Quarterly, 79, 1–20.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Massey, D. S., & Zenteno, R. M. (1999). The dynamics of mass migration. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 96, 5328–5335.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. McKenzie, D., & Rapoport, H. (2007). Network effects and the dynamics of migration and inequality: Theory and evidence from Mexico. Journal of Development Economics, 84(1), 1–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Mines, R. (1981). Developing a community tradition of migration to the United States: A field study in rural Zacatecas, Mexico, and California Settlement Areas. In Monographs in US–Mexican studies no. 3: Program in United States–Mexican Studies, University of California, San Diego.

  46. Mines, R., & de Janvry, A. (1982). Migration to the United States and Mexican rural development: A case study. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 64, 444–454.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Mines, R., & Massey, D. S. (1985). Patterns of migration to the United States from two Mexican communities. Latin American Research Review, 20(2), 104–123.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Mora, J. (2005). The impact of migration and remittances on distribution and dources of income (United Nations population division working paper). New York: United Nations.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Morley, S. (2001). The income distribution problem in Latin America and the Caribbean. Santiago, Chile: United Nations Press.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Munshi, K. (2003). Networks in the modern economy: Mexican migrants in the U.S. labor market. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118, 549–599.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Orrenius, P. (2006). The effect of U.S. border enforcement on the crossing behavior of Mexican migrants. In J. Durand & D. S. Massey (Eds.), Crossing the border: Research from the Mexican Migration Project (pp. 281–298). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Paige, J. M. (1997). Coffee and power: Revolution and the rise of democracy in Central America. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Rapoport, H., & Docquier, F. (2006). The economics of migrants’ remittances. In S.-C. Kolm & J. M. Ythier (Eds.), Handbook of economics of reciprocity, giving and altruism (pp. 1135–1198). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: North-Holland.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Ratha, D., & Xu, Z. (2008). Migration and remittances factbook 2008. Washington, DC: World Bank Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Reichert, J. (1981). The migrant syndrome: Seasonal US wage labor and rural development in central Mexico. Human Organization, 40(1), 56–66.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Reichert, J. (1982). A town divided: Economic stratification and social relations in a Mexican migrant community. Social Problems, 29, 411–423.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Rempel, H., & Lobdell, R. A. (1978). The role of urban-to-rural remittances in rural development. Journal of Development Studies, 14, 324–341.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Singer, A., & Massey, D. S. (1998). The social process of undocumented border crossing among Mexican migrants. International Migration Review, 32, 561–592.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Smith, R. C. (1998). Transnational localities: Community, technology and the politics of membership within the context of Mexico and U.S. migration. In M. P. Smith & L. E. Guarnizo (Eds.), Comparative urban community research (pp. 196–238). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Spencer, D. F., & Berk, K. T. (1981). A limited information specification test. Econometrica, 49, 1079–1085.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Staiger, D., & Stock, J. H. (1997). Instrumental variables regression with weak instruments. Econometrica, 65, 557–586.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Stark, O., & Levhari, D. (1982). On migration and risk in LDCs. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 31, 91–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Stark, O., & Taylor, J. E. (1991). Migration incentives, migration types: The role of relative deprivation. The Economic Journal, 101, 1163–1178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Stark, O., Taylor, J. E., & Yitzhaki, S. (1986). Remittances and inequality. The Economic Journal, 96, 722–740.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Taylor, J. E. (1992). Remittances and inequality reconsidered: Direct, indirect, and intertemporal effects. Journal of Policy Modeling, 14, 187–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Taylor, J. E. (1999). The new economics of labour migration and the role of remittances in the migration process. International Migration, 37(1), 63–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Taylor, J. E., Adams, R. H., Jr., & Mora, J. (2009). Remittances, inequality and poverty: Evidence from rural Mexico. In J. Dewind & J. Holdaway (Eds.), Migration and development within and across borders: Research and policy perspectives on internal and international migration. Geneva, Switzerland: International Organization for Migration and The Social Science Research Council.

  68. Taylor, J. E., Arango, J., Hugo, G., Kouaouci, A., Massey, D. S., & Pellegrino, A. (1996). International migration and community development. Population Index, 62, 397–418.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Taylor, J. E., Rozelle, S., & de Brauw, A. (2003). Migration and incomes in source communities: A new economics of migration perspective from China. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 52(1), 75–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Tuirán, R. G., & Santibáñez, J. R. (2006). El monto de las remesas familiares en México: ¿mito o realidad? Papeles de Población, 50, 147–169.

    Google Scholar 

  71. Wiest, R. E. (1973). Wage-labor migration and the household in a Mexican town. Journal of Anthropological Research, 29, 180–209.

    Google Scholar 

  72. Woodruff, C., & Zenteno, R. (2007). Migration networks and microenterprises in Mexico. Journal of Development Economics, 82, 509–528.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. World Bank. (2008). World Bank development report 2008: Agriculture for development. Washington, DC: World Bank.

    Google Scholar 

  74. Zenteno, R. M., & Massey, D. S. (1998). Especifidad versus representatividad: Enfoques metodologicos para el estudio de la migracion internacional. Estudios Demogroficos y Urbanos, 40, 75–116.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research was funded by the Clark and Milton Funds at Harvard University, and a Junior Faculty Synergy Semester Grant from the Weatherhead Center for International Affairs. I thank Fatih Unlu for suggesting some of the methodology of the paper, and Jeff Blossom at the Center for Geographic Analysis at Harvard for compiling the geographic data. I am grateful to Peter Azoulay, Cedric Deleon, Frank Dobbin, Roberto Fernandez, Andrew Foster, Stine Grodal, Alya Guseva, Emily Heaphy, William Kandel, Yaojun Li, Nancy Luke, Peter Marsden, Sigrun Olafsdottir, Robert Putnam, Kenneth Wachter, Arnout van de Rijt, Mary Waters, and Bruce Western for helpful advice.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Filiz Garip.

Appendices

Appendix A: Testing the Validity of the Distance-Prevalence Interaction as an Instrument for Migration

The first column of Table 6 presents the marginal effects of distance by community migration prevalence estimated in a probit model of U.S. migration. Migration prevalence is defined as the proportion of individuals who ever migrated in a community. (The Pearson’s correlation between distance and prevalence is only –.02.) Showing a nonlinear pattern, distance to border increases the odds of migrating, while its squared term decreases it. The effect of distance also depends on the migration prevalence in the community. For individuals in zero-migration-prevalence communities, for example, increasing the distance to border from 0 to 1,000 km decreases the probability of migrating approximately sevenfold. For individuals in medium-prevalence communities, where about 13 % of individuals have migrated, a similar increase in distance decreases the probability of migrating only threefold. As expected, the negative effect of distance is concentrated among individuals living in communities with low migration prevalence and suggests the validity of the interaction term for explaining variation in migration. As an alternative check for instrument validity, we tested for weak instruments by excluding the distance-prevalence interaction from the migration model. The resulting F statistic was 115.6 (df = 487,225), more than 10-fold the lower bound of 10 required to reject the hypothesis of weak instruments (Staiger and Stock 1997).

Table 6 Estimated marginal effects of community distance to the U.S. border on migration and U.S. wagesa

To provide evidence for instrument exogeneity, which is not directly testable, we examine the partial correlations between the instrument and migrants’ U.S. wages, which are strongly correlated with remittances. If the instrument is associated with the unobserved determinants of remittances, we would expect it to be correlated with the observed measures, such as U.S. wages, as well. The regression results in the second model of Table 6 show that distance to border and migration prevalence in community have statistically insignificant associations with migrants’ U.S. wages. Overall the evidence in Table 6 suggests the distance-prevalence interaction as a valid source of identification in the Heckman model.

Appendix B: Distribution of Household Wealth and Remittances in Mexico

Figure 2 shows histograms for logarithms of land, properties, remittances, and savings (nonzero values only), which are approximately normal in distribution.

Fig. 2
figure2

Distribution of household assets and funds from migrants

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Garip, F. Repeat Migration and Remittances as Mechanisms for Wealth Inequality in 119 Communities From the Mexican Migration Project Data. Demography 49, 1335–1360 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13524-012-0128-6

Download citation

Keywords

  • Migration
  • Remittances
  • Wealth inequality
  • Mexico