More migrants began reviewing the costs and benefits of various forms of āiga participation as their circumstances changed and they were forced to choose between meeting the respective needs of their immediate and extended families and churches in both New Zealand and Samoa.^[14] They became cautious about mobilising their extended āiga and incurring new debts when this prevented them from meeting the steadily increasing needs of their immediate families. Some families limited the range of people whom they would support in order to avoid the costs associated with support for all who were recognised as kin. Other families set limits on the level of their support for people on the basis of their relationships in an attempt to limit outgoings of time and money on ceremonial events. Some congregations, concerned about the escalation of ceremonial costs, acted in concert to standardise contributions to various events in order to eliminate competition and control costs within the parish.^[15]

More significant for Samoan transnationalism was the re-evaluation of the costs and benefits of supporting the expanding aspirations of home communities. Migrants found themselves under increasing pressure from parents and siblings to support a wave of new and often expensive building projects, rites of passage and political ambitions in the ‘home’ community. Some were simply unable to afford these and even those who could were not always willing to do so. Increasingly, migrants sought to manage their obligations to these projects at home. One compromise, which seems to be increasing popular, fundamentally altered the character of transnational linkages. It involved a de facto division of responsibility: migrants performed the obligations of kinship in the expatriate enclaves, while non-migrants attended to the obligations of kinship in the village. This arrangement worked well because those in each node were aware of the context and best placed to respond more quickly to demands, but it reduced the numbers of ‘transactions’ between expatriate and village nodes of kin groups.

Even if this crisis had not occurred, other factors might have constrained the elaboration of kin-based activity in the migrant community. Increasing levels of intermarriage, particularly with more individualistic Europeans, created limits to participation. With approximately one-in-three Samoans marrying non-Samoans, increasing numbers of people found themselves at odds with non-Samoan spouses over the value of supporting extended family. While Samoan spouses may wish to contribute to events within their extended families, European spouses, for a variety of reasons, frequently do not. This has had more serious consequences in some households than in others, notably those in which only one spouse is employed and incomes are limited. This has resulted in some cases in a total ‘ban’ on contributions of time and money, and in others a limit to the level of participation. Where the latter has occurred, some Samoan spouses have decided that it is better not to attend at all, than to attend and make a contribution smaller than might be considered appropriate.

The growth of support for new religious denominations such as the Seventh Day Adventist Church and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints within the migrant enclave may be both a cause and a consequence of the decline in ceremonial events. Adherents of these denominations are discouraged from sponsoring large-scale kin-based events and encouraged instead to focus their energy and resources on immediate family and church. Thus one finds, increasingly, apologetic riders to death notices advising readers that Samoan customs will not be observed on these occasions.^[16] At the same time, this practice may be encouraging people to join these denominations because membership provides a convenient and religiously sanctioned basis for limiting engagement and liability.

More significant for Samoan transnationalism is the declining commitment to āiga among overseas-born Samoans. New Zealand-born Samoans, raised in very different circumstances, often view kinship obligations differently from their parents. This is not to suggest that they have withdrawn support for these kin-based events. Anae’s work on New Zealand-born Samoans show that many remain actively engaged in the whole range of activities (Anae 1997; 1998; 2001), but there is evidence that a significant group are choosing a lower level of engagement than their parents (Macpherson 1984), sometimes with the encouragement of their parents (Macpherson 1991).

The inter-generational difference stems from social values stressed in formal education; higher levels of formal education and greater economic and job security; changing composition of social networks and reference groups; high levels of intermarriage; changing patterns of religious affiliation; the emergence of new forms of ethnic identity; and critical reflection on the costs and benefits of participation in the full range of extended kin-based activities in both ‘enclave’ and ‘island’ (Macpherson 2002).

While many New Zealand-born Samoans continue to participate in extended kin group activities they do so at the request of and out of a sense of responsibility to their parents (Anae 1998). Their participation is in many cases indirect, either because of lack of language competence and familiarity with ceremonial forms, or because demands of work prevent or discourage their direct involvement. Whether their participation will continue after their parents’ death is a matter for conjecture. These people, however, continue to value and to exchange information and services, and to spend leisure time with family in New Zealand. However, they do this voluntarily and typically within smaller circles of kin than their parents felt compelled to recognise, and do so on the basis of personal friendship rather than a sense of obligation (Macpherson and Macpherson 1999).

While New Zealand-born Samoans typically maintain personal connections with their āiga in the enclave, many have had little to do with their relations in Samoa. They report lower levels of commitment to āiga whom, in many cases, they have not met, and to villages in which they have neither lived nor visited. Even those who report some general commitment to relatives in the island, tend to rank this behind their commitments to their āiga in the enclave and recognise the latter only when asked to do so by parents. Many find that increasing difficulty in communicating in Samoan and diverging experiences and aspirations create increasing social distance between them and their Samoan āiga. If this process continues, there will be less contact and fewer transactions between island-based and expatriate kin, which in turn will have significant effects for the character of transnational Samoa.