Introduction

Migration is a complex and diverse subject, generating changes in the communities of origin and destination; people go from one place to another in search of opportunities to improve living conditions, is a social phenomenon that has been present in all ages of human history. In the twenty-first century with globalization in an uncertain socio-economic sphere, the subject of study intensifies, debates and even conflicts arise in several regions of the world. Mexico, has become the largest exporter of migrants in the world, superior to other countries (Russia, China or India), Mexican migration, is characterized by targeting more than 95% to a single destination country: the United States of America. The relevance of migratory flows, essentially the interest of knowing the experiences of the population that emigrates, is observed in the increase of people who leave in search of improving their life; and the increasing importance of remittances sent back to their origin places as a strategy in the quest to improve family welfare, among other important issues (^{Levine, 2008}; ^{Corona, 2014}).

The study of international migration is addressed from various approaches, disciplines and analytical schemes that rely on attraction and expulsion factors; as well as in the political agenda of migration and development (^{Márquez, 2010}; ^{Canales, 2013}). According to this latest vision, international organizations promote the conceptualization that migration produces development for places and countries of origin (^{OIT, 2010}). These policies propose to encourage remittance investment a “financial democracy” that leads to a decrease in the sending of transfer costs to increase revenues and its application to encourage local governance (^{Terry, 2005}). Thus, migration and development are linked to an approach guided by two elements: international migration as a phenomenon that benefits the exporting country and remittances as a development tool (^{BM, 2008}; ^{OIT, 2010}).

In this area, international institutions, governments and scholars of the subject focus the migration debate on the contribution of migrants through the sending of remittances, aimed at promoting the development of their communities, regions and country of origin. For this reason, the concept of development is considered a positive result of the migratory dynamics, in particular the uses of remittances. Primarily, the reduction of the poverty of receiving families, and to promote local development, by financing small productive projects and public infrastructure works (^{Márquez, 2010}).

Migration is a process that comprises three dimensions: social, temporal and spatial. Social explained not only by economic factors but the product of a changes dynamic and multiple interactions that affect the whole of society. Temporal because it considers several stages: the arrival, highlighting the adaptation and integration process and the migration impact in the destination society, and is temporary because the change of residence modifies the scope of the social relations of the migrant (^{Durand, 2010}).

Some studies emphasize that the practice of rural migration in several cases, extends to more entrepreneurial people who possess attributes that if supported by public policies can improve their conditions and capabilities. Therefore, they could become useful agents for the development of both regions. This situation involves economic resources, symbolism, skills and technologies, migration flows that represent an innovation and development source for the traditional communities that carry it out. Thus, rural migration adopts a circular form that the family and social networks involved, are responsible for closing; and to continue the flow of skills and knowledge exchange. Thus, the resources generated by rural emigrants become the main strategy for the development of their localities (^{Ríos and Kumar, 2012}).

Materials and methods

Oaxaca is one of the three poorest entities in the Mexican Republic, after Chiapas and Guerrero, it represents 4.8% of the national area. It has the highest number of rural municipalities (80.7%), followed by Guerrero (71.6%) and Chiapas (70.3%). The rural population reports 52% of its inhabitants (^{CONEVAL, 2015}), is integrated with eight regions: Central Valleys, Cañada, Costa, Papaloapan, Mixteca, Istmo, Sierra Norte and Sierra Sur with great local and ethnic diversity: Mixtecos, Zapotecos, Mixes. A population with high poverty incidence (66.8%) and extreme poverty (28.3%). It reports a poverty increase from 2012 to 2014, shows deficiencies in access to food, basic services in housing and social security, among other services (^{CONEVAL, 2015}). With a greater proportion of the population living in localities with high and very high (55%) marginalization degree of their inhabitants (^{CONAPO, 2010}).

Socioeconomic inequality generates changes in the family structure due to lack of employment, a situation that promotes migration; it represents the decrease of human resources in areas that expel labor. External resources have multiplier impacts that have contributed to changes in income, housing and agricultural production. The towns maintain a political-social organization based on a system of uses and customs; and civic-religious is established through charges of communal origin elected in a Community Assembly. That is, the legitimacy of indigenous authority emanates from community tradition and government (^{Hernández and Selee, 2013}).

San Pablo Güilá is a community of Zapotec ethnic origin; it borders to the north with Magdalena Teitipac, San Bartolomé Quialana, San Lucas Quiavini; in the south with Yaxe, at the east with Santiago Matatlán, San Dionisio Ocotepec and at the west with San Baltazar Chichicapa. Geographic coordinates: north latitude 16° 48’ 06”, west longitude 96° 26’ 24” altitude 1 770 m, it belongs to the municipality of Matatlán, District of Tlacolula, located 56 km from the city of Oaxaca (^{Encyclopedia Municipios, 2010}). The municipal population is 9 198 inhabitants, representing 0.26% of the total population, San Pablo, reports 3 932 inhabitants (^{CONAPO, 2010}).

The study sample, selected groups of people working in protected agriculture system or greenhouses (called in Zapotec language, Bini roo -Good idea-, Saguini daan lla -Dawn -, River bridge, Camiatz, Yabeth -ficus tree- and allies). Six producer groups are identified with 94 people, 25 heads of household were interviewed. The hypothesis was that the investment of external resources in productive projects generates socioeconomic and technological transformations, impelling local development in the community.

Mixed methodology quantitative by applying a questionnaire (48 questions). Data analysis with descriptive statistical method, distribution frequency with SPSS Version 15.0 program and qualitative with social research techniques: direct and participant observation (^{Hernández, 2008}). From each group, those leaders who could respond to the instruments research were selected. Field work was carried out during the summer-winter (2012-2013). In local tours and interviews, it is observed that at the family level most of its population is bilingual, they talk in Spanish and Zapoteco; and some adult producers only speak in their mother tongue. In contrast, because of migration, a couple of young producers also speak in English.

Results and discussion

According to the information obtained from the survey, the producers have an average age of 46 years (older is 74 and younger 30), is a population in middle age. Regarding their distribution by gender: 91% are men and 9% are women. Most of the interviewees are married (74%), a situation that is related to the customs and traditions of the community. In the celebration of marriage the whole family participates in the activities of the wedding, it is frequent to grant gifts of high economic value and daily use of the couple (refrigerator, wardrobe, others) or, they entertain them with some donation in cash. It is also common to give them a pair of cattle (sheep).

The educational level of producers, 26% of people can not read and write, although those that can read and write account for (74%); this last data divided in finished elementary level (52%) and incomplete (22%).The illiterate census population of Oaxaca reaches 19.35% and the municipality of Santiago Matatlán 26.99%, high indexes comparing (8.37%) of the national level (INEGI, 2010). In San Pablo Güilá, the growing illiterate population is due to lack of economic resources and schools close to rural communities. It is important to specify that the schooling of the producers is very low, if we add that some can not speak Spanish well because they communicate in Zapotec language, makes it difficult the training in the acquisition of innovative tools; however, in the group work stands out the labor assistance between them.

Regarding the housing of the producer, it is composed of an extended family where grandparents, parents, uncles, children and grandchildren live together; schooling registers people with a higher level (3%), report high school studies (21%), elementary (32%), incomplete elementary (23%) and do not know how to read and write (21%). As observed, the educational level in the family increases the degree of schooling, a situation that helps the good performance of work in the protected environment system. When comparing at the national level, population without complete elementary school (23.1%) is lower, compared to Oaxaca (38.49%), the municipality (45.26%) and the study site (49.71%) reported a high percentage.

In relation to productive activities, they practice traditional agriculture and cultivate in protected environment or greenhouse. Producers who continue their daily technical knowledge plant basic crops: maize (47.8%), bean (34.8%), pumpkin (30.4%), chickpea (8.7%), agave mezcalero (13%) and fruit tres (8.7%), among them are apple, avocado and peach that are located near the greenhouse and have enough water to irrigate them. It emphasizes, when incorporating new technologies (system of irrigation by dripping) they allow the sowing of other crops that without irrigation water would not obtain its yield. Most basic crops are destined for family consumption, considering the valuation of the producers, the cultivated products are insufficient to satisfy feeding needs; they report that agave production is destined for domestic consumption and local sales.

The producers dedicated only to greenhouse production (52%), have incorporated new technologies in a protected environment with a more profitable crop: the production of tomato. Through high investment in infrastructure, water collection and drip irrigation system, technical assistance and inputs; where producers are faced with novel activities, require labor. For these actions, the female participation in pruning and crop follow-up emphasizes; men participate more in the application of inputs (fertilization, fumigation, greenhouse maintenance, others) and in the harvest; the production is destined to the state market and national level.

The scarcity of employment opportunities in communities, among other difficulties, leads to migration to other places both nationally and internationally, but the remittances they send as an economic source to support living expenses and investment are observed in tomato producers’ organizations (47.8%) who have relatives working in the United States of America, that financially support them; contrasting with producers (52.2%) who do not receive external resources.

During the field work, knowing how to build a group to combine traditional technical efforts and knowledge, it allows to observe the degree of motivation, the interest shown by producers in work arises from the population itself to create sources of employment. The members (95.7%) of the producers’ groups constitute the unrestricted rural production company (SPR of RI) and 4.3% in the industrial agricultural unit of peasant women (UAIM). Also, they are looking for financing to acquire infrastructure and supplies for the greenhouse, its structure requires a high cost of investment to enter productive projects. For that reason, they form organizations to take advantage of the support offered by some governmental institutions, including the Secretaría de Agricultura, Ganadería, Desarrollo Rural, Pesca y Alimentación (SAGARPA) (91.3%) and other institutions (8.6%).

Foreign income is another important source of funding, sent by migrant relatives working in various cities of the United States of America, the main place is New York (60%), followed by Los Angeles (20%) and Illinois (20%) and resources from Mexico: in particular, family members living in Tijuana (10%). The information shows that 48% of producers receive remittance income, that are invested in productive projects; the frequency with which they receive, are reported every three months (50%), seasonally or every four or five months (3%) and other producers receive them every month (20%) (Figure 1).

Figure 1 Structure of external expenditure. 

Regarding the structure of the distribution of external spending, results obtained from the survey highlight that income sent by family members is invested sufficiently in productive projects; little are intended for health, food; and very little to machinery and equipment, infrastructure, clothing, nothing in housing, land, services and livestock. Highlighting that the external income is mostly invested in productive projects; then, it is followed by health and food. This last statement, coincides with ^{Amuedo and Pozo (2011)}, in a study on the effect of remittances on health, that report a 6% increase in households receiving remittances.

In the dwelling, they do not occupy anything from the external resource item. However, they work on the construction of small rooms, bathrooms and kitchen near the greenhouse, included in the production project and investment in livestock purchase. In general, the interviewed producers state that the distribution of their income is regular to satisfy their basic needs; do not respond when addressing the issue of land purchase and leisure travel, very little dress, appliances, technology, village parties through stewardship; little to health, education, transportation and training, regular food, housing and acquisition of tools (Figure 2).

Figure 2 Distribution of income. 

Thus, it is observed that their income is mainly used for food and accommodation in their home because they carry out construction of small rooms near the greenhouses with the purpose of monitoring the crop, avoiding the transfer from their home towards agricultural land; also to watch and care for their investment; the tools are necessary for agricultural work, so the producers allocate economic resources to acquire such equipment. This situation reflects the relation of the investment of the resource destined to the production and improvement of well -being. It coincides with other local studies carried out in regions of Puebla and Veracruz (^{López-Toxqui, 2011}) that are the main strategy for local development (^{Ríos and Kumer, 2012}).

The changes perceived in producing with other agricultural technology, producers emphasize the productive aspect that they have experienced enough and way of thinking, to acquire a technological innovation through the protected environment (greenhouse). It is a transformation to the productive process because it involves more activities in crop management, in addition, it allowed them to enter the market. The vision of producing for self-consumption supplements it with a focus on selling products (market).

Not withstanding the changes, it is observed in the community that the primary function of agriculture is to produce food, basic products to contribute to family consumption. As well as its functional character, focusing activities on two different agriculture types: the traditional one takes into account the ecosystems holistically and integrally based on the production of foods, the community depends on its environmental resources to survive (^{Altieri, 2013}), and the modern or conventional (greenhouse), based on producing other crops in response to the market demand that generates other income to the producers.

The experience of the producer in the greenhouse system indicates that it is regular (65%), excellent (18%), little (9%) the same proportion (4%) much or nothing. This type of agriculture requires training and experience that is acquired over time. Training is essential for agricultural practices and use of greenhouse innovation. That is why peasants receive training (85%) in production and marketing. They express their interest in receiving advice on use of technology, organization, administration and trade.

Producer’s assessment regarding acquisition of machinery, express not having experienced any change that involves speeding up the process because of the economic factor by investing the resources (remittances) in productive activities and maintain the greenhouse, buying a small tractor is very expensive. Although significant changes are observed when handling other technology: irrigation, pest control, disease, crop management, instruments that measure temperature and humidity, they perform analysis of soil and water in order to see the quality of the liquid and calculating fertilizer doses. These technological innovations introduced in the community, generate changes in both the productive and social aspects.

Regarding changes perceived by respondents producers regularly responded to the findings about family, food, medical care, clothing, training, organization and income; they showed little change in household appliances acquisition and education.

Conclusions

Remittances in productive projects generate socio-economic and technological change, promoting local community development. Remittances are part of the family wealth and have improved living conditions.

Using external resources invested in greenhouses has led to technological and socioeconomic changes that are part of the local development process through the tomato producer’s organization, creating technological infrastructure, creating jobs and increasing the local economy, and investment transforms the visión of traditional producer to one that is inserted into the market.

Technological change and its socioeconomic impact on rural development is important because the activities involve using a new technology, that requires training in various areas: agriculture, fertilization, pest control, diseases, marketing and administration.

Create proposals to guide investment of remittances in productive projects with multiplier effects on the town, still it needs to advance human development, considering aspects such as equity, sustainability, productivity and diversify community involvement.

Migration should be included in development plans in order to consolidate migrants networks who have legal working fluid, temporary and long-term movements that are treated with dignity and respect.