This article explores the official communication of the governments of El Salvador and Colombia to, and about, their diaspora communities. Through a qualitative content analysis of news releases, speeches, factsheets and other public information material, the themes used to ‘construct’ the image of the diaspora are explored, as well as the issues that these governments traditionally associate with their expatriates. The study also analyses the type of relationship described (that is, communal versus exchange), with its findings suggesting a typology of government-to-diaspora communication and a new category of relationship (‘hybrid’ relationships), which is detailed herein.
Purchase
Buy instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):
Institutional Login
Log in with Open Athens, Shibboleth, or your institutional credentials
Personal login
Log in with your brill.com account
Rey Koslowski (ed.), International Migration and the Globalization of Domestic Politics (London: Routledge, 2005).
See, for example, Seong-Hun Yun, ‘Relational Public Diplomacy: The Perspective of Sociological Globalism’, International Journal of Communication, vol. 6, 2012, pp. 2199-2219; Daniel Hernández Joseph, ‘Mexico’s Concentration on Consular Services in the United States’, The Hague Journal of Diplomacy, vol. 7, no. 2, 2012, pp. 227-236; Dovelyn Rannveig Agunias (ed.), Closing the Distance: How Governments Strengthen Ties with their Diasporas (Washington, dc: Migration Policy Institute, 2009); and Kathleen Newland, Voice after Exit: Diaspora Advocacy (Washington, dc: Migration Policy Institute, 2010).
See, for example, Alan Gamlen, ‘The Emigration State and the Modern Geopolitical Imagination’, Political Geography, vol. 27, 2008, pp. 840-856; Carlos González Gutiérrez, ‘Del acercamiento a la inclusión institucional: La experiencia del Instituto de los Mexicanos en el Exterior’, in Carlos González Gutiérrez (ed.), Relaciones Estado Diáspora: Aproximaciones Desde Cuatro Continentes (México City: Porrúa, 2006), pp. 181-220; Robert Courtney Smith, ‘Migrant Membership as an Instituted Process: Transnationalization, the State and the Extra-territorial Conduct of Mexican Politics’, in Rey Koslowski (ed.), International Migration and the Globalization of Domestic Politics (London: Routledge, 2005), pp. 105-129; and Yun, ‘Relational Public Diplomacy’, pp. 2199-2219.
See, for example, Koslowski, ‘International Migration and the Globalization of Domestic Politics’, pp. 5-32; Eva Østergaard-Nielsen, ‘International Migration and Sending Countries: Key Issues and Themes’, in Eva Østergaard-Nielsen (ed.), International Migration and Sending Countries: Perceptions, Policies, and Transnational Relations (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2003), pp. 3-32; and Yun, ‘Relational Public Diplomacy’, pp. 2199-2219.
Peggy Levitt and Deepak Lamba-Nieves, ‘Social Remittances Revisited’, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, vol. 37, no. 1, 2011, pp. 1-22.
See, for example, Gamlen, ‘The Emigration State’, pp. 840-856; Yun, ‘Relational Public Diplomacy’, pp. 2199-2219; Carlos González Gutiérrez, ‘Fostering Identities: Mexico’s Relations with its Diaspora’, The Journal of American History, vol. 86, no. 2, 1999, pp. 545-567; González Gutiérrez, ‘Del acercamiento a la inclusión institucional’, pp. 181-220; and Smith, ‘Migrant Membership as an Instituted Process’, pp. 105-129.
For example, in Robin Cohen, ‘Diasporas and the Nation-state: From Victims to Challengers’, International Affairs, vol. 72, 1996, pp. 507-520; Alexandra Délano, ‘Immigrant Integration vs. Transnational Ties? The Role of the Sending State’, Social Research, vol. 77, no. 1, 2010, pp. 237-268; Jesús Martínez-Saldaña, ‘Los olvidados become Heroes: The Evolution of Mexico’s Policies towards Citizens Abroad’, in Eva Østergaard-Nielsen (ed.), International Migration and Sending Countries: Perceptions, Policies, and Transnational Relations (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2003), pp. 33-56; and David Fitzgerald, ‘Inside the Sending State: The Politics of Mexican Emigration Control’, International Migration Review, vol. 40, no. 2, 2006, pp. 259-293.
Francesco Ragazzi, ‘Governing Diasporas’, International Political Sociology, vol. 3, 2009, pp. 378-397; and Gamlen, ‘The Emigration State’, pp. 840-856.
Levitt and de la Dehesa, ‘Transnational Migration and the Redefinition of the State’, pp. 587-611.
See, for example, Yun, ‘Relational Public Diplomacy’, pp. 2199-2219; Luin Goldring, ‘The Mexican State and Transmigrant Organizations: Negotiating the Boundaries of Membership and Participation’, Latin American Research Review, vol. 37, no. 3, 2002, pp. 55-99; and Levitt and de la Dehesa, ‘Transnational Migration and the Redefinition of the State’, pp. 587-611.
See Levitt and de la Dehesa, ‘Transnational Migration and the Redefinition of the State’, pp. 587-611; and Linda Basch, Nina Schiller and C. Szanton Blanc, Nations Unbound: Transnational Projects, Postcolonial Predicaments, and Deterritorialized Nation-states (Langhorne, pa: Gordon and Breach, 1994).
Koslowski, ‘International Migration and the Globalization of Domestic Politics’, pp. 5-32.
For instance, see Eytan Gilboa, ‘Searching for a Theory of Public Diplomacy’, The Annals of the American Academy of Political Science, vol. 616, 2008, pp. 55-77; Mark Leonard, ‘Diplomacy by other Means’, Foreign Policy, no. 132, September-October 2002, pp. 48-56; Rhonda Zaharna, ‘Mapping out a Spectrum of Public Diplomacy Initiatives: Information and Relational Communication Frameworks’, in Nancy Snow and Philip Taylor (eds), Routledge Handbook of Public Diplomacy (New York, ny: Routledge, 2009), pp. 86-100; Agunias, Closing the Distance; Newland, Voice after Exit; and Hernández Joseph, ‘Mexico’s Concentration on Consular Services in the United States’, pp. 227-236.
Kathy Fitzpatrick, ‘Advancing the New Public Diplomacy: A Public Relations Perspective’, The Hague Journal of Diplomacy, vol. 2, no. 3, 2007, pp. 187-211; and Jan Melissen (ed.), The New Public Diplomacy: Soft Power in International Relations (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005).
See, for example, Fitzpatrick, ‘Advancing the New Public Diplomacy’, pp. 187-211; Zaharna, ‘Mapping out a Spectrum of Public Diplomacy Initiatives’, pp. 86-100; Yun, ‘Relational Public Diplomacy’, pp. 2199-2219; Benno H. Signitzer and Timothy Coombs, ‘Public Relations and Public Diplomacy: Conceptual Convergences’, Public Relations Review, vol. 18, no. 2, 1992, pp. 137-147; Benno H. Signitzer and Carola Wamser, ‘Public Diplomacy: A Specific Governmental Public Relations Function’, in Carl H. Botan and Vincent Hazleton (eds), Public Relations Theory II (Mahwah, nj: Lawrence Erlbaum, 2006), pp. 435-464; and Guy J. Golan, ‘An Integrated Approach to Public Diplomacy’, American Behavioral Scientist, vol. 57, no. 9, 2013, pp. 1251-1255.
For instance, in Zaharna, ‘Mapping out a Spectrum of Public Diplomacy Initiatives’, pp. 86-100; and Geoffrey Cowan and Amelia Arsenault, ‘Moving from Monologue to Dialogue to Collaboration: The Three Layers of Public Diplomacy’, The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, vol. 616, no. 1, 2008, pp. 10-30.
Golan, ‘An Integrated Approach to Public Diplomacy’, American Behavioral Scientist, vol. 57, no. 9, 2013, pp. 1251-1255.
Hernández Joseph, ‘Mexico’s Concentration on Consular Services in the United States’, pp. 227-236.
Cohen, ‘Diasporas and the Nation-state’, pp. 507-520; Délano, ‘Immigrant Integration vs. Transnational Ties?’, pp. 237-268; Martínez-Saldaña, ‘Los olvidados become Heroes’, pp. 33-56; and Fitzgerald, ‘Inside the Sending State’, pp. 259-293.
Levitt and de la Dehesa, ‘Transnational Migration and the Redefinition of the State’, pp. 587-611.
Kunz, ‘Mobilizing Diasporas’, pp. 1-23; Ragazzi, ‘Governing Diasporas’, pp. 378-397; and Gamlen, ‘The Emigration State’, pp. 840-856.
Safran, ‘Deconstructing and Comparing Diasporas’, pp. 9-29 at p. 20.
Zaharna, ‘Mapping out a Spectrum of Public Diplomacy Initiatives’, pp. 86-100; Cowan and Arsenault, ‘Moving from Monologue to Dialogue to Collaboration’, pp. 10-30; Fitzpatrick, ‘Advancing the New Public Diplomacy’, pp. 187-211; and Yun, ‘Relational Public Diplomacy’, pp. 2199-2219.
All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
---|---|---|---|
Abstract Views | 1267 | 290 | 103 |
Full Text Views | 248 | 19 | 5 |
PDF Views & Downloads | 117 | 45 | 13 |
This article explores the official communication of the governments of El Salvador and Colombia to, and about, their diaspora communities. Through a qualitative content analysis of news releases, speeches, factsheets and other public information material, the themes used to ‘construct’ the image of the diaspora are explored, as well as the issues that these governments traditionally associate with their expatriates. The study also analyses the type of relationship described (that is, communal versus exchange), with its findings suggesting a typology of government-to-diaspora communication and a new category of relationship (‘hybrid’ relationships), which is detailed herein.
All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
---|---|---|---|
Abstract Views | 1267 | 290 | 103 |
Full Text Views | 248 | 19 | 5 |
PDF Views & Downloads | 117 | 45 | 13 |