Demographics and Determinants of Return Migration and Successful Return Migration

which this study sought to describe and explain. These categories also helped in determining the exclusion and inclusion criteria for the selection of the study participants.

C. Demographics and Determinants of Return Migration and Successful

Return Migration

Dummont and Spielvogel (2008) found out the following in their study of return migration of Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries:

1) In OECD countries, about 20% to 50% of immigrants leave in five years after their arrival either to return home or to move to a third country. Canada, United

21

States and New Zealand retain more immigrants and thus, have smaller migrant return rates. It was also ascertained that the longer the migrant stays in the host country, the less likely he is to return home or emigrate in a third country.

2) The return rate does not generally differ much by gender. It was found, however, that the return rates are higher for young migrants than their older counterparts. Higher rates of return are also observed at the extremities of education spectrum, that means, that those with the highest and lowest educational attainment are expected to return home than those at the middle.

3) Return migration is greater between countries of similar levels of development and is lesser between countries of income disparity.

Jaso & Rosenberg (1982), Borjas & Bratsberg (19960) (as cited in Zakharenko, 2008) also had a similar finding in their separate studies: Migrants are more likely to return to geographically proximate and richer countries compared to their host countries. Zakharenko (2008) also found that “the difference in terms of propensity to return between recent immigrants and other immigrants is greater than the difference between men and women, or skilled and unskilled migrants. Assimilation rather than education or gender differentiates decision to return.”

Using the Albanian Household Survey data, Vadean and Piracha (2009) found out that circular migrants tend to be male, have primary education, and come from rural and less developed areas when compared with circular migrants. Anarfi & Jagare (2005) in another study revealed that less skilled migrant returnees are older than their elite counterparts upon return to their home country, especially among females.

22

Migrants with permanent residence permits are free to make the decision to return with few constraints compared with those without permits (Dummont & Spielvogel, 2008). In a study of four Asian countries, Iredale, Rosario and Guo (2003 as cited in Haour-Knipe & Davies, 2008) found out that among other migrants, skilled and those engage in business are reluctant return “unless there is overall development and social transformation” (p.23).

Determinants of return migration. Return migration is determined by micro and

macro factors, individual and structural factors. Koser and Kuschminder (2015) cited the following factors that determine return migration: “(1) structural factors (for example, conditions in the origin country), (2) individual factors (for example, age, gender, and social relations), and (3) policy interventions by destination and origin countries that serve as incentives or disincentives in the context of reintegration” (p. 5). Similarly, Haase and Honerath (2016) identified individual resources and factors (e.g. residence status in country of destination, social and financial capital, etc.), structural factors and possible areas of intervention in both countries of destination (e.g. residence laws, migration and return counseling, diaspora support networks, etc.) and in countries of origin (e.g. reintegration policies, labor market access, etc.) that determine migrants’ willingness to return and readiness to return.

In their study of Turkish immigrants, Senyurekli and Menjivar (2012) claim that micro and macro level factors in both home and host countries interact over time to influence migrants’ decision to return or not to return. In similar vein, Iredale, Rosario and Guo (as cited in Haour-Knipe & Davies, 2008) stated that the “decisions to return home are made in response to careful weighing up of personal factors, career related prospects and economic, political and environmental climate” (p. 12). They added that personal factors which includes “family factors maybe more important when successful integration has not occurred in the host country and when the emphasis on extended families and national pride is still very strong” (p.12).

23

Micro and structural factors of return. King (2000 as cited in Haour-Knipe &

Davies, 2008) categorizes the causes of return migration into four, namely economic, social, family life cycle, and political factors. Economic factors for return involve push factors in the host country like economic downturn or pull factors from the country of origin, such as economic development. Social reasons for returning to home country include factors like racism or difficulty in integrating in the host country. Pull factors include homesickness and the probability of an enhanced status when one comes home. Family or life cycle factors, according to King, may include reasons like retiring, finding a spouse, and having one’s children educated in one’s own country. Political factors involve restrictions enforced by the host country (e.g. non-renewal of permits) or pull factors from home country (e.g. policies that encourage return).

King (2000, as cited in Haour-Knipe & Davies, 2008) concludes in his review of various studies that “pull factors generally have more influence in the decision to return than push factors, and that non-economic factors generally weigh more heavily than do economic factors” (p. 9). King noted that this is the exact opposite of the original decision to migrate, which is often strongly determined by economic motives, at least at the micro level. At the macro level, several studies point to unfavorable economic conditions like recession in the immigration country as the key to episodes of mass return.

Individual motives and reasons of return. Thomas-Hope’s study of migrants

returning to Jamaica (as cited in Haour-Knipe & Davies, 2008) cites two sets of reasons of return: 1) personal and domestic circumstances of individual and his or her family (e.g. age and stage in career and household life cycle) and 2) migrant’s perception of the conditions in the country of origin (e. g. cost of living, opportunity for investment, political stability).

Dummont and Spielvogel (2008) cited three main reasons that explain return migration: 1) migrants’ failure to integrate into the host country; 2) individuals’ preferences for their home country; 3) achievement of savings goal or

24

presence of employment opportunities in the home country. They further argued that there is a connection between migration, savings, return, and investment.

Reviewing studies of return migration to different countries of origin, Gmelch (1980) pointed out the following most cited reasons by migrant returnees: “1) desire to be in the company of one’s family and friends; 2) feelings of loyalty and allegiance to country of origin; and 3) painful experiences of racial discrimination in the host countries” (pp. 139-140).

Residency status of migrants in the host countries also affects the decision to return. Klinthäll (2006) pointed out that constraints imposed on different migrants vary and affect their decision to return: (1) migrants with permanent residency status, (2) migrants with temporary residency status (3) refugees granted with unlimited residency, and (4) migrants under temporary protection for humanitarian considerations.

Tsuda (2009 as cited in Konuruglu, van de Vijver and Yagmur, 2016) examined why millions of migrants returned to Japan and found out that although economic motives were the primary return motive, ethnic ties and emotional reasons were important considerations in migrants’ return decision. “Migrants’ self-identification as well as the perception of the ‘homeland’ are taken to influence their return decision” (Cassarino, 2004 as cited in Konuruglu, van de Vijver and Yagmur, 2016, p. 9). Konuruglu, van de Vijver and Yagmur (2016) cited several studies that found that unfavorable conditions in host countries like negative attitudes towards migrants, perceived discrimination and racism affect migrants’ sense of belonging in their host countries and thus, push them to return home.