The post-return situation: Evidence from previous studies

The largest body of empirical research on the post-return situation of asylum seekers, rejected asylum seekers, and undocumented migrants returning voluntarily, both with and without support, investigates whether these post-return situations are ‘sustainable’ (Black et al., 2004; Riiskjaer & Nielsson, 2008;

Thiel & Gillan, 2010) or ‘embedded’ returns (Ruben et al., 2009; Carr, 2014), as reflected in different life domains and measured through both socio-economic indicators and returnees’ subjective perspectives (Black et al., 2004; Davids & Van Houte, 2008; Thiel & Gillan, 2010). These studies, all based on cross-sectional quantitative and qualitative data, sketch a rather negative image: returnees’

primary challenge concerns establishing a material base of living (Pedersen, 2003), a process that often turns out to be difficult. Ruben and colleagues (2009) analysed the situation of 178 returnees in six different countries and concluded that only a few returnees were capable of creating an independent livelihood. A vital factor influencing returnees’ post-return situations is the context of the home country. Poor political, economic, and social infrastructure in the country of origin, lack of access to housing and employment, and feeling unsafe owing to material insecurity and instability complicate the return process (Black et al., 2004; Riiskjaer & Nielsson, 2008; Thiel & Gillan, 2010; Van Houte & De Koning, 2008).

Further, many returnees lack or lose access to local and transnational social ties (Riiskjaer & Nielsson, 2008; Thiel & Gillan, 2010), inhibiting returnees’ ability to create a home and feel accepted, since social networks are indispensable sources of material and emotional support (Pedersen, 2003; Ruben et al., 2009; Thiel &

Gillan, 2010). Yet, Davids and Van Houte (2008) argued that these social networks often only gave emotional support, and that only returnees from privileged socio-economic backgrounds had access to social relations which could help to create a livelihood, such as employment (Pedersen, 2003; Van Houte & De Koning, 2008).

Accordingly, questions arise about returnees’ feelings of belonging to the country of origin; yet here, empirical evidence is less consistent. According to Pedersen (2003), returnees’ primary concerns relate to their material living conditions, and questions of identity and belonging only gain importance once a material base of living is well established. To the contrary, other scholars point to the primary importance of feelings of non-belonging amongst returnees (Riiskjaer & Nielsson, 2008), or, in contrast, indicate that the material hardships returnees are confronted with do not prevent almost two thirds of the respondents from feeling at home after their return (Van Houte & De Koning, 2008).

Although this body of research exposes the substantial and often neglected difficulties faced by returnees, thereby countering the aforementioned

‘home-139 coming approach’, these studies often start from pre-defined domains that seem to be important for a successful return, possibly overlooking what migrants themselves identify as crucial factors impacting their post-return situation. This paper therefore starts from a broad perspective on post-return situations, going beyond externally identified domains to explore post-return processes (Wright, 2012), through shifting the analytic attention to returnees’ self-assessment of their post-return situations and the domains within it that they consider important. Studies have up till now also paid little attention to the dynamic interplay between and evolution within different domains, the way returnees balance them against each other, and the overall evolution of post-return situations. We have therefore executed the first study in which post-return situations have been followed up longitudinally, in order to observe possible dynamic changes and to provide insight into the rich complexity of individuals’

lives (Alcock, 2004).

This research aims to address existing empirical gaps concerning the lived realities of returnees by examining which domains influence returnees’ evaluation of their post-return situation, and, secondly, how this evaluation evolves in a longitudinal perspective. These insights into returnees’ lived realities and experiences may also help towards recognizing their needs better, and thus in developing return support measures that are better adapted to these needs and lived realities (Hammond, 1999; Zimmermann, 2000).

5.2 Methods

5.2.1 Participants

Data were collected through a follow-up of migrants who returned from Belgium to the republics of Armenia and Georgia during the initial two years after their return. We asked all Armenian and Georgian migrants who returned with return and reintegration support from the Belgian assisted voluntary return and reintegration (AVRR) programme within the research period (January 2010 – May 2012)² to participate to the study. Eighty-five ‘returning units’ (representing a single migrant, a couple, or a family) agreed to participate before their departure, of whom we could effectively follow up 65³ over a period of two years, interviewing them within the first year after return and within the second year after return. These 65 return units represent 114 persons (male: n=54; female:

n=34, children (less than 18 years) accompanying their parents: n=23 and adolescents (18 years and over) accompanying their parents: n=8), with an average age of 32.2 years (SD=18.3, range 0.4-72.3) (table 5.1). In the case of families, we interviewed at least one adult member during each interview.

140

We opted for a country-specific approach, given that careful contextualization is needed to make an in-depth exploration of post-return situations (Huttunen, 2010). The study setting, the two neighbouring countries Armenia and Georgia, was chosen because both countries are characterized by a high emigration rate, which has markedly intensified over recent decades (ETF, 2013; Gevorkyan, Marshuryan, & Gevorkyan, 2006; Hofmann & Buckley, 2012). Natural disasters, armed conflicts and the socio-political crisis after the collapse of the Soviet Union led to the departure of many Armenians and Georgians in the late 1990s (Badurashvili, 2004; Gevorkyan et al., 2006; Hofmann & Buckley, 2012). Currently, both countries are still recovering from the hard years following their independence, and a poor socio-economic situation, high poverty levels, unaffordable or unavailable healthcare, and unstable political conditions still form important causes of emigration, mainly to Russia, but because of increasing discriminatory acts against migrants from Caucasus countries in Russia, also to Western Europe and elsewhere (Bakhshinyan, 2014; ETF, 2013; Falkingham, 2005; Ishkanian, 2002; Roman, 2002). For most migrants, migration to Russia is mainly temporary, while migration to Europe is intended to be permanent, with emigrants often taking their families with them (Bakhshinyan, 2014). The majority of the Armenians and Georgians who migrate to Europe ask for asylum, though asylum recognition rates are very low, and most are thus not allowed to stay permanently (Bakhshinyan, 2014; EMN, 2009). Further, the overall number of assisted returns to Armenia from various host countries has been quite stable during the last decade, though the number of migrants returning to Georgia has fluctuated, with a recent peak in 2013 of 1,157 returnees (11^th highest number of AVR returns) (IOM, 2014). In the period from 2000 to 2013, respectively 6,627 (21^st place) and 7,352 (16^th place) migrants returned from various host countries to Armenia and Georgia, quite a high number given their small populations (respectively 2,976,566 and 4,476,900 in 2013 [World Bank, 2014]).

Although generalizations out of this country-specific approach need to be made with care, the results can give insight into post-return processes in other countries, or may act as comparative case studies for return processes in other regions, such as North Africa, the Middle East, and the Balkan region (Black et al., 2004; Bloemraad, 2013; De Bree, Davids, & De Haas, 2010; Huttunen, 2010;

Pedersen, 2003; Riiskjaer & Nielsson, 2008). Without aiming to compare regions in this study, we will present some first impressions about possible differences from other country-specific research.

141 Table 5.1: Profile of the respondents ⁱ

Total number

Time abroad (n=65) (months)^iv 29.4 (38.2; 2-172)

Time in Belgium (n=65) (months)^iv 19.5 (19.9 ; 1- 132)

i Information in this table is based on the 65 ‘returning units’ (persons, couples or families) included in this study; ⁱⁱ Motives for leaving the home country; valid cases N=59; multiple answers possible; 2 respondents gave two motives for migrating; ⁱⁱⁱ Motives for returning to the home country; valid cases N=64; multiple answers possible; 37 respondents gave one motive, 22 gave two motives, 4 three and 1 participant mentioned four motives for returning; ^iv Mean (SD; range).