Understanding the Consequences of Migration for Asset Accumulation: A Multi-Site and Intergenerational Perspective

Şebnem Eroğlu

doi:10.1177/0197918320967310

Abstract

This article is the first to explore the consequences of migration for asset accumulation from a multi-site and intergenerational perspective that moves beyond the prevailing migrant versus “native” comparisons performed within single destination-country contexts. It specifically investigates the non-financial investments (i.e., house, land, and business-related asset holdings) made in the country of residence by three family generations of migrants with origins in Turkey: those who resided in Europe (i.e., settlers), those who moved to Turkey (i.e., returnees), and those who remained in the origin country (i.e., stayers). The data are drawn from the 2000 Families Survey, which involved personal interviews with 5,980 individuals nested within 1,770 families. The analysis shows that migration’s greatest economic beneficiaries are returnees, who display a significant tendency to accumulate the most assets across all generations and asset types. Across all three groups, intergenerational family transfers are found to make a positive difference to younger generations’ non-financial investments. The chances of reaping the benefits of such transfers, however, is shown to be particularly limited for the descendants of settlers, given this group’s propensity to accumulate the fewest (especially house and land type) non-financial assets in European destinations where they reside. Through these unique multi-site and intergenerational comparisons between migrants and stayers, this article sheds new light upon the little-explored relationship between international migration and asset accumulation, and the economic dis/benefits of migration.

Highlights

Much of the empirical literature exploring the economic outcomes of international migration draws on migrant-“native” comparisons of income, earnings, employment, and/or occupational status, which tend to be performed to test assimilation theorists’ (e.g., Alba and Nee, 1997) expectation that migrants’ economic performance would resemble that of natives as time passes (e.g., Borjas 1987; Buchel and Frick, 2005; van Tubergen, 2006; Bratsberg, Raaum and Røed 2014)
One would need to know the counterfactual (i.e., What would have happened to migrants and their descendants if they had decided to stay in the origin country?)
Auxiliary linear regression models were estimated separately for settlers, returnees, and stayers, using the same variables as those specified in MODEL 1 and 2 to provide further insight into whether the observed generational trends and intergenerational family transfers varied according to individual migration status

Summary

Introduction

Much of the empirical literature exploring the economic outcomes of international migration draws on migrant-“native” comparisons of income, earnings, employment, and/or occupational status, which tend to be performed to test assimilation theorists’ (e.g., Alba and Nee, 1997) expectation that migrants’ economic performance would resemble that of natives as time passes (e.g., Borjas 1987; Buchel and Frick, 2005; van Tubergen, 2006; Bratsberg, Raaum and Røed 2014). The final set of factors encompasses a wide range of local, national, and global contextual influences from labor and asset market conditions and government policy to public attitudes toward migrants Within this model, international migration is conceived as a major life-changing process that reconfigures migrants’ resources, behaviors, and asset or wealth status by changing the local and national contexts in which they function, some of their personal and household features (e.g., national and ethnic identity, and household composition), and/or the nature and extent of family transfers across generations. Survey information was available on the non-financial assets held in the country of residence for 96 percent (5,738 out of 5,980) of the sample, which allowed comparisons to be drawn between three family generations of settler and return migrants and their stayer counterparts to explore the following research questions: 1.

Turkish - REF 2 Kurdish 3 other

The Results

G2 G3 G1 G2 G3 G1 G2 G3

Conclusion