My ideas regarding the distinction between family and collective remittances were first presented in a paper published in 1999 (Goldring, 1999a). Earlier drafts of this paper were presented at a conference at the Universidad Autónoma de Zacatecas in September, 2001 (Goldring, 2001c), and at the 2001 meeting of the Latin American Studies Association (Goldring, 2001b). It has since benefited from comments from Sarah Gammage, Fernando Lozano, Patricia Landolt, Manuel Orozco, and two anonymous reviewers. Of course, the author is responsible for the contents.
Family and Collective Remittances to Mexico: A Multi-dimensional Typology
Article first published online: 6 OCT 2004
Development and Change
Volume 35, Issue 4, pages 799–840, September 2004
How to Cite
Goldring, L. (2004), Family and Collective Remittances to Mexico: A Multi-dimensional Typology. Development and Change, 35: 799–840. doi: 10.1111/j.0012-155X.2004.00380.x
- Issue published online: 6 OCT 2004
- Article first published online: 6 OCT 2004
The development potential of remittances has resurfaced as a topic of analysis, based in part on dramatic increases in migration and amounts of money ‘sent home’, and partly in the growing interest and involvement by states and non-state actors in gaining leverage over remittances. The trend is indicative of an emerging remittance-based component of development and poverty reduction planning. This article uses the case of Mexico to make two broad arguments, one related to the importance of extra-economic dimensions of remittances, particularly the social and political meanings of remittances, and the other based on a disaggregation of remittances into family, collective or community-based, and investment remittances. Key dimensions of this typology include the constellation of remitters, receivers, and mediating institutions; the norms and logic(s) that regulate remittances; the uses of remittances (income versus savings); the social and political meanings of remittances; and the implications of such meanings for various interventions. The author concludes that policy and programme interventions need to recognize the specificity of each remittance type. Existing initiatives to bank the un-banked and reduce transfer costs, for example, are effective for family remittances, but attempts to expand the share of remittances allocated to savings, or to turn community donations into profitable ventures, or small investments into large businesses, are much more complex and require a range of other interventions.