Ann. RC'·. Anrhro¡",¡.

IY86 15'331-()J
COPYflRhl ,t 1986 hy Armilar R('\·ú·w~ Ir.(' AtI ri~hl' 7'~5~n·~d

FROM THE INVISIBLE HAND TO

VISIBLE FEET: Anthropological Studies
of Migration and Development

Michael Kearney

Department uf An!hropolDgy, Ur.:\~rsi:y (l~ C~:jfomia. Riversidc, California 92521

In ¡¡ striet sensc migration is the mu\c:ncr,l of pcople through geographic

space. As such, migration', acad::mil' hornc IS in a back room of dcmography,
where il does no( rcceive mueh at:enliOfl from anthropologhts. lnstead, most
anthropologieal work on migration take, the form of "mlgration and _." The
(opks that fill the blank encompa~, mLlny fields. For the purposes of this
rcview, as it, (itle indicates, the b!ank ¡~ ftI!ed with "dcvelopmcnt." Contem-
porary migrants are predominarltl: ""orkers nloving from areas wherc they
wcre born and [¡¡ised lo others where the!, can find a higher rCCUrn for thcir
lahor. These spatial differcntiah ir. employ:nent opportunities represent lesser
and greater levels of economic dc\'e1opm::nc. The invcstigation of migration is
thus inextricably associatcd wilh issues (lf development and underdevelop-
menl. Or as Todaro (l5l) said, "The cause'. and consequcnces of continued
internal as well as intcmatjonal migration líe ae the heart of (he contemporary
development problem,"
A number of deve!opmcl1eul i,sues nave emerged in the migratíon litera-
turco most notably relationshLp' between r.-¡igr:1tioll and urbanization, in-
dustrializ¡¡tion, agriculture, fanllly stnxture. gendcr roles, and ídeology. This
review concentrates on cthnographic s~uJies oí ¡hese issues and assesses the
resulling thcorctical and substant:ve ad\'anccs. A, such thcse studies contrast
with macro level research on mig~ation bascd (ln aggregate statistical data at
regional and national levels.

331
0084-657t}8& 101:;-0000502.00
 KI:,AHNI'Y
TI IFORI~TJ('AI_ Pb.RSPE< TIVES
1\ IIC1¡;htt'IICC1 ,IWaICIH'\\ 01 Ih¡; m..t¡':lllllld¡: ,llId ~igllllll':lIIn' 01 ll1i!~ralion
:IIIIOllf', pIII('1 tlllllr~ I all', .. d jlllllllOpolo)',I',h lo hllll_lI w ;ly 11.111\ tOtllllllllllty
,llIdll'\ 111 1111' 1'Ii(l', .lIul 1'/(,(1·, wlll'lI ti b",atlle wlddy rcali/.cd Ihal sudl wllrk
\';1'. ',11111';11['. 1",,1, "',111;11,,1 IIIY"I'I:I HC\pOn\l~S lo Ihls crisis Il¡\v~: illdutlcd'
lile 11',(, 01 IIII IJIt ..11111 tl "pol,,!!.v, Ilu' .1111 luopology 01 work, and a conn:m wnh _
1.-1,11111/: 11111 1" ,11111 IlI,h ' " kv.-!\ ,,1 '1IId)' , ;~nd Ihe analysis of "cllrnplcx"
;'1 IU¡:I 11". MII',lóllllIIl !lnd dnd"l'llIl'lI( ¡lit' illlportilllt dilllellSio!IS uf lhcse
111"1111-. 111 .1I111I1PI'"lofY, ,111.1 111 1(,\'II'WIII)' lCl'Cnt )jleralure Ihal lalls In thelr
IIIII'I\\"\ 1, ,,,y 111:1111. "Ihl'lll'\ wlIIl 111l'01l'1!,·0I11\\ltl:\ antl pc:rspcrtives lill!ter
111,111 :1 \ ,II;IIII)',III)', .. t 1.· .. 1'.11' 11 IIIUIlIl)'\ III\otal:1\ I':ullclllar Sllldll.'~ are (iler!.
Ihr I'lIlpo~,r 1.\ lo t'xclIll'llly (h(" \',IIIPIIS lllnllrll, ,,1 Ollelll.lllullS Wllh :111 cyr 10
a~~"\\IIIj'. (IIrll ahdlly lo )'ell<'luh' ,1111111 "l'O 1o/'. 11 :r1 111'1.1 In",II,1I ,lt (h,' l'll'al
kvel Iltal 'p,·a\..\ lo 1Il0lr gl'lIn:l1 I\\!ln ni IIlIgl.IIII'1I ami J~'vd"pl1lenl
Ml)I,ralion rescardl i~ pH·,cnlly iI "1101" IOPI(, 111 IlIc IJm(nl SLltc\ Ih ..
I1IlgOlng n:Jlional dchate ,)n 111111l1F,r,llllIll law h,l~ givrn 1I nHl\id,:1 ahll: rl'k-
valKT TIII' i~ op,~ciillly huI' 01' M,'xicall IlIIL!rallllll lo lite 1I1111eU Statt'~,
wllidl reprcscnts a uniquc situatioll DI' a long pCTmcahlc land honler hclwcl'n :1
hit',hly dcvclopcd and an undcrdcvcioped counlry, A comparable stlUctural
rdaliol1ship cxists betwcen wcstcm and northcm Europe and the underdc-
vcloJ1ed countries of the Mcditerranean basin, During (he boom years of Ihe
I <¡(¡Os and early 1970s numerous binational agreements were made betwecn
Inhor.receiving and labor-exporting countries, However, the cnd ()f the eco-
Illllllic expamion in 1973 caused a sudden sharp reversal in Ihe labor needs of
the rcceiving countrie~ and provokcd conccm with stemmíng lhe flows,
repatriating now supcrfluous industrial and service workers and theír fami.líes,
and other policy issues havíng to do with Ihe immigrant "problem," Iklght-
ened public and academíc concern with migration in both sending and rcce,iv-
ing arcas has been !he result, Massive migran! labor flows a~e al~o perv~~lve
within and among Third World countrics and are directed pnmanly to ellles,
Anthropological research on internal migration in underdeveloped countries i~
Iherefore associated wilh problems of urbanization and rural dcvdopment a~d
with the human and policy issues linked to the current declining phase of the.
guestworker programs in Europc and thc ongoing immígration debate in th~
Uníted States. -
- As migration and developmental issues have unfolded in the last 20 y~~s
anthropological orientalions to, them have dramatically ehanged, In ldentlfy-
ing curren! trends in Iheory and research it is instructive fírst lo revicw these
shifts, which roughly correspond lO three succcssivc theoretical orientations
that we can refer to as modemintion, dependency, and articulation (37), The
latter and main par! of this review concentrales on rCcen! work that falls
within the articulation perspective.
MIGRATION AND DEVELOPMENT 333
Migration as Modernization
Most of the anthropological rcsea~ch on mígration andJ~~vc1opment up to
about the mid 19705 was conceptu(!lized wTthilLtbe general m.odr;\ knQwn a~ ,
~r!1-()dcmization theory whích had emerged in ¡he 195()s and 60s ¡¡stº-~ domí,-
nanl paradigm of economic and-cultural changr, Modernizatíon theory grew
'()ut of a synthesi~ of anthropological and sociological models of social changi
and neocJassical economics, all of which have exercised strong influences on.
migration theory. (173).
~odernizativn. tneory was the culminating, mosl comprehcnsive <,\nQ e~­
plicit expression of the Victorían sense of history and of "development." Thi§
Tmage of the civilizatíon proce~s, elaborated in England and perfected in the_
_United Slalc" is notably Anglo- and Euroccntric in !hat it embellishes more or_
less ~()pllisticated we-thcy dicholomics that date to Gr..eek notions of civíliZl!-
lion versus barharism, f'rotolypicale'l're~sions of Ihís VictoríªILh~tQrical
SCIlSlhlilly, rO! cxalT\Dl~, Ihose of Tónntes, M;ine:and r5~;kheim (with their
dislinc(llllI\ belwcen (;,'meillschaji and Ce,~d/s('h(JJi, ~tatu~and con1ract,~;!ruI
Ilwlh:lllical and "'l'allll' slllidaríly, respcctively) wcrc applied lo tnes!lldy qL
IlIigr;llillll ;!WlIlld lile turn (JI' [he century by Thomas andZnaniecki ill.. th.eir
monumenlal lile l'al/,11t 1"'iI.\'{/n( ;1/ Euwpe l/nd Amcrica (1918), This work
aho hccamc a cnrnersllllll' (lf lhe University 01' Chicago scho~r-of ur1:>ari
-snciology as dc"dopeu hy Thlll1la~ amJ Z!,~[]leckt's colleagues Wirth and.
-Park, It remaincd for Park's son-in-Iaw, Robert Rcdfield, lo dcvelop the
. anthr~pological variant 01 Ihis ha,ic paradigm known as thc "folk-urb;m
~~núnuum:" most notably in Thé Fofk Cllffllff' o/ YucatarÍ· U94Tl:, •
-- Rcdfi-cld's workwas the PQint of departúrc for most of the migration an_~
u~~d(;pm_ent rescarch.,Qt NQrth Amqiq~n arl!h[9!,ologists uP.t0 the lUid.
-jl)~.IhC:- !JIJ!s~ivef1()w QI: pcasantsint?-cities uf the post-World War l!
p~¿jod sº~Jneclat first..lll.m!!P ni<;e.lY on!S!_'.~.(olk-urball continu~.~:_~igrant~
werc "cen as pro.Ere~~i_vc type~~ho woulclhavc.. a positive imp~.::!. on develop- ,
:D1t;n.t by bringjngh.a~~_toJhejr home wmmunitiesin~12\:atiunsand k~o",:ledge.
Jhat. WQuld . brcilkAo.\,\'Il....!ratliEonaüsffi_ 'I~_e_ ~nain_unit of an.~Iy:slS ... 15_ th~
individual migrant, who hccause of crilÍeal factors such as age, gender,
ii)~_rital-Status, personality. or economic status "decides". 10 migrate.'-::lúl._
¡¡g;g~iated resc~~~h task .. is tosc~~s!.."Y-._th~se .. indiyidWlLllligr¡¡~!s. ':~~~]J!'"
~~imilªteo:: all<:j::adjm.(,-allvosi!iVe lcrms Jhat Jeflj::ft .¡he ylctonan~n~
tiQ,nLof p[Ogrc~~, another Qf t.h¡: flresuppositio!).~ of nl~dertljz:ati(m tb~ory,
A)though individual migrant~, or by eXlension theír Üunilies, are the basis.
unit oLanalysis, the sphcre of research continued to be the RedfieJdian "smaJI
~.QmmJ!nity," <lml as such was consistent ..... ith the modcrnizationists' pro mo:
tion oC ~\onunu nity deveJopment.. ..
"··Modernization Iheory is also urban-cenlrj¡¡_ This is apparen! in its dualist
a;sumptions Iha! postulare a polar di~tinction between city and countryside, a,
dis!inction that corresponds úí dev~loped versus llndJ.:rdcveloped and modero
334 KEARNEY
verSUS traditional. FroIT1 assumpliQ!ls 01' dualism comes the assumption o~:
d¡ff~~i(;~~ all things p;omoting progrc~s happcn in .and [low from the modem.
~íly to the backward countryside, as they similarly f10w hum advanccd.
-;ations lo "newly developing" nations. Conversely, "Iraditionar' people~
~lÍgrate from cOluúryside to citíes and [mm "1ess dcvcluped" to more de-
veloped countries..
Urban anthropology owes its existence largely to anthropologisls who, after
initi31 fieldwork in rural areas, followed their informants into the citíes. and
almosl always inlo shantytowns. Thi~ is apparenl from looking al the careers
of the founden of the joumal Urban Anthropology, most of whom initially
workcd in rural cOllllnunities,-Q~c~ar_.Lc~is i~liPprQPri<lteJ.y given credi.t fOI
correcting.his mcntorRedtie1d' S overly bucelic ¡mage uf rural villagc life.. but.
Íe~s re me mb.ercd is his equally pioneeri!!'p tr.acking of Tepo¡:tlan peasants intg
M~xi~-;; . City .7 type of p¡;yject efaborated in tum by his own studen!"
Builcrworth' (27-30). Another notable cxamplc fmm Me.xico is Fostcr)
st~4i~t!<~~pcr,. ~~o t'oIl~wed migrants from_T7:i!1~z~n:za!1 lo Mcxico C~ty
a-;d lhe Unitcd Statc., ..(]2).
-1\ gro~ingperceptiün of inconsi5tencies in the Wirth-Redfieldian model oJ
~rbanj?a,tjon caused those anthropologists ,tudying rural migrants to citics in.
-the 1960s an'd 70s to begin speaking of Peasanrs in Ci(Ít'~ (92.93). A dawning.
awárenéss that. úiil!rary lo Ihe basíc tenets of modernization theory. urbaníz~­
(ion was occurring: without development caused a casting about for new.
=concepts to interPret these realitic~. In the 1970s, virtually al! research was.
with recent migrants from the countrys«lc.. 51l fm mUS! anthropologlsts thl~
r.cthinking modified sorne of the tenets of modemization theory but retained.
most of i¡s basü: premises (see above). 1)1e focus was s!ill on the individua!
. decision maker, deciding whcther or not 10 migra te and if so, how .(e.g. 61,
'156). Feldman (49) exemplifics this trend with his ''squallcr suburbanization
hypothesis" which explaíns how a Philippine urban migrant shantytown "is.
symptomatic not of urban.d~cay but of a positive growth potential for the citi',
(49, p. 123). Working within lhe modemization orientation. he analyzes
preferences; decision making is studicd indircctly fmm data on rcsidcnc~
. pattems, elc. This fieldwork supports a distinction between the inner city
slums and squalter communities of recent migrants imbued with "incipicnt
'míddle-c1ass vajues.':
Whereas Victorian academic assumptions are al! but dead in contemporary
anthropology and soóology, they live on in orthodox economic equllibrium
approaches to migration and dcvclopment. Thc apogcc of ncoclassic eco-
nomics co-occurrcd in the late nineteenth century with the massive out-
migrations from Europe. Thcn, as nnw, economisls rcgardcd mignmt~ as
rcsponding to spatíal unevenness in labor markets, moving to where they
could ootain highcr wagcs. Overseas migrations were seen as continuations 01"
MIGRATlON ANO OEVELOPMENT 335
the massive urbanization 01' former gcnerations ol' European peasants associ-
atcd wilh the industrialization af Westem nalians. Migration was one of ¡he
factors promoting Ihe wealth of the nations that received this labor. Con-
versely, as Jobn Sluart Mili argued (see 116, p. 6), the loss of population
through migralion weakens a nation 's economic vitality. This nineleenth
century vicw of the positive role of migratio!,! far devclopmcnt was applied 10' _
Iwentíeth century underdcvelopmcnt by W. Arthur Lewis. (83) in his impor-
tant paper, "Economic Developmenl wilh Unlimited Supplies of Labour.'"
Lcwis maintained that urban labor markets would absorb "surplus" labor from
the countrysidc which would thcn fuel urban industrializatíon which in tum
would result in growth-promoting linkages with the countryside . .Lcwis did
not anticipate (he ri~e of massive uncmploymcnt of Third WorId countries in
. the 19605 and 70s, aggravated in the eilies hy rural lo urban migration and in ~
thc eountry,>ide by capitalíst investment in labor-saving tcchnology.
1.1 wa, in ¡he face of such continucd uman migralion coupled with higb
urban unemployment lhat Todaro (IsÜí attémpted lo salvagc <the nc~classic'
model's 3"umption of Tational migrants making dccisions. This model, latér
madiricd by Harris and Todaro (66, 151), is.<based on differcntial employmeni
aéiá carning opportunilies in different regions and sees migration as rational
decision making of individual s and families hased on their perceptions of_
these opportunities: it a,sumes that individuals are aware of the eaming,
~ifferentials in the differenl regions and lhe probabilities of bccoming em-.
<p.loyed. In a laler vcrsion of this mode! it is noted that che qucst for a ¡ob that
wiÍl p~y the expccted wage mal' require an extended scarch. especially
because il is undcrtaken in conditions of unemploymem, causing ¡he migran!
to rely on cmployed fricnds and rclatives. Harris therefore says that,
Ir is L'k~r
rhat indíl'ídu.li~t modds ca,! in a dualistíc framcw"rk ~rc much loo "imple to
capt~r~ We,! Afrícan [migratlon] r.,~lily. Ilowcvcr. jt i, conceptually straightforward lo
focu, lhe analysis 00 decision.makíng unir, whethcrthey be faJlJilies. extended families, or
llth.r ,ocial f!mup'. Su¡;h ,ocíal un,!> have "vaibhle 10 rhen, c~r1aill rCSl)Urces. primarily
lhe potential labor ¡¡nu skil!:; "f the unit ]JIu, "';CeSS 10 bnd. credit. exi,ting capital.
tednical knowleuge, and ·contacl5· . . . . The theor} Ihal emerges fmm [hi, framework is
th~t Wc,t Arríean decisioll·"lakíng units act ín ¡heir perccived ,elf·intere,r in allocating
their rc,ource, among Illl' opPor111nilics (65, p. 71.
The main difficulty with this supra-individual decision-making model is
that there are no formal critena-nor probably cthonographic ones-with
which to circumscribe the "decision-rnaking unit." Conscquently all the rigor
of the individualistic mode! is los! snd lhe methodology becomes a metaphor
for simply descnbing observed bchavior. The ultimate extcnsíon of Ihis
progression nI' cver more inclusive decisinn-making unils lcads eventually to
entire communities. With the crumbling uf rhe hith¡;rto assumed monad of
336 KEARNEY
neoclassic economics-the rationa!. calculatíng individual possessing perfecI
knowledge-the edifice of equilibrium theory (hreatens to co!!apse. In thc end
Hanis is effectively driven to a structural position, concluding (ha! .....
migration is a response to underlying inequalities [of devclopment] and not
their principal cause" (65, p. 110).
The neoclassicis(s (e.g. 62) have (hus palnted (hemselvcs into a cOmer.
Todaro. for example, realizes that "no longer is migration viewcd as a
beneficent process necessary to salve problems of growing urhan labor de-
mando 00 the contrary, migration today must be seen as (he majar contribut-
ing factor to the ubiquitous phenomenon of urban sllrplus labor and a force
which continuc~to exacerbale already serious urban unemployment prob1cms
caused by growing economic and structural imbalances bctween uroao and
rural areas" (152. p. 23 1). Nevcrtheless, the neoclassic cconomic component
of modernization theory Jivc~ on in equilibrium studies of migrants in labor
markets (c.g. 59,69, 132, 147), even though there is now reeognition that
migration is more part of the prohlem ol" underdevelopment rather than a
solution to it (86).
Just as macro equilibrillm theory is incapable of cffectively modeling labor
migration fmm underdevcloped rural arcas. the attcmp[ to analyze the rational
economic deeision-making of individual migrants is frought with comparable
difficulties beca use of the complexity of mosl migration realities, not lo
menlion the power of extemalitíes Ihal affeel the process, cspecialIy In the
case of ínternational migration (173). Pcr~llPsl:leS:.allse ofthcse complcxities,
forn1ahst ecmlOmic anlhropology has. not made much [lf a showing even
though neoclassical appróaches in general conrinue 10 treat migration as.
'essentially mícroeconomicbehavíor (e.g. 132. 145). 'there was, howevcr, a.
.dawning awarell¿ss among anthropólogists in the 1970s thal the assumptions.
;Jf modemil.ation [heor)' did nol fil the observcd realitics of most migran~
~ommunitics. Consequently, although there a.re a few holdoUlS {e.g. 42),
.most rcsearchers no longer conccptualizc mij:ration in terms (Jf classic rnad:
~rnil.atíoo Iheory.
An offshoot of (he Redfield-Lewis dialog was a reas~essment af Wirth's
trealment of urban heterogeneity (55) as the main diagnostic of urbanismo
Thus, by the cady 1970s, urbao anthropologists, following Lewis's carly Ieaq
(84), werc regularly debunking Ihat pan of the Wirth·Redficldian model.
whích hcld tha! rural lo urban migrants beco me disorganized. individuaJi7.ed,.
and in general lose their rural ~oeial and cultural characleristi~s. 1t was shown
how "urbanization without breakdown" (R4) was the nonn ror peasants
migradng lo cities, although Scott Whiteford gave a contrary case of "hreak-
down before urbanization" (ISR). What these authors mean is that migrants do
no! hecome individualized bu! instead maiotain cxtensivc functioning kin andO
~o(ialt¡es withearlier migrants and with pcople in lheir natal communiti~~. '
MIGRATION ANO DEVELOPMENT 337
"~J.ust~ng."::adapti,ng," "cohesive," alld ."()rg:aníze'l" (1 R, 27, 49, 72, 87, 92,
93) iI.!!4.helpu)g lhe.l.~. rural nonrrJigrant relatives by sending cash remiUances
_~nd bringing back new ideas and technology i62)-ªnd by fonning organiz-a-",
Jtons to promolc village proieel~ (71. 128). A sort of Panglossian attitude
caustieally criticized hy Rhoades (124, p. 569), pervades this literature:
Migration fieldwork during this period and well into the mid 1970s was
sch.izophrenicaJly predieated 00 the as~umptions of modemization theory
whlle demons!rating the persistence of the traditional; what Lewis had dubbed
migration without breakdown mighl better have been ealled migration without
modernization.
This work did, however, lead to greater consternatíon among North Amer-
ican anthropologists ahout relationships oí" migration to dcvelopment. Dis-
_satisfaction wíth the prevailing paradigm i.'; expressed in a volume of p¡per~,
O1ost [rom a symposium at the 1975 AAA meetings, edited by Guillet&~
Uzzel! (64). The editors voiee unhappiness with the ¡;tate of migration theory
and the resultant lack of synfhe~is of ethoographic dcscription such tha! it can
be related lo the macro models of economists, geographer~, and demograph-
ers. They also ponder how migration decision making can be combined with
an attention lo "external constrainls" (64, p. 1). Uzzell (153) extends his
critique of the dichotomization of migrution into folk and urban to "polar
models" in generaL and as an altemative, offers the idea of a "social village
spread over thousaods of miles" 053, p. 343). an image comparable to Linda
Whíteford's (157) '\patially extended communities." and Lomnitz's "ecolo-
gicaj model" (88) of a multilocal social system that incorporales bolh village
and city. One of (he more innovati ve responses to Ihis perccption of continuity
of the rural in the urban is Lomnitz's (83-91) introduetion of the idea of rural
.n~~,:",~rks wllh urbano eo~pon~nts ~(s~e helow), ):Ybich in re Uospec I is perhap~
."~he smgle most Important contribution in this volume except for Shoemaker's
(144) useofa dependcllclj>erspectiveJse~ ~elow). Apaít Tram Shoemaker's-
~~,d f?mnitl.'s eontributions,_ the antidotes for Redfieidian approaches lo"
.!!llgratl()n ¡¡nd urbanization is a fine-tuning of the concepts and methods of
. m()dernizati~m tlie0Q', J.e., more attenúon to the psychological and culturai
complexities of rnigration and to adaptatíon and decision making, plus the
need to link thc micro lo the macro. The small comrnunity is still the field of
study, the individual the basic uni! of analysis, and although expanded,
cultural and psychological trails are still the primary concerns. Although a
rethinking of rural-urban relationships and a concem for macro íssues are
present, apart from Shoemaker's paper there is no other explicit reference in
Ihis voJume to any fuodamenta!ly different perspective.
While sorne anthropologists were lookíng for new ways lo conceptualize
migratíon and urbanizatíon, othcrs working in sending communities, observ-
ing the negatíve effecls of relllm migration, were similarly driven lo reassess-
-. .
 338 KEARNEY
Migration as Dependem'}'
Latin American political economists had realizcd by the late I 960s and early
1970s, earlier than North American anthropologists, Ihat development had nOl
proceeded as predicted by modemizalion thcory, or for that mattcr, Ihe
Communist Manifesto.
Dependency theory. then al its apogee in LalÍn Amerita. had c1aborated a
nco-Marxist critique of modcmizatinn thcory, cspecially its Chicago vanants.
Jnterestingly, though, one could argue tha! the version 01' depcndcncy theory
most popular in North America is actually a transfOffilation af the Chicago
mndeL Indccd, its main avatar in North America, Andre Gundre Frank (54),
was al50 a product 01' Chicago. What Frank in effect did was lo find mod-
emization theory standing on its hcad and to tum il onto its feet, Whereas
modcmization thcory was a vicw of history fmm the perspective 01' devclopcd
urban Jife, dependency theary carne, as it were. fmm the othcr end of the
folk-urban continuum and called attenlion not to dcvclopment bu! to the
"development of undcrdcvc1opmcnt" which. aeeording to Frank, was the
re,ult of the colonial encounter. The folk became satellite or pcriphcry and the
urban became the metropole or core. Rural and urban are not unconneeted
dual economies, but are instead linked togclhcr by lies of dependency serving
¡he developmenlal need~ not of the pcriphery but of the core, Thc Red-
ficldian variant of the Chicago model had modero traits diffusing fmm urban
to rural; dependency theory called attention 10 what flow~ in the opposite
direction, namely economic surplus. the transfcr of which from salellite (O
metropole results in {he dedcvcJlJpmcnt of (he fonner ¡¡nd the growth of
the lalter. Modemíza(ion theory is essentially psychologistic, individualislÍc.
microceonomistic, and ahistoric: dependency thcory theorizes historie
~.IQe~.o!1Qill¡.Lí~Lationships-and.pi.QCesscsafnatí()nál and iñtem¡¡iion~i
levels,-' FiQally, while modcmization thC!-;ry dich~tomi2:e:.tk würÍdlñ.lQ ·t;"o -
psychol~~!ci!J ~"¡¡!.-Z¡~ ¡:lllt!t-riu~;:e-ájr~~,- -¡he r~Qd~~-~~~d !h~ tn¡ditional, . de-
~~dc¿cy theory posits ¡he ~b¡qurtoUspn:;5encc nf a single wo-;Id-c~p¡lal;::t
1istem~---·----- -- . _. - .,. -. . . . . ._...
,~odemization thcory splits causes of n!igr~ti'?!1Jn.!o "p_ll:\h~' factors a~.sgcl­
atcd wíth "tradhíonal". soclétiú and"puB". factors .Iº~.aled ¡n',,<kvcínp1:<,\':
-~i.t:as arid evaJíiatc,~ hówihc):íñ(jlieneei,0d{Y¡d,~ald~l:.i~il{] makiog_Qf mi-
grants and-staY~al-h()!ñes~·¡tependenc',,:· . - - -_o
__ ~_ _~_. .._, .~._> .__ .0' _. • - ". .. . .,--_.- ••. ~-"- . . . . .
provided a unifying framework on the eau~es "f superficially diverse procc~ses Domeslic
rur~l-urban migralion followcd lhe one-way flo"". llf economic surplus and rdketed Ihe
e~plojla1ion of rural arcas and 1.rnallcr cilÍes hy lh~ natíonal mClrop"lis lnlernalionallabor
migration fllllowcd a similar proC"" in which impowrishcd pupulati,,", of backward
countrics s¡rugglcd 1,) gaiJl un·"ss lo advanccd industrial ccon",,,ie, Finally. the '·braln
drain" of profcssinnals hom lhe Third Wllrld "'as ju" <loe more manifestation 01' lhe
cxploi(alÍlln 01' (hese ,,,,ie(ies and Iheir conrinuous lo;, of re", ur,·e , (O advanccd ones ( I ¡ ó.
p. K¡
MIGRA nON AND DEVELOPMENT 339
Such processes "by which surplus is drained from the periphery to th
, h' e eore
areas Wlt In Or betwecn eountríes are not self-regulating but cumul t'
d. .. a ¡ve,
Ie~ rng to a greater nnpovcnshment of the les s developed" (173, p, 304),
WICSl (165, p. 54) notes that these two thcorelical oricntations define th
developmental lmpact of migration in diametrically different ways' "as el
h ' , . a rea
ope tor underdeveloped arcas and as another mechanism of exploitation, "
Wood (173) g,lves a good summary oí' tile differences in equilibnum and
dependency wlth respect to migratíon (cf 10),
One of the fírst explicit coneeptualizalions by an anthropalogist of . _
, 'h' d migra
tIO~ WI~ 10 a ependency thcory framework is bYL.Sh~m~ker (144), While
domg flcldwork f~om 1973 to 1975 on colonization into ~astem Peru, he
reJected the functlOnal model of halanced equilibrium between city and
countryslde and adopted a modífied version of Frank's (54)_model 01' intemyJ
.:{)loníalism.' .b()r:nnitz (91) also fol1owed ¡he lead of Lati~ 'A.;;~ri~'an de-
~cndency theonsts wríting about migratiQILJlDd Kemp¡:r (73) carries Ihís lin~
t;
f~_rward wílhín anthropology by proposing, as an altemative "eulturalism ..'
Jln "histoocal-struetural framework" which eneompasses "cumbersome d'i~
~~h()tomies" such as "rural-urban" and "íntemal-intcmational" and whích tums'
¡}Henlion away from the motivations and adaptations of individual migrants t~
~~e. I~rger hIstO[]cal and struetural causes and eonscquenccs of migralio~
_wnhm the context of dependent eapitahsm:' (73. p, 11; cf 31), Unell (153)'
also sa\\' theoretical diffícultics with the folk-urban continuum. But whereas
Kc!~per (73) wantcd to "cneompass" the rural-urban dichotomy, UzzelJ
reahzes that depcndency theory's use of comparable polar oppositions (core,
mctropole, pcriphery. hinterland) also do violence to Ihe cultural and social
fa?ric of migrant communities spanníng counlryside and city, But other than
Ihls objection to the "fallacics" oí' a ruraJ,urban scheme, Uzzell offers no
theoretical altemative. By far the most sophisticated amhropological sludies
of migration using a dependency approach are those of Rhoades (124-127)
and Wiest (160-165).
, _l3ccausestructural approaehes such as dependency theory tend to be e1abo-
.. rated at míddle to large macro levels within which the distinctiveness 01' local
~_?mm,Unilies is not apparent, they have nol been of greal use lo ánthropol~:
¿;lstS tor conceptuali7ing specific fieldwork projects (110, p, 2), They have
"an opcrationalizing problcm" (53, p, 212). Moreovcr, the "vertical nature of
the Frank model" (J 1, p, lli 5) with í ts preoceupation with the expropnalion of
surplus up the chain of satcllite-mctropolis linkages does not attend to hori-
zontal economic, social. and political relationships at the local level-that
with which anthropologists are most eoneerned--by means oí' which the lies
of depcndency are reproduced (109). Dependency thcory, almos! exclusivly
concerned with extraetion of surplus from the periphery, is les, concemed
with Ihe now of cash and goods in the Opposile direction and its role in the
perpetuation of underdevelopment. Sueh tlows and their effects became clear
340 KEARNEY
from thc study of retum migration (~"c hclow). Thu~, apart from the no!
trivial effect i! may have had in sen~ilizing alllhropol\J!'.iSIS t(l surplus cxtrac-
tion via migration (5), dcpcndcncy th(~()ry docs IH JI provldc ó1nlhropologists
with a general thcorcliC¡¡¡ model lapahle of gcncr:ltinr; many local Icvc-I
r;se-areh prohkms OH migrntion cmanating frum rural L"lJll\rnun((ic~J¡ is cvcli
kSS"··iíble to theorizc dynarnics of migrancs in urban labor markets and their
relationship~ (O Ihe scnding communities.
In Ihc last ten ycars !wo main postdcpendency orientations have to a great
e;.:ccrÍt ~~pl~~ed il and bcgun to inf1uence sludie~ of migration and develo-p-: .
men!. One of these is a natural culrnination oi" the dependency theory's
t~~je'ctory,·~amely, worldsystems thcory: Tpe other po~tdc~~deney theory--
"(j¡icntation, !he m~des of production or artif...ulation orienlalloll Jsec helow), is
!!º~ .s~;!:nuchan gutgrow.th·of it as a rcaction to ir, onc which ha, ealkd ror u."
~.t!lm tothe fundamenll1hofMarxi~t political (,:~I}nollly. .
Dcpendency thcoryhas been largcJy incorporaled inlo Ihe world ~ystelTl\
p~~ject ceñíú~d a[()ufld I.'!I!Danuel Wallcrsteinal!d Revicll' where.hank .Sl"eln~
lo have found his natural res!ing place as an cdit()r. A hybrid offspring 01
aepcndeney iheory: th~·-¡{)·~Kue durée of Femand Braudcl, and lhc Anm¡{l's,
world syslem theory posils a global systcm, the basis of which ís an in-
tcrnational division 01" lahor, producing commodities exehanged among dif-
ferent zones of production and consumption: pcriphery. scmiperiphcry, and
coreo Wor1d system~ analys!s, likc their depcndency counlerparts. examine
mecnanisms for the appropriation and transfer of surplus from peripheral !o
core area. In the twenrieth century, migrant labor also t10ws in the same
direction, while investmcn! capital tlows contrary to ir. This most recent trend
in macro developmental theory represents !he farthest dcparture from !he
neoclassical, push-pul! model of migra!ion. A major advantage of il is i!s
conceptualízalion of migrant labor on a par with capital and commodities. aU
of which movc "within [his his!orically interdepcndent grid" (94, p. 45).
'!y.~~!e~,!:~ sor!l~. _"mhmJ!Q!Qgj.sl~..a.~~Jpted depcndency the0f)i as a mcat.Js()í:.
I.QQ!<jng ..at-..effects.uLo::ugrati<:miJll . sendingcOmlnUT1i~es (e.g.· f24-127 ,
160-165), o!hers adopted world sysú;~s thcory to analyle j}l¡'alrJ}¡~r.~rIt !<l..bor
in core_~,asT¿~·g.-"s~e-v¡¡rIÓ1.iS""papeis-lnIO-6). Of lhe lwo, worId systeri-is
-ih"~·~rY has had grealer rdevanee lo migration study in !hat migrant labor can
be more fully theorizcd wilhin the complex problema!ic of circuits of capital
and commodilics. This is weH illustrated in the work otSassen·.~oo'p (e.g.
134- 139), ~hich is useful lo anthropologists in _situating the cirCum~~l)ceL()L
local com~~-;'¡t¡es ~ÚIÍ-íñ"broad"-h~~fé arul_~truc!ural··c0rI.t~s. Simílarly.
'P.i?riesO 16), c()nceptualizing"fhe seemingly "dispai"áieSlrands of the empiri-
ca¡lileraturc on migratian," shows how it falls within certain historie pattems.
In colonizing migrations early in the las! cenlury. labor tlowcd parallcl to
capital mainl)' fram core areas to the periphery and "Theorics of immigration,
no matter what their divergences, dcalt invariabIy with !his situation" (116, p.
MIGRA TlON AND DEVELOPMENT 341
4). Global migration patterns changed in the second half of the nineteenth
century. Muller and Espansade nole the change aftcr the Civil War because in
the northern United Statcs "peasant labor could be empIoyed beeause teeh-
nological innovations made profitable the substitution of skilled workers by
masses ofunskilled laborers paid al very low rates" (!02a, p. 4). This phase in
the world system marked che bcginning of what Sassen-Koob refers to as the
"pcripheraJizatíon of the corc" (137), i.e. the coming of the periphery to the
new industrial ccnters in response ro their needs, a period which coincides
with the "obsolescence of c1assical polítical economy" ideas about migration
(116. p. 5).
Anthropology' s encounter with dependency and world systems theory
provoked a healthy critique ol" the previous priority given to explanations of
migratíon based Oll the individual. Emphasis shifts from decision making,
culture ano personality, and psychological is~ues in geneml to a concem with
the macro econumic, and pohticaI realities at Ihe two ends of the migratíon
~!rcams. Out sorne authors felt tha! Ihe swing to the hislorical-structural
perspcclive, while correcling Ihe a!omistic limitalÍons ol" equilibrium theory,
erred in thc opposite direclion. "Explanation tends lo consist of a description
of a migration flow cast behind a facade of political-economie jargon. In a
sense, we have developed good polítical cconomy, but insufficient migration
theory" (10, p. 324; ef 33). The shift from equilibrium theory was also a
retreat from culture. This is apparent in litcrature affirming the role of
exogcnous causes of undcrdevelopment and the pattems of migration associ-
ated with it. Lewis's modeJ of the "culture of poverty" is especialIy singled
out for attack by a number of authors (82). Rccently, however, a new
anthropological perspective for eonceptualizing migration and development
has become prominant, and one of its more attractive fcatures Ís its retum to
issues of culture, but culture situated within larger historical structuraJ con-
text~. Thís orientatíon, !o which we now tum, promises to permit develop-
mental anthropologists !o return to culture, buc to do so in a way that
transcends the psychologistic limitations of modemization theory while at the
same time examining relationships of dependency, hut dependency seen Dot
unly as result ()f unequal exchange in Ihe sphcre of circulation and the
universal workings of thc world systcm, but also and especially as noncapital-
¡st rela[ions of producti on and reproduction in local settings from which and to
which people migrate.
Migration as Articulatíon
In i 97!l Portcs iJ 16, p. 13) ~oted thal recent research in eeonornic anthr~poJo::.
~~om~.~iiY.iv~ª-J\!~Tno~:!?1b_~e_!hep,:<!:C~~s ó[éiIJi!af§lc
~!!-,-.dQminati(m~.jUlq trall.~[0Jl.!.l.:¡ti_Q.I}ºf".'2t:..._i.p.!!.t:.ral so("ielies" .. ~ouJ(J_
-he. rnstead of Frank's single cnain of exploitation that extends (mm :Jllvanced
 342 KEARNEY
centers of capital lO the mosl remole rural rc~ion~, lhis ocw rescarch. con-
ceptualized more from the pl'fiphery than fmm the /lIclropolitan bias of
dependency theory. suggests lhat capitalism. rall!ér lhan replal'lng !Ioncapilal·
ist modes of production, may coex isl with Ihcm and cven shl'ny',thcn the/1I.
The dependency scenario was pcrhaps unly appropriale for seuler coloniza
lion which wa~ indeed responsíble for the rapid destruction of prcexisting
traditional economics. In making Ihis observation, sorne authors (l16, 170
cite Volume 2 of Capital in which Marx noted Ihat lo the extent that
commodities from noneapitalist societies enter capitalisI circuits and must be
reproduced, "lO this extent the capitali~t mode uf production is conditional on
modes of production Iying outside oí" ils owo slage of development" (quoted
in 116, pp. 13-14). Labor power is of eourse a commodity that can be
produced and reproduced outside of the eapita/is! system, but incorporated
into it via mígration. and thus can be an important link articulating spatially
separatcd capitalist and noncapitalist modes of production (116. p. 14).
Three points distinguish articulation and dcpendeney theory. Firsl, (he
modes oí" production perspectíve rcjeets the most basic premise of dependeney
and world system theories, namely tha! ¡hcre is a unitary globa/ eapitalist
system (103, pp, 396-98). Secando there is dísagreement abou! the degrcc of
cconomic dynamism in Ihe periphcry (J03, pp. 39S-400). In contrast to the
dependency theorists, the articulationislS argue thal peripheral eomrnunities
are not only qualitatively different. Chat ¡s, noncapitalist, but ulso reproduce
thcir distinctive forrns in accord with their own structura/ imperalives which,
although shaped by rclationships with colonial and imperialist forces, are
differcnt. Third. !he articu¡ationi~ts insist tha! the analysis of rhe appropriation
of surplus, which is the focal ¡nterest of dependency theory, must begin no! in
the spherc of circulation....-.of unequal eeonomíc exehange~but in rhe systems
of produetion thar gcnerate this surplu~ (79). Jn the case of labor migration
this premise ineludes within ¡he prúduction of economic goods by Ihe nonca-
pitalist economy the reproduction of workcrs who lea ve this nexus and, via
their emp/oyment. cransfer surplus to the capitalisl economy. Allhough some
dependency theorisls have done cxcellent work on the effects of migration on
sending households and communities (e.g. 121. 165), their concentration on
unequal exchunge and on mígrants' dependency on wage income IirnilS the
analysis of the complex economícs of houscholds and communitics and che
ways in which they reproduce themselves by participaling in two spheres of
production.
Thcre are two main currems in the modes of production orientalion, one
coming out of Lalin America and the other from Afri¡,;a. Wichin !he ¡atter (he
:.wDrk. 01 ~eil)'is~ouX (95, 96)aQcJR.ey_J!22), bothAlthusserian inspired'
_~~el1~~_ afllhro~logistsworking_iILMrJEª!..i~_pivi.~~r Thi~-di~q~~~~~--&v;;¡~
_'?..P~º apart from mígrationwork iu Nm::tb._ AI]I~rican anthr~~gy·alid
_ .. _ - - 'h" __ ' _ • • _ _ • • h
• • " h _ _ • _ _ • • _____
MIGRATlON AND DEVELOPMENT 343
entered into Anglo a/lIluopology maillly via British joumals s\lch as The New
].~j[ R('l·i('lv. ¡':co"omy tlnJ Su("¡"ly, ('I"Ili(juc ofAnthropoloj()'.. ihe Jo~rn~l 01
SlUdies. and Rt:\'iew o/ 14!rinlf/ l'ulttical EconumYc-·· •
f('(l.llIfll
{)I" nlllsl rdevanee lo migration thl:ory is MciJlassoux's Maidens, Meal and
!yfoney(96) .pubUshcdin f'rencllin J<)75 and in English in 1981.. Meill~~'
Q.¡¡~in~~!ht:full.e!~o!l§..9fJnigral.ion.in al1 iculallng t!~t;"dornestie commuIlity"
~~~~_..:~I~I1~I__ :~r5c~I~~. ~W.illL~Qux gives credil tü anlhrºpoI()g.ists·~hº
have i!!nc be.[~r.~J:Üm_J_l!¡:h.as~<:hapcra (140" Glu¡;kman(56) •. M. WilsOIL
( 168), ~~9~_~~c_r::;.whQ> Lnlhe J~()~, "had rhe l'ouragc lo explore Ihe appalling
cxploítation of the Africans in Ihe racist states or soulhem Afriea" (96, p.
viii), but who, theoretically Iimiled by lhe lhclI reigning funclionalism, were
unable to carry out "a thorough :Jnalysis 01 Ihe cOlllerll 01" economic and social
relationships" (96, p, viii). Whl!rcas lhe African functionalists were preoccu-
pied wilh kinship "whil'h invadl'(1 all lht' fidd and ~llltted Ihe analysis of
family houscholds. cloaking Ihe concq>c of rclallons or production" (96, p.
viii), Meillassoux rl'l'asl lhe old calegories wilhi" Ihe problematic of colonial
capicalism and imperialislI1. Merllassoux's acquaintanee wich African migrant
workers in France and his Mnrxisrn wc:n' nilical lo Ihe formation of his
theoretical perspectivl'. Seeing "proud pcasanls" wlwl1l he knew from Afriea
living in squalor in Paris suhurbs Whl~/(~ Ihey werc anonylllous pmletaríans, he
carne to undersland how "c()loni/~lllllll Iras hl'OlIglrl capit¡tlislII and lhe domes-
lie economie~ into dirccl contact" (1)6, p. XI).
Meillassoux wa~ thus facc:d wilh the prohJcm of Ihcorizing variations
within these domestíc unrts as Ihey exist 111 hoth llndt'fdevcloped Africa and
devcloped Fram.:e. Central to Ihis prohk/n I~ Ihl: roll' 01 migrant labor which is
.integral to both colonial and impcrialist prmlu\:litl/l amIto {he reproduction of.
. the partially decompo~ed peasant dO/lles(ic Ilnir..Whik rh{'se processes occur
within the general contcxt of rapitalisrn al a ~lohal level, the migrants
originate wilhin a noncapi!alist domr.~li<.· eronollly thal is "simultaneously
maintained and destroyed~maintailled as a IIIcans of social organization
which produces vulue from wl11l:h imperialism bcnefils. and destroyed be-
cause il is deprived in (he cnd of its meaos of rcpmduction, under the impact
of exploitation" (96, p. 9·/; cf 169, 1"11). Meillassoux nOI only replaees
unequal exchange with che Marxist conecpl of primitive accumulation as the
mechanism !lf surplus extruction via migrant labor, but expands il to indude
"permancnt primitive accumulation." Primitivc accumulation results from the
permanent exodus of peasants iuto capitalist labor markets as the domestie
economy is destroyed by cndosures, forccd labor, and other fonns of violent
disruption. But, "In addition to this process whieh supplies (he labour market
by irreversible migration ... un improvcd form 01' primitive accumulation has
continued to increase in importance since the Second World War .... This is
." __ ,_~
temporary and rotating labour migration, whieh preserves aod cxploits the
 344 KEARNEY
domcscic agricultura! economy" (96, p. 110). Whereas Ihe cJassic analysis of
modes 01' produetion treatcd them as historíe sequcnces in which the period of
confrontatíon and transition betwcen capitülism and feudalism was marked by
primítive accumulatíon in the fonn, among othen. of pennanent OUl migra-
cion from the disruptcd domestic economy, Meillassoux and espccially Rey
(122) theorizc Ihe transítional stage as prolonged lo (he poínt where ít appears
lO be virtualJy pennanent, i.e. the tWQ genericaJly distinct economics become
articulated ín largc part by circular migrant labor. ~1~lp~~J 1~9) li!!q d~J a'l\f1):.
& G_~rr.¿¡mon ..(44) devel~)p cOnlp,:rllhJc.analyses for South~fÜC(laI!91~ti~_
America. respectively. A major advanta~.QLlli¡s~~i!ye,which 1 wiU
-!ªekIQ:asªnjr:ºl~ii?~)fj~Q;:Y,¡s' that 'i!Jde!l~l'ies and iso¡al~~!he d¡)m~s~c
~1!1!Il!!ll!ty~hí~J:¡)s .th.eusual pfácé and ob¡ect of añtnropoiogicalfiddwork.
!1owsliclí
E!lI1~lI!:I.9re. it theorizes coiririlliiííiies are in~éitedhistorjcaHy and
e~.o_T\()1l1ie~li~;_¡ñú;:~hé E,niatCr .worId. Ifthr.is árrbws us to relum lo community
'jevel fieldwork, but inü_\V¡¡YJhat OYCrCQffié:S!!lQ former Jiabílities ófcoricep·-
-tiiilijúigilel"tller as a socioeconomic and cultural isolate or as a dependent tall
. wa&fe.dj)'!~~ c.~rit,,:~~sr. düg: _~ot onl }:does' artlcura"tión" ihcoryredirccT our
'¡¡éientíon lo communities, -but even more importantly il isolates (he household .
a~ Ihe mosl important nexus in which articulation occurs. The househo](~
occupies this srrategic position because il is in it that productioll and reprodllc:
tíon co-occur in a microeconomic sphcre thar partakes of the two disparate
'~li!~so¡'loci 01' prodllCtion: Study of themién>economicsand kinshipo[
. households participating in both the domes tic and thccapitalist eC\lnQmic~_has_
_Jhys~coille liPriorit)' ro anthropologists whose r(!s~~r~his infQrmed h}'.,
.)ol,niC:lllarion theory ..... _
In every generation a cenain percenragc of mignmts from the domes tic
economy settle out, i.e. the y become immigrants in contrast to the circular
migmnts who shuttle back and forth between the two !ypes of economies.
FlOm capital's point of view the cost-bencfit ratio of circuli1r mígrants is
superior lo lhat of immigrants in that both part of the cost of rcproduelion and
retirement of the former ís Ix>rne by the domestic cconomy. Historiea!1 y, greal
surges in capitalist growth were fueled by primitive accumulalion in the form
of one-way immigration of ¡arge numbers ofpeasanls who become workers or
slaves. But as capiralist economies mature and living spaces beco me fiIJed in,
the greater varuc of circular labor migratían over immigralion shapes im-
migration and labor policies which, in the Post World War JI períod, take the
[onn of the guest-worker programs mentioned aboye. Thc prototypical ex-
ample is South Africa with its highly c1aborated migration policy designed to
maximize Ihe advantagcs of circular labor and minimize immigration. As
Burawoy (22) shows, apartheid as migrant labor policy is structurally compar-
able to the phenomenon (lf "illegal" Mexican workcrs in California. The
South African case is especialJy instructive because of how official selt/ement
MIGRA nON AND DEVELOPMENT 345
and work poJicies cast lhe undcrlying structural relationships between labor
producing and consuming areas ínto deep relicf.
One of the mosl important resu!ts of the articulation perspective has been lo
stimulate research on the spccia¡ position o( migrant women \V~rkC!s (see
below). Womeo's labor is important lo Ihe cconomics of articulatioll in two
ways. First, bccuuse al' reccnt research (e.g. 102.105. 106, 1(8), wehÍl;e
been made aware of ¡he critical role fulfi lIéd by' women as noÍlsalaried
prZ,qucers ()f value whichsustains houschofds reimluUCÍng unJercondiÚ~~s ~f
. articuration and from which migran! workers are deJívcréd to capital:And
-second, much reccnt work has concentrated on women migrant workc;;·who=
now outnumbcr men in industry becaw,e ()f gender·linkedcharacteristics tba.t
. make thcm e~peciaJly attraclÍve lo cmployers (20).
THE APPLlCATION OF THEORY: UNITS AND
DIMENSIONS OF ANAL YSIS
Ilavíng identificd the three major theore[Íc¡¡1 perspec!ives found in an:
_ thrqpologicaioligration researcj-J, 1 now shift to a revicw of rectnt research
ihformed hy ihese theorics. Here tile uni!s and dimcnsíons of analysis and Ihe
locus of fieldwork rathcr than thcorctical perspective serve as che primaI)'
.principies organiz.ing the discussi(}n. Rescarchers looking at migratíon and
dcvelopment in variou5 sellings choo,e from u010ng a panoply ol' commonly
used unib 01' analysis: {he individu:Jl. ¡he houschold. networks, communiti~s,
regions, nations. The unit or eornbination of units employed ís ínf1uenced by
'Ihe thcoretieal -predilection ol' {he rcscarcher. Work conceived within the
modernization paradigm inevitably focuses on individual decision makers,
(lnd more reccntly ¡he household (see below). At rhe othcr extreme of
incIusivcncss, researchers in che dependency ,chool may look at entire nations
dcfincd in terms 01' corc-periphery relationships. Articulationists, for reasoos
discussed below, tcnd to use intermediate .units of analysis sych as !he
"h9usehold ano networks.. ln addition to standard developmental issue~ having
(o do with agriculturc. industry, and emplo)'ment, several new themes have
emerged ín recent migration literaturc and are highlighted below; they include
.,geIlder,ethrJÍcity, aod ideolo~y. _~~~.e.ar.c.h._~~ .t_~cse . issy_e.s, using whatA!ve~
units . clf ar1ll!.ysiSseems. appropüat(!,m~ytake placeín sending.communiti:s,
~~~~e'iving cOlnnu,¡¡úties, orin both.. .
Migration and Communily Development
Awarcncss of che limitation of modernizatíon assump!ions arase from the
ficld study of retum migrants. The term "relum migration" comes from the
panero of guestworker migratían into wcstem and northem Europc in which
the migrant workers reside in the host country for a number of ycars and cheo

354 KEARNEY
families that are broken into households, ~ome of which have two or three
wide1y scattcred houses. Thc household in tum consists of individuals. each
ol' wbom can be identified and traeked in the various "spaccs" noted aboye.
Overarching an of these subunits is the AMN.
Thus eonceptualized, the AMN can be used to address the researeh tasks
noled aboye. Tbis is best done by thinking of the AMN as having a de~
velopmcntal cycle. In Ihis sense it is, among other thíngs, an ineome-secking
organismo Oriven out of tbe sending area by cconomic necessity, individuals
and households move in and out of vanous spaces Ihat permit often complex
economic survival strategies. In Ihis historie process difTcrentiation of many
kinds occurs within the network, e.g. partial and complete proktarianization,
movement into informal sectors 01" the economy in both rural and urban
setting;" and eorresponding change, in gendcr roles. culture. and class con-
sciousness. Also, individuals and households form various relationships with
element~ outside of the nctwork, and relationships between the eommunities
of the networks and the govemmc nt, poli tical parties. and other k inds 01"
organizatíon abo develop. The sum total of thesc changing internal and
external relationships constitutes the life cycle of the nelwork.
Of central importancc lo understanding the relationship between the evolu-
tion of rbe network and economic developmenl in ib sending and daughter
communitics is (he calculation of the /low of econornic valuc and alher things
across Ihe boundary of the network and through circuits within the network.
In this regard. the AMN can be thought 01" as a vascular system through whH:h
flow persons, information. goods, serviees. and cconomic value. The net
now of econamic value. and to a lesser cxtent goods and information, is the
fundamental issue with re~pecl (O economic development within Ihe sending
community and its daughter communítíes. As noted ahoye. for dcvelopment
lo occur, surplus must be accumulated and invested al some point or point~ in
the nctwork. The cvolution of the nelwork can in large part he seen as due lO
individual ano coJleetive actions taken in irs history lo maximize the capture
and retenlion of economíc value and other forms of sccurity, or said diffcr-
ently. to Illinimize their loss out of the network.
Thcsc flows bctween the lot¡¡1 network and tht encompassing social fonna~
lion can, in theory. be measured. Thc ne! balance-ncgative or positive-is
the sum potcntially avuilable for cconomic development or rcpresents the rale
al whích the nelwork subsidizcs the dcvclopment of sectors externa! 10 it. BUI
whether or not this flow is positive or negative. there is still a need to attend to
the proce&scs of inlcm¡¡1 imegration as individual,. households, and com-
munities withín lhe network differentiate along economic. social. political,
class. cultural, and ideological dirnensions as the interface between the
network and points external lO it ehangcs. Conccptualized as such, the AMN
allends to a major concem of depcndency Iheory, i.e. a presumed loss (lf
MIGRATlON AND DEVELOPMENT 355
valuc from lbe migram community. BUI by allending to the actual circuits of
value among Ihe changing componcnts of (he greuler migrant communíly-
the AMN--the basíc concems (lf articulationists are also addressed.
Anolhcr strenglh of the AMN is tha! ir theorizes articulation not only in the
sense of modes or loci of production and rcproduction. but abo among the
di fferem phenomenallevels~.g. economic. socia!, cultural--of the network
ilselr. AttenlÍon 10 articulation in this second sense provides. for example, a
metbod for analyzing un emergent ethnie dimension to the network. In what
would be a parado x for modemizalÍon thcory, th(J~e Mixtecs whose existence
is now most cenlered in the border arca oí" Mexico and the United States are
intentionally e1aborating a eollcctive idcntity. at the level of coalescing
AMNs. whieh is hased on Ihcir common ethnic heritage. a hentage deriving
from their rural sourhem Mexico Indian background. This heightened ethoic
idcntity. which distinguishes thcm from mestizo Mcxicans and from North
American~. appears to be a way of consolidating the AMNs on which their
survival depends.
The articulation approach to migration represents an advanee over the
competing paradigm~. In prac!Í<:c, as ofeen as not, il too is a bipolar con-
eeplualization in Iha! studies hased on i¡ examine how one face! of an
undcrdevelopcd community conllect with a facel of devcloped capitalism,
c.);. peasants as workers, migrant women in off-snore industries. The pattems
of arliwlation ol' San Jeronimo migrants are. bowever, more complexo Basi-
cally tbere are four spheres of activity that are articulatcd by Ihe San Jeronimo
oetwork: 1. the subsistem;e agrarian sending community. 2. agricultural and
urban labor markels, 3. petty commodity production and olher activities in ¡he
informal sector. ami 4. polítical activities in urban arcas. Some few in-
dividuals and households are Jocated prímarily in one of thcse ,;pheres bul,
more often Ihan not. inoividuals and households participate in eombinations
of them. A~ yet we have no thorough study of such complex articulation for
an cntire community, much less (lne ¡hat also dcals with the eorresponding
articulalion-in the second sense-{)f Ihcsc variable socioeconomic actívities
and thc corresponding changes in culture and conseiowmess. Tbc AMN is an
attempl to con<:cptualize and inform such an historical ethnography.
A SYNTHESIS OF THEORY ANO METHOO
Finallv, it is worth reiterating that the migration and dcvelopmental processes
thal a~thropologisls arc cxamining are historical phenomena. As such we are
attempting to apprchend nol only basi<: structural relationships: but .equall y
important trends. tendencics, ano rates of change in these relatlonshlps.~'y__
-º~I}.QPjfl~oll is_th.'ltEogresscan bes! be made in this work ~hen ~n overar,ch-
,lng..the.ill)'Slli.:hlllithe arikulation p!:ISpCCtivc i:; opcrationa)¡zed tna resea.:rc. h_
 346 KEARNEY
retum home, usually wíth savings and other less tangible effects of their
sojoum. This partem is structurally comparable to annual or seasonal migra-
tíon common !o the Mexico-United States situarion and lo migratíon pattems
within underdeveloped countries, most notably seasQnal agricultural migrant
labor. In all ~uch cases there is a retum back across devclopmental differ-
entials, and the qut':stion ari~es as to the impac! ol' such contrar)' flows (l15).
Conventional C4uilibrium theory holds that relumees should bring with them
capital and savings which they wílJ in ves! in ways Ihat pro mote dcvelopment
bccause it is reenforced by new ski lis, ídeas, and attitudes that they acquired
whíle working and living ahroad (lUl). But in almost aJl such cases an-
Ihropologists have found that (he devclopmental impact of retum migration is
negatíve or at hest neutral.
In Mcxico. Comelius (40) _\\.>:as one of the firsl to show that with few
e~c~ptions reI~i[itanccs were used. primariJy for con,umption, housing, and·
immedÍ<lteI1ec;c!s rather Ihan for investment in infrastructure. This is thé
,g(!neral co[)clusionofthreereviews ofrctum migration (58. 76,' 148) and of'
whsequent studics (c.g. 7S¡. It is wnrth summarizing 'these untoward effccts
because of thcir relevance to migration-devcloprnental theory. For the most
part Ihey are eíther explicitly framed within the dependenc)' pcrspective or
arrivc at condusions which support it. Studies of rcturn workers from Turkcy
(166), Greece (48), Italy (155), Malta (77). Spain (125), Portugal (19),
Ircland (57), Mcxico (100.146, 163), the Caribbean (174). Gennany (124),
India (13). Wcstem Samoa (143), and orhcr countries show thal few migranls
Jea TIl anJ n~w sJ<ills, or j[thcy do, rarelyare they ¡¡blc t(~ pul thcm 10 use in Ihe .
,home comrmmíl1'. Tho~~ who work in industrial jobs do simple repeti!iv~'
.tasks. Ihal hªve no rc;lcvant;;e (o pmductive a\:tivities at h()m~. Reyncri &.
!':1ughini (123), in a ~ectoral mohi!ity study of Italían migrant worker~, found'
.th¡nmallY nmvcd from primary to secondar)' sector cmploymentin the hósI
~q\Jnrr'y.•. hUI tha! QCcl.!píltional mohility is usually.downward with Je~péct lO
pre:,entryskills,i.e.,whatever skills theyhavc are 001 usc<J in th~ncw job
.~~~~': tcn~sto he .automated. ~I!djn un)' event, as ¡he comparalivc research
.~)L !::llro~an _mig.ranL workcf'; by c:asllcs & Kosack (34) show~, returniñ g
,U.H:t.lJ~!!mLwllfl<eru:jo Qu\want towork inindustry when they retum; they
want. .10 -OO-+ndepooacH!. - . -si"in!glcts wilh_ cmpl!lYl.:r~.wh() makc wntrihutions to. funds that' finance th.e
Th~ff~_c.t~gL¡¡g[i.cuJtum! .wi.lg.e Jil..b9r ofi ¡¡gricu !tura~ d(!vetm~m~nUn_ ~bJ;_
!l!lg~a_n.ts:.hofl:.e~OJn.!!II!!"l~~i~~ <:t[e S!IJIi/¡¡'f 1.0. th.Q~.cin tÍle-homc communitics of
j[)~u~~r!~lrnig~a,!1 wOE~~rs:Wi_c~l {l(iOJaod);¡t\1art&-i<~~~~~~ (¡ 46) find th~t
.Ms?'lc.an farm"d)r~,er,s)n U. S. agribusincss acquir~~k¡ listhath~v~l¡ttle usc in
.~~s:í! º~!l.~rIl~H:sc~I~_ ¡;~I~í~~ii9~'~s .foy investment oi: ~avlrigs-by-rciu~nees:
held studles,(e.g. 100, 121, 125, 127, f46. i48, 160}_<:onsistcntly show
.. that housmg and land for housing are thel~lost common major expenditures •
rather Ihan comrnercial income ¡¡nd enlpl0l'lllent gcnerating invcstmerif.
MIGRATION ANO DEVELOPMENT 347
Vivolo (155) finds tha! retum migrants in Sicily tend lo ahandon agriculture
hUI buy land and hecome absenlee landlords, thus provoking land inflation
and fragmcntation. These effecIs are similar to those described.2Y Rhoades in
,Spain! 125, 127); Ruhcnslcin in (he Wes! Indies (131); and Mines (97), Stuart .
! Keamey (146), and Wiesl (161, 164) for Mexico. Investment in agricultu:
ralimProvement is equally disuppointing; mus! retum migrañts are -
~~t
_at!~acted lo agricultural inves!men!. They may buyland amI leave it' idle,- oro
perhaps u~e il only for summer rctrcats. COllsequen!ly, up to 20 or 30 pereen!
?L~.~eJand in Spanish vdlagesthat Rhoadc~ (125)studied was taken out óf-
2r()(juctil)~:o -A!~~.~)u..!i.h GmeIch reviews a large and consistent bodyof ~~.-­
._t~fOrlJ~o~~caIIiterature w~lch demon~tratesa.-neutrarto H(!gaJívé et't'éct ~f
_rll1gratl.on on modemi¿.ation. he himself retains the characteristic moderniza--
J:!.c'~focus on-Úlcindl~ldi.¡¡11 mi,granCdecisÍoniriakerañd-pte'5entsarypology of'
rclum migrañ¡swhicli-síres-:~e,tncír "¡¡c1aptation añ'd réádjüstme-ñi"(S8). O~-
kíñg-terinpositive "éi'féct úr rcíníÜarú use islhe tcndcñcy -repOlt~d from
M¡:ídco by Comeliu~ (4 \) aud Dínernlan (46) fm families to use migrant'
eamings lo cxtend ¡he education of !hcir children.
Jhe Jemi!tance of migranl. camingso(fers thegreales! putential for lhe
_~~_cumulalion oí" capital for invcstmcnt in productive infraslrueture in sending
..I:_(}_mIJlunities. But as ~cmonstrated by the studie~ ..l:i!c~ ,!bov.e! migrants _m~~­
~~!tcn d(~ nol in1.'es! in productíon in their own sending communities even
,though 'l. number Qfstudie, have shown thi!.t'remittances ma):.be appreciabíe
(23, 40, 97)._.I.'l_~eed .. thc.articulation perspective suggesrs that rcmittanées
Jl~rpetuatc status quo undcrdevelopment. For examplc, siuart· & Keamey'o
(146) fin~L that such a village in southem Mexico eou·I''! only support a--
"p.?pulatíon of about 250 were lt nol forhéavy éircular migration, therernlt- -
~~Il~esfrom whích pcrnlil a populuüon of around 1400. Comeliu!_(40)
_g~sc.rvcs that the benefjts from migratioll eamings to Mexican communities
_d~pe[]d to a greal extent on ¡he degrec to w!lid; the migrants, whilc in tile
O
Jlw1ed States o panicipa!c in fornlal organlzations. One oi ihe l:íestoc:-~
_illQTlstr<iJip!1s uf ¡his i.sthe_bi~il!iQ[]ill_?g.ricultur.aL~ooÉeiaÚv~s l'ounded in rur~_
.MC.K,j¡;JLby farm"... orkers whomigrate to Arizona. As mostly undocümented
workers who are members ot~¡he Ariwna Farmworkcp.Umon, thcy havew(ji~,~
S9(!p¡.:r!llj\,c~ (3Q).
Househulds and Gender
Onc 01" the enduring problems in migration research is identificatíon of
appropriate UllIts oí" analysis. Above 1 discussed (he disilIusionment with the
individual. __~Il.rcf.cDt y~¡II~. inh:r¡;>J has. incrcascd.in !hl.: hm.lscb.old .i.\S_ ¡l. llP.J!
·.:!?rid,ginli.thegap betweens(jcial ¡me indí'{idualleve1s of~naIJs!~:'. (14 1, p.
87; cf 17, 35.45.615,74,113.114,129,142, 172) ___.As such, many
 348 KEARNEY
researchers sccJbcbQ~~~holq asmciliating belwccn')ni.l:JQJ;cQllomic theorie.s
-Úla¡-¿(;n~~-nt~ate on. the atomistic bepayj11r, Qlin.di'{idJ,¡-'IJ~ (S{lm.etimes aggrc-
,.\ ga«:'(i within -h~)us~h~Jld~nits-i"a~d "Ihehist.orjcal~~truetural appr;)ach thar
I, ~ focusc~' on the' pOlitícafec()ri(;n~y ()f so~ioeC(mOnlíc ándrt,iltical 'devdop'-
p.
',méñ{Üú, S7; cr 173), WhUe SchmjlJk se es the household as.mcdiating,·
Qíúween microeconomic and hi~to.rical-structuraLappmaches, there is anothc{
b(~dy uf literature ~ithin thc articulation paradigm which also focuses 00 tll,e
househoíli butwhi,ch attends primaril)' lo ils reproductive strateg!c~, based ,on_
c;;mbinationsof salaricd and nonsalaried work (~l). {)ncpftl]e most effective
-~sesot'thclll~~5cjloIiLªsáunit ~iiln¡¡íysjsj07migration study i~ Oinerman',~
-(46) f~~PEl~ª!¡:V~ stu,~y of m.Íj;ration JroO] Iwo nlral, communiti~s in. Mcx ie~
and ¡he corresponding greater participation of WOmcn in production and
_ii-v~_eiiaiª~iiyit!~_s:j~~!h'eh9ú~~b;~IJ~Jha1' derive jncám~-J[()!ll_lrilg((lÜQ11.
Recent rcseareh on combincd capitalist and noncapitalist productíon draws
hcavily on the amhropology of women which has rcvcaled the econumic
significanee of nonsalaried women's labor, labor which neverthelcss produces
value that enlers into l'apitalíst circuits of circulation where ir is appropriated.
Su eh value is produeed direcIly in the form of cheaply sold pctty commoditics
and services in the infonnal sector. It is produced indiret:tJy by the economic
contribution of women in the reproduclion of workers in ¡he domc~;tic eeono-
my who leave it pcriodically or pcmmnently to cntcr migrant and immigrant
labor markcts. Such workers are ahle to receive a lower wage to the degree
that they are in par! reproduced in the dome~tic economy and are thercfore
more exploitable than workers produeed entirely within capitalist rc!ations.
Women's work is critícal here both beeause they are producers of food and
services consumed in the domestic sphere and beeause Ihey are the bearers of
children who becomc full or part-lime workers (9. 81). Jt is in the houschold,
the domestic unit, more than anywhere else whcre gender-<.;pecific noneapital~
ist prvductioll and the partíal reprodue¡ion of capitalist workers occurs, lt has.
becn primarily women anthróptilogists who have exploreú these hilhcrto .
inadeQuately apprcciated conditíon\(/-3. 15, 16,43,45,50,52.81, 114,
141a; see abo 62a).
In recenl years mlgrant ~lldinll!'Ji¡::~ant ",omen in lo~ leve! .Iabo~ market~
h~c aíso--be¿o~~~_'<íJQ~u_~_QLaDthr(}pol~lgical~tu~y~ ~uch..of this resean:h ha.s
bccn-Qn-m¡i;~nt women from rural areas \. . ho are employed by transnationa!
~orporations i~ EPZs (cxport produetion zones) cstablished by the gov..-.
emment~ ot' undcrde"cloped countries lo attraet foreign capital investment.
The EPZs are attractíve bccause of lax and other Iypes of conccssions, bu!-
thei;~ostdesirablc feature is abundant productive, cheap lahor. The majority_
-;:;rsu'ch workcrs in Ihese zones are womcn. usually of ll.!ral baekgrounct, a •
tre'iíéJ thal Sassen-Koob [alls "the feminization 01' wage-Iabor'~ (139; see al so
'1.26.32, 51. 104; Cf 4,'14. 133). This researeh is generaliy conceptualizcd
MIGRATION AND DEVELOPMENT 349
within the articulation perspective in that by focusing on the multiplícity of
womcn 's productive and reproduetive activities it combines analysís of multi-
nalional capital with analysís of women's "informal economic activities at the
houschold, neighborhood and eommunity levels" (50, p, 175). This is a rnajor
theme in the recenl collcctions edited by l':{ash& Femande7,-K.cl4L(06) and
l2Y Na:-:;h&, Sa(¡t (108). Typically unabJe to survive from their wage ¡ncome
alone. Jow income migrant and immigrant urnan households in underde-
vclopcd countries participate in informal economic activíties, As Femandez.-
KeIly says,
Thus. contra!)' to "modcmizalion" per,p~<:tive a,sumptíoR!;. Ihe so-caUed informal sector
economy is not a residuc 01' archaic 'y'lems of produc!ion dc,linedlo disappear under the
eHec! 01' furthcr indu,;¡rializatiol1, Ralher. capitalist induslrializalion cOnlinuously repro-
duces the s,xiat and cClll10mic ,'ircumslances withill which informal econnmic actívities
occur a, a ,upport mechani"m rnf Ihe effecrive surplus cXlraction and protll maximizatíon.
Thcy are (he loweM eche lo" in a vertically inlcgrated sy,(cm of labor aoo pmduction (50, p.
176),
MigratioIl in ¡he late lwenliclb ecntl,lry i~ Quite difieren! from the ¡,:ompar~ •
y
abT ¡arge tlows of the late ninctccnthcentury in tha! a g~eater percentªge of it _
-ft{)WS no! ioto lahor markets, but into the informal eeonornY.1bis iS,e§-
-p~~ially true of rn¡gratiqnwit~in underdeveloped coulltries,_ and calls int~
question models based largel)' on dynami~;<;or lahor markets such as thos~ of~
rhe Todaro and lIarris 1icl:Í~)pLRccent attention to activíties of migrants and
'lmmigranls in informal economie aetivities has led to a reassessment of the
concept of marginality as put for!h by Quijano !' 19, 120) and applied lo
migration by e.g. Lomnitz ,e90). J;:ssentially a variant of dependency ~eory,.
margina lit y can be fonnulated as articulation when actual econom1C and
political linkages bctwcen the formal and informal economic sectors an~
hetween the workplace and the household are examined in detail. (e.g- 71,
112), although Cockcroft (38) ínsísls that such relationships are completely
anes 01' dependency. . .
Contrary lo the flow of investment capital to underdevcloped countnes m
search of cheap labor is that of workers lo developed countries in search of
employment. Sassen·Koob (137) refers lo Ihis late twentieth century patt.e~.
of mígration as "peripherali7ation uf the corc.~ Here too anthropolog1cal.
'~esearch focuses largely on women and householdji (~ee 106, 108).l,.am-_
.n1)<:f(~'s(81) recent study 01' ehanging confígurations of fa~ily, ~ender roles,_
jllldelnoicity among immigrant households in Rhod~ Is!and 1~ whl~h th~r~ has •
!?c.cn a,p hist9ric shift from "working daughters" lO "workmg wlves 1S an_
.ex.ceilent analysis of how productive and rcprod\letive activitic1:i of household~
arearticulated, -
A number 01' recent studies of migrant workers in their work places have
 350 KEARNEY
employed elhnographíc tcchniques lo examine labor processes and labor
markets. Ihºma~:s(J49)study(l[ fie1d Jabur in the California Icttuc-e industryo
~~?x~rnines t~eories.ofcluaI~nd segmented labor markcts thal are based
primarily on the category of dass to show how structural eonditions external-
~tº~fJ1c]~bor~arket. nameiy ciiiz~nsh¡p a~d gender, exert PQwerful influen~-
Qra:
2'1. tb~ .!itrl!clllIc.. !a.l}oL l])ar~etemí2lºying lmdoCllmented. documentc¡J.
i!ndJ"L.S. ci.ti2:en!ll(:Il.~t1~worI1~n. In California. these categories historically
~ave also been cross-cut by ethnicity as difierent foreign groups have cyc1ed
In and out of California agriculturallabor markets .. Mines & Anzaldua's (98)
:¡1.lJ.º)'ºftl1eC:::J..~i!or:r!i<l-':.i!r!lsiTl(htstryal~Q examines (he irnract of citizenship
..:~~~tll.s.()~lo~b?r.lnarke.t.s... ~. comparable study of the effects of citizenship and o
ml~ran¡ status is Scott Whiteford's (159) monograph on how Bolivian mi~
grant plantation workers and urban dwellers in Argentina kní! [ogether com."
plcx strategics of binationaIsurvívat Emphasizing de Janvry & Garramon's
(44) eonccpt ol' functiollal duali~m o(cf 70), Whiteford'~ work falls within
the.articulatíon paradigl]1. He shows that ¡he distinction betwccn places of'
resldence and work are hest seen as "part of a labor reserve svstem that tran-
scends rural-urban borders, as does the capitalist mode of pr~duction" (159,
p. 153).
Culture and Ideology
.b-Ithough lhe historical-structural approaches to migration, unlike moderniza-
tion theory, pay insufficient atlention to cultural aspccts, eoncern with culture
. and ideology h a slrong theme in the work inspircd by arta:ulation theory ano
. l:an be ,cen as falling within two area.~. Fírsl, there is the relatively smalIer
l~ter.aturc on the pe~ceplions of and reactiom. lo migrants by rcceiving pop- '
ula~lOns ar,d how thls is translated into polic_Land how such perceptions and
rOllCleS change with the changing economic conditions that affect the ehbs
and tlows of migrants and immigrantL_Especially notable is Grillo'~ (63)
~tudy of popular and official Frcnch pcrceptions of and reactions tó
,guestworker,~ from Nnrthem Africa~ Grillo's study is done atthree levels.'
First, there is that of the irnmigrants thc~elves and in"describing their work'
and life in a provincial city Grillo gives one 01' the best accounts of ¡he
difficu.lties of chis type of fieldwork. Thc second level is that of the major
uman Illdustnal elly in which the immigrants are located. Grillo links thc two
levels through un analysis of che inslitutions and pcrsonnel who deal with
immigrants and how Ihey perceive and managc what they refcr to as the
"pro~lem" of the immigrants. Attention here is focused not on the immigrants
bul, tollowlllg Foucault, on the diseourses in which Ihe immigrant problem is
dlscussed and ~ebated on the left and ¡he right or lhe political spcctrum. This
lcads to lhe thlrd Icvcl: a full-blown analysis of ideology in Freneh soeiely,
MIGRATION AND DEVELOPMENT 351
resul.ting in the most sophisticated and thorough study yet produce<! of the
relatlonship between immigration alld ideology in a reeeiving society. Some-
:-vhat. similar is Bustamante) (24, 25) ilnaJysis of the vagaries of UoS.
Immlgration policy and public perceptions of Mexican migrants , and ho"¿'
(he y v~ wit~ the healtl1 of the U.S. economy and are reflected in repatriation o
rates 01 Mexlcans; Repatriation varies ¡nversely with (he condition of the
O
domestic .economl; it goes up in times of recession and down when th!; o'
eeonomy IS expandmg. And although not a coherent discourse of its Own, one
occasionally finds in the lilerature discussion of the ideologieal component of
e~uilibriu~ approaches to migration (e.g. 118, 124). Nash (104, p. 24)
dlscusses, lor example, how management personnel policies base<! on laissez-
faire philosophy. which docs not corre.~pond to intemational production
realitics, have an ideological function.
. The second hody of literature on ideology and culture assesses changing o
Images of se\f and shifts in class conseiousness on Ihe part of migrants asa
result of the míg~atio~; Thc ce~tral is.sue here is the effect of migratoI)' waq~
labor and the mlgrahon expenence In general on rural people..s. The sheer
magnitud e of this lype of migration has stimulated considerable debate con-
ceming the essential c!ass nature of the ambiguous "peasantariat" (60). This
issuc is especially aeute within the left in Latín America, where it maps onto
the divides Iha! separate Maoists and populists on one side, known generally
as cumpesinistas, and more clas~ic Marxist proletarianistas 00 the other.
Each has their respective and contrasting straregies of development (cf 67) .
Whcreas promoters of the peasant Iíne (e.g. 47) promote agrarian reform
issues, the proletarianistas stress !he degree to which proletarianization,
mainly via migration. has progresscd and conc!ude that syndicalist strategies
are most appropriate (e.g. 12, 111).
Qne of the mosl thorough studíes of the effects of migration on cIass
fonnation is Laile's (80) work on Pcruvian peasant migrant workers in the'
mining industry.laite demonstrates lhat although these migran! workers ~o
m?re proletarian than pcasant, lhe persistant artieulation of [he two modes of '
existence prevents themfrom developing c1ass conseiousness, social organ:
ization. and political aClion comparable to a fully pro1etarianízed working o
clllss in an advanccU industrial country_
Whcn the high degree to which mígrants take part in the so-called informal
economy is considered, the question of cJass lakes on additional eomplexitieso
_.~ockcroft_(38), for example, argues that stall owners and street vendors
(partieipants in the informal economy) have a petty-bourgeois appearanee that
masks a prolctarian realityo Similarly, pattems ol' land use by retum migrant
peasant-workers (see aboye) stmngly suggest that many of them have adopted
nonpcasant, possibly peny bourgeois attitudes (121) or "the intensification of
a conservative, traditional way of lifc" (13, p. 137.1 Gmelch (5_8, p. 149) says
 352 KEARNEY
that "many migrants are no longcr attracrcd eirher psychoJogicaJly or eeonom-
ically fo agriculture" (see also 57,75, SS. 127). At the same time a therne tha!
runs through the Jiterature on return migrants is thar they havc no! been
proJetarianized in any deepJy ideoJogicaJ sense.
Virtually unique is _Rubbo & Taussig's. (130) paper on fema1c domestic
servants in upper cJass households in a Colombian city. These women typieal-
Iy enter this work as young migranh fram rural areas, and Rubbo & Taussig
show how their incorporatíon into these hou~eholds is integral to the replica-
tion of gendcr and c1ass rclationships in the socicty al lurge.
Migrant Networks
Several rescarchers havc describcd migrant commumtJes in tcrms 01" ner:
works. Lomnitz (89, 90) describes networks of reciprocal rclationships tha!
.link rural and urban areas ....llTQvidíng social security for migrants who live .a'
precarious cxisten<:e (cf 36). Lomnitz (91) also spcaks of "articu[ation".
!Jetween shantytown dwellers and urban institutions, describing how nctwor~s
9t" migrants and the urban poOl' have both intemal horizontal and exteroi!-I
yertical dimensio_ns. This model, however, does not deal wírh articulation in
the more current sensc of production and reproduction, nor in a dcvelop-
mental scnse. M.!!l~s(~7) describes nctworks that have developcd as thc.
~)rnp()sition of migrant f10ws fr9mhis researeh community have changed and
<!~~t_inguishesyoung versu.~ mature nctworks{cf [(0). T~e advantage ofsuch a-
lífeeycle af'J)r~ac~to migr:ant n9tworks h~came apparent whenl(camey (99)'
·devj~(:4a,g~vel(lpruentaJ txpplogy in u study of farmworker heillth in central
f~ifºt:nia. - .. . . . •
One of the main theoretica[ and methodoJogical ehallenges in research on
relationships between migration and developrncnt is linking research at the
community leve/ with nationalIy fllcused aggregate studies. Modemizatíon
_~~."~.~pe~dcncy orieTl(ati0.ns differ,}n addition t ll _ways not~:<f above,¿y_
'!!!c(:n.ding mainly to only one or Ihe other 01" these levds . .1 have already
discussed how (he artÍeulation perspective provides sorne bridges for spanning
Ihc gulfs in levels of analysis by theori7.ing migration, produclion, and
reproduction at (he [oeal Ievcl as shaped by, and as a response to, global
eeonomÍc conditions. The artíeulation perspccti ve has reintroduced culture
!!.rJll icieo1og)'. and bas-ád~anéed úse of the houschold as a basic unit ~f
~alysjs.: As employed in the ~tudies of migralion and development ej(ed
aboye, it has also JargeJy overcome the abstraet structuraJism of Althusser,
who was one of jts main sources. Indeed, from Meíllassoux onward most
antbropological articulationists looking at migration and developmental issues
have given due attention to human agency and practíce. Yct one notes the
abscnee of an historical sensibility in these studies. Migration, and especially
MIGRATION ANO DEVELOPMENT 353
migration as development, is an historie process. Apart from any underlying
strueturcs thal organize rhe movements of peoples, we are observing nonre-
CUfrent proce~~es. One of rhe most di fficul! tasks in anthropological fieldwork
is to apprehend the long-!erm trends and tendencics that shape a migrant
community which spans widely different economic, social, and cultural
milieux. To confron! Ihis problem in my fieldwork r have developed what 1
call the articulatory migran! nctwork ..
"\
THE AIHICULATORY MIGRANT NETWORKJ There are several essential tasks
lñalT'resear¿hón tnlgratíoTl aiiú·development. One is to plot the movements of
migrants ¡nto various kinds of "spaces," including not onJy geograpbic space
bUI al so labor markcts and othcr economic and social niches and correspond-
ing cultura[ changes. Anotocr has to do with the /low of surplus and goods
within the migrant community. Devclopment can only occur when sU'l>lus
above normal comumption i5 cap!ured anó invesled into the productive
infrustructurc of the eommunity. As discussed above, migration can funetion
either lO drain economie value from sending communities or to ehannel il into
them via, for cxample. remittanccs.
[n my fieldwork with Mixlcc Indians from soulhero Mexico, who migrale
heavily into northwest Mcxico and jnto tbe westero United State~, 1 employ
the conccpt of ¡he AJ1iculatory Migran! Network (AMN) to address tbese
issucs (70a. 71. 146). The villagc of San Jeronimo Progreso serves as a
case sludy; jt is rclatively e¡¡sy lo idemify ¡he AMN of San Jeronímo be-
cause il is tighlly knit and cndogamous. Muny people migrate from San
Jeronimo on a circular basis into agricultural and urban [abar markets and
into various informal economic actjvitics in urban shantytowns (ef 6--8,
21. I 17, 1S4). Some of these migrant~ become immigrants. The papula-
tion is highJy mobiJe and ranges as far a!> ¡he Canadian border. The sending
community in Oaxaca i~ bascd on subsi~tencc agriculture. lt is organized
arouno the "!raditjonal" highland Mesoarnerican civil-re[igious governmental
and ceremonial system which is also a model for the forma/ion of comparable
"associa!ions" in the shantytowns in northwest Mcxico ano in cities in Cali-
fornia.
One of the advantages of the AMN is that it subsumes mas! of the analytic
units employed in anthropolgical migrarion research: individual, househo[d,
community, region. It is cspecially suited w the tightly knit highland
Mesoamerican communities from which Mixtee mígrants originate. There,
eaeh sending community is a distinet corporatc seHlcmenl with a well-
devclopcd identity; they a/so tcnd to be highly cndogamous. Thc AMN of San
Jeronimo consi,ts of the sending village as well as the daughter eommunities
tha! migrants and immígrants from San Jeronimo have formed in northwest
Mexico and in the United Slates. Thesc communities in cum consist of
356 KEARNEY
.strategy Ihal combines qualítative ethnographic ficldwork with quantitativc.
methQd~ of ccnsusing amI survcying that are able to capture the complex.
12r\Jcesses of micro differentíation tha! occur in "Iraditional" communities
such as San Jcronimo as lhey occome increasingly articulated with Ihe'
developed world ..
AKNOWLEOGMENT
1 wish lo thank Carole Nagenga~1 for invaluahlc editorial comments and
assistance during thc prcparation (lf this review.
Literature Ciled
l. Abraham- Van der l\.tark. E. E. 1983.
The imp~cl of induslrializalion on
w(>men: A Carihhcan ~ase Sec Ref.
106. pp. 374-R6
2. A¡!uiar. N. lIJHJ. Houschold, COJlUllUIH-
ty, national, and muhinational mdustrial
de\'clopmenl. Sec Ref. 106. pp. 117-37
3. Agujar. N. 19R/). The impa,t of in-
dus,(riali7.atioll on wnrncu'S wurk rolt':-' in
nonh~a,1 Bmzil. Ser ReL !OH. pp. I Jn-
2H
4. Alonso. J. A. 1')8.1. The domcstic clolh·
ing w(lrkers In Ihe Me,i~an metrop(.lb
and lhc.r rdallon tu clcpendcnt capital-
ism. Scc Ref. 106. pp. 161-72
5. Amin. S. 1974. Mr>dern Millru/ilJllJ il1
We.<t Afriea. Ne'" York: Oxford Univ.
Pres,
6. Arizpc, L. 1975. !"dili"""" en la ('íud",]
d,' Mexico; U ca.1O d,' la.' Murias. Mex·
i~o: SE.P. Coleccion ScpSclentas
7 Ari/pe. L 1<)76. Mí¡;mcion iruli¡:,'lw.
problema., analirin". Nuevil Amml'"l.
2(51:63· ~9
8. Arilpe, L. 1977. \Vorncn in the informal
labor sel'lOr: Thc case of Mcxico Cit\'.
Sil!lI.\ 3(1 ):25-37
9. Babb. F. E. 19.'\6. Produccrs and
reproduccfl;; Andean m~rkelwomcn in
the economy. See Ref. \08. pp. 5J-1J4
lO. Bach. R. L.. Schraml. 1.. A. 1982.
Migration, crisis ancl thcmeti,al ('on-
nicl !m. Millr. Re\'. 16:32(1--41
11 Bametl. T. 1975. The Gczim Schcrne:
Pntdueli"n of cotton and Ihe rcprodu{'-
110n uf underdevelopmcnt. See Rd. 1O'J.
pp. IK1,-207
12. !:laltra, R. 1975. Peaoanls ¡md political
powcr In '\1eXKn: A theoreti<:al Model.
Lot. Am. P"r.\pe('t. 2(2):\25-45
13. Beah. A. R. 1979 (¡une lo Bombav:
The urban pmlctan"t a, the rural midd"¡c
dass. C"lIlriIJ. A,<ion SIl/d. 13:123-37
14. Berlin. M. I'JIU The lom'~lion of ~n
ethnic group: Colnmoian fcmalc worker,
in Venezuela. Scc Reí. 106, pp. 257-
. 70
15 Bolb. L 19H3 Kil<:hens hit by prioril.
lC~: Employccl wllTking·dass Jamaiean
women confronl lhe 1M F. See Ref. 106.
pp. 13¡¡-(,O
1ó Rolle'. L. 1986. Economic crisis ancl
femalc-heacled households in urhan
Jamail·a. See Ref. 108. pp. 65 H3
17. lloSSCI\, L 191\ l. The homehold as eco·
nomic agcnt. Urhan Amll/o!,,,I. 10:287-
30~
IR. Brandes. S. 11. 1975. Mi~ruli(Jn. Kin·
.,hip "lid CommlllútL rr",Ji/iun and
Trwait;'J/I in a Sl'anislt V¡lIa~e. :-.Iew
York: Acaclerrne
I 'l. Brctrell, C. 197'J. Emigrar pam )'ol,ar:
A Portuguese idcology of Tctum m.gra-
lion I'ap. Amlm'pol. 20: 1-20
20 llr)l·e-I.aporte, R. S. 19~ 1. The OCW
immigr"lion: The female majorily. Sec
ReL 102, pp. vii-Inii
21. llllechlcr, J -M. 1<)8/i. Women in pcny
commodity pmduction in La PaT. Boli·
' via. See Ret. IOll, pp Iti5-RR
22. Aurawoy. M. 1976. Tile funclinm and
reprOlluclion of migran! lab"r: Com-
par"tive malerial fmm stluthClll Afriea
and the Uniled Statcs. Am. 1. SOI·iol.
81: 1050-R7
23. BUSlamaotc. J. A. 1978. Nalional ,ur-
vc}' of oUl-migralinn in Mexico: Oc·
,cription and preliminar)' findings. I're·
semed al Symposiurn on s/ruc/ural fa,·
/(Jrs comrib",inli /0 current pallerns of
migration in Mexico aruj rhe Cari/'/¡"aI/.
Afllokings Insl., Wa,hingtnn. OC
24. Buslamante, J. A. 1983 \lexican
migralion: Thc political dynamic ,,1' per-
t"cplions.. U.s,-j"-1~J.x¡('()
ReJatiot!.<;;: f.'cC)-
"mnie and Sociul /I.'p'CI.\·, cd e v.'.
MIGRA nON ANO DEVEI.OPMENT
Rcynold,. C. Tello. Stanford: Stanford
Uni,. Pre"
25. BU,lamanle. J. A. 198.1. Thc Mcxican"
are comin)!: from ideology to labor rcla·
li!los. !nI. Milir. Re •. 17:323 41
26. !:luSlamanle, J. A. 1983. Maqui/adora...-
A ncw fac'e ,,1' intcmational capitali<;m
on Mcxico'.'i nmthern frunl ieL Sec Rcf.
106, pp 224-'ió
27. llunerw"rth. D. 1970. A ~tvdv of the
urbanizali"n pnK'eS'i among Míxlec mi·
¡:!fam, frorn Ti lanlongn in J\.1e.~ico Citj'.
Sec ReL 91,. pp 9.'\-113
2li. Bu([crw()flh. n \97.1 Slluauers or ,,,.
burhanitcs" Th~ g"''''lh 01' shantytowl1S
in Oaxaea. \le\[co In !~1I1l1 Amerí<'<lII
f',fodel'l1ioaliol1 Proh/"",,,. etl. R. SWI!.
pp. 209 32 Urbana: Cni\'. Illinois Pre"
2'). BUlterw(lTth. D. 1975. Rural·urban
migr<llion anu micrndcl1lography: A ca~c
sluuy Imm Mexico. {l,ban Alllltrr>l'u/.
4( 1, l: 26.'-S.1
JO. Buttcrworth. D 1'177 SdeclivilY of
nut-migratL{)Jl from a :\1i~tct' communi-
ty. Ur/;1I/1 Altlltrof"'/' 6(21: 12<)-.'1<)
31. Camara. F.. Kempcr. R. V" eds. 1\)7'1.
,.Wixrutfon ACn),H Frmaiel'.5: Afe.üco oltd
1/" U"ilnl S/(IfF.L Alh,mv: SU:-.IY Ins1.
J\1r.::5il'aIllCrican Stut.l ~ Grcccc and its ~tructural and SOCIO-
J". Carrillo. J • HernilOdcz. A. 191\5. Mu·
jerl.'J lrr,,¡rc·f/;.a.~ l~llla ind¡ülria maqu.ila-
den·r!. \1c~ico: SEp·CEF~O;\1lX
.". Casi les. S. 19lC. Cnmmenta,)' ('(/!l.
le",p MaL ...\-". 'i:llf>-I'i
34 Ca~tlcs. S., Ko~"ck. (j. I<)S5. ¡mmi·
;.:rtull U.'orken" (I'u/ elass Stnu.'lure in
11.'<'5/('1'11 t:I<"'/"'. Oxford: Oxford l:niv.
Pre". 2nd ed.
Vi Cha,·u. L R 19R.l. A {ramem"k ,,"
11l1uly:::::inx immigrcm! hO~Hj·Ir()lds. Prt·-
sCnlcd ¿t Ann. Mee!. Soco Appl. An·
tllmpnl .. San 1)i~go
](, Chckki. O. A. 1<)74. Mod,'rni,a/i"n ami
Kili N",..,ork. Leiden. The Nctherlands:
Brill
37. Chinchilla. N. S. 19K1. Interpreting so-
óat chang~ in Gualemala: ~1otJ~m):ta-_
IHIn. depcnclcncy. anu articulat¡on pf
mudes 01 prnductioll In Th,or;"., '1' De-
H·!r""'' 'I1I. cd. R. H. Cllilcolc. D. L.
Johnson. pp. IYJ n. lleverly HiIl>:
Sagc
3~. Cüékcroft, J. D. 1':18.1. Immiseration,
not margin;tlizatlOn: Thc ca,e (lf Mcx-
ieo. L'l/. Am. 1't'r.<pecl. J7-JX:W>-
107
39. Cono'cr. T. 1'l85. A ('ooperativc he·
v"ml bordcr,. Gmu/'OiJls {><' •. J. 1,,·
;"rum. 1'OIllld. 'l(21:43-52
40. Comcliu,. W. A. 1976. OUlmigralion
from [llral ~·1cxtc,m communitjl'~_ In
Tite nnwmin '!I Migrali"". Occa'.
Monogr Ser. Vol. 2, n,l 5. IntcrdlSC.
357
ConUllun. Pru¡;ram. Washinglon, oc:
Smithsonian Ins!. Press
41 Comeli"s, W.I\. 1978. Mexicanmigra-
lil>n to the Unitcd Statc>: Cau~es, eon-
~'equences and U.S. response. Boston:
Ce nI. Inl. SlUd , MIT
42 CUlhben. R. W., Sle,'cns, J. B. 1981.
The nel econonlÍc ineenlive for ilIegal
Metican migration: A ca<;e studv. 1111.
Migr Rr\'. 15:543-50 -
4.1. Del're, C D. l'illó. Rural women and
agrarian reform In Peru, Chile, and
Cuha. See Rcf. 10R. pp. 18<)-207
44. de Janvry. A" Garramon, C. 1977. The
dynami~, of rural )X,,'erty in Lacin
Amerita. J. "l'a!WIl Slud. 4:206-16
45. Dincrman, 1. 1978. Pallems of adapla.
tion among. households nf U.S.·bnund
migrams fml!l Michoacan. Mexico. 1m.
Migr. Hel'. 12:485-501
46. Dinerman. 1. 1982. Mi¡¡ranrs and "tay al
h"»I"s.· A compara/i," srudy of rural
migw./i"" from Mexico. La Jolla: Cenl.
r. S.-Mcx. Slud .. UniY. Calif.. San Di-
ego
47 F.sleva. G. 1983. T¡', Slntggle for Rural
Mrxic". MA: Bergin & Garvey
411. Fakiolas, R. 1983. Return migration lo
political clfcelS Se~ Ref. 78, pp. 37-
44
4\1. FdJman. K. D. 1975. Squattcr migra-
¡¡<ln in D"vao. Phil;ppines. Urban An·
Ihml"A. 4:123-44
50. Fcmandcz·KcJly, M. P. 1993. For we
are .IO/d: W"mell and [lId!<srrv in Me);·
in'" Fronliá. Alban)': SUNY Press
) 1 l'emalldcl.-Kdly, M. P. 1<)83. Mexican
border industríaHzation, femalc labor
force participation, and migration. See
Ref 106. pp. 205-23
51. Flura. C. R. Santos. R. 191\6. Womcn
in rarrning 'y,tem, in Latin America.
Scc Rcf. IDK, pp. 20!\ 28
53. Fostcr·Cartcr. A. 1978. Can we articu·
late 'articufation"~ In The NewE<'onomit:
Aml/ro!,olo!!\'. ed. J. Clammer. New
York: SI. Martm',
54. Frank. A. G. 1967. CapilaJism and Un·
derdHPlopmi'n/ in Lalill America. New
fu,,,
Y<lfk: Mmnhly Rcv.
55. Gans. H. J. 1974. Urhanism and sub·
urbanism as way~ 01' !ife: A re-
evaluation of definilii1ns. In City Ways:
A Selectí",! R~ader ill UrOO" Anthropol-
O!!.\·. ed. J. Friedl, N. J. Chri~man. New
York: Cro-..ell
56. Gluckman. M. 1940. An~ly"is or a so-
cial ,ituatilln in modero Zululand. BanlU
Sltld/~-, 14. NI" 1 & 2
57. Gmeleh. G. 1<)79. Relurn Millral;,m and
Mi¡¡I'I1111 Adj'ülmetll in We.tlem [re/ando
fri.,h f'¡mml. l/11m. lJrv 62 pp.
35ll KEARNEY
58. Gmclc~, G. 14S0. Retum migrallon
Aron. Re'. Anrhmpo/. 9:135-.')9
59. Godfrey, \1. 19~3. SUlplus I~bour a~ ;¡
~oun:e 01' f(lrei1!1I exchangc. World ¡)e.,.
1 I :Y45· 56
60. Goudman, D., RedcJift, M, 1982. I-rom
Pea,ant lO ProIFtarit.Jll: Cllpi!a/i.\'f De-
I'e/opmen/ alld Allrur;'lI! Trun.l'i1ion.
Ne ... York: SI. Martin \
61. Grave,. i'i. B .• Grave,. r. D. 1')74
Adaptí"e slralegic, il1 urban migratíol1
Arm, Rev, Anrltropo/. 3:117-51
62. Griffin. K. 1976. On th~ emigration 01
peasantry. ¡"""r/d Dev. 4:353-61
62a, Griff¡th. D. C. 1985. Women. rcmil'
tanl'es, and reproduction. Am. I::¡hno/.
]2'676-90
6.'. Gnllo. R. D, 1985. Idc%!?te,· i1Jui 111'
srilllflon., in UrhoH FriulCe: Tite Rcl'rf.'-
Sl'IIWtion 01 lmmiKmnts. Camhridgc:
Camhrid1!e L'niv. Prc"
64. Guille!. D., t.:zlcll, D J .. cJs. 197(,
;\,,,,,, Approl/('hes lo 1/1<' Smdv 01' M ¡SIra·
tioli, Vol. 62. No. :1. Hous[on: Rl<e
Univ.
65. Harri, , J. R, 1978. f.conomic C/JIfse.\
alld Con.l'eql/<'Iu·es If Mi;?Yatiot/s II/'I}m,
lhe lOllteX! vJ {hu!erd(J\-e/opmelu U1
W<,s/ AfriCll. WorL Pap. No. 6. Afr.
Slud. Ceot .. BO;IOI1 LnJ\' .. B",oklin~.
~I!\
66. flarm, J R .. Todaro. M. P 1970.
Migralion, uncmpioyulenr. and devdop·
mene A two-~ecror analy,is. Am. El '¡Jn_
Rp,', (JO: 126-42
67, ~arris. R. 1<J7R. MarxiSIlI and [he ag-ra-
roan Que,1101l in I.alin Ameri~a.l.{/f. Am.
I'l'r.lpea. 5(4):2-26
68. Hendrids, J., MUlphy, A. D. I<)~l
Fmm p",cn)' 10 pmerty: The adaplalion
01' a youog rnigrant hou.'chold in Oax·
aca. lvlcxil'o, I/rban Amliropo/. !Oc I J:
53·70
69. House, W. J .. Rempel. H. 1':ISO. lile
detel'IlJ inam, of interrcJ!ion;¡1 migratioll
ln J(cnya. World Dt>I' 1\:25-.15
70. Keamcy. M. 1980. Agrihu~inc,\ anJ [hc
dcmi,c Or the risc of lhe peasanlry. 1.(1/,
Am. ¡'enpecl. 7(4):115 ·24
70a Kcarney, M, 19~3. 1J¡" nO/Ufi"" of a
miKranr 1lelll'Ork .lmm OaxllnJ, Pre'
seJUctl a[ Ann. l\kcl. Lal Am. Slud.
Assoc .. Mexico
71. Keamc)', M. 19R6. lntegralion (Jf [he
Mixteca and the Weslcm- L'.S .. Mnicl)
regilln via Illigrarory wage lahn!. In Re·
!iioli(l//mpl/c/r oj'US,-Mntco Rd"timlJ,
ed. l. R"'enthal·L'rey. L~ Jolla: Cenl.
U.S.-Mexico Relat .. lIni •. Calit, San
Diego. In pres,
72, K~mpcr, R \' 1977. ,'t,f;/lm/ion "nti
Adapflltion. T:jnf?UlIl:all Pea.willfJ in
Mex!co Ct/.\·. Bev<rly Hilk Sage
73, Kempcr, R. V, 1979. I'ronticrs in migra·
twn: Frolll ~lll!uraljsrn to historical
slructuralislll in lhe S[uJy of Me.ico-
U S. IIljgIalJOI1. See R~f. 3 r. pp. 9-
21
74. Kempcr, R. V. 1981. Ob.~lack; and
opportunilie,: !Iou'ehllld ~c"nomlCS of
Tzíntzuntzan ~lÍ1!rants m Mc~ico Citv
U,hal! Anrhmpo/. 10:211-29 . of Urhunizalion. Boshln' Houghton·
75. Kcnnv. M, 1972 The rcturo oí the
Span¡'sh e~¡jgrant. Nord ,';\/1 2.111J.-29
76. King. R. 1979. R~[urn Illlgration: A re·
"ic" 01' smnc case \luuie; from Sou[hern
Europe. Med;/Prr. Stud. I (3):JO
77. King. R .• Strachan, A. 19S0. Thc
effecls of return migralion un a Gozi[an
vi Ilage. Curr, Amhropol. .1'); 175- 79
78, Kubal, D" ed, 19~3. [he /,,,/ilÍc,\ 01
Rt'lUrn_ Ifllenwlimw( R{>turn A1ixration
in f:I,mpe. Ne'" York: Cent. Migr. Stud.
79. La<:lau, F" 1971. Feudalislll and capital·
ism in Latín America. "V"H-' L<'./I R<'f.
67:19--3S . 97, Mine" R. 1\11\1. lJewh'pinfi a C"mm/<·
~IJ Lai!<" J. 1981 I"dllslria/ lJel't'/opmfnr
,,"d Mí;?ml1l Lahollr in LflIl!, Amai('a.
Anslin: Uni\'. Te~as Pre"
SI. Lamphere. L. 1986. ¡:nJm working
daugh[ers to workmg motiler;: Pmdllc-
ti,m and rcproduc{¡oJ\ in an induslrial
society. Am. F.thllo/. 13:118·30
~2. l.eac<lck. F.. B., ed. 1971. rhe Culture
(!( Po va/\'. A Criti4"~' !\j"w York: Si-
rnon & Schu;!cr
S3, Lew;'" A. 1954. F.¡;onomic ckvclopmcnt
wilh lItlljmilcd supplies of lab(>I,r .Han·
~~:.\'Ir Se/¡. F.(OII. SOL Srud., Vol. 2~,
1<4. I.ewi.'. O 1'152. Urbanizatioll wÍ!hoUl
hreakJl1\\n: .'\. Ca ,e <;[udv Sá. Monlhlr
75:31-41 . .
S.S. LLanas. T. P. 1975. Flows of Gre€k out-
migralion and I'Clurn migration. Inl
Mi¡;/'. 13(J): 119- JJ
~6. Lipmn. M. 1<¡¡¡O, Migratlon fmm rural
arca, of poor COllntr;es: T~e ¡mpac[ un
n¡ral proJuni\'Ílv and incol11c distrihu·
[ion. Wor/d Del': 1\: 1-24
X7. Lobo. S. B. 1976. Urban adaptarion
among Peru'ün migrants. See Ref. 64,
pp. 113-30
¡¡R, Lomll1t~, L. 197ó. An ecological model
for migratinn slUJies. See Re(, 64, pp.
l3 1-46
~9. LomnÍ!7. L. 1976. Migration and nct-
work, in Latin Am<,rica. In ('urrenl Per·
r;;pt.'('tn. -e.~ in LUlill American Urban Re-
reare-/¡, ed. A. Porte" 11. Bro ... ning, pp.
133-<;0, Au\lin: Uni\', T".as Pres.l
90. Lomnítz. I.. 1977 !'I'erw(lrA.< llfut
,tlllr¡:;nalilv: Lire in 11 ;l1exic<lI1 ShunlY-
1m."!. New Vtlfk: Ac.demic . 105. Nasll. J. 19K6. A dccade (lf rcsl'arl.'h (In
9I. Lomnilf, L. 1978. MechaniSlm; 01'
arriculati()~ betwccn Shaolylowl1 ,etl1cr,
MIGRATlON AND DEVELOPMENT
~nd [he urban .wstern, U,han Anrliropol.
7(2): IS5-105 '
92. Mang¡n, W. 1967. Latin American
~quancr ,etrlcment~: A problem and a
solUlion. Lar, Am. Res. Re\'. 2(3):65--9l!
9'1. Man¡;in, W .. ed. 1970. I'ea.tal!fs in
Cili<',!: Readin¡¡.v in Ine Al]/hrop()/og~
Mifflin
\/4. MeLean Petra,. F., 1981. Thc glohal
IHoor marke! in [he modem \liorld-
cconomv In Globa! 7re,,,1I in MiKra·
/ion, el \1. M. Kril/, C. B. Keely. S
M. Toma,i. Staten bland: Cent. Migr
Slud.
95. Meillassoux, C. lY72. From reproduc-
tion lo produdion. 1:.'('011. & SO('. 1:93-
105
96. Meilla>~oux. C. I\!~l. ,"",mden.!, Mea/
and Mone.\'. London: Cambridge. Univ.
Prc"
,úrl' TradulOn: A Field SI/ldv in Rural
'La~·al<'(·ll". Mo:;,'" amI Calljámia
Seu/emenl Area.l. La lolla·. Progrdm in
lJ.S.-l\lexicn Stlld" Uni" Calif., San
Di<'go
98. Mines. R .. AnlalJua. R. 1<J~2, tI'",,· Mi·
!iram., n. Old M'granls: AI,ernl1l;w
¡.abor Marker Slruclures rn /he Ca/llitr.
"ía Ci,ru.I·/l1duslrl'. La Jolla: Pro¿:ram in
US.-f\Icxicl' Stud .. Uni .. Cahl .. SHn
Diego
99. Mines, R., Kcamey. M 1982. The
Healrh 01 Caliji)fn;a Farmworki'rs. Sac-
n¡mento: e.lif. Dep. Heallh Scn'.
100. Mines. R" \01 a sse}' ,D 19~5. Pattt::m, of
migratillD [O lhe Unitcd Sla[eS from lwo
MexLcan communilic" L"t. Am. R"S
Rcv. 2(12):104·2.l
101. Miracle. M. P .. ¡kIT)'. S, S. 1Y70. Mi·
gran! l"l;o(lUr and economic de\'cI()pm~n1.
04(1/'(} l:.('On. Pal', 22:H6-IO¡¡
102. Morlimer. D. M .. Brycc·LaPlIrte. R ..
cds. 1981. F","a/~ /mmí¡:ralils /O tire
Uni/,,! Sw/t's. Cllrihhean, wrm Amer·
ican, lim! AfrlUlII F'l'erience,<. W:lsh·
ington, DC' SmÍlh"mia" Ins!. Pr~"
IU2a. Muller. T, Espcmhade. T, J. 1986,
Tlir Fourtlr Wm'e: C"lij()rni,,'.1 .""'e11'(.\r
Immigral1l.l. Washinglun, DC: Urh~n
In,[.
103. N~,h. J. llJSI. Ethno)!raphic aspcel' 01'
lhe wor!d capilal;,t syS!CIll. Amo. R,.,.
An/hmpo/. HU9.'l-42J
104, :-Iash. J. 1983. The ,"lp".:;t III lhe "hallg-
in)! in[cmalÍonal di"'í,iol1 (11' lahor lln <tifo
fcrcll1 sedor., of [h~ labor force, Scc
Rd'. lOó, pp. 3·31\
w(llllcn ill I.alin Amen,'. S"c Rl'1' 11l~.
pp. 3 21
IOIí. "1ash. J .. ¡'cmandcz.Kelly. \01. P .. (:lh.
359
1983. Women. Men, and lhe ¡'l'
[emaliona/ Didsion of Labor. Albany:
SUNY Press
107, Na~h. J., Safa, H.I., eds. 1980. Sexand
e/a.. s in La/il! America. MA: Bergin &
Garvev
108, Na'h.) .. Safa, H.I., eds. 1986. Wom ..n
I/nel Change il! Latin Amer;ca. MA: Ber-
gin & Garvey
109. Oxaal, l.. Barneu. r .. Booth., D., eds.
1975. Beyond rhe Sacíology 01 Devel(Jp'
mento London: Rou[ledge & Kegan-Paul
l lO. Oxaal. 1,. Barnett, T .• Boath, D. 1975.
Editor', introduetion. Sce Ref. 109, pp.
1-6
111. Pare. L 1977, F/ pra/erariado agrícola
en MexilO, Mcxiw: Siglo XXI
112. Perlman,J.1976.7heMyth"fMargín-
a/í/., Bcrkeley: Univ, Calif. Press
113. Pe."aT, P. R. 1982. The role of tlOu~e­
holds in intema[ional migration and the
casc of U .S.-bound rnigralion fmm the
Dominican Republic. 1m. Migr. Rev.
Iti:342-64
I 14. P~~~ar, P R. IY84. The linkage between
lhe houschold and wurkplace of Domini-
can "'omen in the U.S. [m. Migr. Rev.
18: 11RR-1211
115. Piore. M. 197<J. Birds ofPassage: Mi-
¡;Tan/ Lahor and l"d~slrial Societies.
Cambridge: Cambridge Univ, Pres~
116 Portes. A. 1978. Migration and un-
derdcvel npmem. Po/iries So<:i..ry 8(1): ¡-
48
117. POrle,. A, 19R l. lInequal exchange and
[he urban informal sector. In Labor,
('[aH and ¡/re Inlernaríonal Sv.<tem. ed.
A. Porrc" O. WaUon. pp. 67':106. New
York: Academie
11M. P()rte~. A. 1981. Modcs ofstructural in-
cOlporatilln and pre'ent Iheories of labor
immi~ralil,". In Global Trends in
Migmlirm. ed. M. M. Kritz, C. B, Kee-
Iv, S. M. Toma,i. Sla[en Island: Ceot.
Migr. Stud.
II\! Quijano. A. 1977, Dept'ndencia.
urht:lfiizaáon \' cambia sodal en l.ari-
lIow"eri('QnQ, .Lima: Mosea Azul
120. Qllijano. A. 1983, Imperialism and
marginalily 1n La[in America. Lal. Am.
/'erSflf'O. 37-38:76-85
121 Reichert. J. S. 1981. The migran[ ~yn·
drome: Scasonal U.S. wagc labor and
rural developmcnt in central Mexico.
HI/m. Orllan. 400):56-66
122, ¡kv. P. P. 1973. Ln aJ/iance,,' d~
c11/~\·.re.l'. Pari,: Ma,pero
12:\, Remeri. F., Mughini, e 19~3. Re·
tllríl migrali"n and .,ending arcas: From
the Ulyth llf develllprnen[ to the real-
ity ol' sta{!na[ion Scc Rcf. 78, pp. 31-
.16
124 Rhoades. I{, L. 1978. Foreign lahor and
 360 KEARNEY
Gennan industrial capilali~m IK71-
1978: Thc cvolution of a migrarinl.! na·
tion. A/lL Erhnol, 5:553-73
liS Rhoade,. R, L /978. Inrra.Europcun re-
tum migratj¡m and rural de~eloprncnt:
Le,wns from the Spanisl] ,'ase, lil/m
Organ. 37: 1l7--4S
126, Rh<lades, R. E. 1978. !'rom caves lo
tIlain strec!: RClum migrati,," and the
tran"¡,,rmation ()f a S,pam.,h "il1,1~C.
Par' AJilhrvpol. 20:57-74
127, Rhoade" R. 191\0 Fllfopean (:yclical
mi[!rarion and ccon,'rnic dcvelopmcm:
Thc Case of sOlllhcrn Spain. In ¡--'ri,an
Li/". ed. G, Gmelch, p, Lcnncr. Ncw
York: SI. )"lartin's
12S. Robcrts. fl R. 1973. UrXll11i:illl?
StrangcrL Po()r Fam¡Ii~·.\· !JI (iw¡lemala
C;f\', Austin' Cni". Texa, Press
129. Rnilwagell, J R 19~'- Illtmduction to
"Mcxi"an urbafl household e~onolllies ..
U,han AJ/I}¡rul'0!. IO(1):~05-18 fSpcc,
issuc)
)JO. Rubbo. A .. Taussig. M, 19¡¡, lJp off
their kJl.::e>: S"rvanthood in ,nulhea,t
Colombia, L<II. Am. Pt'!'sp<cr. 10(41:5-
23
'-' 1. Rubcnslein. H. 1979, 1'lll' rclurn idwl()-
gy in V·/e . . ' lndian migra(inrL P(1p. An-
rhru!JtJl. 20 21 38
132. Sab"l, R H" ed. t<¡R2 . .tI/llrar;"/I {md
th,' l.a!>"r Marker i'/ D{'I'~I"pinX {'''U"-
/rie.>. Roulder. ro.
WC'lview
L\.l. Sala. H, r. 1986. Femak cl1Ipt"yUll'1l1 In
rhe Puerto Rimn working el a" , Sec ReL
IOI!, pp, fl4-- JOS -
134, SlIsscn-Koob. S. l'ln, Thc intemalional
circulauon 01 rCSQua'c, ;;nd llL·vclop·
ment Thc case 01' migrant labor. Del,
Chan!!,,, 9:S09--45
IJ.~. Sa'.~cJl-Kt\ob, S. 1980, The internarion-
atizarinn "f the labm force, Swd. (''''111'.
1m. LJ('\·. 1,;:J,23
!3ó, Sa"en·Ko(Jb, S. 19¡j1. Expol11ng capi·
tal and importing labor: The role (lf
WOlllen. See Reí. lO2, pp 20.1 34
I ~7, Sas,cn·Koob, S 1982. RecomposilLon
and pcripheralizalion at Ihe core, ('Ol!'
u'mp, ¡~"r.\úm 5:HR-100
IJH . .sa.',en·Kooh. S, 1'181 Labor rnigr¡¡tion
und rhe ncw indu,rríal Jivision (lf labor.
St'e Ref. 106, pp, J7~-:'04
1:19. Sa"en-Kooh. S. 19¡j4 :-.Ioles on lh~ in-
corp()r~tion 01 Third World "om.::" inlo
wagc-Iahor thruugh i!1lTTllgrati()n ."d
<Jff·shme produclion, 1m. Migr, R"."
/8:1114--(,7
140 . .sc:hapcra. 1, 1947. AIigrallll.u/J(JI¡r ,mJ
Tribal Lije, !.ondon: (hfol'd u,,;,
Pre,s
141. SChmink, M. 19H4. Hous~h()IJ cco·
nomi(,.' s.tr.a(cgu:~~ A rcvi~w and
a!'-cnu., 1."" Am R,'.1 Rrl'. 19(')'1\7-
101
MIGRATION ANO OEVELOPMENT 36\
141 •. Schmink. M, 19l\ó. Women and urhan the study of brcakdo\!"n hefore IIrbani7.a- cione.' 15;53-87. ColegIo de Michoacan
industrial developmcnt in Ura7.i1. Scc !ion. S~e Ref. M. pp. 147-62 166. Wílpt'rt. C. 1983. Retuming and
Ret. !01I, pp 136 M 159, Wluleford. S, 1981. Workersfrom Ihe remaining. Rcrum among Turki~h mi.
142. Selby. H A. Murphy, A. D \982. Nor!h. Planta/iorl.\, Bolil'illn Labor, ami grant~ in Germany. Sce Rcf. 78, pp.
{!rball Ifousrholds <lnd rhe D",-i>ion 10 /It,· ('in in ....'orlh"'('.11 Ar!<pmina, AlIstin: 101-12
Migrate lO rhe l/S. Philadelphia: 1m!. L'ni\" Tex~s Press /67. DcJctcJ in proof
Studv l-ILlmanilies 160. WlC'I. R, E, 1'l79, Impli~atillns 01' in- 1(,8, Wil~on. M. 1936, Reacri"f/ lo conquesl:
14.l. Sha¡{kman, p, 1976, ,Hi!!,,'m;oll and U/1' tcmallOnal labor mi~ralil\n for \1cxiclln LB,',-t" oi contac/ wirh E uropeW15 Of/ rhl!
derd"l'elopment: rhe eme of W~-'lem !Ural developmCIlf. Sec Ref 31. pp, H5- POI/Jo (/f SOu/h AfriC</ London: IAI
SumO(1, Boulder, CO: We,tvicw 'l7 OUP •
144. Shocmaker. R. 1976. C"lonization and 161. Wic.~l. R. E, 197<), AnrhmpolLlgical pcr- l1i9. Wolpc, H. 1972. Capitali;m and cheap
urba"i'ation In Pene F.mpirical and spcctive on return ml[!talion, A critical I~bour.power in South A frica: Prom
thcoretical pcr'p"ctives, See Ref. 64. C,)mIllCnlary. ,-"p. Amhml'0'- 20: 167 '~gregatioll lO apartheid. En>r!. & Soc,
pp. 163-75 87 1:4
14~. Stark, O. 1982. Rescarch (ln rural-lo- 162, WiCSl, R. E 1973. Wagc-lal'lm migra· 170. Delded in prol.lf
mban migration in I .Des: The confusion tioll alld the hou'ehold in a Mnican 171. Wolpe, 11. 1'175. Thc theor)' ofinternal
fronricr and wlly we should pau,~ lo tOWIl. 1. Anrhmf",l, Res. 29: I¡¡O-209 colonialilm: The South African case.
rethink afresh. World l)e\'. 10:63-70 16~ Wiest, R, l. 1971!, Rural Commu"i/\ Scc Rd, 109, pp. 229-52
146, SlUan, J, Kearncy, M. 19SI. ('01<,\",' O"\'''¡opment i" Mexim: TI/e Imp«,,/ (ir In. \Vood. C. H. 19X1 Structural changes
aJl(i tj]""I.> (!f AgriUlll!o'ol Lahor Migra· A1e:ticotl Hecurrel11 J\1igration fa the and hou,ehold mategies: A conceptual
/;('I1/rOI/l/II,- Minew ofOaxa"" 10 Cali- l!nit~d 5rates. Cni\'. 'Manitoba An· fr~mcwork ror the study of rural migra-
¡"mia. La 1011a: PruH<un in CS.' rhro)ll\L Papo No, 21 tion. lIt/m. Organ, 40;338--44
Mcxi\.'o Stlld .. L'niv. r~lif" San Di~go 164. Wics!. R, F.. 1980. Thc interrclllt](m,hip 173. Wood. C. H. 1982, Equilihrium and his-
147, Su;t,. D, S, I<)H5. C. S. f.nll ml~ralion: nf rural. urhan. and illlC'rnatiollal labor torical-stnlcrural perspecríve< on migra-
An appli\.' .. tioll of rhe Harris-Tudaro m;lrkers: Consc'l"en('e~ for;l nlral \1cx- !ion. 1m. Migr. Rev. 16:29&-319
modeL }-;COI/, D~l', Cal/. C/¡an¡.:~ 3.' i.an commull1ry Pap Amhropol. 21: 17'1, Wood, C. H .. Mee,)y. T. L 1985.
~15· 2~ 29--46 MigrarlOn. remittanccs and devclop-
14H . .swanso!\, J. 1979. The con,cyuel1(,cs 01 165. Wie,t. R. E. 19~3. La dep'1lIJell<'Ía e,· ment: A smdy uf Caribbcan cane cutters
wlum m¡gralion fár e'-'onomic d~\'c1üp­ 1t:rnll \' la perpl'Ull1c/On de la mi~racion in Florida. bll. Migr. Rev. 19(2):251-77
menl: A rc\'iew 01' the Iitcl'aturc "al'. temporal (J 1m estados unidm. R~la-
.4mhmpol. 20:.19- 56
I·N, ThOIn~.', R, J. 1985, eirb'lljhil'. (;m-
.der. wul "-'(lrÁ:: S{)('ú~1 ()rXf..mi¡,a/ir)l/ rif
Jndtulrial Agrit"uJwre, Bcrkelcy: Urliv_
Calif. Pre"
150, Todaro, M, P. 1<)69, A tlllldd of [¡Lhour
migration and urhan uncmploymcnl in
le" dcvcloped counlries. Am, tóm.
Ri'\'. 5911): LlR--4l1
151 loJaro, M, P. 1976, Inlemal Il1igration
in dcwlopillf', cuunll ies: A rc\'icw ol'
Ihcory. Geneva: Inl. Labor Organ,
152, Todaro. M. p, 1'181. E('(!Ilomi,. Dr·
l"'I"pmenl ¡,. the Thil'd V.·orld. Nc ..
York: L()ngm~n
153. Undl, D, J. /979. CunceptLml lalladcs
in lh~ mral-urban dlchololll\'. Ur¡'an
Am/¡ropol. 8:333-50 '
154. UzzelL D. 1. 19HO. f',lixcd'lraregicsand
lhe informal s~Clor: Thrcc faces nj re-
,.rvc labor !film. Or"an, -'NAO 49
155. Vivolo. R L 1'183, bnígr~lion and
agrieulrure in a Sicili"n "illagc. Scc Rcf
n. pp. 73-77
15ó. Wci,ner, T. S, 1976. Thc ,aruclure 01'
;ociability: Ur)¡an migr~ril1n and urbano
mral lie~ in Kenya. Ur/wr¡ Antnm/'ol.
5:1 \19-22.1
J 57. Whitcford, L 1979, The horderland a;
¡m extended ü.nlnluniry. See Ref. 3 1,
re~~(ln..~h pp. 127-.,7
t:i~. Whilclord, S. IlJ76. \1igralion in Con-
text A sy'lcmatic hi,torical approach ro