Abstract
The article explores how different factors shape migrants’ transnational social fields and support networks through a comparative study of two different groups of migrants—asylum seekers and expatriates—in Budapest, Hungary. To do so, the study employs a parallel mixed‐methods social network design by combining personal network data with qualitative data based on interviews and ethnographic fieldwork with thirty‐three migrants in the aftermath of the 2015 refugee crisis. The article presents three key findings: First, it finds that asylum seekers’ and expatriates’ networks differ on several key characteristics, as asylum seekers’ close personal networks are less efficient, smaller in size, and show a remarkable lack of friendship and transnational support ties. Second, it also finds that asylum seekers have limited access to social support and, especially so, to financial and emotional support. Lastly, using multi‐level models, the article also demonstrates how migrants’ legal status and the transnationality of their support ties affect their access to financial support, as well as how their gender and legal status shape their access to emotional support. These findings illustrate how migrants’ individual opportunity structures affect their transnational practices alongside their access to social support, while also highlighting the importance of several individual and contextual factors which contribute to the diverse integration processes of migrants.
Subject
Sociology and Political Science,Social Psychology
Reference43 articles.
1. Abraham, R., Lien, L., & Hanssen, I. (2018). Coping, resilience and posttraumatic growth among Eritrean female refugees living in Norwegian asylum reception centres: A qualitative study. International Journal of Social Psychiatry, 64(4), 359–366.
2. Agneessens, F., Waege, H., & Lievens, J. (2006). Diversity in social support by role relations: A typology. Social Networks, 28(4), 427–441.
3. Alba, R., & Nee, V. (1997). Rethinking assimilation theory for a new era of immigration. International Migration Review, 31(4), 826–874.
4. Alexander, M., Chamberlain, D., Hollows, K., Laughton, K., & Pitman, C. (2008). Social capital resources and network embeddedness: An egonet approach [Paper presentation]. TASA Annual Conference, University of Melbourne, Australia.
5. Allport, G. (1979). The nature of prejudice. Basic books.
Cited by
3 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献