Abstract
AbstractThis paper compares generations (G1, G1.5, G2, G3) of male Turkish migrants to Europe in their transnational behaviours: contact frequency, visits, remittances, property ownership and voting. We aim to explain differences by generational differences in transnational convoy size and integration into residence countries. Data from 798 members of migrant families were obtained from 2000 Families. Generations differ in visiting, remitting, property ownership and voting, but not in contact frequency. Using regression analysis, the transnational convoy cannot explain transnational behaviours. Structural and socio-cultural integration impact various transnational behaviours within generations. Generally, waning of transnational ties across generations cannot be attributed to differences in transnational ties or integration. We add to knowledge on generational differences in transnational behaviour until the third generation and on determinants of transnational behaviour, but conclude that the field of transnational studies is in need of further refinement of operationalization and theory to understand generational differences in transnational behaviour.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Law,Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty,Sociology and Political Science,Geography, Planning and Development,Demography,Law,Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty,Sociology and Political Science,Geography, Planning and Development,Demography
Reference53 articles.
1. Alba, R., Logan, J., Lutz, A., & Stults, B. (2002). Only English by the third generation? Loss and preservation of the mother tongue among the grandchildren of contemporary immigrants. Demography, 39(3), 467–484. https://doi.org/10.1353/dem.2002.0023.
2. Algan, Y., Dustmann, C., Glitz, A., & Manning, A. (2009). The economic situation of first and second–generation immigrants in France, Germany and the United Kingdom. Economic Journal, 120(542), 4–30. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0297.2009.02338.x.
3. Antonsich, M. (2010). Searching for belonging – An analytical framework. Geography Compass, 4(6), 644–659. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-8198.2009.00317.x.
4. Bachmeier, J., Lessard, L., & Fokkema, T. (2013). The gendered dynamics of integration and transnational engagement among second–generation adults in Europe. In L. Oso, & N. Ribas Mateos (Eds.), The international handbook on gender, migration and transnationalism. Global and development perspectives (pp. 268–293). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781781951477.00022.
5. Boccagni, P. (2012). Even a transnational social field must have its boundaries: Methodological options, potentials and dilemmas for researching transnationalism. In C. Vargas-Silva (Ed.), Handbook of research methods in migration (pp. 295–318). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Cited by
8 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