‘A Place to Stay in Pakistan’: Why Migrants Build Houses in their Country of Origin

POPULATION, SPACE AND PLACEPopul. Space Place 18, 629–641 (2012)Published online 20 December 2011 in Wiley Online Library

‘A Place to Stay in Pakistan’: Why MigrantsBuild Houses in their Country of OriginMarta Bivand Erdal*

Peace Research Institute Oslo, Norway

(wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/psp.1694

ABSTRACT

Migrants’ houses are a common feature of manyregions of emigration globally and are onemanifestation of migrants’ transnational ties.This paper explores why migrants’ buildhouses in their country of origin, even whenmigrants are not planning to return. The paperaims to analyze migrants’ houses as relationalplaces located in transnational social space. Thisis done through an analysis of the reasons forbuilding migrants’ houses, which shows thesignificance of these houses as relational places,in practical and symbolic ways. This is supportedby a transnational perspective that includes thedifferent views on migrants’ houses amonginvolved actors across transnational social space:the migrants, their relatives, the localcommunities the houses are built in, andsocieties where migrants have settled. The datafor this paper consist of 45 semi-structuredinterviews with Pakistani migrants in Norwayand non-migrant relatives in Pakistan, informalconversations with local Pakistanis, and analysisof media reports in Norway. Copyright © 2011John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Accepted 4 November 2011

Keywords: migrant transnationalism; home;place; remittances; integration

INTRODUCTION

‘Having a place to stay’ was Nasir’s1 re-sponse when asked about the reasonswhy he had chosen to build a house

in the village in Pakistan. The family needs a

*Correspondence to: Marta Bivand Erdal, Peace ResearchInstitute Oslo, Hausmannsgate 7, NO-0134 Oslo, Norway.:E-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]

place to stay when on holiday in Pakistan. Nasiris representative of many migrants, from differentregions globally, who send remittances to build ahouse in their country of origin. The reasons whymigrants choose to build houses in their countriesof origin are mixed and include dimensions ofpractical and symbolic nature (Grigolini, 2005;Lubkeman, 2005; Smith, 2007; Dalakoglou, 2010).Nasir’s statement can be understood in terms ofhis house in the village, as a place to stay temporar-ily while on holiday. But the statement also refersto the larger issues in question here: will Nasir stayin Norway, or will he return to Pakistan? Is hishouse in Pakistan, part of his ‘myth of return’, isit an investment, or is it a practical holiday solutionfor the family?

This paper addresses the interconnectionsbetween migrant transnationalism and integra-tion, as these manifest themselves with regard tomigrant houses. The phrase ‘a place to stay’ servesas a starting point for this investigation, as it pointsto the important issues of place, home, and belong-ing, which are at the core of discussions aboutmigrant transnationalism and interactions withintegration in countries of settlement, embodiedin houses in the country of origin. A discussion ofwhymigrants’ build houses connects with broaderdebates about remittances and about returnmigra-tion (Black and King, 2004; Asiedu, 2005; Cligett,2005; King et al., 2006; Jones, 2011; Sinatti, 2011).

Migrants’ houses in their countries of originare a well-known feature of migrant transnation-alism, reflecting the fact that migrants frommanyparts of the world build houses, for instanceinAfghanistan (Oeppen, 2009), Cape Verde(Akesson, 2009), Ghana (Smith, 2007; Smith andMazzucato, 2009), Iraqi Kurdistan (Gran, 2008),Mexico (Pauli, 2008), Nigeria (Osili, 2004), Portugal(Lubkeman, 2005), and Pakistan (Bolognani, 2007;Hasan, 2010). Yet, few analyses of the reasonswhy migrants build houses exist.

This paper uses migrants’ houses in Pakistanas the starting point for investigating why

Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

630 M. B. Erdal

migrants build houses in their country of origin.The paper aims to expose the different perspectivesof involved actors across transnational social spaceand to analyze migrants’ houses with an explicitlygeographical perspective, seeing migrants’ housesas relational places. The focus of this paper is onhouses as buildings, rather than homes as dwellingplaces. Many migrants’ houses are not used ashomes on a continuous basis but function asrelational places in the sense that migrants, theirrelatives, and others actively relate to them.

CONTEXT AND METHODOLOGY

The geographic contexts of this paper are theKharian area in Punjab, Pakistan (Figure 1) andOsloin Norway. Migration from Pakistan to Norwaystarted in the early 1970s as labour migration andhas continued mainly as family migration since.

The population of those with Pakistani origin isone of the largest ethnic minorities in Norway andone of the oldest migrant groups, now countingmore than 30,000, about 30% of whom are descen-dants born in Norway. A majority of Norwegian-Pakistanis originate from district Gujrat in Punjab,many from villages in the Kharian area. DistrictGujrat is an area with large outmigration over thepast decades, to many destination countries.Nevertheless, Norway has been one of the mostcommon destination countries in a few villages.

Figure 1. Map of Khar


Overall, Pakistani migration to Norway may bedescribed as family chain migration.

This paper draws on data from a collaborativeresearch project about remittances from immi-grants in Norway, which has included quantitativeanalysis of survey data in Norway and Pakistan,semi-structured interviews in Norway and Pakistan,analysis of media reports referring to migrantremittances in Norway, as well as further datacomponents not relevant to this paper. This papermainly builds on 45 semi-structured interviews,focusing on the perspectives of migrants inNorway (30 interviews) and persons in Pakistanwith migrant relatives in Norway (15 interviews)(unmatched sample). Three additional data sourceshave informed the paper. First, during fieldwork inPakistan, informal interaction with people with noclose migrant relatives contributed to an under-standing of their perspectives. Here, ‘close relative’is applied in terms of research participants’ self-definitions and does not mean that these indivi-duals may not have had one or more relatives(rishtadar) living abroad but that this has nopractical significance in their own view. Second, asurvey among remittance recipients in the Kharianarea was conducted in 2009 (n=664), whichincluded questions about remittances sent forbuilding or maintaining migrant houses. Thesignificance of migrant houses as part of the largerremittance picture was evident from this survey2

and has informed the perspective of this paper.

ian area, Pakistan.

Popul. Space Place 18, 629–641 (2012)DOI: 10.1002/psp

631‘A Place to Stay in Pakistan’: Why Migrants Build Houses

Third, analysis of Norwegian government andmedia reports focusing onmigrant remittances alsoincluded references to ‘houses’, which haveinformed this paper.3

The multiple data sources on which this paperdraws on reflect the ways inwhichmigrant housesturned out to be a distinctive feature not only oflandscapes in rural Gujrat and the Kharian area,in particular, but also of remittance sending amongPakistani migrants and the connected social inter-actions between migrants and their relatives.Remittances are a sensitive topic to discuss becauseof the inherently private nature of familial financialpractices; therefore, questions were often askedcautiously. Migrants’ houses, as part of a discus-sion of remittances, are not free of being a sensitivetopic, yet because of their concrete nature andpractical usage, often allowed for entering intoissues of belonging and identity in a transnationalsocial field, during interviews.

The following section discusses the use of spatialterminology in transnational migration studies,arguing for an understanding of migrants’ housesas relational places. The existing literature onmigrants’ houses is introduced, before the contribu-tion from this paper to this literature is outlined. Thenext section presents findings about the practicaland symbolic reasons why migrants’ build housesin Pakistan, before a discussion of the differentperspectives of actors according to gender, gener-ation, and location. The final section discusses howmigrants’ houses as relational places may be under-stood as located within transnational social spaceandwhat kinds of implications this has formigrants’perceptions of place, home, and belonging.

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

The use of spatial terminology, such as place andspace, is common within transnational migrationstudies, although itmay be argued that this is oftennot reflected in the actual analysis (Smith, 2005;Gielis, 2009). Often, the analysis is of transnationalmigrant networks, adopting a multi-sited method-ology. Gielis introduces the idea of a ‘global senseofmigrant places’ encouraging a ‘place perspectivein transnational migration studies’ (2009:271). Anargument for a focus on place within transnationalmigration studies is also provided by Ley, whostates that migrants are not always in the air, theymust also touch down somewhere, in a place(2004). Arguably, research on transnationalism can


benefit from an understanding of ‘the importanceof place and the groundedness of transnationalmobilities’ (Featherstone et al., 2007: 385).

Understanding places as relational, while firstadvocated byMassey (1997) in the context of trans-national migration studies, has been encouragedby Smith (2005) through his work on transnationalurbanism. Understanding places as relationalnecessitates seeing places as open and interlinkedwith or affected by social relations and social pro-cesses (Massey, 1997; Cresswell, 2004; Gielis, 2009).This paper uses a ‘place’ perspective as a lens foranalysis, focusing on particular places: migrants’houses in the country of origin. Through seeingmigrants’ houses as relational and in processes, aplace perspective flexibly allows for the inclusionof a range of actors, which are interconnected notby being in the same locality but by their relation-ship to a particular place: the migrants’ house.

Transnational Social Space

Transnational interactions and encounters are thesubjectmatter ofwhat happenswithin transnationalsocial space, including concrete cross-borderexchanges, such as remittances, visits, phone calls,and e-mails, and less tangible issues, such as mem-ories and ideas about home and belonging (Bailey,2001; Vertovec, 2001; Al-Ali and Koser, 2002; Kingand Christou, 2010). The analytical focus of thispaper is on migrants’ houses as relational places,located within transnational social space. Withintransnational migration studies, several conceptspertaining to transnational space have been intro-duced. Among the more significant are Levitt andGlick Schiller’s ‘transnational social fields’ (2004)and Faist’s ‘transnational social spaces’ (2000).Transnational social fields and spaces are often usedinterchangeably. Both describe the arena in whichtransnational encounters and interactions takeplace, acknowledging the dynamics and diversitythat are constructed through the agency of migrantsand their kin (Voigt-Graf, 2004: 43–44).

As the spatial dimension of transnational arenasis not often a main focus, it is useful to review somerecent studies that investigate the spatialities oftransnational networks. Three dimensions emerge.First, distance matters. There is a relationshipbetween spatial distance and social process (Ley,2004). Spatial separationwithin a family contextwillaffect social relations. With regard to migrants’houses as relational places, issues of spatial distance


632 M. B. Erdal

matter, in terms of a need for someone to look afterhouses while the owner is not there. This wouldoften be a relative of the migrant, sometimes livingin the house, other times working as a caretaker.These kinds of relations illustrate the social andrelational dimension of transnational practices suchas sending remittances, which are spent for variousliving costs, but sometimes also as payment forservices rendered to the migrant, or for work onthe migrants’ house. In this context, distancematters and enhances symmetries and asymmetrieswith regard to access to resources and to informa-tion. Migrants usually have more resources,whereas relatives will know better what is happen-ing in the place of origin – for instance with thehouse building. These symmetries and asymmetriesthat distance contributes to placemigrants and theirrelatives in an uneven playing field (Carling, 2008a).

Second, locality is important. Migrants areembedded in place, and their agency is alwayscontext dependent on particular localities, al-though there may be more than one such locality(Featherstone et al., 2007). In relation to migrants’houses, locality becomes significant, in the contextof both origin and settlement, as discourses andpractices of building houses in the area of originare mediated through these localities. This meansthat building a house in Pakistan is relevant insymbolic, practical, and economic ways to a mi-grant in Norway. The way the houses are seenand understood in both Norway and Pakistan alsoaffects the way in which migrants themselves seeand understand these houses, perhaps dependingonwhich locality they are in at a given time. Third,an awareness of multiple localities and places pro-motes an understanding of migrants’ diverse iden-tities and agencies (Featherstone et al., 2007: 387),which is relevant for understanding the meaningof migrants’ houses in their countries of origin aswell as in the context of their lives in the countryof settlement. Such an understanding suggests ananalysis of migrants’ houses in the country oforigin, not in terms of whether migrants ultimatelyreturn permanently to live in these houses – butas relational places – playing a part in a changinglife project, which includes some aspects of trans-national living.

Interactions with Integration

Migrants’ houses are located in the country of origin.Yet, issues of integration in countries of settlement


are relevant to the question of why migrants buildhouses, when considered in a transnationalcontext. In this paper, migrant integration isunderstood as largely the same as inclusion andincorporation, referring to the processes whereby‘immigrants inevitably adjust and adapt to newenvironments’ (Kivisto, 2003: 16). Building housesin the country of origin raises not only questionsabout plans for return migration or sustaining‘the myth of return’ but also questions aboutbelonging and feelings of home in both countryof origin and settlement. A house in the countryof origin may be of significance to the emotionalwell-being of migrants, as it provides a ‘safetynet’ – a place one can go to – should life inthe country of settlement become impossible.Although issues of social status in relation tomigrants’ houses are rather obvious in the countryof origin, these may also arise in different ways inthe country of settlement. Building a house in thecountry of origin may be seen by co-migrants orby the majority population as a sign of resourceful-ness andmanagingmultiple identities or it may beseen as wasteful investment or as a sign of back-wardness in terms of adhering to expectations ofdemonstrating wealth to obtain social status inthe country of origin. There are also practical waysin which building houses implicate life in thecountry of settlement, for instance in terms ofprioritising expenditure, perhaps over better ac-commodation in the country of settlement or overequipment and leisure time activities.

Migrant Houses

Migrants’ houses are often mentioned in thecontext of migrants’ transnational practices andare seen as material manifestations of migrants’ tiesto their areas of origin. But there is still only alimited body of work explicitly focusing onmigrants’ houses in the country of origin. Overall,three strands of literature are relevant to mentionhere. First, within the literature on migrants’ remit-tances, there has been a debate regarding thedichotomy of consumption versus investment ofremittances (Carling, 2008b), including referencesto building houses. Within these debates, somestatements have been normative, arguing thatremittances spent for consumption are essentiallysquandered: investment in housing in the countryof origin is an ‘unproductive investment’ (Castlesand Miller, 2003: 170). Migrants’ houses would



within this debate often fall under the category ofconsumption and squandering, rather than invest-ment, although building houses is an investmentfrom which many actors within the local commu-nity can benefit, directly and indirectly (Taylor,1999). As part of the increased attention to thedevelopment potential of remittances, includingfrom the World Bank (Ratha, 2007), there has beena move away from examining remittance expend-iture as either investment or consumption, but ra-ther viewing the two as mutually interdependent.

Second, quantitative research on remittances,from both the migrants’ and receivers’ sides,provides findings about remittance expendituresinvested for migrants building houses or improv-ing housing (e.g. see Parrada, 2004; Fargues, 2006;Martin et al., 2006; Airola, 2007; Suleri and Savage,2006). That migrant remittances are spent for hous-ing expenditure in general confirms that housing isa key component of the standard of living thatmigrants want to improve for their relatives. How-ever, it also reflects the fact thatmanymigrants glo-bally invest in building a house of their own.

Third, within transnational migration studies,some research focuses on migrants’ houses in thecountry of origin. Research in Mexico (Grigolini,2005; Pauli, 2008) emphasises social dimensionsin that the styles in which migrants’ houses arebuilt, and the fact that these are ‘fancy houses’,are significant for the social status of migrantsand their families in the local community. It isfound that there are important implications for so-cial processes, as building houses providesmigrants with a greater degree of independenceand challenges traditional intergenerational andgender relations. However, this research mainlydiscusses short-term labour migration, where oneor more household members emigrate but returnfor shorter or longer periods. The houses built aretherefore in fact built for the continuous use bymigrants and their close family.

The social implications of house building arealso shown in the context of Portugal, where it isfound that this links to moral economies, wherevalues are assigned to particular kinds of beha-viours, with implications for social status andfuture opportunities in the community of origin(Lubkeman, 2005: 272–275): a half-built housemay for instance have very different meanings, de-pending onwhether it is still under construction orwhether it has been given up. Three explanationsare given why migrants continue to construct


houses, despite not having actual plans to return:retaining the option of returning, maintainingsocial position, and culturally specific issues ofbelonging in the community of origin (Lubkeman,2005: 272–275). Migrants’ housing investments inNigeria are characterised by a mixture of motiva-tions, but membership rights and social statusseem to be more significant than housing benefitsfor family or altruistic dimensions (Osili, 2004).

The findings and analysis in this paper are acontribution to the existing research on migranthouses in two ways (Figure 2). First, through ananalysis that spans transnational social space,including dimensions related to migrant trans-nationalism as well as processes of integration.This contrasts with previous studies of migranthouses, which have mostly focused on the coun-try of origin side. The transnational focus allowsfor inclusion of perspectives of involved actorsacross transnational social space: the migrantsand their relatives, and the communities of originand of settlement. Second, through adopting ageographical perspective on migrants’ houses asrelational places in transnational social space, thispaper provides a different approach to those ofprevious studies. The relational nature of migranthouses as places is illustrated by the arrows inFigure 2, showing the flow of economic, social,and cultural capital from migrants – to the house –to relatives, and, in some instances back again, associal or cultural capital.

BUILDING HOUSES IN PAKISTAN

Travelling in Gujrat district leaves no doubt thatmigrant house building is happening and thatthis is an important aspect of the local economy,not least through brick production and transpor-tation, construction and maintenance work, andrelated activities. Findings from fieldwork indistrict Gujrat show that a majority of migrantfamilies own houses in their area of origin. Thisis also confirmed by survey findings, showing thatmany remittance receivers state that remittancesare sent for payment of building or maintainingmigrant houses.4

‘Migrant houses’ can be many things. Despitelarge outmigration over four decades, districtGujrat is still an area where poverty is obviousand where employment opportunities are scarce.There are therefore huge inequalities among


TRANSNATIONAL SOCIAL SPACE LOCAL SPACE

Flows of economic, socialand symbolic capital to,from and through migranthouses

Figure 2. A migrants’ house in transnational social space.

634 M. B. Erdal

people living in this area. In relation to housebuilding, and motivations for this activity, thereare differences between migrants who are livingpermanently in Western countries and thosewho are temporary labour migrants in the GulfStates. In both cases, building or rebuildinghouses in the area of origin is happening, butfor the temporary migrants, this means buildingtheir own house, where their wife and children,possibly parents, are living, whereas for thepermanent migrant, the house is a place builtfor less obvious and pressing reasons.

The location of actors within transnationalspace is significant for understanding their actionsand their statements, and while taking intoaccount the dimensions of differences betweenmigrants, according to their destination and natureof stay, this paper focuses on migrants’ housesbuilt bymigrants inWestern countries. This sectionstarts with a presentation of findings about thepractical reasons why migrants’ choose to buildhouses in their areas of origin and then turns tosymbolic reasons.

Practical Reasons for Building Houses

Practical reasons for building a house in Pakistanare often explained in terms of improving accom-modation for family members in Pakistan. Aftermigration, it is common that migrants send remit-tances to help their relatives with their day-to-dayexpenses, as well as for investments in education,health, or livelihood activities. Helping relativeswith their accommodation arrangements is part ofthe broader remittance picture. For many Pakistanimigrants to Norway, helping build, re-build, orrenovate a house for their parents was one of thepurposes for which money was sent early on. As


the Pakistani population in Norway is now amature immigrant population, most immediatefamily is either in Norway or perhaps no longeralive or has already been helped in a sufficientmanner with regard to their housing needs. ThesePakistani migrants, as many other migrants glo-bally, are choosing to build houses for themselvesin their areas of origin. Among the 30 intervieweesin Norway, the most predominant reason for build-ing houses was found to be for holiday purposes:

‘I send money to build a house in Pakistan. Ididn’t have place to stay in Pakistan. When Iwas there I had to stay with my in-laws or withmy parents. So I don’t go there very much. . .. Iwent for the first time after 13years,when Iwentlast. Then I bought some land in the village.’

‘Maryam5’, in her 40s, left Pakistan as a child togo to the UK, married and came to Norway inher late teens.

The significance of having a place to stay‘there’ is great in practical terms, as the aforemen-tioned quote illustrates. In order for youngpeople growing up in Norway to be happy onholiday in Pakistan, certain facilities are required,as is some space of their own. This goes for theadults as well, particularly with regard to visitingwith in-laws, and seems to be the case bothamong women and men.

These two practical reasons for buildinghouses, to improve accommodation for relativesand as a holiday home, may well be combined,as the family in Norway may have rooms of theirown in one part of the house. Alternatively, the



houses of family members may be renovatedor expanded, whereas the migrant builds a newhouse. Another dimension of this relates to ahaving a place to stay in Pakistan, beyond holi-days, for instance with regard to pensionerswho spend the winter in Pakistan, a practice thatis increasingly becoming common.

A third practical reason for building houses inareas of origin was mentioned by interviewees inthe Kharian area and did not explicitly come upin the data collected in Norway: building as aninvestment in Pakistan. The argument was thatbecause of the high levels of corruption and inse-curity in social and political terms, the businessclimate in Pakistan is generally not good. There-fore, an investment in a house is a better option.In support of this view, there are examples ofmigrants’ houses being rented out and becominga source of income. In these cases, the rent moneywas not transferred to Norway but was eitherchanneled to relatives, as remittances, or paid intoa Pakistani bank account owned by the migrant.However, despite the insecurity in Pakistan, thereare also examples of business investments bymigrants, suggesting that investment in houses isnot seen as an alternative to other business invest-ments by migrants themselves.

Symbolic Reasons for Building Houses

Migrant relatives interviewed in the Kharian areasay that migrants’ houses are built according tothe requests of migrants, in terms of architecturalfeatures, costs, and level of luxury. Both the pres-tige of the migrant, and the relatives, is highlyaffected by building a grand house. In this way,migrants’ houses are clearly linked to socialcapital. The houses become monuments to thesuccessful migrant and, by extension, an asset tothe relatives. As monuments, these houses arepresent in the landscape and present in the mindsof both relatives of migrants and non-relativesliving close by. This has an effect in underliningthe possibility of migration, with attached oppor-tunities of wealth and increased status.

From a different perspective, those withouttransnational connections, who are not receivingremittances and who are struggling to survive, arealso affected. Among them, there is disenchant-ment with Kharian becoming a more expensivearea, because of the money coming in from abroad.Tensions arise between husband and wife, and


parents and children, and pressure is put on thehusband and father to go abroad so that the familycan maintain their status and not be looked downupon by others who are receiving remittances fromabroad. Migrants’ houses in the village remindthem of these frustrations and make the possibil-ities linked with migration an inherent part of life.

In answering why migrants build houses intheir country of origin, the most immediateresponse in Pakistan, whether from a migrant ora relative, was related to issues of home andbelonging. This is related to the need for a phys-ical manifestation of the migrant’s connectionwith the homeland. Migrants’ houses become a‘proxy’ presence there (Dalakoglou, 2010). Khalid,a man in his late 30s living in the Kharian area,said that ‘They have their birth places in Pakistan.They love their home places. Their social status isdue to their home places. Their parents lived inthese houses, they never left.’ This quote showshow the issues of social capital and belongingare intertwined in the arguments presented aboutwhy migrants build their houses.

The house in Pakistan also has to be seen inlight of the ever-present ‘myth of return’ (Anwar,1979), which is important for many migrants whobuild houses. The myth of return exists amongdifferent migrant groups globally (Sinatti, 2011).Although many acknowledge the fact that it isnot likely that they will ever return, the possibil-ity of sustaining the myth enables them to keepat a distance the painful consciousness that theywill never go back ‘home’. Most Pakistanis inNorway do not assume that they or their childrenwill move to Pakistan permanently, but concernsabout ‘the second generation’ have been men-tioned with regard to having a place to stay inPakistan. Some parents are worried that theirchildren growing up in a non-Muslim context inNorway will lose their identities. As they do notwant their children to adopt European cultureor religion, having a place to stay in Pakistan issignificant, at least as a hypothetical alternative.One young man born in Norway explained howhis parents (to his understanding) felt about theirhouse in Pakistan: ‘. . .for them it’s a kind ofsecurity net, mentally, so that they can go thereand stay there, even at short notice. They feelsome kind of security.’ Although few migrantschoose to return to Pakistan permanently, thepossibility of return is clearly important, at bothpractical and symbolic levels.


636 M. B. Erdal

Country of settlement perspectives are different,as they are embedded in one location only, withouttransnational connections. The Norwegian mediareports show exactly this; there is an uncertaintyaboutmigrants’ houses, representing transnationalconnections, and questions are raised about howsuch transnational connections affect migrants’loyalties and identities in Norway. The implicitconclusion being that if migrants’ houses detractfrom migrants’ ties to Norway, effectively theyare a hindrance to integration.

DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES: GENDER,GENERATION, AND LOCATION

Different actors have different perspectives onmigrants’ houses, based among other things ontheir gender, generation, and locationwithin trans-national social space. The differences betweenmenand women are that more often than not, womenliving in Norway are perhaps less concerned withhaving a house in Pakistan than men. This seemsto relate not only to the fact that they are lessinterested in a return to Pakistan, as they want tostay in Norway, close to their grandchildren, butalso to issues of social status. Although womenare concerned with the family’s social status, thehouses in the country of origin seem to be mainlya male arena.

Maryam’s story about the house she is buildingin Pakistan is interesting in contrasting the generalpattern of males being most involved in buildinghouses and reveals generational differences be-tween parents and children. She starts explainingbuilding the house in relation to her husbandwho is already retired and who suffers during theNorwegian winters and feels much better inPakistan. She is building the house for him to staythere during the winters. At the same time, she isvery outspoken about her views of other Pakistanimigrants and the common perception fromNorwegianmedia reports about building luxurioushouses in Pakistan as wasteful, as migrants areevidently not returning permanently to Pakistan.She emphasises that in her opinion, migrants arejust building houses to show off: ‘I think it’s justabout having a bigger house than everyone else,even taller, even bigger than others. To showmoney and power. It’s all about status.’ When shedescribes her own house, Maryam says: ‘I’ve builta house with four bedrooms as I have five children.There are two kitchens. I thought that my two boys


can live there when they are married, and they canhave one part each.’ On the basis of her previousstatements, it seems clear that her own family’s lifeis permanent in Norway, and she does not expecther sons to move to Pakistan. Yet, when shedescribes the house in Pakistan, this possibilityhas been taken into account. Maryam finishes offlaughing, saying that: ‘the first thing my daughtersaid to me when we started building this housewas, why spend somuchmoney in Pakistan, whenyou aren’t even going to live there? Then I had todefend my husband!’

The generational differences are evident; chil-dren raised in Norway do not appreciate spendinglarge amounts of money on houses in Pakistan,which they do not see any need for. The fact thatparents still build houses, and even plan for thefuture of their children within these house projects,shows the symbolic significance of migrants’houses. Having a house ‘there’ is important evenif you are not going to be staying there most ofthe time. However, this symbolic significanceseems to be less relevant for the generation whohas grown up in Norway. For them, the housesare houses, they are places in which to stay whenon holiday, and they are objects on which moneyis being spent. The disagreement between childrenand parents about building houses in Pakistanwas common tomany of the interviews in Norway.

MIGRANTS’ HOUSES: RELATIONAL PLACESIN TRANSNATIONAL SOCIAL SPACE

Reasons for building houses in the country oforigin, both practical and symbolic, and thecontrasting perspectives of relevant actors in trans-national social space in different ways point to theimportance of place, home, and belonging. Thefollowing section will discuss how migrants’houses as relational places may be understood aslocated within transnational social space and whatkinds of implications this has for migrants’ percep-tions of place, home, and belonging.

Nasir goes to Pakistan with his family on a regu-lar basis, usually every second or third year. Hedoes not think that his children will ever live inPakistan, but hopes they will continue to usetheir house there for holidays. For Nasir buildingthe house was a process which started early on,after his migration to Norway. He had a dreamof building a big house in the village, at first to



go back to, but even when his wife joined himand his children were born and grew up inNorway, his dream did not leave him. Nasirhad to build a house in the village; his motherwas expecting this, as was his brother. It was anobligation he had to them. Perhaps they couldeven live there, to look after the house. MaybeNasir would go back eventually, for retirement.Now Nasir is nearing retirement. He owns a bighouse in Oslo, and a big house in the Kharianarea. His children are happily settled in Oslo,and are content with their visits to Pakistan. Hiswife, whom he thought he would bring back toPakistan, is refusing. She wants to stay in Oslo,close to the grandchildren. Nasir laughs abouthis house: ‘I have a palace in the village, but noone wants to live there now.’6

Nasir’s story is representative of many of the 30interviewees in Norway. As relational places,migrants’ houses have both local and transnationalimplications. In the area of origin, migrant houseshave clear economic, social, and symbolic rele-vance. In the country of settlement, this is less clear,butmigrants’ housesmatter there too, at a symboliclevel, reflecting the complexity of issues of homeand belonging and how these change over time.

The economic dimension of the house buildingindustry in countries of origin should not be under-estimated. In Pakistan, building a single houseusually takes at least 1 year, involving a range ofactors being employed. After completion, the houseneeds to be looked after, there may be reparations,and supplies are necessary, offering more employ-ment and investment in local businesses. The socialimplication is significant for confirming family tiesand for possibilities of social mobility and changingposition within the local communities. At thesymbolic level, the importance of migrants’ housesis great both in the location where they standbut equally in the minds of migrants who are notphysically present.

There are also implications at the other end oftransnational social space, in the country of settle-ment. In Norwegian media reports mentioningmigrants’ houses, an underlying suggestion is thatbuilding houses in the country of origin is not whata ‘good Norwegian-Pakistani’ should do. This isfounded on arguments assuming that houses areunproductive investments in Pakistan, particularlyas migrants’ houses are seen as unnecessarily lux-urious and lavish. But the argument is mainly


about a perceived choice of where one’s loyalty lies.Building a house in Pakistan suggests keeping anoption of return open, thus questioning loyaltyand contributions to the society of settlement.Meanwhile, the majority of Pakistani migrants’are not planning to return to Pakistan, rather theyplan to stay permanently in Norway.

Many interviewees in Norway expressed asceptical view of migrants’ houses. It is difficult tosay whether interviewees were affected by themedia reports, but this is likely to have been partof the reason for their scepticism. This scepticismwas usually phrased in terms of stating that build-ing houses in Pakistan is a waste and that the timeand efforts spent doing this could well have beenused better elsewhere. Paradoxically, some of theintervieweesmaking statements of this naturewerealso owners of houses in Pakistan. As relationalplaces, migrants’ houses are revealing of the waysin which migrants strive to juggle their everydaylives in transnational social space, with inherent dif-ferences in terms of location, as well as gender andgeneration.

Migrants’ houses are relational places, in termsof what actually goes on there and in terms of thepeople involvedwith the house,while not necessar-ily physically being inside them. The house is aplace where the family stays when on holiday inPakistan. Such holiday visits are significant forupholding transnational family ties (Mason, 2004),and ‘visiting friends and relatives’ tourism is seenas amajor outcome of themigration–tourism nexus(Duval, 2004; Asiedu, 2005). During visits, familyreunites, important family ceremonies may be held(for instance ceremonies relating tomarriage, child-birth, and death), and children growing up abroadlearn more about their cultural heritage. Manyinteractions physically take place in the migrants’house: neighbours and relatives call on the migrantfor a visit, news about people is exchanged, andgifts are passed on. It is in the context of the visitthat migrants’ houses have the most visible andconcrete significance as relational places. But evenwhen the migrants are not staying in their house,its relational significance remains. Someone maybe looking after the house, either living in it orpassing by regularly. The house is a point of refer-ence in conversations across transnational space.

At the symbolic level, migrants’ houses alsoremain relational places when no one is living inthem. In the context of the area of origin, the housesare icons to the successful migrant and signal


638 M. B. Erdal

increased social status. For the migrants’ relatives,there may be ambivalence: the houses are icons ofsuccess but also reminders of the migration thatnever happened for themselves, and thus perhapsa source of resentment.

Place, Home, and Belonging

‘Home’ in this paper is understood broadly,including the house, as a building, rather than anarrower understanding as a ‘dwelling place’.Within migration studies, it is acknowledgedthat migrants retain emotional ties with theircountry or place of origin. These emotions maybe described in terms of ideas about home andbelonging (Brah, 1996; Al-Ali and Koser, 2002;Muggeridge and Doná, 2006). This is in partrelated to the theme of migrant integration, inso far as this extends to include people’s loyal-ties. Although it is now acknowledged thatmigrants may have dual loyalties (Mazzucato,2008), this is a complex idea. ‘Ideas of homeinvoke a sense of place, belonging or alienationthat is intimately tied to a sense of self’ (Blunt andVarley, 2004: 3). Linking ideas about home, place,and belonging to a sense of self shows the signifi-cance of identity here. Blunt points to the intersec-tions between home, identity, and belonging(Blunt, 2005; Blunt and Dowling, 2006). Identity, al-though a slippery concept, usefully refers to ‘waysin which people conceive of themselves and arecharacterised by others’ (Vertovec, 2001: 573).

In the context of relationships between migranttransnationalism and integration, identity is auseful concept, as it strikes at the core of questionsabout home and belonging. Ultimately, migrants’symbolic reasons for building housesmay to a largeextent be linked to identity, as they are relatedto ‘the myth of return’, home, and belonging.Migrants feel an emotional and symbolic attach-ment with their areas of origin, or home places,and they feel that they belong there, at some level.This is why membership rights within the localcommunity are important Osili (2004) and whythe option of returning needs to be maintained asa realistic option, even when it will never happen(Lubkeman, 2005).

In the case of Norwegian-Pakistanis, the reasonsfor building houses in the areas of origin are inter-twined. However, a theme of home and belonging,particularly relating to symbolic reasons for build-ing their houses, is visible. A majority of Pakistani


migrants are not planning to return, according toa survey among Pakistanis in Norway; only 1%was planning to return within 5years, whereas14% were planning to return in the medium tolong term (Blom and Henriksen, 2008). Althoughissues of home and belonging were present ininterviewees’ responses in Norway, it was interest-ing to note that this theme was far more explicitamong migrant relatives in Pakistan. In Pakistan,many interviewees answered questions about whymigrants build houses when they do not plan toreturn by saying that it is their home place; theyhave to have a house. This indicates that there is alocal cultural logic in these places in Pakistan,whichsuggests that building a house is the only reasonablecourse of action within the local moral universe, asfound in Portugal (Lubkeman, 2005). The valueswithin this local moral universe ascribe greatimportance to the house as a signifier of belongingand as a manifestation of strong ties with familyand community in the local place. Additionally, asthe house is symbolic, its size and exterior becomeimportant for the social status of the migrant andthe relatives.

CONCLUSION

Nasir and Maryam’s stories about their houses inPakistan illustrate how migrants explain reasonsfor building houses and what meanings they attachto these houses. Migrants’ houses can usefullybe understood as relational places, highlightingthe significance of these houses for social relationsand interactions between individuals and familiesstretched across transnational social space. Thehouses function as relational places, both throughthe thingswhich happen there but equally throughtheir existence in the minds of migrants, theirrelatives, and individuals in the societies wheremigrants and their relatives live. As such, migrants’houses are places that are interlinked with andaffected by social relations and social processes intransnational social space.

As relational places in transnational social space,migrants’ houses have practical meaning, suchas having a place to stay in Pakistan when on holi-day there, but they also have symbolic meaning,both in terms of social capital accumulation andin relation to issues of identity, home, and belong-ing. Migrants’ houses are relational places throughwhich economic, social, and symbolic capital flow,across transnational social space, but they are also



in themselves sources (actually or potentially)of these different forms of capital, for migrantsthemselves and for their relatives. As concretebuildings, these houses also represent a marker ofthe possibility of return for many migrants. Theyare one way in which the ‘myth of return’ issustained and therefore symbolically far moreimportant for migrants’ considerations about iden-tity and belonging than the infrequent stays in thesehouses could perhaps suggest.

Migrants’ houses as relational places should beunderstood in the context of the transnational so-cial space in which they exist, where three dimen-sions stand out as particularly significant. First, intransnational social space, it becomes clear thatspatial distance does in fact affect social process,practically with regard to migrants and their socialinteraction with relatives overseeing the buildingof a house and symbolically for the ways in whichmigrants’ houses – from a distance – are imaginedand gain meaning. Second, locality matters andshapes the perspectives of actors who are embed-ded in different places. This can be illustrated bythe fact that the practical reasons for buildinghouses in Pakistan feature as more significant ininterviews in Norway, than in Pakistan. Migrants’thinking about houses in the country of origin isaffected in specific ways by their own location intransnational social space. In this context, ideasabout home and belonging, inherent to the localmoral universe in their home places in Pakistan,are challenged by expectations of loyalties to theirnew place of settlement in Norway. The fact thatlocation in transnational space matters is furtherillustrated by the understanding of migrants’relatives, for whom the houses are a confirmationof the migrants continued membership in thecommunity and enduring family ties. At the sametime, for migrants’ relatives, the houses also revealthe asymmetries inherent to transnational socialspace. As such, migrants’ houses may cause ten-sion through conflicts over money from rent, asplaces that need to be taken care of by someoneor as symbols of the denied opportunities ofmigra-tion. Economically though, there is no doubt thatthe revenues from migrant houses being built aresignificant within many migrant-sending commu-nities, including places in rural Gujrat, Pakistan.

Finally, the nature of spatiality of transnationalsocial space enforces a simultaneous focus onmultiple places and localities, which is helpful inrevealing and acknowledging migrants’ diverse


identities and agencies. The practical and symbolicimportance of migrants’ houses, as a potential‘safety net’ in the context of migrants’ effort toadapt to societies of settlement is one concreteexample of this. Migrants negotiate their dualloyalties across transnational social space and areaffected by the dual obligations that manifestthemselves in the local places where they live theirlives, here and there. For migrants, their houses inthe country of origin are important as symbolicmanifestations of individual migration histories,with the implications that these stories have formigrants’ processes of adaptation to new placesand for development of new and multiple sensesof home and belonging.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This paper is an outcome of the project ‘Remit-tances from Immigrants in Norway’, fundedby the Research Council of Norway (2007–2012).I am grateful for comments on earlier drafts fromparticipants at the Pakistani migration and trans-nationalism workshop, Peace Research Institute Oslo(PRIO), January 2010, at theDiaspora seminar at theGeorge Washington University, April 2010, andfromLynnNygaard (PRIO). I am also very gratefulfor comments and guidance from my PhD supervi-sors Jørgen Carling (PRIO) and Kristian Stokke(University ofOslo). Thank you to LynnRosentrater(University of Oslo) for help with the map.

NOTES

(1) All names are pseudonyms.(2) Results from the survey in Kharian are discussed.(3) Results from the analysis of Norwegian media

reports are discussed.(4) Author’s survey among remittance receivers, Kharian

(2009).(5) Names are all changed.(6) Nasir’s story is retold in the author’s words and is a

summary of information provided during an inter-view and informal conversation.

REFERENCES

Airola J. 2007. The use of remittance income in Mexico.International Migration Review 41(4): 850–859.

Akesson L. 2009. Remittances and inequality in CapeVerde: the impact of changing family organization.Global Networks 9(3): 381–398.


640 M. B. Erdal

Al-Ali N, Koser K (eds). 2002. New Approaches toMigration? Transnational Communities and the Trans-formation of Home. London: Routledge.

Anwar M. 1979. The Myth of Return: Pakistanis in Britain.London: Heinemann.

AsieduA. 2005. Some benefits of migrants’ return visits toGhana. Population, Space and Place 11(1): 1–11.

Bailey A. 2001. Turning transnational: notes on thetheorization of international migration. Population,Space and Place 7(6): 413–428.

Black R, King R. 2004. Editorial introduction: migration,return and development in West Africa. Population,Space and Place 10(2): 75–83.

Blom S, Henriksen K (eds). 2008. Levekår blant innvandrere2005/2006. Oslo-Kongsvinger: Statistics Norway.

Blunt A. 2005. Cultural geography: cultural geographiesof home. Progress in Human Geography 29(4): 505–515.

Blunt A, Dowling R. 2006. Home. New York: Routledge.Blunt A, Varley A. 2004. Introduction: geographies of

home. Cultural Geographies 11: 3–6.BolognaniM. 2007. Themyth of return: dismissal, survival

or revival? A Bradford example of transnationalism asa political instrument. Journal of Ethnic and MigrationStudies 33(1): 59–76.

Brah A. 1996. Cartographies of Diaspora. London:Routledge.

Carling J. 2008a. The human dynamics of migrant trans-nationalism. Ethnic and Racial Studies 31(8): 1452–1477.

Carling J. 2008b. Interrogating remittances: core questionsfor deeper insight and better policies. In Migration andDevelopment: Perspectives from the South, Castles S,Delgado R (eds). Geneva: IOM; 43–63.

Castles S, Miller MJ. 2003. The Age of Migration. (3rd ed).Basingstoke/New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Cligett L. 2005. Remitting the gift: Zambian mobilityand anthropological insights for migration studies.Population, Space and Place 11(1): 35–48.

Cresswell T. 2004. Place: a Short Introduction. Oxford:Blackwell Publishing.

Dalakoglou D. 2010. Migrating–remitting–‘building’–dwelling: house-making as ‘proxy’ presence in postso-cialist Albania. The Journal of the Royal AnthropologicalInstitute 16(4): 761–777.

Duval TD. 2004. Linking return visits and return migra-tion. Global Networks 4(1): 51–67.

Faist T. 2000. The Volume and Dynamics of InternationalMigration and Transnational Social Spaces. Oxford:Clarendon Press.

Fargues P. 2006. The demographic benefit of inter-national migration: hypothesis and application toMiddle-Eastern and North African contexts. Volume4050 of Policy Research Working Papers. WashingtonDC: World Bank.

Featherstone D, Philips R, Waters J. 2007. Introduction:spatialities of transnational networks. Global Networks7(4): 383–391.


Gielis R. 2009. A global sense of migrant places: towardsa place perspective in the study of migrant trans-nationalism. Global Networks 9(2): 271–287.

Gran E. 2008. Imagining the transnational lives of IraqiKurds. PhD thesis, Oslo: University of Oslo.

Grigolini S. 2005. When houses provide more thanshelter: analyzing the uses of remittances within theirsociocultural context. In Migration and Economy: Globaland Local Dynamics, Trager, L (ed). Lanham/Oxford:Altamira Press/Society for Economic Anthropology(SEA); 193–223.

Hasan A. 2010. Migration, small towns and socialtransformations in Pakistan, Environment andUrbanization 22(1): 33–50.

Jones C. 2011. The local economic imprint of returnmigrants in Bolivia. Population, Space and Place.17(5): 434–453.

King R, Christou A. 2010. Cultural geographies ofcounter-diasporic migration: perspectives from thestudy of second-generation ‘returnees’ to Greece.Population, Space and Place 16(2): 103–119.

King R, DalipajM,Mai N. 2006. Genderingmigration andremittances: evidence from London and northernAlbania. Population, Space and Place 12(6): 409–434.

Kivisto P. 2003. Social spaces, transnational immigrantcommunities, and the politics of incorporation.Ethnicities 3(1): 5–28.

Levitt P, NG Schiller. 2004. Conceptualizing simul-taneity: a transnational social field perspective onsociety. International Migration Review 38(145):595–629.

Ley D. 2004. Transnational spaces and everyday lives.Transactions of the British Institute of Geographers29: 151–164.

Lubkeman SC. 2005. The moral economy of nonreturnamong socially diverted labour migrants from Portugaland Mozambique. In Migration and Economy: Globaland Local Dynamics, Trager L (ed). Lanham/Oxford:Altamira Press/Society for Economic Anthropology(SEA); 257–287.

Martin P, Martin S, Weil P. 2006.ManagingMigration: thePromise of Cooperation. Lanham/Oxford: Lexingtonbooks.

Mason J. 2004. Managing kinship over long distances:the significance of ‘the visit’. Social Policy and Society3(4): 421–429.

MasseyD. 1997. A global sense of place. InReadingHumanGeography, Barnes T, Gregory D (eds). London: Arnold;315–323.

Mazzucato V. 2008. The double engagement: trans-nationalism and integration. Ghanaian migrant’slives between Ghana and the Netherlands. Journalof Ethnic and Migration Studies 34(2): 199–216.

Muggeridge H, Doná G. 2006. Back home? Refugees’experiences of their first visit back to their countryof origin. Journal of Refugee Studies 19(4): 415–432.



Oeppen C. 2009. A stranger at Home: Integration,Transnationalism and the Afghan Elite. DPhil thesis,Brighton: University of Sussex

Osili UO. 2004. Migrants housing investments: theoryand evidence from Nigeria. Economic Developmentand Cultural Change 79: 821–849.

Parrada EA. 2004. US migration, home ownershipand housing quality. In Crossing the Border: Researchfrom the Mexican Migration Project, Durand J, MasseyDS (eds). New York: Russell Sage Foundation; 63–85.

Pauli J. 2008. A house of one’s own. American Ethnologist35(1): 171–187.

Ratha D. 2007. Leveraging Remittances for Development.Washington DC: Migration Policy Institute.

Sinatti G. 2011. ‘Mobile transmigrants’ or ‘unsettled retur-nees’? Myth of return and permanent resettlementamong Senegalese migrants. Population, Space and Place17(2): 153–166.

Smith MP. 2005. Transnational urbanism revisited. Jour-nal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 31(2): 235–244.


Smith L. 2007. Tied to migrants. Transnational influ-ences on the economy of Accra, Ghana. Vol. 5,African Studies Collection. Leiden: African StudiesCentre.

Smith L, Mazzucato V. 2009. Constructing homes, build-ing relationships: migrant investments in houses.Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie 100(5):662–673.

Suleri AQ, Savage K. 2006. Remittances in Crisis: A CaseStudy from Pakistan. London: Overseas DevelopmentInstitute

Taylor E. 1999. The new economics of labour migrationand the role of remittances in the migration process.International Migration 37(1): 63–88.

Vertovec S. 2001. Transnationalism and identity. Journalof Ethnic and Migration Studies 27(4): 573–582.

Voigt-Graf C. 2004. Towards a geography of trans-national spaces: Indian transnational communitiesin Australia. Global Networks 4(1): 25–49.


‘A Place to Stay in Pakistan’: Why Migrants Build Houses in their Country of Origin

Documents

Transcript of ‘A Place to Stay in Pakistan’: Why Migrants Build Houses in their Country of Origin