Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

CiteULike is a free service for managing and discovering scholarly references - click here to get started.

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Critique of Anthropology
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Binford, L.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Migrant Remittances and (Under)Development in Mexico

Leigh Binford

Benemérita Universidad Autónoma de Puebla, Mexico, avocados{at}compuserve.com.mx

This article examines two heuristically defined positions regarding the relationship between international migration and rural economic development in Mexico: the `structuralist' or `historical structuralist' position of the 1970s and early 1980s that argued that remittances do not lead to rural economic development; and the `functionalist' position of the 1990s that argued the opposite. The author critiques systematically the functionalist position, then situates it politically in the context of failed neoliberal economic policies. He argues for the need to study international migration as a total social process, that takes into account the comparative impact of migrant labor on the US and Mexican economies. Despite its subordination of social actors to determining social structures, the structural approach offers a better starting point for a reformulated approach to the social and economic consequences of international migration in the contemporary world.

Key Words: economic development • globalization • Mexico • migration • remittances

Critique of Anthropology, Vol. 23, No. 3, 305-336 (2003)
DOI: 10.1177/0308275X030233004
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Prog Hum GeogrHome page
M. Woods
Engaging the global countryside: globalization, hybridity and the reconstitution of rural place
Progress in Human Geography, August 1, 2007; 31(4): 485 - 507.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Critique of AnthropologyHome page
R. Giulianotti
Towards a Critical Anthropology of Voice: The Politics and Poets of Popular Culture, Scotland and Football
Critique of Anthropology, December 1, 2005; 25(4): 339 - 359.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Critique of AnthropologyHome page
J. Cohen, R. Jones, and D. Conway
Why Remittances Shouldn't Be Blamed for Rural Underdevelopment in Mexico: A Collective Response to Leigh Binford
Critique of Anthropology, March 1, 2005; 25(1): 87 - 96.
[PDF]