Return Migration
Definition: Return migration is the return of migrants to their country of origin –
sometimes as fulfilment of original intentions, sometimes as a consequence of revised
intentions. It has much in common with “outward” migration.
On reflection, it is no great surprise that significant numbers of migrants choose not to
remain in the destination country, though it has received less attention than “outward”
migration. That latter issue is partly one of data limitations (Khoser 2000): many destination
countries do not record departures, and origin countries often do not treat the entry of their
own citizens as “immigration”. To the extent that research is meant to help us overcome
misconceptions arising from “common sense” ideas, the research we do have about return
migration shows that there is a great deal we can learn. Many of the interesting issues have
to do with the notion that return migration is a simple matter of returning “home”: many
returning migrants find that matters are a great deal more complicated than the idea of
“home” would imply. Other key topics include the relation between return and
development, and the specific challenges faced by returning refugees.
An important argument about migration generally is that flows take place in “migration
systems” that connect countries and regions; Morawska (1991) observes that migration
systems can facilitate not just outward migration but return as well. In an era of
transnationalism, with cheaper and faster transportation, return migration is common.
Even in earlier periods, return migration was more common than is often realized: roughly
one-fourth of the 16 million European immigrants who arrived in the USA in the early 20 th
century returned (Gmelch 1980). For the contemporary period, Dustmann and Weiss (2007)
estimate that more than half of immigrants to the UK return within five years of arrival, with
higher rates for those originating from other wealthy countries; return is more likely among
those who arrive when they are older (Dustman et al. 1996). Trends of return at present
have likely been affected by the global economic crisis that has reduced employment levels
in most wealthy countries, with disproportionate impact on jobs held by immigrants. On
the other hand, increasing scholarly attention to return in recent years probably arises as
much from the popularity of the transnationalism perspective as from any actual increase in
return.
A variety of typologies are available to summarize the different modes of return migration.
An oft-cited one is that of Cerase (1974): return migration is characterized here as
retirement, failure, conservatism, or innovation. The first two are self-explanatory, while
“conservatism” indicates return by someone who never even tried to integrate thoroughly
in the destination country and returns without having been much affected by the migration
experience. “Innovation” denotes a migrant who did absorb some of the values and
practices of the destination country and returns intending to catalyze changes at “home”
using what he or she has learned while away (an intention Cerase says is typically
frustrated). A more straightforward approach is found in Piore (1979), who distinguishes
between different types of success and failure. Migrants often arrive with the intention to
return after having met a goal (again, usually financial e.g. accumulation of savings), and
return can then be an indication of success. In other instances migrants intend their move
to be permanent, but economic hardships in the destination lead to return as a matter of
failure. The complication in this scheme is that intentions can change after arrival: people
who intended to remain permanently might decide to return even in the absence of
hardship (while someone who intended only a temporary sojourn can find that
accumulation of savings is much more difficult than they had expected and then postpone
return, perhaps indefinitely).
In some destination countries governments have not been content to treat return as a
wholly voluntary matter for the migrants themselves. In democratic countries where
deportation was typically not an available policy option, some governments (e.g. in France
and Germany in the 1970s and 1980s) offered financial incentives and other forms of
assistance, hoping to persuade immigrants (especially those who were unemployed) to
depart. These programmes were generally not very successful: there were fewer takers
than anticipated, and some of those who took the incentives likely would have returned
even without them (Rogers 1997). King (2000) writes that decisions about return often have
more to do with family or other non-economic considerations, in contrast to the economic
basis of outward migration decisions. Other forms of government policy are rife with
unintended consequences related to return: American efforts to reinforce borders against
unauthorized crossing in recent years are widely acknowledged to have reduced the
likelihood of return among undocumented Mexican immigrants, who fear that if they leave
they will find it more difficult to gain re-entry to the US (e.g. Massey et al. 2003).
A central area of concern is what migrants experience after return to their country of origin.
Many returning migrants invest a great deal of hope and optimism in return, in no small
measure because of the notion that they are going home. The word “home”, however, can
be misleading, particularly when one has lived abroad for an extended period. Sometimes
returnees fail to anticipate how much “home” has changed (or alternately are frustrated at
how little it has changed, viz. Boccagni 2011). They might also fail to perceive how much
they themselves have changed and find it difficult to connect with old friends and family.
For outward migration, one perhaps expects loneliness and other challenges of adaptation –
but “returning home” can be all the more difficult for the way one expects it to be easier
than it is, as with the returning Israelis studied by Tannenbaum (2007). Boccagni (2011)
found a significant level of misunderstanding and mistrust between returnees and stayers in
Ecuador, and some disappointed returnees (unhappy with their economic situation as well)
ended up migrating outwards again. Return need not be the end of a migration cycle; in
some cases it is a stage in “circular migration” (Cassarino 2004).
Such experiences raise questions about the meaning of migration and return in a world of
nation-states. In a conventional understanding, migration creates an anomaly: someone
attempts to gain membership in a different society, and that process entails a difficult
transformation from “foreigner” to “national”. At least in highly ethno-nationalist contexts,
that transformation can be difficult to the point that it is never complete: even with
naturalization, an immigrant might always be perceived as (even perceive him- or herself to
be) a foreigner. An immigrant who experiences discomfort in this situation might decide to
try to resolve the anomaly by returning to the place where one’s nationality indicates that
“this is home”; Boccagni suggests that some migrants think of return as “a restoration of the
natural order of things” (2011: 11). The research noted in the previous paragraph suggests
that there might be limits on the effectiveness of this resolution: by virtue of living abroad
for an extended period, a migrant arguably becomes, to a certain extent, a foreigner with
respect to his country of origin. For some migrants, return is not difficult in these terms:
they meet their goals and generally find satisfaction in return. But for others, return raises
the possibility that “you can’t go home again”. In this perspective, return is not the reverse
of outward migration; instead, it shares some essential features with outward migration (cf.
Lee 2009).
Some researchers apply the notion of “return” to the migration of immigrants’ children (and
subsequent generations) when they move to their parents’ country of origin. Often the
word return is enclosed in quotation marks (as with King and Christou [2010], writing about
“second-generation ‘returnees’”), indicating the challenges of applying it to the migration of
those who did not themselves originate in the country in question. In such instances the
word “home” is even more ambiguous: such migrants can experience significant uncertainty
as to where they really belong (King et al. 2011). Different contexts contribute to different
outcomes for “counter-diasporic migration”: Jewish immigrants in Israel (whose families
have lived elsewhere for many generations) can become Israelis with relative ease in a
context of shared religious/ethnic identity and sustained large-scale immigration. Brazilian
descendants of Japanese emigrants, on the other hand, typically remain “Brazilians” as
Nikkeijin (immigrants of Japanese ancestry) in Japan, given persistent disparities of language
and culture (Tsuda 2003).
Research on return migration also considers its implications for development in the country
of origin. In an older perspective rooted in neo-classical economics, return migration was
expected to catalyze development insofar as migrants returned with useful skills and
experience acquired in a developed (“modern”) country. Many scholars have long been
sceptical of this claim, noting that migrant workers were often employed in unskilled jobs in
the destination and sometimes experienced downward occupational mobility via migration;
they might even have been skilled workers prior to emigration, such that their departure
was a loss for the local economy. Other research has produced more optimistic results:
Conway and Potter (2007) find that migrants (even those at or near retirement age) often
return with relevant human capital that contributes to the local economy. Ammassari
(2004) reached a similar conclusion about élite migrants who returned to West African
countries and used connections developed while abroad to support their entrepreneurial
efforts. In some instances, governments in sending countries encourage emigration with
the expectation of eventual return; migration can even be part of a diaspora-building
strategy, with governments and other actors encouraging development of transnational ties
among emigrants and their descendants, with these links perhaps leading to various types
of remittances.
The return of refugees and asylum seekers might require a different analytical focus. Return
in such cases could be considered more unambiguously attractive (assuming the threat
leading to their flight has passed), given that refugees didn’t want to leave in the first place.
As with other types of migrants, however, it would be unwise to expect return to be a
restoration of the status quo ante. Situations for returned refugees might no longer be
dangerous, but they can still be very difficult – as discovered by Blitz (2005) in research on
the return of Serbian minorities to eastern Croatia in the 1990s and 2000s, who
encountered state discrimination as well as displacement by Bosnian Croats, themselves
refugees from Bosnia. For failed asylum seekers, “return” (e.g. deportation) might take
place while the origin country is still dangerous – though some destination countries
attempt to coordinate return with origin countries in hopes of reducing the likelihood that
the migrants will try to gain entry again (Khoser 2001).
See also: Transnationalism; Circular migration
(King, Christou, and Ahrens 2011) (Cassarino 2004) (Cerase 1974) (Boccagni 2011) (Conway and
Potter 2007) (Blitz 2005) (Dustmann, Bentolila, and Faini 1996) (Gmelch 1980) (Ammassari 2004)
(Dustmann and Weiss 2007) (Khoser 2000) (Khoser 2001) (King 2000) (King and Christou 2010) (Lee
2009) (Morawska 1991) (Rogers 1997) (Tsuda 2003) (Tannenbaum 2007) (Piore 1979) (Massey,
Durand, and Malone 2003)
References
Ammassari, Savina (2004) 'From nation-building to entrepreneurship: the impact of élite return
migrants in Côte d'Ivoire and Ghana', Population, Space and Place 10: 133-54.
Blitz, Brad K. (2005) 'Refugee Returns, Civic Differentiation, and Minority Rights in Croatia 1991–
2004', Journal of Refugee Studies 18: 362-86.
Boccagni, Paolo (2011) 'The framing of return from above and below in Ecuadorian migration: a
project, a myth, or a political device?', Global Networks forthcoming.
Cassarino, Jean-Pierre (2004) 'Theorising Return Migration: the Conceptual Approach to Return
Migrants Revisited', IJMS: International Journal on Multicultural Societies 6: 253-79.
Cerase, Francesco P. (1974) 'Expectations and Reality: A Case Study of Return Migration from the
United States to Southern Italy', International Migration Review 8: 245-62.
Conway, Dennis and Potter, Robert B. (2007) 'Caribbean Transnational Return Migrants as Agents of
Change', Geography Compass 1: 25-45.
Dustmann, Christian, Bentolila, Samuel and Faini, Riccardo (1996) 'Return Migration: The European
Experience', Economic Policy 11: 213-50.
Dustmann, Christian and Weiss, Yoram (2007) 'Return Migration: Theory and Empirical Evidence
from the UK', British Journal of Industrial Relations 45: 236-56.
Gmelch, George (1980) 'Return Migration', Annual Review of Anthropology 9: 135-59.
Khoser, Khalid (2000) 'Return, readmission and reintegration: changing agendas, policy frameworks
and operational programmes', in Bimal Ghosh (ed.), Return Migration: Journey of Hope or
Despair?, Geneva: International Organization for Migration, pp. 57-99.
Khoser, Khalid (2001) The Return and Reintegration of Rejected Asylum Seekers and Irregular
Migrants, Geneva: International Organization for Migration.
King, Russell (2000) 'Generalizations from the History of Return Migration', in Bimal Ghosh (ed.),
Return Migration: Journey of Hope or Despair?, Geneva: International Organization for
Migration, pp. 7-55.
King, Russell and Christou, Anastasia (2010) 'Cultural geographies of counter-diasporic migration:
perspectives from the study of second-generation ‘returnees’ to Greece', Population, Space
and Place 16: 103-19.
King, Russell, Christou, Anastasia and Ahrens, Jill (2011) '‘Diverse Mobilities’: Second-Generation
Greek-Germans Engage with the Homeland as Children and as Adults', Mobilities 6: 483-501.
Lee, Helen (2009) 'The ambivalence of return: second-generation Tongan returnees', in Dennis
Conway and Robert B. Potter (eds), Return Migration of the Next Generations: 21st Century
Transnational Mobility, Farnham: Ashgate Publishing, pp. 41-58.
Massey, D. S., Durand, J. and Malone, N. J. (2003) Beyond smoke and mirrors: Mexican immigration
in an era of economic integration: Russell Sage Foundation.
Morawska, Ewa (1991) 'Return migrations: theoretical and research agenda', in Rudolph Vecoli and
Suzanne M. Sinke (eds), A Century of European Migrations, 1830 -- 1930, Urbana: University
of Illinois Press, pp. 277-92.
Piore, Michael J. (1979) Birds of passage: migrant labor and industrial societies, Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Rogers, Rosemary (1997) 'Migration return policies and countries of origin', in Kay Hailbronner,
David A. Martin and Hiroshi Motomura (eds), Immigration Admissions: The Search for
Workable Policies in Germany and the United States, New York: Berghahn Books, pp. 147204.
Tannenbaum, Michal (2007) 'Back and Forth: Immigrants' Stories of Migration and Return',
International Migration 45: 147-75.
Tsuda, Takeyuki (2003) Strangers in the Ethnic Homeland: Japanese Brazilian Return Migration in
Transnational Perspective, New York: Columbia University Press.