Daniela N. Villacrés
PhD Candidate
Brown University
Daniela_Villacres@brown.edu
Paper Submitted for III Coloquio Internacional sobre Migración y Desarrollo
Costa Rica in December 4-6, 2008
From Subjects to Citizens: Migrant Hometown Associations as
Vehicles for Deepening Democracy
Introduction
Migrant hometown associations (HTAs) are no longer only considered vehicles
for local development, but have also become legitimate political actors in their hometown
communities. However, few scholars have moved the discussion beyond explorations of
HTAs’ political influence to explicitly examine their effects on democracy. This paper
presents a theoretical exploration of HTAs as vehicles for the deepening of democracy. In
sum, I propose that HTAs have the potential to deepen democracy is four significant
ways. This paper does not present empirical data, but rather seeks out theoretical
intersections between the literature on HTAs and the deepening of democracy.
What are HTAs?
In the past decade, HTAs have emerged throughout the global south and have
become particularly prevalent in Latin America and the Caribbean, especially in Mexico
and El Salvador. HTAs have several important defining features. First, HTAs are
expressions of civil society. They are autonomous and voluntary associations which
mobilize around collective civic agendas. Second, HTAs are composed of migrants from
1
the same hometown in the country of origin who reside in the same city in the host
country. The core group of members who forms the HTA typically grows out of social
networks which arise during the migration process. For example, HTA members might
have been childhood friends in the hometown who reunite in the host country because
they work and live together. In addition to the executive committee in the host country,
some HTAs, especially those in El Salvador, are also composed of a counterpart
committee of residents, friends, and family in the hometown. Third, HTAs have wideranging philanthropic agendas and contribute to a variety of development projects in the
hometown. Most projects are infrastructural in nature such as the installation of a potable
water system, but HTA also support educational development though scholarships, as
well as cultural initiatives such as the sponsorship of the fiestas patronales. Fourth, HTAs
are transnational in organization and operation. The two committees—in those cases in
which there are two committees—communicate and coordinate activities transnationally
through regular phone calls and visits to the hometown. For example, the counterpart
committee might identify several development needs in the hometown and communicate
them to the committee in the US who makes the final decision about which project to
support and raises the necessary funds. The counterpart committee is then typically
responsible for project implementation. In cases where the HTA does not count with the
support of a counterpart committee, migrants assume an active role in the implementation
phase upon frequent visits to the hometown. Fifth, HTAs are fundamentally grassroots in
composition, character, and structure. They employ grassroots techniques drawing from
their dense migrant networks to contribute financial and material resources for projects.
2
For example, an HTA might organize a raffle and raise $1,000 in the US which it remits
to the hometown in order to repave a road.
HTAs may choose to work independently, coordinating decisions and activities
solely between members in their executive committees. Or, some HTAs, most notably
those in Mexico and El Salvador, multiply their efforts through the formation of
collaborative partnerships with the hometown community, as well as the local state.
Partnerships with the community are both formal and informal in nature. In a formal
context, the HTA might hold open town meetings during which project identification and
selection are deliberated by all members of the community. Informally, HTAs might
simply solicit input of friends, family, and other community members during casual
conversation. Partnerships with the local state, on the other hand, typically assume a
formal nature as they are structured by institutional guidelines. In these partnerships, the
HTA and the state typically pool resources to collaborate on projects. For example, the
HTA might propose an idea for a project and contribute funds, but then rely on the
technical expertise of the state in the implementation phase. Partnerships with the state
are especially crucial in terms of project sustainability, as most HTAs do not have the
long-term institutional vision or resources for this (Orozco 2003, 2004; Orozco and Welle
2006). Formal partnerships with the state might also take the form of competitions in
which several HTAs submit project proposals and the winning proposal benefits from the
financial and technical support of the state. It is important to note, however, that not all
HTA partnerships with the state are formal in nature. Informal partnerships with the state
such as friendship and political affiliation might also influence the HTA’s practices.
3
HTAs initially gained attention as alternative tools for development and attracted
enthusiasm in both academic and policy circles. Private sector and market-oriented policy
makers, for example, are drawn to HTAs as innovative channels of private funds and as
untapped financial resources. Government and state officials, on the other hand, are
interested in the opportunities HTAs present for public-private partnerships, while
community-based groups and NGOs see HTAs as dynamic expressions of civil society
which can be directed towards social change. In the academic realm of development,
HTAs initially caught the attention of many scholars of family remittances who expanded
the scope of their investigations to include HTAs’ collective remittances and their
developmental impacts (Alarcón 2000; Andrade-Eekhoff and Silva-Avalos 2003; Lowell
and de la Garza 2000; Orozco 2002, 2003, 2007; Paul and Gammage 2004; Solimano
2003; Torres 2000).
Most recently, however, HTAs have come into the spotlight as political actors.
HTAs represent a novel form of political expression that has been made possible by the
recent wave of democratization in the global south (especially in Latin America) which
has opened new windows of opportunity for migrant political participation in the country
of origin (Itzigsohn 2000; Itzigsohn and Villacres 2008). In the literature on HTAs,
scholars (typically sociologists and political scientists) recognize that HTAs’ community
development efforts translate into effective mechanisms for generating political influence
in the hometown (Burgess 2006; Burgess and Tinajero Forthcoming; Fitzgerald 2000,
2008; Fox and Bada 2008; Guarnizo 2003; Itzigsohn 2000; Itzigsohn and Villacres 2008;
Landolt 2008; Landolt et al 1999; Levitt 1997, 2001; Popkin 2003; Portes et al 2007; MP
Smith 2003; MP Smith and Bakker 2007; RC Smith 1998, 2003; Waldinger et al 2008;
4
Williams 2008)1. This paper, however, will move the discussion from generalized claims
about HTAs’ political influence to making a stronger statement about HTAs’ impact on
democracy. What are the implications of HTAs’ political influences for deepening
democracy in the hometown?
HTAs as Vehicles for Deepening of Democracy
Deepening democracy is a process under which the formal, effective, and
substantive dimensions of democracy become mutually reinforcing (Heller 2000). It has
two defining features: (i) it encourages popular sovereignty as a direct method of
governance and (ii) it entails a broader principle of social organization, rather than only a
formal political regime (Roberts 1998). First, the idea of empowerment and active citizen
participation is central for deepening democracy. This does not suggest that a deep
democracy is opposed to representation; rather, the logic of deepening democracy calls
for the maximization of popular control by expanding opportunities for direct citizens
input, oversight, and participation in the policymaking process and by enhancing the
accountability of elected representatives to their constituents. Therefore, a deep
democracy transforms ordinary men and women into high-intensity citizens (O’Donnell
1993; Törnquist 2005). Participation enables individuals to share in the responsibility as
well as the authority of politics with elected elites and thereby democratize the practice of
1
Immigrants participate in HTAs and other forms of transnational politics for various reasons and motives.
The extent and character of these activities depends on the particularities of each immigrant community.
For some immigrants, transnational politics is a way to engage closely with their native state; for others it is
a way to bypass the state and engage directly with their hometown; and for still others, it is a practice to be
avoided in order to leave a violent past behind. The scope of transnational political activity should also not
be exaggerated, as the number of immigrants who are regularly involved in cross-border activism is
relatively small (Guarnizo, et al 2003). Regarding HTA involvement in particular, Orozco (2007) finds that
only about 9 percent of remittance senders of Latin American origin who reside in the US belong to an
HTA.
5
governance. In contrast, in a “government of the politicians”, democracy amounts to little
more than an elitest game in which politicians vie for votes; citizenship is merely a legal
status determined by arbitrary territorial boundaries, which amounts to little more than
procedural formalities (i.e. voting) and is alien to the project of empowerment (Nun
2003). However, through the practice of politics, subjects become good citizens and,
reciprocally, the elites who are constrained to listen and negotiate, become good
governors. Democracy is tested by its capacity to sustain this kind of participation. The
second key feature of a deep democracy calls for an integral and holistic conception of
democracy that extends beyond the political regime to the social order. It entails the
expansion of the public domain, which consequently has implications for community life
and social welfare far beyond voting. A deep democracy is one in which democratic
practices have spread throughout society, governing not only relations between states and
citizens, but also public relations between citizens.
The literature on deepening democracy has developed a rich theoretical
foundation. It is anchored by contemporary normative democratic theory (Cohen and
Arato 1992; Habermas 1996; Sen 1999). In addition, it is heavily influenced by theories
of deliberation and the public sphere (Habermas 1989; Fraser 1990; Emirbayer and
Sheller 1999; Avritzer 2002). Most recently, the focus has turned to empirical cases
which show that deepening democracy is not simply an abstract idealist concept.
Participatory budgeting schemes in Porto Alegre, Brazil are popular and important
examples, but there is also a need for a more diverse empirical base (Avritzer 2002; Fung
and Wright 2003; Baiocchi 2005; Baiocchi el al 2008). I argue that HTAs can inform the
literature by expanding the empirical base upon which theory is constructed. Although
6
the literatures on HTAs and the deepening of democracy have never intersected, in this
paper I interweave the two. I propose that HTA have the potential to deepen democracy
in four significant ways: nurture civil society, foster the active practice of politics,
increase state accountability and transparency, and reduce inequality and social
exclusion. Nevertheless, I also draw attention to HTAs’ limitations as harbinger of deep
democracy.
HTAs Nurture Civil Society
First, HTAs have the potential to deepen democracy because they nurture civil
society. HTAs create dense networks of civil associations through the very nature of their
collective mobilization. From a Tocquevillian perspective, associational networks, like
those buttressed by HTAs, are the bedrock of democracy. They foster patterns of civility
and teach people the social skills and attitudes that are necessary for democracy to take
root (Waltzer 1992). For Putnam (1994), the chief virtue of civic associations lies in their
capacity to strengthen social capital by socializing participants into the “norms of
generalized reciprocity” and “trust” needed for democracy. HTAs are able to forge
associations of civic engagement between migrants, hometown residents, and local state
officials within which reciprocity is learned and enforced, trust is generated, bonds of
social capital are thickened, and communication and patterns of collective action are
facilitated (Portes and Landolt 2000). Moreover, the right to association is critical for
deepening democracy because it allows citizens to organize independent of kinship ties,
market incentives, or forms of hierarchical state authority. As autonomous and voluntary
agents, HTAs are able to organize in defense of their own interests without fear of
7
external intervention or punishment. HTAs resist coercion or victimization at the hands
of the state or market by assuming ownership over the development process and
identifying, designing, financing, and implementing projects. Associational autonomy is
especially vital for the poorest segments of society because they are usually the most
vulnerable to state-sanctioned coercion and clientelitic incentives (Fox 1997). In short,
HTA have the potential to deepen democracy because they strengthen horizontal forms of
association which challenge vertical ones typified by traditional power hierarchies in the
hometown. According to Gramsci, civil society is the locus of struggle for hegemony and
ultimately where the poor and marginalized actors can exercise their rights as citizens to
protest against the dominant power (Cox 1999). Civil society is the organ of popular
empowerment and the breeding ground for new issues to be raised and new actors to be
mobilized. Thus, as expressions of civil society, HTAs have an inherent political and
public character and the potential to bring about social change by empowering people to
act as high-intensity citizens and to challenge the existing dominant order and local
power structures (Young 1994).
Moreover, HTAs have the potential to deepen democracy because they nurture
civic consciousness. The deepening of democracy and the act of becoming a highintensity citizen necessitate moving beyond the realm of individual liberalism and
incorporating a commitment to social justice at a communal level (Turner 1992; Waltzer
1992; Hawthorn 2001). Civil society is tested by its capacity to produce citizens whose
interests at least sometimes reach further than themselves and who look after the political
community that fosters and protects their associational networks (Mouffe 1992).
Rousseau claims that citizens have a moral responsibility to be politically active and to
8
work towards a common destiny, not for the sake of a particular end but for the process
itself in which individuals can reach their highest capacities as rational actors and moral
agents. HTAs and their collective remittances, by their very constitution and objectives,
nurture civic consciousness and foster a sense of community. They are fundamentally
philanthropic organizations oriented towards social justice and altruistic goals. They seek
to deliver collective social benefits, whereas family remittances provide private benefits.
Moreover, HTAs have the potential to be especially important medium by which to foster
an inclusive sense of community and to expand the notion of civic consciousness to
include the poor and most marginalized groups in the community (i.e. those who live in
abject poverty on the outskirts on the municipality or those who do not receive
remittances). Some HTAs explicitly respond to the needs of the most marginalized and
actively seek to incorporate them into local politics.
However, civil society does not always act as a positive political force. Some
HTAs may have more public good “spillover effects” than others. Some eventually
dissolve because the social capital and bounded solidarity which hold them together
erode as migrants face competing obligations in their host country (Portes and Landolt
2000). Foley and Edwards (1996) also warn against romanticizing “the civil society
argument” because it presupposes the democratic values and practices which it imagines
civil society to bring and it dismisses the fact that civil society carries the weight of its
history and its pre-existing relations with the state. HTAs exist in these realities and
consequently, as shall be examined below, can also be divisive social forces which
perpetuate inequality and clientelism (Fatton 1995; Armony 2004; Auyero, 2007).
9
HTAs Foster the Active Practice of Politics
The second way in which HTAs can potentially deepen democracy is through the
active practice of politics. As explained above, the active practice of politics is an
analytic cornerstone of deepening democracy and it empowers individuals as highintensity citizens. HTAs, in particular, practice politics through the making of claims
concerning development deficiencies in the hometown and proposed solutions. They
make claims on the community to act collectively around common development needs
and they make claims on the state to step up and take responsibility for the social welfare
of their subjects. Although those claims may be accepted or rejected, their very
recognition gives them legitimacy (Fitzgerald 2000, 2008). Through this type of political
participation, individuals come to recognize themselves as members of a political
community and undergo the process of becoming high-intensity citizens (Mouffe 1992;
Waltzer 1992). The state defines the political community into which citizens become
members and grants individuals the necessary status and recognition as subjects of a
normative order and bearers of rights and duties. However, it is in the civic sphere that
those individuals exercise their status and rights within or over the normative order and
where they become high-intensity citizens (Turner 1992). Thus, the state creates subjects,
but civil society is where citizens are born and where democracy takes on substantive
meaning.
Moreover, the institutionalization of grassroots participatory mechanisms is
critical for the effective channeling for deep democracy and safeguarding civic values
such as representation, inclusion, and equity. In theory, although not always in practice,
HTAs are open organizations which subject their decision-making processes to public
10
forums and deliberation in the hometown. HTAs’ claim-making and decision-making
processes are inherently political, as there are often competing interests from migrants,
hometown residents, and local state officials. However, participatory institutions, such as
open town meetings, not only facilitate engagement, but also provide opportunities for
individuals to gather together as equals, argue their preferences, and deliberate to arrive
at consensus, ultimately acting as high-intensity citizens and deepening democracy. In
this sense, HTAs have the potential to represent the institutionalization of deliberative
publics as explained by Avritzer (2003).
HTA-State Partnerships Increase State Accountability and Transparency
The transition to and consolidation of democratic regimes in the global south has
been characterized by weak channels of vertical integration between states and citizens in
which state-civil society relations tend to be dominated by patronage and populism, and
citizens have either no effective means of holding government accountable or are reduced
to dependent clients (O’Donnell 1999). HTAs, however, have the potential to deepen
democracy by engaging the state in partnerships which increase transparency and
accountability. One of HTAs’ most significant democratizing impacts is their capacity to
negotiate directly with the state and thereby pressure unresponsive municipal authorities
for higher standards of accountability and transparency (Burgess and Tinajero
Forthcoming; Fox and Bada 2008; Williams 2008). In other words, partnerships facilitate
consultation between the local state and civil society not just via electoral representation,
but also through constant feedback and negotiation (Heller 2000). These partnerships
allow migrants and hometown residents to break clientelistic chains and effectively
11
engage the state as autonomous, but equal actors. HTAs provide a vehicle through which
migrants and hometown residents can make demands upon the state and compel
authorities to take their interests and priorities into account. The presence of a counterpart
committee is important for facilitating HTA-state collaboration, as it helps prevent the
HTA from being captured by elites or from succumbing to corruption because local state
officials are less likely to be influenced by migrants instead of local interests (Burgess
and Tinajero Forthcoming). Moreover, HTA-state partnerships allow for the negotiation
of new roles and responsibilities for both parties. Smith finds that HTAs have the
potential to deepen democracy because they “force the state to engage them in new ways”
and, in effect, generate “parallel power structures” with the old, traditional regime (RC
Smith 1998: 227-28). These partnerships also have the potential to thicken and
“politically construct” social capital necessary for association because they allow the
state to provide civil society with positive incentives for collective action (Fox 1996).
Last, HTA-state partnerships have the potential to deepen democracy because they
provide institutional structures at the state level, making more permanent the
democratizing effects of HTAs.
However, while HTA-state partnerships might have the potential to deepen
democracy, they do not always yield positive effects. For example, increased state
accountability to the HTAs does not necessarily deepen democracy within the hometown
community. States might become more accountable to the HTA, but not necessarily to
the community at large. Or, while many HTAs are effective in communicating the
community’s development needs to the state and pointing out where the state has fallen
short of its responsibilities, HTA-state partnerships are often limited due to the HTA’s
12
lack of capacity in project supervision and a poor understanding of its role as a public
accountability actor (Fox and Bada 2008). It is also important to emphasize that
development aid is not the responsibility of the HTA. A dangerous consequence of these
partnerships is that the state retreats and leaves the lion’s share of the work to HTAs,
rather than continuing to pursue additional development strategies and funding sources
(Goldring 2002). Moreover, Kamat (2003) warns that community-based organizations
like HTAs that work with donor agencies and the state are at risk to suffer from a “crisis
of credibility” because there is a growing disconnect from the poor. Institutional
bureaucracy encourages the professionalization of community-based organizations and
consequently leads them to adopt neoliberal notions of empowerment guided by a narrow
economic and apolitical approach in working with the poor. Thus, community-based
democratization becomes more symbolic than substantive.
In deciding whether or not to enter into partnerships with the state, HTAs
calculate political risk and respond to the political climate wrought by their local states,
be it one of collaboration or mistrust. For example, Smith finds that some Mexican HTAs
accept state support despite the diminished autonomy it implies, while others choose to
preserve their independence although it curtails their developmental impact. Such
evidence shows that HTAs are aware of threats to their political power and the possible
undercutting motives of the state. The state is not necessarily a benevolent actor and may
use HTA partnerships as strategies which, while responding to real demands from below,
serve as institutional channels to regulate and control relationships with migrant civil
society and to ensure the continued flow of remittances. In a Foucauldian tradition, these
partnerships are a form of governmentality in which power is diffused by the state to
13
transform migrants into “good” self-governing citizens (Corbridge et al 2005). In turn,
HTAs use the state to secure their privileged status and political power. These types of
manipulative partnerships are not expected to have a positive democratizing impacts (Fox
and Bada 2008; Itzigsohn and Villacres 2008).
HTAs Reduce Inequality and Social Exclusion
Fourth, HTAs have the potential to reduce inequality and social exclusion, which
has positive implications for the deepening of democracy. While formal democracy has
endowed citizens with de jure rights, pervasive inequalities within society chip away at
the conditions under which citizens can make informed and independent decisions about
their own futures and also limit the capacity of citizens to act on their rights effectively.
Inequality and social exclusion can easily be translated into concentrations of power in
the political sphere that skew the articulation of popular interests and block the exercise
of popular sovereignty (Rueschmeyer et al 1992; Fox 1997; Alvarez et al 1998; Baiocchi
et al 2008). Thus, for a democracy to possess moral legitimacy, it must entail a
commitment to securing the preconditions of freedom which allow individuals to expand
their capabilities and to lead dignified lives (Sen 1999; Appadurai 2001).
Institutions of popular participation, like those offered by HTAs, have the
potential to help secure those conditions of freedom. Social relations are “artifactual” and
HTAs can use their participatory and civic agendas to shape a more equitable society
(Cohen and Rogers 1995) HTAs allow migrants and hometown residents to not become
victims of their underdevelopment, but to take an active role in determining their own
fate and affect social change. These acts of participation in themselves, as well as HTAs’
14
development agendas, ameliorate the conditions of freedom needed to exercise and
expand citizenship rights, and ultimately to deepen democracy. Grassroots participatory
mechanisms are particularly important for the inclusion of marginalized groups and
facilitating their role in local political processes.
However, HTAs do not always advance equity and inclusion. HTAs may become
vehicles for the benefit and personal advancement of its members only. The HTA may
not be representative of the community. It may reach decisions in closed committee
sessions, rather than subjecting their decision-making processes to public deliberation. In
fact, it is not uncommon that with the passage of time, the HTA’s vision of development
and desirable projects diverges from that of the community. HTAs often begin investing
in projects that facilitate the return of their migrant members to the hometown for
retirement or vacation. Or, HTAs invest in projects which preserve the hometown of their
childhood memories as a way to ease the difficulties of immigrant life. These interests are
often in conflict with hometown residents who would prefer to invest in projects that
directly address their development needs. However, as migrants’ social and economic
power increases, their views often take precedence over those of hometown residents
(Levitt 2001). Thus, HTAs fail to be representative of the community and migrants come
to constitute a new elite in the hometown which reproduces structures of inequality and
patronage (Portes and Landolt 2000; Levitt, 2001; Goldring 2002, 2004). It is necessary,
however, to qualify this critique. While migrants do constitute a new elite, they are an
elite that emerges out of a process of mobility through migration, not through the
inheritance of social status or political power. In this way, the emergence of new HTArelated elites challenges rigid local stratification. So it seems that the local political
15
involvement of HTAs contributes, in part, to more plurality and mobility in local
economic and political stratification (Landolt et al 1999; Levitt 2001). Nevertheless, local
states may pay more attention to HTA members and migrant leaders than hometown
residents because of the leverage which their remittances afford them (Williams 2008).
HTAs’ collective remittances are the source of their political power. The surge in
remittances give migrants political leverage as these funds are a key source of national
and household finances and at the same time are not subjected to clientelist mechanisms
of social control. Thus, vis-à-vis their remittances, migrants are able to occupy a
particular structural position that allows them to challenge established elites and the
status quo of state politics (Guarnizo and MP Smith 1998; Portes et al 2007). But,
migrants’ participation in HTAs might also be a strategic political move to uphold high
status and power in the hometown (Levitt 1997; Landolt et al 1999; Goldring 2004).
Conclusion
This paper examines HTAs as agents for deepening democracy. The literature on
deepening democracy has developed a rich theoretical foundation. Most recently,
scholars have worked to expand empirical applications of the theory. This paper proposes
that HTAs have the potential to add to this empirical base. I review the literatures on
HTAs and deepening democracy and identify four keys areas in which the two intersect.
In sum, I argue that HTAs, in their very nature and functions, foster the civic values,
associational networks, and participatory practices which are critical to effectively
transform individual from subjects of the state into high-intensity citizens and which
serve as the backbone for a substantive, rights-based definition of democracy.
16
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Alarcón, Rafael. 2002. “The Development of Hometown Associations in the United
States and the Use of Social Remittances in Mexico” in Sending Money Home: Hispanic
Remittances and Community Development, B. Lindsay Lowell and Rodolfo de la Garza
(eds). New York: Rowman and Littlefield.
Alvarez, Sonia, Evelina Dagnino, and Arturo Escobar. 1998. Cultures of Politics, Politics
of Cultures: Re-Visioning Latin American Social Movements. Boulder: Westview Press.
Andrade-Ekhoff, Katherine and Claudia Marina Silva-Avalos. 2003. “Globalization of
the Periphery: The Challenges of Transnational Migration for Local Development in
Central America.” San Salvador: FLACSO- El Salvador Working Paper.
Appadurai, Arjun. 2001. “Deep democracy: urban governmentality and the horizon of
politics”. Environment and Urbanization, Volume 13, Number 2, Page 23.
Armony, Ariel. 2004. The Dubious Link: Civic Engagement and Democratization. Palo
Alto: Stanford University Press.
Auyero, Javier. 2007. Routine Politics and Violence in Argentina: The Gray Zone of State
Power. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Avritzer, Leonardo. 2002. Democracy and the public space in Latin America. Princeton:
Princeton University Press.
Baiocchi, Gianpaolo. 2005. Militants and Citizens: The Politics of Participatory
Democracy in Porto Alegre. Stanford: Stanford University
Baiocchi, Gianpaolo, Patrick Heller, and Marcelo Kunrath Silva. March 2008. “Making
Space for Civil Society: Institutional Reforms and Local Democracy in Brazil”. Social
Forces, Volume 86, Number 3.
Burgess, Katrina. 2006. “Migrant Philanthropy and Local Governance in Mexico” in New
Patterns for Mexico: Remittances, Philanthropic Giving, and Equitable Development,
Barbara Merz (ed.). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Burgess, Katrina and Beatriz Tinajero. Forthcoming. “Collective Remittances as NonState Transnational Transfers: Patterns of Transnationalism in Mexico and El Salvador”
in Non-State Transnational Transfers, Stuart Brown (ed).
Cohen, Jean L., and Andrew Arato. 1992. Civil Society and Political Theory. Cambridge,
Mass.: MIT Press. Read Introduction, Chapter 3 and 9.
17
Cohen, Joshua and Rogers, Joel. 1995. "Secondary Associations and Democratic
Governance”, Pp. 7-100 in Association and Democracy, edited by Erik O. Wright.
London: Verso.
Corbridge, Stuart et al. 2005. Seeing the State: Governance and Governmentality in
India. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press.
Cox, Robert. 1999. “Civil society at the turn of the millenium: prospects for an
alternative world order”. Review of International Studies, Vol. 25, pp. 3–28.
Evans, Peter B. 2002. Livable Cities?: Urban Struggles for Livelihood and Sustainability.
Berkeley: University of California Press.
Fatton, Robert. 1995. "Africa in the Age of Democratization: The Civic Limitations of
Civil Society." African Studies Review 38:67-99.
Fitzgerald, David. 2008. “Colonies of the Little Motherland: Membership, Space, and
Time in Mexican Migrant Hometown Associations”. Comparative Studies in Society and
History 50:1.
Fitzgerald, David. 2000. Negotiating Extra-Territorial Citizenship: Mexican Migration
and the Transnational Politics of Community. Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers.
Foley, Michael W. and Robert Edwards. 1996. "The Paradox of Civil Society." Journal
of Democracy 7:38-52.
Fox, Jonathon and Xóchitl Bada. 2008. “Migrant Organization and Hometown Impacts in
Rural Mexico”. Journal of Agrarian Change, Vol. 8 Nos. 2 and 3, April and July 2008,
pp. 435–461.
Fox, Jonathon. 1997. "The Difficult Transition from Clientalism to Citizenship: Lessons
from Mexico”in The New Politics of Inequality in Latin America, Chalmers, Doug, Scott
Martin and Kerianne Piester (eds). New York: Oxford University Press.
Fox, Jonathan. 1996. “How Does Civil Society Thicken?: The Political Construction of
Social Capital in Rural Mexico.” World Development, Volume 24, Number 6, pp 10891103 (15).
Fung, Archon, and Erik O. Wright (eds). 2003. Deepening Democracy: Institutional
Innovations in Empowered Participatory Governance. London: Verso.
Goldring, Luin. 2004. “Individual and Collective Remittances to Mexico: A Multidimensional Typology of Remittances.” Development and Change, Vol. 35(4): 799-840.
18
Goldring, Luin. 2002 “The Mexican State and Transmigrant Organizations: Negotiating
the Boundaries of Membership and Participation,” Latin American Research Review,
37(3):55-99.
Guarnizo, Luis Eduardo. 2003. “The Economics of Transnational Living”. International
Migration Review, Volume 37 Number 3 (Fall 2003):666-699.
Guarnizo, Luis Eduardo, Alejandro Portes, and William Haller. May 2003. “Assimilation
and Transnationalism: Determinants of Transnational Political Action among
Contemporary Migrants.” American Journal of Sociology, 108, 6:1211-48.
Guarnizo, Luis Eduardo and Michael Peter Smith (eds). 1998. “Theorizing
Transnationalism” in Transnationalism from Below, Comparative Urban & Community
Research, Volume 6. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers, pp 3-34..
Habermas, Jürgen. 1989. The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry
into a Category of Bourgeois Society. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Hawthorn, Geoffrey. 2001. "The Promise of ‘Civil Society’ in the South" in Civil society:
history and possibilities, Sudipta Kaviraj and Sunil Khilnani (eds). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, pp. 269-286.
Heller, Patrick. 2000. “Degrees of Democracy: Some Comparative Lessons from India”.
World Politics 52 (July 2000), 484–519.
Itzigsohn, Jose. 2000. “Immigration and the Boundaries of Citizenship: The Institutions
of Immigrants' Political Transnationalism”. International Migration Review, Vol. 34, No.
4, (Winter 2000), pp 1126-1154.
Itzigsohn, José and Daniela Villacrés. 2008. “Migrant Political Transnationalism and the
Practice of Democracy: Dominican external voting rights and Salvadoran home town
associations.” Ethnic and Racial Studies, Vol. 31 No. 4 May 2008 pp. 664-686.
Kamat, Sangeeta. 2003.”NGOs and the New Democracy: The False Saviors of
International Development”. Harvard International Review. Volume 25, Spring 2003.
Landolt, Patricia. 2008. “The Transnational Geographies of Immigrant Politics: Insights
from a Comparative Study of Migrant Grassroots Organizing”. The Sociological
Quarterly 49 (2008), 53–77.
Landolt, Patricia, Lilian Autler; Sonia Baires. 1999. “From Hermano Lejano to Hermano
Mayor: the dialectics of Salvadoran transnationalism.” Ethnic and Racial Studies,
Volume 22 Number 2 March 1999.
19
Levitt, Peggy, and Rafael de la Dehesa. 2003. “Transnational Migration and the
Redefinition of the State: Variations and Explanations,” Ethnic and Racial Studies
26(4):587-611.
Levitt, Peggy. 2001. Transnational Villagers. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Levitt, Peggy. 1997. “Transnationalizing Community Development: The Case of
Migration between Boston and the Dominican Republic,” Nonprojt and Voluntary Sector
Quarterly, 26(4):509-526.
Lowell, B. Lindsay and De La Garza, Rodolfo O. 2000. “The Development Role of
Remittances in US Latino Communities and in Latin American Countries”. A final
project report prepared for the Inter-American Dialogue and Tomas Rivera Policy
Institute.
O’Donnell, Guillermo. 1999. Counterpoints: Selected Essays on Authoritarianism and
Democratization. University of Notre Dame Press
O’Donnell, Guillermo. 1993. “On the State, Democratization and Some Conceptual
Problems: A Latin American View with Glances at Some Postcommunist Countries,”
World Development 21, no. 8 (1993).
Orozco, Manuel and Rebecca Rouse. February 2007. “Migrant Hometown Associations
and Opportunities for Development: A Global Perspective”. Paper written for the
Migration Information Source. Washington DC: Migration Policy Institute.
Orozco, Manuel and Katherine Welle. 2006. “Hometown Associations and Development:
Ownership, Correspondence, Sustainability and Replicability” in New Patterns for
Mexico: Observations on Remittances, Philanthropic Giving, and Equitable
Development, Barbara J. Merz (ed). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Orozco, Manuel. 2004. “The Salvadoran Diaspora: Remittances, Transnationalism and
Government Responses”. Paper commissioned by the Tomas Rivera Policy Institute,
Washington, DC.
Orozco, Manuel. 2003. “Hometown Associations and their Present and Future
Partnerships: New Development Opportunities?” Washington, D.C.: Inter-American
Dialogue: Report commissioned by the U.S. Agency for International Development.
Orozco, Manuel. 2002. “Latino Hometown Associations as Agents of Development in
Latin America” in Sending Money Home: Hispanic remittances and community
development, Rodolfo O. De la Garza and B. Lindsay Lowell (eds). New York: Rowman
and Littlefield.
20
Paul, Alison and Sarah Gammage. 2004. “Hometown Associations and Development:
The Case of El Salvador,” Washington, DC: Working Paper for George Washington
University.
Popkin, Eric. 2003. “Transnational Migration and Development in Postwar Peripheral
States: An Examination of Guatemalan and Salvadoran State Linkages with their Migrant
Populations in Los Angeles”. Current Sociology: May/July 2003, Vol. 51(3/4): 347–374.
Portes, Alejandro, Cristina Escobar, and Alexandria Walton Radford. 2007. “Immigrant
Transnational Organizations and Development: A Comparative Study”. International
Migration Review, Volume 41 Number 1 (Spring 2007):242–281.
Portes, Alejandro and Landolt, Patricia. 2000. “Social Capital: Promises and Pitfalls of its
Role in Development”. Journal of Latin American Studies 32, 529-547.
Putnam, Robert, Robert Leonardi, and Raffaella Nanetti. 1994. Making Democracy
Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Mouffe, Chantal. 1992. “Preface” in Dimensions of radical democracy: pluralism,
citizenship, community, Chantal Mouffe (ed). London; New York: Verso, pp.1-14.
Nun, José. 2003. Democracy: Government of the People or Government of the
Politicians?. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield
Roberts, Kenneth M. 1998. Deepening Democracy?: The modern left and social
movements in Chile and Peru. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Rueschemeyer, Dietrich, Evelyne Huber Stephens, and John D. Stephens. 1992.
Capitalist development and democracy. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Schumpeter, Joseph. 1943. Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy. London: George
Allen and Unwin Ltd.
Sen, Amartya Kumar. 1999. Development as Freedom. Knopf.
Smith, Michael Peter and Matthew Bakker. 2007. Citizenship Across Borders: The
Political Transnationalism of El Migrante. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Smith, Michael Peter. 2003. “Transnationalism, the State, and the Extraterritorial
Citizen”. Politics & Society, Vol. 31, No. 4, pp. 467-502.
Smith, Robert C. 2003. “Migrant Membership as an Instituted Process:
Transnationalization, the State and the Extra-territorial Conduct of Mexican Politics”.
International Migration Review, Vol. 37(2), pp. 297-343.
21
Smith, Robert, C. 1998. “Transnational Localities: Community, Technology and the
Politics of Membership within the Context of Mexico and U.S. Migration” in
Transnationalism from Below, Michael Peter Smith and Luis E. Guarnizo (eds.),
Comparative Urban & Community Research, Volume 6. New Brunswick: Transaction
Publishers, pp196-238.
Solimano, Andrés. 2003. “Remittances by emigrants: issues and evidence.” Santiago,
Chile: Series in Macroeconomía del Desarrollo by the Economic Development Division
of the Comisión Económica para América Latina y el Caribe (CEPAL).
Torres, Federico. 2000. ‘Productive use of remittances in Central America, the
Dominican Republic, and Mexico: recent experiences’, paper given at Symposium on
International Migration in the Americas, Series in International Migration and
Development in the Americas by the Comisión Económica para América Latina y el
Caribe (CEPAL).
Törnquist, Olle. 2005. “The Political Deficit of Substantial Democratisation” in Harriss,
John, Kristian Stokke, Olle Tornquist (eds), Politicising Democracy: The New Local
Politics of Democratisation (International Political Economy Series). New York:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Turner, Bryan. 1992. "Outline of a Theory of Citizenship" in Dimensions of radical
democracy: pluralism, citizenship, community, Chantal Mouffe (ed). London; New York:
Verso, pp. 33-61.
Waldinger, Roger, Eric Popkin, and Hector Aquiles Magana. 2008. “Conflict and
contestation in the cross-border community: hometown associations reassessed”. Ethnic
and Racial Studies, Vol. 31 No. 4 July 2008, pp. 843-870.
Walzer, Michael. 1992. "The Civil Society Argument" in Dimensions of radical
democracy: pluralism, citizenship, community, Chantal Mouffe (ed). London; New York:
Verso, Pp. 89-107.
Williams, Heather. 2008. “From Visibility to Voice: The Emerging Power of Migrants in
Mexican Politics.” George Mason University: Global Migration and Transnational
Politics Series, Working Paper #4, March 2008.
Young, Crawford. 1994. “In Search of Civil Society." in Civil society and the state in
Africa, John W. Harbeson, Donald S. Rothchild, and Naomi Chazan (eds). Boulder:
Lynne Rienner Publishers, pp. 33-50.
22