Chapter II. Review of Literature
D. Successful Return Migration and Reintegration
The concepts of successful return and reintegration. Successful return migration can be equated to Anarfi & Jagare’s (2005) concept of sustainable
25
return. For them, sustainable return which means the absence of re-migration entails the migrant’s attainment of socioeconomic success and the guarantee of returnee’s rights to public and social services and freedom of movement. Reintegration is viewed by some scholars as synonymous to successful return and is defined as “…a process by which migrants after their return from overseas employment resettle themselves into the social and economic structure of their countries of origin” (Amjad, 1989, Canal, 1992 & Shah, 1994 as cited in Arif, 1998, p.100). Haour-Knipe & Davies (2008) echoing Said (1999) stated that there is no uncomplicated return to one’s home country because communities of origin have changed and so have the returnees’ attitudes and actions. Hence, return always entail readjustments. Returnees must reintegrate into their own country of origin. “Return migrants attach new meanings to culture, identity home and place in their country of origin... return migration is thus best understood as a new phase in which belonging to “a place and community has to be renegotiated” (Hammond, 1999 as cited in de Bree, Davids & de Haas, 2010). Returnees who can reconcile “public social (local) expectations and private (transnational) spheres” are most likely to be successful upon return (de Bree, Davids, & de Haas, 2010). They added that besides the current practices of migrant returnees, their past practices in their host country are to be accounted in understanding their demeanor and behavior upon return. They claim that these past social and economic practices affect post-return belonging and can ease reintegration.
On the other hand, some scholars view return migration and reintegration as two distinct yet interrelated concepts. Return migration is described as a “situation where the migrants return to their country of origin, by their own will, after a significant period abroad” (Dustmann & Weiss, 2007, p. 238).
Reintegration is viewed by some scholars as more than return. it includes assimilation to home country’s culture, politics and social life. It also includes what the migrant does and what society does in re-integrating. Kushminder
26
and the returnees’ reintegration strategy. By structural environment of return, she meant the home societies attitudes toward the returnees and their openness to the cultural diversity that returnees may bring with them upon return. The structural environment includes government policies and citizens’ perspectives towards returnees. Kushminder said that “…much like integration, return migrants must go through a process of reintegration, and how they reintegrate will be dependent upon their experiences and choices. Agency and the life cycle of the migrant are critical elements in determining the returnees’ reintegration strategy. Networks have a critical role in this process as they provide access to resources and information regarding return and reintegration” (p. 33).
As far as this study is concerned, successful return and reintegration are used synonymously. Following the logic of transcendental phenomenology, this study offered no conceptual definition at the start because the conceptions of successful return migration must be derived from the lived experiences of successful migrants. No a priori conceptual definition of successful return migration was necessary.
The study could possibly end up touching on concepts of successful return migration and reintegration as enunciated by scholars or it may not. It all depends on whether the participants’ own conception and experiences would end up similar or different to what has been conceived in the literature as far as the concepts of return migration and reintegration are concerned. In this study, return migration and reintegration were loosely used to refer to experiences of “pagbabalik sa Pilipinas” (return to the Philippines) and “nag-
for good na” (returned to permanently stay in the Philippines), terms that
migrant returnees use to refer to their coming home and permanently staying in the Philippines. This is in keeping with the dictum of phenomenological research that it is the people who have lived the phenomenon who would be
27
in the best position to define, put meaning and characterize their experiences surrounding the phenomenon.
Factors of successful return migration/reintegration. Cassarino (2014) argued
that migrants’ decision to return also depend on their return preparedness which in turn is determined by migrants’ willingness and readiness to return. “Willingness refers to the act of deciding to return, on one’s own initiative, and in the absence of any external pressure… Naturally, an individual will have to weigh up the costs and benefits of their decision to return…Willingness refers to whether one considers that the time is right to return” (p. 3). He defined readiness as “the extent to which migrants have been able to mobilize the adequate tangible (that is financial capital) and intangible resources (that is contacts, relationships, skills, networks) needed to secure their return, be it temporary or permanent” (p.4).
Migrants’ intention and decision to return to their home countries are heavily influenced whether their expectations about their countries are met or not (Cassarino, 2004 as cited by Debnath, 2016). Gmelch (1980 as cited in Debnath, 2016) finds migrants ill-prepared for return because situational factors can only be evaluated after return. If the social, economic or political conditions of the home country is not consistent with the expectations of the returnee, the reintegration becomes difficult. Debnath (2016) observed that “…several countries of origin have made significant efforts to encourage their highly skilled migrants to return. These efforts include offering a range of financial and social incentives to help with the overall reintegration process. Some of these governments have also established dedicated agencies or ministries, research hubs and centers, and virtual databases and networks to connect potential returnees with opportunities in the countries of origin” (p. 10).
28