Comparative Nicaraguan Migrant and Non-Migrant Experiences in the Early Twenty-First Century

: This paper examines the circumstances in which Nicaraguan migrants to Costa Rica found themselves and the situations of families in Nicaragua who had household members who had moved to Costa Rica from the late 1990s to 2012. Through surveys and interviews conducted in both Nicaragua and Costa Rica, this paper peers into the immigrant experience of Nicaraguans in Costa Rica and explores such issues as does time in Costa Rica improve the immigrant situation, how competitive were immigrants’ wages compared to those of their home country of Nicaragua, and what percentage of immigrants would send remittances home. The background literature written on the topics of central American migration, chain migration, push and pull factors, and remittances help contextualize the ﬁndings of this study. This paper also includes a consideration of how social or trust networks may relate to migrants’ tendency to send remittances. The analysis of the data collected yielded ﬁndings such as a small correlation between an immigrant’s salary and the amount of time the immigrant stayed at his or her job, a six times greater wage earned by Nicaraguan immigrants in Costa Rica than the average Nicaraguan wage, and a lower percentage of immigrants sending remittances back to Nicaragua than one might expect, from responses of both Nicaraguan migrants and non-migrants.


Introduction
Nicaragua's long history of civil war and general economic instability created unfavorable circumstances for the Nicaraguan people and the country generally, thus serving as a push factor for emigration. The inhospitable conditions of war introduced an outpouring of refugees into neighboring countries, especially to more stable ones such as Costa Rica. After the civil war subsided, many Nicaraguans continued to find themselves in an impoverished state due to Nicaragua's economic instability caused by war. Thus, many Nicaraguans continued to migrate to Costa Rica at even greater rates than during the civil war period.
This study addresses the question of the circumstances in which Nicaraguan nonmigrants and Nicaraguan immigrants found themselves and the consequent decisions they had to make in the late 1990s and the early 2000s. Through interviews administered to Nicaraguans in both Nicaragua and in Costa Rica in 1999, 2001, and 2011-2012, we examine and individual experiences of these three unrelated groups in terms of migration experiences after they reached their destination (primarily in Costa Rica) and the perspectives of those who did not migrate. These comparisons will provide a more robust understanding of where the larger migrant experience was situated at that time. More specifically, we want to understand what contributes to the duration of migrant stay in Costa Rica, their success and satisfaction level with job opportunities and wages, and in terms of social networks, we will look at the propensity of the migrants to send remittances to family and the expectations of migrants to return to their home. In general, we expect to find that the immigrants have a more positive experience the longer they stay and the more experience they have, that women's and men's wages and jobs are generally different, that wages are more competitive in Costa Rica, and that remittances increase with wages. We also expect to show that the social or trust networks of these migrants with their families helped keep remittances and return migration going over time.

Background
Many aspects of emigration of Nicaraguans have been widely studied, but adequate data on Nicaraguan migration are scarce due to shifting levels of political violence (Lundquist and Massey 2005). Generally, the data include why people move (Massey et al. 2002;Levy and Wadycki 1972;Todaro 1969;Parrado and Cerrutti 2003;Boyd 1989;Mac-Donald and MacDonald 1964;Lim 1987;Durand and Massey 1992;Tilly 2007;Castles 2013), the duration of their stay in the new area (Wiley 1995;Levy and Wadycki 1972;Parrado and Cerrutti 2003), the characteristics of the locations they choose to migrate to (Parrado and Cerrutti 2003;Levy and Wadycki 1972;Boyd 1989;Lundquist and Massey 2005;Smith 2011), and the rights and experiences of the migrants when they reach their destination (Boyd 1989;Miller 1972;Parrado and Cerrutti 2003;Wiley 1995;Smith 2011;Lundquist and Massey 2005).
The conventional approach is that chain migration ties into the push-pull factors of migration (Brown and Lawson 1985;MacDonald and MacDonald 1964;Tilly 2007). The biggest contributing factors to migration fall into major groups such as opportunities, the distribution of information through a social network, and job availability (MacDonald and MacDonald 1964;Lim 1987;Tilly 2007). Contributing to migration are sub-factors that can be considered either as a pull or push factor depending on the case. These sub-factors include culture, family, age, natural disasters, education, location, duration, exploitation, economic conditions, and the presence, or lack of, political stability (Massey et al. 2002;Brown and Lawson 1985;Lim 1987;Durand and Massey 1992;Todaro 1969;Lundquist and Massey 2005;Liu 2013;Castles 2013;Sana and Massey 2005;Menjívar 1999;Loebach 2016).
Problems from political unrest and economic instability push people to emigrate in the hopes that it will improve their circumstances. Historically, Nicaraguan to United States migration was composed of politically motivated migrants, while Nicaraguans to Costa Rica migration was composed of economically motivated migrants (96% of Nicaraguans that migrated, migrated to either the U.S. or Costa Rica, and only 1% of them migrated to both) whom Costa Rica was willing to receive (Lundquist and Massey 2005;Fernández and Narváez 1987;Central Intelligence Agency 1999;Sana and Massey 2005). Nicaraguan migration to Costa Rica is also geographically a natural choice because of its proximity on its southern border. Lundquist states that emigration from Nicaragua to Costa Rica is relatively low cost and low risk when compared to U.S. migration (Lundquist and Massey 2005). Studies have shown that migrants in search of economic improvement frequently choose the closest opportunity available (Levy and Wadycki 1972;Miller 1972;Wiley 1995;Smith 2011).
Another natural reason for migrants to choose this neighboring destination is that language, customs, and cultures are more similar overall, compared with going to the United States. This is especially true for lower class, blue-collar workers that make up a higher percentage of the emigration to Costa Rica compared with the percentage of lower class, blue-collar workers that emigrate to the United States. Research also notes a higher percentage of white-collar workers migrate to the U.S. than to Costa Rica (Lundquist and Massey 2005). The closer proximity is very important in making the transition easier and less intimidating (Miller 1972;Parrado and Cerrutti 2003;Lim 1987;Smith 2011). It should be noted that distance is only one explanatory factor as many Nicaraguans and other Central Americans still choose to head to distant places such as the United States, despite its greater migration costs, instead of more proximate Costa Rica.
An additional factor that has encouraged migration south was that Costa Rica did not have immigration background checks to determine if migrants were coming for work purposes or political asylum. Interviews required in Central America for those desiring to migrate to the U.S. slowed down the immigration process (Lundquist and Massey 2005). Another reason that Costa Rica did not have immigration background checks was possibly because Nicaraguan immigration did not contribute to falling earnings, increased inequality, nor stagnating poverty in Costa Rica (Gindling 2009). Thus, Costa Rica, as a more developed country than Nicaragua, had a higher potential for increased wage earnings compared with other nearby countries (Lundquist and Massey 2005). These concepts attracted Nicaraguans and caused them to hope for a more stable life in Costa Rica (Central Intelligence Agency 1999).
Most migrants leave rural areas searching for wage-earning jobs, assuming they are higher paying and more stable (Miller 1972;Schneider-Sliwa and Brown 1986;Todaro 1969;Smith 2011;Sana and Massey 2005). Immigrants desire financial gain that goes above and beyond just surviving through trade and barter (Lim 1987). This causes a migrant flow towards cities. International migrants often do not have legal status initially and thus have no choice but to find work through illegal channels. This causes them to be informally absorbed within the urban society (Wiley 1995;Schneider-Sliwa and Brown 1986).
In the case of Costa Rica, because many Nicaraguans have migrated previously, a lot of information about opportunities and life has made its way back to Nicaragua. The intimidation level is subsequently low for new migrants. This is especially true as communication infrastructure becomes more available and speeds up the flow of information. Even 50 years ago new migrants were able to get more information about the potential places they could move to in terms of work and other opportunities because of improved communication with friends and family and better news from other sources (Levy and Wadycki 1972). The information about potential migration destinations is transmitted through social networks, encouraging specific locations as destinations (Lim 1987;Mac-Donald and MacDonald 1964;Tilly 2007). Word of job availability attracts people to an area very quickly and consistently even though the jobs are possibly already taken (Todaro 1969;Levy and Wadycki 1972;Schneider-Sliwa and Brown 1986;Boyd 1989;Wiley 1995;Miller 1972;Parrado and Cerrutti 2003;Smith 2011).
Higher wages are also a major influence on peoples' decision to migrate. Naturally, it has been found that economically motivated migrants anticipate higher wages in their new place of residence (Todaro 1969;Schneider-Sliwa and Brown 1986). Furthermore, they expect to keep the job longer and have a more permanent, modern sector job (Todaro 1969;Boyd 1989).
The family is a central factor that influences migration (Lim 1987;Liu 2013;Sana and Massey 2005). For example, migrants often move with the hopes that they will be able to benefit their family through remittances (Funkhouser 2006;Stahl and Arnold 1986;Massey et al. 2002;Tilly 2007;Sana and Massey 2005). In terms of family relationships affecting the move, immigrants that have relations or are married tend to stay longer if their family is with them; if not, they tend to go back and forth between home and their destination (Parrado and Cerrutti 2003;MacDonald and MacDonald 1964). In contrast, migration is more likely to be individual in nature according to the amount of risk, which is why Nicaraguans usually migrate alone or in small groups to low-risk Costa Rica and tend to travel in larger family networks to high-risk United States (Lundquist and Massey 2005). The longer the immigrants stay, work, and mix in the society, the better their chance of acquiring wage increases (Levy and Wadycki 1972;Boyd 1989). As the education level of immigrants increases, the likelihood that they will stay permanently also increases because of better employment opportunities (Parrado and Cerrutti 2003;Boyd 1989).
The hope to be able to send remittances is not always realized, because of the trials that immigrants face (Tilly 2007). For instance, Costa Rica has a higher standard of living and thus it costs more just to get by. The intention of sending remittances back to Nicaragua may be there but pressing financial demands locally can diminish one's ability to remit funds to family.
Thus, the experiences of international migrants have been rigorously analyzed in many different methodological and geographic contexts. Much has been written about why people migrate, what happens to the migrants when they arrive in a new country, how they are incorporated into the new society, and what affects how well they succeed in their new environment. We will contribute to the literature through exploring the social and economic characteristics of Nicaraguan migrants to Costa Rica. Additionally, we will consider the role of remittances in supporting or weakening social networks, or "trust networks" as defined by the relationships with others that support and obligate the migrant (Tilly 2007), as the framework that we use to show the important role of connections between immigrants and their families left behind.

Materials and Methods
Our study consists of two perspectives, one from the point of view of Nicaraguans at home and one from Nicaraguan immigrants in Costa Rica. This comparison will enable a comprehensive understanding of how immigrants' experiences are positive or negative in their new environment, as well as how it affects their relatives or trust network left in their home country. We will also be able to see how this understanding of the Nicaraguan migration experience to Costa Rica has changed over time.
The Costa Rican survey was conducted in 1999 at a government office in San Juan where immigrants were lined up to apply for amnesty (Otterstrom 2008). Over 380 respondents were selected at even intervals (every fifth adult) from the line of immigrants. Although this systematic sampling technique was intended to yield a good range of migrants, we cannot conclusively state that the survey covered a representative sample of the Nicaraguan migrant population in Costa Rica at the time, but it does have similarities with the Costa Rican government survey done at that time (Otterstrom 2008). The information collected includes their place of origin, reasons for migrating, place of residence, occupation and salary, whether they sent money home, their duration in Costa Rica, and social status. A partial translated survey is included in Appendix A.
Using some regression and ANOVA analyses as well as descriptive statistics derived from the 1999 Costa Rica survey, we looked at variables including age, sex, social status, family size, place of origin, duration of time in Costa Rica, number of jobs, months in current job, salary, and remittances to Nicaragua. We used IBM ®SPSS ®Statistics version 27, Corel ®Quattro Pro ®X8, Microsoft Excel 365 and earlier versions (Microsoft Corporation ®) to perform the analyses on a PC desktop and laptop. We would like to understand the following: (1) how did age, sex, duration of time in Costa Rica, number of jobs, months in current job, and place of origin compare with the average salary of immigrants; (2) how did average salary, sex, status, and family size compare with immigrants' decisions to send money home to Nicaragua; (3) how did average salary and months in Costa Rica compare with whether immigrants wanted to stay; (4) how did average family size and status relate to job stability and movement; and (5) what were the occupations of the Nicaraguan immigrants and what was their average income in relation to Costa Ricans.
In the Rio Escalante area of Nicaragua in 2001, interviews were conducted in 103 households. The scope of the information received includes background information of the individuals, their current circumstances and activities, and the activities of their relatives and friends. We will be using the questions in the interview pertaining to people's economic situations and their relatives' migratory characteristics specifically to Costa Rica. These questions are translated and shown in Appendix B.
The Nicaraguan Survey in 2011-2012 was also administered to Nicaraguan families living in different communities in Nicaragua. One hundred and forty-seven families responded to this survey. The information collected dealt with demographics, education, economics, and information dealing with the emigration of family members. This survey shed light on the time factor comparing the other two surveys to identify any changes or trends. A partial translated survey is included in Appendix C. The three questionnaires were conducted at separate times and were not originally meant to be connected together.
However, all three help to shed light on the experiences of those who migrated to Nicaragua or those who did not, that is, what ties the three studies together. To be clear, the three surveys do not track the same individuals or families, so a direct comparison over time is not possible. There could be some overlap with a few individuals, but there is no way to know. Thus, the analysis only provides snapshots that illustrate three different perspectives on Nicaragua to Costa Rica migration, two from the standpoint of non-migrants and one from the view of migrants.
Costa Rican and Nicaraguan economic characteristics from the 1999 World Factbook (Central Intelligence Agency 1999) will be used to show how immigrants were faring financially compared to the Costa Ricans and Nicaraguans, generally.
The descriptive discussion of the 1999 survey will be followed by an analysis of remittance data from all three studies. These data underscore the relative importance of trust networks for the people involved in the studies and show how remittances were unevenly sent and received.

Results
The data summaries show some interesting characteristics. Although many of the general statistics were not surprising, when comparing the three data sets, some unexpected patterns arise. We note that the survey data present some limitation to our analysis, as some of the survey questions were not answered by all respondents.

Costa Rica Survey of Nicaraguans in 1999
A regression analysis indicates a quite weak relationship between an immigrant's salary to the amount of time an immigrant would stay in a job (regression had a p value of 0.026 with 296 individuals responding to both questions) (Table 1). Adding the variables of time in Costa Rica and the number of jobs held actually weakens the model. Thus, we cannot say that an immigrant's job stability and experience had a strong correlation with or influence on salary, even if it would seem to be a logical conclusion. The sample data demonstrate that the average weekly income was greatly different between men and women; men's average weekly income was approximately USD 68 compared to a woman's average weekly income of USD 58 (in 1999 dollars) (Otterstrom 2008). It also shows that occupations that were taken by men and women generally differ. Women tended to take jobs as housekeepers, beauticians, secretaries/office workers, restaurant workers, teachers, servants, and housewives. Men generally would take jobs as laborers in construction, electricians/mechanics, preachers, painters/artisans, merchants, security guards, carpenters, and as laborers in agriculture. Table 2 displays the yearly average weekly salaries by occupation and gender reported by respondents in the 1999 Costa Rica survey, which shows noticeable differences in wages between generally genderspecific jobs. These are approximate income values, as the question in the survey asked the respondent to report the pay that people in their occupation received in Costa Rica and not what they personally made. Social issues that played into incomes that are beyond the scope of this study would need further investigation. Overall, the median weekly salary from the sample group was USD 53 and the average pay was USD 65 (in 1999 dollars), with a median estimated annual salary of USD 2737. Compared with the 1998 Gross National Product per capita of Costa Rica of USD 2770, Nicaraguan immigrants were doing nearly as well as the national average GDP per capita. Furthermore, compared with the gross national product per capita of Nicaragua, which was USD 370, the average Nicaraguan immigrant was doing much better in Costa Rica, especially considering their new and illegal status (World Bank n.d.).
Some relationship between people's places of origin and their income was expected. Different locations can have an effect on the levels of education, opportunity, and development, which can then play a role in people's economic stability. In the case of our study group, we conducted one-way ANOVA analyses comparing mean incomes by groups of migrants separated by their Nicaraguan birthplaces (department or city region) and then by their last place of residence in Nicaragua. In both tests, the F statistics were low with no convincing levels of significance, which indicates that there was not a significant difference of mean income levels among migrants grouped by either their birthplace of place of migration origin (for birthplace the F statistic was 0.909 with a p value of 0.555, and for last place lived the F statistic was 1.046 and the p value was 0.408).
Interesting information was collected describing the social characteristics of immigrants who had chosen to stay in Costa Rica compared to those who had moved around more quickly. As shown in Table 3, people who were married, cohabitating, or single had generally not been in Costa Rica as long as those who were divorced or widowed, possibly because of severed relationships to family in Nicaragua. In addition, of the immigrants who had family with them in Costa Rica, family size tended to increase the longer they were in the country. Along with marital status and family size, the group of migrants who said that they wanted to return to Nicaragua had been in Costa Rica for an average of 46.4 months, whereas those who wanted to stay in Costa Rica (the "No" group) had been in Costa Rica for an average of 70.9 months (Table 4). Additionally, an ordinal logistic model showed a negative effect on the desire to return to Nicaragua as time in Costa Rica increased ("No desire to return" had an Estimate of −1.596, Wald statistic of 81.742, and p value of <0.001, with years in Costa Rica being the independent variable). This suggests that the longer a person stayed in an area, the more they were able to integrate into their new community and feel comfortable. This also possibly indicates the weakening of trust networks with family and friends in Nicaragua and strengthening of their social networks in Costa Rica.

Remittance Comparison between the 1999 Costa Rica Survey and 2001 Nicaragua Survey
From the Costa Rican data (1999), the characteristics of remittances seem straightforward and expected. The immigrants who had higher salaries sent money home to family in Nicaragua at a higher rate. The mean weekly salary (reported as average income for people in their same type of job) for those who would send money home was nearly USD 72, whereas the mean for those who did not send money home was USD 66 (in 1999 dollars). Of the Nicaraguan immigrants who answered the remittance question, 52% indicated that they had sent money home (43 of the 382 interviewees did not answer the question). Additionally, a comparison of remittances and length of time in the country also shows a higher mean time in Costa Rica for those who did not send remittances, which lends credence to a drop-off of trust network ties with Nicaraguan-located family over time (Table 5). A binary logistic regression supports this observation, with years in Costa Rica having a negative effect on whether the migrant sent money home (p value of 0.002, B of −0.106, and a Wald statistic of 9.739). The subject of remittances becomes very interesting when comparing the 1999 Costa Rican Survey to the 2001 Nicaraguan interviews, even though a linked comparison cannot be made because these were two separate survey groups. While the Costa Rican survey suggests continued communication with and help for those at home, the Nicaraguan interviews contradict the other responses, showing little reception of remittances and communication. Of the 56 Nicaraguan interviewees who had relatives in Costa Rica, 86% said their relatives did not send them any money (see Table 6). As for communication, 50% did not know what kind of work their relatives were in, and 62% did not know where in Costa Rica their relatives settled. This information further emphasizes the point that, in both studies, there is evidence for decreasing strength in the social or trust network of migrants with family in Nicaragua. We also discovered from this study that money and clothing were the only support received by these Nicaraguans from their relatives. For example, none reported receiving electronics from their relatives in Costa Rica. This 2001 survey also elicits questions about why there was such a lack of communication and help for those at home in Nicaragua. Out of the relatives in Costa Rica that did send money back to their family members, we noted that the most common dollar amount received was between 1-50 dollars (in 2001 dollars) each time they remitted money (75% of those that received money from relatives received this range of money). In addition, the most common range of time that money was sent by relatives to their families in Nicaragua was about once a year (50% of relatives would send money back to Nicaragua in this range of time). The final interesting statistic we learned from this survey was that 46.6% of Nicaraguans with relatives in Costa Rica believed that their relatives were planning on staying in Costa Rica. Some 19% believed their relatives would return to Nicaragua, and another 34.5% did not know whether their relatives would stay in or leave Costa Rica. This low percentage of who family predicted might return to Nicaragua, could point to a weakening trust network, or it could mean that the migrants felt that they could keep their network strong through working in Costa Rica and sending remittances home.

Nicaraguan Survey Administered in Nicaragua and Costa Rica in 2011-2012
It is also noteworthy to consider the time factor provided by the third data set. In the 2011-2012 data that were taken from Nicaraguans living in different parts of Nicaragua, 132 out of the 147 families had family that had moved outside of Nicaragua. A majority of those families had a family member who had migrated to Costa Rica specifically (107 of 132 or 81% of the subgroup). However, it is notable that only 42% of those families in Nicaragua (45 of 107) reported that they had received remittances from their Costa Rican family members. Even if their family member had migrated for the primary purpose to find work, they were only a little more likely to send money back home to their families, as only 48.5% (32 of 66) of that migration subgroup did so. About a third of these families with relatives who had migrated to Costa Rica believed that their family member(s) would move back to Nicaragua (35 of 107). This is higher than what the 2001 sample group believed about their family members living abroad.

Discussion
Generally, past studies have shown that migrants moved in search of a better life, specifically, to one that was more economically stable. However, immigrants would often struggle to realize their expectations. Beyond that, this study suggests-in the case of Nicaraguan immigrants in Costa Rica-that the longer a person was able to maintain a life in their new environment, the more successful they were and the more they desired to stay. In other words, although moving was initially hard, things improved with time.
Although some wage-earning difference was expected, the jump between income levels of Nicaraguans in Costa Rica compared with the GNP per capita of Nicaragua was quite large, an increase of nearly six times. This difference was likely due to the large disparity that existed between the two countries' levels of development, which was very specific to that region.
Remittances to Nicaragua were expected to be much higher than they were because of past research of remittances studies. Although Nicaraguans in Costa Rica said they were sending money back to their families in Nicaragua, the Nicaraguan interviews claim that remittances were few and far between. This discrepancy could have been because the limited sample groups coincidentally had very different characteristics and experiences than each other or the different years. Other reasons for this difference could have been lack of financial ability to help those at home, or cultural characteristics, which affect Nicaraguans' decisions to help their families at home. Thus, these results show that the social or trust networks were not as strong from the perspective of family still in Nicaragua who did not receive remittances and who did not expect their family members to return to Nicaragua. This subject would be very interesting for further investigation.
Generally, this study of Nicaraguan migration from 1999 to 2012 reveals the regional differences and consistency over time of immigrant experiences and remittance characteristics. Compared to past studies, Nicaraguan immigrants appear to have been doing better than other immigrants during this time period. In addition, the comparison shows that they also sent remittances home to Nicaragua at a lower rate than expected (at or below 50% of migrants sent or less than 50% of families received remittances). Although much research has been done on the actual migration process, more can be added to understand how immigrants handle their new environments after immigration.

Institutional Review Board Statement:
The interview survey generating the dataset from 2001 was registered and reviewed by the University of California, Davis, Office of Research when co-author Sarah Otterstrom was conducting doctoral-level research. The survey and study protocol were granted an exception determination. The 2011 survey was carried out by volunteers Michael Wilcox for the non-profit Paso Pacifico, using a survey developed for the Return for Forest reforestation project. The survey protocol was reviewed by a third party, (Rainforest Alliance) and was validated as complying with the Climate, Community, and Biodiversity Standard (CCB) which requires Free, Prior, Informed, and Consent. The 1999 Nicaragua survey received IRB approval by Brigham Young University Office of Research and Creative Activities in 1999.

Informed Consent Statement:
Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement:
The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.