Introduction: Cultivating the Migration‐Food Security Nexus
| Published date | 01 August 2017 |
| Author | Jonathan Crush,Mary Caesar |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/imig.12360 |
| Date | 01 August 2017 |
Introduction: Cultivating the Migration-Food
Security Nexus
Jonathan Crush* and Mary Caesar*
In a recent survey of the migration and development research literature, Clemens et al. (2014)
argue that the field has broadened out considerably from its traditional focus on rural-urban migra-
tion and international remittances. New and emerging areas of focus include human capital invest-
ment, global diaspora networks, circular or temporary migration, and the transfer of technology and
cultural norms. However, while the migration and development research literature may well have
moved ‘far beyond remittances’, it has arguably not moved far enough. The nexus between migra-
tion and food security, for example, remains a peripheral and much-neglected concern (Choithani,
2017; Craven and Gartaula, 2015; Crush, 2013; Sharma, 2012). Clemens et al. (2014) do not men-
tion the subject, and nor is it a priority (or even a presence) in such influential fora as the Global
Migration Group, the Global Forum on Migration and Development, the UN High Level Dialogues
on International Migration, the Global Forum on Remittances, the International Conference on
Migration and Development and the World Bank’s KNOMAD programme.
There is now a significant body of case study evidence demonstrating that food purchase is a
major use of cash remittances across the Global South. In India, for example, Mahapatro et al.
(2017) found that remittance and non-remittance receiving households spend a similar proportion
of their household budget on food (45-60%), but the overall food spend by remittance recipients
is significantly higher. In Southern African countries, Crush and Pendleton (2009) report that
food purchase is by far the most important use of remittances by urban and rural migrant-sending
households. In Latin America, Acosta et al. (2008) demonstrate that remittance-receiving house-
holds spend anywhere between 35 per cent and 75 per cent of household income on food pur-
chase, with a higher proportion in rural than urban areas. Despite such evidence, much more
work is needed on the specific food security impacts of remittances on both senders and recipi-
ents. As Lacroix (2011: 34) points out, “although there is wealth of research on migrant remit-
tances, none has investigated the relationships between their use at the domestic level and food
security.”
Some work has begun to emerge on the impacts of migration and remitting on the food con-
sumption patterns and nutritional status of those left behind in rural areas (Adams and Cuevecha,
2010; Anton, 2010; Babatunde and Qaim, 2010; Graham and Gordan, 2013; Zezza et al., 2011).
This literature is still too patchy and new to draw any definitive conclusions about the links
between nutrition and remitting although there are some suggestive findings. A national study in
Ghana, for example, found that migration did not substantially affect total food expenditures per
capita, and had “minimal noticeable effect on food expenditure patterns”(Karamba et al., 2011). In
contrast, a study of food consumption patterns in Vietnam found that short-term migration had a
positive effect on overall per capita food expenditures, per capita calorie consumption and food
diversity. Long-term migration impacts were insignificant by comparison with short-term migration,
however (Nguyen and Winters, 2011).
* Balsillie School of International Affairs, Waterloo, Canada
doi: 10.1111/imig.12360
©2017 The Authors
International Migration ©2017 IOM
International Migration Vol. 55 (4) 2017
ISS N 00 20- 7985 Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
To continue reading
Request your trial