FAIST

Transnational Social Prs

i and, G

ABSTRACT

civil society organisations, as well as the

INTRODUCTIONperceived life chances and thus social inequalities.

POPULATION, SPACE AND PLACEPopul. Space Place (2014)Published online in Wiley Online Library(wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/psp.1903Thegoal of this special issue called SafetyNetsof Migrants Across Borders: An Inquiry intoSocialMechanisms of Inequality is to presentand empirically substantiate a novel approach to

Social protection is a key eld in which socialinequalities become visible precisely because it ismeant to decrease insecurity and increase lifechances. Only more recently has the informal andformal conjunction of social protection in processesofmobility in general, and internationalmigration inparticular, been acknowledged (Sabates-Wheeler &Feldman, 2011). However, none of the studies on

*Correspondence to: Baak Bilecen, Fakultt fr Soziologie,Universittsstrasse 25, SFB 882, C3 Projekt, 33615 Bielefeld,Germany.migrants themselves and their signicant othersspread across various state borders. Thisintroduction to our special issue examines thesocial protection strategies of migrants, theways in which transnationality shapes theaccess and use of informal social protection, andtheir implications for migrants life chances andthus the production of social inequalities. Itprovides a context for understanding thearticles that follow in this special issue asstatements of current research on welfare andmigration, as challenges of concern intransnational studies and as examples ofmigrants social protection, inuenced by avariety of heterogeneities which intersect withtransnationality. Copyright 2014 John Wiley& Sons, Ltd.

Accepted 16 September 2014

Keywords: transnational migration;transnationality; social protection; socialinequalitiesHow migrants organise their social protection isnot a straightforward process but, rather, amuch more intricate and nuanced one, whichtakes into account the manifold stateregulations, supranational frameworks andStrategies and PatternThomas Faist, Baak Bilecen*, Karolina BarglowskFakultt fr Soziologie, Universittsstrasse 25, BielefelE-mail: [email protected]: Migrantsof Inequalities

d Joanna Jadwiga Sienkiewiczermany

investigating the nexus between (informal) socialprotection and social inequalities by synthesisinginsights from transnational migration studies andsocial protection. Inequalities refer to unequal accessto material and symbolic resources, social status andpower that is, the ability to make and enforce deci-sions andways of thinking. Since inequality refers tovarious dimensions, we use it in the plural.

The major contribution of this special issue is thesystematic analysis, through a transnational lens, ofinformal social protectionwithin and across bordersand the implications for life chances and socialinequalities. The analysis of informal social protec-tion is contextualised by also considering the formalschemes provided by states and organisations.Previous studies on social protection focus on thenational character of the welfare state in the immi-gration countries and the nexus between publicwelfare benets and migrants access to them(Faist, 1995; Bommes & Geddes, 2002; Sainsbury,2006). And the literature on global social policy alsomainly deals with the institutional conditions of for-mal social protection schemes, ranging from pensionprogrammes to basic income security (Deacon, 2007).Although most of the social protection is granted,received and used locally and nationally, migratorymovements are increasing and challenging thosenational frameworks of welfare regimes and provi-sions. Migration is a particularly suitable researcharea for exploring social protection and inequalitiesbecause it is both a reaction to social inequalitiesbetween regions and countries and, at the same time,an active strategy exit in Hirschmans (1970)terms through which to address and ameliorateCopyright 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

There is a lacuna within the body of literature

T. Faist et al.migration and social protection have addressed thecentral question of how social inequalities areproduced and reproduced in the delivery of infor-mal social protection.

In particular, this issue traces the strategies ofsocial protection among migrants and their some-times non-mobile signicant others through themedium of transnationality, namely the extent ofcross-border transactions in which migrants andtheir signicant others are engaged.We argue thatthe extent and kind of transnationality such asfollowing news and events, travelling acrossnation-state borders or symbolic attachments have an impact on how migrants organise socialprotection. Transnationality is conceptualised asinteracting with other heterogeneities such asgender, legal status, ethnicity and educationaland occupational status. The threemain questionswith which this special issue is concerned are:

What are the social risks perceived and thesocial protection strategies visible in migrationprocesses?

What is the role of transnationality in conjunctionwith other heterogeneities within this relation?

What are the implications of social protection forthe life chances of migrants and their signicantothers?

In order to answer these questions, the issueadopts a mixed-method multi-sited methodologyand presents empirical examples from threedifferent transnational social spaces.

The questions were posed as part of the projectTransnationality, the Distribution of InformalSocial Protection and Inequalities carried out bythe Collaborative Research Centre 882, From Het-erogeneities to Inequalities, at Bielefeld University(http://www.sfb882.uni-bielefeld.de/en). The ar-ticles in this collection are based on the project,which has partners at a policy research institutein Kazakhstan, and at universities in Poland andTurkey. These partners are also co-authors of therespective case studies.

Our fundamental proposition is that internationalmigration and certain forms of cross-border socialprotection may constitute an adaptive response tosocial risks and related inequalities but, at the sametime, may perpetuate old inequalities and createnew ones. After all, power imbalances, which under-pin inequalities, also exist in transnational contexts

(Dunn, 2010). It should also be borne in mind that

Copyright 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.addressing social protection across borders. Socialprotection refers to strategies designed to cope withthe social risks arising in capitalist economies, inelds such as employment, healthcare and educa-tion, which might impede the realisation of lifechances as dened in the United Nations Conven-tion on Social Security in 1952 (see Bilecen &Barglowski 2015). On the one hand, there are stud-ies which investigate the conditions for informalcross-border protection such as migration regimesand citizenship rights, and the technologiesenabling its provision (Baldassar, 2007) and whichemphasise the agency of migrant subjects byexploring practices of care and mutual informalprotection over long distances (Parreas, 2001;Orozco & Lowell, 2006). On the other hand,another strand of research holds that a new globalunderclass is emerging which consists of femalemigrant care workers moving from countries atthe global periphery to countries at the global centre(Anderson, 2000; Hochschild, 2000). However, noneof the relevant studies have addressed the role oftransnationality in social protection across borderscross-border migration, inasmuch as it is not politi-cally intended or forced, is the outcome of socio-economic, cultural and political transformation andrelated inequalities which are even, in some cases,on the increase; migration thus does not at leastnot directly contribute to reducing inequalities. Thisdoes not contradict the fact that, at the individual orfamily household level, geographical mobility andtransnationality may indeed be a successful strategyfor gaining employment and social protection(Goldin et al., 2012). Nonetheless, as we shall see, atthis level, too, mobility and transnationality give riseto the (re)production of inequalities.

The outline of this paper is as follows. First, wehighlight the three main objectives of this introduc-tion: conceptualising transnationality as a marker ofheterogeneity, showing the nexus between socialprotection and inequalities and describing the mainmethodological challenges in our transnationalapproach. Second, we provide the conceptual frame-work guiding the analysis of the empirical articles inthis issue. Third, we briey summarise the articles inthis themed collection.

MAIN OBJECTIVES OF THIS SPECIAL ISSUEand the inequalities arising from it. Taking this

Popul. Space Place (2014)DOI: 10.1002/psp

akin to others, including gender, age, worldview,

migrants may also engage in activities across bor-

Transnational Social Protectionclass, legal status, etc.Second, this issue focuses on informal social

protection, a widely neglected eld but onewhich tightly connects this realm with formalsocial protection that is, those forms of socialprotection provided by the state and organisa-tions. After all, social protection also depends onkinship and friendship.

Third, we use a mix of methods, both qualita-tive and quantitative, to disentangle the complexweb of transactions across borders which formpart of informal social protection strategies andtheir embeddedness in formal social protectionschemes run by states and organisations. This isa practical step beyond the mere criticism ofmethodological nationalism and toward a trans-national methodology.

Transnationality as Heterogeneity

Transnationality connotes the social practices ofagents individuals, groups, communities andorganisations across the borders of nation-states.The term denotes a spectrum of cross-border ties invarious spheres of social life familial, socio-cultural, economic and political ranging fromtravel, through visits to promoting ideas. Seen in thisway, agents transnational ties constitute a marker ofheterogeneity akin to other heterogeneities such asage, gender, citizenship, sexual orientation, culturalpreferences or language use. In short, transnationalties can be understood as occupying a continuumfrom low to high or thin to thick, and from veryfew and short-lived ties to those that are multiple,lacuna as a starting point, this special issue accom-plishes three objectives.

First, it introduces a ne-grained concept oftransnationality as a continuum from thin to thickcross-border engagements. Thus transnationalitycan usefully be conceived of not as a dichotomouscharacteristic but as a variable. To use an intervalscale is to escape from the dichotomising use oftransnational vs national and to systematicallymap transnationality for diverse groups who holddifferent legal statuses, such as asylum seekers orlabour migrants. We conceptualise transnationalityas an attribute of social actors. In so doing, this spe-cial issue moves beyond narrow conceptualisationsbased on ethnicity or nationality and includes a va-riety of heterogeneities including transnationalitydense and continuous over time. Transnationality is

Copyright 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.ders, such as exchanging information (Faist et al.,2013). While legal status and religious afliationare often related to others heterogeneities in thestudy of informal social protection (Yeates, 2009),transnationality is barely taken into account. Bycombining the transnational and the intersectionalapproaches, we re-conceptualise transnationalityas a marker of heterogeneity (Faist, 2014). In orderto shed light on how transnationality interacts withother heterogeneities, we use the concept ofintersectionality as a heuristic device. Intersectionalapproaches (Crenshaw, 1989; McCall, 2005; Walbyet al., 2012) take gender, class and ethnicity as centralstructural principles for the production of social in-equalities. It is crucial that heterogeneities are notdened in an essentialist way. Our focus is, rather,on processes of categorical boundary-making.Thereby, attention is drawn to the mutual constitu-tion of various heterogeneities and their enforcingeffects on social inequalities. Intersectional ap-proaches, accordingly, stress the dynamic and so-cially constructed character of the processes thatproduce inequalities.

Informal and Formal Social Protection and theirConsequences for Inequalities

Studies on social policies (Pinker, 1979: 218, 230)and migration (Srensen & Olwig 2002; Sabates-Wheeler & Feldman, 2011) alike stress that spatialmobility is often used as a collective strategyamong kinship groups seeking social protection.International migration thus serves to secure anincome and other types of resource for familymembers. The new economics of migration(NELM) approach (Stark, 1991), in particular,together with the livelihood approach (De Haannot limited to physical mobility across bordersbut also includes channels such as online commu-nication. Thus, for our purposes, migrants andnon-migrants should not be considered simply astransnational or not, but as being transnational tovarying degrees and in different realms. Also, it isworth remembering that the degree of transnation-ality may differ over the life-course of migrantsand their signicant others. Remitting money ortaking care of the elderly or children may berestricted to specic periods in life. More impor-tantly, transnationality is not restricted to spatiallymobile persons: the non-mobile familymembers of& Zoomers, 2005), analyse types of informal


that they are positioned differently (with regard to

T. Faist et al.social protection that are practiced throughmigrant networks and organisations in the con-text of global wealth disparities. Here, we denesocial protection strategies as multiple forms ofindividual and collective coping with the risksarising from their involvement in production(e.g. paid work) and reproduction processes(e.g. care). Informal social protection strategies arethose not provided by formal structures (welfare),states and organisations. This means that all activ-ities that take place outside a formally andorganisationally codied regulatory framework for example, in family and kinship groups, cliquesor networks of friends and acquaintances aredened as informal. These strategies comprisemonetary allocation and strategies related to theproduction process, such as job placement. Equallycovered are social protection strategies that refer toreproductive processes such as child-rearing or thecare of elderly and sick relatives.

Clearly, social protection structures compriseformal and informal, state and non-state dimensions.On a smaller scale, there are both non-formal privatenetworks of friends and highly institutionalisedkinship and family groups. The decision to migrate,especially according to the NELM and livelihoodapproaches, can be seen as a way of insuring thefamily against impoverishment that is, mutualassistance with respect to various social risks suchas unexpected expenses arising through illness.Informal social protection is particularly importantwhere formal social protection either fails or simplydoes not exist. This informal protection oftenincludes nancial transfers between relatives, forexample to help buy property, pay for health insur-ance or pay for a relative to study. The provision ofchildcare in community day-care centres is by nomeans guaranteed in the countries of immigration,and sometimes has to be undertaken by relativeswho arrive from abroad to look after the childrenso that their parents can go out to work. Sometimesolder relatives are brought over because they cannotbe provided or cared for in their home country.How-ever, the opposite could also be true: formal socialprotection is a basis for extending practices of infor-mal social protection. For example, migrants inGermany who have health insurance and a steadyincome could provide help to relatives abroad incovering medical costs.

Yet, the literature on social policies and migration(Deacon et al., 1997; Jones Finer, 1999) rarely asks

about the relation between the distribution of

Copyright 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.these heterogeneities) in the countries of both emi-gration and immigration. Migrants experiencesocial mobility in ambiguous ways for example,when their socio-economic position improves fromthe perspective of the home country, but their socialstatus deteriorates from the perspective of the hostcountry because they work in menial jobs whichare not on a par with their high qualications butwhich still generate a better income than in the coun-try of emigration (Goldring, 1998; Parreas, 2001).Consequently, different systems of stratication andnotions of inequality become relevant for the socialpositioning of migrants. This special issue contrib-utes to these debates by showing how inequalitiesare shaped and reshaped by migrants involvementin social protection in various local, national andtransnational contexts.

Toward a Transnational Methodology

A mix of methods is applied to realise our researchobjectives: semi-structured interviews with migrantsand their signicant others, participant observation,social-network analysis, expert interviews withrepresentatives of institutions and organisations,and document analysis.

As the rst step in documenting informal socialprotection strategies, we conducted semi-structuredinterviews with migrants in Germany coming fromPoland, Kazakhstan and Turkey. The interviewswere combined with ego-centred network analysisto map not only migrants interpersonal contactsinGermany and other countries but also to illustratethe specic protection types given and receivedinformal social protection services and the produc-tion of new and reproduction of old socialinequalities. The inuence of transnationality on theunequal distribution of informal social protectionformigrants and, possibly, their relatives in countriesof immigration or emigration is altogether neglected.Therefore, a transnational perspective on migrationshould, by contrast, inquire into migrants cross-border social protection strategies.

Recent research on the transnationalisation ofsocial inequalities assumes that transnationalityfavours a simultaneous positioning of persons indifferent systems of stratication (Wei, 2005;Kelly & Lusis, 2006). This means that migrants canbe positioned in multiple ways with regard togender, ethnicity, class, religion or legal status, and(Bilecen, 2013). Following multi-sited ethnography,


Transnational Social Protectionwe collected data not only in immigration but alsoin emigration countries, based on amatched samplestrategy (Mazzucato, 2009). This was achieved incooperation with partners based in the respectiveemigration countries, who are also co-authors ofthree articles in this collection. The respective trans-national social spaces (Faist, 2000) were selected inorder to cover the broadest possible range of variantsof transnationality and legal position: GermanyTurkey (labour migrants and asylum seekers),GermanyPoland (EU migrants) and GermanyKazakhstan (resettlers). The respondents wererecruited according to their legal status, which givesa rst proxy as to their right to formal social protec-tion. We were thus able to examine the protectionstrategies of individuals to determine whether ornot they were transnationally active, and to whatextent. This decision reduces the risk of samplingon the dependent variable, which is a major criti-cism (Portes, 2001) of many transnationally orientedmigration studies. In order to derive relevantcategorisations from the interviews, participantobservations were made in both the migrantspersonal and professional settings.

To set out the institutional framework andpoliciesfor formal social protection in the immigration andemigration countries, we analysed documents suchas laws, ordinances, rules, expert opinions, bilateralagreements and international conventions. Second,we conducted semi-structured interviews withexperts such as priests, imams, local authorities andrepresentatives of migrant organisations, from stateand non-state institutions, about social protection inthe three transnational social spaces (Barglowskiet al., 2015a).

OVERALL CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK FORANALYSIS

The analysis of transnational aspects of socialprotection is embedded in an overall heuristicframework which serves as a guide to empiricalmaterial from qualitative interviews, documentanalysis and participant observation. The goal ofthe project is to identify types of social positioningand life chances in cross-border social protection.What follows is not meant as an explanatoryframework but as a cadre within which to inspirethe interpretation of the empirical material, withthe ultimate aim of connecting heterogeneitiesand inequalities. A central heterogeneity which is

deemed important for life chances is transnationality,

Copyright 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.understood as the continuum of engagement incross-border transactions from thin to thick invarious dimensions of social protection nance,information and the provision of care embeddedin political, economic and socio-cultural contexts.Ultimately, heterogeneities and inequalities aremediated by socialmechanisms, a termwhich gener-ally refers to recurring processes and developments,and which links identiable initial conditions withspecic results (Diewald & Faist, 2011). We do notuse the concept of social mechanism to systemati-cally account for causeeffects but as a heuristic toolwith which to better capture the social processesinvolved in the (re)production of life chances andsocial inequalities (Faist & Bilecen, 2015).

There are threemain elements to Figure 1 (1) therelevant reality, (2) social activities and strategiesand very important in the qualitative design usedhere (3) the meanings, interpretations and deni-tions of the relevant reality and social activities.This three-fold sequence already suggests that themain aim of the framework is to identify typesand patterns of meaning and interpretation. Theanalysis presented in the articles to come is abundling of (3) with respect to (1) and (2), and isgeared towards identifying the social protectionrepertoires with respect to life chances and thusalso social inequalities.

(1) Reality relevant to the interviewees: this dimensionincludes, among other aspects, the materialworld, the social structures and (macro) and (mi-cro) institutions which all function as enablingand restricting opportunities for social agentsand for their activities. In very concrete ways, setsof legal regulations such as mobility regimes re-strict or enable the physical movements of per-sons across the borders of national states.Welfare states distribute life chances, in that theysecure against (some) social risks; nonetheless,for example, certain gender regimes may repro-duce inequalities. In addition, meso- or micro-level arrangements such as the family are crucial referring, among others, to norms of reciprocitywhich are, at the same time, decisive social mech-anisms mediating between heterogeneities andinequalities. In an analyticalway,we can conceiveof categorical differences heterogeneities asaspects of social structure pertaining to, forinstance, gender (e.g.male/female/third gender),race (black/white/various others), age and

transnationality. These are the heterogeneities on


whichwemainly focus in this special issue.How-ever, this is not to neglect the fact that other het-erogeneities, such as sexual orientation, healthand body, may be equally important (see Dunn,2010; Winkler & Degele, 2011). In this analyticalsense the differences are not yet imbued withmeanings which refer to social inequalities.

(2) Activities and strategies in which individual and/orcollective agents are engaged: the activities of interestrefer above all, but not exclusively, to those whichare relevant for transnational transactions money transfers, care across borders and informa-tion exchange. In bundling such social activities,we speak of strategies for example, strategiesof social protection. After all, migration can alsobe a strategybywhich toovercome the social risksmentioned above.

(3) The meaning patterns which agents ascribe to therelevant reality and activities: this dimensionconnects the previous two in that it refers to themeanings given to the social structures and thevarious activities by the agents themselves. Thisis an important realm of conceptual distinction,since the meaning patterns are active socialconstructions of both activities and structure on

the part of agents. Out of thesemeaning patternswe seek to distill the interpretations with respectto life chances. This is a double task. First, it is atask of the researcher to reconstruct the mean-ing(s) which agents have given to the relevantreality, activities and strategies. Second, it is theresearcher him-/herself who is constituting thesepatterns and who thus needs to reect upon theprocess of doing these constructions. Thislatter task necessitates self-reection on theresearchers positionality vis--vis those beingresearched and the context in which the inter-pretation of the interpretation is undertaken.This calls for a reection on our methodologi-cal approach and methods.

Here, social mechanisms such as reciprocity orexploitation serve as heuristic guides to better de-scribe the social relations between agents withingroups such as families and friendship networks.In a nutshell, social mechanisms such as reciprocity,and also exploitation and opportunity hoarding, areused as heuristic instruments to ask questions aboutthe meanings given to social structural aspects andsocial activities. For example, with respect to

T. Faist et al.Figure 1. A framework for the

Copyright 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.study of social protection.


Transnational Social Protectionreciprocity it is important to ask whether or to whatextent there is some sort of balance between theagents involved and the institutional framework inwhich this occurs. If, for instance, an uncle supportsa niece abroad by paying her tuition fees, we askabout the family expectations and obligationsinvolved and about the educational system in whichthe studies take place. We also are interested in thetemporal dimension in which the respective transac-tions occur. It is only in the concluding article thatsocial mechanisms are used in their most commonmeaning, as concepts to arrive at middle-rangecausal explanations.

The transnational approach is particularly aptfor capturing the meaning patterns of the agentsinvolved because national states, for example, canbe foils of reference upon which to project ideas,norms, values, etc. The other national system canserve to sharpen comments on, and evaluationsand understandings of specic national contexts.For instance, formal protection via the welfare state(e.g.healthcare) in another country can be labelledas more or less advanced compared to someonescurrent country of residence. Yet this would be aclassical comparison or foil of reference. What istransnational in this case is, particularly, thepotential that ideas, norms, goods and people allcross borders in a common transnational socialspace. With respect to people, transnational socialspaces are potential spaces of comparison thatis, people compare their social position and theirlife chances in contexts which may reach acrossborders, so that production and circulation ofpower are seen through discourses of difference(Smith & Bailey, 2004: 358). People sometimes evenact as brokers of ideas between different systems ofeducation, work or health. Horizons of compari-son crossing national borders are thus constantlyin the making.

OVERVIEW OF THE ARTICLES

Our collection of papers offers a unique combinationof theoretical,methodological and empirical perspec-tives on cross-border social protection. Bilecen andBarglowski (2015) conceptualise the relationshipbetween formal and informal social protection. Bylooking specically at the literature on welfare,family and work, the authors argue that therelationship between formal and informal socialprotection can be best captured by the term assem-

blagewhich, in this case, suggests a combination of

Copyright 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.various (welfare) state systems and state/non-stateframeworks. It is thus not useful to strictly separateinformal and formal sectors, or to conceptualise in-formal social protection as being decient comparedto the formal sector. In order to understand thestrategies for informal social protection undertakenby migrants and their signicant others, and theimplications for the (re)production of inequalities,Bilecen and Barglowski (2015) advocate for a closeempirical analysis of how informal and formalpractices and institutions are related.

This special issue highlights and addressesmethodological challenges and thus goes beyonddiscussion of conceptual issues by implementing anovel research design. In their article, Barglowskiet al. (2015a) shed light on the methodologicalchallenges of transnational studies and,more specif-ically, the empirical applications for social protec-tion. The authors not only discuss the major issuesusually faced by transnational studies, such asmethodological nationalism, essentialism and thepositionality of researchers, but also illustrate theways in which those challenges can be reected onby adopting a multi-sited mixed-method researchdesign in the eld of social protection.

Drawing on the concept of transnationality andits application in a multi-sited research design,this special issue provides different perspectivesfrom both the country of immigration and thoseof emigration. Therefore, the next four articlesare empirical studies based on matched samples.That by Bilecen and Sienkiewicz (2015) serves asa bridge to the other three, which deal withdifferent transnational social spaces. Bilecen andSienkiewicz (2015) map the social protectionpatterns of migrants from Kazakhstan, Poland andTurkey. Theydrawon 300 ego-centric network casesand sixty qualitative interviews to illustrate thecharacteristics of the sample, which is also used inthe following three empirical articles, and investi-gate the importance of various heterogeneities inthe ways in which social protection is organisedby these migrants. They also introduce dimensionsto measure transnationality, dened as an attributeof the respondents. It turns out that transnationalityand informal social protection patterns are distrib-uted differentlywithin the three transnational socialspaces. While the ndings suggest that relations ofcare took rst place for all migrants in the sample,migrants from Poland have the highest engagementwith this aspect of social protection. Migrants from

Kazakhstan receive the most information, whereas


T. Faist et al.those from Turkey are more active in nancial trans-actions and socialising as a site for the exchange of in-formation on social protection. In addition, theauthors nd a strong correlation between socialisingand social protection for allmigrants, illustrating thatsocialising serves as a proxy via which to tap intoprotective resources in the networks. In their net-work article, which precedes the study of the threetransnational social spaces, Bilecen and Sienkiewicz(2015) illustrate typical cases exemplifying migrantsand their protective networks for each transnationalsocial space.

As one of the three social-space case studies,Bilecen et al. (2015) explore the GermanTurkishtransnational social space. After a portrayal of theGerman and the Turkish welfare systems whichconstitute an opportunity context for the migrants,they analyse strategies of social protection. Thisanalysis is based on empirical evidence collectedthrough twenty interviews with migrants fromTurkey and ten with their signicant others inTurkey. The authors identify the signicance ofsocial activities in order to tap into the concept ofinformal social protection. Social activities such aspreparing and having dinner and breakfast together,celebrating religious festivals, and watching footballmatches constitute the meaning of life for theirrespondents. The authors argue that, throughsocialising, migrants are able to tap into informalsocial protection. They refer to stitching, a strategyby which migrants in Germany continually attachthemselves to society in their country of origin, andare thus included in the informationows andnan-cial transfers which constitute a crucial part of theirsocial protection. Using the examples of retirementbenets, healthcare and religious practices, Bilecenet al. (2015) illustrate the meaning of stayingconnected with Turkey for their respondents pro-tection.Moreover, the authors also explain thewaysin which the strategies of social protection areshaped by comparative discourses of superiorformal protection in Germany and inferior protec-tion in Turkey while also considering the meaningsattached to reciprocal exchanges of protectionamong family members and friends.

Focusing on the GermanPolish transnationalsocial space, the contribution by Barglowski et al.(2015b) identies caregiving as the most importantcross-border dimension of social protection forPolish migrants. Based on twenty interviews withPolishmigrants in Germany and ten with their sig-

nicant others in Poland, the authors argue that

Copyright 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.the main orientation towards caregiving is, on theone hand, educational aspirations for the childrenin Germany and, on the other, maintaining ties torelevant their signicant others in Germany. Theyadvocate that caregiving in the PolishGermantransnational social space is embedded in hierar-chically ordered meanings of good care. Meaningsare not only related towardswho is the best (family)caregiver, but also to formal protection. The authorsattribute transnationality as a dynamic categoryelucidating two implications in the realm of care:rst, remaining attached to country of origin isnot a social fact per se, but is related to keeping intouch with people who are perceived as relevantfor social protection. Second, strategies of (family)care change in the course of migration, as beingsituated in different countries inuences interpreta-tions of reciprocity. As a distinct feature of the trans-national social space, care strategies are patternedby narratives in the PolishGerman transnationalsocial space towards better living conditions andgood formal protection in Germany.

The third case study, by Sienkiewicz et al. (2015),focuses on the GermanKazakh space. WhileBarglowski et al. (2015b) address formal and informalsocial protection assemblages in home and hostcountries, Sienkiewicz et al. (2015) demonstrate,through twenty interviews with migrants fromKazakhstan and ten with their signicant others inthe country of origin, thatmigrants fromKazakhstanorganise their social protection mainly in Germany.Due to their migration history as resettlers, Kazakhmigrants obtained German citizenship upon arrivalinGermany,which gives themaccess to formal socialprotection there; the authors illustrate how theirrespondents use formal and informal social protec-tion in equalmeasure. They identify symbolic protec-tion by sending parcels between Germany andKazahkstan as a strategy for those decreasing num-bers of resettlers who still have active ties with theirrelatives in Kazakhstan. This symbolic practice isembedded in a transnational space of comparison,where family members compare life chances, mostlyin terms of formal social protection, which shapedifferent expectations toward reciprocity withinfamilies. Their contribution identies the differentevaluations of life chances and expectations withintransnational families through the perspective ofwho has, and who does not have, access to goodformal protection.

Last, in the concluding article, Faist and Bilecen

(2015) place the links between social protection


Transnationality is of strategic signicance for an

Transnational Social Protectionunderstanding of the transnational social question,because it reveals the cross-connections of thefragmented world of social protection. This contri-bution provides a window into the social mecha-nisms that support social protection across bordersand how thesemitigate old and generate new socialinequalities. In this way, Faist and Bilecen (2015)summarise the central arguments of the socialprotection strategies utilised by migrants and theirsignicant others both within and across borders,the inequalities they are faced with and the socialmechanisms operating behind the scenes. For futureresearch, the question arises as to which standardsmobile individuals and their signicant others useto evaluate inequalities, and in which contextswhich norm of equality is activated or muted todeal with heterogeneities and inequalities.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We especially would like to thank Andreas Herz,Eleonore Kofman, Anna Korteweg, MagdalenaNowicka, Birgit Pfau-Efger, Jens Schneider,Michael Schnhuth andWolfgang Schrer as wellas anonymous reviewers who have contributed tothe improvement of the current special issue withtheir comments. We are also grateful to the fundingreceived from German Research Foundation (DFG)within the framework of the Collaborative ResearchCentre 882 From Heterogeneities to Inequalities.

REFERENCES

Anderson B. 2000. Doing the Dirty Work? The Global Pol-itics of Domestic Labour. Zed: London.

Baldassar L. 2007. Transnational families and agedcare: the mobility of care and the migrancy ofaging. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 33(2):275297.

Barglowski K, Bilecen B, Amelina A. 2015a. Approachingand social inequalities in a broader context: thetransnational social question namely the conictsaround cross-border social inequalities is a multi-faceted one. It is linked not only to inequalitiesgenerated by heterogeneities such as class, gender,ethnicity, legal status and religion, but also to theperception that cross-border interdependence hasgrown and that transnational interactions them-selves have become a criterion for differentiation.Transnational Social Protection: Methodological

Copyright 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.Challenges and Empirical Applications. Population,Space and Place this issue.

Barglowski K, Krzyowski L, witek P. 2015b. Care-giving in Polish-German Transnational Social Space:Circulating Narratives and Intersecting Heterogene-ities. Population, Space and Place this issue.

Bilecen B. 2013. Analyzing Informal Social ProtectionAcross Borders: Synthesizing Social NetworkAnalysiswith Qualitative Interviews. SFB Working Paper SeriesNo. 19, DFG Research Center: Bielefeld.

Bilecen B, Barglowski K. 2015. On the Assemblages ofInformal and Formal Transnational Social Protection.Population, Space and Place this issue.

Bilecen B, atr G, Orhon A. 2015. TurkishGermanTransnational Social Space: Stitching Across Borders.Population, Space and Place this issue.

Bilecen B, Sienkiewicz JJ. 2015. Informal Social ProtectionNetworks of Migrants: Typical Patterns in DifferentTransnational Social Spaces. Population, Space and Placethis issue.

Bommes M, Geddes A (eds). 2002. Immigration and Wel-fare: Challenging the Borders of the Welfare State.Routledge: London.

Crenshaw KW. 1989. Demarginalizing the Intersection ofRace and Sex: A Black Feminist Critique of Antidiscrim-ination Doctrine, Feminist Theory and Antiracist Poli-tics. University of Chicago Legal Forum, 139167.

De Haan L, Zoomers A. 2005. Exploring the frontier oflivelihoods research. Development and Change 36(1):2747.

Deacon B. 2007. Global Social Policy and Governance.Sage: London.

Deacon B, Hulse M, Stubbs P. 1997. Global Social Policy:International Organizations and the Future of Welfare.Sage: London.

Diewald M, Faist T. 2011. From Heterogeneities toInequalities : Looking at Social Mechanisms as anExplanatory Approach to the Generation of SocialInequalities. SFB Working Paper Series No. 1, DFGResearch Center: Bielefeld.

DunnK. 2010.Guest Editorial EmbodiedTransnationalism:Bodies in Transnational Spaces. Population, Space andPlace 16: 19.

Faist T. 1995. Ethnicization and racialization of welfare-state politics in Germany and the USA. Ethnic andRacial Studies 18(2): 219250.

Faist T. 2000. The Volume andDynamics of InternationalMi-gration and Transnational Social Spaces. Oxford Univer-sity Press: Oxford.

Faist T. 2014. We Are All Transnationals Now: TheRelevance of Transnationality for UnderstandingSocial Inequailties. SFB Working Paper Series No. 25,DFG Research Center: Bielefeld.

Faist T, Bilecen B. 2015. Social Inequalities throughthe Lens of Social Protection: Notes on the Transna-tional Social Question. Population, Space and Place

this issue.


Faist T, Fauser M, Reisenauer E. 2013. Transnational Mi-gration. Polity Press: Cambridge.

Goldin I, Cameron G, Balarajan M. 2012. Exceptional People:HowMigration Shaped ourWorld andWill Dene our Future.Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Goldring L. 1998. The power of status in transnational socialelds. InTransnationalism fromBelow, SmithM,Guarnizo L(eds). Transaction: New Brunswick/London; 165195.

Hirschman AO. 1970. Exit, Voice, and Loyalty. HarvardUniversity Press: Cambridge, MA.

Hochschild AR. 2000. Global care chains and emotionalsurplus value. In On the Edge. Living with GlobalCapitalism, Hutton W, Giddens A (eds). Jonathan Cape:London; 130146.

Jones Finer C. (ed.). 1999. Transnational Social Policy.Blackwell: Oxford.

Kelly P, Lusis T. 2006. Migration and the transnationalhabitus: evidence from Canada and Philippines.Environment and Planning A 38(5): 831847.

Mazzucato V. 2009. Bridging boundaries with a trans-national research approach: a simultaneous matchedsample methodology. In Multi-Sited Ethnography:

Portes A. 2001. Introduction: the debates and signi-cance of immigrant transnationalism.Global Networks1(3): 181193.

Sabates-Wheeler R, Feldman, R (eds). 2011. Migrationand Social Protection. Claiming Rights Beyond Borders.Palgrave Macmillan: New York.

Sainsbury D. 2006. Immigrants social rights incomparative perspective: welfare regimes, formsin immigration and immigration policy regimes.Journal of European Social Policy 16(3): 229244.

Sienkiewicz JJ, Sadovskaya E, Amelina A. 2015. TheKazakhGerman Social Space: Decreasing Transna-tional Ties and Symbolic Social Protection. Popula-tion, Space and Place this issue.

Smith DP, Bailey AJ. 2004. Editorial Introduction:Linking Transnational Migrants and Transnational-ism. Population, Space and Place 10: 357360.

Srensen NN, Olwig KF (eds). 2002. Work and Migra-tion: Life and Livelihoods in a Globalizing World.Routledge: London.

Stark O. 1991. The Migration of Labor. CambridgeUniversity Press: New York.

T. Faist et al.Theory, Praxis and Locality in Contemporary Research,Falzon MA (ed.). Ashgate: Farnham; 215232.

McCall L. 2005. The complexity of intersectionality. Signs:Journal of Women, Culture and Society 30(3): 17711800.

Orozco M, Lowell L. 2006. Gender-Specic Determinantsof Remittances: Differences in Structures and Motivation.The World Bank: Washington, DC.

Parreas RS. 2001. Mothering from a distance:emotions, gender, and inter-generational relationsin Filipino transnational families. Feminist Studies27(2): 361391.

Pinker R. 1979. The Idea of Welfare. Heinemann: London.Copyright 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.Walby S, Armstrong J, Strid S. 2012. Intersectionality:multiple inequalities in social theory. Sociology 46(2):224240.

Wei A. 2005. The transnationalization of socialinequality: conceptualizing social positions on aworld scale. Current Sociology 53(4): 707728.

Winkler G, Degele N. 2011. Intersectionality as multi-level analysis: dealing with social inequality.European Journal of Womens Studies 18(1): 5166.

Yeates N. 2009. Globalizing Care Economies and MigrantWorkers: Explorations in Global Care Chains. Palgrave:Basingstoke.Popul. Space Place (2014)DOI: 10.1002/psp

Documents

FAIST