In the two preceding sections, theories that form the theoretical framework of this study, NELM and SLA have been discussed. This present section will attempt to integrate both these theories and show how they complement one another. There are observable similarities between NELM and SLA that are very difficult to miss. One of them and probably the most important is that both approaches perceive migration as a household livelihood strategy that poor households use in their attempts to escape the claws of poverty.
According to De Haas (2010), over the 1970s and 1980s migration theory moved towards pluralist views, recognizing the importance of both agency and structural constraints. Economists embraced NELM, an approach that refuted traditional migration scholarly thought such as neo-classical migration thought and neo-Marxist pessimism. This approach perceived migration decisions as taking place at a household-level as opposed to the individual level advocated by traditional approaches. De Haas (2010) argued that this new theoretical dispensation sought to
49
explain migration from the structural constraints and imperfect markets within which decisions to migrate are made. Sociologists embraced livelihood approaches that also centered on the household. For them, these livelihood approaches represented a paradigm that recognized agency as opposed to rigid structuralism that often had no place for their empirical findings (Giddens 1984; De Haas 2010). This particular study also focuses on the household as a unit of analysis.
Both these approaches as shown above have emphasized that in order to understand migration-development interactions a household is the best unit of analysis to use.
To further point out striking similarities between NELM and SLA, one might actually take note that while NELM talks of structural constraints and imperfect markets as important factors leading to the household decision to migrate, SLA talks of the vulnerability context that affect the way people make a living in their communities and hence can lead to migration as a livelihood strategy of choice. By integrating the two approaches, the constraints that affect the means of making a living can be better understood. Although both approaches identify the concept of vulnerability one way or another, SLA goes further in the analysis of this phenomenon. The SLA shows that the vulnerability contexts can be in the form of unfavorable economic and political trends, shocks such as natural disasters (Ellis 2000; Cahn 2006; Maitah et al 2011). SLA brings plurality in the analysis of this concept, bearing in mind that the constraints faced by the poor are heterogeneous in nature.
NELM views migration as the means to satisfy the desire to self-ensure against income risks. It therefore follows that while migration is the means, migrant remittances are the ends. Given the above, the question of sustainability of livelihoods through the use of remittances is not dealt justice under NELM. However, by integrating SLA, though migration can be the means while migrant remittances are the ends, there is still an opportunity for remittances to be the means
50
through which households can achieve other livelihood strategies that might lead to sustainability. The SLA looks strongly at the asset base of the remittance recipients and the possibility of combining existing assets with migrant remittances in order to create sustainable livelihoods. Another important strength that SLA brings in is an analysis of the structures and processes which enables households to understand their contexts and also enables development practitioners to better assist the poor with feasible development interventions. In this regard, SLA serves to strengthen NELM and enables the researcher to have a broad understanding of the factors at play within the migration-development interactions. This therefore is critical in the analysis of empirical data in answering whether migrant remittances have the potential to create or serve as a sustainable livelihood strategy.
According to Massey et al (1993), NELM postulates that migration is a household decision to diversify their resources such as labour in order to self-insure against income risks. This can be done with the hope to increase their assets’ productivity. Given the above, NELM provides for the potential to invest. However, there is no provision for the skills and capabilities necessary for such an attempt to be a success. The reason for the above is that the scope of assets is often limited to things such as land for farming households. Through the integration of SLA, this approach can be strengthened since SLA provides for human and social assets. The above claim is supported by Maitah et al (2011:14) when they argued that according to SLA assets “[…] can include natural resources, technologies, their skills, knowledge and capacity, their health, access to education, sources of credit, or their networks of social support.” Integrating NELM and SLA therefore, is important and very helpful in attempting a holistic analysis of opportunities, skills and capabilities that might be existing or needed by households or communities within which migrant remittances flow. The potential to invest migrant remittances as postulated by NELM or
51
their worthy contribution towards a development dynamic can be better understood owing to the integration of these two approaches.
Integrating NELM and SLA also helps in broadly understanding the concept of the multiplier effect. In both these approaches, it is evident that migration benefits go far beyond an individual.
By acknowledging that migrants belong in social groups such as households and communities, these approaches acknowledge that the remittances they send have an effect that extends further than just an individual. According to Taylor (1999), it is within the tenets of NELM that remittances or just the mere potential to receive them can set in motion a development dynamic.
It can be argued that the development dynamic takes place within the broader local economy which triggers reasonable belief that benefits from migration and remittances extend to non-migrants and non-recipient households. When SLA is integrated with NELM, it brings some clarity on how the multiplier effect comes about. SLA acknowledges that due to differing household contexts, be it on vulnerability or asset base, there is bound to be some heterogeneity in the choice of livelihood strategies. It can then be argued that, the mere fact that remittances flow into the local economy might influence non-migrants and non-recipient households to take advantage of the opportunities and create livelihoods through entrepreneurial activities amongst others.
3.6 Conclusion.
This chapter has reviewed and discussed the evolution of migration-development theory since the post Second World War era. In doing so, firstly neo-classical and developmentalist optimism was discussed, secondly neo-Marxist pessimism was discussed and lastly pluralist migration-development optimism. The discussion on the evolution of migration-migration-development theory revealed that over the past years migration-development theory has oscillated like a pendulum
52
from theoretical optimism to theoretical pessimism and back to theoretical optimism again. In addition, the chapter discussed NELM and SLA which are the theories that form the theoretical framework of this particular study. These two theories fall under the pluralist migration-development optimism. The last section of this chapter was an attempt to integrate NELM and SLA and to show how these two theoretical approaches complement one another. There are striking similarities that were identified as well as complimentary factors that one could argue they present opportunities for a better understanding of migration-development interactions holistically.
53