Households and remittances in two States of international migration: the cases of Hidalgo and Nayarit

 

Hogares y remesas en dos estados de migración internacional: Hidalgo y Nayarit

 

Germán Vega Briones and Liliana Huerta Rodríguez

 

El Colegio de la Frontera Norte.

 

Abstract

This article's objective was to observe the relation between size and sort of household and the reception of remittances from the United States in migrant and non-migrant's households from the States of Nayarit and Hidalgo. A descriptive analysis of some socio-demographic characteristics was performed, these causes are associated to remittances' reception in the households and it was found that the receiver households have heads of family in advanced ages, low schooling level, an important participation of women as heads of family, mainly in rural communities, mostly nuclear and extended households, smaller in size and own household, with presence of migrant and return-migrant family members from the United States between 1995-2000. In the second place, the important participation of women as heads of family in Nayarit and Hidalgo can be directly or indirectly associated with masculine migration.

Key words: international migration, return migration, remittances, Hidalgo, Nayarit.

 

Resumen

El objetivo de este artículo fue observar la relación entre tamaño y tipo del hogar y recepción de remesas provenientes de Estados Unidos en hogares de migrantes y no migrantes de los estados de Nayarit e Hidalgo. Se realizó un análisis descriptivo de algunas características sociodemográficas y económicas que se encuentran asociadas a la recepción de remesas en los hogares de estas entidades y se encontró que los hogares con remesas tienen jefes en edad avanzada, con bajo nivel escolar, con una importante participación de las mujeres como jefas, principalmente de localidades rurales, en su mayoría hogares nucleares y ampliados, de menor tamaño y con vivienda propia, con presencia de miembros migrantes y de retorno de Estados Unidos entre 1995 y 2000. En segundo lugar, la importante participación de las mujeres como jefas en los hogares nayaritas e hidalguenses con remesas puede estar asociada, directa o indirectamente, con la migración masculina.

Palabras clave: migración internacional, migración de retorno, remesas, Hidalgo, Nayarit.

 

Introduction

The central idea of this work is to analyze the manner in which the size and sort of household influences on the reception of remittances from the United States in households in the States of Nayarit and Hidalgo, which correspond to two regions with important migratory presence; while Nayarit is considered as part of the region with a lengthy migratory tradition, Hidalgo is part of the emergent migratory regions.

The 1982 and 1994 crises have been explained as a consequence of the measures established by Mexico's adherence to GATT (General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade) and NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement); besides setting an open economy model, a process of labor relaxation, where the conditions of labor, unemployment and low wages lead to the pauperization of a large part of the population, which induced new Mexican contingents to migrate (Canales, 2002). Hence, in the context of an open market economy that offers precarious conditions of employment and the offer from the U.S. labor market, Mexican migration towards said country has become a very attractive labor alternative for the population in working age, so the migratory flow, instead of decreasing, has grown. In this sense, Canales (2005) considers that the sending of remittances is a form of wage for households with migrant members. Thereby, as a consequence of the economic model that caused modifications in the conditions of life and labor in urban Mexico, migration to the United States became a massively adopted strategy during the last two decades of the last century; migration has become common in zones of the country and sectors of the population that in the past were aside from the migratory process. In this way, with the definite incorporation into the process of international migration during the 1980's decade of the States of Guerrero, Oaxaca, Puebla, México and Federal District, and Veracruz as of 1990, the existence of a new region that ejects work force toward the United States is verified (Canales, 2002). The changes in the composition and origin of Mexican migration to the United States indicate that it is a phenomenon of national character. Nonetheless, two are the most important work force-ejecting regions in the country; the first is the so called historically traditional, which comprises nine States of the Occident and Central highlands, namely: Jalisco, Michoacan, Guanajuato, Zacatecas, Durango, San Luis Potosi, Nayarit, Colima and Aguascalientes; the second region rose to prominence as from the 1980's decade, so it is known as the emergent region of migration, composed of ten States: Queretaro, Puebla, Tlaxcala, Hidalgo, México, Federal District, Morelos, Oaxaca, Guerrero and Veracruz (Ramírez, 2002). Likewise, in relation to the changes in the migratory pattern, Lozano shows the existence of a diversity of opinions explained from different viewpoints. In this sense, Cornelius suggested in 1992 that changes in the profile of Mexican migrants toward the United States basically corresponded to four factors: in the first place, to the composition of the demand of migrant workers in the recipient country; in the second, to the economic crisis in Mexico along the 1980's decade; in the third place, to the migration policy of the United States instituted by means of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, with which the migration of women and child increased; and finally, to the appearance of transnational migratory networks. As a consequence of these four factors the demographic composition of the migratory flow was altered and new States entered the group of ejecting entities. We would add that both the loss of purchasing power of the Mexican population and the lack of well-paid jobs are central variables to understand the displacement -larger by the day-of Mexicans looking for ajob in the United States. Lozano (1992) considers the existence of a tendency of the Mexican migrants to have lengthy stays or to permanently settle in the U.S.; nevertheless, as we verify the hypothesis of the probable settling of the migrants in the United States, Cornelius and Marcelli (2001) found that the discussion of the patterns of the migrant's settling were centered on the socio-demographic and economic characteristics of the new migrants, which might become, in the long term, inhabitants of the United States, because the longer the migrants remains in said country, the more likely they are to remain there definitively (Cornelius and Marcelli, 2001); similarly, these authors also verified that Mexican migration towards cities, such as Los Angeles and San Diego, is the product of the urbanization of Mexico, since this is the migratory route associated with migrants from urban areas rather than with rural ones.

On the other side, Corona (1998), characterizing labor migration from Mexico to the United States, concludes that the migratory pattern has changed, in spite migration is preponderantly masculine, there is a greater feminine participation in the migratory flow, the displacements are made in productive ages, have higher schooling, mainly come from urban zones and have a greater participation of the northern, central and southern States of the country. In this way, the author points out that the changes in labor migration have their origin basically in the process of urbanization the country has undergone as of the 1970's decade. Likewise, Durand, Massey and Zenteno (2001), just as Corona, consider that changes in the migratory pattern have appeared as a consequence of the progressive urbanization of Mexican society; notwithstanding, these authors state that urbanization does not represent any change in the selectivity ofmigration. Finally, authors such as Lozano (2002) consider that by the 1980's decade, in the traditional region prevailed the participation of migrants of rural origin, male and with low schooling levels; whilst in the emergent region, the migrants wer largely of urban background, with a greater presence of women and a higher average schooling. The author, however, reports that we are witnessing an apparent resurgence of the predominance of migrants of rural origin, so he considers the theoretical discussion on the changes of the profile of Mexican migration towards the United States should be restated, because as from the 1990's decade the participation of urban migrants started to decline in the country.

On the other side, by and large, it is widely recognized that international migration is a mechanism implemented by the households as a means of earning money to improve their conditions of life. Several studies (Durand, 1994; Corona, 2001; Lozano, 2005; Tuirán, 2000, and other) suggest that these incomes, received as remittances sent by the family members who work in the U.S. are mainly used to satisfy the basic needs of the household, such as food, education, household equipment, clothing, medical services, etc., and only in some cases a small amount is destined for saving and productive investment. Likewise, there are some other studies that support that the sending and reception of remittances is determined by the socio-demographic and economic characteristics of the recipient households (Ávila, 2000; Ramírez, 2002; Canales, 2005). There is a vast amount of literature that deals with the topic of remittances and their distribution; however, few studies have taken the time to analyze the influence of the structure of the household and the domestic arrangements in migratory decisions and the effects of these variables on the amount and frequency of sending remittances. Because of this, the importance of the present work lies in establishing the link between the sort and size of the households and the reception of remittances; similarly, the migration of some member of the households as a mechanism to improve their conditions of life generates, at least partially, a restructuring inside the household. In this sense, according to the reports from INEGI, from 1990 to 2000, the households with a feminine head increased circa three percentage points, changing from 15.31 percent in 1990 to 18.71 in 2000; conversely, the households with a masculine head decreased from 84.69 percent in 1990 to 81.30 in 2000. This makes us think that, indeed, in several cases this situation may be related to the entrance of population into the migratory flow.

Although the main use of the remittances is to satisfy the basic needs of the household, there are cases where they are a complement of other incomes, and it is thought that many families fundamentally depend on the remittances, for regions have been found, such as those in the States of traditional emigration (Michoacan, Guanajuato, Jalisco, Zacatecas, Durango, San Luis Potosi, Nayarit, Aguascalientes and Colima) where the per capita income for the year 2001 was 158 USD, in contrast with that of the emergent region (Veracruz, State of México, Hidalgo, Guerrero, Federal District, Puebla, Oaxaca, Morelos, Queretaro and Tlaxcala), where the income was 55 USD per inhabitant for the same year (World Bank, 2001). Notwithstanding, it is worth mentioning that in 2005, the highest amounts of remittances were sent to the emergent region, and they constituted 46 percent, while those sent to the traditional region decreased 46 percent, being 40 percent of the total of remittances in the country (World Bank, 2001). This demonstrates that both the migratory flows and remittances have diversified with the participation of new States that eject workers to the United States.

Paraphrasing González (1994), one might state that inside the households international migration, and in particular the reception of remittances, are considered strategies developed by the households for their economic support. It is so that diverse studies have reported that in recent years the number of households that receive remittances has grown, and the participation of women is distinguishable not only in the migratory flow, but also as the head of the family, when the male migrant leaves his place of origin toward the U.S. Likewise, migration causes changes inside the household, for in many of the cases, with the migration of the man, not only does the woman takes up the role of head, but also looks for other sorts of domestic arrangement. It is so that diverse authors consider that currently Mexico is changing from nuclear to extended or compound households as a way to deal with the economic needs of the household, because it has been verified that households with higher incomes have a large number of members participating in the labor market (Chayanov, 1985; Barsoti, 1981; Selby et al, 1994; Ariza and De Oliveira, 2001; Robichaux, 2002 and Sandez, 2006). Hence, in a study on the social structure and income distribution of the households in Mexicali, Baja California, Sandez (2006) found that:

The behavior of the number of household members presents significant variations, positively associated to the level of the familial income... as a tendency: higher incomes at the households have a positive correlation with a larger number of members of the household who participate into the labor market (Sandez, 2006: 94 and 96).

As a result of the migratory phenomenon, a very controversial topic has been that of the social and economic benefits remittances from the United States generate, both in the communities of origin and at the migrants' households, related to the amount and distribution of this income at the households (Durand and Arias, 1997).

 

International migration as a strategy of the households

The theory of the new economy of labor migration help us explain the phenomenon of migration as a strategy to improve the conditions of life at the households, as it states that migration is a decision made inside the household, not only to maximize, but also to diversify the sources of income in order to secure them. In this way, the migrant is part of an economic strategy that has as an end to provide the house hold with supplies and with them determinate common ends, such as affording expenditures, increasing the productive resources by buying land and animals to satisfy the demand of consumption in critical moments in the lifecycle of the household, securing by means of the temporary migrations of one of its members social and economic reproduction inside the unit (Vega, 2004). Likewise, diverse authors (Vega, 1999; González, 1994; Bult et al., 2004; Galindo, 2004, among other) have tried to prove that before making the decision of emigrating, the individual consults it with their house wife/husband or in the case, their parents expecting all manner of support (Vega, 1999). It is also considered that inside the households the work force is reproduced, and that it is precisely inside them where the important decisions that echo in benefit of all of the family members are made, it is there where it is decided how the members participate in the work market and their consumption patterns (González, 1994). In this sense, Lozano (1993) points out that the households with scarce incomes tend to destine a part of the remittances for emigration and the establishment of other working members in the recipient country. This author considers that in spite of the cost of migration is higher than the total income of the household it is a means or a strategy to perceive high incomes from remittances. Because of this, he states that the households that receive the highest incomes from remittances are those which obtain resources from diverse members. Speaking on other sources of income, Lozano refers precisely to the strategy of sending one or more of the members of the household to the United States so as to receive and secure the income from remittances.

 

The concept of remittances

Mexican migration towards the United States is a process that involves not only a flow of working people, but also one of material and economic goods, in a two-way movement, as with this movement social, familial and cultural networks are activated and consolidated; by means of said networks systems of interchange and circulation of people, money and goods and information between the places of origin and destination are established (Canales, 2005). In this way, remittances are defined as part of the income of the international temporary or permanent migrants who live in the country they work in, and who transfer from the recipient country toward the country of origin. These remittances may be monetary or non-monetary; moreover, not only are they the result of the migrants' labor income, but also they may come from some sort of production or commercial activity (Lozano, 1993); so remittances might be destined for expenditures related to support the household or, to a lesser extent be destined for savings or productive investment. Likewise, monetary remittances are manifested as a complementariness of the labor markets between Mexico and the United States, so they become the main reason for the existence of the international migratory phenomenon (Corona, 1998).

 

Familial remittances

Authors such as Mummert (1988), in a work on the transformations that accompany massive migration of Michoacan inhabitants, pinpoints that the remittances that receive the households in Michoacan, besides being destined for the satisfaction of the basic needs of the members, are invested on agricultural machinery, on buying land, on investment on small enterprises, as well as on education expenses of their children and health for the household members. Likewise, Lozano (2005) and Bult (2004) mention that even if remittances are not generally destined for saving and productive investment, they are indeed investment on human capital. In this sense, Canales (2005), in his case study of the municipality of Teocaltiche, Jalisco, reaches the conclusion that in a first stage remittances are mainly destined for household consumption. Once this stage is fulfilled and the migrant becomes stable in a job and economically, remittances are oriented to buy or remodel the houses, as well as buying goods and services for the household. Once the objective of improving the life conditions at the household is fulfilled, remittances start to decrease and are destined for health issues, especially of the elderly people. On the other side, remittances increase the affording capacity of the social groups of low incomes, so their consumption patterns change in a significant manner as the households receive higher incomes from remittances (López, 2005). Zarate (2004) supports the hypothesis that the factor that determine the pattern of consumption to a greater extent is the income level, however, he considers that the distribution of the income, the level and distribution of goods, the size and composition of the households, the number of recipients of incomes in the households, as well as the geographic and ethnic differences might alter the pattern of consumption.

 

Studies on remittance-receiving households

In virtue that international migration is a strategy of the households, since these are the main recipients of the remittances sent by the migrant members, it is necessary to learn which the motivations or the factors that influence the migrant to destine the household and place of birth part of the wage received in the country where they work are. The first approaches to the phenomenon of remittances from this viewpoint began by the end of the 1980's decade, when Stanton Russell (1986) stated that the factors that determine the magnitude of remittances are rather the socioeconomic characteristics of the migrant of the recipient country, nevertheless, this author does not consider the socio-demographic and economic characteristics of the households in the place of origin. Notwithstanding, in recent times there have appeared works that state that the sending and reception of remittances is determined by socio-demographic and economic characteristics of the recipient households (Ávila, 2000; Ramírez, 2002; Canales, 2005). In this sense, Stanton Russell (1986) points out that the socioeconomic characteristics of the migrant, such as marital status, schooling, kinship in the country of origin, income level, occupation in the recipient country, as well as the employment of other members and the level of incomes at the household are important factors that determine the decision of sending money or not, how to do it, the amount to be sent, as well as the use of remittances at the household. On the other side, among the descriptive studies on the households that receive remittances, notable is that by Ávila (2000), who using data from the National Survey on Demographic Dynamics (Enadid-1997) carries out a comparison according to some socio-demographic (size and cycle of life of the household, age and gender of the members and characteristics of the head of family) and economic characteristics of the household between recipient and non-recipient households of the traditional region of emigrations. Among her most important findings, Ávila (2000), using Enadid 1997, distinguishes that recipient households mainly are in rural communities, she articulates it with a feminine head in advanced ages, with high levels of infantile dependence and elderly people, and mainly with sparse participation in economic activities. These characteristics make the recipient household appear as dependent on this sort of incomes in order to satisfy their basic consumption needs, and at the same time, the reception of remittances also allows other members of the household to participate in the migratory process. Ávila (2000) considers as well that remittances from the U.S. reach the migrants' household directly, so the amount of remittances depends to a large extent on the gender, age, and marital status of the members and on the presence of migrant members, the index of infantile dependence and elderly people, on the participation in economic activities and the total income of the household. In this sense, the author states that the economic responsibility of the migrant member with the household decreases when there are few compromises, which brings along a diminution of remittances received at the household.

On the other side, following with the same descriptive line of the remittance-receiving households, Ramírez (2002), on the basis of the socio-demographic and economic characteristics from National Survey on Incomes and Expenditures of the Households (ENIGH-2002), carries out a comparison between the households from the traditional region and those from the emergent which receive remittances from the United States.¹ Ramírez (2002) found that in the traditional region of emigration, the households that receive remittances are of rural origin, in a young cycle of life, with a male head, high schooling, scant participation in economic activities and a higher reception than the households from the emergent region. Conversely, the households from the emergent region are mainly of urban origin, with an advanced cycle of life, yet with a greater participation of the members of the household in economic activities, so they do not only obtain incomes from remittances, but the reception of economic resources is broadened. In this sense, the presence of remittances in the household is determined by different familial and domestic contexts, which are tightly related to the reception of remittances in the household of origin. Ramírez (2002) points out that both in the traditional and emergent regions one witnesses a change in the sort of households, as they undergo a process from nuclear to extended households; this change is common in households from ejecting regions, because in the face of the migration of a member, or the head of family, the rest of the family assumes a configuration of extended or broadened households. In this sense, familial and domestic arrangements established from migration have their unique dynamics and evolution in terms of the need for remittances and the migratory options for their members (Canales, 2005).

On his own, Canales (2005) in a case study carried out in the municipality of Teocaltiche, Jalisco, mentions that it is not unusual to find an important number of remittance-receiving households that comprise elderly people living alone or with some relative. This author also points out there are also demands and needs which might motivate the sending of remittances; nonetheless, unlike Ávila (2000) -who finds, among other characteristics, that the households with index of infantile dependence and elderly people receive larger amounts of remittances-, Canales (2005) does not establish any association between the presence of children at the household and the reception of remittances. He mentions that in households with low economic activity rates the incidence of remittances is higher, nevertheless. Likewise, in a household where the head, let alone the reason, is unemployed, there is a heavier dependence on the incomes provided by other members. As for the factors that determine the sending and reception of remittances, Canales (2005) reaches the conclusion that at the households of the municipality ofTeocaltiche, Jalisco, diverse socio-demographic and economic factors, such as the structure and composition of the household from the migratory process, the cycle of life, the capacity to generate resources independent from remittances, the disposition of goods and services, having a household and some particular characteristics of the members, as well as the migratory experience and its history at the household are determining for a household to become recipient of remittances. In this way, the author states that remittances cannot be understood in a static manner, but in function of the cycle of life of the household and its material conditions of survival. Furthermore, remittances solve the demand of consumption goods, housing, social and personal services, they also afford expenses to maintain the migrant's household, so they compose a fund that allows the economic and social reproduction of the households, besides, they generate an important flow of cultural and symbolic values whereupon the social and cultural reproduction of the domestic and familial arrangements are supported (Canales, 2005).

To sum up, diverse authors have attempted to establish the factors that are associated to the sending and reception of remittances, both of the migrant members and the very households; in this way, one finds works that pay attention, on the one side, to the determinants at the place of destination that foster the migrants to send remittances; and on the other, to the characteristics that the recipient households exhibit. In this sense, since it is virtually impossible to merge all of the factors associated both to the place of destination and the place of origin, this works tries to specifically establish the relation between the structure and composition of the household by means of its sort and size, and the reception of remittances in two contexts of different migratory patterns, basically carrying out a comparison between the states of Nayarit and Hidalgo.

 

Households in Nayarit and Hidalgo

One of the objectives of this work is to realize a descriptive analysis of some socio-demographic and economic characteristics that are associated to the reception of remittances at the households of two States with different migratory intensity: Nayarit and Hidalgo. In order to fulfill with said objective, our unit of analysis are the households, as it is considered that inside them is where work force is produced, and it is also there where the strategies to improve the constitutions of life are developed. Additionally, the concept ofhousehold will be used to refer to both familial and non-familial units which may receive remittances or not from the Unites States. The source of information used in this work is a 10-percent sample of the XII General Census of Population and Housing of the year 2000. This information was obtained by means of the application of the extended questionnaire to a sample of 2.2 million households, so as to deepen into the knowledge of some socio-demographic and economic aspects and to be estimated for the whole population. Among other things the questionnaire asks each of the members whether they receive help from relatives abroad; if the answer is positive, it is a household with remittances;² if the answer is negative, it is a household without remittances. From this moment, we go on to characterize the households in a socio-demographic and economic manner, in some cases making reference to the head of the family (figure 1).

 

Remittance-receiving and non-remittance-receiving households

At a first approach to the households with and without remittances, in figure 2 we observe that out of a total of 222714 households in Nayarit, 9.6 percent (21476) receives remittances. While in Hidalgo, out of 507225 households, 5.1 percent (25753) receives remittances.

Likewise, in table 1 the households, the population and the incomes according to condition of receiving remittances or not are shown, both for Nayarit and Hidalgo. In such manner that out of the total population in Nayarit, 86170 receive remittances, whilst in Hidalgo they amount 117557.

As for incomes from remittances, in Nayarit 27832 MXN a month, whereas on average the households receive 1296 MXN a month; similarly, in Hidalgo 46396 MXN a month, while the average of reception per household is 1800 MXN a month.

 

Indicators of remittance-receiving and non-remittance-receiving households

In this section we perform a comparative analysis of the socio-demographic and economic characteristics of the households that receive remittances and those that do not in the States of Nayarit and Hidalgo. In this sense, among the demographic indicators we have age, schooling, marital status, indigenous condition of the head of family; and among the economic ones, we have the variables: 'community size', 'total incomes' and 'internal remittances'. The section of structure and composition of the household comprehends the sort and size of the household and owning a house. Among the indicators of migratory condition we find temporary or permanent migration, return migration from the United States and national return migration.

 

Demographic indicators of the household

In the case of reception of remittances, these demographic characteristics allow us to learn the particularities of the households that receive and those that do not; in this sense, we present a comparative analysis of some characteristics that correspond to the head of family according to the State they belong to.

 

Age of the head of family

The first indicator that refers to the household demographic characteristics is the age of the head, which is distributed in four large groups, in such manner that the heads of the households without remittances, both in Nayarit and Hidalgo, are concentrated in the group of age from 25 to 44 years of age, and those that do receive remittances are mainly between the age group from 45 to 64 years.

Not with standing, particularly in Nayarit, the heads of the households that receive remittances are in advanced ages, we see that 39.6 percent are between 45 and 64 years of age, followed by the households with heads older than 65 years, who are 30.9 percent, a high percentage. This result may be due to the migratory tradition of the State, because on the one side, it is possible that the migration of the members of these households is so old that the heads who now receive remittances are elderly people and their children are those who send remittances, or else, what Canales (2005) considers as differed reciprocity, which is that children correspond the obligations towards the parents' household; and on the other, it is possible that the remittances received at the households with heads who are 65 and older are not only destined for alimentation, but also for health services of the members of the households with these characteristics, which may be due, as Canales (2005) has mentioned, to the existence of demands and needs that would motivate the sending of remittances.

In Hidalgo, just as Nayarit, a higher percentage of the heads of family that receive remittances are concentrated in the group from 45 to 64 years of age, which amounts 38.3 percent of the total; however, 36.9 percent of the heads between 25 and 44 years of age also receive remittances, therefore, in contrast to Nayarit, an important percentage of the heads in the households in Hidalgo with remittances are in young ages. This may be due to the fact that the State has a relatively recent participation in the migratory process, and the population displaces to the United States in young ages, so it is possible that the housewife, mainly, that who receives this income. graph 1

 

Schooling of the head of the family

As it is seen in graph 2, the schooling of the head is associated to the reception of remittances at the household, for in general the percentage of households with remittances whose head has low educational level is superior to those who have a secondary or higher level. In the State of Nayarit, 57.3 percent of the heads of the households without remittances have a schooling level below complete primary school, compared to the 73 percent of the heads of households with remittances, who also have fewer than 6 years of schooling. This percentage means that the households with remittances have a lower educational level than those households which do not receive remittances.

Even though the difference of three percentage points is minimal, the heads of the households in Nayarit that receive remittances have a higher educational level than the households in Hidalgo, as 76.4 percent has an educational level of six years of primary or below. Conversely, the heads of households without remittances have a higher education level, as 63.1 percent did not finish primary school. In this sense we affirm that both in Nayarit and Hidalgo, the heads of households without remittances have higher schooling levels because they are younger than those who receive these incomes. Thus, we see that as age increases, the breach between schooling level of the heads of the households without and with remittances also increases.

 

Marital status of the head of family

Graph 3 shows the marital status of the heads of households with and without remittances, both in Nayarit and Hidalgo; hence, it is seen that most of the heads are united or married. Nevertheless, in Nayarit the heads united or married of households without remittances represent 76.8 percent, which is higher than the 66.9 percent of the heads of households with remittances, as well as the households with divorced, separated, widowed or single heads that receive remittances account for 33.1 percent. Likewise, in the State of Hidalgo, the percentage of households without remittances with united or married heads is higher than the heads of households in said conditions that are recipient of remittances, as the first group comprises 78.7 percent of those without remittances, whereas the second comprises 71.2 percent of those which receive remittances, and 28.8 percent corresponds to the households with non-united heads who receive remittances. In this sense, because both in Nayarit and Hidalgo the percentage of united or married heads of households with remittances is higher than those where the head, either because of widowhood, separation, divorce or singleness is not united, the marital status of the head is associated to the reception of the income from remittances.

 

Feminine head³

Vega (1999) considers that migration brings as a consequence that women develop activities that they did not previously carry out, as taking up the role of the head of family. Because of this, it is considered important to learn the percentage of remittance-receiving households with a feminine head, and we also believe that this characteristic is associated to this income. Hence, in graph 4 we observe that in general the households with a male head are majority; nevertheless, the households with a feminine head are also important, as a matter of fact, in Nayarit 19.2 percent of the households with feminine head do not receive remittances, compared to 38.5 percent of the households with a feminine head which receive remittances. In the case of Hidalgo, the percentage of households with a feminine head which do not receive remittances is similar to Nayarit, with 19.8 percent; nonetheless, the proportion of households with a feminine head which receive remittances reaches 48.8 percent. In this sense, the fact that an important percentage of the remittance-receiving households has a feminine head is an indicator that the migration of one or more of the members causes changes inside the household, as we suppose that indeed, as migration appears, women take up the role of heads. That is why we do not hesitate to consider that a feminine head is associated to the reception of remittances.

 

Households with an indigenous head

Nayarit and Hidalgo are two States with indigenous presence; out of the total of the households in Nayarit 2.9 percent are indigenous; while in Hidalgo the proportion of indigenous households reaches 15.2 percent. In the face of this, it is important to learn the participation of the household with ethnical background in the reception of remittances, all the more because according to Vázquez (1995) and Quezada (2004), indigenous population in Hidalgo has an important participation the migratory flow; in this sense, in graph 5 one can see the households with and without remittances according to the indigenous condition of the head for Nayarit and Hidalgo.

In this graph we found that for the first State, in general, the households with indigenous head represent a small proportion in respect to those non-indigenous, for 3.2 percent of the households without remittances has an indigenous head, whilst those which receive remittances represent 0.7 percent; conversely, in the State of Hidalgo the households with an indigenous head which do not receive remittances are 15.3 percent, while 14.1 percent corresponds to the households with an indigenous head which receive remittances. This higher percentage of households with an indigenous head in Hidalgo is also due to the fact that in general, this population is more representative than in Nayarit, so it is likely that in Hidalgo there exists a positive association in the reception of remittances of the households. This, because Quezada has pointed out that hñáhñü people have a higher reception of remittances than households with non-indigenous heads and other peoples, while in Nayarit, given that a lesser proportion of the population is indigenous, it possibly does not have the same effect as in Hidalgo.

 

Indicators of the community size and economic indicators of the household

These characteristics of the household allow us to learn the economic situation of the households which receive remittances and those which do not, as well as the influence they may have on the reception of this income by federal entity. Because of this, we present the results obtained from three indicators corresponding to these characteristics, namely the size of the community, the total incomes of the household and the reception of internal remittances.

 

Community size

In graph 6 the households with and without remittances are presented according to the size of the community they are in, both for Nayarit and Hidalgo. In Nayarit 38.1 percent of the households without remittances are concentrated in urban communities; whilst 37.5 percent of the households which receive remittances are in rural areas, this is to say, in communities under 2500 inhabitants; 34.9 percent is located in mid-sized localities and 27.6 percent in urban zones.

In this way, households in Nayarit are almost proportionately distributed between the three sizes of community, however migration and reception of remittances mainly occurs in the two smallest localities (graph 6). Likewise, in Hidalgo 47.8 percent of the households without remittances is located in communities below 2500 inhabitants; whereas 59.3 percent of the remittance-recipient households is also in rural areas, 16.5 percent in mid-sized localities and 24.2 percent in urban areas. In this State migration is mainly of rural origin, as 68.9 percent of the migrants leave from communities under 2500 inhabitants (graph 6), which coincides with the fact that, according to INEGI, Hidalgo is a mostly rural State. In this way, our results also coincide with those by Ramírez (2002), who points out that in the traditional region the households which receive remittances to a larger extent are of rural origin, in graph 6 we show that households in Nayarit, which belong to this region, are located in rural communities; nonetheless, we differ when this author states that in the emergent region the recipient households are of urban origin, as we found that in Hidalgo, State of emergent migration, the households that receive this incomes are mainly located in rural areas.

On the other side, both Corona (1998) and Durand, and Massey and Zenteno (2001) have pointed that the migratory pattern has changed, changing from rural to urban origin. Notwithstanding, in this work, given that a higher percentage of households which receive remittances is located in rural communities, and migration from both States is also mainly of rural origin, we agree with Lozano (2002), who has mentioned that in the 1990's decade the pattern changes again with the reappearance of the rural migratory pattern. In such manner that although we do not know if at any moment migration from Nayarit and Hidalgo was of urban origin, we consider that, indeed, nowadays the origins of the migrants are the smaller communities, however, with an important participation of migrants of urban origin.

 

Total incomes of the household

The income of the household is an important characteristic, as it may be associated to a large extent to the reception of remittances, depending on the total incomes of the household. Thus, in graph 7 we observe the households with and without remittances according to the total income of the household by federal entity. In this sense, by and large, the households without remittances have lower incomes, as they are mainly concentrated below one minimum wage a month, since in Nayarit these represent 28 and in Hidalgo 39.8 percent. On the other side, the households that receive remittances appear with higher incomes, in Nayarit 28.9 percent is in the range from two to four minimum ages a month, while in Hidalgo they receive lower incomes than in Nayarit, as 27.1 percent is to be found in the rage from one to two minimum wages a month.

Therefore, we can state that the households that receive remittances, generally speaking, are in better economic conditions than those which do not receive, as the incomes of the former are higher than those of the latter; so one of the objectives of migration might be fulfilling its role, this is to say, people emigrates in order to maximize their incomes and improve the level of life of the members of the household; thereby the participation in migration may be a strategy consciously or unconsciously applied by the members of the family (Bordieu, cited by Quezada, 2004).

 

Internal remittances

Since several authors (Vázquez, 1995; Quezada, 2004, Serrano, 2005) have pointed out that the State of Hidalgo has an important participation in internal migration, mainly towards Mexico City, and Nayarit is also present in a particular manner in Baja California (INEGI, 2000), we considered it important to obtain information on the remittances internal migrants send. In this way, in graph 8 we see that a large percentage of the households which receive remittances from the United States also receive internal remittances; in Nayarit 18.5 percent of the households with international remittances also receives internal and 9.2 percent of the households without remittances from the U.S. receives internal remittances. From these data we can infer that Nayarit is also present in internal migration, since receiving internal remittances means, in an indirect way that in the household there is an internal migrant; conversely, in the State of Hidalgo, out of the total of household with remittances from abroad, 21.8 percent receives internal remittances, while 8.7 percent of the households which does not receive international remittances, receives internal remittances. In other sections we have stated that the backgrounds of international migration of the State of Hidalgo fall on internal migration, while Nayarit, in spite of being present in internal migration, participates in the migratory process towards the United States as of the 1940's decade. Information in graph 8 shows the importance that internal migration still has, mainly in Hidalgo, as the percentage of households which receives international or internal remittances is higher than in Nayarit, nevertheless, in this last State, the percentage of households that only receive internal remittances is slightly higher than in Hidalgo, which possibly is due to the fact that while internal migrants from Hidalgo opted to displace towards the United States, as Serrano (2005) has pointed out, the migrants from Nayarit might still remain in the State of destination.

 

Structure and composition of the household

One of the demographic characteristics, particularly of the households, we are interested in learning is the structure and size of both the households which receive remittances and those which do not, so in this section we carry out an analysis of the descriptive kind not only on them alone, but also on the sort of property of the household.

 

Sort of household

In graph 9 we see that the nuclear households which do not receive remittances prevail before the extended, uni-personal, or composed and co-residential households; particularly in the State of Nayarit, 69.6 percent of the households which do not receive remittances are nuclear, whereas 20.7 percent are extended.

As for the households which receive remittances in this State, 49.8 percent corresponds to nuclear and 39.2 percent to extended households. In other words, while the proportion of nuclear households decreases, the percentage of extended ones under this circumstance increases. In Hidalgo a similar situation occurs, since 67.8 percent of the households without remittances are nuclear and 25.1 percent are extended, whilst for those which receive remittances, 52.4 percent are nuclear and 40.6 percent are extended.

Similarly, both in Nayarit and Hidalgo, the nuclear, extended, uni-personal, composed and co-residential households which do not receive remittances have a male head, while the households with remittances, in an important proportion, have a feminine head. Then, in the case of Nayarit, a larger proportion of unipersonal households have a feminine head, whereas in Hidalgo a higher percentage of composed or co-residential and extended households have a feminine head (table 4, table 5; annex 2). Although the XII Census of the year 2000 does not allow us to learn exactly the changes inside the households, with the information presented we may say that probably migration generates changes inside the household and, indeed, in most of the cases women take up the role of head of family. In this sense, since in Nayarit an important percentage of uni-personal households have a feminine head, it is possible that they present older ages and thereby, the children send money to the parents, either for alimentation or healthcare expenditures (Canales, 2005). Whereas in Hidalgo, as an important part of the extended households receives remittances, it is possible that a situation similar to that of Guatemala takes place, where according to a study by OIM (2003), married indigenous migrants leave their wives with their parents or parents-in-law; this also because in Hidalgo an important proportion of extended households have an indigenous head, so it is possible that these households, having some sort of kinship, make a single unit when migration appears.

 

Average size of the household

In table 2 we observe that there is not an important difference between the average of members of the households with and without remittances, as households without remittances have on average 4.1 members, whilst the households that receive remittances have an average of 4 members. As for the State of Hidalgo, the households without remittances have an average of 4.4 members and those with remittances 4.6 on average. In this sense, both at general level and at the level of the remittance-receiving households, those in Hidalgo are larger than those in Nayarit.

 

Sort of household property

Graph 10 shows the recipient and non-recipient households that own their housing, or in the case those who live in a rented or leant house, for the States of Nayarit and Hidalgo. It is observed that in Nayarit 77.7 percent of the households without remittances has a house and 83.9 percent of the households with remittances also owns house. This percentage represents a slight difference before the non-recipient households; nonetheless, with the information provided by the XII Census it is impossible to learn whether the housing was acquired before or after migrating, so given the fact they receive remittances, we suppose a part of them has been destined for constructing, improvement and even purchasing a house, as some authors (Durand, 1994; Corona, 2001) have suggested that remittances are not only used for food, but for this sort of fixed investment. Likewise, in the State of Hidalgo a similar situation occurs, 80.3 percent of the households without remittances has a house, before 85.1 percent of the households which receive. Migrants, both from Nayarit and Hidalgo, probably destine resources to build and improve their houses, and because of this a higher percentage of households which receive remittances own their housing. Moreover, Canales (2005) has mentioned that when migrants have a steady economy and a job in the United States, remittances are oriented to buy or remodel their housing.

 

Migratory condition

Due to the different displacements an individual makes between one territory and the other, the condition of migration in a household between 1995 and 2000 might be taken as another socio-demographic characteristic; nevertheless, we have considered carrying out an independent analysis since we believe that both circular and permanent migration, as well as return migration from the U.S. are indicators linked to the reception of remittances at the household, because even though Canales (2005) has found that the households that do not have migrants also receive remittances, households with migrants are still more likely to receive them and we do not dare to say that in larger amounts.

 

Circular and permanent migration

In graph 11 we see the households with and without remittances, according to the condition of migration between 1995 and 2000 for the States of Nayarit and Hidalgo; in contrast, in Nayarit 66.6 percent of the households did not have migrants in 1995 and 2000, yet the State received remittances, while those households with migrants and remittances in the reference period represent 33.4 percent. To do so there are two possible explanations, in the first place we may say that the fact that households without migrants receive remittances is due to the lengthy migratory tradition of the State, so migrants who are permanent residents in the U.S. continue sending remittances to the parental house; and in the second place, according to Canales (2005), the households which do not have migrants also receive help from people who are not necessarily members of the household. Notwithstanding, speaking on migration, the XII Census of the year 2000 only refers to the last five years, this is to say, the migrants who left their household between 1995 and 2000; because of this, it is possible that which has been pointed out by Canales (2005) is partially occurring, yet it is also possible that the household that declared not having migrants during the reference period had had them before 1995 so the census did not count them. On its own, in Hidalgo, State of relatively recent migration, the situation is different, as 59.8 percent of the households which receive international remittances also have migrants, while those which do not have migrants but receive remittances represent 40.2 percent.

This high percentage might be due to the fact that XII Census of 2000 only refers to migrants between 1995 and 2000.

 

Return migration from the United States

In graph 12 we show households with and without remittances which present return migration from the United States for the States of Nayarit and Hidalgo; in this sense, we observe that recipient households with returning migrants represent the majority. Hence, particularly for Nayarit, the households with remittances and returning migrants barely reach 5.5 percent, compared to those households which receive remittances which did not have returning migrants and represent 94.5 percent. On the other side, in Hidalgo we find that 4.6 percent of the households with remittances also had returning migrants, whereas 95.4 percent of the households which receive remittances did not have returning migrants from the United States. It is so that the non-return of the migrants to their household explains why these households with remittances represent the largest proportion both in Nayarit and Hidalgo, for the fact that at the household with remittances the migrant is still absent means it is an important association in the reception of remittances at it, which also allows us to reinforce the argumentation supported in graph 11, this is to say, indeed as Canales (2005) pointed out before, nothing prevents the households without migrant members from receiving remittances from people alien to the households, nonetheless, the fact that at a household there is a migrant allows it to have better probabilities of receiving remittances.

 

National return migration

It is fundamental to include into this analysis the indicator of national return migration, as the background of international migration in the Hidalgo is to be found in the migration toward other States of the center of the country, mainly to Mexico City and its metropolitan zone (Vázquez, 1995; Quezada, 2004, Serrano, 2005).

In this sense national return migration refers to the members of the household who in January 1995 lived anywhere in the country, but when the census was carried out (February 2000) were back in their community of origin. Hence, in graph 13, we see the households in Nayarit and Hidalgo which receive and do not remittances from the U.S., according national return migration. Likewise, it may be seen that unlike migrants who return from the United States expressed in graph 12, where the households with remittances and migrants returning from the U.S. represent a small amount, in graph 13 we see that in the remittance-receiving households the presence of national return migrants corresponds to a considerable percentage of the total of household with remittances. In such manner that, specifically for the State of Nayarit, households with remittances and national return migrants are 6.8 percent, while 93.2 percent are households with international remittances but without national return migrants. In the same way, in the State of Hidalgo, households with remittances and national return migrants account for 10.3 percent, before 89.7 percent where there are international remittances but no national return migrants.

One might say that the demographic indicators previously described have allowed us to learn in detail the particularities of the households that receive remittances and those that do not in the States of Nayarit and Hidalgo; additionally, we have pointed out that age, schooling, the marital status of the head and a feminine head are associated to the reception of remittances, and we have also learnt that while for Nayarit a lower percentage of households with an indigenous head receive remittances, in Hidalgo they are a slightly superior proportion, which is due to a larger indigenous proportion in said State. Moreover, the economic characteristics of the household and size of the community have a different influence on the reception of remittances; in the first place the size of the community is associated to the reception of this income; in the second, the households that receive remittances have higher incomes and also receive internal remittances, however, it seems as if the influence of these characteristics on the reception of remittances from the U.S. is minimal. We can also state that the structure and composition of the household, as well as owning a house are factors that are associated to the reception of this income.

As for the migratory condition of the household, we can say that both circular and permanent migration and return migration from the United States are an important characteristic in the remittance-receiving households, since at least having a migrant member means that the household has higher probabilities to receive remittances.

 

Final considerations

The previous analysis allows us to draw some conclusions. In the first place, although the XII Census neither provides information on the familial arrangements that appeared with migration nor migration prior to 1995, it seems as though migration from Nayarit and Hidalgo is present in households with particular characteristics, since households with remittances have heads in advanced ages, with a low schooling level, are married or united, with an important participation of women as heads, they are located mainly in rural localities, mostly nuclear and extended households, small in size and they own a house, with presence of migrant members and migrants returning from the U.S. between 1995 and 2000; in the second place, the important participation of women as heads of family in remittance-receiving households in Nayarit and Hidalgo may be linked, directly or indirectly, to masculine migration, as we have shown that an important percentage of households with feminine heads receive remittances. In this same sense, migration might be generating changes inside the household, since an important proportion of nuclear or extended households have a female head. Nevertheless, as it has not been possible to verify so in a definite manner in this work, it will remain pending for future research.

A third conclusion is that even though it is not possible to learn exactly the locality and origin of the migrant, we consider that, differently from that pointed out by other authors (Durand, Massey and Zenteno, 2001), migration both from Nayarit and Hidalgo mainly has its origin in rural localities, because in the smallest communities is where the households with remittances are concentrated, which is also related to the fact that these two States are eminently rural. Fourthly, despite the fact that in this work we do not show the economic dependence on the reception of remittances, we can state that given that remittance-receiving households in Nayarit and Hidalgo have higher incomes, migration of one or more members fulfills one ofits objectives, this is to collaborate with the maximization of the household income; therefore, migration becomes a strategy to improve the conditions of life of the members. Likewise, the fact that there is no migration at a household does not inhibit the reception of remittances. This is mainly due to a limitation of the XII Census of 2000, as the question on condition ofhousehold migration only refers to the members that migrated in January 1995 and February 2000, so this leaves people who migrated before 1995 out from the sample. In this sense, speaking on households with migrants we refer to those people who left from their house to the U.S. during the reference period, which makes that an important portion of the households with remittances do not have migrants members.

Hence, in spite of all the limitations that the available databases present, this research work is a contribution to the demographic studies on migration and remittances from the viewpoint of the recipient households. Not with standing, remittances and households are a subject with many edges to be taken into account in future works, both in the sphere of the economic development of the communities that receive them, and the investment of the households on daily consumption and the characteristics proper to them and the migrants.

 

Bibliography

ÁVILA Sánchez, María de Jesús, 2000, Características de los hogares receptores de remesas en la región tradicional de emigración, 1997, Tesis de Maestría, El Colegio de la Frontera Norte, Tijuana.         [ Links ]

ARIZA, Marina y Orlandina De Oliveira, 2001, "Familias en transición y marcos conceptuales en redefinición", en Papeles de Población, año 7, núm., 28, abril-junio, CIEAP/UAEM, Toluca.         [ Links ]

BARSOTTI, Carlos A, 1981, "La organización social de la reproducción de los agentes sociales, las unidades familiares y sus estrategias", en Demografía y Economía, vol. XV, núm. 2.         [ Links ]

BULT Vander Wal, Siemon Harm, 2004, "La danza de las remesas: migración y género en sistemas familiares en el estado de Morelos", en Blanca Suárez et al. (coords.), Remesas. Milagros y muchos más realizan las mujeres indígenas y campesinas, vol. II, Serie Pemsa 6, Fundación Ford y Fundación Rockefeller, México.         [ Links ]

CANALES, Alejandro I., 2002, "Migración y trabajo en la era de la globalización: el caso de la migración México-Estados Unidos en la década de 1990", en Papeles de Población, núm. 33, año 8, julio-septiembre, CIEAP/UAEM, Toluca.         [ Links ]

CANALES, Alejandro I., 2005, "El papel de las remesas en la configuración de las relaciones familiares trasnacionales", en Papeles de Población, núm. 044, abril-junio, CIEAP/UAEM, Toluca.         [ Links ]

CORNELIUS, Wayne A., 1992, "From sojourners to settlers: the changing profiles of Mexican immigration to the United States", en Jorge Bustamante, Clark W. Reynolds, y Raúl Hinojosa-Ojeda, U.S.-Mexico relations: labor market interdependence, Stanford University Press, Stanford.         [ Links ]

CORNELIUS, Wayne y Enrico A. Marcelli, 2001, "The changing profile of Mexican migrants to the United States: new evidences from California and Mexico", en Latin American Research Review, vol. 36, núm. 3.         [ Links ]

CORONA Vázquez, Rodolfo, 1998, "Las remesas de dólares que envían los migrantes mexicanos desde Estados Unidos (medición a través de la Encuesta de Migración en la Frontera Norte de México)", en Papeles de Población, núm. 17, año 4, julio-septiembre, Toluca.         [ Links ]

CORONA Vázquez, Rodolfo, 1998, "Modificaciones de las características del flujo migratorio laboral de México a Estados Unidos", en Manuel Ángel Castillo, Alfredo Lattes y Jorge Santibáñez (coords.), Migración y frontera, El COLEF/Asociación Latinoamericana de Sociología/El COLMEX, Tijuana.

CORONA Vázquez, Rodolfo, 2001, "Monto y uso de las remesas en México", en El mercado de valores, núm. 8, agosto.         [ Links ]

DURAND, Jorge, 1994, Más allá de la línea: patrones migratorios entre México y Estados Unidos, CONACULTA, México.         [ Links ]

DURAND, Jorge y Patricia Arias, 1997, "Las remesas: ¿continuidad o cambio?", en Ciudades, núm. 35, julio-septiembre.         [ Links ]

DURAND, Jorge, Douglas S. Massey y René Zenteno, 2001, "Mexican immigration to the United States: continuities and changes", en Latin American Research Review, vol. 36, núm. 1.         [ Links ]

GALINDO Aguilar, Rosa, 2004, "La utilización de las remesas en el grupo familiar, un análisis desde el enfoque de género", en Blanca Suárez et al. (coords.), Remesas. Milagros y muchos más realizan las mujeres indígenas y campesinas, vol. II, serie Pemsa 6, Fundación Ford y Fundación Rockefeller, México.         [ Links ]

GONZÁLEZ de la Rocha, Mercedes, 1994, The resources of poverty: women and survival in Mexico City, Blackwell in association with the International Journal ofUrban and Regional Research, Oxford & Cambridge.         [ Links ]

INEGI, 2000, XII Censo General de Población y Vivienda.         [ Links ]

LÓPEZ Espinosa, Mario, 2005, Remesas de mexicanos en el exterior y su vinculación con el desarrollo económico, social y cultural de sus comunidades de origen, en http://www.oit.org.mx/pdf/remesas/remesas.pdf, mayo 11.         [ Links ]

LOZANO Ascencio, Fernando, 2002, "Migrantes de las ciudades: nuevos modelos de la migración mexicana a Estados Unidos", en Brígida García Guzmán (coord.), Población y sociedad al inicio del siglo XXI, El Colegio de México, México.         [ Links ]

LOZANO Ascencio, Fernando, 1993, Bringing it back home. Remittances to Mexico from migrant workers in the United States, Center for U.S.-Mexican Studies University of California, monograph series, 37, San Diego.         [ Links ]

LOZANO Ascencio, Fernando, 2005, Experiencias internacionales en el envío y uso de remesas, en http://www.conapo.gob.mx/publicaciones/inicios/005.htm, enero 29.         [ Links ]

MUMMERT, Gail, 1988, "Mujeres de migrantes y mujeres migrantes de Michoacán: nuevos papeles para las que se quedan y para las que se van", en T. Calvo y G. López (coords.), Movimientos de población en el occidente de México, El Colegio de Michoacán/CEMCA.         [ Links ]

QUEZADA Ramírez, María Félix, 2004, La migración hñahñú del Valle del Mezquital, estado de Hidalgo, Rodolfo Corona Vázquez (Dir.), Tesis de Maestría, El Colegio de la Frontera Norte, Tijuana.         [ Links ]

RAMÍREZ García, Telésforo, 2002, La región tradicional versus la nueva región de migración internacional en México: un análisis comparativo de los hogares receptores de remesas, Rafael Alarcón (Dir.), Tesis de Maestría. El Colegio de la Frontera Norte, Tijuana.         [ Links ]

ROBICHAUX, David, 2002, "Cultura, economía y grupos domésticos en México: una crítica y una propuesta desde la antropología", en Manuel Ribeiro, Gulles Rondeau y Santos Hernández (coords.), La familia en América del Norte: evaluación, problemática y política, Ed. Trillas, UANL, México.         [ Links ]

SANDEZ Pérez, Agustín, 2006, Estructura social y distribución del ingreso. Un estudio transversal de las disparidades en el nivel de vida de los hogares: el caso de Mexicali, Baja California 2004, Alejandro Díaz Bautista (Dir.), Tesis Doctoral, El Colegio de la Frontera Norte, Tijuana.         [ Links ]

SELBY, Henry et al., 1994, La familia en el México urbano: mecanismo de defensa frente a la crisis (1978-1992), Consejo Nacional para la Cultura y las Artes, México.         [ Links ]

SERRANO Avilés, Tomás, 2005, Pobreza y migración internacional en el Valle de Mezquital en el estado de Hidalgo, Rafael Alarcón (Dir.). Tesis Doctoral, El Colegio de la Frontera Norte, Tijuana.         [ Links ]

STANTON Russell, Sharon, 1986, "Remittances from international migration: areview in perspective", en World Development, vol. 14, núm. 6, Gran Bretaña.         [ Links ]

TUIRÁN, Rodolfo, 2000, "Importancia de las remesas en el ingreso de los hogares", en Migración México-Estados Unidos. Presente y futuro, FNUAP/CONAPO, enero, México.         [ Links ]

VÁZQUEZ, Héctor, 1995, "Otomíes del Valle de Mezquital Hidalgo", en Etnografía contemporánea de los pueblos indígenas de México, Instituto Nacional Indigenista, Región Centro, México.         [ Links ]

VEGA Briones, Germán, 1999, Changes in gender and family in the Mexican border: the Ciudad Juarez cases, Tesis de doctorado, The University of Texas at Austin.         [ Links ]

VEGA Briones, Germán, 2004, "Migración internacional y cambio económico en una zona rural de Jalisco", en Germán A. Zarate Hoyos (coord.), Remesas de los mexicanos y centroamericanos en Estados Unidos. Problemas y perspectivas, COLEF/Miguel Ángel Porrúa, marzo, México.         [ Links ]

VEGA Briones, Germán, 2004, "Algunos cambios en la familia y el matrimonio en Ciudad Juárez, Chihuahua", en Fernando Lozano (coord.), El amanecer del siglo y la población mexicana, IV Reunión Nacional de Investigaciones Demográficas en México, vol. I, CRIM/UNAM/SOMEDE, Cuernavaca.         [ Links ]

ZÁRATE Hoyos, Germán A., 2004, "Consumo y remesas en los hogares mexicanos", en Germán A. Zárate Hoyos (coord.), Remesas de los mexicanos y centroamericanos en Estados Unidos. Problemas y perspectivas, COLEF/Miguel Ángel Porrúa, México.         [ Links ]

Notes

¹ The traditional region of emigration comprises Michoacán, Guanajuato, Jalisco, Zacatecas, Durango, San Luis Potosi, Nayarit, Aguascalientes and Colima; whilst the emergent region is composed of Veracruz, State of México, Hidalgo, Guerrero, Federal District, Puebla, Oaxaca, Morelos, Queretaro and Tlaxcala (Ramírez, 2002).

² In this work a remittance-receiving household is that where at least one member receives incomes from the United States.

³ INEGI defines the head of family as the person recognized as such by the members, and that may be a man or a woman.