Transnationalism was originally a concern of international economists describing flows of labour and capital but was later applied more broadly, including within the field of migration and diaspora studies. Although even the earliest studies of migration noted that some migrants maintained ongoing connections with their homelands, it was not until the late 1980s that such connections developed to the extent that they became the focus of research and ‘transnational’ studies came to the fore. Cheaper and faster transport and developments in information and communications technologies have enabled people to move more easily, send money and goods more cheaply and quickly, and maintain personal connections with family and friends. These increasing options for transnational connections have a wide range of implications for the lives of both migrants and those remaining ‘at home’.

Since emerging in the 1990s the literature on the transnational practices of migrants has focused primarily on individuals and families: ‘how ordinary individuals live their everyday lives across borders and the consequences of their activities for sending—and receiving—country life’ (Levitt and Waters 2002a, 8). This focus on the relationship between transnationalism and people’s everyday lives has been described by Michael Smith and Luis Guarnizo (1998) as ‘transnationalism from below’, in contrast to ‘transnationalism from above’ in arenas such as the global media, political institutions, global financial organisations and transnational business.

Studies of transnational migrants examine aspects of their lives including their complex ties with kin; their economic connections to the homeland, particularly remittances; their citizenship; their involvement in political and ethnic organisations; and their ties through religion and ‘cultural’ elements such as music, food and art. In addition, research increasingly takes into account ‘the national and international policy regimes within which transnational activities take place’ (Levitt, DeWind and Vertovec 2003, 568). Thus far, however, the vast majority of this work on transnationalism has focused on immigrants from Caribbean, Asian, Latin American and African countries who live in the USA, Canada and Europe. The contributions to this book redress this imbalance by focusing on Pacific peoples who until now have been largely absent from discussions of transnationalism.

In the relatively short time since transnationalism became a major focus of migration studies, a great deal has been done to refine and redevelop the concepts and terminology employed.^[3] Levitt and Jaworsky (2007) provide an excellent overview of the transnational literature and recent developments in research, which include works on the transnational engagements of people who remain in the home country; the process of return migration; how transnationalism impacts on gender, class and race both in host and home countries; and the negative outcomes of transnationalism. This recent focus on negative outcomes is needed to counterbalance a tendency in the earlier transnational literature to celebrate transnationalism as a means for migrants to increase their opportunities, enhance their social networks and cope with the problems they faced in the host country. However, practices such as remitting can have negative outcomes, such as creating and exacerbating poverty amongst remitters, as Dennis Ahlburg (2000) noted for Pacific Islanders in the USA. Transnationalism can also make it difficult for migrants ever to feel completely ‘at home’ in any one place, which in turn can provoke identity crises and lead to an ongoing sense of being unsettled even among so-called ‘settler migrants’. As Kalissa Alexeyeff’s contribution to this volume reminds us, a further negative outcome is the ‘loss and dislocation’ inherent in the movement of people who visit, but then also leave—ongoing connections can also involve disconnections.

Within Pacific studies, even the earliest work on migrants’ ties to their homelands considered both positive and negative outcomes. Indeed, as becomes apparent in the discussion below, this became a major focus of Pacific migration research, particularly the impact of remittances and the issue of dependency. The Pacific literature was also ahead of its time in considering both religion and gender, two of the issues that have only recently been highlighted in wider transnational research. Given the strong adherence of most Pacific migrants to churches with close ties to their counterparts in the islands, it would have been impossible to discuss Pacific transnationalism without acknowledging religion, and gender differences in remitting patterns have been noted since Paul Shankman acknowledged that women were the most frequent and reliable Samoan remitters (1976).

Recently there also has been a growing critique of the ‘nation’ in transnationalism; of the idea that in the context of transnationalism social relations are organised around and shaped by the nation-state (Levitt and Jaworsky, 2007). The idea of ‘post-national’ is sometimes used to indicate that ‘while the nation-state still plays a part in the development options available to individuals and groups in the modern world it is merely one of many ‘actors’ that impacts on peoples’ lives and developmental options available to them’ (Barcham 2005, 3). In Pacific studies this idea of looking beyond national borders is not new, as seen in the idea of ‘world enlargement’ proposed by Hau’ofa (1993a, 1998). Hau’ofa conceptualises Pacific peoples as interacting across national borders and describes their ‘informal movement along ancient routes drawn in bloodlines invisible to the enforcers of the laws of confinement and regulated mobility’ (1993a, 11). While Hau’ofa’s intent was to challenge Western views of the Pacific, it can also serve to challenge models of transnationalism that focus on distance, separation, and the boundedness of nation-states.