The Kazakh–German Social Space: Decreasing Transnational Ties and Symbolic Social Protection

Abstract

Through migration, expectations and obligations of social protection can change and migrants can be faced with the situation where they are not able to fulfil these new expectations, for example, because of a lack of (financial) resources. The sending of parcels to Kazakhstan will be used in this paper as an example of one form of symbolic protectionby which we mean protection where the symbolic value is very high whilst the material value is low -within the German-Kazakh social space, which allows migrants to maintain transnational ties and be the provider of protection to their relatives left behind. Drawing on interviews collected in a multi-sited matched sample approach, we demonstrate that when family members in both countries compare life chances, a 'transnational space of comparison' emerges. Transnational comparisons in the German-Kazakh social space shape expectations of reciprocity in informal protection that often diverge from those within the national space. For example, migrants in Germany can be defined by their family members as in need of protection within a national network but at the same time as providers of protection within transnational networks. We argue that transnational comparisons can lead to inequalities within multi-locally organised families, such as the exclusion of migrants in Germany from transnational informal protection. Our study contributes to the literature on social protection by drawing attention to a form of protection in transnational spaces that has low material but high symbolic value, indicating the symbolic dimension of social protection.

Diaspora and government welfare spending: Do migrant remittances increase public social protection?

“…A relatively limited and recent social policy literature explores the role of migrant remittances in private and informal SP using household surveys. Examples of this study include Boccagni () on Ecuador, Jimenez and Brown () on Fiji, Brown and Jimenez () on Tonga, Brown et al () on Fiji and Tonga, Dankyi, Mazzucato, and Manuh () on Ghana, Sienkiewicz, Sadovskaya, and Amelina () on Kazakhstan, and Mendola () on Mozambique. These studies highlight a number of key messages.…”

Transnational families and the circulation of care: a Romanian–German case study

“…Many of the survivors were then released to Eastern Germany, rather than Transylvania, thereby adding to the many Saxons who had ended up in Germany as refugees or prisoners of war and creating the first large set of TNFs separated by borders and regimes. The constitution of the Federal Republic of Germany recognises as German the estimated eight million ethnic Germans living in East and Central Europe after 1945 (Sanders 2016; Sienkiewicz, Sadovskaya and Amelina 2015; Weber et al 2003: 461: 145ff.). Thus were created not only the motivation for Saxons to emigrate to Germany on account of family reunification, but also the legal means by which they would gain citizenship upon arrival.…”

“…3 Their intention was to relocate permanently to Germany, rather than make money with an eye to eventual return (Weber et al 2003); this is true for other German minorities throughout Eastern Europe who have moved to Germany since 1990 ( e.g. Sienkiewicz, Sadovskaya and Amelina 2015). 4 Secondly, migration has typically involved families rather than individuals.…”

“…Respondents expressed reservations about ‘uprooting an old tree’ and referred to the incompatibility of familial old-age care with German work-life, housing and individualism. Immigration has become more restrictive (Sienkiewicz, Sadovskaya and Amelina 2015), and there were concerns about escalating costs should an elderly relative need institutional care in Germany 17…”

“…13Sienkiewicz, Sadovskaya and Amelina (2015: 276) have written on the importance of parcels in TNF relationships between ethnic Germans in Kazakhstan and their migrant relatives in Germany. Their article contains an almost identical quote attesting to the sense of inferiority of the recipient vis-à-vis the donor.…”