‘You can settle here’: immobility aspirations and capabilities among youth from rural Honduras

ABSTRACT

A ‘mobility bias’ has been identified in the migration literature, whereby researchers have focused on the drivers of migration while neglecting factors that influence immobility decisions. Addressing this gap is important for developing a holistic understanding of human mobility patterns and effectively mitigating experiences of distress migration among populations experiencing marginalisation. This qualitative study explored (im)mobility aspirations and decisions among youth from two rural municipalities of Honduras. Thirty-two in-depth semi-structured interviews were conducted in 2019. Analyses were guided by the aspiration-capabilities framework. Findings revealed retain and repel factors shaping immobility aspirations among rural youth. Respondents who were practicing immobility also identified the capacity to envision viable rural livelihood options as an important precursor to actualising their immobility preferences. They described creatively applying skills, leveraging resources, and engaging with enabling institutions in order to turn immobility aspirations into capabilities. They contested scarcity narratives driving outmigration among their peers and positioned themselves as active agents of their immobility decisions, claiming dignity in their livelihood choices. These findings enrich an understanding of immobility as an agentic livelihood choice in a context with high rates of outmigration, making both empirical and theoretical contributions to the (im)mobility literature.

KEYWORDS:

• Rural livelihoods
• immobility
• agency
• youth
• Central America

Introduction

Beginning in 2018, the recent ‘migrant crisis’ at the U.S.-Mexico border highlighted the transnational implications of social, economic, political, and environmental instability in Central America. A polarising political response played out between the Trump administration and Central American governments (Meyer 2020; Ortagus 2019). Meanwhile, international media drew attention to migrants’ stories, illuminating the barriers they faced in establishing sustainable livelihoods and experiencing well-being at home (Campanella 2019; Jervis et al. 2019). The focal point of this crisis was people who left and why they chose to do so, emphasising distress migration.¹ However, discourses surrounding this crisis overlooked the perspectives of individuals who chose to stay in Central America, why they chose to do so, and how they navigated livelihood options at home.

A ‘mobility bias’ has been recognised in the migration literature, with researchers focusing on drivers of migration while neglecting factors that shape immobility (Schewel 2020). While it is logical for migration research to focus on people who move, scholars have argued that examining why people do not move is also critical for understanding human mobility patterns (Arango 2000; de Haas 2021; Stockdale and Haartsen 2018). Researchers often depict immobility as a default choice, or frame it in relation to mobility, with individuals who practice immobility referred to as ‘left behind’ or ‘stuck’ (Gaibazzi 2010; Stockdale and Haartsen 2018). There remains a dearth of literature examining immobility as an agentic livelihood choice (de Haas 2021; Schewel 2020).

This qualitative study explored both mobility and immobility – jointly referred to as ‘(im)mobility’ – preferences and practices among youth from two rural municipalities in Honduras through in-depth semi-structured interviews. Findings are interpreted using the aspiration-capability framework, as discussed by Schewel (2020), and are presented in three sections. First, we provide evidence for a culture of outmigration within the study communities, spurred by ‘scarcity narratives’ (discourses emphasising lack of opportunities, resources, and livelihood options in rural communities). Second, we explain retain and repel factors that shaped immobility aspirations among interviewees. Third, we illustrate how some respondents actualised their immobility aspirations, positioning themselves as agents of their immobility decisions and contesting the scarcity narratives that drove outmigration among their peers.

Context for (im)mobility research in Honduras

There are strong drivers for migration in and from Honduras. Despite some of Latin America’s highest economic growth rates (World Bank 2020), Honduras remains one of the region’s poorest and most unequal countries. Approximately 48% of its 9.6 million citizens live below the national poverty line, including over 60% of the rural population (UNDP 2019; World Bank 2018c). Honduras has a Gini coefficient of 52.1 (World Bank 2018a), signalling considerable wealth disparities that are felt acutely in its most remote communities. Social instability is spurred by high rates of crime, drug trafficking, and gang-related violence, including almost 39 intentional homicides recorded per 100,000 people in 2018 (World Bank 2018b). This instability drives widespread fear and uncertainty, which act as barriers to social cohesion and trust (Berg and Carranza 2015; Hansen-Nord et al. 2014). Fear and mistrust are particularly directed toward youth, who are often targets of the government’s Mano Dura (Heavy Hand or Iron Fist) response to gang activity. The influx of gang violence and criminal activity in rural areas is particularly concerning (Williams and Castellanos 2020), as poverty, food insecurity, environmental degradation, and the impacts of climate change already threaten livelihood stability in these regions.

In this context, it is perhaps unsurprising that rural Honduran youth are among the most likely to migrate internally or internationally (Blanchard et al. 2011; Quijada and Sierra 2018). Notably, Dodd et al. (2020a) found that 97% of rural high school students surveyed in Yorito, Yoro (n = 60) planned to leave their home communities after graduation, with 88.3% considering migration within Honduras (internal migration; n = 53) and 6.7% considering migration outside of Honduras (international migration; n = 4). Furthermore, in a survey of 1,226 Hondurans, Quijada and Sierra (2018) found that those willing to migrate internationally without documentation tended to be young men with primary education from low-income rural households. Many rural households use migration as a livelihood diversification strategy, with migrants sending remittances to support their families (Dodd et al. 2020a; Nygren and Myatt-Hirvonen 2009). Beyond drivers of distress migration, youth may also migrate to support personal visions for a desirable standard of living.

Within Honduras, many economic migrants engage in seasonal agricultural labour or work in maquilas (factories). While violence and insecurity cause internal displacement among some Hondurans (Nelson-Pollard 2017), marriage and family reunification also draw people from different parts of the country together. Meanwhile, surges in international migration have been observed following extreme weather events, as well as periods of social insecurity, political unrest, and economic instability. Recent trends in outmigration were linked to the 2017 re-election of President Juan Orlando Hernández through what was widely considered a rigged electoral process (Meyer 2020). These migration trends came to a head when the Trump administration began cracking down on undocumented migration at the U.S.-Mexico border in late 2018. As millions in foreign aid were withdrawn from the Northern Triangle, and numerous rural development projects implemented by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) closed (Meyer 2020), this ‘migrant crisis’ had implications not only for Hondurans with mobility aspirations, but also for those with aspirations to remain immobile and sustain rural livelihoods.

Aspirations and capabilities: a framework for understanding (im)mobility

The aspiration-capabilities framework is a two-step model that delineates (im)mobility preferences (aspirations) from outcomes (capabilities) (Carling and Schewel 2018). In its original form, the aspiration-ability framework was built around three (im)mobility experiences: mobility, representing the aspiration and ability to migrate; involuntary immobility, representing the aspiration to migrate without the ability; and voluntary immobility, representing the ability to migrate without the aspiration (Carling 2002). More recently, Schewel (2015, 2020) also introduced acquiescent immobility to the framework, representing individuals with neither the aspiration nor the ability to migrate. The transition from ability to capability occurred as the framework gained theoretical grounding in the Capabilities Approach (CA) (de Haas 2010, 2021). According to the CA, a person’s capabilities are the ‘doings and beings’ that they can actualise within their social, environmental, economic, and political contexts (Sen 1999). An individual may aspire toward many ‘doings and beings’, and their circumstances may either facilitate or impede their capability to realise those aspirations.

Carling and Schewel (2018) argue that shifting from abilities to capabilities has implications beyond mere semantics. In establishing the CA, Sen (1999) argued that development processes should expand the freedoms that people experience to make choices about their lives. Nussbaum (2011) further emphasised the importance of constructing societies in which people can pursue ‘a life worthy of human dignity’ (20). Both Sen and Nussbaum focused on human flourishing for all ages and settings through agentic livelihood choices within enabling environments. In this light, according to the CA, it is inherently valuable for people to have the freedom to choose migration, or in other words, to have the capability to migrate (Carling and Schewel 2018). We contend that the same is true of immobility.

Recently, Schewel (2020, 328) argued that ‘a systematic neglect of the causes and consequences of immobility hinders attempts to explain why, when, and how people migrate’. Schewel has called for richer, more extensive scholarly discussions around immobility, and contrasted the push and pull factors of migration models with retain and repel factors shaping immobility preferences (Schewel 2015, 2020). Retain factors are characteristics of one’s home community that stimulate the desire to stay, while repel factors are perceptions or realities about migration that deter people from wanting to leave. Other scholars, too, have highlighted a lack of research on immobility, specifically on the voices of people who choose to practice immobility, recognising that this dearth of research leaves a gap in our understanding of (im)mobility patterns more broadly (Arango 2000; Stockdale and Haartsen 2018).

Our study addresses this gap by exploring (im)mobility aspirations and capabilities among youth from remote areas of Honduras. We use the concept of retain and repel factors to examine aspirations to stay among rural youth, while also exploring structural factors and personal characteristics that enabled some of these youth to actualise those aspirations. Recognising that both migration and immobility shape community development outcomes, we place immobility experiences in the context of, and in contrast to, migration experiences among rural youth. Furthermore, recognising that (im)mobility aspirations and capabilities are dynamic, we refer to participants ‘practicing’ migration or immobility at the time of the interviews.

Methods

Research partnership

This study was conducted in partnership with la Fundación para la Investigación Participativa con Agricultores de Honduras (FIPAH). Since 2000, this Honduran non-governmental organisation (NGO) has implemented youth-specific livelihood development programming that incorporates technical agricultural skill formation with other forms of education and vocational training. Through this programming, FIPAH has supported the personal and professional development of over 1600 rural youth across two municipalities. FIPAH’s theory of change is based on participatory action, focused on listening to, partnering with, and working alongside people living in rural areas. Through FIPAH’s programming, participants collaborate with organisational staff to identify and respond to local development needs. As their programming continues, FIPAH has a vested interest in understanding (im)mobility aspirations and decisions among rural youth in order to engage in meaningful programme planning that better supports their capabilities to pursue and achieve well-being. The present study was designed and conducted with these applications in mind.

Study locations

The study was conducted in the municipalities of Jesús de Otoro, Intibucá and Yorito, Yoro in Honduras (see Figure 1). Both municipalities include a small urban centre located in a valley, surrounded by remote villages scattered across mountainous terrain. Youth from these communities face considerable challenges in establishing viable rural livelihoods. Smallholder agriculture is the primary livelihood option, with maize and beans as staple crops and coffee as the main cash crop (Dodd et al. 2020b); however, the Honduran hillsides offer marginal land where risk of erosion is high and crop productivity is low (Díaz-Ambrona, Gigena, and Mendoza 2013). Poverty and food insecurity are widespread, particularly during los junios the lean season experienced between the start of the rains and the first harvest (Dodd et al. 2020b). Moreover, the impacts of climate change are seen through an increasingly unpredictable rainy season, alongside droughts that threaten the viability of agrarian livelihoods (Harvey et al. 2018; Keller et al. 2018). For many youth from these communities, educational opportunities are limited due to geographic barriers and household financial constraints, thus limiting their opportunities to pursue livelihood options apart from agriculture. Instead of studying, youth may contribute to the household economy by working on the family farm or earning wages as day labourers on other farms. The coffee harvest is particularly critical for day labourers, driving short-term migration between rural communities (Kocsis 2011). While coffee production and marketing opportunities have expanded recently, there continue to be many push and pull factors motivating youth to leave these communities.

Figure 1. A map of Honduras showing the two rural municipalities in which the study was conducted, including Jesús de Otoro in the department of Intibucá and Yorito in the department of Yoro.

Source: Esri.

Data collection and analysis

Aiming to understand perspectives and lived experiences that shaped livelihood decision-making processes among rural youth, we took a phenomenological approach to the study design (Reeves, Albert, and Kuper 2008; Smith 2018). A semi-structured interview guide was developed using Kleine’s Choice Framework, which operationalises the CA as tool in research for development (R4D) (Kleine 2010, 2011). Interview questions broadly explored livelihood preferences and practices among respondents, with some questions specifically focused on (im)mobility. Additionally, interviewees were invited to reflect on factors that had facilitated or impeded their livelihoods pursuits.

Interviewees were current or former participants in FIPAH’s youth programming, with an average of 3.8 years of participation. Respondents were originally recruited for a larger study evaluating FIPAH’s programme (results presented by Wyngaarden et al. 2022). Between September and November 2019, we purposively selected ‘information rich cases’ from the larger study (Patton 1990), inviting youth who represented a range of livelihood experiences (i.e. educational pursuits, career trajectories, and (im)mobility decisions) to participate in this follow-up study. Interviews with youth who had migrated to other parts of Honduras or other countries were conducted through Whatsapp voice calls, while interviews with youth who were living in their home communities were conducted in person. All interviews were conducted in Spanish, audio recorded, and transcribed. Interviews ranged from 25 to 84 min, averaging 48 min.

Transcriptions were coded using both deductive and inductive strategies (Fereday and Muir-Cochrane 2006). A priori categories were developed based on principles of the CA, focusing primarily on choice as a product of structure and agency, while considering specific livelihood trajectories as secondary development outcomes. Data-driven codes were identified during preliminary coding and added to the codebook prior to a second round of coding to ensure that all data were considered in light of all codes. Coding was completed in NVivo 12.6. Themes related to (im)mobility decisions were identified and organised using concepts associated with the aspiration-capability framework.

Ethical considerations

Research ethics approval was obtained from the University of Waterloo Research Ethics Board (ORE #41222). Prior to each interview, an explanation of the study was provided and informed consent was obtained from the study participant.

Description of the study population

Table 1 presents demographic information on the study participants (n = 32). Interviewees represented 16 rural communities; 8 from each study location. Nineteen respondents (59.4%) were female. Twenty respondents (62.5%) had completed at least one year of secondary-level education.² Seventy-five percent of respondents were living in their home communities at the time of the interviews, while others had migrated within Honduras (internally) or to other countries (internationally). The sample represented diverse mobility experiences. In addition to eight respondents who were migrants at the time of the interviews, four respondents had previously migrated and returned to their home communities. Three respondents described previous migration attempts, and two others discussed specific migration opportunities they had declined. Two respondents identified as voluntary migrants, perceiving migration as an adventure, and two others indicated intentions to migrate for educational qualifications that could not be attained locally.

Table 1. Characteristics of youth from Jesús de Otoro and Yorito in Honduras who participated in semi-structured interviews between September and November 2019 exploring their perspectives on rural livelihoods and (im)mobility decisions (n = 32).

	Jesús de Otoro	Yorito	Total
General	n = 16	n = 16	n = 32
Females (%)	11 (68.75)	8 (50.00)	19 (59.38)
Average age (SD)^a	26.44 (5.05)	25.87 (7.73)	26.20 (6.38)
Ninth grade or above (%)	9 (56.25)	11 (68.75)	20 (62.50)
Current location	n = 16	n = 16	n = 32
Home community (%)	10 (62.50)	14 (87.50)	24 (75.00)
Other locations in Honduras (internal migrants, %)	1 (6.25)	2 (12.50)	3 (9.38)
Other countries (international migrants, %)^b	5 (31.25)	0	5 (15.63)
Primary occupation^c	n = 11	n = 16	n = 27
Agriculture (%)	3 (27.27)	8 (50.00)	11 (40.74)
Amas de casa (%)	2 (18.18)	1 (6.25)	3 (11.11)
Students (%)	2 (18.18)	1 (6.25)	3 (11.11)
Maquila (%)	0	1 (6.25)	1 (3.70)
Other (%)^d	4 (36.36)	5 (31.25)	9 (33.33)

^a SD = standard deviation.

^b International migrants were located in the United States (2), Spain (2), and Mexico (1).

^c Excludes international migrants.

^d Includes careers in beauty (Jesús de Otoro = 1), education (Jesús de Otoro = 1, Yorito = 2), government (Yorito = 1), trades (Jesús de Otoro = 2), health (Yorito = 1), and domestic work (Yorito = 1).

Empirical findings

The drive to go

Narratives surrounding outmigration: ‘there is nothing in this town’

Both mobile and immobile respondents perceived a culture of migration within the study communities, with outmigration commonly considered, discussed, and practiced. Respondents were unsurprised when youth from their communities left, considering it normal for their peers to be present one day and gone the next. While interviewees acknowledged voluntary migration as a practice among some youth, distress migration was discussed most extensively and was associated with scarcity of local employment opportunities. A female farmer explained:

I know of various cases of youth [who have left], some for the United States and others for Spain. Because as I said, there is nothing in this town, so whoever leaves is going to stay there. […] In the case of men, [migration] is the first thing they think of. Because tell me, if there is no work [here, or] if they offer you 300 pesos a month […], you’re better off working on your own, and growing your own food [than getting a local job]. (Otoro 10)

This woman characterised her community as empty: lacking viable livelihood options apart from agriculture. Similarly, other respondents discussed local livelihood constraints and limited resource access.³ Many respondents used this emphasis on scarcity – or these scarcity narratives – to justify migration decisions among themselves and their peers. For example, a woman who had migrated to San Pedro Sula for domestic work stated:

Well, the truth is that […] to stay in the village, it is a lie that we are going to generate something that will help us get ahead. So that’s why we migrate, that’s why we came here [to San Pedro Sula]. And it’s true, in this job we earn very little, but we are grateful. (Yorito 8)

By framing sustainable rural livelihoods as a lie, this respondent portrayed her migration decision as somewhat inevitable. Indeed, migrants tended to describe their mobility decisions as predictable and necessary responses to rural livelihood realities. And yet, during the interviews all respondents, including migrants, articulated a preference for living in their home communities and sustaining rural livelihoods.⁴ These findings emphasise the importance of understanding immobility aspirations and capabilities in this setting.

Aspirations to stay

Repel factors for outmigration: ‘that’s why it’s better to work here’

Some respondents who were practicing immobility indicated an aversion to outmigration due to the challenges and risks they associated with migration. These respondents emphasised the physical dangers of undocumented international migration, fearing assault, injury, or death in transit. Interviewees weighed these risks in making (im)mobility decisions. As one woman explained:

Some [youth] who migrate to the United States are lucky, and some are not. [Of the unlucky ones], some get deported back here, and others, who knows what? The family never sees them again. They don’t know anything about them. And that’s why it’s better to work here, to find ways to work in order to get through. (Yorito 13)

By describing successful international migration as a matter of ‘luck’, this respondent highlighted the uncertainties around outmigration. Some immobile respondents expressed uncertainty around finding employment and meeting basic needs in a new setting within Honduras or abroad. One man discussed this repel factor through his experience of rural-to-urban migration:

I went to San Pedro and did not find work. It was night then. There are many risks, I said, so no, it’s better to analyze, go back to my house again, continue with my [agricultural] work. I had neglected [that] work. […] So I analyzed it well, and I said no, I feel good here [in my home community], with my family, and I am looking out for them, for my [agricultural] work, that is the best thing for me. (Yorito 1)

Studies of mobility among rural Honduran populations have also noted that risks and uncertainties, particularly in undocumented international migration, may deter prospective migrants or drive them to find alternative routes (Sladkova 2007, 2016). Furthermore, in exploring stories of migrants who had disappeared in transit, Kirchbichler (2010) highlighted familial losses that drive fears around international migration. Within Honduras, studies have identified poor working conditions in Honduran maquilas as a repel factor for internal migration, although this may push prospective migrants toward international migration rather than compel them to practice immobility (Kirchbichler 2010; Reichman 2011).

Many challenges and risks that immobile respondents associated with migration were affirmed by migrants themselves. When asked whether their migration experiences were similar or different from what they had anticipated, both internal and international migrants described difficulties in finding appropriate accommodations and stable employment upon arrival at their destination. Furthermore, international migrants shared unanticipated challenges with racism, sexism, language barriers, and loneliness. While migrants also shared positive migration experiences, they focused on risks, challenges, and disappointments during these interviews. Some described efforts to dissuade their peers from migrating by sharing negative migration experiences through their social networks. A woman who had been living in the U.S. for eight years discussed ongoing difficulties of living abroad:

Life here is not easy at all. In particular, one suffers from racism. Here in New York, life is very expensive […], and also, one suffers when far away from family […]. In my case, I have my father, my brother, I miss them a lot and without them I do not have complete happiness. I had to emigrate because I did not have many opportunities in my country. […] Sometimes in photographs it seems [that all is] well. You see [migrants] living comfortably, [but] the truth is that they are unhappy, not having their whole family, having to leave their country. Because you grow up loving what you have around you. (Otoro 5)

Schewel (2020) noted that communicating risks and challenges through migrant networks can create ‘negative feedback mechanisms’ for mobility practices. These ‘negative feedback mechanisms’ may feed negative discourses surrounding migration. While our respondents described mixed views on migration in their communities, they identified a collective sense of sadness, loss, or disappointment when a young person left, and some described being actively discouraged from mobility aspirations by local adults. For example, one man shared a reprimand received after his migration attempt:

[She] passed by scolding me, “Puchica, what happened to you? You’re a leader here, why are you leaving? Why do you give that [kind of] example?” I said, yes, but I want better opportunities. […] That’s what I would like: a future. Now that I have a family, [I want] them [to live with] dignity, that they may live [as they deserve]. (Otoro 4)

Respondents explained that many youth hid migration aspirations to avoid being dissuaded from practicing mobility. They shared that extended family, peers, and community members were often oblivious to migration plans until a person left. Only immediate family members were likely aware of the decision beforehand. Moreover, some migrants couched their mobility decisions in negative language. For example, a male migrant used the verb abandonar (to leave or abandon) to describe his decision to leave Honduras, and a woman who had migrated voluntarily indicated feeling that she had wasted (desperdiciar) livelihood opportunities in her home community.

Negativity and secrecy suggest some level of stigma, or perceived stigma, around migration. Reichman (2011) observed a similar social dynamic in another region of Honduras, where community members tended to characterise migration as a personal choice, gossip about migrants’ motives for leaving, and portray voluntary migrants as selfish or overly ambitious. As with our study, some of Reichman’s participants expressed feelings of guilt around migration. Thus, alongside physical dangers and livelihood uncertainties associated with migration, social stigma may provide further explanation for rural youth aspiring toward immobility. Still, there is uncertainty around the degree to which repel factors actually, or independently, deter outmigration (Hiskey et al. 2018; Sladkova 2007), highlighting the value of understanding other factors that shape immobility preferences.

Retain factors in rural communities: ‘you have to fight for your homeland’

The most prominent retain factor discussed by respondents was a desire to live close to family, attending to family obligations while giving and receiving support within family networks. For example, one woman expressed a duty to care for ageing parents while another woman felt responsible for younger siblings. A third woman discussed relying on net household income while searching for local employment. She contrasted her circumstances with those of migrants, who may lack support networks in their new environments. Among those whose immobility aspirations were shaped by caretaking roles, the most commonly discussed familial retain factor was having one’s own children. Respondents such as the woman quoted below considered it undesirable to migrate with children due to associated risks, but also found it intolerable to leave their children behind:

If I migrate, what would I do with my children? They are boys, both of them, and then what would become of them in the future? Later, when I return, they will no longer have love for me, but for someone else. Though I would help them with what little I could, I would lose them. I would lose land and I would lose them. (Otoro 14)

Other researchers have shown that family networks influence both migration and immobility aspirations (Haug 2008; Mata-Codesal 2018; Piacenti 2008). For instance, Kandel and Massey (2002) found that family involvement in migration shaped mobility aspirations among young people in Zacatecas, Mexico. Meanwhile, scholars have formulated the affinity hypothesis to describe family networks as a retain factor shaping immobility preferences (Haug 2008). Our findings support this hypothesis.

In addition to concern for her children, the respondent quoted above alluded to another prominent retain factor discussed by interviewees: appreciation for their land. A female farmer stated, ‘if you pay attention to [your] land, that same land gives you strength’ (Otoro 9). As the dominant livelihood option, agriculture had shaped the childhood experiences of interviewees. Many expressed comfort and familiarity with living in the countryside and working the land. For some, their relationship to the land explicitly shaped their immobility aspirations. One female migrant explained:

For me it is a happiness, always my happiness, to [work in] agriculture, to go around doing anything [in the field], learning and teaching it to others […] (Prompt: When you started working in agriculture, was it similar or different than what you imagined?) At the beginning, when I knew what I wanted, it was what motivated me to be something in life, to have something. And I always imagined having my own plot on my farm. I would have my own little things, not a lot, but a little. (Otoro 1)

This woman had migrated voluntarily to the U.S. She found agricultural work in her new location, but continued to express strong connections to her land and community in Honduras. This affinity for homeland and home community aligns with theories of high community attachment (Stockdale and Haartsen 2018), an innate home bias (Faini and Venturini 2001), and an experience of embeddedness (Schewel 2020), providing further grounding to understand immobility aspirations among both migrants and non-migrants in our study.

Among some respondents a moral discourse emerged around (im)mobility decisions. While immobile respondents expressed empathy toward individuals who experienced distress migration, some explicitly disagreed with the choice to migrate. These respondents placed moral value in the decision to stay, despite – or perhaps because of – the struggles they faced to establish and sustain viable livelihoods in rural communities. For example, a woman with five younger siblings explained her immobility choice:

I had the opportunity to leave, but … it’s a little complicated. I didn’t have the … no, I told my mom, I don’t have the heart to leave you alone. I think that it is wrong. Our country is our country. You have to look for ways to survive […] you have to be creative to be here. But you have to respect the decisions of each person. (Yorito 3)

After asserting immobility as a moral imperative, this respondent tempered her perspective. Her deferential attitude toward migrants may be linked to the fact that most of her peers had migrated. Respondents who discussed immobility in moral terms seemed to grapple with assessing the ‘authenticity’ of distress migration, versus the use of ‘distress’ as a pretext for personal migration aspirations. They were understanding of the former while disapproving of the latter. Notably, Reichman (2011) associated negative migration discourses within communities with the tendency for migrants to emphasise financial distress and family obligations in explaining their mobility decisions. From an immobility perspective, our findings suggest that negative discourses surrounding migration worked in tandem with positive moral discourses surrounding immobility to reinforce aspirations to stay in rural areas. According to one male respondent, outmigration, especially international migration, should only be a last resort:

I think that, to emigrate, you first have to try in your own country, to see, to fight (luchar). Today [migration] has become so conventional that the people [no longer do that]. It is not unusual for someone to say, “I am leaving for the United States”. And even more now that they make caravans and things like that. Today people, well, they say “I am leaving” and they go, but there are times when I think that people should try, because there are people who go and [yet] they have land and have everything [they need] to work [here], but nevertheless they leave, without first trying for a positive result. (Yorito 5)

This respondent was quite emphatic about the need to fight, struggle, or strive for one’s homeland (‘hay que luchar por su patria’). Thus, alongside local family networks and a connection to the land itself, the moral imperative to stay was an important retain factor shaping immobility aspirations among interviewees (see Table 2 for a summary of retain and repel factors).

Capabilities to stay

The capacity to envision rural livelihoods: ‘they do not visualize the opportunities’

Although all interviewees expressed immobility preferences, only some were practicing immobility at the time of the interviews. During the interviews, respondents were invited to reflect on social, political, economic, and environmental factors that facilitated or challenged rural livelihoods for youth. Interviewees identified structural barriers to viable rural livelihoods (e.g. poor access to education, limited job market, impacts of climate change, lack of government support). Respondents who experienced distress migration saw these barriers as impediments to their capabilities to stay in rural areas. While these youth aspired toward voluntary immobility, they could not envision practical ways to actualise this option. A female migrant explained:

It was never my dream to emigrate. On the contrary, I always wanted to live in Honduras where I had all my happiness, but the truth was that I did not see a future for myself. I did not see having a future in Honduras. I did not see a space where I could have prospered. (Otoro 5)

Youth who were practicing immobility empathised with perceptions and experiences of scarcity in rural areas; however, they also contested scarcity narratives. One female respondent described the culture of outmigration in her home community as a failure to envision rural possibilities:

Table 2. Key retain and repel factors that shaped aspirations to stay in rural areas, as reported by youth from Jesús de Otoro, Intibucá and Yorito, Yoro in Honduras through semi-structured interviews conducted in 2019 (n = 32).

Repel factors (reasons to avoid migration)	Retain factors (reasons to stay instead of migrating)
Risks and uncertainties associated with migration	Family obligations and support networks
Negative experiences shared through migrant networks	Love and appreciation for one’s land
Negative discourses surrounding migration	A moral imperative to stay and “fight” for rural livelihoods

People continue to think that [migration] is the solution, that this is the way. They do not visualize the opportunities, many of [the people] here. But I believe that this aspiration has simply filled their heads so much that this is what they want. So, for everyone, not just for new projects that might come here, but rather for our community, a great challenge is to get our youth to remain. Because there must be something that retains them, that really makes them want [to stay]. (Yorito 6)

For respondents who were practicing immobility, being able to envision a future in rural areas was an important bridge between their abstract aspirations and their tangible capabilities to stay. They described this capacity to envision not solely as a matter of imagining possibilities, but also determining practical steps toward navigating structural barriers and establishing viable rural livelihoods. Respondents highlighted the role of supportive institutions in helping them envision rural livelihood options, while also training, counselling, and encouraging them in rural livelihood pursuits. In other words, these actors created an enabling environment that supported capabilities to stay.

Characteristics of enabling environments: ‘we could see livelihoods for each one of us’

Respondents described how supportive institutions cultivated their capacity to envision a future in rural areas through investing in their personal and professional development. For example, one man described the impact of FIPAH’s youth-specific programming in his community:

[Before FIPAH’s program started], the only [opportunity for youth] was the coffee harvest […]. [Youth] did not have the opportunity to do any other kind of activity, and with [this youth project], thanks to the training and many things we learned, we managed to realize how we [as youth] could be heard, how we could have more opportunities, and we could see livelihoods for each one of us. (Otoro 3)

Interviewees perceived a deficit of youth-specific programming in their communities, with most development interventions directed toward adults or children. FIPAH’s programme was not the only youth programme across study communities; however, respondents identified FIPAH as a key player in youth-specific programming, alongside a small number of churches and other NGOs. Some respondents problematised this lack of youth-specific interventions by highlighting the unique characteristics of youth. A female nurse stated:

Youthful thinking is not the same as adult thinking, because we have a cultural pattern that marks us. The adult thinks that they act wisely and that the adolescent acts wrongly, but he is doing well in his own way. I believe that the interactions of both, their orientations in a way, work differently because the adolescent wants to experiment in other things, whereas the adult wants to improve what they [already] do. (Yorito 6)

Indeed, respondents appreciated institutions that offered diverse training opportunities. This diversity helped youth envision various livelihood options, while resources like scholarships and microloans helped them pursue personal livelihood interests. According to respondents it was not merely the provision of these opportunities and resources that supported their capabilities to stay, but also the accompaniment of caring adults in navigating the process of livelihood establishment. For example, one man shared that his training as a barber was paired with support in conducting a market analysis. This analysis helped him envision a local barbering business, which he established through a microloan and had maintained for over eight years at the time of the interviews.

Importantly, interviewees did not characterise the Honduran government (national or regional) as an institution that enhanced their capabilities to stay. Across interviews, youth lacked confidence in governing institutions to facilitate their livelihood formation wilfully and equitably. Instead, respondents felt that political leaders actively chose to neglect them while giving preferential treatment to other members of society. As one woman stated:

The role of the government is to support [us], but they do not do it. Or perhaps they support other youth who are not in need. […] That’s where we see the division that exists. So now we, as youth, if we want to move forward, we are forced to change. (Yorito 8)

Perceptions of political favouritism in the provision of resources and livelihood opportunities was a strong theme across interviews. In contrast, respondents valued inclusive institutions, such as churches and NGOs, that welcomed youth regardless of their sex, ethnicity, political views, or religious affiliations, and provided equitable, youth-centered support. In these enabling environments, youth were aided in navigating structural barriers and encouraged to exercise agency in order to work toward desirable and viable rural livelihoods.

Agency and attitude: ‘sacrifice is important’

In addition to enabling environments, respondents who were practicing immobility highlighted personal characteristics that they associated with capabilities to stay. For example, a female teacher named intellect as a key capability for successful immobility:

It’s interesting, because you feel like an advantage is achieved, like a goal has been reached, when you teach someone that they can work here. You can settle here. You just have to have a brain. We must demonstrate the capacities that exist in youth, and we must teach youth that older people believe in them […] [and] that in youth not only is the future, but that […] it starts from the present with good development. (Otoro 8)

Other immobile respondents highlighted the need for creative problem-solving skills. They positioned themselves as active agents in establishing and sustaining rural livelihoods and emphasised the importance of taking advantage of opportunities and being judicious with resources. A female landowner critiqued land vending practices among her peers:

There are some youth who sell the land, but they don’t use the [profit] to establish themselves in another place or to buy something which will [allow them to survive]. But no, rather, sometimes they sell the land, but they waste money. They don’t know how to take advantage of it. (Otoro 9)

Respondents like this woman discussed the importance of investing (invertir) and reinvesting resources in order to get ahead (salir adelante) in rural communities. For example, another female farmer had sold land, saved wages from a job, and used her earnings to start a chicken business. When the interviews were conducted, this business sustained her full-time and she had plans for expansion. By identifying as active agents, respondents distinguished themselves from other youth in their communities, whom they characterised as passive and disengaged. For instance, one woman perceived her peers to lack impetus and interest to invest in agricultural livelihood formation:

I do not know why [FIPAH’s youth program] does not motivate [other youth from my community], why there are youth who do not want to be organized. Because being in the groups, we have to have time, and there are youth who do not want to give that time. (Otoro 11)

This woman was part of a coffee cooperative that had successfully expanded production and established a profitable market connection. Other immobile respondents also conveyed their dedication of resources and energy to make rural livelihoods work. Some youth discussed walking for hours to attend classes and trainings or setting aside education and career aspirations in order to support family members. Others described long days of agricultural fieldwork. Respondents acknowledged the financial incentives of migration and some reflected on the trade-offs of immobility, but they emphasised their fortitude and resilience in choosing to stay. One male farmer framed rural livelihoods through the lens of sacrifice:

When we want to obtain something in life, for example, a degree, a person dreams and knows that they need to sacrifice a little, dedicate that time. Imagine what I was telling you about walking [to school], going [down the mountain] and coming back up. When [we want to], […] we can really achieve something in life, [but] sacrifice is important. (Yorito 1)

This notion of sacrifice aligns with moral discourses associated with the aspiration to stay. Overall, youth who were practicing immobility distinguished themselves from their peers and positioned themselves as agents of their immobility decisions. Their stories contested scarcity narratives that emphasise the lack of options in rural communities. Instead, immobile respondents presented an alternative narrative: that it takes intelligence, dedication, strength, and sacrifice to make rural livelihoods work, and not all rural youth are up to the task (see Table 3 for a summary of factors facilitating respondents’ capabilities to stay).

Theoretical implications

Immobility in a culture of migration

With scarcity narratives driving a culture of migration and genuine challenges impeding the viability of rural livelihoods, the aspiration among youth to practice immobility in the study communities is quite striking. In understanding the immobility preferences expressed by respondents, it is important to note some distinctions between the culture of migration described in our study and cultures of migration that have been described by other researchers. While respondents discussed outmigration as a common practice or even a default livelihood option within their communities, they did not portray it as a ‘rite of passage’ (Kandel and Massey 2002) nor a ‘proper life trajectory’ (Carling and Schewel 2018). Through the moral framing surrounding immobility, some respondents questioned whether there was anything ‘proper’ about migration at all. Meanwhile, respondents who integrated scarcity narratives into their personal views and livelihood stories tended to frame migration as an unavoidable necessity rather than a desirable livelihood trajectory. Given these findings, we suggest that in settings with high rates of distress migration, where mobility poses considerable risks to health and well-being, leaving may be seen as normative without being a ‘culturally-approved’ aspiration.

Table 3. Structural and individual characteristics that facilitated the capability to stay in rural areas and sustain rural livelihoods, as reported by youth from Jesús de Otoro, Intibucá and Yorito, Yoro in Honduras through semi-structured interviews conducted in 2019 (n = 32).

Characteristics of enabling institutions	Characteristics of individual youth
Supporting the capacity to envision rural livelihoods	Intellect
Offering youth-specific programming	Creative problem-solving skills
Offering diverse capacity-building opportunities	Judicious use of resources
Distributing resources equitably	Dedication of time and attention
Providing impartial support	Willingness to sacrifice

As noted, all interviewees were current or former participants in FIPAH’s youth programming, which centres on personal and professional formation that empowers rural youth to respond to local development needs. In other words, FIPAH focuses on rural livelihoods and thus is oriented toward immobility, even if implicitly. It follows logically that youth who engage in FIPAH’s programming may already be oriented toward immobility in a way that is distinct from their peers. In fact, as shown in our findings, some respondents perceived this to be true. Consequently, the organisation may foster a sub-culture of immobility-oriented youth who develop their own set of perspectives, norms, and discourses around (im)mobility aspirations and capabilities. That said, when invited to reflect broadly on factors shaping their livelihood pursuits, respondents identified a variety of influences including and apart from FIPAH.

Similar to Reichman (2011), our findings point to complex interactions between socio-cultural influences and individual agency in (im)mobility decision-making, raising questions regarding the degree to which (im)mobility preferences are individually-driven, agentic livelihood choices versus socially-derived, normative livelihood options. Indeed, the immobility preferences expressed by both migrants and non-migrants in our study may reflect an ‘internalization of social norms’ (Schewel 2020, 344), which as noted, may be shaped by the broader community or by sub-cultures within each community. Importantly, there is evidence of considerable and ongoing engagement in FIPAH’s youth programming, demonstrating that there are youth from these communities seeking enabling environments in which to actualise immobility aspirations. In understanding (im)mobility patterns in and from rural Honduras, (im)mobility theorists should pay attention to how these populations construct their (im)mobility narratives.

Constructing a dignified life

Our findings show that (im)mobility aspirations among youth from the study communities were shaped, in part, by competing narratives around the necessity and value of outmigration. For some, mobility was seen as a necessary pathway to a life ‘worthy of human dignity’ (Nussbaum 2011, 20). Here, scarcity narratives were at work and economic drivers were evident. Conversely, respondents who were practicing immobility took pride in remaining with their families, working hard, and making sacrifices to sustain rural livelihoods. Their perspectives on leading a dignified life privileged the principles underlying their immobility choices. Notably, respondents identified with both narratives: mobile respondents aspired toward immobility; immobile respondents acknowledged the challenges of rural livelihoods and empathised with distress migration.

These competing narratives could indicate an oscillation between Hirshman’s concepts of ‘loyalty’ and ‘exit’, where loyalty refers to a submissive acceptance of livelihood challenges in rural communities, while exit refers to engagement in migration (Schewel 2015). Regarding the former, Schewel (2020) suggested that some immobility preferences and practices may arise from low aspirations, poor informational resources, and a ‘lack of imagined alternatives’ (343). However, our respondents did not present their immobility experiences in this way. On the contrary, some respondents suggested that youth who practiced mobility lacked the capacity to envision alternative options.

In response to these findings, we suggest that immobility choices may be an avenue through which rural youth exercised Hirchman’s concept of ‘voice’, as discussed by Appadurai (2004) and Schewel (2015). Through stories of immobility, youth emphasised how they were navigating and sustaining rural livelihood despite incredibly challenging circumstances. In contrast to the disempowerment and lack of choice expressed by respondents experiencing distress migration, respondents who were practicing immobility presented their stories as ones of empowerment and agency; they were realising high, principled aspirations through a judicious and imaginative use of resources. To echo Appadurai (2004, 70), ‘here empowerment has an obvious translation’: and where Appadurai goes on to discuss the capacity to aspire in the context of migration, from an immobility perspective we present the capacity to envision a future in rural areas. According to respondents, the expansion of this capability empowered them not simply to imagine, but also to construct a rural life that they considered dignified. Given these interpretations, another implication of our study is the importance of taking into account diverse understandings of what constitutes ‘high aspirations’ and a ‘dignified life’ when constructing (im)mobility theories.

The freedom to choose immobility

In light of immobility aspirations expressed by both migrants and non-migrants in our study, immobility is not only a freedom that rural youth have reason to value, but it is a freedom that many do, indeed, value. Our findings illustrate what other scholars have argued: that framing immobility as being ‘left behind’ or ‘stuck’ overlooks a whole cohort of individuals who prefer immobility, and would – or do – practice it as an agentic livelihood choice (de Haas 2021; Schewel 2020; Stockdale and Haartsen 2018). Importantly, Carling and Schewel (2018) suggest that in contexts with high rates of outmigration, immobility may require more resources and agency than mobility. Certainly, respondents who were practicing immobility emphasised the agency required to actualise immobility aspirations. And while some interviewees framed migration choices as personal failures in the capacity to envision, respondents also recognised structural factors driving distress migration (or what could be referred to as involuntary mobility) from these communities. Thus, respondents considered enabling environments to be critical resources in facilitating their capacity to envision and supporting their capabilities to stay. In the context of (im)mobility theories, enabling environments and individual agency can be understood as ‘causes’ of immobility. Thus, our study responds to Schewel’s (2020) call for insight into the causes of immobility by describing environments that facilitated, rather than impeded, the freedom that youth experienced to exercise agency in choosing immobility.

Future research and conclusions

This study opens various opportunities for future research. First, the indication of stigma or perceived stigma around migration, alongside the moral dimensions of immobility, were emergent findings from the study, offering rich groundwork for further research to support theory-building. Second, in placing immobility in the context of both internal and international migration, future studies could more explicitly stratify, and thus distinguish, the influence of these mobility considerations on retain and repel factors shaping immobility preferences. Third, while our findings suggested some gender dimensions to retain and repel factors, we did not present a gendered analysis of these data. Considering the gender dimensions observed in migration, particularly among younger populations (Kandel and Massey 2002), we can anticipate that gender dynamics shape immobility aspirations and capabilities, and may be particularly relevant among young people. Finally, while this study gives insight into ‘causes’ of immobility, Schewel’s (2020) call for insight into its ‘consequences’ warrants further study as well.

Our findings make three important contributions to addressing the ‘mobility bias’ in migration research. First, by providing insight into retain and repel factors that shaped immobility aspirations among youth from remote Honduran communities, this study enriches an understanding of immobility preferences among youth from a resource-constrained setting. Second, by elucidating the role of supportive institutions in facilitating respondents’ capabilities to stay in rural areas, this study identifies key characteristics of enabling environments that helped some youth actualise their immobility preferences. Third and most notably, by identifying ways that youth exercised agency in practicing immobility, this study highlights immobility as an agentic livelihood choice. Rather than seeing themselves as ‘left behind’ or ‘stuck’ in rural areas, respondents who were practicing immobility asserted themselves as active agents of their immobility choices. These youth used their stories to contest scarcity narratives, suggesting instead that remote communities of Honduras can be viable places to settle and lead a dignified life.

Acknowledgements

The authors gratefully acknowledge the contributions and support of FIPAH staff members and youth leaders from Jesús de Otoro and Yorito in data collection and preparation of transcriptions for analysis. The authors would also like to thank two anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments and feedback on this work.

Disclosure statement

As representatives of la Fundación para la Investigación Participativa con Agricultores de Honduras (FIPAH) on the research team, co-authors Esmeralda Lobo Tosta, Veronica Zelaya Portillo, and Paola Orellana have received or currently receive salaries from the organization.

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC) through a Joseph Armand-Bombardier Canadian Graduate Scholarship and a Michael Smith Foreign Study Supplement.

Notes

1 Distress migration has been defined as: ‘Movements from the usual place of residence, undertaken when the individual and/or the family perceive that there are no options open to them to survive with dignity, except to migrate’. (Mander and Sahgal 2012, 2).

2 Referring to year 9, which corresponds with the end of the ‘common cycle’. The Honduran school system is divided into 3-year cycles: ‘primary’ (years 1–3); ‘basic’ (to the end of year 6); ‘common’ (to end of year 9); and ‘colegio’ (years 10–12).

3 Some respondents particularly emphasised barriers to land tenure for youth and one respondent emphasised climate change impacts as a challenge for sustaining agrarian livelihoods. Respondents also discussed crime, violence, and insecurity as drivers of migration, but framed these as national-level, rather than local-level, trends. That said, one migrant had left due to family conflict.

4 Notably, interview questions did not explicitly ask respondents to articulate a preference between migration or immobility. Rather, migrants were invited to reflect on why they chose to migrate and how their reasons might compare to their peers, while immobile respondents were invited to share whether they had considered migration and why or why not.