Mulling over politics with others can change citizens’ political beliefs and choices. Is the effect of interpersonal political discussion different when one of the interlocutors has a family member living abroad—that is, is a “transnational household member” (THM)? Using data from 20 Latin American countries in the 2006-2008 AmericasBarometer, we show that talking about politics makes THMs less satisfied with their democracies and less proud of their political systems than non-THMs. When THMs engage in cross-border political discussions with relatives abroad, they gain new information and perspectives that cast their own democracy in a different light. Even absent cross-border communication, though, political discussion with peers at home can make THMs more critical by emphasizing their government’s transnational governance obligations—and highlighting failures to live up to these heightened expectations. Our study thus adds to a growing body of research on emigration’s impact on sending country politics.
AcostaP.CalderonC.FajnzylberP.LopezH. (2008). What is the impact of international remittances on poverty and inequality in Latin America?World Development, 36, 89-114.
2.
AhmadovA. K.SasseG. (2016). A voice despite exit: The role of assimilation, emigrant networks, and destination in emigrants’ transnational political engagement. Comparative Political Studies, 49, 78-114.
3.
ArmonyV.BarrigaM.SchugurenskyD. (2004). Citizenship learning and political participation: The experience of Latin American immigrants in Canada. Canadian Journal of Latin American and Caribbean Studies, 29(57-58), 17-38.
4.
BadescuG. (2004). Romanian labor migration and citizenship. In PopD. (Ed.), New patterns of labour migration in Central and Eastern Europe (pp. 7-18). Cluj-Napoca, Romania: AMM press.
5.
BaschL. G.Glick SchillerN.Szanton-BlancC. (1994). Nations unbound: Transnational projects, postcolonial predicaments, and deterritorialized nation-states. New York, NY: Gordon & Breach.
6.
BatesonR. (2012). Crime victimization and political participation. American Political Science Review, 106, 570-587.
7.
BatistaC.VicenteP. C. (2011). Do migrants improve governance at home? Evidence from a voting experiment. The World Bank Economic Review, 25(1), 77-104.
8.
BernsteinR.ChadhaA.MontjoyR. (2001). Overreporting voting: Why it happens and why it matters. Public Opinion Quarterly, 65, 22-44.
9.
BlackJ. H.NiemiR. G.PowellG. B.Jr. (1987). Age, resistance, and political learning in a new environment: The case of Canadian immigrants. Comparative Politics, 20, 73-84.
10.
BravoJ. (2009). Emigración y compromiso político en México [Emigration and political commitment in Mexico]. Política y Gobierno, 16(1b), 273-310.
11.
CampR. A. (2003). Learning democracy in Mexico and the United States. Mexican Studies, 19, 3-27.
12.
CarejaR.EmmeneggerP. (2012). Making democratic citizens: The effects of migration experience on political attitudes in Central and Eastern Europe. Comparative Political Studies, 45, 875-902.
13.
CarlinR. E.SingerM. M. (2011). Support for polyarchy in the Americas. Comparative Political Studies, 44, 1500-1526.
14.
ChauvetL.MercierM. (2014). Do return migrants transfer political norms to their origin country? Evidence from Mali. Journal of Comparative Economics, 43, 630-651.
15.
ChavezL. R. (2013). Shadowed lives: Undocumented immigrants in American society (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
16.
ChiquiarD.HansonG. H. (2005). International migration, self-selection, and the distribution of wages: Evidence from Mexico and the United States. Journal of Political Economy, 113, 239-281.
17.
CohenJ. (1998). Democracy and liberty. In ElsterJ. (Ed.), Deliberative democracy (pp. 185-231). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
18.
ConoverP. J.SearingD. D. (2005). Studying “everyday political talk” in the deliberative system. Acta Politica, 40, 269-283.
19.
CórdovaA.HiskeyJ. T. (2015). Shaping politics at home: Cross-border social ties and local political engagement. Comparative Political Studies, 48, 1454-1487.
20.
CorralM. (2011). El estado de la democracia en América Latina: Un análisis comparado de las actitudes de las élites y los ciudadanos [The state of democracy in Latin America: A comparative analysis of elite and citizen attitudes]. Nº: Boletín PNUD Instituto De Iberoamérica. Retrieved from http://gredos.usal.es/jspui/bitstream/10366/108573/1/boletin_PNUD_01_2011.pdf
21.
CoutinS. B. (2007). Nations of emigrants: Shifting boundaries of citizenship in El Salvador and the United States. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
22.
CrowD. (2009). Citizen disenchantment in new democracies: The case of Mexico (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest. (Publication No. 3359190)
23.
DahlR. (1971). Polyarchy. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
24.
DaltonR. J. (2008). Citizen politics: Public opinion and political parties in advanced industrial democracies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
25.
DekkerR.EngbersenG. (2014). How social media transform migrant networks and facilitate migration. Global Networks, 14, 401-418.
26.
DélanoA. (2011). Mexico and its diaspora in the United States: Policies of emigration since 1848. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
27.
DélanoA. (2014). The diffusion of diaspora engagement policies: A Latin American agenda. Political Geography, 41, 90-100.
28.
DiamondL. J. (1994). Toward democratic consolidation. Journal of Democracy, 5(3), 4-17.
29.
DonovanT.KarpJ. A. (2006). Popular support for direct democracy. Party Politics, 12, 671-688.
30.
DoyleD. (2015). Remittances and social spending. American Political Science Review, 109, 785-802.
31.
EastonD. (1975). A re-assessment of the concept of political support. British Journal of Political Science, 5, 435-457.
32.
EngelS.IbáñezA. M. (2007). Displacement due to violence in Colombia: A household-level analysis. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 55, 335-365.
33.
Escala-RabadánL.BadaX.Rivera-SalgadoG. (2007). Mexican migrant civic and political participation in the U.S.: The case of hometown associations in Los Angeles and Chicago. Norteamérica, Revista Académica Del CISAN-UNAM, 1(02), 127-172.
34.
EscobarC.AranaR.McCannJ. A. (2015). Expatriate voting and migrants’ place of residence: Explaining transnational participation in Colombian elections. Migration Studies, 3, 1-31.
35.
Escribà-FolchA.MeseguerC.WrightJ. (2015). Remittances and democratization. International Studies Quarterly, 59, 571-586.
36.
EvansG.WhitefieldS. (1995). The politics and economics of democratic commitment: Support for democracy in transition societies. British Journal of Political Science, 25, 485-514.
37.
EvelandW. P.HivelyM. H. (2009). Political discussion frequency, network size, and “heterogeneity” of discussion as predictors of political knowledge and participation. Journal of Communication, 59, 205-224.
38.
EvelandW. P.ThompsonT. (2006). Is it talking, thinking, or both? A lagged dependent variable model of discussion effects on political knowledge. Journal of Communication, 56, 523-542.
39.
FaistT. (2000). The volume and dynamics of international migration and transnational social spaces. Oxford, NY: Clarendon Press.
40.
FitzgeraldD. (2008). A nation of emigrants: How Mexico manages its migration. Berkeley: University of California Press.
41.
FitzgeraldJ. (2013). What does “political” mean to you?Political Behavior, 35, 453-479.
42.
FreyburgT. (2015). Transgovernmental networks as an apprenticeship in democracy? Socialization into democratic governance through cross-national activities. International Studies Quarterly, 59, 59-72.
43.
GermanoR. (2013). Migrants’ remittances and economic voting in the Mexican countryside. Electoral Studies, 32, 875-885.
44.
González GonzálezG.SchiavonJ. A.CrowD.MaldonadoG. (2011). Las Américas y el mundo 2010-2011: Opinión pública y política exterior en Brasil, Colombia, Ecuador, México y Perú [The Americas and the world 2010-2011: Public opinion and foreign policy in Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, Mexico, and Peru]. Mexico City, Mexico: Center for Economic Teaching and Research.
45.
GoodmanG.HiskeyJ. T. (2008). Exit without leaving: Political disengagement in high migration municipalities in Mexico. Comparative Politics, 40, 169-188.
46.
GujaratiD. (2002). Basic econometrics. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
47.
HansfordT. G.GomezB. T. (2010). Estimating the electoral effects of voter turnout. American Political Science Review, 104, 268-288.
48.
HiskeyJ. T.MontalvoD.OrcésD. (2014). Democracy, governance, and emigration intentions in Latin America and the Caribbean. Studies in Comparative International Development, 49, 89-111.
49.
HuckfeldtR. R.SpragueJ. D. (1995). Citizens, politics, and social communication: Information and influence in an election campaign. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
50.
KanstroomD. (2007). Deportation nation: Outsiders in American history. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
51.
KarakoçE. K.öseT.özcanM. (2016). Emigration and the diffusion of political Salafism: Religious remittances and support for Salafi parties in Egypt during the Arab Spring. Party Politics. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/1354068815625999
52.
KatzE.LazarsfeldP. F. (1955). Personal influence: The part played by people in the flow of mass communications. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
53.
KeckM. E.SikkinkK. (1998). Activists beyond borders: Advocacy networks in international politics. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
54.
KennyC. B. (1994). The microenvironment of attitude change. The Journal of Politics, 56, 715-728.
55.
KubrinC. E.ZatzM. S.MartínezR. (Eds.). (2012). Punishing immigrants: Policy, politics, and injustice. New York: New York University Press.
56.
LernerD. (1958). The passing of traditional society: Modernizing the Middle East. New York: The Free Press.
57.
LevittP. (2001). The transnational villagers. Berkeley: University of California Press.
58.
LevittP.Glick-SchillerN. (2004). Conceptualizing simultaneity: A transnational social field perspective on society. International Migration Review, 38, 1002-1039.
59.
LevittP.Lamba-NievesD. (2011). Social remittances revisited. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 37, 1-22.
60.
LipsetS. M. (1959). Some social requisites of democracy: Economic development and political legitimacy. American Political Science Review, 53, 69-105.
61.
LodigianiE.SalomoneS. (2015). Migration-induced transfers of norms. The case of female political empowerment (University Ca’foscari of Venice, Department of Economics Research Paper Series No. 19). Retrieved from https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2622394
62.
LoganJ. R.ZhangW.AlbaR. D. (2002). Immigrant enclaves and ethnic communities in New York and Los Angeles. American Sociological Review, 67, 299-322.
63.
Martínez PizarroJ.Cano-ChristinyM. V.Soffia ConstrucciM. (2014). Tendencias y patrones de la migración latinoamericana y caribeña hacia 2010 y desafíos para una agenda regional (CEPAL, Serie Poblacion y Desarrollo No. 109). Santiago de Chile, Chile: United Nations.
64.
McPheeW. N.FergusonJ.SmithR. B. (1963). A theory of informal social influence. In McPheeW. N. (Ed.), Formal theories of mass behavior (pp, 74-103). New York, NY: Free Press of Glencoe.
65.
MeseguerC.AparicioF. J. (2012). Supply or demand? Migration and political manipulation in Mexico. Studies in Comparative International Development, 47, 411-440.
66.
MeseguerC.LavezzoloS.AparicioJ. (2016). Financial remittances, trans-border conversations, and the state. Comparative Migration Studies, 4(1), Article 13.
67.
MouwT.ChavezS.EdelbluteH.VerderyA. (2014). Binational social networks and assimilation: A test of the importance of transnationalism. Social Problems, 61, 329-359.
68.
MutzD. C. (2002). The consequences of cross-cutting networks for political participation. American Journal of Political Science, 46, 838-855.
69.
NgaiM. M. (2004). Impossible subjects: Illegal aliens and the making of modern America. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
70.
NorrisP. (1999). Critical citizens: Global support for democratic government. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
71.
PantojaA. D.MenjívarC.MagañaL. (2008). The spring marches of 2006. American Behavioral Scientist, 52, 499-506.
72.
Pérez-ArmendárizC. (2014). Cross-border discussions and political behavior in migrant-sending countries. Studies in Comparative International Development, 49, 67-88.
73.
Pérez-ArmendárizC.CrowD. (2010). Do migrants remit democracy? International migration, political beliefs, and behavior in Mexico. Comparative Political Studies, 43, 119-148.
74.
PfutzeT. (2014). Clientelism versus social learning: The electoral effects of international migration. International Studies Quarterly, 58, 295-307.
75.
PrzeworskiA. (1991). Democracy and the market: Political and economic reforms in Eastern Europe and Latin America. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
76.
RoseR.MishlerW.HaerpferC. (1998). Democracy and its alternatives: Understanding post-communist societies. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
77.
RotherS. (2009). Changed in migration? Philippine return migrants and (un)democratic remittances. European Journal of East Asian Studies, 8, 245-274.
78.
RothsteinB. (2009). Creating political legitimacy: Electoral democracy versus quality of government. American Behavioral Scientist, 53, 311-330.
79.
SalinasE.BoothJ. A. (2011). Micro-social and contextual sources of democratic attitudes in Latin America. Journal of Politics in Latin America, 3, 29-64.
80.
SchlozmanK. L.BradyH. E. (1995). Voice and equality: Civic voluntarism in American politics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
SeligsonM. (1983). On the measurement of diffuse support: Some evidence from Mexico. Social Indicators Research, 12, 1-24.
83.
ShinD. C. (2007). Democratization: Perspectives from global citizens. In DaltonR. J.KlingemannH. D. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of political behavior (pp. 259-282). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
84.
SimpserA.Duquette-RuryL.IbarraJ. F. (2016). The political economy of social spending by local government: A Study of the 3×1 Program in Mexico. Latin American Research Review, 51(1), 62-83.
85.
SmithA. E. (2009). Legitimate grievances: Preferences for democracy, system support, and political participation in Bolivia. Latin American Research Review, 44, 102-126.
86.
SpilimbergoA. (2009). Democracy and foreign education. The American Economic Review, 99, 528-543.
87.
StaigerD.StockJ. H. (1997). Instrumental variables regression with weak instruments. Econometrica, 65, 557-586.
88.
StarkO.BloomD. E. (1985). The new economics of labor migration. The American Economic Review, 75, 173-178.
89.
StockJ. H.YogoM. (2005). Testing for weak instruments in linear IV regression. In StockJ. H.AndrewsD. W. K. (Eds.), Identification and inference for econometric models: Essays in honor of Thomas Rothenberg (pp. 80-108). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
90.
StockéV.StarkT. (2007). Political involvement and memory failure as interdependent determinants of vote overreporting. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 21, 239-257.
91.
TyburskiM. D. (2014). Curse or cure? Migrant remittances and corruption. The Journal of Politics, 76, 814-824.
92.
VarsanyiM. W. (2005). The paradox of contemporary immigrant political mobilization: Organized labor, undocumented migrants, and electoral participation in Los Angeles. Antipode, 37, 775-795.
93.
WaddellB. J. (2015). Old habits die hard: Political patronage and remittance-led development in Guanajuato, Mexico. Latin American Research Review, 50(1), 5-28.
94.
WaldingerR. (2015). The cross-border connection. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
95.
WalshK. C. (2004). Talking about politics. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
96.
ZhunioM. C.VishwasraoS.ChiangE. P. (2012). The influence of remittances on education and health outcomes: A cross country study. Applied Economics, 44, 4605-4616.
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.
