The Limits of Material Benefits: Remittances and Pro-Americanism in Mexico

Abstract

We explore how the reception of remittances affects perceptions of the bilateral relationship between Mexico and the United States. Scholars have claimed that the economic benefits of the relationship with the US prevail over imperialistic concerns as a result of the asymmetry of power between the two countries. Empirical research shows that Latin American public opinion is indeed more supportive of the US than theory indicates. However, we identify two gaps in this literature. First, scholars have explored the determinants of generic expressions of sentiment toward the US, overlooking more concrete instances of cooperation between the two countries. Second, scholars have focused on trade and investment and have ignored how the material gains of emigration shape attitudes toward the US. The present paper fills these two gaps by using novel survey data on the bilateral relationship between Mexico and the US. On one hand, we find that while the reception of remittances correlates positively with good sentiments toward the US, the recipients of remittances are consistently more opposed to cooperation with the US in the fight against drug trafficking. We argue that this finding can be explained by the different nature of the migratory phenomenon, and the connection between anti-drug trafficking policies and the close scrutiny of illegal flows of money and people.

Forced returns fuel anti‐Americanism: Evidence from U.S. deportations to Latin America

“…5 In Latin America, empirical research based on public opinion data is limited to a handful of articles. And what this research shows is that opinions about the United States among the public do not often mirror elites' hostility (Azpuru & Boniface, 2015;Baker & Cupery, 2013;Maldonado et al, 2015;Meseguer et al, 2017).…”

“…Our argument revolves around an oft‐cited determinant of (less) anti‐Americanism that directly connects with our goal of exploring the relationship between deportations, anti‐Americanism and foreign policy. The so‐called ‘contact‐and‐information’ hypothesis holds that frequent travel, living in the United States or contact with emigrant relatives enhances trust in the United States and improves perceptions of it (Azpuru & Boniface, 2015; Baker & Cupery, 2013; Chiozza, 2007, 2009; Meseguer et al., 2017; Nye, 2004). As a result of emigration, relatives become stakeholders with a strong interest in a good‐neighbor relationship with the United States.…”

“…As a result of emigration, relatives become stakeholders with a strong interest in a good‐neighbor relationship with the United States. A side effect of this is that relatives who remain behind have incentives to be more informed about what happens in the United States, improving their knowledge about and reducing prejudice against the host country (Meseguer et al., 2017, p. 8). These social remittances, that is the transmission of ideas and information to relatives left behind (Levitt, 1998; Pérez‐Armendáriz & Crow, 2010), are often accompanied by financial remittances or the money that migrants send back to their relatives.…”

“…These social remittances, that is the transmission of ideas and information to relatives left behind (Levitt, 1998; Pérez‐Armendáriz & Crow, 2010), are often accompanied by financial remittances or the money that migrants send back to their relatives. One factor that makes families more supportive of a fluid bilateral relationship is that émigrés’ jobs guarantee a steady flow of income to the households left behind (Meseguer et al., 2017). Consequently, social and financial remittances, and contact with emigrants are considered good strategies for generating positive attitudes toward the United States.…”