Contemporary debates on the relationship between migration and development focus extensively on how migrant remittances affect the economies of sending countries. Yet remittances also produce dynamic political consequences in migrants’ origin communities. Income earned abroad creates political opportunities for migrant groups to participate in the provision of public services in their hometowns. Focusing on organizational variation in partnerships across time and space, this article examines the conditions under which the transnational coproduction of public goods between organized migrants and public agencies at origin shapes democratic governance. I argue that local citizen inclusion and government engagement interact to determine four different types of coproduction: corporatist, fragmented, substitutive, and synergetic. Using four comparative case studies based on fieldwork in three Mexican states, I trace central mechanisms to organizational forms of coproduction and describe how emergent variation affects democratic governance and state–society relations. I show how transnational forces, when collaborating with local social and political institutions, can profoundly affect democratic development.
AbdihYasserChamiRalphDagherJihad C.MontielPeter J.2012. “Remittances and Institutions: Are Remittances a Curse?” World Development40(4):657–66.
2.
AckermanJohn. 2004. “Co-Governance for Accountability: Beyond ‘Exit’ and ‘Voice.’” World Development32(3):447–63.
3.
AdamsRichard H.PageJohn. 2005. “Do International Migration and Remittances Reduce Poverty in Developing Countries?” World Development33(10):1645–69.
4.
AlarcónRafael. 2002. “The Development of Hometown Associations in the United States and the Use of Social Remittances in Mexico.” Pp. 101–124 in Sending Money Home: Hispanic Remittances and Community Development, edited by De la GarzaR. O.LowellB. L.Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers.
5.
AparicioF. JavierMeseguerCovadonga. 2012. “Collective Remittances and the State: The 3x1 Program in Mexican Municipalities.” World Development40(1):206–222.
6.
AvritzerLeonardo. 2010. “Living Under a Democracy: Participation and Its Impact on the Living Conditions of the Poor.” Latin American Research Review45(4):166–85.
7.
BadaXóchitl. 2014. Mexican Hometown Associations in Chicagoacán. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
8.
BaiocchiGianpaolo. 2001. “The Porto Alegre Experiment and Deliberative Democratic Theory.” Politics & Society29(1):43–72.
9.
BardhanPranabMookherjeeDilip. 2006. “Decentralization, Corruption, and Government Accountability.” Pp. 161–88 in International Handbook on the Economics of Corruption, edited by Rose-AckermanS.Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
10.
BeaucheminCrisSchoumakerBruno. 2009. “Are Migrant Associations Actors in Local Development? A National Event History Analysis in Rural Burkina Faso.” World Development37(12):1897–1913.
11.
BesleyTimothyCoateStephen. 2003. “Centralized versus Decentralized Provision of Local Public Goods: A Political Economy Approach.” Journal of Public Economics87(12):2611–37.
12.
BirdRichard M.1993. “Threading the Fiscal Labyrinth: Some Issues in Fiscal Decentralization.” National Tax Journal46(2):207–227.
13.
BlairHarry. 2000. “Participation and Accountability at the Periphery: Democratic Local Governance in Six Countries.” World Development28(1):21–39.
14.
BohlkenAnjali Thomas. 2016. Democratization from Above: The Logic of Local Democracy in the Developing World. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
15.
BurgessKatrina. 2005. “Migrant Philanthropy and Local Governance in Mexico.” Pp. 99–125 in New Patterns for Mexico: Remittances, Philanthropic Giving, and Equitable Development, edited by MerzB. J.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
16.
CammettMelani C.MacLeanLauren M.2011. “Introduction: The Political Consequences of Non-state Social Welfare in the Global South.” Studies in Comparative International Development46(1):1–21.
17.
CampbellTim. 2003. The Quiet Revolution: Decentralization and the Rise of Political Participation in Latin American Cities. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
18.
ClearyMatthew R.2010. The Sources of Democratic Responsiveness in Mexico. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.
19.
CohenCathy. 2002. “Social Capital, Intervening Institutions, and Political Power.” Pp. 267–89 in Social Capital and Poor Communities, edited by SaegertS.ThompsonJ. P.WarrenM. R.New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
20.
DahlRobert A.1971. Polyarchy: Participation and Opposition. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
21.
Diaz-CayerosAlbertoEstévezFedericoMagaloniBeatriz. 2016. The Political Logic of Poverty Relief: Electoral Strategies and Social Policy in Mexico. New York: Cambridge University Press.
22.
Díaz-CayerosAlbertoMagaloniBeatrizRuiz-EulerAlexander. 2014. “Traditional Governance, Citizen Engagement, and Local Public Goods: Evidence from Mexico.” World Development53:80–93.
23.
Duquette-RuryLauren. 2014. “Collective Remittances and Transnational Coproduction: The 3x1 Program for Migrants and Household Access to Public Goods in Mexico.” Studies in Comparative International Development49(1):112–39.
24.
Duquette-RuryLaurenBadaXóchitl. 2013. “Continuity and Change in Mexican Migrant Hometown Associations: Evidence from New Survey Research.” Migraciones Internacionales7(1):66–99.
25.
DurandJorgeMasseyDouglas S.ParradoEmilio A.1996. “Migradollars and Development: A Reconsideration of the Mexican Case.” International Migration Review30(2):423–44.
26.
EmirbayerMustafaGoodwinJeff. 1994. “Network Analysis, Culture, and the Problem of Agency.” American Journal of Sociology99(6):1411–54.
27.
EvansPeter. 1996. “Government Action, Social Capital and Development: Reviewing the Evidence on Synergy.” World Development24(6):1119–32.
28.
FaistThomas. 2008. “Migrants as Transnational Development Agents: An Inquiry into the Newest Round of the Migration-Development Nexus.” Population, Space and Place14(1):21–42.
29.
FalletiTulia. 2005. “A Sequential Theory of Decentralization: Latin American Cases in Comparative Perspective.” American Political Science Review99(3):327–46.
FitzgeraldDavid. 2008. “Colonies of the Little Motherland: Membership, Space, and Time in Mexican Migrant Hometown Associations.” Comparative Studies in Sociology and History50(1):145–69.
32.
FoxJonathan A.2007. “Rural Democratization and Decentralization at the State/Society Interface: What Counts as ‘Local’ Government in the Mexican Countryside?” Journal of Peasant Studies34(3):527–59.
33.
FoxJonathan A.ArandaJosefina. 1996. “Decentralization and Rural Development in Mexico: Community Participation in Oaxaca’s Municipal Funds Program.” Center for Global, International and Regional Studies (http://escholarship.org/uc/item/5jk3b9gt).
34.
FoxJonathan A.BadaXóchitl. 2008. “Migrant Organization and Hometown Impacts in Rural Mexico.” Journal of Agrarian Change8(2–3):243–61.
35.
FungArchonWrightErik Olin. 2003. Deepening Democracy: Institutional Innovations in Empowered Participatory Governance. New York: Verso Publishing.
GaventaJohn. 2004. “Towards Participatory Governance: Assessing the Transformative Possibilities.” Pp. 25–41 in Participation: From Tyranny to Transformation, edited by HickeyS.MohanG.London, UK: Zed Books.
38.
GeorgeAlexanderBennettAndrew. 2005. Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
39.
GiraudyAgustina. 2010. “The Politics of Subnational Undemocratic Regime Reproduction in Argentina and Mexico.” Journal of Politics in Latin America2(2):53–84.
40.
Glick SchillerNinaBaschLindaBlanc-SzantonCristina. 1992. “Transnationalism: A New Analytic Framework for Understanding Migration.” Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences645(1):1–24.
41.
GoldfrankBenjamin. 2011. Deepening Local Democracy in Latin America: Participation, Decentralization, and the Left. University Park: Pennsylvania State Press.
42.
GoldringLuin. 1998. “The Power of Status in Transnational Social Fields.” Pp. 165–95 in Transnationalism from Below, edited by SmithG.GuarnizoL. E.New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
43.
GoldringLuin. 2002. “The Mexican State and Transmigrant Organizations: Negotiating the Boundaries of Membership and Participation.” Latin American Research Review37(3):55–99.
44.
GrindleMerilee S.2007. Going Local: Decentralization, Democratization, and the Promise of Good Governance. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
45.
HellerPatrick. 2001. “Moving the State: The Politics of Democratic Decentralization in Kerala, South Africa, and Porto Alegre.” Politics and Society29(1):131–63.
46.
HelmkeGretchenLevitskySteven. 2006. Informal Institutions and Democracy: Lessons from Latin America. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
47.
HirschmanAlbert O.1978. “Exit, Voice, and the State.” World Politics31(1):90–107.
48.
HiskeyJonathan2003. “Demand-Based Development and Local Electoral Environments in Mexico.” Comparative Politics36(1):41–59.
49.
HolznerClaudio A.2010. Poverty of Democracy: The Institutional Roots of Political Participation in Mexico. Pittsburgh, PA: Pittsburgh University Press.
50.
Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Geografía (Inegi). 2013. Censo Nacional de Gobiernos Municipales y Delegacionales: Resultados.
51.
IskanderNatasha. 2010. Creative State: Forty Years of Migration and Development Policy in Morocco and Mexico. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
52.
ItzigsohnJoséVillacrésDiana. 2008. “Migrant Political Transnationalism and the Practice of Democracy: Dominican External Voting Rights and Salvadoran Home Town Associations.” Ethnic and Racial Studies31(4):664–86.
53.
KapurDevesh. 2004. “Remittances: The New Development Mantra?” No. 29, G-24 Discussion Papers. United Nations Conference on Trade and Development.
54.
KoopmansRuudStathamPaulGuigniMarcoPassyFlorence. 2005. Contested Citizenship: Immigration and Cultural Diversity in Europe. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
55.
LacroixThomas. 2014. “Conceptualizing Transnational Engagements: A Structure and Agency Perspective on (Hometown) Transnationalism.” International Migration Review48(3):643–79.
56.
LarsonAnne M.RibotJesse C.2004. “Democratic Decentralisation through a Natural Resource Lens: An Introduction.” European Journal of Development Research16(1):1–25.
57.
LevittPeggy. 2001. The Transnational Villagers. Berkeley: University of California Press.
58.
LevittPeggyLamba-NievesDeepak. 2011. “Social Remittances Revisited.” Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies37(1):1–22.
59.
MannMichael. 1984. “The Autonomous Power of the State: Its Origins, Mechanisms and Results.” European Journal of Sociology25(2):185–213.
60.
MasseyDouglas S.AlarcónRafaelDurandJorgeGonzálezHumberto. 1987. Return to Aztlan: The Social Process of International Migration from Western Mexico. Berkeley: University of California Press.
61.
MazzucatoValentinaKabkiMirjam. 2009. “Small is Beautiful: The Micro-Politics of Transnational Relationships between Ghanaian Hometown Associations and Communities Back Home.” Global Networks9(2):227–51.
62.
McNultyStephanie. 2011. Voice and Vote: Decentralization and Participation in Post-Fujimori Peru. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.
63.
MeseguerCovadongaAparicioF. Javier. 2012. “Migration and Distributive Politics: The Political Economy of Mexico’s 3×1 Program.” Latin American Politics and Society54(4):147–78.
64.
Moreno-JaimesCarlos. 2007. “Do Competitive Elections Produce Better-Quality Governments? Evidence from Mexican Municipalities, 1990–2000.” Latin American Research Review42(2):136–53.
65.
MoyaJose C.2005. “Immigrants and Associations: A Global and Historical Perspective.” Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies31(5):833–64.
66.
Multilateral Investment Fund of the Inter-American Development Bank (MIF-IDB). 2001. “Survey of Remittance Senders: U.S. to Latin America.” Report by Bendixen & Associates. Washington, DC: Multilateral Investment Fund (idbdocs.iadb.org/wsdocs/getdocument.aspx?docnum=35063770).
67.
NdegwaStephenLevyBrian. 2004. “The Politics of Decentralization in Africa.” Pp. 283–322 in Building State Capacity in Africa: New Approaches, Emerging Lessons, edited by LevyB.KpundehS. J.Washington, DC: World Bank Publications.
68.
NijenhuisGergyBroekhuisAnnelet. 2010. “Institutionalising Transnational Migrants’ Activities: The Impact of Co-development Programmes.” International Development Planning Review32(3):245–65.
69.
OatesWallace E.1972. Fiscal Federalism. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
70.
OrozcoManuelLapointeMichelle. 2004. “Mexican Hometown Associations and Development Opportunities.” Journal of International Affairs57(2):1–21.
71.
Østergaard-NielsenEva. 2003. “The Politics of Migrants’ Transnational Political Practices.” International Migration Review37(3):760–86.
72.
OstromElinor. 1996. “Crossing the Great Divide: Coproduction, Synergy, and Development.” World Development24(6):1073–87.
73.
PanizzonMarion. 2011. “France’s Codevelopment Program: Financial and Fiscal Incentives to Promote Diaspora Entrepreneurship and Transfers.” Pp. 183–229 in Diaspora for Development in Africa, edited by PlazaS.RathaD.Washington, DC: World Bank.
74.
PearlmanWendy. 2014. “Competing for Lebanon’s Diaspora: Transnationalism and Domestic Struggles in a Weak State.” International Migration Review48(1):34–75.
75.
PeruzzottiEnriqueSmulovitzCatalina. 2000. “Societal Accountability in Latin America.” Journal of Democracy11(4):147–58.
76.
PortesAlejandro. 1999. “Conclusion: Toward a New World: The Origins and Effects of Transnational Activities.” Ethnic and Racial Studies22(2):463–77.
77.
PortesAlejandroGuarnizoLuisLandoltPatricia. 1999. “The Study of Transnationalism: Pitfalls and Promise of an Emergent Research Field.” Ethnic and Racial Studies22(2):217–37.
78.
PritchettLantWoolcockMichael. 2004. “Solutions When the Solution Is the Problem: Arraying the Disarray in Development.” World Development32(2):191–212.
79.
PutnamRobert D.2000. Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York: Simon and Schuster.
80.
SchmitterPhilippe C.2004. “The Quality of Democracy: The Ambiguous Virtues of Accountability.” Journal of Democracy15(4):47–60.
81.
Secretaría de Desarrollo Social (Sedesol). 2013. Cuarto Informe Trimestral. Programas de Subsidios del Ramo Administrativo 20, Desarrollo Social.
82.
SimpserAlbertoDuquette-RuryLaurenHernández CompanyJosé AntonioIbarraJuan Fernando. 2016. “The Political Economy of Social Spending by Local Government: A Study of the 3x1 Program in Mexico.” Latin American Research Review51(1):62–83.
83.
SmithHeidi Jane M.RevellKeith D.2016. “Micro-Incentives and Municipal Behavior: Political Decentralization and Fiscal Federalism in Argentina and Mexico.” World Development77(1):231–48.
84.
SmithRobert C.2006. Mexican New York: Transnational Lives of New Immigrants. Berkeley: University of California Press.
85.
StanilandPaul. 2014. Networks of Rebellion: Explaining Insurgent Cohesion and Collapse. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
86.
TendlerJudith. 1997. Good Government in the Tropics. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
87.
TragerLillian. 2001. Yoruba Hometowns: Community, Identity, and Development in Nigeria. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers.
88.
TsaiLily L.2007. Accountability without Democracy: Solidary Groups and Public Goods Provision in Rural China. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
89.
TsaiLily L.2011. “Friends or Foes? Nonstate Public Goods Providers and Local State Authorities in Nondemocratic and Transitional Systems.” Studies in Comparative International Development46(1):46–69.
90.
VerbaSidneySchlozmanKay L.BradyHenry E.1995. Voice and Equality: Civic Voluntarism in American Politics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
91.
WaldingerRoger. 2015. The Cross-Border Connection: Immigrants, Emigrants, and Their Homelands. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
92.
WaldingerRogerFitzgeraldDavid. 2004. “Transnationalism in Question.” American Journal of Sociology109(5):1177–95.
93.
WaldingerRogerPopkinEricMaganaHector Aquiles. 2008. “Conflict and Contestation in the Cross-Border Community: Hometown Associations Reassessed.” Ethnic and Racial Studies31(5):843–70.
94.
WalkerEdward T.2009. “Privatizing Participation: Civic Change and the Organizational Dynamics of Grassroots Lobbying Firms.” American Sociological Review74(1):83–105.
95.
WamplerBrian. 2007. Participatory Budgeting in Brazil: Contestation, Cooperation, and Accountability. University Park: Pennsylvania State Press.
YangDean. 2011. “Migrant Remittances.” Journal of Economic Perspectives25(3):129–51.
98.
YoungIris Marion. 2000. Inclusion and Democracy. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
99.
ZelizerVivianaTillyCharles. 2006. “Relations and Categories,” Pp. 1–28 in The Psychology of Learning and Motivation: Categories in Use, edited by MarkmanA.RossB.Oxford, UK: Elsevier Academic Publications.
100.
ZiblattDaniel. 2008. “Why Some Cities Provide More Public Goods Than Others: A Subnational Comparison of the Provision of Public Goods in German Cities in 1912.” Studies in Comparative International Development43(3–4):273–89.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
