See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/307858049

Opportunities and challenges of return migration

Chapter · January 2016

CITATIONS READS
4 2,542

1 author:

Uma A. Segal
University of Missouri - St. Louis
80 PUBLICATIONS 984 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Uma A. Segal on 31 January 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

In: Migrant Workers ISBN: 978-1-63485-301-9
Editors: Qingwen Xu and Lucy P. Jordan © 2016 Nova Science Publishers, Inc

Chapter 11

OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES

OF RETURN MIGRATION

Uma A. Segal 1

School of Social Work, University of Missouri, St. Louis, US

ABSTRACT
Much literature explores the reasons for immigration, but data on the return of
expatriates, particularly those in their pre-retirement years, it is still lacking. Census
figures in the Global North reveal consistently dropping birth rates and increasing
longevity, resulting in gaps in the labor force and concerns about perpetuation of society
and culture. While the Global South has a burgeoning population, its “Brain Drain” is
particularly troubling as countries lose several from their skilled workforce with a
resulting mentorship gap for the next generation. The return of emigres can help alleviate
significant issues facing several nations and can be beneficial to some emigres who are
unable to find positions commensurate with their qualifications which is known as a
“Brain Waste.” An increasing pool of working-age migrants return to their countries of
origin, and “circular migration” is rising with the ease of transportation and globalization.
Some, among these migrants choose to return “home” permanently, and while the home
country may greatly benefit from the return of these expatriates, their return is not always
smooth. The skills learned abroad may be inapplicable in the homeland, returnees may
have difficulty reintegrating, and their offspring may struggle with adaptation and
acculturation. This chapter explores this relatively new phenomenon of return migration
and suggests that “home” nations must recognize returnees as a potential asset and
develop effective policies, programs, and services to assist this unique group of migrant
workers reestablish themselves, allowing maximal use of their human capital.


Corresponding Author: Uma A. Segal, School of Social Work, University of Missouri–St. Louis, 1 University
Blvd. 121 Bellerive Hall, St. Louis, MO 63121-4400, USA. Email: [email protected].
1
Study of return migration has been funded in part by International Studies and Programs, University of Missouri –
St. Louis, US
172 Uma A. Segal

INTRODUCTION
Several extant theories aim to explain the phenomenon of international migration, and
despite their significance in helping understandings of the process, increasing globalization,
growing interdependence, evolving perceptions, and acceptance of ethnic communities
suggest that existing theories may now be lacking. It is clear migrants leave their homelands
for another in the face of at least one, if not all, of the following reasons: (1) in search of
better living conditions, (2) to escape political or ethnic conflict, and (3) to avail themselves
of opportunities in new free trade areas (Castles & Miller, 2009); but transnationalism, and
preference for movement between countries as work and other opportunities become
available, is on the rise. Regardless of theoretical perspectives and the myriad reasons
provided for emigration, at the human level, the overarching cause for international migration
is the strong belief that life in the new country will offer greater benefits, at least in the long
run, than will life in the homeland.
Data on human migration indicate that movements from the Global South to the Global
North, and between countries of the Global South are substantial, while migration from North
to South is limited (International Organization for Migration [IOM], 2015). Census figures in
several countries of the Global North continue to reveal dropping birth rates and increasing
longevity, resulting in gaps in the labor force and concerns about perpetuation of society and
culture. Numerous countries of the Global South indicate concerns about the “brain drain”
they experience as talent (i.e., skilled workers) moves to more developed countries to
maximize personal opportunities for growth and success. The flight of talent frequently
includes the exit of several people who could potentially train subsequent generations; the
brain drain has an even longer lasting effect on the sending nation with the loss of mentors.
The most immediate and practical resolution to address labor force gaps in the North and
talent loss in the South is through increased and targeted immigration, nevertheless, most
nations have long been wary of foreigners, and particularly those from societies socially,
economically, and culturally different from them. This is particularly evident currently, in
April 2016, as thousands of Syrian refugees and many other Middle Eastern migrants and
refugees continue to attempt entry into the European Union (EU) raising issues about
implications for EU countries as well as for immigrants. Migration to developing countries
from the North is not generally regarded as an opportunity by those who live in the latter, and
talent flows less frequently in this direction. Concerns of cultural contamination, changing
social identities, and resource allocations are shaking the very foundations of several EU
countries with the arrival of Middle Easterners, however, developing nations are also highly
suspicious of Western influences and the “Americanization” of the world.
A large proportion of emigrants expect that, eventually, when they have achieved their
goals, whether these are educational, economic or otherwise, they will return to their
homelands and all they left with emigration (Segal & Heck, 2012). However, it is evident that
the longer these individuals remain in the host country, the more acclimatized they become to
its culture and lifestyle, and the more distant becomes the reality of returning to the place of
nativity. The desire, though still mentioned by migrants, is rarely followed by action, and
what remains is the “return illusion” (Hoffmann-Nowtny, 1978). This is believed to be a
 Opportunities and Challenges of Return Migration 173

common and inevitable part of the migration process, as indicated in a seminal collection of
essays on return migration (King, 1986). Hugo (2003) penned the oft repeated truism that,
“there is nothing so permanent as a temporary migrant” (p. 22), yet it is also evident that
some migrants do return home, but few countries recognize that reintegration can be difficult
or have programs to address related issues (International Labour Organization [ILO], 2010).
Return migration is defined by the IOM (2015) as “The movement of a person returning
to his/her country of origin or habitual residence, usually after at least one year in another
country. The return may or may not be voluntary” (p. 199). Much literature explores the
reasons why people emigrate, but limited empirical research focus has been placed on the
return of these expatriates (ILO, 2010), particularly those in their working pre-retirement
years. Although literature suggests that a large proportion of labor migrants, both skilled and
unskilled, anticipate returning home after a period of time or when goals have been attained
(Klinthäll, 2006), the vast majority of migrants gradually establishes roots and return
migration is continuously postponed. Expatriates may provide a viable pool of individuals
who can fill labor or talent shortages and may have a fundamental interest to return to the
land of their birth. International migrants tend to maintain cultural, economic, and emotional
ties to their homelands (ILO, 2010) and increasing globalization and social media permit
strong connections with international networks. Since identity is often linked with phenotype
and when there is a marked visible difference between immigrant and host, affiliation with
parental culture may be especially strong. Identity into successive generations is shaped by an
emotional allegiance to the ancestral country of origin, and with increasing ease in
transnational travel “ethnic homecomings” of later generations are not uncommon
(Markowitz & Stefansson, 2004; Münz & Ohliger, 2003).
As migrants return to their homelands, it is just as essential that they be prepared to return
as it was for them to be prepared to emigrate. The ability to mobilize both human and social
resources once they have returned to the homeland is a major ingredient in their reintegration
(Cassarino, 2004). This chapter discusses migration among working-age individuals who
return to their countries of origin, their experience of reintegrating after several years or
decades of absence, and the implications for the labor force and communities in their
homelands. The chapter also attempts to assess whether there exist any policies, programs,
and services to assist this unique group of migrant workers as they reestablish themselves in
their ancestral homelands.

RETURN MIGRATION
The implications of migration are substantial for migrants and their families as well as for
sending, transit, and receiving countries. Most literature on migration has focused on the
experience of the entering immigrant and/or refugee, the process of adaptation in the host
country, and social and economic implications for both the migrant and the receiving nation.
Generally adults who migrate are of working age, and their entry into a new country has been
found to meet unmet labor force needs. Further, it is clear that, overall, even if in the initial
years some are a drain on governmental, educational, health and other resources, over time,
they contribute substantially to the economy of the country to which they migrate. Most
migrants move to better their opportunities and lives, not to be dependent. Even if they gain
174 Uma A. Segal

financially with the move, they give up too much, personally, socially, culturally and in a
number of other ways, to make the transition to another land only to rely on governmental
handouts. Contrary to Emma Lazarus’ famous poem on the Statue of Liberty, those who are
the most tired, hungry, and poor among the teaming masses do not have the personal strength
and resilience and are intrinsically too needy to have the courage to migrate.
Not all who migrate, even in search of better opportunities, stay permanently outside their
birthplace, but few researchers have sought to study their experiences. Data on the return of
migrants to their homelands, continues to be sparse (ILO, 2010), although there is a growing
body of theoretical and conceptual knowledge about the subject. Indicators are that with
transnational movements, some migrants do choose to return “home” permanently and
include those who (1) find that they prefer to raise children in the homeland with their own
ancestral values and culture, (2) return because the homelands are now more economically
and politically stable, (3) have fulfilled their several-year contracts in host nations, and (4)
must return because there are no longer available jobs in the host country. Others are returned
involuntarily, as deported individuals unauthorized to remain in the host country, or as
repatriated refugees, who are returned to the native places that are no longer deemed
dangerous. While the home country may greatly benefit from the return of these expatriates,
their return is not always smooth. The skills learned abroad may be inapplicable in the
homeland, individuals may no longer be socially and politically aligned with their ancestral
nation and find it difficult to reintegrate, and their offspring may have issues of adaptation
and acculturation.
The contribution that return migrants make to their home country depends much on the
circumstances under which they return and the resources with which they return. Larger scale
return migration only occurs when the economic and political conditions in the homeland
become attractive, or are more attractive than those in the destination country. The ILO
(2010) reports that this occurred in the latter part of the 20th Century and first decade of the
21st Century, for example, when ethnic Russians who had been forced out of the former
Soviet Union returned to the Russian Federation; Italians returned to Northern Italy from
Germany; and Ireland was able to attract back its skilled expatriates. When there were
expectations of the economic boom in the BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India, and China) countries,
their respective Diasporas returned and also made substantial investments. In recent years,
the flow from the U.S. to Mexico has been larger than the flow into the U.S. A recent Pew
Research Center report on indicates that between 2009 and 2014, in the U.S., there was a net
loss of 140,000 Mexican migrants, and the primary reason given was for family reunification
(Gonzalez-Barrera, 2015).
In their theoretical and empirical analysis of the behavior of returning migrants, Borjas
and Bratsberg (1996) indicated that people tend to return to rich, rather than poor, countries,
and they are more likely to return to countries that are in close proximity. Hence, of the
Mexicans and Chinese in the U.S., the former are more likely to return to Mexico than are the
latter to China. However, with changes in transnational travel and communications, perhaps
proximity will no longer be as significant a factor as it has been heretofore. Borjas and
Bratsberg (1996) develop a “Skill Sorting” model that proposes that people move because of
their skills and return because they either have achieved their goals or failed to appropriately
predict the likelihood of success. This model, they believe, predicts population flow in terms
of size and skill level. Thus, if the migrants selected to leave a country are highly skilled,
those who will return will be those who are less skilled; when less skilled migrants leave
 Opportunities and Challenges of Return Migration 175

because they have better opportunities abroad, it is more likely that the returnees will be those
who are the more skilled and they will utilize their accumulated resources and skills in the
homeland. This model received empirical support by Rooth and Saarela (2007), but Bijwaard
and Wahba (2014), who also sought to test this perspective, found that the migration pattern
is U-shaped as did Nekby (2006). Those who have the lowest incomes are the most likely to
return, but those with the highest will also return more frequently than will those at middle
income levels. The tendency to return, however, declines after about six years (Bijwaard &
Wahba, 2014). Assets in the home country also influence return, and those with significant
assets, even if they have good host country incomes, are more likely to return than are those
without assets in the homeland. Dustmann (2003) suggests that there are some correlations
between duration of the migration and the desire to return and that migrants select to return
when their income levels get high, while Constant and Massey (2006) found no correlation
between earnings and return, although individuals who were unemployed were more likely to
return. Although most studies tend to look at economic reasons for movement, there are
several others, such as family relationships, interests, and other non-monetary/financial
considerations that underlie people’s decisions to return. These are more difficult to measure.
Qualitative research on migrant intention to return reveals that responses will change
depending on when the study is conducted as circumstances in a migrant’s life change over
time and so do their intentions (Klinthäll, 2006).
In addition, the timing of return is crucial, as this has implications for the resources an
individual may have accumulated in the host country (King, 2000, Vertovec, 2007). If
migrants have been in the host country long enough to accumulate the competencies and
skills as well as build social and professional networks, they are able to carry significant
resources to the homeland that will stand them in good stead as they reestablish themselves
and reintegrate. If they do not spend a sufficient length of time abroad and are not able to
augment their professional and personal resources, they have little to offer the home country.
To be a “sustainable return,” migrants should be away long enough to acquire these resources
and return to the homeland before their retirement years so that they are able to optimize the
use of their human, social, and economic capital in their home countries (ILO 2010).

HOME COUNTRY’S RESPONSIBILITY

If sustainable return is of benefit to the home country, it is surprising that nations have
not developed policies and programs to recruit their expatriates. The globalization of several
professional and social opportunities has seen the increase in mobility of technological,
research, and scientific skill; however, the recruitment of the Diasporas has received minimal
attention. The return of migrants can be essential for a country’s balanced growth and
development for skill transfer as well as access to international professional networks for
research and education in the home country (Gill, 2005). Once expatriate researchers and
scientists become ensconced in the host country, they can unconsciously alienate themselves
from their own lands and the opportunities they can provide in moving those countries
forward (Gill, 2005), hence home countries may need to develop opportunities to attract them
back. Likewise, given the literature that indicates that among the returnees are several who
are not able to accumulate resources or establish themselves in the destination country, their
176 Uma A. Segal

native countries should be prepared to receive them and help them reintegrate. This may
require the development of policies and social service and health care programs to increase
employment, address health needs, and assist in cultural and social adaptation. It may also
require reinstituting access to the services they were once entitled. For example, the return of
the Irish has been fairly dramatic, even in the face of Ireland’s economic downturn
(McGreevy, 2013), yet several do not have access to governmental services, although they
have retained their Irish citizenship. They have also had to take the “habitual residency test”
to indicate that they are back permanently and should be allowed to vote and access services
(IrishEcho, 2015), but the government is now taking this into consideration to ensure their
reintegration (Deenihan, 2014).
Several theories of return migration have gradually emerged, although empirical data on
the phenomenon is sparse. Among those is Cerase’s (1974) article that assesses Italian
returnees from the U.S. He categorized four types of return: (1) return of failure (those who
fail to integrate), (2) return of conservatism (those who plan on returning with the resources to
purchase land and maintain the existing culture of their homelands), (2) return of retirement
(those who select to spend their old age in their native land), and (4) return of innovation
(those who plan on using all the tangible and intangible resources they have accumulated to
enhance personal, social, and community experiences at home). Regardless of reasons for
return, migrants must navigate certain domains. This is necessary, in fact, whether individuals
are emigrating or returning, although the process and trajectory may differ. Among these are
the establishment of their identities, addressing economic or occupational issues, and
assessing health and health care access. Although in instances of repatriation and deportation,
the state has a hand, overall, return migration is a phenomenon that is initiated by the migrant,
without the involvement of macro level decision makers.

SOCIAL IDENTITY OF RETURNED MIGRANTS

As emigrants plan for their return to their origins, they frequently fail to realize that they
have been inexorably changed by the immigrant experience. They may retain several of the
norms of their own cultures, yet they have acquired new perceptions and realities from the
host country, and have woven these separate realities into a workable whole. Hence,
frequently the culture with which they are most comfortable is a one of “fusion” that
integrates their bicultural, or multicultural, experiences. Although they may feel they do not
truly belong to the host culture, even if they may have spent several decades living in it, they
find that when they return to the homeland with sufficient resources, the culture they left at
emigration no longer exists. For them, their native culture has been truncated to the time
when they emigrated, and the country to which they return may be substantially different,
having evolved and changed economically, socially, politically, and culturally in the years in
between.
Flores (2009) presents a thoughtful view of the return of these migrants, recognizing that
they carry with them “cultural remittances” that may or may not be welcomed by those who
did not leave. Studies show that while the return of emigres is welcomed when they bring
their resource capital and put it to good use in the homeland, their foreign ways of living are
less than acceptable, and their home country behaviors are antiquated. They challenge norms
 Opportunities and Challenges of Return Migration 177

and create tensions, having created a new identity. Eventually the two groups usually come to
an understanding and appreciation of differing social identities; nevertheless, of those who
return, not all are able to adjust, and several plan, or do, return to the host country (Maron &
Connell, 2008). In essence, since globalization has now made commonplace the process of
cross national movement and the relative cost of travel has declined, migration is no longer a
completed journey.
Although migration has occurred since time immemorial, migrations and extensive
border crossings have been regulated for only about two and a half centuries. Circular
migration and the migration of second and subsequent generations is a more recent
phenomenon, perhaps also a result of increasing globalization. The return of migrants’
descendants to their ancestral homes is another, new and more recent form of migration. For
example, as India’s economy improved, and as the government established internship
programs to attract expatriates, professional second generation Indian Americans have found
employment opportunities in major cities of India (Jain, 2010). The intension of this group is
not to migrate permanently, but its members establish homes and families in India, and the
final outcome has yet to be written. A 2009 publication by Conway and Potter focuses
specifically on the return of the second generation from around the world to diverse countries
and the struggles it faces in establishing an identity in its ancestral homeland.
When they return to their ancestors’ homelands, returnees may be marginalized as
cultural foreigners (Tsuda, 2009), and this rather extreme experience has been common
particularly for Japanese descendants from Brazil. An edited publication (Lesser, 2003)
skillfully pools the insights of nine researchers who focused on the Nikkeijin (or Nikkei)
foreign nationals of Japanese heritage, who migrated to Brazil at the beginning of the 20th
Century. The story of this population is particularly unique in that it has been marked by
significant transnational movements not seen in other migration groups and evidence

“…a rarely studied but extraordinary case of transnational homemaking, breaking,

and transforming: the migration of hundreds of thousands of Japanese to Brazil in the
first half of the twentieth century, followed by the migration of hundreds of thousands of
Brazilians to Japan in the last decades of the same century.” (Lesser, 2003, p. 1)

This may well be a pattern to be found in the future with other returnees and their
descendants. In the latter part of the 19th Century, an informal agreement between Brazil (that
desperately needed agricultural laborers) and Japan (that was industrializing and displacing its
agricultural workers) resulted in a migration stream from Japan to Brazil. Between 1908 and
1941 about 189,000 Japanese had made Brazil their home; another 50,000 arrived after World
War II (Lesser, 2003), and all came with expectations of an improved quality of life. In the
1930’s Brazilian thrust toward assimilation, “ethnic cysts” were seen as dangerous, and
nationalistic measures discriminated against and monitored those who were different (de
Brito Fabri Demartini, 2010). This is not dissimilar to what may be currently unfolding the
Europe, and particularly in France and Belgium, following the five coordinated terror attacks
in Paris on November 13, 2015.
We do not know yet what will occur with the Europe-born descendants of the Middle
East conflicts, but the response of the Nikkei in the middle of the 20th Century was to
purposefully establish a Japanese Brazilian identity. Although there were substantial internal
disagreements about what that identity would be, it did, nevertheless, carve a distinct cultural,
178 Uma A. Segal

economic, and social niche for the Japanese Brazilian community (Lesser, 2003). The
outcome, however, was a “racialization” of this population, both by the majority population
and the Japanese Brazilians, themselves, who sought to preserve their identities (Tsuda,
2007). Perhaps history is repeating itself in Europe at the end of 2015 and into 2016.
The size of the current Japanese Brazilian population, at 1.7 million, is substantial. In the
1980s, the profound economic crisis in Brazil, the sense of “otherness” experienced by
Japanese Brazilians, and glorification of the ancestral homeland made these Nikkeijin look to
Japan which was experiencing an economic boom in the 1980s. With the declining numbers
of working age Japanese and Japan’s preference for cultural homogeneity, the country
especially welcomed the decedents of its emigrants who had settled in Brazil. In 1985, there
were 1,955 Brazilians of Japanese origin in Japan, but by the end of 2008, this number had
burgeoned to 312,582 (Statistical Handbook of Japan, 2011), and they currently compose the
second largest foreign population in Japan, after the Chinese.
Despite the anticipated mutual attraction between Japan and the Japanese Brazilians, the
return migration of the Nikkeijin has had mixed results for both the immigrants and Japan.
The financial gains to the Brazilian Japanese are substantial and were reflected in the
remittances they sent back to Brazil from Japan in the last decade in the amount of $2.5
billion annually (Bendixen, 2006; Tsuda, 2003). The benefit to Japan was the presence of a
large contingency of “Japanese” workers. However, it became increasingly clear to both the
Japanese and the Nikkeijin that there are significant cultural and social differences between
the two – most of the latter speak Portuguese and do not understand Japanese, their
mannerisms and modes of interaction reflect Latin American patterns, their attire is
inconsistent with that of the Japanese, and barring their physical characteristics and names,
they are not really Japanese (Personal meeting with teachers, Brazilian School, Tsukuba,
Japan, June 15, 2012). Thus, the Brazilian Japanese population is in an oddly unique position.
It is “racialized” in both Brazil and Japan. It is a group that does not look Brazilian, yet, since
it is primarily composed of the second and third generation children of Japanese immigrants,
it is culturally more akin to the Brazilians than to the Japanese.
With its economic downturn, in 2009, Japan began sending back to Brazil large numbers
of Nikkeijin workers whose jobs were eliminated or were replaced by Japanese workers. In
several instances, Japan paid for their trip back, with the stipulation that they agree to never
return (Tabuchi, 2009). Brazil was the only Latin American nation, which in 2011, evidenced
a drop in remittances to $2.0 billion (Multilateral Investment Fund, 2011) suggesting that
there were fewer Nikkeijin to send money back from Japan. In an interesting twist of fate,
several Japanese Brazilians, since 2011, returned to Brazil on their own volition as the
economic deterioration of Japan was been replaced by the growth of the Brazilian economy
(Inter-American Development Bank [IDP], 2012) when Brazil was poised to fend off the
effects of the global crisis (Biller, 2012).
It is true that often the experience of emigrants’ descendants is not as smooth as they
anticipate, having integrated into the lifestyle of the host country. It is also erroneous to
suppose that returnees, either the emigrant generation or their offspring, sever ties to their
host countries as is abundantly evident by responses of migrants moving recently from the
U.S. to Mexico, who gave family reunification as their primary reason for return, but
indicated that they have strong relationships and family members still in the U.S. and
anticipate maintaining those connections (Gonzales-Barrera, 2015). Return migration may
include circular migration, but even if it does not, it always retains elements of
 Opportunities and Challenges of Return Migration 179

transnationalism, since social capital and networks persist across borders (Carling & Erdal,
2014) and mobility options in both directions are persistent.
OCCUPTIONAL CHALLENGES
Much is written about the migration-development nexus, indicating that the connections
between the two enhance both, however, with transnationalism, they may pose additional
difficulties. Overall, as suggested by Cervase (1974), when return migration is voluntary and
individuals are in their working years, they may return as investors and as innovators,
enhancing the development of the country to which they return, and perhaps, to some extent,
depleting the one they leave. Entrepreneurial activities of returnees are found to be successful
when they apply their technological and scientific knowledge, as well as the business skills
and cultural norms acquired abroad. Even when returnees’ return is based on reasons of
family reunification or lack of significant achievements abroad, they are able to engage in
innovative activities in the homeland with relative success (Marchetta, 2012).
Remittances to the homeland run in billions of dollars worldwide each year, and in 2013
totaled $583 billion, with projections of $610 billion by 2016 (World Bank, 2015). In addition
to adding to the economy, these serve several purposes: support of family in the homeland as
well as support of community and services. Expatriates usually see remittances as
contributing to the support of their families and communities at home as well as a monetary
and social investment for their return. Financial investments in the home community improve
one’s social stature and standing, ensuring a higher position in the society upon return
(Mahmud, 2014). This differs from the position of the innovators or the entrepreneurs who
utilize networks and human, social, and monetary capital to develop opportunities for
themselves that will, in the long run, benefit the country.
Several Burmese workers are currently residing in Thailand, and the opportunity for
returning is imminent as change is expected in the nation’s political structure with the
November 2015 election of Nobel Peace Laureate Aung San Suu Kyi. These migrants were
poised to return, even before the election, as Myanmar’s development became evident. The
majority of these migrants are agricultural low wage workers who, nevertheless, had better
earning opportunities and feared less persecution in the nearby Thailand (Thet & Pholphirul,
2015). With improved public services and more foreign direct investment opportunities as
well as deregulation, these migrant workers would highly likely return. If investment
opportunities are paired with, or are followed by the development of jobs with appropriate
wages, along with political stability, Burmese workers report that they will return (Thet &
Pholphirul, 2015).
Conversely, when the “brightest and best” decide to return to the homeland, it is usually
for reasons other than to maximize their income. While investment and innovation
opportunities may be draws, the final decision regarding return, according to a study of high
performing international students from Pacific countries is that it is strongly related to
lifestyle preferences and family associated reasons (Gibson & McKenzie, 2011). A very large
proportion of top performing students did emigrate, but between one-third and one-quarter of
these students had either returned or indicated that they planned to return, and while income
was not the overriding or only motivator, migrating in either direction was associated with
expectations of salary gains. Return migration, however, can mitigate brain drain, particularly
for developing nations, and may even aid in progress resulting in a brain gain by returning
180 Uma A. Segal

augmented talent to the home country (Dustmann, Fadlon & Weiss, 2011). Brain gain has
generally been associated with receiving countries in the developed world, but returnees with
increased human and social capital may enhance home society opportunities upon their
return.
Migration may lead to economic success and it may also result in failure; likewise, the
presence of immigrants may improve conditions in a nation, or they may be a drain on its
resources. It is evident that if there is a match between the needs of the country and the
human capital entering it, there will be fewer occupational challenges, even in the presence of
cultural variations. Returning migrants who are in their working years may be faced with
occupational challenges, or they may bring to their homeland experience and capabilities that
are much needed to improve the economy. Included in the occupational challenges is the
intersectionality of social and political conditions, the socio-economic background of the
returnee, and gender and gender role expectations.
As aforementioned theory has indicated, those with substantial human and social capital
and those with very little capital are the most likely to return to their homelands; the former
so that they may innovate or invest, and the latter so that they may find employment.
However, human experience rarely lacks complexity. Men may find it relatively easy to
utilize the resources and skills acquired in the host country and reintegrate effectively into the
homeland, however, women may find it difficult to acquire employment, may find little left
of their remittances and may not be able to adjust to life with their native families (Segal &
Heck, 2012). They may find it more difficult to navigate the differences between changed and
traditional gender roles and may be more likely to retain stronger transnational bonds,
distancing themselves from reintegration in the homeland (Vlase, 2013).
The return of migrants to Kerala, India, provides an interesting case study, particularly
related to gender issues. While the U.S. recruits large numbers of Keralite nurses because of
their training and English language facility, a large number of both female and male Keralites
who are less educated go to the Gulf countries. Aware of possibilities of human exploitation,
the Indian government has imposed restrictions on the movement of women under the age of
30 seeking domestic work. Males are legally recruited by Gulf state employers for manual
labor; however, frequently women are smuggled in to fill domestic labor needs in those
countries. These are usually women who are destitute or who have been abandoned or abused
by their spouses (Vandsemb, 2014).
Keralite family men usually send substantial remittances, which allow their wives at
home to improve their quality of life. In addition, in their absence, the women assume status
and decision making power that they may not have had earlier. With the return of their
husbands, most retain much of the status and decision making rights they held in their
absence. Women who leave their families and children to assume positions as nannies are
also able to send remittances, but several experience conflicting emotions regarding leaving
children with extended family members. Both men and women return home with accumulated
finances and skills, and many are able to maintain a better quality of life. Several males,
however, engage in circular labor migration to ensure a steady flow of income. The
interesting outcome of these migrations appears to be the ability to raise children out of
poverty and to put them on a path toward more stable occupations (Vandsemb, 2014).
The Philippines did attempt to develop policies for return migration, although, like other
countries, it does not keep a close count on numbers returning. Since it is a major temporary
labor exporting country (with migrant absences for several years), it is cognizant of the need
 Opportunities and Challenges of Return Migration 181

to assist them in reintegrating. Economic reintegration is the most concerning to the

government as some studies indicated that only 44% of the returnees sought wage
employment upon their return, and of these, only about 50% actually found jobs after
returning. A full 39% did not seek employment because they felt the wages offered were too
low (Battisteller, 2004). The government did attempt to develop policies to mandate
remittances by residents working abroad in order to fund reintegration, but this was not
successful.
Labor shortage is evident in several countries and the ability to attract and keep
immigrants is low. These countries may turn to the expatriates and develop an active program
to attract them. Some countries with declining populations with low birth rates, high levels of
emigration, loss of labor and talent, and the inability to replace the “brain drain” may need to
take more proactive measures to make the country more attractive to its expatriates. Concerns
regarding population loss are evidenced by several countries and researchers indicate return
migration as an option. They suggest that migrants with cultural connections to their
homelands will find it easier to integrate (Georgiev, 2008; Triandafyllidou, 2010; Iontsev et
al, 2010), and others discuss the costs and benefits of the return and reintegration of
expatriates to these countries (Heleniak, 2002; Klinthäll, 2006; Shima, 2010; Tsuda, 2003). In
the early 2009s, Russia established its 2006-2012 State Program on Providing Support for
Voluntary Re-settlement of Compatriots to the Russian Federation, extending financial
incentives for people of Russian origin to encourage return to the country. However, this has
not been effective in drawing back expatriates in large numbers.

HEALTH AND HEALTHY BEHAVIORS

Although there is some literature on economic and cultural issues facing return migrants,
data on their health and mental health is virtually non-existent. Some limited research focuses
on the illness and disease, such as HIV infections (Urmi et al, 2015), and a few on the mental
health of repatriated refugees (Fu & Vanlandingham, 2010; von Lersner et al, 2008);
however, these are insufficient to provide a clear picture of the health of returning migrants.
Davies and colleagues (2011) postulate that the health of returnees is just as variable as other
factors related to migrants. A great deal is dependent on the lifestyle in the destination
country, including their financial status, access to health care, general health norms of the
society in which they were living, etc. Some returning migrants are extremely healthy, while
others may be frail and with chronic disease, and this reflects health consequences of many
aspects of the migration process. Thus, social determinants and risk factors intersect with
immigrant and labor policies that allow, or disallow, access to health care services (Davies, et
al, 2011). Those with resources may return healthy, others may choose to return to the
destination country for treatment when they become ill (Razum, Sahin-Hodoglugil, & Polit,
2005), yet others may have to return because of poor health, lack of access to health care, and
consequent unemployment (Clark, et al, 2007). In some instances, men in poor health are less
likely to return to their homeland, while women of the same background and culture are more
likely to return if their health is failing (Sander, 2007), suggesting different levels of cultural
and social support.
182 Uma A. Segal

There is literature about the “healthy immigrant effect,” or findings that immigrants are
generally healthier than the native population, perhaps because of the self-selection process.
However, over time, this positive differential seems to disappear with acculturation. Hameed
and colleagues (2013) found that both female and male returnees to Kerala had a higher rate
of chronic disease than did those who had never migrated, and the longer they were away, the
higher was the prevalence rate. It is known that Kerala is enigmatic; because in India, where
infant mortality is high and longevity is low, the state boasts a mortality rate of 12 per 1,000
and a 74 year life expectancy (Government of India, 2011), not dissimilar to that of most
developed nations. Chronic disease (diabetes, cardiac concerns, and hypertension) which is
low among the non-immigrants, is surpassed among the returnees by over 50%, risk factors of
cigarette and alcohol use are higher among returnees even though education levels for those
who did not emigrate is lower. The incidence of chronic disease is found to be even higher
and surpasses that found in industrialized countries (Hameed, et al., 2013).
Once again, while literature on the mental health of immigrants, and particularly
refugees, is growing exponentially, systematic data collection and analysis on returnees is
sparse. Nevertheless, the few studies that do exist reveal that findings provide inconsistent
and conflicting information, suggesting that this, too, is much dependent on the interplay of
human and social capital. Some found that repatriated refugees evidenced trauma in the
reintegration process, which may lead to substantial mental health concerns (Fu &
Vanlandingham, 2010; von Lersner et al., 2008), while others suggest that the resilience
factor may help reacclimatize people upon their return, but mental health receives little
attention (Siriwardhana et al, 2013; Siriwardhana, 2015), so there is little data to support
either position.

CONCLUSION
The research of return migration is, in some ways, in its infancy. There have been lone
voices calling for evidence based literature to address the experience of this population, the
resources it brings, and the issues it faces. Countries of origin appear to be generally unaware
of this growing phenomenon, and most have paid minimal attention to the impact of these
returnees on their economy, governmental programs, social services, and health care systems.
Only purposeful scouring of the extant literature reveals that the size of this movement is
growing in several countries, and people are returning not only because of the reasons
proposed by theorists in the late 20th Century, but also for other reasons, including family
reunification, “homesickness” and the desire to be on familiar territory, and perhaps for other
reasons that have not yet been identified or voiced.
It is clear that with the ease of travel and increasing globalization migration becomes
attractive and attainable by more people in more countries and in a variety of circumstances.
The very opportunities that afford emigration and immigration also give rise to the possibility
of return migration, when expatriates of a country return to their homeland. While return
migration has not received the concerted attention of researchers, policy makers, and program
planners, this growing phenomenon will have considerable impact on countries of origin,
destination, and migrants. These will, in turn affect development, trade, human rights, and a
variety of other aspects of society, because returnees are migrants who have the largest
 Opportunities and Challenges of Return Migration 183

networks with the greatest interconnections (IOM, nd). It is essential that countries of origin
encourage the return of their emigres by establishing policies that facilitate the transfer of
capital and technology and that assist them in reintegration (ILO, 2010). The IOM (nd)
suggests a comprehensive approach to understanding return migration and ensuring that
policies and programs maximize reintegration to enhance development of the home country,
ensure health and health care needs are addressed, human rights are not violated, and national
security measures are in place.
The process of “Assisted Voluntary Return” is outside the scope of this chapter, but is the
assistance that is provided by the IOM to help in the reintegration of certain vulnerable
groups who return to their homelands. Assisted Voluntary Return is defined as “the
administrative, logistical, financial and reintegration support to rejected asylum-seekers,
victims of human trafficking in human beings, stranded migrants, qualified nationals and
other migrants unable or unwilling to remain in the host country who volunteer to return to
their countries of origin” (IOM Glossary, 2011). This assistance is based on the contributions
of donors and may include cash for immediate use or may involve more sustainable
reintegration efforts such as help with small business development, employment placement
and health, education, and training (IOM, 2011). Receiving governments should turn to the
IOM for assistance in developing their own programs. In 2011, the IOM assisted in the
movement of 31,134 migrants from 40 host countries with reception and reintegration in 166
countries of origin; another 23,900 received assistance after arrival in their ancestral lands
(IOM, 2011).
Researchers de Haas, Fokkema and Fihri (2014), through their large sample analysis of
survey data on 2,832 returnees to Morocco, challenge earlier theories about return migration,
at both the micro and macro levels. Much of the literature on return migration has looked at
the contributions of returnees to the home country and there has been less focus on
individuals’ decisions for returning. The failure to understand these decisions at a micro level
can well be the reason for the failure of governmental policies to attract and retain returnees.
In most parts of the world, migration is not an individual decision, nor is return; it is a tool
that is utilized by families to distribute risk and, likewise, accumulated assets (de Haas et al.,
2014). Hence, the commitment to returning is often high, as the decision is taken collectively
for the well-being of the family. This may mean that individual family members or sub-
groups of the family return, while others remain in the destination country. The research
world is not oblivious to the realization that migration, particularly temporary labor
migration, which may last several years, is an outcome of family decision making and
influence in migration patterns (Segal, 2008).
Although both developed and developing countries are aware that they may benefit from
immigrant human and social capital, and although several have indicated interest in attracting
their expatriates, few have made concerted efforts to develop the infrastructure to make the
return attractive. In addition to providing economic opportunities and access to health,
education, and welfare programs, the returnees’ social and psychological needs may also need
attention for smooth integration. Literature on the Japanese Brazilians and the returning Irish
reveal that governmental policies may not only be lacking in their ability to reintegrate, they
may, in fact, be alienating. Just as several migrants decide early that they do not belong in the
destination country, returnees often do not wait several years to acclimatize themselves to the
country they once left but that differs so greatly from the one they remember. Returnees may
well decide they do not belong in their “homelands” and return to the destination country
184 Uma A. Segal

where they lived for several years and in which they may have become increasingly
comfortable.
Despite there is a fair amount of information on Brazilians of Japanese ancestry,
relatively little attention has be directed to the return of the second and subsequent
generations of offsprings of the emigres. These groups are also making the migration back to
the ancestral homeland, and many come with significant human capital and large international
networks. Countries of origin may see fit to develop immigration and economic policies that
will ease their integration and develop training programs that will prepare them to function
effectively at both professional and personal levels in their ancestral culture.
The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) (2008) reported
that although information on returnees is not closely monitored, departures from OECD
countries can be anywhere between 20% and 75% of entrants in that year. This does not
indicate whether people move to a third country or return home. There may be instances of
secondary migration, when they leave for a country other than the one of origin or they
engage in the process of circular migration, returning several times to the destination country,
however, about 20% to 50% leave within five years of their first migration. Overall, the return
rate does not vary by gender, but there is greater likelihood that mobility is greater when the
level of development between the sending and receiving country is similar (OECD, 2008).
Clearly, this is a sizable group. Some may require reintegration policies and programs,
although several can probably adapt with little difficulty. However, if they are perceived, or
perceive themselves, as failures, there may be longer term issues with which the individual,
family, and community may have to address.
Davies and colleagues (2011) raise some important points in their summary indicating
that that the issue of return migration needs attention, and that the experience and health of
returnees, including access to healthcare, may be different among different groups but also
different from those of either the native populations or the emigrants. They and Siriwardhana
(2015) call for the countries of origin to recognize the unique health and mental health needs
of these populations, and suggest that to “maintain and improve the health of returning
migrants, multi-sectoral policies at global and national levels should facilitate access to
appropriate and equitable health services, social services, and continuity of care across and
within borders” (Davies, et al., 2011, p.1). In other words, there is a significant gap in
recognizing the needs of this large, and growing migrant group; the world as a whole, and
nations individually, need to join hands in addressing their health needs, and other needs,
many of which are a reflection of individuals’ human capital and have implications for the
nation’s social capital.
The IOM (nd) proposes that three players must prepare for (and are affected by) return:
the migrant, the returning government, and the country of origin. When the migrant is
prepared for the return, the reintegration process is smoother and avoids the stigma of failure.
Countries of origin may establish programs for reintegration with financial assistance, cultural
brokering, and counseling. The governments that are losing the migrants may be able to open
dialogue, partnerships, and trade agreements with countries of origin, using the returnees’
network of resources. Countries may consider adopting policies that will encourage the return
of their emigres or encourage circular migration, recognizing that this may be beneficial for
the global economy, for the country of origin, and for the migrant. The ILO (2010) proposes
the establishment of visas that promote circular migration for temporary work, with programs
for reintegration. In some sectors, there is a growing recognition in the economic, political
 Opportunities and Challenges of Return Migration 185

and social arenas, that the return migration of emigres is a phenomenon which significantly
impacts local, national, and international communities and has implications for the movement
of people globally. Nations may need to join hands in facilitating the process of return and
reintegration so that benefits of networks, acquired knowledge and skills, and life changing
experiences can be maximized for the country of origin, the sending nation, and the global
community.

REFERENCES
Baba, Y. (2009). Pattern of return migration among Japanese-Brazilians: Who returns to
Brazil and why? Paper presented at the 28th International Congress of the Latin American
Studies Association, in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil (June 10 – 14).
Bakke, P-J. (2014). Sharp identities, leaving traces drawing back home: An exploratory
qualitative study on the individual choice of return migration. Thesis study at the
Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Faculty of Social Sciences and
Technology Management, Department of Adult Learning and Counselling.
Battistella, G. (2004). Return migration in the Philippines: Issues and policies. In Massey, D.
S. & Taylor, J. E. (eds). International migration: Prospects and policies in a global
market (pp.212 – 225). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Bendixen, S. (2006). The remittance process in Brazil and Latin America. Presented at the
2006 Annual Meeting of the IDB.IIC, March 3 – 5, 2006. Retrieved from
http://www.iadb.org/am/2006/doc/SergioBendixeneng.ppt.
Biller, D. (2012, August 31). Brazil economy emerges from slowdown as stimulus takes hold.
Bloomberg News. Retrieved from http://www. bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-31/brazil-s-
economy-emerging-from-slowdown-as-stimulus-takes-hold.html.
Borjas, G. J., & Bratsberg, B. (1996). Who leaves? The outmigration of the foreign-born. The
Review of Economics and Statistics, 78 (1), 165-176.
Bovenkerk, F. (1974). The sociology of return migration: A bibliographic essay. The Hague:
Martinus NijHoff.
Carling, J. & Erdal, M. B. (2014). Return migration and transnationalism: How are the two
connected? The Authors International Migration, 52 (6), 1 – 12.
Cassarino, J. P. (2004). Theorizing return migration: The conceptual approach to return
migrants revisited. International Journal on Multicultural Societies, 6 (2), 253 – 279.
Castles, S. & Miller, M. J. (2009). The age of migration: International population movements
in the modern world (4th Edition). New York, NY: The Guildford Press.
Cerase, F. P. (1974). Expectations and reality: a case study of return migration from the
United States to Southern Italy. International Migration Review, 8 (2), 245–62.
Clark, S. J., Collinson, M. A., Kahn, K., & Tollman, S. M. (2007). Returning home to die:
circular labour migrants and mortality in rural South Africa. Scandinavian Journal of
Public Health, 35, 35–44.
Constant, A., & Massey, D. S. (2003). Self-selection, earnings and out-migration: a
longitudinal study of immigrants to Germany. Journal of Population Economics, 16,
631–653.
186 Uma A. Segal

Conway, D. & Potter, R. B. (eds.) (2009). Return migration of the next generations: 21st
Century transnational mobility. London, UK: Ashgate.
Davies, A. A., Borland, R. M., Blake, C., & West, H. E. (2011). The dynamics of health and
return migration. PLoS Med, 8(6), 1-4.
de Brito Fabri Demartini, Z. (2010). Immigration in Brazil. In Segal, U., Elliott, D. &
Mayadas, N. S. (eds). Immigration Worldwide. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
de Haas, H., Fokkema, T. & Fihri, M. F. (2014). Return migration as failure or success? The
determinants of return migration intentions among Moroccan migrants in Europe.
Journal of International Migration and Integration, 16 (2), 415–429.
Deenihan, J. (2014). Returned to Ireland? Some emigrants feel out of the loop when they
come home. The Journal. ie. Retrieved from http://www. thejournal.ie/young-
immigrants-conferance-1673340-Sep2014/.
Dustmann, C. (2003). Return migration, wage differentials, and the optimal migration
duration. European Economic Review, 47, 353–369.
Dustmann, C., Fadlon, I. & Weiss, Y. (2011). Return migration, human capital accumulation
and the brain drain. Journal of Developmental Economic, 95 (1), 58 – 67.
Flores, J. (2009). The Diaspora strikes back, New York, NY: Routledge.
Fu, H. & Vanlandingham, M. J. (2010). Mental and physical health consequences of
repatriation for Vietnamese returnees: A natural experiment approach. Journal of Refugee
Studies, 23 (2), 160 – 182.
Gibson, J. & McKenzie, D. (2011). The microeconomic determinants of emigration and
return migration of the best and brightest: Evidence from the Pacific. Journal of
Development Economics, 95 (1), 18 – 29.
Gill, B. (2007). Homeward bound? The experience of return mobility for Italian scientists.
The European Journal of Social Science Research, 18 (3), 319 – 341.
Government of India (2011). Annual report to the people on health. Ministry of Health &
Family Welfare. Retrieved from http://www.mohfw.nic.in/ showfile.php?lid=1049.
Govert E. B., & Wahba, J. (2014). Do high-income or low-income immigrants leave faster?
Journal of Development Economics, 108 (2014) 54–68.
Gmelch, G. (1980). Return migration. Annual Review of Anthropology, 9, 135 – 159.
Gmelch, G. (1983). Who returns and why: Return migration behavior in two North Atlantic
Societies. Human Organization, 42, 46 – 54.
Gonzalez-Barrera, A. (2015). More Mexicans leaving than coming to the U.S.. Pew Research
Center: Hispanic Trends. Retrieved from http://www. pewhispanic.org/2015/11/19/more-
mexicans-leaving-than-coming-to-the-u-s/.
Hameed, S.S., Kutty, V. R., Vijayakumar, K. & Kamalasanan, A. (2013). Migration status
and prevalence of chronic diseases in Kerala state, India. International Journal of
Chronic Diseases, 2013, Article ID 431818, 6 pages.
Hoffmann-Nowotny, J-J. (1978). European migration after World War II. In McNeill, W. H.
& Adams, R. S. (eds). Human migration: patterns and policies (pp. 85-105).
Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Press.
Hugo, G. (2003). Migrants and their integration: Contemporary issues and implications.
Adelaide, Australia: University of Adelaide. Retrieved from http://portal.unesco.org/shs/
en/files/3426/10704409801Graeme_Hugo.pdf/Graeme+Hugo.pdf.
Inter-American Development Bank (March 8, 2012). Report: remittances to Latin America
and the Caribbean rose to $61 billion in 2011. Retrieved from http://www.iadb.org/en/
 Opportunities and Challenges of Return Migration 187

news/news-releases/2012-03-08/report-remittances-to-latin-america-rose-in-
2011,9899.html.
International Labour Organization (2010). International labour migration: A rights-based
approach. Retrieved from http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/ groups/public/---ed_protect/---
protrav/---migrant/documents/publication/ wcms_208594.pdf.
International Organization for Migration. (2011). Assisted voluntary return and reintegration:
Annual report of activities, 2011, Geneva, Switzerland: IOM.
International Organization for Migration (2015). World migration report, Geneva,
Switzerland: IOM.
International Organization for Migration (nd). International dialogue on migration:
Managing return migration. Retrieved from https://www.iom. int/jahia/webdav/shared/
shared/mainsite/microsites/IDM/workshops/managing_return_migration_042108/present
ations_speeches/managing_return_migration.pdf.
IrishEcho (2015). Returning emigrants face obstacles, forum hears. Irish Australia online.
Retrieved from http://www.irishecho.com.au/2015 /07/06/returning-emigrants-face-
obstacles-forum-hears/35132.
Jain, S. (2010). For love and money: Second-generation Indian Americans ‘return’ to India.
Migration Policy Institute. Retrieved from http://www. migrationpolicy.org/article/love-
and-money-second-generation-indian-americans-return-india.
King, R. (1986). Return migration and regional economic problems, London, UK: Croom
Helm.
King, R. (2000). Generalizations from the history of return migration. In Ghosh, B. (ed.):
Return migration: Journey of hope or despair? Geneva: International Organization for
Migration.
Klinthäll, M. (2006). Immigration, integration and return migration. Presented at the
International Symposium on International Migration and Development, Population
Division, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, United Nations Secretariat, Turin,
Italy.
Lesser, J. (2003). Searching for home abroad. Durhan, NC: Duke University Press.
Markowitz, F. & Stefansson, A. (eds.) (2004). Homecomings: Unsettling paths of return.
Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.
Mahmud, H. (2014). “It’s my money”: Social class and the perception of remittances among
Bangladeshi migrants in Japan. Current Sociology, 62 (3), 412-430.
Marchetta, F. (2012). Return migration and the survival of entrepreneurial activities in Egypt.
World Development, 40 (10), 1999 – 2013.
Maron, N. & Connell, J. (2008). Back to Nukunuku: Employment, identity and return
migration in Tonga, Asia Pacific Viewpoint, 49 (2), 168–184.
McGreevy, R. (March 9, 2013). Coming home: The big decision for emigrants. The Irish
Times, Retrieved from http://www.irishtimes.com /blogs/generationemigration/2013/
03/29/coming-home-the-big-decision-for-emigrants/.
Multilateral Investment Fund (2011). Remittances to Latin America and the Caribbean in
2011: Regaining growth. Retrieved from http://idbdocs.iadb. org/wsdocs/getDocument.
aspx?DOCNUM=36723460.
Münz, R. & Ohliger, R. (eds.) (2003). Diasporas and Ethnic Migrants: Germany, Israel, and
Post-Soviet Successor States in Comparative Perspective. London: Frank Cass.
188 Uma A. Segal

Nekby, L. (2006). The emigration of immigrants, return, vs onward migration: evidence from
Sweden. Journal of Population Economics, 19, 197–226.
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (2008). International Migration
Outlook 2008. Paris: OECD Publishing. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/migration/
mig/43999382.pdf.
Razum, O., Sahin-Hodoglugil, N., & Polit, K. (2005). Health, wealth, or family ties? Why
Turkish work migrants return from Germany. Qualitative studies with re-migrants in
Turkey. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 31, 719–739.
Rooth, D-O. & Saarela, J. (2007). Selection in migration and return migration: Evidence from
micro data. Economics Letters, 94, 90–95.
Sander, M. (2007). Return migration and the healthy immigrant effect. DIW SOE Papers on
Multidisciplinary Panel Data Research 60. Retrieved from http://www.diw.de/documents/
publikationen/73/74655/diw_sp0060.pdf.
Segal, U. A. (2008), Mexican Migration to the United States: A Focus on Missouri. Journal
of Immigrant & Refugee Studies, 6 (3), 451-462.
Segal, U. A. & Heck, G. (2012). Migration, minorities and citizenship. In Lyons, K.,
Hokenstad, T., Pawar, M. & Huegler, N. (eds). SAGE handbook of international social
work (pp. 100 -115). London, UK: Sage.
Siriwardhana, C. (2015). Mental health of displaced and returnee populations: Insight from
the Sri Lankan post-conflict experience. Conflict and Health, 9, 22-24.
Siriwardhana, C., Adikari, A., Pannala, G., Siribaddana, S., Abas, M., Sumathipala, A., &
Stwart, R. (2013). Prolonged internal displacement and common mental disorders in Sri
Lanka: The COMRAID Study. PLoS ONE, 8 (5), e64742.
Statistical Handbook of Japan (2011). Retrieved from http://www.stat.go.jp/
data/nenkan/pdf/yhyou02.pdf.
Tabuchi, H. (April 22, 2009). Japan pays foreign workers to go home, New York Times.
Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/23/ business/global/23immigrant.html?
pagewanted=all&_moc.semityn.www.
Thet, M. M., & Pholphirul, P. (2015). The perception of Myanmar development on its return
migrants: Implications for Burmese migrants in Thailand. International Migration and
Integration. First online June 26, 2015.
Tsuda, T. (2003). Strangers in the ethnic homeland. New York, NY: Columbia University
Press.
Tsuda, T. (2007). When minorities migrate: The racialization of the Japanese Brazilians in
Brazil and Japan. In Parreñas, R. S. & Siu, L. C. D. (eds.), Asian diasporas: New
formations, new conceptions (pp.225-251). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Tsuda, T. (2009). Diasporic homecomings: Ethnic return migration in comparative
perspective. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Urmi, A. Z., Leung, D. T., Wilkinson, V., Miah, M. A. A., Rahman, M., & Azim, T. (2015).
Profile of an HIV testing and counseling unit in Bangladesh: Majority of new diagnoses
among returning migrant workers and spouses. PLoS ONE 10 (10), e0141483.
Vertovec, S. (2007). Circular migration: The way forward in global policy. Working Paper
No. 4. Oxford, UK: IMI.
Vandsemb, B. H. (2014). Gender, work, and social change: Return migration to Kerala. In
Nielsen, K. B. & Waldrop. A. (eds). Women, gender and everyday transformation in India
(pp. 75 – 88), New York, NY: Anthem Press.
 Opportunities and Challenges of Return Migration 189

Vlase, I. (2013). ‘My husband is a patriot!’: Gender and Romanian family return migration
from Italy. Ethnic and Migration Studies, 39 (5), 741 – 758.
von Lersner, U., Elbert, T. & Neuner, F. (2008). Mental health of refugees following state-
sponsored repatriation from Germany. BMC Psychiatry, 8 (88), 1-16.
World Bank (2015). Remittances growth to slow sharply in 2015, as Europe and Russia stay
weak; pick up expected next year. Retrieved from http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/
press-release/2015/04/13/remittances-growth-to-slow-sharply-in-2015-as-europe-and-
russia-stay-weak-pick-up-expected-next-year.
Zolberg, A. (2006). A nation by design: Immigration policy in the fashioning of America.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

View publication stats