Varieties of Transnationalism and Its Changing Determinants across Immigrant Generations: Evidence from French Data¹

Abstract

In this article, I use the French Trajectories and Origins survey to describe patterns and trends of cross-border ties across immigrant generations. Transnational activities are measured through a wide range of cross-border ties, grouped into three dimensions: sociopolitical, economic, and a third dimension that I call re-migration. Three sets of determinants are taken into account: variables measuring exposure to the country of origin, variables describing incorporation in the host country, and variables that are specific to each generation. Conversely to the straight-line assimilation paradigm, the findings put the analytical power of the generational variable into perspective by (1) highlighting the wide variability of transnationalism within each generation and (2) measuring distinct intergenerational trends along different types of cross-border engagement. A thorough investigation of the sources of within-generation heterogeneity emphasizes the explanatory power of state-level, religious, and ethnoracial variables.

Comparing generations of migrants’ transnational behaviour: the role of the transnational convoy and integration

“…Where first generation migrants' transnational behaviours would mainly be triggered by transnational relationships (Itzigsohn 2002), the second generation's would be more reliant on reception contexts (Espiritu 2003). No convincing support for this idea was found in comparative research (Safi 2017). Consequently, we do not differentiate in explanations for different generation's transnational behaviour.…”

“…We are thus reluctant to conclude that structural integration is more important for later than for earlier generations in steering transnational behaviour. Comparing generations at non-similar ages inevitably results in some issues regarding the distribution of variables, as age effects are found among many aspects of life (Safi 2017). Only cohort-sequential analysis may resolve this problem, but data collection enabling such a design is long-lasting and costly, and hitherto unavailable.…”

“…Research suggests that generations differ in the importance of transnational relationships for transnational involvement (Safi 2017). Where first generation migrants' transnational behaviours would mainly be triggered by transnational relationships (Itzigsohn 2002), the second generation's would be more reliant on reception contexts (Espiritu 2003).…”

“…A second explanation for generational variety in transnational behaviour calls upon integration into the residence country (Safi 2017). We distinguish structural and sociocultural integration.…”

“…Acknowledging this, scholars have studied second-generation transnational involvements (Wessendorf 2013), and concluded that the frequency and intensity of their transnational activities diverge from those of their parents (Levitt and Glick Schiller 2004). However, exactly how different generations of migrants compare to the first generation in their transnational behaviours is still poorly investigated (Safi 2017). In this paper, we first aim to provide a detailed image of how migrant generations, until the third generation, differ in transnational behaviours.…”