Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies

ISSN: 1369-183X (Print) 1469-9451 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cjms20

International migration and household living

arrangements among transnational families in
Brazil

Nuni V. Jorgensen, Alisson F. Barbieri, Gilvan R. Guedes & Gisela P. Zapata

To cite this article: Nuni V. Jorgensen, Alisson F. Barbieri, Gilvan R. Guedes & Gisela P. Zapata
(2019): International migration and household living arrangements among transnational families in
Brazil, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, DOI: 10.1080/1369183X.2019.1707646

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2019.1707646

Published online: 29 Dec 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 30

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cjms20
JOURNAL OF ETHNIC AND MIGRATION STUDIES
https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2019.1707646

International migration and household living arrangements

among transnational families in Brazil
Nuni V. Jorgensen , Alisson F. Barbieri , Gilvan R. Guedes and Gisela P. Zapata
Center for Development and Regional Planning, Belo Horizonte, Brazil

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Much has been discussed in the international literature about the Received 10 January 2019
relationship between family arrangements and migration decision- Accepted 16 December 2019
making, although few studies have done so through the analysis of
KEYWORDS
quantitative data from migrants’ countries of origin. Based on the Transnational families;
theoretical contributions brought by the New Economics of Labor migration regimes; life cycle;
Migration and Transnationalism, we investigate how three household living
intervening factors affect household living arrangements in the arrangements; U.S; Portugal
migrant’s country of origin: people’s life-cycle stages, migration
regimes, and family normative systems. Using as case study the
municipality of Governador Valadares, Brazil, the country’s main
international emigration hotspot, we draw on a mixed-methods
approach that includes the analysis of the Brazilian Census and
novel survey data, in addition to 20 in-depth semi-structured
interviews with migrants’ relatives and returnees. The results point
to clear differences between the structure of households with and
without international emigrants. The reasons for these differences
may be two-fold: (a) international emigration is an important factor
leading to the rearrangement of family care systems, and (b)
migration decision-making processes are dependent upon
particular household structures, family norms and migration regimes.

Introduction
Much of the contemporary literature on population mobility has emphasised the role of
households in shaping the decision to migrate (Agesa and Kim 2001; Tsegai 2007;
Nguyen, Raabe, and Grote 2015; Giles and Mu 2017). In contrast with neoclassical indi-
vidualism, the New Economics of Labor Migration (NELM) stresses that migration is a
project that reflects a strategy for family survival. In this sense, households in developing
countries, often affected by market insecurities or even climate change (Bardsley and Hugo
2010; Black et al. 2011, 2013), send selected household members to work in other regions,
seeking to minimise risk by diversifying available resources or to maximise profit by reach-
ing markets with higher wages (Stark and Bloom 1985; Vanwey 2004; Vanwey, Guedes,
and D’Antona 2012).
Despite the recognized influence of households on individuals’ decision to migrate and
remit financial and social resources to their communities of origin, critics of NELM argue

CONTACT Nuni V. Jorgensen nunivj@gmail.com

This article has been republished with minor changes. These changes do not impact the academic content of the article.
© 2019 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 N. V. JORGENSEN ET AL.

that it often ignores existing power asymmetries within the household and the rebellious
symbolism that the departure of an individual may represent (Haug 2008; Bakewell 2010).
Another limitation of this theory is its lack of consideration of intra-household arrange-
ments, which may impact upon selectivity and conflicts affecting migration decisions
(Harbison 1981; De Haas and Fokkema 2010). Thus, in order to understand the causes
and consequences of migration one must acknowledge the strategic nature of migration,
the conflicts, negotiations, and (re) arrangements (both productive and reproductive) that
this phenomenon may entail for the household members left behind. Disagreements,
conflicts around gender roles, separations and leaving children behind to be raised by
grandparents and other extended family members are all possible unintended conse-
quences of migration (Wong 2006; De Haas 2013; Das, de Valk, and Merz 2016), with
direct implications for migrant’s decision-making and for the dynamics of migrant-
sending households.
Although Brazilian emigration, mainly to the United States, has been widely documen-
ted (Margolis 1994, 2003, 2013; Sales 1999; Fusco 2005; Siqueira, Assis, and Fonseca 2012;
Soares 2002), the interrelations between family living arrangements in the country of
origin and international mobility have hardly been systematically explored in the litera-
ture. This paper investigates existing negotiations, (re) arrangements, and conflicts sur-
rounding international migration within migrant-sending households. Using as case
study the municipality of Governador Valadares, Brazil, the country’s main international
emigration hotspot, we discuss how household living arrangements at the origin affect and
are affected by the migration process. By arrangements we mean both the structure –
specifically, kin networks present in the household – and normative aspects of care
exchanges among members. In order to incorporate the increasing diversity of migration
originating in Valadares, we look at households with migrants in the United States (U.S.)
and Portugal. Drawing on a mixed-methods approach, this paper includes the analysis of
Census and novel survey data, in addition to 20 in-depth semi-structured interviews con-
ducted with migrants’ relatives and returnees. While the secondary data provides insights
on the quantitative dimension of the consequences of migration for household structures,
the interviews help us understand the full and often hidden spectrum of migration
decision-making, conflicts, negotiations and (re) arrangements within the household.
Our analysis is structured around three key factors that intervene in transnational care
circulation among family members: life-cycle stages, migration regimes, and family nor-
mative systems. First, we identify the main configurations found in migrant households
as a proxy for the type of family structures migrants leave behind. Secondly, we analyze
the circulation of care by country of destination along two well-established migration cor-
ridors: Brazil-United States and Brazil-Portugal. We then examine how migration shapes
and is shaped by specific care (re) arrangements and family norms. And finally, we discuss
the implications for a more comprehensive understanding of the interrelations between
international migration and household living arrangements.

Determinants of the circulation of care among transnational household

members
The literature on transnationalism provides important contributions to overcome the
apparent conflicting aspects of migration decision-making by conceiving the negotiations
 JOURNAL OF ETHNIC AND MIGRATION STUDIES 3

around migration as being always fluid, circumstantial to time and space, and subject to
changes in individual perception. We understand transnational families as those units
physically separated by distance, but that manage to maintain caring relationships, mon-
etary and non-monetary, in a regular circular way across national borders (Merla and Bal-
dassar 2014). In turn, we adopt the definition of care formulated by Finch (1989), as
conceived through five different dimensions: economic, personal, practical, emotional,
and residential.
The economic dimension is undoubtedly the most well known when it comes to inter-
national migration, and it is precisely the one discussed by NELM. It consists primarily
of money and material goods sent back to the origin household. The personal dimension,
or hands-on care, can only be exercised, in the context of transnational migration, during
regular visits when people are in physical proximity. The practical dimension encompasses
information flows such as advice, technical knowledge, tips and orders, which can be exer-
cised during visits, but also through regular communication via telephone or the Internet.
The emotional dimension relates to care in its most common sense, which includes caring
for others, as well as sharing ideas, experiences and concerns. Finally, the residential dimen-
sion refers to sharing a residence, be it in the origin or destination country (Finch 1989).
The nature of the circulation of care, however, depends on several other factors, which
range from cultural, gender and family norms to institutionalised regulations (Harbison
1981; De Haas and Fokkema 2010). Firstly, care is determined by the life cycle stage of
the migrant and their family (Kulu and Milewski 2007; Merla and Baldassar 2014).
Thus, it is important to take into account the socio-demographic profile of the migrants,
their dependents left behind (both children and the elderly), and those left in charge of the
dependents in the place of origin (Bonizzoni and Boccagni 2014). Secondly, care is affected
by the institutional context in which the migrant and their family are inserted, as
migration regimes can have a profound impact on the prospects for naturalisation,
family reunion and access to rights in the country of destination.
While a proportion of international migrants can freely make frequent visits back
home, the tightening of migration policies in most receiving countries has greatly dimin-
ished the prospects for regular back-and-forth travel (Menjívar and Agadjanian 2007;
Carling, Menjivar, and Schmalzbauer 2012). This seems to particularly affect women in
irregular status, as border crossing has been deemed more dangerous for women than
for men. For instance, in a study on the gendered experiences of Mexican migrants,
Dreby (2006) found that transnational mothers are more likely to go through long-
lasting separations than fathers.
In fact, migration is a gendered process and, as such, it is affected by the normative
systems in the origin and destination countries, the third factor affecting the circulation
of care. These include not only specific gender roles but also family and household –
ideal– arrangements (Merla and Baldassar 2014). The issue on how transnational parent-
hood affects men and women in very specific ways has been broadly discussed (Hondag-
neau-Sotelo and Avila 1997; Parreñas 2001). In light of current global trends towards the
feminisation of migration (Sassen 2000), transnational motherhood is just one of the many
facets of motherhood in which women take leading breadwinning roles, while being con-
currently pressured to perform their traditional caregiving obligations. In fact, the great
debate on care started precisely with the conceptualisation of the ‘global care drain’
(Gheaus 2013).
4 N. V. JORGENSEN ET AL.

If much had already been discussed about the human capital loss of emerging countries
as a result of the migration of their skilled personnel (brain drain), the flows of Latina,
Philippina, and South Asian women into Europe raised the question of whom would be
in charge of the elderly and children in the global south. In parallel to the brain drain dis-
cussion, the care drain was also regarded as a predominately negative process, especially
for societies with incipient or unstructured systems of institutionalised caregiving.
Whereas women usually fulfil all caregiving duties in the absence of migrant fathers,
the migration of mothers tends to shift the task of child-rearing to other female relatives
in the country of origin (Hondagneau-Sotelo and Avila 1997; Parreñas 2001). Because care
is usually conceptualised only as hands-on care in the care drain or care chain literature,
physical absence is a synonym of moral harm, as something that causes distress to mothers
who migrate, to the children left behind, and to caregivers who find themselves unsure of
how to fulfil parental roles (Gheaus 2013).
Nonetheless, few studies on migration and family dynamics have acknowledged that
migration does not always unsettle family structures, as they were already far from tra-
ditional prior to migration. Mazzucato et al. (2015) found mixed results with regards to
the impact of migration on the wellbeing of children in African contexts. In Ghana, for
example, where social notions of parenthood are prevalent and children are often raised
by non-biological parents, migration is not as disruptive as is frequently thought. In
Brazil, early motherhood among women belonging to lower socioeconomic strata often
occurs within extended family configurations (Minamiguchi 2017). As we will detail in
the following sections, our analysis shows that young mothers who had already transferred
children’s care and upbringing to grandparents, and men who used migration as a mar-
riage subterfuge, are only examples of how assumed family structures and care arrange-
ments prior to migration need to be re-examined.

Governador Valadares: a Brazilian hotspot for international emigration

The study of migration and family dynamics is quite challenging, especially if looking at
the multiple dimensions of the circulation of care. Particular attention needs to be given to
consolidated migration systems, where options for different forms of care can blossom; to
the heterogeneity of gender roles within households that could mediate and filter more
communal gender norms; and to the conflicts and expectations around migrants’ incor-
poration in the destination country (Merla and Baldassar 2014).
Governador Valadares (GV)1 is a unique ‘social laboratory’ to look at these three issues.
First, the municipality stands out as a hotspot for international emigration, with very well-
established social networks in origin and destination places. Second, whereas men domi-
nated earlier migration flows, the 2010 Census data shows a more gender-balanced stock
of emigrants. On the one hand, the great outflow of lone males has produced a whole gen-
eration of single-parent households, in which women experience different degrees of par-
ticipation in the migration decision-making process. On the other hand, the more recent
flight of women, accompanied or alone, has provoked a great discussion on the specific
child-rearing role of grandparents and other close relatives left behind (Siqueira, Assis,
and Fonseca 2012).
Third, GV has witnessed a process of diversification of destinations since the 1990s,
when people started to migrate to Portugal.2 Although migration to the European
 JOURNAL OF ETHNIC AND MIGRATION STUDIES 5

country is frequently regarded as a second option for those who do not have the means to
go to the U.S., this flow is favoured by a specific migration regime because Brazilians enjoy
a series of favourable conditions to enter, reside and reunite with family members in the
country (Machado and Reis 2007; Machado 2009). With two demographically and econ-
omically distinct migration flows, our case study enables a discussion on the importance of
the institutional context in the configuration of care among transnational family members.

Data and research methods

This paper is based on a mixed methods approach, triangulating qualitative and quanti-
tative research methods and sources. With respect to the quantitative sources, we
analyze data from the 2010 Brazilian Census, which added a module about international
emigration to the population questionnaire for the first time. The introduction of specific
questions about emigration opened up a range of research possibilities.3 More than pro-
viding us an exact estimation of the total number of international migrants,4 the Census
data allows us to qualify the migration process by offering information about the socio-
demographic and economic characteristics of migrant households (Zapata 2019). Given
that the timing of migration may have an impact on the households’ configuration –
the longer the person has lived abroad, the more likely it is that the current household
structure is not a direct result of the migration process – we restricted our analysis to
migration flows that occurred in the five-year period that preceded the census: 2005–2010.
Our second quantitative data source is the first statistically representative migration
survey designed for and conducted in GV. The survey ‘Migration, Vulnerability and
Environmental Changes in the Doce River Valley’ was undertaken in Governador Vala-
dares from 2014 to 2016, based on a probabilistic sample of 1,226 households in the muni-
cipality.5 The survey data was used to complement the information absent from the 2010
Census, particularly with regards to the reasons for migrating.
Lastly, we conducted 20 in-depth semi-structured interviews with households with
migration experience – past (returnees) or present (heads of households with members
currently living abroad) – in GV in 2016, in order to obtain information on the nego-
tiations, conflicts and the circulation of care among dispersed family members. Intervie-
wees were selected based on the predominant migration/household structures identified
through quantitative data analysis and snowballing. Participants involved 12 women
and 8 men between 18 and 62 years of age. Emigration periods ranged from 1991 to
2016, while all returnees came back to GV between 2004 and 2016. Refusal to grant the
contact information of relatives residing abroad prevented us from carrying out interviews
at both ends of the migration corridor.

Results
Characteristics of households with international migrants
According to 2010 Brazilian Census, migration flows from Governador Valadares are
mostly made up of people in their prime working years – 95.74% of all emigrants who
left Brazil after 2005 belong to the 15–60 age group. Almost half of this population
(48.92%) is concentrated in the 20–29 age group and those under 15 make up only
6 N. V. JORGENSEN ET AL.

Table 1. Household arrangement types, by presence of international emigrants, if first international

migration in the household occurred after 2005, Governador Valadares, Brazil, 2010.
Presence of international emigrants in the household Without international emigrants With international emigrants
Type of household arrangement Percentage (%)
Single-parent household 12.98 26.21
Couple with children household 13.63 10.67
Couple without children household 39.69 22.86
Single-person household 12.24 8.96
Extended household 17.45 30.52
Non-relative household 1.05 0
Complex household 1.37 0.78
Collective household 1.58 0
Total 100 100
P = 0.000**
N = 7641

3.30% of all flows. The sex ratio is around 1.17, with men making up 54.01% of the recent
flow.6 An important fact, however, is the overrepresentation of males in the older age
groups, which raises the sex ratio to 1.58 above 30 years of age. We found important differ-
ences between the structure of households with and without international emigrants. As
shown in Table 1, households without international emigrants are predominantly com-
posed by couples without children (39.69%). In contrast, the Census revealed that house-
holds with international emigrants are characterised by a greater prevalence of extended
(30.52%) or single-parent arrangements (26.21%).
The data indicate that most single-parent households are composed of the head of
household and their children, suggesting that the spouse might be the one who emigrated.
We also estimated that 38.95% of single-parent households with international emigrants
had children under age 15 in 2010.
In fact, the age dependency ratios of households with and without international emigrants
are statistically different, because households with international emigrants are generally
older than households without international emigrants. This might simply be the result of
a selection bias linked to the individual’s life cycle stage, as migration tends to occur in the
prime working years, with the parents remaining in GV. It is remarkable, however, that
the difference between the youth dependency ratios of households with and without inter-
national emigrants is not statistically different.7 A likely explanation is that migrant house-
holds have significantly more children co-residing with the elderly (Table 2).
This particular feature is indeed consistent with the extended nature of such households
and may have multiple causes, although based on the available data, it is not possible to
assert the reasons for such differences. A possible scenario for these distinct dependency

Table 2. Proportion of households that have children co-residing with elderly members, by presence of
international emigrants that migrated after 2005, Governador Valadares, Brazil, 2010.
Households without Households with
International emigration in the household international emigrants international emigrants
Children and elderly co-residing Percentage (%)
Households with children and elderly members co-residing 3.72 7.04
Households without children and elderly members co-residing 96.28 92.96
Total 100 100
P = 0.002***
N = 7641
Source: IBGE (2010).
 JOURNAL OF ETHNIC AND MIGRATION STUDIES 7

Table 3. Proportion of households headed by a grandparent, by the presence of international

emigrants in the household who migrated after 2005, Governador Valadares, Brazil, 2010.
Presence of international emigrants in the household Without international emigrants With international emigrants
Type of household Percentage (%)
Headed by a granparent 6.93 15.39
Not headed by a grandparent 93.07 84.61
Total 100 100
P = 0.000***
N = 7641
Source: IBGE (2010).

ratios includes the case of an elderly person who, after one of their children emigrates, moves
in with another child and their respective nuclear family. Alternatively, it may result from
the emigration of a younger household member who left children and/or spouse at the
origin with the support of grandparents or other relatives. Moreover, it may be that
people living in prior extended arrangements are more prone to international migration.
Driven by these considerations, we analyzed the proportion of households with chil-
dren with absent mothers. The results showed that migrant households have a significantly
larger proportion of children with absent mothers (29.26%) than households without
international emigrants (9.7%). Therefore, it is quite possible that this absence is due pre-
cisely to the emigration of women who left their children behind. It may also indicate that
not all women migrate before the transition to motherhood and that the absence of chil-
dren in the migration flows may represent a split of nuclear families.
When we take a closer look at the Census data on the type of living arrangements of
migrant households that have children with absent mothers (Table 3), we find that the
vast majority of them live in extended households (91.87%) that are headed by grandparents
(80%). The results reveal that grandparents are the relatives most likely to assume the care
responsibility of the children of international emigrants in GV. These findings corroborate
the primary caregiving role of grandparents widely discussed by the literature on transna-
tional families (Hondagneau-Sotelo and Avila 1997; Dreby 2006; Boccagni 2012; Mazzucato
et al. 2015). We also found that these are not skipped generation households, since in most
cases, the children are likely to co-reside with other kin, such as uncles, aunts and cousins.
Thus, it is clear that international emigration results or is facilitated by a series of
arrangements in childrearing and care systems. Although the results are not conclusive,
we have strong evidence to suggest that there are a few predominant types of family
(re) arrangements: one where adult children emigrated before the transition to parent-
hood, leaving elderly parents in the sending location; other cases where the head of house-
hold migrates leaving their spouse and children behind; and situations where migration
occurs after the transition to parenthood, with migrants leaving their children under
the responsibility of another adult, usually the children’s grandparents.

Institutional contexts: shaping migration selectivity and circulation of care

In the United States, historically the main destination for migrants from Governador Vala-
dares, the entry requirements are quite stringent. Since the majority of potential migrants
do not fulfil tourist visa requirements8, most use illegal border crossings via Mexico.
Besides being very risky, this route is also extremely expensive: interviewees estimated
8 N. V. JORGENSEN ET AL.

the total amount paid to coyotes at around 10,000 U.S. dollars. In Portugal, on the other
hand, Brazilians are favoured by a number of agreements that facilitate their prospects for
entering and residing in the country. In particular, to enter Portugal as tourists, Brazilians
do not need visas but are required to show a valid passport and proof of sufficient funds for
maintenance and the intention to stay no longer than 90 days.
Although border control has become stricter in the past decade, this system has allowed
Brazilians who entered as tourists through regular channels to overextend their stay, exempt-
ing migrants from undertaking unsafe journeys or paying high prices to agents, as in the
American case. Although Brazilians may only stay up to three months in the country
without the need of a visa and are not entitled to work, the Portuguese system has eased
the procedures for regularisation through ad hoc amnesties (Peixoto 2012; Pinho 2014).
In addition, current legislation allows Brazilians with at least one year of permanent resi-
dency in Portugal to request reunification with their dependent family members. Finally,
legislation approved in 2018 allows all nationals with proven Portuguese ancestry (up to
grandparents) to request residence in the European country (Diário da República 2018).
Furthermore, other studies have shown that the average cost to migrate from GV to
Portugal can be less than 1,000 U.S. dollars (Machado and Reis 2007). Given that jobs in
Portugal tend to pay less than in the United States, emigration is frequently regarded as a
second-class option for those who do not have the (financial or social) means to go to the
U.S. This current trend contrasts with earlier periods of immigration to Portugal, when
highly educated Brazilians migrated to occupy specialised jobs (Margolis 2013).
Given these differences, and the fact that women and children are more likely to follow
regular migratory paths (Donato and Gabaccia 2015), the more favourable migration
regime in Portugal would presumably favour family migration and the mobility of
people from lower social strata. However, we found mixed results. First, there was no sub-
stantive difference regarding the migration of children, since the proportion of people
under 15 years of age who migrated between 2005 and 2010 was rather low and similar
in both countries: 2.7% in the United States and 3.72% in Portugal.9 It seems that the
lack of social support in the destination country plays a big role in explaining why children
do not figure prominently in migration flows from GV.
Survey results showed that 69.7% of all international migrants point to work opportu-
nities as their main reason to move. Whether in Portugal or the United States, interviewees
noted that children represent a high cost for migrants who need to earn and save money,
especially as recent arrivals may not have readily available access to childcare. Recent
studies conducted in Portugal revealed that there has been less of a shift away from Bra-
zilian patriarchal relations among migrants when compared to the United States
(DeBiaggi 2001; Tracy 2016). This may pose a greater burden for women and further
curtail their efforts to bring their children to the European destination.
On average, those who emigrated to Portugal were three years younger than those who
went to the U.S. In addition, the cohort 15–19 years of age shows a greater propensity to
migrate to Portugal (9.93% of the stock) than to the U.S. (5.93%), whereas men aged
between 40 and 45 years of age seem to prefer the United States as their main destination.
An imaginary safer environment is leading reason to explain this pattern. The
migration of the younger generation to Portugal might stem from a custom of sending
adolescents away in order to keep them secure from violence at home, an issue that
was recurrently brought up during our interviews:
 JOURNAL OF ETHNIC AND MIGRATION STUDIES 9

He is there to stay, you know? I’m afraid that he would come back and would get no job.
Then he could start getting involved with the wrong kind of stuff again. While he is there
[in Portugal], I know he doesn’t have much money, but at least he is safe. (Female Intervie-
wee, 56, Mother of International Emigrant in Portugal)

I went there to have a better quality of life, but also because I was involved with the wrong
kind of stuff here [in GV]. I was in bad company. My uncle got to know what was going on
and took me to live with him in Portugal. […] My cousin is there as well. They also took her.
She was in bad company too. But she didn’t smoke, she was prostituting herself. It’s always
this kind of thing. (Male Interviewee, 18, Return migrant from Portugal)

In line with previous qualitative work conducted in the area (cf. Machado and Reis 2007;
Machado 2009), it is noticeable that in the context of the GV-Portugal corridor, we should
look beyond the purely strategic nature of migration, as it may also embed some elements
of coercion. On the other edge of the spectrum, the qualitative interviews coupled with
Census data revealed an economic-oriented type of mobility composed by middle-aged
men settling in the United States (27.33% of all flows to this destination).
When it comes to gender differences according to destination, Census data shows that,
since 2005, women are more prevalent in the flows towards Portugal (52%) than to the
U.S. (42%), at a 10% significance level. This seems to be related to the difficulties of
border crossing, which tend to be harsher on women given their higher exposure to
gender violence along the route.
The imbalance caused by this over representation of males in their 40 s in the flows to
the United States is not observed in the Portuguese case, in which both women and men
equally migrate when young and, most commonly, before the transition to parenthood. In
fact, Southern Europe has had a higher demand for feminine labour in care activities,
which resulted both from a weak welfare state and the growing rates of female partici-
pation in the labour market since the 1970s (Vidal-Coso and Miret-Gamundi 2014).
Gradually, immigrant Latin American workers have started to fill the vacuum left by
native women in private and public care-related activities, giving rise to the so-called
‘care drain’. In Portugal, the proportion of residence permits issued to women increased
from 43 to 46 per cent between 1986 and 2005 (Peixoto 2009). In 2018, women rep-
resented more than 50% of the foreign population with residence permits, compared to
40.8% in 1980 (PORDATA 2019).
Despite such differences in migratory selectivity, we found no differences in house-
holds’ arrangements according to country of destination, as showed in Table 4.
However, the interviews revealed a rather distinct circulation of care between the two
settings. Due to the institutional particularities of the Brazil-Portugal migration
system, many more Brazilians are granted residence permits and, thus, are able to cir-
culate and negotiate care in a more flexible way. Notwithstanding the limited financial
resources that prevent people from travelling back and forth as often, repeated
migrations seemed much more common in the Portuguese case. In cases where
parents left sons and daughters in GV, most would plan on taking them on a visit
or to experiment life at the destination:
Next time I go, I’ll give him the choice. ‘If you want to come with me, you go, you walk
around, if you don’t want to stay, I’ll take you back to Brazil’. So it will be his decision.
(Female Interviewee, 32, Returnee from Portugal)
10 N. V. JORGENSEN ET AL.

Table 4. Household arrangement types by destination, if first international migration in the household
occurred after 2005, Governador Valadares, Brazil, 2010.
Destination of emigrants United States Portugal
Type of household arrangement Percentage (%)
Single-parent household 28.39 21.57
Couple without children household 11.45 7.09
Couple with children household 20.93 30.13
Single-person household 10.11 5.41
Extended household 29.11 33.98
Non-relative household 0 0
Complex household 0 1.82
Collective household 0 0
Total 100 100
P = 0.1406
N = 239
Source: IBGE (2010).

Although the absences are sometimes long among families with relatives in Portugal, the
general feeling is that plans can be changed more easily. The possibility of family reunion –
even if it does not happen – makes separations less harsh for the migrant and those who
stay behind. Physical care is exercised from time to time – through visits – and intervie-
wees, in general, reported not feeling prisoners of their original plans.
In the United States, on the other hand, migration policies tend to hinder circulation
and family reunion. Not only are migrants usually unable to take partners and children
with them but they also become trapped by the debts incurred to finance the journey.
The result is that people are forced to live many years apart from their families and fre-
quently start forming new relationships at the destination. Because going back and
forth is prohibitively expensive, many end up having to choose between the new family
in the United States and the one left behind in Brazil, which frequently leads to serious
familiar conflicts. It is, hence, not only the hands-on care that gets compromised, but
also its emotional and practical dimension:
When you live there, you start wanting to get married there, to live the life of that place. After,
one, two, three, five years you get a husband and children there and then it is impossible to
come back to Brazil with American children. And then what happens? You begin having
mental problems. (Female Interviewee, 55, Returnee from the United States)

Besides the qualitative differences in terms of care, we also found statistically significant
differences in socioeconomic backgrounds according to destination. In particular, house-
holds with international migrants are situated in the middle range of the income distri-
bution – earning between 1 and 4 minimum monthly salaries. However, the share of
households subsisting with less than 1 minimum salary is higher among those with rela-
tives in Portugal (31.56%), compared to those with migrants in the U.S. (25.96%) and to
households with no emigrants (26.6%).
In short, we argue that the institutional context influences the transnational circula-
tion of care. On the one hand, despite the easier entry into Portugal, compared to the
U.S., lack of social support is a strong impediment for family migration in both
countries. Partly because of that, family arrangements in Governador Valadares are
strikingly similar regardless of the country of destination. On the other hand, we
found that the financial resources needed for either the United States or Portugal
result in migration selectivity according to age and socioeconomic status. Moreover,
 JOURNAL OF ETHNIC AND MIGRATION STUDIES 11

the possibility of repeated migrations to Portugal greatly affects the relationships among
distant, yet connected, household members. It is thus clear that care circulation among
transnational families is impacted by the combination of distinct elements created by
migratory and institutional regimes, ranging from entry; settlement and reunification
policies; to border crossing costs and risks; and availability of social support at the
destination.

Life-cycle stages, family norms, and care obligations

We found three main configurations among households with international migrants:
those in which young adults migrate leaving parents behind; those in which adults
migrate after the transition to parenthood and marriage, leaving spouses and children
behind; and those in which unmarried/divorced adults migrate leaving children under
the responsibility of other relatives, mainly grandparents.
For each of these main configurations, we observed completely different negotiations,
agreements and conflicts taking place among family members. Such differences are fore-
most related to gender norms and the life cycle stage of migrants and their family. For
instance, the decision to migrate was not necessarily a process thoroughly negotiated in
the different arrangements. In the case of young adults who left parents behind, most
mothers revealed that they would have preferred that their child had not migrated.
Even though there may be a bit of rhetoric in these narratives, it was clear that migration
in this group was basically a decision of the young adult, with little or no influence from
parents, regardless of possible economic gains to the household:
Everything was so fast. The decision to go – we were dealing with all the paperwork. The only
thing I could do was support his decision. Since he is very determined, if I didn’t support him,
my life would be hell. (Female Interviewee, 38, Mother of emigrant in the U.S.)

Therefore, it is important to stress that, although emigration does appear to function in

some cases as a family survival strategy as espoused by the NELM, we cannot overlook
the fact that it often occurs in the context of individual motivations. This was very
notable in the group of young adults who emigrated before transitioning to parenthood
or marriage, as well as in the case of people who left their spouses in GV. Among
spouses left behind there was a feeling that their husbands regarded mobility as a liberating
event that helped them avoid the family’s control and judgment. An interviewee, whose
spouse emigrated to the United States put it this way:
How am I supposed to know? Do you need to record everything? There are some things
related to a couple’s relationship. When you work together, live together, you control each
other, in financial terms. And then, there are people who don’t like being controlled. And
he goes away, maybe because he has other intentions. Maybe he wants to do something
with the money that he doesn’t want his partner to know about. (Female Interviewee, 53,
Spouse of International emigrant in the U.S.)

Most criticism to the New Economics of Labor Migration comes precisely from a feminist
perspective, which emphasises that men and women have different decision-making
powers within the household, which jeopardises the whole notion of a contract between
the migrant and the spouse left behind. Women’s expressed dissatisfaction is, however,
greatly overshadowed by the living standards that remittances can provide:
12 N. V. JORGENSEN ET AL.

No. Nobody helped me. I had to look after myself. God and I, with my children, you know?
Many times I avoided sharing these problems with him [the husband]. I wanted to let him
out of it, because he was financially supporting us. Then, I reached a certain point when I
said ‘I can’t be going through these problems without him, I can’t handle this alone’ (…) I
never agreed to his idea of leaving, it is not worth it to be away from your family. (Female
Interviewee, 51, spouse of international emigrant in the U.S.)

Overwhelmed by childcare duties once their partners leave, many of these women had to quit
their jobs. The decision-making power imbalance creates, then, a vicious cycle in which econ-
omic-dependent women rely heavily on their migrant partners. Since these men become
invisible to the justice system, for pension purposes, a divorce becomes almost impossible,
regardless of the women’s agreement with the migration project. Conversely, none of the
returned migrant women had managed to maintain their marriage from a distance.
Neither are relationships equal across generations. In the case of young unmarried/
divorced adults who leave dependents behind with other relatives, most did not have a
strategic migration plan carefully negotiated within their households. Even though there
are children involved in these situations, the reasons to leave are wide-ranging: young
women who want to get away from situations of domestic violence; young men who
are at risk of being involved in illegal activities; and people who want to gain maturity
or experience new things by migrating. One of the reasons for children not representing
an impediment for migration, especially for women, is that they were already living under
extended family notions of parenthood.
Contrary to expectations, the extended format of the households that these young
adults belong to was not the result of migration. In fact, the grandparents (mostly grand-
mothers) were already the main caregivers of the children prior to migration:
The boys? The eldest has always called me mother and has called my spouse, father. I was the
one raising them. (Female Interviewee, 56, Mother of international migrant in Portugal)

When she was still in Brazil, they [the migrant and her daughters] lived with us as if they were
all our children. As if they were sisters. She had no authority over them, I had. (Female Inter-
viewee, 50, Mother of international migrant in Portugal)

These family configurations result from specific socioeconomic and demographic

dynamics. In Brazil, as in many other countries, young adults have been delaying the
departure from the parents’ home as they face increasing difficulties to access the
labour market. As shown by Camarano and Ghaouri (2003), by the beginning of this
century, 70% of elderly-headed households in Brazil still had co-residing children. Also,
poverty is highly correlated with co-residency and the economic support provided by
the elderly directly affects overall family well-being (Camarano and Ghaouri 2003;
Andrade and de Vos 2002).
In addition, females in their 50 s have increasingly become relevant care providers to
their grandchildren. The aforementioned socio-economic factors, coupled with raising fer-
tility rates among adolescents in Brazil have meant that there are a growing number of
women co-residing with their children and grandchildren in late adulthood. In 2000,
56% of all extended households in the country included grandchildren (Alves and Cave-
naghi 2009; Wajnman 2012).
These socio-demographic patterns also find support in the prevailing family norms in
most Latin American societies, which tend to cherish familism and compadrazco –terms
 JOURNAL OF ETHNIC AND MIGRATION STUDIES 13

that allude to the valorisation of extended family ties (Segura and Pierce 1989; Hondag-
neau-Sotelo and Avila 1997). This type of family norms – diametrically opposed to the
Anglo-Saxon, individualistic model – would favour notions of motherhood in which chil-
dren would be jointly raised by grandmothers, aunts, and other female figures. In practice,
this cultural legacy could facilitate the emergence of transnational motherhood by natur-
alising social forms of childrearing (Hondagneau-Sotelo and Avila 1997). This dynamic
was common among households with members residing in Portugal, which come from
a lower social background and tend to rely more on extended family ties.
In addition, the interviewed grandparents reported that the children under their
responsibility were fatherless. In most cases, their migrant mothers had them while still
single and, their fathers did not, for the most part, take responsibility for childcare
expenses. Hence, the largest part of the economic burden fell on the grandparents, who
acted as the head of household.10 For the most part, the grandparents asserted having
full discretion to make all decisions regarding child rearing, indicating a kind of delegation
of the mother’s authority similar to an informal adoption.
Even though several studies have shown the relevance of new communication technol-
ogies in parenting practices and affirming a sense of belonging and connection (Bacigalupe
and Cámara 2012; Benítez 2012; Manadianou and Miller 2012), we found that tele-
mothering practices are often complex. This is because, in many situations, kids naturalise
their grandparent’s roles as ‘substitute’ parents and avoid reattachment with their biologi-
cal mothers. The tension between a pragmatic extended family format and a traditional
arrangement is always vivid in these transnational configurations.
Despite having to raise their grandchildren, both emotionally and financially, the family
at the origin hardly ever showed disagreement with the migration strategy of their
offspring. This consensual attitude often comes from a naturalisation of grandparents’
roles as caregivers. Surprisingly, such compliant behaviour was even stronger in families
in which migration was motivated by non-economic reasons. In the cases in which
migration was used as a strategy to scape violence or the risk of falling prey to illicit activi-
ties, parents were very supportive, even though they tended to have little or no power over
the migration decision of their children.11 Women whose spouses migrated, on the other
hand, showed greater dissatisfaction with bearing childcare duties alone. Even though the
migration of their spouse was more strategically oriented, those women frequently felt
cheated or overwhelmed by home tasks activities. In short, it seems that the nexus
between an economic-oriented migration and the support of the family left behind is
not as straightforward as the NELM tends to portrait.

Conclusion
International migration is a process influenced by specific household living arrangements
in the country of origin, at the same time as it generates profound changes in families’
configurations. Such configurations comprise not only the types of household structures
that are left behind, but also more subjective aspects, including how people exercise par-
enthood from a distance or the way couples negotiate migration projects.
We used three main intervening factors to explain the relationship between migration
and emerging transnational family configurations: migration regimes, people’s life-cycle
stages, and family normative systems.
14 N. V. JORGENSEN ET AL.

In terms of the migration regimes operating in the country of destination, we found key
differences between the United States and Portugal. The first involves the possibility of cir-
culation among international emigrants: due to greater mobility restrictions in the U.S.,
transnational families in the Brazil-Portugal corridor are able to exercise hands-on care
with much more regularity. The second element is that legal and financial restrictions
act as key elements for migrant selectivity: young people and women from lower socioe-
conomic strata are more likely to migrate to Portugal than to the United States. In fact, the
flow to the European country seems to be driven by more than purely economic motives,
as it represents an escape route for those threatened by urban violence.
One cannot understand the role of the institutional context without taking into account
the life cycle stage of the migrant and the family left behind. Cases where the head of
household moved away leaving their spouse and children in Brazil seemed, at first
glance, to be the most familiar. However, not even in these instances, was emigration a
purely strategic family decision. In line with other research carried out in Governador
Valadares (Silva, Machado, and Dias 2015), we observed that most women were not
satisfied with their husband’s migration project or length of stay abroad. Some expressed
special dissatisfaction with regards to the burden of raising their children alone. Such
results are coherent with past and recent research on transnational families, which
stress the tensions and asymmetries within the family nucleus concerning the migration
project (Harbison 1981; De Haas and Fokkema 2010).
The importance of family norms was evident when we analyzed household configur-
ations in which emigrants left children at the origin under the responsibility of other
adults. The quantitative analysis showed that grandparents were the most likely to
assume the main caregiving roles, but the qualitative data revealed that such transfer
often preceded the act of migration, which may be strongly related to notions of parent-
hood prevalent in Latin American countries. We argued that the naturalisation of this type
of arrangement might favour the emigration of single or divorced women. Thus, the
prevalence of extended household arrangements among migrant families would also be
a cause and not merely a consequence of the migration process. Moreover, we noticed
how emigrants were not always able to be fully financially responsible for the children
left behind, further reinforcing the role of grandparents as their grandchildren’s main
providers.
In conclusion, we found particular differences between households with and without
international migrants. Thus, international migration, coupled with particular insti-
tutional regimes, family normative systems, and age and sex selectivity, leads to the
rearrangement of family care systems in specific ways, while at the same time, migration
decision-making processes are dependent on particular household structures. Although
the cross-sectional quantitative data is not conclusive with regards to the causal direction
of these processes – one of the main limitations of our analysis – the qualitative interviews
suggest that international emigration should not be treated as a purely economic, strategic,
and family-oriented process. Thus, to deepen our understanding of the ways in which
migration impacts and is impacted by context and household living arrangements
among transnational families, future research may focus on gathering multi-sited longi-
tudinal data on migrants and their families along diverse migration networks. Further
research may also broaden the scope of analysis by focusing on extended family ties
and the circulation of care across different households.
 JOURNAL OF ETHNIC AND MIGRATION STUDIES 15

Notes
1. According to the last Brazilian Census, GV had 263.689 inhabitants, of which 96,06% lived in
urban areas (IBGE 2010).
2. Data from the 2010 Brazilian Census shows that all migrants from GV who left the country
between 1980 and 1984 moved to the United States. This proportion has been gradually
decreasing throughout the years. Among those who migrated between 2005 and 2010,
60.36% resided in the United States, 26.96% in Portugal, and 12.68% had settled in other
destinations.
3. Indeed, while the Census information has generally been used to estimate the size of the
migrant population (Campos 2014), much of the previous work on the configurations of
migrant households has been conducted in destination countries – for which data is
usually more complete and straightforward (Van Hook and Glick 2007; Valk 2015).
4. In particular, the absence of a question on the relationship between the head of the household
and/or informant and the emigrant, might result in an overestimation of the number of emi-
grants; while the dissolution of a household due to divorce, death, or even migration, may
result in an underestimation of the stock. In addition, there is a fundamental memory
problem resulting from the fact that the longer the time that the emigrant has
lived abroad, the greater the likelihood that the person will not be reported in the Census
(Carvalho et al. 2016).
5. The sample size was calculated according to a 3% precision error and a 95% confidence
level. The sample design comprised three stages: first, neighbourhoods were stratified
based on SES and proximity; second, within each stratum interviewees were chosen pro-
portionally according to age group and sex. Third, households in each stratum were ran-
domly chosen based on the groups defined on stage 2. Probabilistic weights, primary and
secondary units as well as strata variables were created to adjust for sample design. This
survey was funded by the Minas Gerais Research Foundation (FAPEMIG Grants CSA-
APQ-00244-12, CSA-PPM-00305-14, and CSA-APQ-01553-16), the Brazilian Research
Council (CNPq Grants 4837/2012-7, 472252/2014-3, 431872/2016-3, and 314392/2018-
1), and the Brazilian Network on Global Climate Change Research (FINEP/ Rede
CLIMA Grant Number 01.13.0353-00). The project was approved by the Research
Ethics Committee at the Federal University of Minas Gerais (Protocol CAAE
12650413.0.0000.5149).
6. Such gender balance differs both from the predominantly male Mexican migration to the
United States, and from the prevailing female Hispanic migration into Spain (Raphael
2013; Vidal-Coso and Miret-Gamundi 2014).
7. The differences between the dependency ratios of households with emigrants in the United
States and Portugal were not statistically significant.
8. Historically, a very common strategy among Brazilians was to enter the U.S. and overstay
their visas, while finding ways to legalise their situation.
9. The Census question is a measure of the stock of people currently living abroad, but it
says nothing about the true flow. If an emigrant left but returned before 2010, they will
not be captured by the Census question. Hence, the age and sex characteristics of the
stock can be a good proxy for the flow, as long as return migration is not skewed by
age or sex.
10. These findings are coherent with national figures that show grandchildren residing only with
their mothers in grandparent-headed households (Wajnman 2012).
11. A study conducted in the GV region using life histories, found economic negotiations taking
place between grandmothers and migrant mothers as part of the migration decision-making
process (Francisco 2016).

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
16 N. V. JORGENSEN ET AL.

Funding
This work was supported by the Minas Gerais Research Foundation (FAPEMIG Grant CSA-APQ-
01553-16); the Brazilian Network on Global Climate Change Research (Rede Clima, FINEP/
MCTI Grant 01.13.0353-00); and Brazilian Research Council – CNPq [Conselho Nacional de
Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico] under grants 431872/2016-3 and 314392/2018-1.

ORCID
Nuni V. Jorgensen http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3286-8977
Alisson F. Barbieri http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1133-1089
Gilvan R. Guedes http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8231-238X
Gisela P. Zapata http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8644-5160

References
Agesa, R. U., and S. Kim. 2001. “Rural to Urban Migration as a Household Decision: Evidence from
Kenya.” Review of Development Economics 5 (1): 60–75. doi:10.1111/1467-9361.00107.
Alves, J. E., and De Susana Cavenaghi. 2009. “Timing of Childbearing in low Fertility Regime: How
and why Brazil is Different?” Paper presented at the annual international population conference,
Marrakech, September-October.
Andrade, Flavia, and Susan de Vos. 2002. “An Analysis of Living Arrangements among Elderly
Women in Brazil.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Encontro Nacional de
Estudos Populacionais, Ouro Preto, November.
Bacigalupe, Gonzalo, and María Cámara. 2012. “Transnational Families and Social Technologies:
Reassessing Immigration Psychology.” Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 38 (2): 1425–
1438. doi:10.1080/1369183X.2012.698211.
Bakewell, O. 2010. “Some Reflections on Structure and Agency in Migration Theory.” Journal of
Ethnic and Migration Studies 36 (10): 1689–1708. doi:10.1080/1369183X.2010.489382.
Bardsley, D. K., and G. J. Hugo. 2010. “Migration and Climate Change: Examining Thresholds of
Change to Guide Effective Adaptation Decision-making.” Population and Environment 32 (2–3):
238–262. doi:10.1007/s11111-010-0126-9.
Benítez, José Luis. 2012. “Salvadoran Transnational Families: ICT and Communication Practices in
the Network Society.” Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 38 (9): 1439–1449. doi:10.1080/
1369183X.2012.698214.
Black, R., S. R. G. Bennett, S. M. Thomas, and J. R. Beddington. 2011. “Migration as Adaptation.”
Nature 478 (7370): 447–449. doi:10.1038/478477a.
Black, R., D. Kniveton, and K. Schmidt-Verkerk. 2013. “Migration and Climate Change: Toward an
Integrated Assessment Of Sensitivity.” In Disentangling Migration and Climate Change, edited by
B. Schade, and Thomas Faist, 29–53. Dordrecht: Springer.
Boccagni, Paolo. 2012. “Practising Motherhood at a Distance: Retention and Loss in Ecuadorian.”
Transnational Families 38 (2): 261–277. doi:10.1080/1369183X.2012.646421.
Bonizzoni, Paola, and Paolo Boccagni. 2014. “Care and Circulation Revisited: A Conceptual Map of
Diversity in Transnational Parenting.” In Transnational Families, Migration and the Circulation
of Care: Understanding Mobility and Absence in Family Life, edited by Laura Merla, and Loretta
Baldassar, 78–94. London: Routledge.
Camarano, Ana Amélia, and Solange K. Ghaouri. 2003. “Família com Idosos: Ninhos Vazios?
Working Paper IPEA.
Campos, Marden. 2014. “Medidas de Emigración Internacional Basadas en la Información
Proporcionada por Personas que Convivieron con los Emigrantes: la Experiencia Brasileña
con el Censo Demográfico de 2010.” Notas de Población 98: 103–124.
 JOURNAL OF ETHNIC AND MIGRATION STUDIES 17

Carling, Jorgen, Cecilia Menjivar, and Leah Schmalzbauer. 2012. “Central Themes in the Study of
Transnational Parenthood.” Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 38 (2): 191–217. doi:10.
1080/1369183X.2012.646417.
Carvalho, José Alberto, Jarvis Campos, Breno Pinho, and Irineu Rigotti. 2016. “Efeitos Diretos e
Indiretos das Migrações Internacionaisno Brasil: uma Análise a partir do Censo Demográfico
2010.” Paper Presented at the 20th annual conference of the Brazilian PopulationStudies
Association, Foz do Iguaçu, October.
Das, Marjolin, Helga de Valk, and Eva Maria Merz. 2016. “Mother’s Mobility after Separation: Do
Grandmothers Matter?” Population, Space and Place 23 (2): e2010. doi:10.1002/psp.2010.
DeBiaggi, Sylvia. 2001. Changing Gender Roles: Brazilian Immigrant Families in the United States.
New York: LFB Scholarly Publishing.
De Haas, Hein. 2013. “Migration and Development: Policy Lessons from the Moroccan
Experience.” In New Perspectives on International Migration and Development, edited by
Jeronimo Cortina and Ochoa Reza, Part III chapter 7. New York: Columbia University Press.
De Haas, Hein, and Tineke Fokkema. 2010. “Intra-household Conflicts in Migration
Decisionmaking: Return and Pendulum Migration in Morocco.” Population and Development
Review 36 (3): 541–561. doi:10.1111/j.1728-4457.2010.00345.x.
Diário da República. 2018. Decree no. 9, of September 2018. Lisboa: Presidência do Conselho de
Ministros.
Donato, Katharine, and Donna Gabaccia. 2015. Gender and International Migration. New York:
Global Sage Foundation.
Dreby, Joanna. 2006. “Honor and Virtue: Mexican Parenting in the Transnational Context.” Gender
and Society 20 (1): 32–59. doi:10.1177/0891243205282660.
Finch, Janet. 1989. Family Obligations and Social Change. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Francisco, Elton. 2016. “Famílias Transnacionais De Origem Mineira: Trajetórias, Experiências E
Estratégias De Vidas Que Cruzam Fronteiras Nacionais (1984–2014).” PhD Diss.,
Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina.
Fusco, Wilson. 2005. “Capital cordial: a Reciprocidade entre os Imigrantes Brasileiros nos Estados
Unidos.” PhD Diss., University of Campinas.
Gheaus, Anca. 2013. “Care Drain as an Issue of Global Gender Justice.” Ethical Perspectives 20 (1):
61–80. doi:10.2143/EP.20.1.2965125.
Giles, J., and R. Mu. 2017. “Village Political Economy, Land Tenure Insecurity, and the Rural to
Urban Migration Decision: Evidence from China.” American Journal of Agricultural
Economics 100 (2): 521–544. doi:10.1093/ajae/aax086.
Harbison, S. F. 1981. “Family Structure and Family Strategy in Migration Decision Making.” In
Migration Decision Making: Multidisciplinary Approaches to Microlevel Studies in Developed
and Developing Countries, edited by R. Gardener, and J. Gordon. New York: Pergamon Press.
Haug, S. 2008. “Migration Networks and Migration Decision-making.” Journal of Ethnic and
Migration Studies 34 (4): 585–605. doi:10.1080/13691830801961605.
Hondagneau-Sotelo, Pierrette, and Ernestine Avila. 1997. “I’m Here but I’m there: The Meanings of
Latina Transnational Motherhood.” Gender and Society 11 (5): 548–571. doi:10.1177/
089124397011005003.
IBGE. 2010. Brazilian National Census [Database].
Kulu, Hill, and Nadja Milewski. 2007. “Family Change and Migration in the Life Course: An
Introduction.” Demographic Research 17 (19): 567–590. doi:10.4054/DemRes.2007.17.19.
Machado, Igor Jose. 2009. “Interação das fronteiras e o ponto de vista etnográfico:
dinâmicas migratórias recentes em Governador Valadares.” Horizontes Antropológicos 15 (31):
167–187.
Machado, Igor José, and Ellen Saraiva Reis. 2007. “Algumas conclusões acerca do fluxo de valadar-
enses para Portugal.” Teoria and Pesquisa 16: 153–166.
Manadianou, Mirca, and Daniel Miller. 2012. Migration and the New Media: Transnational
Families and Polymedia. Oxford: Routledge.
Margolis, Maxine. 1994. Little Brazil: Imigrantes Brasileiros em Nova York. Campinas: Papirus.
18 N. V. JORGENSEN ET AL.

Margolis, Maxine. 2003. “Na Virada do Milênio: A Emigração Brasileira para os Estados Unidos.”
In Fronteiras Cruzadas: Etnicidade, Gênero e Redes Sociais, edited by Ana Martes and Soraya
Fleischer, 51–72. São Paulo: Paz e Terra.
Margolis, Maxine. 2013. Goodbye, Brazil: Émigrés from the Land of Soccer and Samba. Madison:
The University of Wisconsin Press.
Mazzucato, Valentina, Victor Cebotari, Angela Veale, Allen White, Marzia Grassi, and Jeanne
Vivet. 2015. “International Parental Migration and the Psychological Well-being of Children
in Ghana, Nigeria, and Angola.” Social Science and Medicine 132: 215–224. doi:10.1016/j.
socscimed.2014.10.058.
Menjívar, C., and V. Agadjanian. 2007. “Men’s Migration and Women’s Lives: Views from Rural
Armenia and Guatemala.” Social Science Quarterly 88 (5): 1243–1262. doi:10.1111/j.1540-
6237.2007.00501.x.
Merla, Laura, and Loretta Baldassar. 2014. “Locating Transnational Care Circulation in Migration
and Family Studies.” In Transnational Families, Migration and the Circulation of Care:
Understanding Mobility and Absence in Family Life, edited by Laura Merla and Loretta
Baldassar, 25–58. London: Routledge.
Minamiguchi, Márcio. 2017. “Monoparentalidade Feminina No Brasil: Dinâmica das Trajetórias
Familiares.” PhD Diss., University of Minas Gerais.
Nguyen, L. D., K. Raabe, and U. Grote. 2015. “Rural–Urban Migration, Household Vulnerability,
and Welfare in Vietnam.” World Development 71: 79–93. doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2013.11.002.
Parreñas, Rachel. 2001. “Mothering from a Distance: Emotions, Gender, and Intergenerational
Relations in Filipino Transnational Families.” Feminist Studies 27 (2): 361–390. doi:10.2307/
3178765.
Peixoto, João. 2009. “New Migrations in Portugal: Labour Markets, Smuggling and Gender
Segmentation.” International Migration 47 (3): 185–210. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2435.2009.00528.x.
Peixoto, João. 2012. “Back to the South: Social and Political Aspects of Latin American Migration to
Southern Europe.” International Migration 50 (6): 58–82.
Pinho, Felipa. 2014. “Transformações na Emigração Brasileira para Portugal: de profissionais a tra-
balhadores.” PhD diss., Instituto Universitário de Lisboa.
PORDATA. 2019. População Estrangeira com Estatuto Legal de Residente Total e por Sexo
[database].
Raphael, S. 2013. “International Migration, Sex Ratios, and the Socioeconomic Outcomes of
Nonmigrant Mexican Women.” Demography 50 (3): 971–991. doi:10.1007/s13524-012-0189-6.
Sales, Teresa. 1999. Brasileiros Longe de Casa. São Paulo: Cortez.
Sassen, Saskia. 2000. “Women’s Burden: Counter-geographies of Globalization and the
Feminization of Survival.” Journal of International Affairs 53: 503–524.
Segura, Denise, and Jennifer Pierce. 1989. “Chicana/o Family Structure and Gender Personality:
Chodorow, Familism, and Psychoanalytic Sociology Revisited.” Journal of Women in Culture
and Society 19 (1): 62–91. doi:10.1086/494862.
Silva, Odacyr, Ana Machado, and Carlos Dias. 2015. “Deixadas para Trás: Sentimentos Vivenciados
por Esposas de Emigrantes Submetidas ao Isolamento Conjugal.” Seminário de Ciências Sociais e
Humanas 36 (2): 17–30. doi:10.5433/1679-0383.2015v36n2p17.
Siqueira, S., G. O. Assis, and M. C. Fonseca. 2012. “Emigração Internacional Masculina: o Cotidiano
Daquelas que Ficam.” In Território, Mobilidade Populacional e Ambiente, edited by G. R. Guedes,
and R. Ojima, 235–257. Governador Valadares: Editora Univale.
Soares, Weber. 2002. “Da metáfora à substância: redessociais, redes migratórias e migração nacional
e internacional em Valadares e Ipatinga.” PhD Diss., Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais.
Stark, O., and D. E. Bloom. 1985. “The New Economics of Labor Migration.” The American
Economic Review 75 (2): 173–178. doi:10.1007/s12143-010-9077-2.
Tracy, Natalicia. 2016. “Transnational Brazilians: Class, Race, Immigration Status And Family Life.”
PhD Diss., Boston University.
Tsegai, D. 2007. “Migration as a Household Decision: What are the Roles of Income Differences?
Insights from The Volta Basin of Ghana.” The European Journal of Development Research 19 (2):
305–326. doi:10.1080/09578810701289212.
 JOURNAL OF ETHNIC AND MIGRATION STUDIES 19

Valk, Helga. 2015. “Living Arrangements, the Crisis and Mother’s Participation in the Labour
Market.” In Demographic Analysis of Latin American Immigrants in Spain, edited by Andreu
Domingo, Albert Sabater, and Richard Verdugo, 155–180. Cham: Springer.
Van Hook, J., and J. E. Glick. 2007. “Immigration and Living Arrangements: Moving Beyond
Economic Need Versus Acculturation.” Demography 44 (2): 225–249. doi:10.1353/dem.2007.0019.
Vanwey, L. K. 2004. “Altruistic and Contractual Remittances between Male and Female Migrants
and Households in Rural Thailand.” Demography 41 (4): 739–756. doi:10.1353/dem.2004.0039.
Vanwey, L. K., G. R. Guedes, and A. O. D’Antona. 2012. “Out-Migration and Land Use Change in
Agricultural Frontiers: Insights from Altamira Settlement Project.” Population and Environment
34: 44–68.
Vidal-Coso, Elena, and Pau Miret-Gamundi. 2014. “The Labour Trajectories of Immigrant Women
in Spain: Are there Signs of Upward Social Mobility?” Demographic Research 31 (13): 337–380.
doi:10.4054/DemRes.2014.31.13.
Wajnman, Simone. 2012. “Demografia das famílias e dos domicílios brasileiros.” PhD Diss.,
Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais.
Wong, Madeleine. 2006. “The Gendered Politics of Remittances in Ghanaian Transnational
Families.” Economic Geography 82 (4): 355–381. doi:10.1111/j.1944-8287.2006.tb00321.x.
Zapata, Gisela P. 2019. “Epicentros de emigración: un análisis comparativo de la evolución de sus
dinámicas socioeconómicas y demográficas en Colombia y el Brasil.” Notas de Población 108:
133–165.