The Scalabrini Institute for Human Mobility in Africa

Transcription

1 The Scalabrini Institute for Human Mobility in Africa (SIHMA) RETURN MIGRATION LITERATURE REVIEW June

2 Background Return migration is defined by Gmelch (1980: 136) as the movement of emigrants back to their homeland to resettle. It is a phenomenon about the international return of people from a place of destination to a place of origin temporary or permanently (United Nations, 1998: 95). Theoretical considerations on return migration started to have global attention from the 1960s (Cerase, 1974; Bovenkerk, 1974). In the 1980s, empirical and theoretical approaches on return migration increased with emerging discussions (Gmelch, 1980; Kubat, 1984; King, 1986; Council of Europe, 1987) which focused on the determinants of return as well as the prospects. This gave rise to a number of concepts and methodologies in relation to the comprehensive appreciation and importance of return migration (Cassarino, 2004; Farrell et al. 2012). It is this pioneering literature that laid the foundation for theoretical debate on return migration especially the economic and development impact on the place of destination in general, and place of origin in particular. Several theoretical approaches on return migration have been posited. The various approaches offer contrasting propositions originating from neo-classical economics, new economics of labour migration, structuralism, social network theory and transnationalism. We will review the five different approaches inturn. Neo-Classical Economics of Return Migration The neoclassical stance on global human mobility is based on reaction to better economic prospects or development in a desired place of destination, thus for example, migration is influenced by better incomes or wages in other locations. A number of scholars, (Sjaastad, 1962; Lee, 1966; Todaro, 1969; Zelinsky, 1971; De Jong and Fawcett, 1981; Da Vanzo, 1981; Hagen-Zanker 2008) argue that migration is a result of wage disparity involving place of origin and place of destination, as well as a logical and calculated judgment that there is possibility to get employment opportunities and other potential positive economic outcomes in the place of destination. In view of this, in a neo-classical perspective, Cassarino (2004:2) argues that return migration entails labour migrants who misjudged the opportunities and expenses of migrating and did not get expected better salaries or earnings. In other words, migrants go 2

3 back to their home country as a result of an unsuccessful experience in the place of destination. In addition, the expertise or foreign qualifications attained in the place of destination can barely be used in the place of origin because it would be irrelevant locally. Contrary to the neo-classical position, the new economics of labour migration theory holds a positive view on return migration. The New Economics of Labour Migration The New Economics of Labour Migration (NELM) approach views return migration as a consequence of a deliberate action after goals and intentions are realised in the host place. The NELM theory swings from individual to household level, as well as the fact that the migration plans or objectives have yielded positive results in terms of economic benefits (Stark and Galor, 1990; Stark, 1991; Stark, 1996; Taylor, 1996; Constant and Massey, 2002). In this sense, the decision to return to the place of origin is a result of a successful experience abroad. In-spite of the fact that the neo-classical and NELM theories interpret the notion of return migration differently, both theories provide important analyses as to why migrants return home. These two theories have been critiqued, for over-emphasizing financial and economic issues at the expense of social and cultural dynamics. In addition, little attention is given on how skills acquired abroad can be used in the place of origin (Hunter, 2010). To summarise, the neo-classical and NELM theories provide important insights on the phenomenon of return migration using financial and economic considerations. However, important questions such as remittances, links with household members in the place of origin and reintegration are not fully addressed. More importantly too, the place where migrants return is not addressed and neither is the socio-economic as well as political situation at the place of origin. There is no clear illustration regarding the procedures and plans to return or anything further than the link between returnees and their families in the place of origin (Cassarino, 2004: 257). Other approaches to the phenomenon of return migration have convincingly argued that success and failure alone cannot fully account for return migration. The structural hypothesis on return migration reflects on the importance of social and cultural factors among others. 3

4 Structural Theories The structural perspective on return migration does not discard the importance of financial and economic reasons, arguing that social and background features at the place of origin are crucial in the returning of migrants. In this approach, Cassarino (2004) states that return is not solely analysed with reference to an individual migrant experience, but also with reference to social and institutional factors in the countries of origin, in essence return is a question of context. The proponents of this theory (King, 1986; Dustamann, 2001; Cerase, 1974) argue that returnees success or failure is analysed by correlating the reality of the home economy and society with the expectations of the returnees. Cerase (1974) suggests a typology of situational and contextual factors in both host and countries of origin as prerequisite in determining whether return was a success or failure. Based on the same typology, (Rogers 1984; Callea, 1986) observe that the decision to return or not is guided by the opportunities that migrants expect to find in their countries of origin and the opportunities offered in the respective host countries. Gmelch (1980: ) adds that before a proper plan to return is made, situational factors need to be assessed otherwise migrants will be ill-prepared for their return. This may be due to the fact that they find it difficult to gather information necessary to secure their return and to gain better awareness of the social, economic and political changes that would have occurred in their home countries. Herzog and Schottmann (1982) explain return migration by suggesting that faulty information about the host countries was used when the decision to emigrate was taken. In a situation of imperfect information; Herzog and Schottmann (1982) further argue that prospective immigrants have an erroneous appreciation of possibilities and conditions for integration in the labour market and society of the host country. They may for instance, underestimate the difficulty of mastering the language of the host country, of gaining recognition of foreign qualifications or of putting their professional experience to profitable use. When these 4

5 immigrants are offered employment, there is not enough information about the standard of living and saving capacity in the countries of destination. Under these circumstances, it is those who failed in fulfilling their migration plans that are most likely to return home. Studies by Yazer and Thurston, (1976); Allen, (1979) reveal that return will be fairly prompt and is more likely to take place if access to information is poor. Similarly, migrants who find it difficult to join labour markets as well as those without easy access to the social security system and health care system will probably not be reluctant to return (Reagan and Oslen, 2000; Jensen and Pedersen, 2007; Nekby; 2006). In the structural approach and unlike the NELM, Gibson & McKenzie (2009) contend that the decision to return is strongly linked to family and lifestyle reasons, rather than the income opportunities in different countries. In addition, the structural approach shows the importance of financial and economic resources brought back to countries of origin in the return decision and the reintegration of migrants. By correlating migrants expectations and contextual circumstances in the home countries; Cerase (1974) analyses Italian returnees from the United States emphasising the complex relationship between their expectations and the social and economic context at home. Cerase (1974) formulates a typology of four types of returnees namely; return of failure, return of conservatism, return of retirement and return of innovation. The conclusion is that this typology of returnees prevails in many countries and constitutes an attempt to show how migrants contexts and situations are pre-requisite in determining whether return was a success or failure. The structural approach has been critiqued for focusing more on how returnees initiatives could favour economic development when faced with local power structures than the migration phenomenon per se. Structuralists tend to limit the experiences of migration of returnees to the mere acquisition of skills; which more often are wasted owing to the structural constraints inherent in origin economies (Dumon, 1996). Furthermore, King (1986) as cited in Murphy (2002:15) notes that returnees initiatives are assessed pessimistically by proponents of structuralism because of the simple focus on the impact and contribution of their businesses in the countries of origin. Murphy (2002:18) goes as far as stating that when structuralists explore the relationship between migration patterns and micro-level shifts in political economy, they neglect the interactions between the micro and macro levels, thus offering a partial vision of return migration. 5

6 In addition to the arguments presented above, King (1986) observes that even the innovative returnee as depicted by Cerase s (1974) typology offers a disillusioned picture of the human and financial potentials of return migrants. In the same vein, the structural separation of migrants countries of origin and destination basing on the core/periphery dichotomy offers little analysis. Murphy (2002) as cited in Cassarino (2004:261) raises concerns that drawing line between the two worlds; in other words, classifying countries of immigration as modern, and countries of origin as traditional is the kind of distinction based on the assumptions that little information and few exchanges exist between these two worlds and that the returnees will never be in a position to mobilise adequate resources and skills needed to face real conditions at home upon their return. Social Network Theory Similar to the transnational approach on return migration, the social network theory views returnees as bearers of tangible and intangible resources. This theory evaluates the impact of those resources on migrants initiative to return (Willems, 2005). Irrespective of the impact of resources on decision to return, Cassarino (2004) postulates that returnees constantly maintain strong linkages with their former places of settlement in other countries. In addition, linkages are not necessarily the result of direct outcome of migrants elements of commonality in attributes, nor dependents on diasporas as claimed by the proponents of transnationalism. Rather, in a network theoretical stance; Coleman (1988) observes that the linkages are a reflection of past experience acquired through migration, or stemmed from patterns of interpersonal relationships. According to Portes (2002), the insights stemming from social network theory allow the theoretical framework to better explore return migration. Social network theory views the migrant as an actor gathering resources needed to secure and prepare to return to the home country. These resources are acquired through the attributes of commonality such as languages, ethnicity, friendship, family ties and other common interests that are available at socio-economic level. Buyd (1989) ascertains that in a network theoretical approach, family bond reflects an experience of migration that may provide a significant adjunct to the returnees initiatives at home. Social structures also increase resources needed to secure return and these stem from patterns of interpersonal 6

7 relationships that are derived from returnees past experiences of migration (Eccles and Nohria, 1992; Wellman and Berkowitz, 1988). The theorists (Gurak and Caser, 1992; Boyd, 1989) articulate how trust and affinity can influence return migration by summarizing the role of social networks in refugees repatriation decision making into affinity and facilitating hypothesises. The affinity hypothesis states that the higher the density of networks of friends, children and family members in the country of asylum, the lower the probability to repatriate. On the other hand, the facilitating hypothesis states that repatriation or return is facilitated when there is close contact with the home country that provide support such as help to find a job and accommodation in the home country as well as supporting integration in the host country (Karooma, 2014:8). Within the social network framework, Wellman and Wortley (1990) as cited in Karooma (2014:8) assert that close proximity to the home country increases the willingness to return. Individuals who regularly visit their home country develop durable relations with their home countries. Furthermore socio-economic cooperation with the home country is likely to become more intensive, strengthening and establishing a sense of security and national pride. Thus, (Willems, 2005; Koser, 1997; Collins, 1996) maintain that the social networks are channels par excellence that enhance trust among migrants or refugees and also provide information perceived to be up date and relevant about socio-economic and political conditions of home country. Transnationalism Portes (1999) and later Cassarino (2004) are of the view that transnationalism constitutes a theoretical and conceptual framework to better understand the strong social and economic links between migrants countries of host and origin, a fact overlooked by the structural approach. Transnational activities are implemented by regular and sustained social contacts over time across national borders. Trans-nationalists base their analysis on the investigation of transnational mobility and transnational identity of migrants. This identity is the result from the combination of migrants 7

8 origins with the identities they acquire in host countries (Cassarino, 2004; ). The trans-nationalists e.g. (Levitt, 2001; Faist, 1999) argue that migrants may develop double identities, rather than merging conflicting identities. Contrary to the structural approach, return does not mean the end of the migration cycle. Rather, returnees prepare their reintegration through periodical and regular visits to their home country and retain links by sending remittances to their families and households. In contrast, unlike the advocates of NELM, return does not constitute the end of the cycle of migration. Faini (1996) adopts the concept of circular migration or serial migration, where the system of social and economic relationships and exchanges facilitates the re-integration of migrants through the conveyance of knowledge, information as well as membership. From the viewpoint of the country of origin, return is only economically beneficial if there are prospects of employment to absorb the flow of labour from returning migrants (Koser, 1997). Conclusion The analysis indicates that the discourse on return migration varies considerably in terms of the determinants or drivers for returning. Theories on how return migration is conceptualised in the literature were examined. In a nutshell, neo-classical theories regard return as a result of an unsuccessful experience in the place of destination while the New Economics of Labour Migration (NELM) theories consider return as caused by a successful experience in the place of destination. On the other hand, the structural theories are more concerned with the social set up at the place of origin, while the social network theory views social links in analysing the opportunities in the place of origin as crucial. Finally, the trans-nationalist school of thought argues that there is a connection between place of origin and place of destination arguing that returnees migrate when there are favourable socio-economic conditions. In one way or the other, the theoretical approaches presented above are important in defining return migration. 8

9 References Allen, J., Information and Subsequent Migration: Further Analysis and Additional Analysis. Southern Economic Journal, 45, pp Bovenkerk, F., The Sociology of Return Migration: A Bibliographic Essay. The Hague: Martinus, Nijhoff. Buyd, M., Family and Personal Networks in International Migration: Recent Development and New Agendas. International Migration Review, 23 (3): pp Callea, S., Different Forms, Reasons and Motivations for Return Migration of Persons who voluntarily decide to return to their countries of origin. International Migration, 24: pp Cassarino, J.P., Theorising Return Migration: The Conceptual Approach to Return Migrants Revisited. International Journal on Multicultural Societies, 6(2): pp Cassarino, J.P., Theorising Return Migration: a revisited conceptual approach to return migration. EUI Working Paper RSCAS, No. 02: pp Cerase, F.P., Expectations and Reality: A Case study of Return Migration from United States to Southern Italy. International Migration Review, 8 (2): pp

10 Coleman, J., Social Capital in the creation of Human Capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94: pp Collins, J., An analysis of the voluntariness in refugee repatriation in Africa. Manitoba: University of Manitoba Press. Constant, A. & Massey, D.S., Return Migration by Germany Guestworkers: Neoclassical versus New Economic Theories. International Migration, 24: pp Da Vanzo, J., Micro-economic Approaches to Studying Migration Decisions. In: De Jong, C.F. & Fawcett, J.T. eds. Migration Decision Making: Multi-disciplinary approaches to Micro level studies in Developed and Developing Countries. New York, Toronto, Paris, Frankfurt: Permagon Press. pp De Jong, C.F. and Fawcett, J.T., Motivations for Migration: An Assessment and a Value Expectancy Research Model. In: De Jong, C.F. and Fawcett, J.T. eds. Migration Decision Making: Multi-disciplinary approaches to Micro level studies in Developed and Developing Countries. New York, Toronto, Sydney, Paris, Frankfurt: Permagon Press. pp Dumon, W., Problems faced by Migrations and their Family Members in Second Generation Migrants: Returning and Re-integration into their countries of origin. International Migration Journal, 24: pp Dustmann, C., Return Migration Wage Differentials and the Optimal Migration Duration. Discussion Paper No 164. Bonn: Institute for the Study of Labour. Eccles, R.G. & Nohria, J., Networks and Organizations: Structures, Forms and Actions. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Faist, T., Transnationalization in international migration: Implication for the Study of Citizenship and Culture. Bremen: Institute for Intercultural and International Studies. Farrell, M; Mahon, M; McDonagh, J., The Rural as a Return Migration Destination. European Countryside, 4(1):pp Gmelch, G Return Migration. Annual Review of Anthropology, 9, pp Gibson, D. & MacKenzie, D., The Microeconomic Determinants of emigration and Return migration of the Best and Brightest: Evidence from the Pacific. CGD Working Paper 173. Washington. D.C: Centre for Global Development. Gurak, D. T. and F. Caces., 'Migration Networks and the Shaping of Migration Systems', in M. M. Kritz, L. L. Lim, and H. Zlotnik (eds.), International Migration Systems: A Global Approach, International Studies in Demography, Oxford: Clarendon Press. Herzog, H.W. & Scholttmann, A.M., Migrant Information, Job Search and the Remigration Decision. Southern Economic Journal, 50: pp

11 Hunter, A., Theory and Practice of Return Migration at Retirement: The Case of Migrant Worker Hostel Residents in France. Population, Space and Place, 17(2): pp IOM., International Organization for Migration: Return Migration Policies and Practices in Europe. Geneva: International Organization for Migration (IOM). Jensen, P. and Pedersen, P.J., To Stay or Not Stay? Out-Migration of Immigrants from Denemark. International Migration Journal, 45: pp Karooma, C., Reluctant to Return? The Primacy of Social Networks in the Repatriation of Rwandan Refugees in Uganda. Oxford University: Refugee studies Centre. King, R (ed)., Return Migration and Regional and Economic Problems. London: Croom Helm. Koser, K., Information and Repatriation: A Case of Mozambican Refugees in Malawi. Journal of Refugee Studies. 10(1): pp Kubat, D., The Politics of Return. International Return Migration in Europe. Proceedings of the First European Conference on International Return Migration, Rome, November New York: Centre for Migration Studies. Lee, S.E., "A Theory of Migration". Demography, Vol. 3, No. 1. University of Pennsylvania: Springer. Levitt, P., Preliminary findings on the forms of transnational community and their implications for immigrant incorporation. Journal of Ethnics and Migration Studies, 37, 2011: pp Murphy, R., How Migrant Labour is changing China? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Nekby, L., The Emigration of Immigrants, Return versus Onward Migration: Evidence from Sweden. Journal of Population Economics, 19: pp Portes, A., The Study of Transnationalism: Pitfalls and Promise of an Emergent Research Field. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 22 (2): pp Portes, A., Introduction: The Debate and Significance of Immigrants Transnationalism. Global Network, 1 (3): pp Reagan, B.P. and Oslen, R.J., You Can GO Home Again: Evidence from Longitudinal Data. Demography, 37: pp Rogers, R., Return Migration in Comparative Perspective. In D. Kubat, ed. Sjaastad, L. A The costs and returns of human migration. Journal of Political 11

12 Economy, 70 (1): pp Stark, O., Migration and Labour. Cambridge: Basil Blackwell. Stark, O. & Galor, O., Migrants savings, the probability of return migration and migrants performance. International Economic Review, 31 (2): pp Stark, O., On the Microeconomics of Return Migration, Occasional Papers, No. 1/1996. Vienna: University of Vienna. ZIIS. Todaro, M.P., A Model of Labor Migration and Urban Unemployment in Less Developed Countries. American Economic Review, 69, pp UNHCR., Finding Durable Solutions for Refugees. Available online at Accessed on 20/04/2015. United Nations., Recommendations on Statistics of International Migration, Revision 1. United Nations publication, Sales No.E.98.XVII.14. Wellman, B. & Berkowitz, S.D., Social Structures: A Network Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wellman, B. & Wortley, S., Different Strokes from Different Folks: Community Ties and Social Support. American Journal of Sociology, 96 (3): pp Willems, R., Coping with Displacement: Social Networking among Urban Refugees in an East African Context in Otaru Ohta & Yntiso D. Gebre. Displacement Risks. Kyoto: Kyoto University Press. Yazer, A.M.G. & Thurston, L., Migration Patterns and Income Changes: Implication for the Human Capital Approach to Migration. Southern Economic Journal, 42: pp Zelinsky, W., The hypothesis of the Mobility Transition. Geographical Review, 61: pp