Extended kin groups constituted the matrix within which goods and services were continuously exchanged in more or less public transactions. The least public involved the informal day-to-day exchange among relatives of goods such as money and food, services such as labour and advice, and equipment such as canoes and tools. The more public transactions involved the mobilisation of kin and resources in larger, formalised exchanges associated with commemoration of rites of passage, and physical and sociopolitical capital creation. Those who derived a livelihood from the use of the kin group’s resources were bound to participate in both forms of activity. Participation was, in each case, underpinned by two related beliefs: that kinship confers upon one the obligation to give to kin who make legitimate requests, and the right to expect that at some time in the future the goods and services given to others will be returned. Both forms of exchange reproduce and reaffirm kinship and kin-groups.

Exchanges are ‘sites’ where some discharge existing ‘debts’, and others incur new ‘debts’ to their kin. On a given occasion, persons A, X and Y may discharge existing debts to person B by contributing to a wedding sponsored by B. On that same occasion, B may incur new debts to contributors D, E and F who also contribute, but who are under no obligation to participate and have no pre-existing debt to settle. The exchange process generates a residual indebtedness that binds kin over time. At any time, residual indebtedness within an āiga bound members to one another.

In other respects, the two forms of exchange have quite different outcomes for the reproduction and reaffirmation of kinship. Informal exchanges remind individuals of their dependence on kin for essential equipment, goods and services. Larger, formal mobilisations of kin group resources reaffirm the importance of cooperation among larger groups of kin, and of the sociopolitical benefits of active membership in a larger corporate entity. On these occasions, groups publicly demonstrate their ability to cooperate, to mobilise resources, and their right to public attention and respect from those both inside and outside of the āiga.

The isolation in which this form of social organisation evolved ended with the arrival of Europeans (Gilson 1970). But, despite the appearance of change, when Western Samoa won independence in 1962 after 130 years of exposure to European society, fundamental elements of Samoan social organisation remained largely intact. A monotheistic religion had replaced a polytheistic one and had been co-opted by Samoan society to bolster its traditions. A national polity, based on a modified Westminster system, had been created but was based on and existed alongside traditional polities, which continued to provide local government and to enjoy considerable autonomy. The leaders of the new state^[3] were chosen on the basis of traditional social status and the new parliament comprised matai^[4] elected by matai suffrage. ‘New’ social institutions, such as women’s committees, existed alongside ‘traditional’ women’s organisations within villages and promoted new initiatives,^[5] but did so with the consent and support of traditional village polities. Village mayors, pulenu’u, who were appointed by government to form a link between traditional polities and the national government, existed with the support of villages and remained under their control (Meleisea 1987).

Following independence, the non-monetised, subsistence economy was replaced by a monetised, mixed subsistence and cash cropping one that produced commodities for both local and international markets. However, this had occurred without significant transformation of either the land tenure system or the lineage mode of production. Most Samoans continued to live on and farm āiga land under the authority of matai and to contribute labour and part of their production as a form of rent to the matai, who used it on behalf of the āiga to enhance its socio-political status. As a consequence, kinship remained a fundamental principle of social and economic organisation in independent Samoa, albeit one changed by contact with capitalism (Macpherson and Macpherson 1999, 33). It would become the vehicle for the transnationalisation of Samoan society.

After independence, forces for rapid social change emerged both inside and outside Western Samoa.^[6] The most powerful force was developing beyond Samoa. Throughout the 1950s, New Zealand governments promoted industrialisation to diversify the country’s economy. Labour shortages, a consequence of low pre-war population growth rates and losses in WWII, hindered the process, so to offset these, governments promoted immigration from Europe and the Pacific (Ongley 1991; 1996). People were drawn in increasing numbers from rural, semi-subsistence, kin-based villages in Samoa, the Cook Islands, Niue and the Tokelau Islands, to wage-work in socially and ethnically heterogeneous, urban industrial centres. Kinship became both the motive and the vehicle for transnationalisation of these societies.