It seems this was the wrong article. Having said that, it was still a very interesting one.
The authors pick up on a theme discussed a few weeks back, and that is on the diversity of locations when it comes to Peruvian migration.
What the article does well, and at the same time, is what makes it somewhat difficult, is the use of the Latin American Migration Project (LAMP). The LAMP is an extension of the Mexican Migration Project (MMP), which is a great tool when analyzing migration, mostly to the United States. The LAMP is a great offshoot since it attempts to capture the same thing done for the MMP into the LAMP. The authors do a good job in describing the shortcomings of the data available to them, while at the same time developing an analysis that concurs with Peruvian international migration as a whole, which is that it is mostly a middle-class phenomenon, while internal migration is mostly done by the working classes and the rural poor.
I found it useful since it broke down different aspects of Peruvian migration such as educational level, geographical location, and sex. However, since it was mostly gathered with Lima province, and even though 1/3 of the country resides in Lima, it can still be misleading. At the same time, though, it provided some good empirical data.
I did find their double translation of salir adelante peculiar since it need not necessarily mean going abroad. And since it is a play on words, I’m wondering if it was used by those interviewed, or was it taken by the authors. Just wondering.
As far as a culture of emigration is concerned. I always wondered what this really means. In this case, it relates to a 30+ year period where Peru, and Latin America experienced violence and economic hardship through both internal and external forces. These forces created an environment where migration became as aspect of life. Is 30 years enough to state that a culture of emigration is in place? Take out external factors, and do people still want to leave?
What do you guys think?
Die
Am 1. February 2017 um 14:55 Uhr
In their article, Ayumi Takenaka and Karen A. Pren (2010) attempted to determine how international migration shapes the general well-being, economic success and social status of Peruvians who, in their attempt to “salir adelante”, decided to move abroad, vis-à-vis those citizens who stayed in Perú.
I was also kind-of troubled by the translation of “salir adelante” offered by the authors since this expression communicates a general desire to “progress in life”, which doesn’t necessarily correlates to “economic success” as the main objective, and certainly doesn’t contemplate “going abroad” as the main strategy to achieve the general end of well-being.
Regarding the research and its findings, I found also problematic the general inferences and conclusions brought about by the authors. It seemed to me that the nature of the data used for this paper was far from being representative of Peruvian society and the migration phenomenon, not only in terms of the locations and geographies in which the information was collected (it was restricted to Lima), but also in terms of the demographics it describes (the input was gathered mostly among middle class subjects).
Concerning the “culture of migration”, I would say that this notion is an attempt by researchers to apprehend a social phenomenon that had seemed to be pervasive among Peruvians and other Latin American populations, without taking into consideration that social issues such as endemic violence or simply the opportunity to migrate (e.g. by means of networking or ever-decrease travelling expenses) also play a fundamental role when taking such a transcendental decision as it is to leave one’s homeland. When one or more factors that inspire the so-called “culture of migration” are taken out of the equation (as was the case in Perú, Colombia, and other Latin American polities), the notion loses its pervasive character and, therefore, its strength as an analytical tool.
Am 5. February 2017 um 19:43 Uhr
Both points you mentioned – one about the use and translation of “salir adelante” and the fact that the survey only concentrates on Lima – I found kind of difficult. The other findings that international migrants are mostly better educated and highly skilled as internal migrants or non migrants did not surprise me because as the authors also mentioned themselves migration is kind of a cost-intensive thing and you have to be able to afford it before and then maybe it will chance your situation or livelihood.
What I found most interesting was the abstract about “brain drain vs. brain gain” because both phenomenons are really bad for the economy or socio-economic development. Even if skilled emigration may also bringt remittances or investment etc. (p. 31), it is not sustainable and if the migrants one day decide to stay longer or forever in the “new” country, or stops the remittances, Peru has nothing left from the migrant, neither skilled workers nor money which is sent back to the families. Neither is brain drain a better option, so the best way would be to find a internal solution, that makes people want to stay and possible to stay.
Am 10. February 2017 um 00:17 Uhr
I was also intrigued by this idea of a Peruvian history of migration and its supposed social status, wasn’t a similar claim made in one of our previous articles on Peru? Another point; are there many examples, or is anybody aware of research which attests to, external migration leading to a fundamental redistribution of income or a counteraction of trends for the rich to get richer and the poor poorer? Otherwise the research question would constitute a moot point.
I also agree with Jesus that a sample, which is restricted to middle-class participants could surely only proffer somewhat non-creditworthy results. Another aspect of the methodology I found remarkable was the variables (as mentioned on page 39) for the model of socioeconomic status, such as the number of cars owned. Could this really be said to attest to a analogous levels of socioeconomic well-being in each context or do car-ownership/the number of rooms in one’s house/whether one rents or owns have distinct nuances particular to each context? If this is the case, the results would be somewhat distorted.
Am 18. February 2017 um 12:23 Uhr
Just as the rest of you I was very surprised by the translation of “salir adelante” and would have liked to hear more about how the authors came to this deduction. However, I would say that there is a difference between “salir adelante” and “seguir adelante”, the latter being what Jesus refers to, in my opinion. But then I’m not a Spanish native speaker.
I would definitely agree though that economic well-being is not necessarily the same as getting ahead. Treating these as equivalents is a very restrictive and outdated point of view making the investigation somewhat narrow.
Regarding your comments on the representativity of the data I agree that it is not able to be a mirror of the Peruvian society, especially concerning social class, which interestingly the authors themselves admit right away (p. 30). However, they also mention that they do not want to speak for all of Peru but for the region of Lima (p. 30 and 34).
I also wondered if it was really true that there is (still) more skilled emigration from Peru. The authors themselves mention that data might not include undocumented migrants and I was wondering about the figures for non- or low-skilled emigrants, which they did not include so one could have the direct comparison.
So, while I find the research question interesting, the methodology they used does not seem to bring the desired results and would have to be a lot more comprehensive in order to do so.
Am 20. February 2017 um 12:16 Uhr
I really enjoyed reading this article and I think It explains clearly all the main causes of good skilled Peruvians migrating (selectivity of the migrants, cost of migrating, distance, timing of emigration) and the impacts on socioeconomic status of this process, that actually does not contributes to fight the big inequality of the country, but only the migrant’s one. As my colleagues, I’ve also found the translation of “salir adelante” not really well explained/chosen by the authors, though.
To me was interesting the fact that It seems like Peruvians have different goals comparing with other Latinos migrating, more spiritual than material. Mexicans usually migrate in order to purchase a big home, Peruvians in order to earn higher wages and to get better career (P.40).
I’ve found a lots of similarities between Peruvian emigration and emigration from southern countries in Europe, especially when saying: ” The positive selection of migrants is largely due to the high cost of migrating. Moreover, migrants are generally self-selected people who are ambitious to take on new challenges and willing to work hard.The poorest of the poor, who are deprived of resources, education, and information, usually do not or cannot emigrate”(P.36), but I totally agree with Magdalena that the analysis may not included undocumented migrants, who actually could prove the opposite of this statement.
Nevertheless,I wonder how can we pretend that migration itself could be the way to improve socioeconomic-inequalities of one country if the process of migration reflects itself a wide global inequality; I completely agree with the authors when stating that:”Indeed, the global migration phenomenon that we observe today is itself a powerful symbol of inequality among countries. The fact that people in some (poorer) countries have to leave for other (richer) countries to advance economically necessarily implies global inequality. “(P.45).