Factors  for  migration

According to a survey in 1999, reasons for rural-urban migration in Bolivia were related to family (50,1%), education (25,6%), job seeking (18,2%), job relocation (3,9%) and health (2,2%) (Andersen, 2002). It is striking that migration motivated by familial situations makes up a huge percentage. This is because when the head of household makes the decision to migrate, the rest of the family are inclined to follow. Health issues generate migration in Bolivia because of huge varieties in landscape. Those who mention health as a factor for migration are most likely to migrate from the highland to the lowland. Bolivia’s highland,

known as “Altiplano,” is located on an average altitude of 13000 feet (3962 meters) above sea level (Klein, 2011). Air is thin at this altitude and the temperature is relatively low, which can affect people in an unfortunate way if they have health problems. Informants in my study reported the following reasons for migrating ¹: the family’s situation (they were children at the time and followed their parents through the migration process) (6), job-seeking (3), job relocation (2), a job offer (1), searching for other opportunities (1), climate/health (1) and parent-child conflicts (1). One of the internal migrants had migrated twice and reported that one move was made because of a job offer and the other was made for “climate and health”

reasons.

Motives to migrate are influenced by push factors. These are negative factors at home that make people desperate to leave and search for opportunities elsewhere. Some examples of push factors are social unrest (i.e. conflicts or political instability), poverty, lack of employment, and low agricultural productivity (Perez-Crespo, 1991). The majority of internal migrants in my study had migrated from La Paz and Potosi, which are highland regions with challenging climates that can create problems for cultivation; people work hard and do not produce much (Leinaweaver, 2008). Pull factors are the factors that make a destination seem attractive to migrants. Pull factors may include what kind of opportunities are on offer, such as economic opportunities (that may be either fully realistic, or based on unrealistic expectations), improved education (Perez-Crespo, 1991) and more specifically for this study;

job opportunities and improved health and climate.

According to Arnez (ca. 2009), reasons for migration among Cochabamba women who emigrated to Spain were unemployment (55%), family reunification (9%) family conflicts (4%) and other reasons (31%). Other reasons include studying and searching for work to make improvements to a family’s conditions. In my study, no one mentioned unemployment as a push-factor for migration, although pull-factors mentioned were related to better working conditions and higher salaries abroad. Many migrants mentioned several motives. Pull-factors for migration included saving money to reconstruct, buying or building a house (3), improving the families’ conditions to create a better future for their children (2), earning and saving money more quickly than what was possible in Bolivia (2), studying (2), starting a

1  Categories of factors for migration were devised through coding extracts of interviews with informants.    

business (1) and migrating with the intention of bringing a family later on (1). Push-factors mentioned included bad couple relationships that involved fighting, or the maltreatment of one spouse by the other (2). One informant said he went (to Argentina) to see if he could stay away from his family. If he could, he would go to Spain, although he did not do so.

Studies into Bolivian children’s understanding of why their parents had migrated show that the perceived motives were to work, improve living conditions, (Fe y Alegría, 2010), start a business, decrease poverty by paying off debts, fulfill ambitions, heal/ solve family conflicts and to have their own house (Quiroga, Quiroga and Bustos, 2007). Some of the children in these studies did not know why their parents migrated. Some children also assumed that parents migrated for the children’s sake – with the purpose to improve the children’s lives (Fe y Alegría, 2010). In my study, children understood that their parents’ motives were to improve their economic situation (3), to work (3), to improve the family’s conditions (2), to open their children to the opportunity of studying at a university (1), to buy a car (1), to buy a house (1), and to avoid further conflicts with spouse (1). Some children mentioned several different motives for their parents’ migration, while some didn’t respond to this question at all. One boy replied that he did not know the motive(s). It seems that some of the children in my study assumed that it was for their sake that their parents had migrated. Children were also asked about general motives that other families may have for migrating. This elicited different responses: to earn money for their family (8), to work/increase their salaries (4), to find better opportunities in order to improve their lives (2), to separate from their spouse in order to avoid further fighting (2), to make a living (1), to find a new partner (1), to be able to buy commodities they have not had before (1), to buy a house (1), and to buy a car (1).

Goycoechea’s study (2003) looked at the imaginaries Ecuadorians have about international migration and how these imaginaries are influenced and upheld by migrated family members’

narratives. This study’s findings can be applied to Bolivian family members of migrants as about 60% of all Bolivians have family members abroad (Cortes, 2002). It is often specific benefits that motivate migration. These specific benefits are, for example, work opportunities, economic opportunities that make it possible for a family to plan a future with their own house, and educational opportunities for children. Goycoechea states that migration is planned and performed as an escape from negative conditions and as a plan to live family life in dignity. Migrants’ expectations of finding better opportunities are shaped by information

they have received from relatives or friends who have already migrated. Imaginaries of familial development and improved welfare inspire people to go through the risky process of migration (Goycoechea, 2003). Networks formed with other migrants can influence the decision to migrate, the destination they migrate to, who performs the migration (mother or father in a family) and with whom. In my study, the international migrants’ destinations depended on whether they knew anyone who had already migrated to those selected destinations on prior occasions. Relatives in different countries told them to come to work with them, because migrants that were being persuaded would earn more and could improve their family’s condition. A migrant’s imaginaries and preconceptions are not always confirmed by their reality after migrating, as Salvatierra (2010) claims; the migrants do not have enough information about migration procedures and about the place and country they are going to. However, it is the imaginaries that motivate the power to take action.

The social status of a family can also be a motivation to migrate. People living in poverty migrate for survival or improvement of their living conditions, whereas higher-class migrants’ motives may be related to their profession or studies (Carling, Menjívar and Schmalzbauer, 2012).

Where a migrant chooses to go can also depend on immigration policies, for example visa requirements and border control. Going to other continents is more difficult, expensive and risky. While in South American countries, (e.g. Chile) Bolivians can enter the country with an easily obtainable identity card, and return to the border every third month to renew their visa.