transnational migration studies

8/10/2019 Transnational Migration Studies

1/31

Transnational MigrationStudies: Past Developmentsand Future TrendsPeggy Levitt 1 and B. Nadya Jaworsky 21Department of Sociology, Wellesley College, Wellesley, Massachusetts 02481;email: [email protected]

2Department of Sociology, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut 06520;email: [email protected]

Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2007. 33:12956

First published online as a Review in Advance on April 18, 2007

The Annual Review of Sociology is online at http://soc.annualreviews.org

This articles doi:10.1146/annurev.soc.33.040406.131816

Copyright c 2007 by Annual Reviews. All rights reserved

0360-0572/07/0811-0129$20.00

Key Wordsinternational migration, immigrant incorporation, social elds,space/place, ethnography, transnationalism

Abstract The past twodecadeshave witnesseda sea change in migrationscharship. Most scholars now recognize that many contemporary grants and their predecessors maintain various kinds of ties to thomelandsat thesame time that they areincorporatedinto thecoutries that receive them. Increasingly, social life takes placeacross bders, even as thepoliticalandcultural salience ofnation-state bounariesremains strong.Transnationalmigrationstudieshas emergedan inherently interdisciplinary eld, made up of scholars around world, seeking to describe and analyze these dynamics and in

new methodological tools with which to do so. In this reviewoffer a short history of theoretical developments, outlining the ferent ways in which scholars have dened and approached trantional migration. We then summarize what is known about migrtransnationalism in different arenaseconomics, politics, the socthecultural,andthereligious. Finally, wediscussmethodologicalplications for thestudy of internationalmigration, presentpromisinew scholarship, and highlight future research directions.

129


2/31

INTRODUCTION: THEEMERGENCE OF A TRANSNATIONAL OPTIC Migration scholarship has undergone a seachange in the past two decades. Most schol-ars now recognize that many contemporary migrants and their predecessors maintained a variety of ties to their home countries whilethey became incorporated into the countries where they settled. Migration has never beena one-way process of assimilation into a melt-ing pot or a multicultural salad bowl but onein which migrants, to varying degrees, are si-multaneously embedded in the multiple sitesand layers of the transnational social elds in which they live. More and more aspects of so-cial life take place across borders, even as thepolitical and cultural salience of nation-stateboundaries remains clear.

These developments in migration schol-arship parallel debates in other elds. His-tory has moved away from simplistic nationalcomparisons to reconceptualizing itself as thestudy of regional interactions in places suchas the Black Atlantic (Gilroy 1993) or theIndian Ocean Rim (Bose 2006). Keohane &Nye (1971) argued decades ago that inter-national relations had to rethink its basicconceptual categories to capture cross-borderrelations between nonstate actors and subna-tional actors.

In this article, we review the evolution of scholarly efforts using a transnational opticto understand migration. We begin by offer-ing a short history of theoretical and con-ceptual developments in the eld. In the sec-ond section, we focus on the ways in whicheconomic, political, social, cultural, and reli-gious life are transformed when they are en-acted transnationally. We conclude by dis-cussing the methodological implications of these scholarly developments and highlight three directions for further study, unitedby the common theme of simultaneityembeddedness and spatial arenas, variationsin the consequences of transnationalism, andcomparing internal and international migra-tion. We locate migration scholarship within

the general eld of transnational studies aargue for an approach that highlights longue dur ee.

THEORETICAL

DEVELOPMENTS AND DEBATESSociology has been in the service of nation-state since its inception. In the UniStates, some of the earliest debates concerhow to make Americans out of newcom These conversations continue. On the ohand, new assimilation theory argues thover time, most migrants achieve socioenomic parity with the native-born but thethnicity and race matter, and that both tnative-born as well as immigrants chaalong the way (Alba & Nee 2003, Jac2004, Kivisto 2005). Segmented assimilatism suggests several possible trajectoriesmigrants on their route to incorporation, icluding becoming part of the (white) mastream, remaining ethnic, or becoming pof the underclass and experiencing downwmobility (Portes & Rumbaut 2001, Por& Zhou 1993). Both perspectives acknoedge that patterns of assimilation, accultation, and integration vary depending the country and context of departure, immgrant characteristics, immigrant enclave pacities, and the political, social, and enomic context of the sending and receivcommunities (see Waters & Jimenez 20for a summary of the latest developmeandtheoreticaldebatesconcerning immigraassimilation).

During the 1990s, transnational migtion scholars added a third perspectivethese conversations. They argued that somigrants continued to be active in thhomelands at the same time that they becapart of thecountriesthat received them. Thdescribed how migrants and their descdants participate in familial, social, economreligious, political, and cultural processes textend across borders while they become pof the places where they settle (Basch e1994, Faist 2000a,b, GlickSchiller et al. 19

130 Levitt Jaworsky


3/31

Grasmuck & Pessar 1991, Guarnizo 1997,Itzigsohn et al. 1999, Jacoby 2004, Kivisto2001, Kyle 2000, Levitt 2001, Mahler 1998,Portes et al. 1999, Smith & Guarnizo 1998). Although the rst iterations of this perspec-tive broke new ground, they also suffered

from weaknesses common among innovativeapproaches. They tended to see transnationalmigration everywhere when, in fact, therange and scope of migrants transnationalpractices vary considerably. New researchndings were celebratory, predicting that by living transnationally, migrants couldovercome the poverty and powerlessness to which capitalism relegated them.

These weaknesses generated critiques.Some took issue with the terminology

and ambiguity of denition, arguing that conceptual distinctions were not clear, forexample, between global, international, andtransnational. Alternative terms, such astranslocalism (Barkan 2006), bi-localism, andtrans-state activity (Waldinger & Fitzgerald2004) were proposed in response. Lucassen(2006) argues that transnationalism is tooeasily dichotomized as incompatible withassimilation and delineates three forms of transnationalismbi-local, bi-national, or

pan-ethnicthat vary in their relationship tomigration assimilation. Others claimed that migrants had always maintained ties to theircountries of origin and that, therefore, there was little new (Waldinger & Fitzgerald 2004).Still others, while acknowledging the salienceof transnational ties for the rst generation,predicted they might rapidly decline amongtheir children (Lucassen 2006, Portes et al.1999).

A number of scholars questionedthe scope

and importance of the phenomena, arguingthat too many claims were based on casestudies, particularly those of Latin Americanand Caribbean migrants, who have a partic-ular social and historical relationship to theUnited States (Dahinden 2005, Waldinger &Fitzgerald 2004). When surveys conductedby Portes and his colleagues (Guarnizo et al.2003, Portes et al. 2002) found that habit-

ual transnational activism was fairly low, andthat only 10% to 15% of the Dominicans,Salvadorans, and Mexicans they studied par-ticipated in regular and sustained transna-tional political and economic activities, thisonly added fuel to the re. Finally, many

believed that dismissing national borders was premature and that, contrary to what some had alleged, the nation-state system was unlikely to disappear in the near future(Waldinger 2006).

Subsequent scholarship took important steps to rectify these weaknesses. As Yeohand colleagues (2003b, p. 208) write, such work has begun to sketch the lineaments of transnationality, clarifyingitsshape, contours,and structure, and at the same time point-

ing to the processes and agencies that sustaintransnational trajectories and edices. Thismore recent body of work has claried the so-cial spaces in which transnational migrationoccurs and the social structures it generates,the variations in its dimensions and forms,the relationship between processes of incor-poration and enduring transnational involve-ments, theways in which contemporary itera-tions of cross-border memberships compareto earlier incarnations, and their durability.

We discuss each in turn.

ARENAS, FORMS, NOVELTY, AND DURABILITY Basch et al. (1994, p. 6) initially denedtransnationalism as the processes by whichimmigrants forge and sustain multi-strandedsocial relations that link together their soci-eties of origin and settlement. More recent scholarship understands transnational migra-

tion as taking place within uid social spacesthat are constantly reworked through mi-grants simultaneous embeddedness in morethan one society (Levitt & Glick Schiller2004, Pries 2005, Smith 2005). These are-nas are multi-layered and multi-sited, includ-ing not just the home and host countries but other sites around the world that connect mi-grants to their conationals and coreligionists.

www.annualreviews.org Transnationalism 131


4/31

Both migrants and nonmigrants occupy thembecause the ow of people, money, andsocial remittances (ideas, norms, practices,and identities) within these spaces is so dense,thick, and widespread that nonmigrants livesare also transformed, even though they do

not move (Levitt 2001). Although the num-berswhoengageinregulartransnationalprac-tices may be fairly small, those who engagein occasional, informal transnational activi-ties, including social, cultural, and religiouspractices, in response to elections, economicdownturns, life-cycle events, and climatic dis-asters are much greater. Taken together andover time, their combined efforts add up andcan alter the economies, values, and prac-tices of entire regions (Kyle 2000, Levitt et al.

2003).Several scholars have attempted to delin-

eate the types of social spaces that produceand are produced by transnational migrationand examine the social structures embedded within them. Morawska (2003) proposesconceptualizing migration as structurationto capture the continuing dynamic betweenstructure and agency that extends intotransnational domains. Besserer (1999) andKearney (1995) refer to migration circuits.

Guarnizo (1997) and Landolt (2001) speak of transnational social formations. Srensen &Fog Olwig (2002) prefer transnational liveli-hoods. R. Smiths (2006) term transnationallife includes those practices and relationshipsthat link migrants and their children with thehome country, where such practices have sig-nicant meaning and are regularly observed.

Faist (2000a,b) argues that variations inspatial extension and temporal stability pro-duce different transnational topographies:

(a) dispersion and assimilation (weak simulta-neous embeddedness in sending and receiv-ing countries and short-lived transnationalties); (b) transnational exchange and reci-procity (strong simultaneous embeddednessbut rather short-lived social ties); (c ) transna-tional networks (weakly embedded and long-lived); and (d ) transnational communities(strongly embedded in at least two countries

and enduring). Levitt & Glick Schiller (20describe social elds, which they densets of multiple interlocking networks of cial relationships through which ideas, prtices, and resources are unequally exchangorganized, and transformed. Vertovec (200

p. 971) characterizes transnational migtion as involving three modes of transfmation within major domains: perceptuor migrants orientational bi-focalitythe socio-cultural domain; conceptual, fecting the meaning of the analytical tridentities-orders-borders in the political dmain; and institutional, affecting formnancial transfer, public-private relationshand development in the economic domain

Forms ofactivitywithin these cross-bord

social spaces vary along several dimensi There are debates concerning the appropriaparameters and levels of analysis. One edistinction, proposed by Smith & Guarn(1998), differentiated between transnationism from above (global capital, media, political institutions) and from below (lograssroots activity). Portes (2001, 2003)gued for conning the analysis to thosedividuals who are formally and regulengaged in strict transnational economic, p

litical, or sociocultural activities. Itzigset al. (1999) distinguish between nar(highly institutionalized and continuous tivities involving regular travel) and br(occasional or loosely coupled with sporor no movement) transnationalism. Guarn(1997, 2000) denes core transnationalismthose activities that (a) form an integral pof the individuals habitual life; (b) are udertaken on a regular basis; and (c ) are pterned and, therefore, somewhat predictab

Expanded transnationalism, in contrast, cludes migrants who engage occasionallyexample, in response to political crises or ural disasters in their homelands.

Other scholars argue for a broader proach that includes both informal and fmal social, cultural, and religious practiconnecting all levelsof socialexperience (K2006, Levitt & Glick Schiller 2004, Mahler

132 Levitt Jaworsky


5/31

Pessar 2006, Smith 2006). Morawska (2007,p. 153) suggests that present-day transna-tionalism encompasses a much greater di- versication of form and content and that,[d]epending on the specic constellation of factors, it can involve singleor multiplecross-

border activities . . . regular . . . or promptedby specic situations. . . carried by individ-uals, immigrant families or ethnic groupsthrough informal or institutional channels;and it can be conned to private lives of peo-ple on both sides of the border or involvethe public sphere. Glick Schiller (2003) dif-ferentiates between ways of being, or theactual social relations and practices that in-dividuals engage in, and ways of belong-ing, those practices that signal or enact

an identity demonstrating a conscious con-nection to a particular group (cf. Morawska2007).

Many argue that transnational migrationis not a new phenomenon, retelling the U.S.immigrant story through a transnational lens.Chan (2006), Foner (2000), Morawska(2004),and Gabaccia (2000), to name a few, havehighlighted the cross-border engagements of old immigrantscomingto theUnitedStatesin the Industrial and Progressive eras. Many

immigrants intended theirsojournstobe tem-porary and stayed tightly connected to thehomeland. Whats more, a signicant propor-tion, 30%40%, actually went back (Hatton& Williamson 1994). Further, migrants havealways sent a little something home to theirfamilies. Between 1900 and 1906, the totalamount of money orders sent from the im-migrant colonies in America to Italy, Russia,and Austria-Hungary was a staggering $90million (Wyman 1993). Migrants also ac-

tively engaged in transnational processes of nation-state buildingand identitypolitics that inuenced countries as diverse as Greece,Korea, China, Italy, and Hungary (Gabaccia& Ottanelli 2001, Laliotou 2004, McKeown2001, Smith 1998). Key national leaders fromChiang Kai-shek to Garibaldi lived transna-tionally themselves and drew on globally cir-culating ideas about nation and race in their

efforts to build strong nation-states (Blancet al. 1995, Glick Schiller & Fouron 2001).

While early transnationalmigrationschol-ars may have overstated their claims of new-ness,itisalsoclearthattherearerealhistoricaldifferences between earlier and more recent

incarnations. For one thing, many nonindus-trialized countries have become economically dependent on the remittances migrants sendand have put into play a range of policies andincentives to ensure they continue. Second,although the U.S. labor market warmly wel-comes highly skilled, uent English speakers,it is much less hospitable to poorly educatedmigrants with poor language skills. Theseindividuals are pushed into transnationallifestyles because they cannot gain a secure

economic foothold in their home country orin theUnitedStates, whereas professionalmi-grants, who have the human and cultural cap-ital to take advantage of opportunities in twosettings,voluntarily adapt transnational liveli-hood strategies (Guarnizo 2003, Itzigsohn& Saucedo 2002, Levitt 2007). Finally, theintensication of international economicand labor markets, the globalization of themedia, and time-space compression resultingfrom the transportation and communication

revolution have made transnational back-and-forth travels and communication muchquicker, easier, and more readily available(Foner 2000, Vertovec 2004a).

Many scholars of migration now accept that transnational practices and attachmentshave been and continue to be widespreadamong therst generation,butfar fewer think these ties persist among subsequent genera-tions. They cite both declining language u-ency and survey ndings indicating that the

children of immigrants have no intention of returningto live in theirancestralhomes (Alba& Nee 2003, Kasinitz et al. 2002, Portes &Rumbaut 2001). Conceptualizing generationas a lineal process, involving clear boundariesbetween one experience and the other, doesnot accurately capture the experience of liv-ing in a transnational eld because it impliesa separation in migrants and nonmigrants



6/31

socialization and social networks that may not exist (Eckstein 2004, Eckstein & Barberia2002, Portes & Rumbaut 2001). As Waters& Jimenez (2005, p. 107) point out, in con-trast to prior eras of migration, there is now anongoingreplenishment ofnewimmigrants,

forcing us to rethink the concept of genera-tion altogether: [A]t any point in time eachgeneration is a mix of cohorts and each cohort has a mix of generations (p. 121).

Instead, socialization and social repro-duction often occur across borders, in re-sponse to at least two social and culturalcontexts (Espiritu 2003, Leichtman 2005,Levitt & Glick Schiller 2004, Mazzucatoet al. 2004, Purkayastha 2005, Smith 2006).Clearly, transnational activities will not be

central to the lives of most of the second orthird generation, and they will not partici-pate with the same frequency and intensity as their parents. But the same children whonever go back to their ancestral homes arefrequently raised in households where peo-ple, values, goods, and claims from somewhere else are present on a daily basis (Pries2004). They have the skills and social connec-tions to become transnational activists if and when they choose to do so during a particular

life-cycle stage. Whats more, the children of nonmigrants are also raised in socialnetworksand settings permeated by social remittances(Fouron & Glick Schiller 2002).

Finally, scholars of transnationalism donot deny the signicance or durability of na-tional or state borders; the variations in stateeconomic, military, or political power; andthe continuing rhetorics of national loyalty (Smith 2001, Yeoh et al. 2003a). Instead, they see the links between citizen and state as

multiple, rather than disappearing. States re-congure themselves, dropping some func-tions and assuming new ones (Goldring 2002;cf. M. Martinelli & J-M. LeFleur, submittedmanuscript). That migrants ability to makepolitical claims is enabled or constrained by the state in various ways points to the statescontinuing importance in shaping transna-tionalpractices (Koopmans & Statham 2003).

In the following section, we selectisummarize the literature on specic mains of transnational practice: (a) the ecnomic realm, including different kindsremittances, their impact on developmeclass differences in migration, and ethnic

trepreneurship; (b) political transnationalithe changing role of the state and the bounaries of political belonging; (c ) transformtions in social life, especially in structurefamily and kin and in class, race, and gerelations; (d ) what happens when culture traels; and (e) the importance of religion as itlates to migration.

TRANSNATIONAL MIGRATION

BY DOMAIN Economics

Some scholars see transnational migrationa by-product of late capitalism, which rders large industrialized countries dependon cheap labor and small, nonindustrialicountriesdependent ontheremittancesworers send home (Itzigsohn 2000, Portes 200Others relate the durability of transnationsocial elds to moments of intense econo

interconnection or high points of globization (Basch et al. 1994). The amounmoney migrants send home is quite string. According to the World Bank (2006),moneymigrantssendhome hasdoubledin tpast decade ($232 billion in 2005 alone, w$167 billion to developing countries). Ocial gures, however, may represent only the funds people actually send, making global remittances market as large as $3$400 billion annually (Hussain 2005, Wo

Bank 2006). In at least 36 countries, includ Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, CroatiaSalvador, Haiti, Samoa, Yemen, and Jordremittances exceed private and ofcial capinows and are the primary source of forecurrency, rendering these countries so pendent on remittances that their econommight collapse if they declined (Hussain 20 World Bank 2006).

134 Levitt Jaworsky


7/31

These monies are used individually andcollectively. They support family members who stay behind. They fund small and largebusinesses (Landolt 2001, Sana & Massey 2005). They support public works and so-cial service projects in sending communi-

ties. Nearly 10% of those who send re-mittances to Latin America, for example,belong to hometown associations (HTAs)that work cooperatively with nongovern-mental organizations (NGOs) in the home-land (Orozco 2006). There are an estimated2000 Mexican HTAs throughout the UnitedStates that contribute up to $60 million a year (Orozco & Lapointe 2004). Sending-country governments are quick to respond. The Mexican government instituted a 3 1

program whereby migrant-generated fundsare matched by funds contributed at the lo-cal, state, and federal government level; ElSalvador and Guatemala have similar match-ing funds programs (Fox & Rivera-Salgado2004, Goldring 2002, Orozco 2006, Popkin2003).States alsoactivelyencourageemigrant investment. Since the 1970s, for example, theIndian government has offered nonresident Indians (NRIs) the opportunity to open spe-cial high-interest bank accounts in U.S. dol-

lars or British pounds that are subject to very lowtaxes. It recently oated specialized bondsthat attracted nearly $10 billion from the di-aspora (Baruah 2005).

Economic activism clearly varies by class.Hi-tech professionals living in Silicon Valley also engage in transnational livelihoods(Morgan 2001, Saxenian 2006, Saxenianet al. 2002, Varma 2006). Transnational en-trepreneurs range from the Nigerian suit-case entrepreneur, selling traditional African

items on the street, to the CEO of a multi-million dollar software company with fran-chises in metro-Boston, London, andKarachi(Levitt 2007). In between is the owner of asmall Brazilian bakery in a Boston suburb, who may be part of the lower class in theUnited States because of the racial hierarchy but is considered as important as the mayorin a rural hometown outside of Governador

Valadares (Beserra 2003, Martes et al.2002).

Because 40% of theworlds labor migrantsmove from one developing country to an-other (particularly in Asia), it is important to look at subregional contexts. Hewison &

Young (2006, p. 3) link state policies, localinstitutional and cultural contexts, and hu-man rights outcomes in their examinationof Asian transnational migration. Yeoh &Chang (2001) look instead at multiple phe-nomena within a single spacethe global city of Singapore. They identify four categoriesof transnational labor and capital ows andthe ways in which they are interdependent:(a) a transnational business class of highly mobile, skilled professional, managerial, and

entrepreneurial elites; (b) a large number of immigrants lling unskilled and semiskilledlow-wage jobs in the urban service economy;(c ) expressive specialists in cultural andartistic venues; and (d ) world tourists attractedby thecitys cosmopolitan ambience.

The implications of simultaneous eco-nomic incorporation are many. The smallstorefront enterprises in what appears to bean ethnic niche or enclave may actually besituated in transnational social elds (Light

& Isralowitz 1997, Zhou 2004). Viewing eth-nic entrepreneurship transnationally, Zhou(2004)argues, brings to light several ways that individualsandcommunitiescanadvance.Us-ing social networks beyond national bordersand utilizing bicultural or bilingual skills may allow migrants to circumvent structural dis-advantages in the host society. Cross-borderties imbue ethnic communities with valuablesocial capital that can foster their horizon-tal and vertical integration. These effects ex-

tend far beyondtheeconomicthe right typeof social capital can help ethnic communi-ties cut across class and spatial boundariesand barriers and help facilitate mobility forthe second generation (Ruble 2005, Zhou2004).

Moreover, micro-level actions havemacro-level consequences. For instance,some countries use the promise of future



8/31

remittances to demonstrate credit worthinessand secure loans (Guarnizo 2003). Not just states, but bilateral, regional, and globalentities (e.g., the World Bank or the Inter-national Organization for Migration) as wellas NGOs have gotten on the remittances as

development panacea bandwagon (Kapur2005, Nyberg-Sorensen et al. 2002). More-over, ethnic entrepreneurship also changesthe receiving context. McEwen et al. (2005)argue that minority ethnic economic activity in Birmingham, England, such as Chinesebusiness networks, ethnic food manufactur-ing, and the Bhangra music industry, havepositively affected the citys future economicdevelopment.

Politics Migrants political transnational practices in-clude a variety of activities such as electoralparticipation (either as voters or as candi-dates), membership in political associations,parties or campaigns in two different coun-tries, lobbying the authorities of one country to inuence its policies toward another, andnation building itself. stergaard-Nielsen(2003a) species three different domains of

action. The rst is homeland politics, com-prised of migrant political activism in thehost country aroundhome country issues, andmay include expatriate voting, electoral cam-paigns, and running for political ofce (cf.Guarnizo et al. 2003). Many researchers ex-amine the pernicious results of long-distancenationalism and its relationship to funda-mentalist religiousmovements (Blom Hansen1991, Kurien 2001), as well as the ways in which migrants use receiving states to pur-

sue foreign policy goals in their homeland(Layton-Henry 2002, Mahler 2000, Skrbi s1999). InEurope, theways inwhichTurks andKurds in various settings are transforming thefunctions of sending states, from politics tocorporate marketing, have been the subject of considerable research and theory (see Caglar2002, stergaard-Nielsen 2003b, amongothers).

The domain of immigrant politics refto those political activities undertaken bcommunity to improve its social statusthe host country, including attempts to iprove access to services, ght discrimtion, or heighten the groups recognition a

rights; it sometimes involves homeland sources (Besserer2003,Fox& Rivera-Salg2004). For example, the Turkish governmhas intervened actively on behalfof itsnatials in Germany (stergaard-Nielsen 2003Not all immigrant politics is transnationalthough aspects of it may become so otime. Some groups organize across bordby building alliances with supporters in otreceiving states who help lobby regionainternational institutions [e.g., Kurdish m

grants pressuring the Council of EuropeEritrean rebels who organized a referendfor independence (Al-Ali et al. 2001, Al-AKoser 2002, cf. Kastoryano 2000 on Muslin Europe)].

Translocal politics differs from the ottwo domains in that it does not always volve host- or home-country governmeat the outset. It includes the activities grants undertake to support specic localiin the home country. The many Caribbe

and Latin American HTAs that nance d velopment projects in their homelands t der this rubric. These primarily economactions are transnational but they becopolitical when the state intervenes to sport or control them (M. Martinelli & J-LeFleur, submitted manuscript).States genallysupportsucheffortsbecause theypromdevelopment.

Simultaneity characterizes the politrealm, not only through these domains of

tion but also through political membershand its attendant rights and responsibiliti Although political borders are increasinpermeable, they do not challenge territor jurisdiction; at the same time, there is a gring overlap in political identities and lestatuses (Baub ock 2003). Bloemraad (20found increasing reports of dual citizensin Canada alongside the persistence of sin

136 Levitt Jaworsky


9/31

national citizenship.Fox(2005) suggeststhreeforms of transnational citizenship: (a) paral-lel, in which individuals are active in morethan one political community, but those com-munities do not themselves come together;(b) simultaneous, referring to collective ac-

tions that in themselves cross borders; and(c ) integrated, which involves multiple lev-els and arenas, which can be parallel and/orsimultaneous, or both horizontal and verti-cal, because activity crosses levels as well asborders. Glick Schiller & Fouron (2001) calltrans-border citizens those who participateformally in the daily life and political prac-ticesanddebatesof two ormore nation-states,claiming rights from and responsibilities tomore than one government (see also Ong

1999, Soysal 1994, Yuval-Davis 1999). SassendescribesUnauthorizedyet Recognizedmi-grants, who have no formal status or rightsbut who practice the duties associated withcitizenship, such as raising a family, schoolingchildren, or holding a job. In contrast, Au-thorized yet Unrecognized migrant citizensmay have full legal status but are not recog-nized as political subjects because of factorssuch as discrimination and cultural stereo-typing (Sassen 1999, pp. 8587). Migrants or

their descendants can also act as social cit-izens, enjoying a range of rights, includingaccessto stateservices, withoutformalcitizen-ship. Many even participate in local electionsinEurope,NewZealand,anda fewU.S. local-ities (Baub ock 2003, Waldrauch 2003). They become a social force, denitely constrainedby legal status, but not completely limitedby it.

Recent scholarship suggests multiplememberships can enhance rather than com-

pete with or contradict each other. Migrantsfrom countries that recognize dual nation-ality are more likely to become naturalizedU.S. citizens than are those from other coun-tries (Escobar 2004, Fox 2005, Jones-Correa2001, Smith 2003). Navigating in transna-tional space has strengthened, rather thannegated, thecontinuingsignicanceof thena-tional. Frequently, the same actors engage in

homeland, new land, and international poli-tics (Escobar 2004, Levitt 2007). For exam-ple, Snel et al. (2006) found that transnationalinvolvement in general does not impede im-migrant integration. Migrant groups that areknown as poorly integrated into Dutch soci-

etyare notany more involved in transnationalactivities and have no stronger identications with countries of origin than others that are well integrated.

The Social Transnational migration scholarship has alsoidentied striking changes in social life, docu-menting transformations in kinship and fam-ily structure and how these inform construc-

tions of class, gender, and race. Studies of transnational kinship document the ways in which family networks that cross bordersare characterized by gendered differences inpower and status. Because migrants need tomaintain ties so that they will have social con-tacts and support should they need to re-turn to their homelands, kin networks can beused exploitatively, a process of transnationalclass differentiation in which the more pros-perous extract labor from persons dened as

kin (Ballard 2001, Bryceson & Vuorela 2002,Chamberlain 2002). A transnational moraleconomy of kin involves putting family rst,such as strategies for collective mobility ormarrying into the right kinship network andaccumulating social capital in the host soci-ety (Ballard 2001, Fog Olwig 2002, Gardner2006, Schmalzbauer 2004).

The boundaries of family and kinship alsochange over the life course (Espiritu 2003,Levitt & Waters 2002, Smith 2006). In many

households, living transnationally across gen-erationsbecomes thenorm. Butwhether indi- vidualsultimatelyforgeor maintainsomekindof transnational connection at some point intheir livesdepends on theextent towhich they are reared in a transnational space (Abelman2002). Pries (2004) found that transnationalstrategies were adopted over several gener-ations, depending on individuals changing



10/31

needs and desires throughout the life cycle. At the point of marriage or childrearing, thesame individuals who showed little regard fora parental homeland and culture may activatetheir connections within a transnational eldinsearch of a spouseor values to teach to their

children (Espiritu & Tran 2002). Much research has focused on living ar-

rangements,nances,andgenerational repro-duction in the everyday lives of transnationalfamilies. Recently, however, scholars have be-gun looking more closely at the experiencesof parents, children, and the elderly, and at how they are gendered. This work nds that,on the one hand, transnational motherhoodtakes a toll because care-giving at a distanceis emotionally stressful for parents and chil-

dren and also challenges prevailing Westernnorms of motherhood (Hondagneu-Sotelo & Avila 1997, Parre nas 2005). On the otherhand, increasingly affordable communicationand travel allow parents to be actively involved in the everyday lives of their childreneven via long distance (Mahler 2001, Parre nas2005). Mazzucato (2007a) shows how migra-tion changes intergenerational relations be-tween parents in Ghana and their migrant children by affecting the ways in which el-

derly care is provided, and in some cases not provided, by migrant children.

Further, researchers have documented theincrease incirculating childrenand theelderly between places of origin and settlement to re-ducethecosts of social reproduction,promotelearning of the mother culture and tongue,and, as often cited by parents, to removechildren from what is perceived as the neg-ative and undisciplined social environment inthe United States (Menj var 2002a, Parre nas

2001). The growing number of transnationaladoptions adds to this circulation, as adop-tiveparents withdifferentethnic backgroundsthan their children strive to provide them with cultural and social background infor-mation they themselves cannot provide; inturn, adopted children transform the culturalmakeup of their educational milieu (Dorow 2006, Volkman 2005).

Micro-level family and kin connectiand practices scale-up to affect broader cial processes, especially with respect to gder relations (Itzigsohn & Giorguli-Sauce2005). Carling (2005) argues that thintrinsic asymmetries characterize relati

between migrants and nonmigrants. Fimigrants and nonmigrants are differently psitioned in relation to transnational moraties. Second, migrants and nonmigrants not enjoy equal access to informationthe transnational social eld. Third, this asymmetry in the distribution of difent forms of resources between migrants nonmigrants. As a result, we see many ctradictions. It can be liberating when grant women become breadwinners and

themselves on more egalitarian footing wmen(Hondagneu-Sotelo 2001). Theipsidhowever, reveals that gender distinctions sometimes reinforced and reinvented to cate hierarchies that are more rigid and tditional than in the homeland and to prot women from what is perceived as hostileimmoral receiving-country culture (Alum1999, Caglar 1995, Espiritu 1992). This coplex webreachesoutside of familyaswomgo to their jobs (which they may n

have had at home), join community assations, or become active in congregatio Women receive multiple, conicting msages from the public and the private spheof both the homeland and the receiving ctext, which they must somehow recon(DeBiaggi 2002, Pessar & Mahler 2003, S2003). Moreover, state policies around wfare, child care, maternity benets, or voregistration,which affectmen andwomen atheir ability to exercise multiplemembersh

differently, also reect the gendered natuof migration (Caglar 2002). Finally, the shnumber of women who migrate has grotremendously over the past two decadesspecial volume of International Migration view focuses on the feminization of migtion, emphasizing the need for theoretiand analytical tools that go beyond the stof sex roles (Donato et al. 2006).

138 Levitt Jaworsky


11/31

Along with gender, class and race arealso constituted in transnational social elds(Gardner & Grillo 2002, Mahler & Pessar2006,Willis2000).The impetusto participateacross borders and the ability to do so variesby both class and race. The differentiated na-

ture of labor migration, discussed above, af-fects more than just economic outcomes; it translates into differences in migrants ac-cess to informal but crucial knowledge andnetworks for success in the mainstream. Incontrast, middle-class and professional mi-grants have sufcient social and cultural cap-ital that they can selectively assimilate ele-ments of where they come from and wherethey settle (Levitt 2007, Pluss 2005, Raj2003).

Further, migrants often confront an en-tirely different racial hierarchy than the onein place in their homelands, which limits theirsocioeconomic status and how American orBritish or Dutch they can become. Theirhome- and host-country mobility trajecto-ries are not always in sync. They may moveup with respect to the home and host coun-tries, move up with respect to one and down with respect to the other, or experience downward mobility in both contexts. Migrants

have to make sense of two often conict-ing socioeconomic and status ladders, andto locate themselves somewhere along themusing measurements that reect the multi-ple places where they live (Levitt & Glick Schiller 2004, Raj 2003, Roth 2006, Smith2006). Some recent work has shown how rst and second generation migrants reinvent re-ligion to help counter their marginalizationandblocked mobilityinhost countries. Kamat & Mathew (2003) describe U.S. Hindus who

join fundamentalistgroups, and how the mul-ticulturalist discourse in place in the UnitedStates, which reies neglected minorities, ac-tually encourages a Hindu-Americanness of this kind. Raj (2000) documents a similarprocess for young Hindus in Great Britain who, in this case, use religion to differen-tiate themselves from Muslims and otherAsians.

The Cultural A growingnumberof researchersare develop-ing conceptual frameworks for thinkingabout migration, the nation, and culture. One de-bate concerns the extent to which global-ization creates a juggernaut of Westernizedculture that reaches even the most remotecorners of the world. A parallel debate involves the age-old structure versus agency question,which,at itsextremes,sees a massiveculture industry inuencing powerless con-sumers versus a view of postcolonial subjectsliberated by the expressive potential of cul-ture. Here, we focus on the different cul-tural mixes created when people from differ-ent places come into real or imagined contact with each other.

Decades ahead of postmodernists, folk-lorist Am erico Paredes (1958) proposedstudying the borderlands as a transnationalunit, analyzing the early twentieth century corr dos (guitar ballads) of the turbulent RioGrande area. In 1940, Cuban anthropolo-gist Fernando Ortiz (1995 [1940]) describedthe transformation that occurs when for-eign material enters a new social context astransculturation. Since then, scholars havecontinued to trace the literary and artistic ex-pression of borderland identities within Latin American frontier zones (see among others Anzald ua1987;Aparicio2004,2006;C ordoba2005).When multiplecultures meet, newcat-egories are created and old ones break down,such that identifyinga single resulting cultureis difcult (Nurse 1999, p. 477).

The migration m elange, or the mixingof cultural traits from the homeland and theculture of residence, forms a hybridity con-tinuum, [a]t one end, an assimilationist hy-bridity that . . . adopts the canon and mimicshegemony and, at the other . . . a destabiliz-ing hybridity that blurs the canon, reversesthe current, subverts thecenters (NederveenPieterse2004,p.73;cf.Aparicio2004).Garc aCanclini(1995) stressesthespatialdimensionsof these processes. Even as traditions becomeappropriated by global culture industries or



12/31

move back and forth with transnational mi-grants, they are deterritorialized from theirlocalities of origin and reterritorializedthat is, relocalized, mixed, and brought into jux-taposition with modern and postmodern dis-course and practices. The result, he argues,

is tiempos y espacios mixtos y h bridicos (liter-ally, mixed and hybrid spaces and times). Thedining culture that emerges at McDonalds inBeijing is not fast food but rather a leisurely,middle- and upper-class experience of free-dom in the public sphere (Watson 1997).Barbie dolls in the Yucatan are not the lib-erated career woman of the North; instead,they are recreated in the image of a tradi-tionally Mayan woman enmeshed in a solidnetwork of family and friends (MacDougall

2003). Caribbean carnivals, where the social world is (literally) turned upside down and so-cial norms are temporarily relaxed, are now held in at least 20 countries where there areCaribbean diasporas, each one slightly differ-ent from the homeland or the others (Nurse1999). Fiestasandcelebrationsassociated withsaints days arechanged similarly as they traveltonewhomes(Burrell2005,Levitt2004).Andin turn, homelandsare reinfusedwith culturalmaterial returned by migrants (Flores 2005,

Levitt 2001, Rodr guez 2005).Inevitably, suchtransformations are tied to

the politics of belonging and citizenship. Thepowerof artandculture allowsmigrantstoex-press, create, remember, and recreate identity, whether individually or collectively, whethernational or hybrid. Music is one of the pri-mary arenas where this occurs (see McCann2004onBrazil,Simonett2001onMexico,and Wong 2004 on Asian Americans). Migrantsuse music to imagine their family home and

assert their place in it as well as in the host society (Flores 2005, Pacini Hernandez et al.2004). For example,bandas arean integral part of everyday life in many indigenous Mexicancommunities, accompanying rites of passageand reinforcing alliances and networks of reciprocity and obligation between villages. Migrationchanges thisculturalformin funda-mental wayssomenowinclude female musi-

cians or players from other communities, smaller bandas that still play traditional msic experiment with new types of music instruments in the United States (Simon2001). The ip side of art and culture as socand political empowerment, some assert

the potential for cultural suicide, or compity with a dominant/colonial hegemon therases the poor and working classes (Apar2004, 2006). Classic examples are the cmodication of rap and the creation of Wo Music (see Aparicio & J aquez 2003, Barr1996, Born & Hesmondhalgh 2000 for soof these debates).

The Religious

Often, religion is subsumed under the brorubricof culture, inpart because theoristsprdicted that it would become less importin modern Western nations. Despite thepredictions,however, religion is alive andwin the public and private spheres. Althousocial scientists in general, and migrascholars in particular, have long overloothe importance of religion in social life, mrecent work aims to ll this lacuna [see Ca& Ecklund 2007 (this volume) for a review

religion and immigration]. Like culture, region supports and is itself transformed byaspectsof themigration experiencethe joney, the process of settlement, and the emgence of ethnic and transnational ties (Ha& Ebaugh 2003, Hirschman 2004, McAli2002, Richman 2005). Religious belongdoes not only link migrants to coreligiists in the home and host countries; gloreligious movements unite members, whever they live, with fellow believers aro

the globe (Bowen 2004, Marquardt 2005)thesame time, thedistinction between cultuand religion is not seamless. Religion and cture often go hand in hand, carrying and reiforcing one another. It is quite difcult some people to sort out Mexicanness frCatholicism, Indianness from being Hindor what it means to be Pakistani from whmeans to be a Muslim, and all of these hy

140 Levitt Jaworsky


13/31

or creolized identities are inuenced by owsacross transnational social elds (Levitt 2007).

Religion also links people through time by allowing them to feel part of a chain of mem-ory connecting the past, present, and future(Hervieu-L eger2000,Tweed1997). Migrants

and nonmigrants whofollow particular saints,deities, or religious teachers also form imag-ined globalcommunities of connection. Inad-dition, religious leaders and teachers meet, inactual and virtual public spheres, to work out how to translate universal faith and values tolocal contexts (Bowen 2004).

New religious architectures create and arecreated by these transnational religious com-munities. Ebaugh & Chafetz (2002) exam-ined the relationship between network ties

among individuals, local-level corporate bod-ies, and international religious bodies andfound that ties frequently crossed betweennodes. Yang (2002) discovered three-layeredtranspacic networks formed by contacts be-tween individuals, single churches, and paraChinese Christian Churches that connectedmigrants in Taiwan, Hong Kong, and main-land China to their counterparts in theUnitedStates and Canada. Levitt (2007) identiedfour types of architectural forms, including

transnational religious corporations, nationalreligious groups operating across borders,exibly specialized religious networks, andtransnational supply chains. Transnational re-ligious institutions may complement or com-pete with political entities on the world stage(Rudolph & Piscatori 1997). Witness Pope John Paul II, who positioned himself as aspokesperson for all humanity, issuing en-cyclicals and taking positions on events not just concerning Catholics and, by so do-

ing, becoming, according to Casanova (1994,p. 130), the high priest of a new universalcivil religion of humanity and the rst citizenof a global civil society.

Scholarsofcivil society agree that religiousnetworks, celebrations, rituals, and organiza-tions serve as an important way for individu-als to build social capital. They are workingto unpack how this takes place in transna-

tional contexts, by helping migrants incor-porate into the new society and stay con-nected to their homelands at the same time(Martes et al. 2002; see also ongoing schol-arship sponsored by the Metanexus InstituteSpiritual Capital Research Program, http://

www.metanexus.net/spiritual capital/ ).Re-ligious institutions certainly play an impor-tant role in socializing the rst and secondgenerations into American politics. They arealso sites where communities access govern-ment assistance and gain public recognition(Ebaugh & Chafetz 2000, Menj var 2002b, Yang 2002). Children of immigrants are in-creasingly turning to inherited religion astheir primary sourceof identity (Bouzar 2004,Geisser & Finan 2002, Laurence & Va sse

2006). In general, these individuals hear theirfaith not as a call to violence but as a pathtoward greater social integration.

Religion also enables migrants to maintaincontinued participation in homeland affairs[Carnes & Yang 2004, Freston 2004, Guest 2003, Menj var 2003, Wellmeier 1998; seealso the January 2005 special issue of Latin American Perspectives about transnational reli-gion in theAmerican hemisphere (cf. V asquez& Williams 2005)]. Transnational migrants

transform religious practice in their home-lands, exporting both more moderate andmore conservativeversionsof faith,often withpolitical and social consequences. Many, forexample, hold NRIs at least partially respon-sible for the recent rise in Hindu Funda-mentalism in India, although, according toKapur (2003), there is little empirical evidenceto support such claims.

On the other hand, others argue that transnational religion can act as a counter-

point to extremist voices (An-Naim 2005,Levitt 2007, Lewis 2003). There is strong ev-idence, for example, that religion encouragesgenerousphilanthropicgiving,whetherornot giving is directed at religious causes. Further,migrants do not funnel all their charitablegiving toward the homeland. Najam (2006),for example, found that Pakistani Americanscharitable contributions were directed about



14/31

equally to religious and issue-based causes, which were only somewhat more likely to bebased in the homeland (60% versus 40%).

FUTURE DIRECTIONS

Although transnational dynamics do not mat-ter to all immigrants all the time, there is anemerging consensus among scholars that wecan no longer study migration solely from ahost-country perspective. There is also gen-eral agreement that the eld must move beyond thick description, single case studies,and quantication to address a set of morefocused themes and questions. In the pre-ceding sections, we outlined several ways in which transnational migration scholars have

addressed their critics. We now need to movetoward articulating a more coherent set of predictive arguments about the causes andconsequences of migration, the codicationof transnational practices by different typesof individual and institutional actors, anda consideration of the relationship betweentransnational practices and immigrant incor-poration in thehost society (Haller & Landolt 2005). At their core, these questions concernsimultaneityits various forms, the factors

thatproducethem, andtheirconsequencesforeconomic, political, and social life. In this sec-tion, we outline some fruitfuldevelopments inmethodology and three promisingareas of re-search: (a) space, place, and the nature of em-beddedness; (b) the variable consequences of transnationalism (i.e., both negative and pos-itive outcomes); and (c ) comparative studiesof international migration and internal mi-gration. A continued emphasis on transfor-mations in the social construction of gender,

class, and race across borders unites all three.

Methodological Implicationsof a Transnational Optic The new insights gleaned from studying mi-gration througha transnational lensnamely,the need to include nonmigrants as well asmigrants, consider the multiple sites and lev-

els of transnational social elds beyond the sending and receiving country, rethink asumptionsabout belonging, and trace thehtorical continuityof theseprocessesdemamethodological shifts. Transnational migtion studies requires notjust askinga differe

set of questions about different social spabut developing new methods for doing so

This is what Wimmer & Glick Schi(2003) meant when they urged scholarsmove beyond methodological nationalismthe assumption that the nation-state is tnatural, logical category for organizing solife. To do so, they argue, requires moving b yond simplistic comparisonsbetween discrnation-state containers and being willingconceptualize spaces as bounded in the w

that the people living within them actuaperceive them. Anzald ua (1987) described space between the United States and Mexas a borderland, arguing that the politiborder articially bifurcated what was rea unitary social and emotional space. Sa(1996) refers to such spaces as analytical derlands, where the overlap and interactof the local and global creates a fronzone that requires careful analysis of its cial thicknessandempiricalspecicity. Sm

(2005) and Mahler & Hansing (2005) about a transnationalism of the middle,overcome what has become a persistencsimply categorize phenomena as simply frbelow or from above.

But most existing data sets, historiogphies, and ethnographies make these typeanalyses difcult if not impossible. Survbasedonnation-stateunitsarenotdesignedcapture ows, linkages,or identities that crother spatial units or the phenomena and d

namicswithinthem (Levitt & Khagram200In his study of 648 Mexican migrants, P(2004) found he could not identify commtrajectories or patterns across the life coubecause he did not have the data that allowhim to capture adequately lives lived acthe sending and receiving context. Withenlarging the conceptual framework to clude recognition of pluri-local social spa

142 Levitt Jaworsky


15/31

we will probably lose touch with a growingpart of the reality of migration, and thus, beunable to sufciently understand and explainit, he argues (Pries 2004, pp. 29, 31).

Social scientists have embraced suchchallenges and have begun to conceptual-

ize ways to study transnational migrationmore effectively. Many argue for multi-sited(Burawoy 2003, Fitzgerald 2006, Marcus1995, Mazzucato 2007b) or cosmopolitan(Appadurai 1996) ethnographies that movebeyondsimplystudying immigrants in the re-ceiving context and instead conduct empiri-cal research at all sites of the transnationalsocial eld. Even many studies that do look at the homeland continue to focus predomi-nantlyon thenewcontext andincorporate the

second country only asa sourceofbackgroundinformation; such methodologies do not suc-cessfully integrate both contexts into one so-cial eld (Mazzucato 2007b). Instead, we sug-gest the goal is a thick and empirically richmappingof howglobal, macro-level processesinteract with local lived experiences (V asquez& Marquardt 2003, p. 227) that are repre-sentative of broader trends (Fitzgerald 2006,p. 19). In the same vein, Mazzucato (2007b)studied transnational networks in which peo-

ple tied to migrants are followed along withthe migrants themselves to capture the simul-taneity of transnational ows and their effectson those who stay behind as well as those whomove.

Others propose revisits to the sites of prior ethnographies, usually done by some-one else, to capture temporal and historicalelements (Burawoy 2003, Fitzgerald 2006). The extended case method and reexiveethnography use (a) the observer as partic-

ipant, (b) reconstruction of theory, (c ) inter-nal processes, and (d ) external forces, but the extended case concentrates on changesin social processes, whereas the reexiveethnography examines the dialogue betweenconstructivism and realism (Burawoy 2003,p. 649). Tarrow and colleagues (McAdam & Tarrow 2004, Tarrow 2005) suggest examin-ing the scale shifts that occur within social

movements. Through the processes of diffu-sion, brokerage, attribution of similarity, andemulation, scales can shift upwardmoving,forexample,from local to national toglobalor downward, as in Porto Allegre, where mo-bilization and political contention was gener-

ated at a global level, with activists then goinghome and rooting themselves into the local.

Glick Schiller et al. (2006) write, however,that much of this work continues to clingstubbornly to nationally dened categoriesthat obscure transnational and translocal pro-cesses. It does not address what gender, race,and class actually mean when they are con-structed transnationally. These authors pro-pose focusing on incorporation, dened asthe processesof building or maintaining net-

works of social relations through which anindividual or organized group of individualsbecomes linked to an institution recognizedby one or more nation-states (Glick Schilleret al. 2006, p. 614). Migrants do not simply become integrated into new settings througha single, exclusive pathany one (or more)modes of incorporation can each follow mul-tiple pathways (cf. Werbner 2000). By not as-suming a priori that migrants follow a partic-ular pathway, the researcher focuses instead

on how salient categories are actually con-structed across time and space. Further, na-tional migration and citizenship regimes, themanagement of racial, ethnic, andreligious diversity, and the relationship between churchand state all tip the balance between host-country incorporation and enduring transna-tional involvements (Levitt 2007).

The Nature of Embeddedness

and the Spatial Arenas in Which It Takes Place Much exciting recent work calls attention tothe centrality of space in shaping the mi-gration experience (Brettell 2006). Migra-tion researchers in Europe, in particular, havenoted the relationship between the size andsignicance of particular cities and patternsof incorporation and settlement (Bommes



16/31

& Radtke 1996; see also articles in Rex1996). Brenner (1999), Smith (1993), andSwyngedouw (1997), among others, buildingon initial formulations by Lefebvre (1991),have developedand theorizedthetermscaleas a way to assess the differential positioning

of cities within hierarchies of power. An at-tention to urban scale, coupled with a com-parison of immigration policy in different national contexts, illuminates why the experi-enceof constructing transnational social eldsin global cities can be so similar (Eade 1997,Glick Schiller et al. 2006, Sassen 2001). Pries(2005) broadly conceptualizes spaces as abso-lutist (exclusive geographies like the nation-state) or relativist (dense, durable, and cross-ing borders), calling for care in specifying the

societal and geographical congurations of such spaces and articulating two intersectinganalytical dimensionsscale and domain.

In other words, place-specic contextsmatterspaces become actual places whenparticular global ows convergebe theyma-terial or ideational. The nature of embed-dedness, as well as modes of migrant in-corporation, therefore, depends on previousculture and history. Just as underlying geo-logicalstrata affect the shape and form of sub-

sequent layers, so existing social patterns anddynamics inuence successive arrangements. Migrants place-making ability, and how they go about it, is shaped by prior cultural inter-sections in any given place and how they arearticulated over time. It is important, then,not just to sort out how simultaneity is shapedby different congurations of space, but alsoto pay attention to how the historical prece-dents and overlays in a particular place shapemigrants experiences and actions. In addi-

tion, the hierarchically ranked status of send-ing nations is often reected in the statusof its diaspora (Patterson 2006). A countrysrank within the worlds geopolitical order canstrongly inuence how its emigrants are re-ceived. At the same time, doing well in thehost country can favorably affect the statusof transnational communities within both thereceiving society and the broader global sys-

tem (Glick Schiller & Levitt 2006, Patter2006).

Taken together, spatial scales, the culturhistorical particularity of places, and global nature of what ows through thproduce different kinds of transnational

cial elds, or arenas with different clusof transnational activities. The people, ornizations, and networks that constitute aare constituted by these elds are embded in them in different ways, whichturn, produces different iterations of transntional involvements. Roth (2006), for exple, found that the Dominicans and PueRicans she studied embraced different raand ethnic identities because the social ein which they were embedded varied with

spect to the nature of transnational contathe level of institutional and cultural suppfor the identity messages being transmittand how long such messages were commcated. Levitt (2003, 2007) found that difent cultural practices, such as the abilityinvent kinship ties or membership in a cor caste group, produced different patternstransnational involvement. A major reseatask, then, is to specify the types and dimsions of different kinds of social elds

their effects on migrant trajectories. A secand related task is to delineate how varikinds of social elds intersect with class, nationality, and gender. Migrants vary cosiderably, and broad, taken-for-granted cagories such as ethnicity, nationality, or rgion mask the diversity within what canextremely heterogeneous groups.

The Good, the Bad, and the Global:

Variable Consequences of Transnationalism A second set of questions explores the coquences of transnational migration. Thougrowing more nuanced in their approatransnational migration studies still tendbe more positive than negative. Future wneeds to take a hard look at what the deminants of positiveandnegative outcomes

144 Levitt Jaworsky


17/31

and to explore the relationshipbetween them.Some work already addresses these questions with respect to economics, citing transna-tional migrations benets and costs. Eckstein& Barberia (2002) argue, for example, that re-mittances have led to increased inequality in

Cuba. Others worry that sending states be-come dependent on migrants, devising devel-opment strategies based on migrants futurecontributions andlooking to them tosolvetheproblems the state has been unable to solve(Levitt & Nyberg Srensen 2004, Mahler2000). Relations between migrant organiza-tions and civil society in the home country are not always balanced, which can reinforceor exacerbate gender and power hierarchies(Goldring 2002).Suchorganizationsareoften

undemocratic, reproducing clientistic prac-tices within families and communities (Fox &Rivera-Salgado 2004). Receiving country mi-gration policies can also negatively affect theability of migrants to send remittances homeand to invest in their home country (Martin2001).Finally, some argue that remittance be-havior impedes sending mobility in the host country and may make it more difcult formigrants to achieve sufcient capital to re-turn home (Levitt & Nyberg Srensen 2004,

Martin 2001). Although this scholarship acknowledges

that migration entails trade-offs, not enoughisknownaboutwhat determines whythe cardsfallastheydo.Wedonotseeksimpleeither/oranswers,but ratheranswers that specify under what conditionsand in what contexts transna-tional migration has positive and/or negativeconsequences, in what combinations, and for whom? The political, economic, and culturalstructures ofpowerthat span socialeldsmust

be takenseriously. Statepolicies, philosophiesof integration, citizenship regimes, and cul-tural context matter. Caglar (2006), for ex-ample, proposes a framework for exploringthe differential growth and success of HTAsin the context of changing state-space rela-tions under neoliberalism. Kurien (2002) con-ducted a comparative ethnography of threecommunities in Kerala, India that sent large

numbers of temporary workers to the MiddleEast. She found differential outcomes in mi-gration patternsandmigration-inducedsocialchange.

The answer is not as simple as looking at discrete outcomes, however. Policies such as

dual citizenship, expatriatevoting, and invest-ment incentives that attract emigrants long-term, long-distance membership raise severalquestions about the migration-development nexus. On a macroeconomic level, Orozco(2005) characterizes the development impact of migration with 5 Tstransfers, transport,tourism,telecommunication, and trade. Somebelieve that migration affects these sectors ineconomically benecial ways. Migrants con-tribute nancially to home country devel-

opment not only through economic remit-tances but also by generating a demand forlocal goods and services and imbuing those at home with more purchasing power (Guarnizo2003). But what is the effect on household-level dynamics and decision makingare re-mittances spent productively or merely usedfor consumption? Although much researchsuggests the latter, focusing on appliance,home-improvement, and clothing purchases,recent studies have found that remittances

also nance education that benets sub-sequent generations and that they oftenfunctionas quasi-pensions (Nyberg-Sorensenet al. 2002, Srensen & Van Hear 2003). A higher percentage has also been allocatedtoward improvements in health care andagriculture (Andrade-Ekhoff & Silva-Avalos2003). A long-term perspective is required asthe rst generation invests in the health andeducation of their children in the hopes of later returns.

Another set of questions concerns the roleof collective resources. At the same time that HTAs are praised as powerful development engines, most groups have demonstrated lim-ited capacity to oversee and manage suchprojects, underscoring the need for trainingandtechnicalassistancebeforemorechalleng-ing and ambitious activities are undertaken(Orozco & Lapointe 2004). Governments



18/31

may be able to play a positive role in build-ing skills and capacities as well as attractinginvolvement from the private sector. Hereagain, the answers depend on taking into ac-count the local, national, regional, and globalfactors at work within transnational elds

(Levitt & Nyberg Srensen 2004). One way to untangle the effects of these factors is tocompare internal migration and transnationalmigration. What difference does it make forsocioeconomic mobility, gender, or develop-ment outcomes, toname a few, when migrantscross a national border rather than movingfrom a rural to an urban context within theirown country?

CONCLUSION: TRANSNATIONAL MIGRATION SCHOLARSHIP AND THE LONGUE DUR EE

We argue here for an approach to transna-tional migration that highlights the longuedur ee and sees contemporary globalizationas a stage in ongoing historical processes (cf.Nederveen Pieterse2004).Thefrequencyandintensity of migrant transnational practicesebb and ow in response to the intensica-

tion or slackening of globalization. Historical

precedents, cultural resonance, and institional models also strongly inuence thimpact and scope. Even at their minimuhowever, multiple memberships and hybidentities are increasingly the norm raththan the exception.

Transnationalmigrationscholarship is opiece of the emerging eld of transnatiostudies. In light of contemporary globalition, scholars acknowledge that the sancof borders and boundaries is a very recdevelopment, both in human history andsocial scientic theory. They also recognthat humans continually create and recreboundaries, moving, trading, and commucating across them, thereby making uidand change a part of all human social for

tions and processes. Although scholars fra number of different disciplines workcross-border processes, they rarely see theselves as participants in the same convetion. Transnational studies represents a cocertedeffort to take a systematic andsynthelook at how governance, social movemeincome-earning, and religious life cha when they are enacted across borders how we must rethink identity, belonging, ademocracy in response (Levitt & Khagr

2008).

LITERATURE CITED Abelman N. 2002. Mobilizing Korean family ties: cultural conversations across the borde Wo

Pap. 0211. Transnatl. Communities Progr., Oxford Univ., Oxford, UK Al-Ali N, Black R, Koser K. 2001. The limits to transnationalism: Bosnian and Eri

refugees in Europe as emerging transnational communities. Ethn. Racial Stud. 24:5796 Al-Ali NS, Koser K. 2002. New Approaches to Migration? Transnational Communities

Transformation of Home. London/New York: Routledge Alba R, Nee V. 2003. Remaking the American Mainstream: Assimilation and Contemporary

gration. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press Alumkal AW. 1999. Preserving patriarchy: assimilation, gender norms, and second-genera

Korean American evangelicals. Qual. Sociol. 22:12740 An-NaimAA. 2005. The interdependence of religion, secularism,and human rights: prospe

for Islamic societies. Common Knowl. 11:5680 Andrade-Ekhoff K, Silva-Avalos CM. 2003. Globalization of the Periphery: The Challen

Transnational Migration for Local Development in Central America. El Salvador: Lat. ASch. Soc. Sci. (FLASCO)

146 Levitt Jaworsky


19/31

Anzald ua G. 1987. Borderlands: The New Mestiza = La Frontera. San Francisco: Spinsters/Aunt Lute

Aparicio FR. 2004. U.S. Latino expressive cultures. In The Columbia History of Latinos in theUnited States Since 1960, ed. DG Gutierrez, pp. 35590. New York: Columbia Univ. Press

Aparicio FR. 2006. Writing migrations: transnational readings of Rosario Ferre and VictorHernandez Cruz. Lat. Stud. 4:7995

Aparicio FR, J aquez CF, eds. 2003. Musical Migrations: Transnationalism and Cultural Hybridityin Latin/o America. New York: Palgrave Macmillan Appadurai A. 1996. Modernity at Large: Dimensions of Globalization. Minneapolis: Univ. Minn.

PressBallard R. 2001. The impact of kinship on the economic dynamics of transnational networks: reec-

tions on some South Asian developments. Work. Pap. 0114. Transnatl. Communities Progr.,Oxford Univ., Oxford, UK

Barkan ER. 2006. Introduction: immigration, incorporation, assimilation, and the limits of transnationalism. J. Am. Ethn. Hist. 25:732

Barrett J. 1996. World music, nation and postcolonialism. Cult. Stud. 10:23747Baruah N. 2005. Remittances to least developed countries (LDCs): issues, impacts, policies, practices

and enhancing development impact. Rep. Int. Organ. Migr. Geneva: Labor Migr. Serv.

Basch L, Glick Schiller N, Blanc-Szanton C, eds. 1994. Nations Unbound: Transnational Projects, Postcolonial Predicaments, and Deterritorialized Nation-States . London: Gordon & Breach

Baub ockR.2003.Towardsa politicaltheoryofmigrant transnationalism. Int. Migr. Rev.37:70023

Beserra B. 2003. Brazilian Immigrants in the United States: Cultural Imperialism and Social Class .New York: LFB Sch.

Besserer F. 1999. Estudios transnacionales y ciudadan a transnacional. In Fronteras Fragmen-tadas , ed. G Mummert, pp. 21538. Zamora, Mex.: El Col. Michoac an Cent. Investig.Desarrollo Estado Michoac an

Besserer F. 2003. Contesting community: cultural struggles of a Mixtec transnational community.PhD thesis. Stanford Univ., Stanford, CA

Blanc CS, Basch L, Schiller NG. 1995. Transnationalism, nation-states, and culture. Curr. Anthropol. 36:68386

BloemraadI. 2004.Whoclaims dualcitizenship?The limits of postnationalism, thepossibilitiesof transnationalism, and the persistence of traditional citizenship. Int. Migr. Rev. 38:389426

Blom Hansen T. 1991. The Saffron Wave: Democracy and Hindu Nationalism in Modern India.Delhi: Oxford Univ. Press

Bommes M, Radtke FO. 1996. Migration into big cities and small towns: an uneven process with limited need for multiculturalism. Innovation 9:7586

Born G, Hesmondhalgh D. 2000. Western Music and Its Others: Difference, Representation, and Appropriation in Music . Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press

Bose S. 2006. A Hundred Horizons: The Indian Ocean in the Age of Global Empire. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press

BouzarD.2004.MonsieurIslam NexistePas: Pour uneD esislamisation desD ebats . Paris:HachetteBowen J. 2004. Beyond migration: Islam as a transnational public space. J. Ethn. Migr. Stud.

30:87994Brenner N. 1999. Beyond state-centrism? Space, territoriality and geographical scale in glob-

alization studies. Theory Soc. 28:3978Brettell CB. 2006. Introduction: global spaces/local places: transnationalism, diaspora, and the

meaning of home. Identities 13:32734



20/31

Bryceson DF, Vuorela U. 2002. The Transnational Family: New European Frontiers and G Networks . Oxford/New York: Berg

Burawoy M. 2003. Revisits: an outline of a theory of reexive ethnography. Am. Sociol. 68:64579

Burrell JL. 2005. Migration and the transnationalization of esta customs in Todos SanCuchumat an, Guatemala. Lat. Am. Perspect. 32:1232

Cadge W, Ecklund EH. 2007. Immigration and religion. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 33:35979Caglar A. 1995. German Turks in Berlin: social exclusion and strategies for social mob

New Community 21:30923Caglar A. 2002. Encountering the state in migration-driven social elds: Turkish immig

Europe: Habilitationsschrift (Postdoc. thesis). Free Univ., BerlinCaglarA. 2006. Hometownassociations, the rescalingof state spatiality andmigrant grassro

transnationalism. Global Netw. 6:1Carling J. 2005. The human dynamics of transnationalism: asymmetries of solidarity and fru

Presented at SSRC Workshop Migr. Dev., New York, Nov 1719Carnes T, Yang F. 2004. Asian American Religions: The Making and Remaking of Bord

Boundaries . New York: N.Y. Univ. Press

Casanova J. 1994. Public Religions in the Modern World . Chicago: Univ. Chicago PressChamberlain M. 2002. Small worlds: childhood and empire. J. Family Hist. 27:186200Chan S. 2006. Chinese American Transnationalism: The Flow of People, Resources, and Ide

China and America during the Exclusion Era. Philadelphia: Temple Univ. PressC ordoba MST. 2005. Sketches of identities from the MexicoUS border (or the other w

around). Comp. Am. Stud. 3:495513Dahinden J. 2005. Contesting transnationalism? Lessons from the study of Albanian migrati

networks from former Yugoslavia. Global Netw. 5:191208DeBiaggi SDD. 2002. Changing Gender Roles: Brazilian Immigrant Families in the U.S N

York: LFB Sch.Donato KM, Gabaccia D, Holdaway J, Manalansan M, Pessar PR. 2006. A glass half

Gender in migration studies. Int. Migr. Rev. 40:326Dorow SK. 2006. Transnational Adoption: A Cultural Economy of Race, Gender, and Kins. N

York: N.Y. Univ. PressEade J. 1997. Living the Global City: Globalization as a Local Process . London: RoutledgeEbaugh HR, Chafetz JS. 2000. Religion and the New Immigrants: Continuities and Adapta

Immigrant Congregations . New York: AltaMiraEbaugh HR, Chafetz JS. 2002. Religion Across Borders: Transnational Immigrant Net

Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMiraEckstein S. 2004.On deconstructing immigrantgenerations: cohorts andtheCuban emigr e experie

Work. Pap., Cent. Comp. Immigr. Stud., Univ. Calif., San DiegoEckstein S, Barberia L. 2002. Grounding immigrant generations in history: Cuban Americ

and their transnational ties. Int. Migr. Rev. 36:799837Escobar C. 2004. Dual citizenship and political participation: migrants in the interplay

United States and Colombian politics. Lat. Stud. 2:4569Espiritu YL. 1992. Asian American Panethnicity: Bridging Institutions and Identities . Philadelph

Temple Univ. PressEspiritu YL. 2003. Home Bound Filipino Lives Across Cultures, Communities, and C

Berkeley: Univ. Calif. PressEspiritu YL, Tran T. 2002. Vi et Nam, Nu oc T oi (Vietnam, My Country): Vietnam

Americans and transnationalism. See Levitt & Waters 2002, pp. 36798

148 Levitt Jaworsky


21/31

Faist T. 2000a. Transnationalization in international migration: implications for the study of citizenship and culture. Ethn. Racial Stud. 23:189222

Faist T. 2000b. The Volume and Dynamics of International Migration and Transnational Social Spaces . Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press

Fitzgerald D. 2006. Towards a theoretical ethnography of migration. Qual. Soc. 29:124Flores J. 2005. The diaspora strikes back: reections on cultural remittances. NACLA Rep. Am.

39:2126Fog Olwig K. 2002. A wedding in the family: home making in a global kin network. Global

Netw. 2:20518Foner N. 2000. From Ellis Island to JFK: New Yorks Two Great Waves of Immigration. New Haven,

CT: Yale Univ. PressFouronG,GlickSchiller N.2002. Thegeneration of identity: redeningthesecond generation

within a transnational social eld. See Levitt & Waters 2002, pp. 168208Fox J. 2005. Unpacking transnational citizenship. Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci. 8:171201Fox J, Rivera-Salgado G, eds. 2004. Indigenous Mexican Migrants in the United States . La Jolla,

CA: UCSD/Cent. Comp. Immigr. Stud. Cent. US-Mex. Stud.Freston P. 2004. Evangelicals and Politics in Asia, Africa and Latin America. Cambridge, UK:

Cambridge Univ. PressGabaccia DR. 2000. Italys Many Diasporas . Seattle: Univ. Wash. PressGabacciaDR,Ottanelli FM.2001. Italian Workersof theWorld:LaborMigrationand the Formation

of Multiethnic States . Urbana: Univ. Ill. PressGarc a Canclini N. 1995. Hybrid Cultures: Strategies for Entering and Leaving Modernity. Transl.

CL Chiappari, SL L opez. Minneapolis: Univ. Minn. PressGardner K. 2006. The transnational work of kinship and caring: Bengali-British marriages in

historical perspective. Global Netw. 6:37387Gardner K, Grillo R. 2002. Transnational households and ritual: an overview. Global Netw.

2:17990Geisser V, Finan K. 2002. LIslam a l Ecole. Paris: Inst. Natl. Hautes Etudes S ecur.

GilroyP.1993. TheBlack Atlantic:Modernityand Double Consciousness . Cambridge, MA: HarvardUniv. Press

Glick Schiller N. 2003. The centrality of ethnography in the study of transnational migration.In American Arrivals: Anthropology Engages the New Immigration, ed. N Foner, pp. 99128.Santa Fe, NM: Sch. Am. Res. Press

Glick Schiller N, Basch LG, Blanc-Szanton C. 1992. Towards a Transnational Perspective on Migration: Race, Class, Ethnicity, and Nationalism Reconsidered . New York: NY Acad. Sci.

Glick SchillerN, CaglarA, Guldbrandsen TC.2006. Beyondtheethnic lens: locality, globality,and born-again incorporation. Am. Ethnol. 33:61233

Glick Schiller N, Fouron GE. 2001. Georges Woke Up Laughing: Long-Distance Nationalism and the Search for Home. Durham, NC: Duke Univ. Press

Glick Schiller N, Levitt P. 2006. Havent we heard this somewhere before? A substantive reviewof transnational migration studies by way of a reply to Waldinger and Fitzgerald . Work. Pap.0601. Cent. Migr. Dev., Princeton Univ.

Goldring L. 2002. The Mexican state and transmigrant organizations: negotiating the bound-aries of membership and participation. Lat. Am. Res. Rev. 37:5599

Grasmuck S, PessarPR. 1991.Between Two Islands: Dominican International Migration. Berkeley:Univ. Calif. Press

Guarnizo LE. 1997. The emergence of a transnational social formation and the mirage of return migration among Dominican transmigrants. Identities 4:281322



22/31

Guarnizo LE. 2000. Notes on transnationalism. Presented at Transnatl. Migr. Comp. TheoRes. Perspect., Oxford, UK, June

Guarnizo LE. 2003. The economics of transnational living. Int. Migr. Rev. 37:66699Guarnizo LE, Portes A, Haller W. 2003. Assimilation and transnationalism: determinants

transnational political action among contemporary migrants. Am. J. Sociol. 108:1211Guest KJ. 2003. God in Chinatown: Religion and Survival in New Yorks Evolving Imm

Community. New York: N.Y. Univ. PressHagan J, Ebaugh HR. 2003. Calling upon the sacred: migrants use of religion in the migratiprocess. Int. Migr. Rev. 37:114562

HallerW, Landolt P. 2005. The transnational dimensions of identity formation: adult childreof immigrants in Miami. Ethn. Racial Stud. 28:11821214

Hatton TJ, Williamson JG. 1994. Migration and the International Labor Market, 18501New York: Routledge

Hervieu-L eger D. 2000. Religion as a Chain of Memory. Cambridge, UK: Polity Hewison K, Young K. 2006. Transnational Migration and Work in Asia. London: RoutledgeHirschman C. 2004. The role of religion in the origins and adaptation of immigrant group

the United States. Int. Migr. Rev. 38:120633Hondagneu-Sotelo P. 2001. Dom estica: Immigrant Workers Cleaning and Caring in the Sh

of Afuence. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. PressHondagneu-Sotelo P, Avila E. 1997. Im here but Im there: the meanings of Latina tran

tional motherhood. Gender Soc. 11:548Hussain M. 2005. Measuring migrant remittances: from the perspective of the European Com

Presented at World Bank Int. Tech. Meet. Meas. Migr. Remit., Jan. 2425, WashingtoDC

Itzigsohn J.2000.Immigrationandtheboundaries ofcitizenship: theinstitutionsof immigranpolitical transnationalism. Int. Migr. Rev. 34:112654

ItzigsohnJ, CabralCD,Medina EH, Vazquez O. 1999. Mapping Dominican transnationalismnarrow and broad transnational practices. Ethn. Racial Stud. 22:31639

Itzigsohn J, Giorguli-Saucedo S. 2005. Incorporation, transnationalism, and gender: imgrant incorporation and transnational participation as gendered processes. Int. Migr. R39:895920

Itzigsohn J, Saucedo SG. 2002. Immigrant incorporation and sociocultural transnationali Int. Migr. Rev. 36:76698

Jacoby T, ed. 2004. Reinventing the Melting Pot: The New Immigrants and What It Mean American. New York: Basic Books

Jones-CorreaM. 2001. Under two ags: dual nationality in Latin America and its consequenfor naturalization in the United States. Int. Migr. Rev. 35:9971029

Joppke C, Morawska ET, eds. 2003. Towards Assimilation and Citizenship: Immigrants in L Nation-States. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan

Kamat S, Mathew B. 2003. Mapping political violence in a globalized world: the case of Hnationalism. Soc. Justice 30:417

Kapur D. 2003. Indian diasporic philanthropy: some observations. Presented at Global EquInitiatives Workshop Diaspora Philanthr. China & India, Harvard Univ., May

Kapur D. 2005. Remittances: thenewdevelopment mantra? In Remittances: Development Iand Future Prospects , ed. SMMaimbo, D Ratha,pp.33161. Washington, DC:World Ban

Kasinitz P, Waters M, Mollenkopf J, Anil M. 2002. Transnationalism and the childrenimmigrants in contemporary New York. See Levitt & Waters 2002, pp. 96122

Kastoryano R. 2000. Settlement, transnational communities and citizenship. Int. Soc. Sc52:30712

150 Levitt Jaworsky


23/31

Kearney M. 1995. The local and the global: the anthropology of globalization and transna-tionalism. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 24:54765

Keohane RO,NyeJS.1971. Transnational Relationsand WorldPolitics . Cambridge, MA: HarvardUniv. Press

Kim N. 2006. Patriarchy is so Third World: Korean immigrant women and migrating white Western masculinity. Soc. Probl. 53:51936

Kivisto P. 2001. Theorizing transnational immigration: a critical review of current efforts. Ethn. Racial Stud. 24:54977Kivisto P. 2005. Incorporating Diversity: Rethinking Assimilation in a Multicultural Age. Boulder,

CO: ParadigmKoopmans R, Statham P. 2003. How national citizenship shapes transnationalism: migrant

and minority claims-making in Germany, Britain and the Netherlands. See Joppke & Morawska 2003, pp. 195238

Kurien PA. 2001. Religion, ethnicity, and politics: Hindu and Muslim Indian immigrants inthe United States. Ethn. Racial Stud. 24:26393

Kurien PA. 2002. Kaleidoscopic Ethnicity: International Migration and the Reconstruction of Com-munity Identities in India. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers Univ. Press

Kyle D. 2000. Transnational Peasants: Migrations, Networks, and Ethnicity in Andean Ecuador

.Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press

LaliotouI. 2004. Transatlantic Subjects: Acts of Migrationand Cultures of TransnationalismBetweenGreece and America. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press

Landolt P. 2001. Salvadoran economic transnationalism: embedded strategies for house-hold maintenance, immigrant incorporation, and entrepreneurial expansion. Global Netw.1:21742

Laurence J, Va sse J. 2006. Integrating Islam: Political and Religious Challenges in Contemporary France. Washington, DC: Brookings Inst.

Layton-Henry Z. 2002. Transnational communities: citizenship and African-Caribbeans in Birm-ingham. Work. Pap. 0208. Transnatl. Communities Progr., Oxford Univ., Oxford, UK

Lefebvre H. 1991. The Production of Space. Oxford: BlackwellLeichtmanMA. 2005.Thelegacy of transnational lives:beyond therstgeneration ofLebanese

in Senegal. Ethn. Racial Stud. 28:66386Levitt P. 2001. The Transnational Villagers . Berkeley: Univ. Calif. PressLevitt P. 2003. Keeping feet in both worlds: transnational practices and immigrant incorpora-

tion in the United States. See Joppke & Morawska 2003, pp. 17794Levitt P. 2004. I feel I am a citizen of the world and of a church without borders: the Latino religious

experience. Presented at Lat. Past Inuence, Future Power. Conf. Tomas Rivera Policy Inst., Jan. 31Feb. 1, Newport Beach, CA

Levitt P. 2007. God Needs No Passport: How Immigrants are Changing the American Religious Landscape. New York: New Press

Levitt P, DeWind J, Vertovec S. 2003. International perspectives on transnational migration:an introduction. Int. Migr. Rev. 37:56575

Levitt P, Glick Schiller N. 2004. Conceptualizing simultaneity: a transnational social eldperspective on society. Int. Migr. Rev. 38:100239

Levitt P, Khagram S. 2008. Constructing transnational studies. In The Transnational Studies Reader , ed. S Khagram, P Levitt. New York: Routledge. In press

Levitt P, Nyberg Srensen N. 2004. The transnational turn in migration studies. Glob. Migr. Perspect. 6:213

LevittP, Waters MC,eds. 2002. TheChanging Face of Home: The Transnational Livesof theSecond Generation. New York: Russell Sage Found.



24/31

Lewis P. 2003. Christians and Muslims in the West: from isolation to shared citizenship? I J. Study Christ. Church 3:77100

Light IH, Isralowitz R. 1997. Immigrant Entrepreneurs and Immigrant Absorption in the UStates and Israel . Aldershot, UK: Ashgate

Lucassen LACJ. 2006. Is transnationalism compatible with assimilation? Examples Western Europe since 1850. IMIS-Beitr age29:1536.http://www.imis.uni-osnabrueck.

de/pdfles/imis29.pdf MacDougall JP. 2003. Transnational commodities as local cultural icons: Barbie dol

Mexico. J. Popul. Cult. 37:25775 MahlerSJ. 1998. Theoreticaland empiricalcontributionstowarda research agenda for transn

tionalism. See Smith & Guarnizo 1998, pp. 64100 Mahler SJ. 2000. Constructing international relations: the role of transnational migrants

other non-state actors. Identities 7:197232 Mahler SJ. 2001. Transnational relationships: the struggle to communicate across bord

Identities 7:583619 Mahler SJ, Hansing K. 2005.

transnational migration studies

Documents