304
GALETTO
these migration-driven investments contributed to the transformation of the economic structure of those communities (see Galetto 1999 for avocado production; Mestries 1994 and Nichols 2004 for peach production; and Rionda Ramírez 1992 for lentil production).14 In addition to individual actions, the investment conditions of a locality may improve through collective actions. Of particular importance are those actions carried out by U.S.-based hometown associations and their counterparts in the country of origin. Hometown associations vary greatly in terms of size, organizational capacity, fundraising, and number and magnitude of projects managed per year. However, they primarily focus on the development of basic infrastructure in migrants’ communities of origin. Some of the most common projects they carry out are the construction and paving of roads; the remodeling of schools; and the provision of water, sewerage, electricity, and street lighting (Alarcón 2002; Kapur 2005; Levitt 1997; Orozco 2000; Zabin and Escala Rabadan 1998). As a result of these actions, migrant organizations “directly help to set the stage for future investments in these communities” (IADB 2006). The study of investment patterns in migrant-sending regions should not only investigate, then, the type of investment (individual vs. collective), but also how these two types of investments evolve and influence one another over time. Finally, a third way of improving the investment conditions of a locality is through the joint action of the public and private sectors. In Mexico, the quintessential example of this type of intervention is the so-called “Programa 3 x 1.” The program is based on the principle that for each dollar contributed by the migrants, the government contributes three dollars— one each from the federal state, the provincial state, and the municipal state. Since its inception in 1999, “the priority in allocating funds has been the development of basic infrastructure” including the provision of water and electricity, and the building or remodeling of schools, parks, and squares (García Zamora 2004:187; Urciaga García 2004; World Bank 2001). Although collective and joint actions focus on the same types of projects, in practice they are substantially different. The main difference lies in the magnitude of the projects carried out in partnership with the state—they tend to be significantly more costly, larger, and more complex. On the other hand, securing the support of the state requires considerable levels of community organization among members on both sides of the border, and the right political connections between local and