Applying the Resource Environment to Ecuadorian Migrant Cross-Border Practices of Social Protection in Vienna and Quito: Possibilities and Limitations

Journal title MONDI MIGRANTI
Author/s Daniela Paredes Grijalva
Publishing Year 2019 Issue 2019/3
Language English Pages 20 P. 43-62 File size 205 KB
DOI 10.3280/MM2019-003003
DOI is like a bar code for intellectual property: to have more infomation click here

Below, you can see the article first page

If you want to buy this article in PDF format, you can do it, following the instructions to buy download credits

Article preview

FrancoAngeli is member of Publishers International Linking Association, Inc (PILA), a not-for-profit association which run the CrossRef service enabling links to and from online scholarly content.

With a transnational perspective, this ethnography of Ecuadorian migrants in Vi-enna and their families in Ecuador focuses on how access to health care, old age, and social security are arranged for across borders, both through formal and informal channels. The "resource environment" is used as a tool to identify services and channels for transnational social protection. Applying the tool to empirical data exposes a series of practices and actors which challenge neatly cut categories. While it allows mapping dissimilar services and actors, it has limits in differentiat-ing between service provision with the financing. This distinction reveals the im-portance of individual citizen’s private money. Thus, although the state may ap-pear at the forefront of the protection of its citizens abroad, a tendency of self-responsibilisation in and outside Ecuador is evident.

Keywords: Transnational social protection; migration; care; health; reproductive work; ecuador.

  1. Bilecen B. and Barglowski K. (2015). On the Assemblages of Informal and Formal Transnational Social Protection. Population, Space and Place, 21, 3: 203-214;
  2. Boccagni P. (2013). Caring about migrant care workers: from private obligations to transnational social welfare?. Critical Social Policy, 34, 2: 221-240; DOI: 10.1177/0261018313500867
  3. Boccagni P. (2011). Migrant’s social protection as a transnational process: public policies and emigrant initiative in the case of Ecuador. International Journal of Social Welfare, 20, 3: 318-325;
  4. Burgess K. and Tinajero B. (2011). Collective remittances as non-state transnational transfers: Patterns of transnationalism in Mexico and El Salvador. In: Brown S.S., ed., Transnational transfers and global development. New York, NY: Palgrave MacMillan.
  5. Buroway M. (1991). The extended Case Method. In: Buroway M. et al., eds., Ethnography Unbound. Power and Resitance in the Modern Metropolis. Berkeley: University of California Press.
  6. Castellani S. and Martín-Díaz E. (2019). Re-writing the domestic role: transnational migrants’ households between informal and formal social protection in Ecuador and in Spain. Comparative Migration Studies, 7, 7.
  7. Castles S. and Miller M. (1998). The age of migration: international population movements in the modern world. New York: Guilford Press.
  8. Comaroff J. and Comaroff J. (2003). Ethnography on an Awkward Scale: Postcolonial Anthropology and the Violence of Abstraction. Ethnography, 4, 2: 147-179; DOI: 10.1177/14661381030042001
  9. Délano A. and Gamlen A. (2014). Comparing and theorizing state diaspora relations. Political Geography, 41: 45-53;
  10. Dobbs E. and Levitt P. (2017). The missing link? The role of sub-national governance in transnational social protections. Oxford Development Studies, 45, 1: 47-63; DOI: 10.1080/13600818.2016.1271867
  11. Faist T. (2018). The Transnationalized Social Question: Migration and the Politics of Social Inequalities in the Twenty-First Century. Oxford University Press.
  12. Faist T. (2017). Transnational social protection in Europe: a social inequality perspective. Oxford Development Studies, 45, 1: 20-32; DOI: 10.1080/13600818.2016.1193128
  13. Faist T. and Bilecen A. (2015). Social Inequalities through the Lens of Social Protection: Notes on the Transnational Social Question. Population, Space and Place, 21, 3: 282-293;
  14. Faist T. (2014). On the transnational social question: How social inequalities are reproduced in Europe. Journal of European Social Policy, 24, 3: 207-222; DOI: 10.1177/0958928714525814
  15. Feldman G. (2011). If ethnography is more than participant-observation, then relations are more than connections: The case for nonlocal ethnography in a world of apparatuses. Anthropological Theory, 11, 4: 375-395; DOI: 10.1177/1463499611429904.
  16. Feldman G. (2012). The Migration Apparatus. Security, Labor, and Policymaking in the European Union. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
  17. Forsey M. (2010). Ethnography as Participant Listening. Ethnography, 11, 4: 558- 572; DOI: 10.1177/1466138110372587.
  18. Guarnizo L. and Smith M. (1998). Theorizing Transnationalism. In: Guarnizo L. and Smith M., eds. Transnationalism from Below. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.
  19. Gupta A. and Ferguson J. (1997). Anthropological Locations. Boundaries and Grounds of a Field Science. Berkeley: University of California Press.
  20. Gusterson H. (1997). Studying Up Revisited. Political and Legal Anthropology Review, 20, 1: 114-119;
  21. Gutiérrez-Rodríguez E. (2014). Domestic work-affective labor: On feminization and the coloniality of labor. Women's Studies International Forum, 46: 45-53;
  22. Harvey D. (2004). The ‘new’ imperialism: accumulation by dispossession. Socialist Register, 40: 63-87 -
  23. Herrera G. (2013). Lejos de tus pupilas: Familias transnacionales, cuidados y desigualdad social en Ecuador. Quito: Flacso Ecuador/Onu Mujeres.
  24. Herrera G. (2005). Mujeres ecuatorianas en las cadenas globales del cuidado. In: Herrera G., Carrillo M. and Torres, eds., La migración ecuatoriana: transnacio- nalismo, redes e identidades. Quito: Flacso, Sede Ecuador.
  25. Herrera G. and Carrillo M. (2009). Transformaciones familiares en la experiencia migratoria ecuatoriana. Una mirada desde los contextos de salida. Mélanges de la Casa Velázquez. Dialogues transatlantiques autour des migrations latino-américaines en Espagne, 39, 1 --
  26. Hochschild A.R. (2000). Global Care Chains and Emotional Surplus Value. In: Hutton W. and Giddens A., eds. On The Edge: Living with Global Capitalism. London: Jonathan Cape.
  27. Hondagneu-Sotelo P. (1995). Women and Children First: New Directions in Anti-Immigrant Politics. Socialist Review, 25: 169-190.
  28. Iess - Instituto Ecuatoriano de Seguridad Social (2016). Boletín estadístico 22-2016 -- [29.March.2019].
  29. Iess- Instituto Ecuatoriano de Seguridad Social (2015). Boletín estadístico 21-2015 -- [29.March.2019].
  30. Iess - Instituto Ecuatoriano de Seguridad Social (2014). Boletín estadístico 20-2014 -- [29.March.2019].
  31. Kersbergen K., Vis B. and Hemerijck A. (2014). The Great Recession and Welfare State Reform: Is Retrenchment Really the Only Game Left in Town?. Social Policy & Administration, 48, 7: 883-904;
  32. Koettl J. and Sabates-Wheeler R. (2010). Social Protection for Migrants: The Challenges of Delivery in the Context of Changing Migration Flows. International Social Security Review, 63, 3-4: 115-144;
  33. Lagomarsino F. and Pagnotta C. (2018). Migración Ecuatoriana En Italia. Las Funciones De Las Redes Migratorias. Controversias Y Concurrencias Latinoamericanas, 1, 1, 267-291 --
  34. Lafleur J.M. and Lizin O. (2015) Transnational Health Insurance Schemes: A New Avenue for Congolese Immigrants in Belgium to Care for Their Relatives’ Health from Abroad? TSI Working Paper Series, 3: 1-24 --
  35. Lafleur J.M. and Vivas Romero M. (2018). Combining transnational and intersectional approaches to immigrants' social protection: The case of Andean families' access to health. Comparative Migration Studies, 6, 1: 14;
  36. Levitt P. and de la Dehesa R. (2003). Transnational migration and the redefinition of the state: Variations and explanations. Ethic and racial studies, 26, 4: 587-611; DOI: 10.1080/0141987032000087325.
  37. Levitt P. and Glick-Schiller N. (2004). Conceptualizing Simultaneity: A transnational Social Field Perspective on Society. International Migration Review, 38, 3: 1002-1039 --
  38. Levitt P. and Khagram S. (2008). Constructing Transnational Studies. In: Levitt P. and Khagram S., eds., The transnational studies reader: intersections and innovations. New York: Routledge.
  39. Levitt P., Viterna J., Mueller A. and Lloyd C. (2015). Global Social Protection: Setting the Agenda. Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies. Research Paper Series, 78: 1-21;
  40. Mack N. et al. (2005). Qualitative Research Methods: A data collector’s field guide. North Carolina: Family Health International.
  41. Ministerio de Asuntos Exteriores y de Cooperación (2009). Convenio de Seguridad Social entre el Reino de España y la República del Ecuador. Boe, 32 de 7 de febrero de 2011: Boe-A-2011-2278.
  42. Miraftab F. (2014). Displacement: Framing the Global Relationally. In: Kahn H., ed., Framing the Global: Entry Points for the Search. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
  43. Miraftab F. (2016). Global Heartland: Displaced Labor Transnational Lives and Local Placemaking. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
  44. Ong A. (1999). Flexible Citizenship: The Cultural Logics of Transnationality. Durham: Duke University Press.
  45. Oecd (2015). Pensions at a Glance 2015: Oecd and G20 Indicators. Paris: Oecd Publishing; DOI: 10.1787/19991363.
  46. Paredes Grijalva D. (2017). Caring for Ecuadorians on the move: towards transnational social protection?. Master Thesis. University of Vienna --
  47. Parella Rubio S. (2012). Familia transnacional y redefinición de los roles de género. El caso de la migración boliviana en España. Papers, 97, 3: 661-684;
  48. Pew Trust (2014). Mapping Public Benefits for Immigrants in the States -- [27.March.2019].
  49. Portes A. (2001). Introduction: the Debates and Significance of Immigrant Transnationalism. Global Networks, 1, 3: 181-194; DOI: 10.1111/1471-0374.00012
  50. Pries L. (2001). The Disruption of Social and Geographic Space. Mexican-US Migration and the Emergence of Transnational Social Spaces. International Sociology, 16, 1: 55-74; DOI: 10.1177/0268580901016001005
  51. Quijano A. (2000). Colonialidad del poder, eurocentrismo y América Latina. In: Lander E., ed., La colonialidad del saber: eurocentrismo y ciencias sociales. Perspectivas Latinoamericanas. Buenos Aires: Clacso.
  52. Ragazzi F. (2014). A comparative analysis of diaspora policies. Political Geography, 41, 74-89;
  53. Salazar Parrenas R. (2000). Migrant Filipina Domestic Workers and the International Division of Reproductive Labor. Gender and Society, 14, 4: 560-580; --
  54. Sassen S. (2001). Cracked Casings. Notes Towards an Analytics for Studying transnational process. In: Pries L., ed., New Transnational Spaces: International Migration and Transnational Companies in the Early Twenty-First Century. London: Routledge.
  55. Serra E. and Mazzucatto V. (2017). Mobile Populations in Immobile Welfare Systems: A Typology of Institutions Providing Social Welfare and Protection Within a Mobility Framework. The European Journal of Development Research, 29, 4: 787-805.
  56. Shore C. and Wright S. (2011). Conceptualising Policy: Technologies of Governance and the Politics of Visibility. In: Shore C., Wright S. and Però D., eds., Policy Worlds: Anthropology and the Analysis of Contemporary Power. Oxford: Berghahn Books.
  57. United Nations (2015). World Population Ageing Report. United Nations: New York.
  58. Vertovec S. (2004). Trends and Impacts of Migrant Transnationalism. Centre on Migration, Policy and Society. Working Paper No. 3: 1-78.
  59. Wimmer A. and Glick-Schiller N. (2002). Methodological nationalism and beyond: nation-state building, migration and the social sciences. Global Networks, 2, 4: 301-334; DOI: 10.1111/1471-0374.00043

Daniela Paredes Grijalva, Applying the Resource Environment to Ecuadorian Migrant Cross-Border Practices of Social Protection in Vienna and Quito: Possibilities and Limitations in "MONDI MIGRANTI" 3/2019, pp 43-62, DOI: 10.3280/MM2019-003003