Abstract
Migrant remittances have increased dramatically in recent decades. The rise of monetary transfers from the global North to the global South has led to the emergence of policies designed to harness the development potential of remittances within areas most affected by emigration. In Migrating into Financial Markets: How Remittances Became a Development Tool, Matt Bakker analyzes the intersection of migrant remittances and human development in the early twenty-first century. His work provides a comprehensive introduction to the subject and should be a go-to reference for the emerging subfield of remittance-led development.
In explaining how remittances emerged as a development tool, Bakker’s task in Migrating into Financial Markets is largely descriptive. However, his work is also analytically sophisticated and theoretically sound. Taken together, this book provides the reader with a clear depiction both of the achievements and the shortcomings of the remittances-led development agenda. Bakker’s work is geared toward scholars and policy-makers; however, it is equally accessible to the lay reader.
At the heart of Migrating into Financial Markets lies a caustic critique of free-market capitalism and the current nation-state arrangement, which emphasizes controlling the movement of people across geopolitical borders. As Bakker points out in his conclusion, “perhaps the problem resides, instead, in exclusionary boundary-enforcement policies designed to restrict mobility, to bound social life within the limits of the territorial nation-state” (p.216). Bakker argues that the right to migrate needs to be decoupled from one’s economic fitness. In this sense, in addition to providing a detailed chronicle of remittance-led development, Migrating into Financial Markets also pushes the reader to reconsider free-market capitalism as well as the political boundaries that currently define our polities.
I largely agree with Bakker’s critique of free-market capitalism. In fact, existing research regarding the development effects of remittances demonstrates quite clearly that unfettered capitalism is detrimental to the well-being of society. Remittances are, after all, the ultimate private transfer. However, remittances alone tend to pervert local development by driving up inequality (Adams 2006) and contributing to social disintegration. Researchers find, for example, that children growing up in households with a migrant father have lower rates of immunization, are less likely to be breastfed (Hildebrant and McKenzie 2005), have increased odds of illness (Schmeer 2009), report lower educational aspirations (Nobles 2011), and are more likely to drop out of school (McKenzie and Rapoport 2006). Finally, children of migrants report higher rates of teen pregnancy, alcohol use, drug abuse, robbery, and imprisonment (Cortes 2008:22–23). In short, emigration contributes to the type of social environment where social problems, including violence, are more likely to occur (Zinecker 2007). In many ways, this work validates Bakker’s critique of free-market capitalism within the context of remittance-led development as it demonstrates the perverse effects of leaving human well-being to the whim of the free market.
Although I believe Bakker’s critical analysis of free-market capitalism is well grounded, I agree less with his call for a migrant option for all. In theory, I concur with Bakker and I believe that we should indeed work toward a world in which borders bear less meaning in the opportunity structures that individual face at birth. Still, while creating a migrant option for all citizens of the world is attractive, in practice such an option would require a redistributionmodel in which those who most benefit from free market fundamentalism would ultimately have to give up power and resources. Furthermore, a migrant option for all cannot exist without some form of global governance in which decision-makers have power both within and across state lines.
A democratic global polity of this nature would necessitate certain prerequisites, including universal access to education, health care, and a means through which to earn a respectable living. Unfortunately, we are far removed from such a world. Given this, I believe that scholars of remittance-led development should focus on identifying those conditions under which local citizens are best able to use remittances to gain leverage and control over their own lives. This does not mean eliminating migration as an option but rather eliminating it as a necessity.
The Mexican government’s 3x1 para Migrantes program, which Bakker discusses at length in his text, is a good example of this type of work. As Bakker notes, the 3x1 program is far from perfect. Existing research reveals, for example, that investments through the 3x1 program peak in pre-election years and trough in the in-between years, demonstrating that the Mexican government clearly uses the program to garner electoral support (Simpser et al. 2016). In my own fieldwork in Mexico I have found that while officials indeed look to appeal to their transnational constituents abroad through frequent visits to major immigrant-destination cities like Chicago and Los Angeles, it is quite apparent that their main interest is in courting the votes of those left behind by demonstrating that they care about those who have left (Waddell 2015a). Still, I also find that municipalities in Mexico that participate more frequently in the 3x1 program experience moderate yet significant gains in general well-being, including increases in education and health care (Waddell 2015b). These findings lead me to the conclusion that although remittances are clearly a major source of income for municipalities across Mexico, they are hardly a replacement for local governments.
I believe that what migrant-sending regions need most are policies that facilitate access to better opportunity structures. Although current remittance-led development platforms, including the 3x1 program, are far from perfect, they move in the right direction. Communities deeply affected by migration must find ways to work with local government because, for better or worse, local authorities will continue to serve as the principal actors within the lives of individuals living in the global South. One must keep in mind that while migration and remittances are both on the rise, the vast majority of people do not emigrate and only a small percentage of individuals benefit from remittances. Regardless of whether or not borders lose significance, these facts will remain the same. Given this, I believe that the best way to leverage remittances in favor of local communities is by advocating for policies that improve the development effects of remittances within local communities.