Social capital and migration: How do similar resources lead to divergent outcomes?

Abstract

This article investigates how migrant social capital differentially influences individuals’ migration and cumulatively generates divergent outcomes for communities. To combine the fragmented findings in the literature, the article proposes a framework that decomposes migrant social capital into resources (information about or assistance with migration), sources (prior migrants), and recipients (potential migrants). Analysis of multilevel and longitudinal data from 22 rural villages in Thailand shows that the probability of internal migration increases with the available resources, yet the magnitude of increase depends on recipients’ characteristics and the strength of their ties to sources. Specifically, individuals become more likely to migrate if migrant social capital resources are greater and more accessible. The diversity of resources by occupation increases the likelihood of migration, while diversity by destination inhibits it. Resources from weakly tied sources, such as village members, have a higher effect on migration than resources from strongly tied sources in the household. Finally, the importance of resources for migration declines with recipients’ own migration experience. These findings challenge the mainstream account of migrant social capital as a uniform resource that generates similar migration outcomes for different groups of individuals or in different settings. In Nang Rong villages, depending on the configuration of resources, sources, and recipients, migrant social capital leads to differential migration outcomes for individuals and divergent cumulative migration patterns in communities.

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

References

  1. Arizpe, L. 1975. Indigenas en la Ciudad de Mexico: El Caso de Las Marias [Indigenous in Mexico City: The case of“Las Marias”]. Mexico City: Secretaria de Educacion Publica.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Bello, W., S. Cunningham, and L.K. Poh. 1998. A Siamese Tragedy: Development and Disintegration in Modern Thailand. London: Zed Books, Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Bourdieu, P. 1986. “The Forms of Capital.” Pp. 241 -58 in Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education, edited by J.G. Richardson. New York: Greenwood Press.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Burt, R. 1992. Structural Holes: The Social Structure of Competition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Chamratrithirong, A., K. Archavanitkul, K. Richter, P. Guest, T. Varachai, W. Boonchalaksi, N. Piriyathamwong, and P. Vong-ek. 1995. National Migration Survey of Thailand. Bangkok, Thailand: Institute for Population and Social Research, Mahidol University.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Coleman, J. 1988. “Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital.” American Journal of Sociology 94(suppl.):S95-S120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Curran, S., F. Garip, and C. Chung. 2005. “Advancing Theory and Evidence About Migration and Cumulative Causation: Destination and Gender in Thailand.” CMD Working Paper No. 357. Center for Migration and Development, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Curran, S., F. Garip, C. Chung, and K. Tangchonlatip. 2005. “Gendered Migrant Social Capital: Evidence From Thailand.” Social Forces 84:225–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Curran, S. and E. Rivero-Fuentes. 2003. “Engendering Migrant Networks: The Case of Mexican Migration.” Demography 40:289–307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Davis, B., G. Stecklov, and P. Winters. 2002. “Domestic and International Migration From Rural Mexico: Disaggregating the Effects of Network Structure and Composition.” Population Studies 56:291–309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Deléchat, C. 2001. “International Migration Dynamics: The Role of Experience and Social Networks.” Labour 15:457–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. De Jong, G., K. Richter, and P. Isarabhakdi. 1996. “Gender, Values, and Intentions to Move in Rural Thailand.” International Migration Review 30:748–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Dunlevy, J.A. 1991. “On the Settlement Patterns of Recent Caribbean and Latin Immigrants to the United States.” Growth Change 22(1):54–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Fussell, E. and D. Massey. 2004. “The Limits to Cumulative Causation: International Migration From Mexican Urban Areas.” Demography 41:151–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Granovetter, M. 1973. “The Strength of Weak Ties.” American Journal of Sociology 78:1360–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Hafner, J. 2000. “Thailand.” Pp. 434–68 in Southeast Asia Diversity and Development, edited by T. Leinbach and R. Ulack. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Jansen, K. 1997. External Finance in Thailands Development: An Interpretation of Thailands Growth Boom. New York: St. Martins Press.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Kanaiaupuni, S. 2000. “Reframing the Migration Question: An Analysis of Men, Women, and Gender in Mexico.” Social Forces 78:1311–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Lin, N. 2000. “Inequality in Social Capital.” Contemporary Sociology 29:785–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. — 2001. Social Capital: A Theory of Social Structure and Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Lin, N., W.N. Vaughn, and J.C. Ensel. 1981. “Social Resources and Strength of Ties.” American Sociological Review 46:393–405.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Lomnitz, L.A. 1977. Networks and Marginality: Life in a Mexican Shantytown. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Massey, D. 1990. “Social Structure, Household Strategies, and the Cumulative Causation of Migration.” Population Index 56:3–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Massey, D., J. Ariango, G. Hugo, A. Kouaouci, A. Pellegrino, and J. Taylor. 1993. “Theories of International Migration: A Review and Appraisal.” Population and Development Review 19:431–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Massey, D. and K.E. Espinosa. 1997. “What’s Driving Mexico-U.S. Migration? A Theoretical, Empirical, and Policy Analysis.” American Journal of Sociology 102:939–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Massey, D. and F. García-España. 1987. “The Social Process of International Migration.” Science 237:733–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Massey, D., L. Goldring, and J. Durand. 1994. “Continuities in Transnational Migration: An Analysis of Nineteen Mexican Communities.” American Journal of Sociology 99:1492–533.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Massey, D. and R. Zenteno. 1999. “The Dynamics of Mass Migration.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 96:5328–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Mills, M.B. 1997. Thai Women in the Global Labor Force: Consuming Desires, Contested Selves. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Neter, J., W. Wasserman, and M. Kunter. 1990. Applied Linear Statistical Models, 3rd ed. Boston: Irwin.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Palloni, A., D. Massey, M. Ceballos, K. Espinosa, and M. Spittel. 2001. “Social Capital and International Migration: A Test Using Information on Family Networks.” American Journal of Sociology 106:1262–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Portes, A. 1998. “Social Capital: Its Origins and Applications in Modern Sociology.” Annual Review of Sociology 24:1–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Putnam, R. 2000. Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York: Simon & Schuster.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Rasbash, J., F. Steele, W. Browne, and B. Prosser. 2005. A User’s Guide to MlwiN, version 2.0. London: Centre for Multilevel Modelling, University of Bristol.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Rindfuss, R., T. Kaneda, A. Chattopadhyay, and C. Sethaput. 2007. “Panel Studies and Migration.” Social Science Research 36:374–403.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Shannon, C. 1948. “A Mathematical Theory of Communication.” Bell System Technical Journal 27:379–422, 623–56.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Short, S. 2006. “Focus Group Interviews.” Pp. 103–16 in A Handbook for Social Science Field Research: Essays and Bibliographic Sources on Research Design, Methodology, and Fieldwork, edited by E. Perecman and S. Curran. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Stark, O. and E. Taylor. 1989. “Relative Deprivation and International Migration.” Demography 26:1–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Suksiriserekul, S. 2000. “Responses of Thai Households and the Thai Government in Coping With the Social Impacts of the Economic Crisis.” Pp. 221–28 in Globalization and the Asian Economic Crisis: Indigenous Responses, Coping Strategies, and Governance Reform in Southeast Asia, edited by G. Hainsworth. Vancouver, Canada: Centre for Southeast Asia Research, Institute for Asian Research.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Tambunlertchai, S. 1990. A Profile of Provincial Industries. Bangkok, Thailand: Thailand Development Research Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Taylor, J.E. 1986. “Differential Migration, Networks, Information and Risk.” Pp. 147–71 in Research in Human Capital and Development, Vol. 4, edited by O. Stark. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Warr, P. and B. Nidhiprabha. 1996. Thailands Macroeconomic Miracle: Stable Adjustment and Sustained Growth. Washington, DC: The World Bank.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Winters, P., A. de Janvry, and E. Sadoulet. 2001. “Family and Community Networks in Mexico-U.S. Migration.” Journal of Human Resources 36:159–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Additional information

This research was funded by research grants from Program in Urbanization and Migration at Princeton University and the National Science Foundation (#SES-0525942). I am grateful to Renelinda Arana, Debbie Becher, Coral Celeste, Chang Chung, Sara Curran, Paul DiMaggio, Doug Massey, Steven Shafer, Amy Sullivan, Marta Tienda, Bruce Western, and the anonymous reviewers for helpful suggestions. This research is based on data from the Nang Rong Survey, a collaborative effort between investigators at the University of North Carolina, Carolina Population Center, and investigators at the Institute for Population and Social Research (IPSR), Mahidol University, Salaya, Thailand. It is partially funded by Grant R01- HD25482 from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development to the Carolina Population Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Persons interested in obtaining data files from the Nang Rong Survey Project should contact The Nang Rong Survey Project, Carolina Population Center, 123 W. Franklin Street, CB# 8120, Chapel Hill, NC 27516-3997 (nangrong@unc.edu).

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Garip, F. Social capital and migration: How do similar resources lead to divergent outcomes?. Demography 45, 591–617 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1353/dem.0.0016

Download citation

Keywords

  • Social Capital
  • Potential Migrant
  • Migration Decision
  • Destination Diversity
  • Migration Outcome