Abstract
Different migration theories generate competing hypotheses with regard to determinants of return migration. While neoclassical migration theory associates migration to the failure to integrate at the destination, the new economics of labour migration sees return migration as the logical stage after migrants have earned sufficient assets and knowledge and to invest in their origin countries. The projected return is then likely to be postponed for sustained or indefinite periods if integration is unsuccessful. So, from an indication or result of integration failure return is rather seen as a measure of success. Drawing on recent survey data (N = 2,832), this article tests these hypotheses by examining the main determinants of return intention among Moroccan migrants across Europe. The results indicate that structural integration through labour market participation, education and the maintenance of economic and social ties with receiving countries do not significantly affect return intentions. At the same time, investments and social ties to Morocco are positively related, and socio-cultural integration in receiving countries is negatively related to return migration intentions. The mixed results corroborate the idea that there is no uniform process of (return) migration and that competing theories might therefore be partly complementary.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
The quota was successfully met with the exception of Moroccan migrants living in the UK.
This variable is rather a rough indication of someone’s intention to return as the potential returnees were not asked when they actually planned to go back to Morocco. Prior studies with a time frame follow-up question, however, show that a substantial proportion of those who report a return intention do not have a specific idea on the timing of their return (cf. de Haas and Fokkema 2011).
We acknowledge that integration is a highly contested concept in wide-ranging debates in the USA and Europe and, although it is often contrasted to “assimilation”, integration and assimilation are terms of shifting and often overlapping meaning (King and Christou 2007). Operational definitions of integration often focus on adoption to majority society and culture. This makes them often virtually indistinguishable from assimilation and not question the hegemonic role of receiving societies as well as the false notion that there is one, monolithic “mainstream”. It is not the aim of this article to indulge into this complex debate, but it is important to be aware of the contested, normative and politicized nature of the integration concept.
References
Aparicio, R. (2007). The integration of the second and 1.5 generations of Moroccan, Dominican and Peruvian origin in Madrid and Barcelona. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 33(7), 1169–1193.
Asiedu, A. (2005). Some benefits of migrants’ return visits to Ghana. Population Space and Place, 11(1), 1–11.
Bauer, T., & Zimmermann, K. (1998). Causes of international migration: a survey. In P. Gorter, P. Nijkamp, & J. Poot (Eds.), Crossing borders: regional and urban perspectives on international migration (pp. 95–127). Aldershot: Ashgate.
Berrada, A. (1990). Le Retour des Travailleurs Migrants au Maroc: Mythe ou Réalité. In Le Maroc et La Holllande. Actes de la Deuxième Rencontre Universitaire (pp. 111–119). Rabat: Université Mohammed V.
Cassarino, J.-P. (2004). Theorising return migration: the conceptual approach to return migrants revisited. International Journal on Multicultural Societies, 6(2), 243–279.
Castles, S., & Miller, M. J. (2003). The age of migration (second revised and updated edition (1998) ed.). Houndmills: MacMillan.
Cohen, R. (2008). Global diasporas: an introduction (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.
Constant, A., & Massey, D. (2002). Return migration by German guestworkers: neoclassical versus new economic theories. International Migration, 40(4), 5–38.
de Bree, J., Davids, T., & de Haas, H. (2010). Post-return experiences and transnational belonging of return migrants: a Dutch-Moroccan case study. Global Networks - A Journal of Transnational Affairs, 10(4), 489–509.
de Haas, H. (2007). Morocco’s migration experience: a transitional perspective. International Migration, 45(4), 39–70.
de Haas, H. (2009). Euro-Mediterranean migration futures: the cases of Morocco, Egypt and Turkey. Working paper. Oxford: International Migration Institute, University of Oxford.
de Haas, H., & Fokkema, T. (2010). Intra-household conflicts in migration decision making: return and pendulum migration in Morocco. Population and Development Review, 36(3), 541–561.
de Haas, H., & Fokkema, T. (2011). The effects of integration and transnational ties on international return migration intentions. Demographic Research, 25, 755–782.
Diatta, M. A., & Mbow, M. (1999). Releasing the development potential of return migration: the case of Senegal. International Migration, 37(1), 243–266.
Dustmann, C. (2008). Return migration, investment in children, and intergenerational mobility—comparing sons of foreign- and native-born fathers. Journal of Human Resources, 43(2), 299–324.
Dustmann, C., Bentolila, S., & Faini, R. (1996). Return migration: the European experience. Economic Policy, 11(22), 213–250.
Fadloullah, A., Berrada, A., & Khachani, M. (2000). Facteurs d’Attraction et de Répulsion des flux Migratoires Internationaux. Rapport National: Le Maroc (Eurostat Working Papers 3/2000/E/No.6). Rabat: Commission Européenne.
Fokkema, T., & de Haas, H. (2011). Pre- and post-migration determinants of socio-cultural integration of African immigrants in Italy and Spain. International Migration. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2435.2011.00687.x.
Glick Schiller, N., Basch, L., & Szanton-Blanc, C. (1992). Towards a transnational perspective on migration: race, class, ethnicity, and nationalism reconsidered. New York: New York Academy of Sciences.
Harris, J. R., & Todaro, M. P. (1970). Migration, unemployment and development: a two-sector analysis. American Economic Review, 60, 126–142.
HCP. (2007). Les Marocains resident a l’etranger: analyse des Résultats de l’Enquête de 2005 sur l’Insertion Socio-Economique dans les pays d’accueil. Rabat: Royaume du Maroc–Haut-Commissariat au Plan.
Heckmann, F. (2005). Integration and integration policies. Bamberg: European Forum for Migration Studies.
Hooghiemstra, E. (2001). Migrants, partner selection and integration: crossing borders? Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 32(4), 601–625.
Ireland, P. (2008). Comparing responses to ethnic segregation in urban Europe. Urban Studies, 45(7), 1333–1358.
Jensen, P., & Pedersen, P. J. (2007). To stay or not to stay? Out-migration of immigrants from Denmark. International Migration, 45(5), 87–113.
King, R., & Christou, A. (2007). Cultural geographies of counter-diasporic migration: the second generation returns ‘home’. Sussex Migration Working Paper No 45. University of Sussex.
King, R., & Skeldon, R. (2010). ‘Mind the gap!’ Integrating approaches to internal and international migration. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 36(10), 1619–1646.
Lievens, J. (1999). Family-forming migration from Turkey and Morocco to Belgium: the demand for marriage partners from the countries of origin. International Migration Review, 33(3), 717–744.
Massey, D. S., Arango, J., Hugo, G., Kouaouci, A., Pellegrino, A., & Taylor, J. E. (1998). Worlds in motion: understanding international migration at the end of the millennium. Oxford: Clarendon.
McCormick, B., & Wahba, J. (2001). Overseas work experience, savings and entrepreneurship amongst return migrants to LDCs. Scottish Journal of Political Economy, 48(2), 164–178.
Portes, A. (2003). Conclusion: theoretical convergencies and empirical evidence in the study of immigrant transnationalism. International Migration Review, 37(3), 874–892.
Portes, A., Guarnizo, L., & Landolt, P. (1999). Transnational communities. London: Routledge.
Portes, A., Parker, R. N., & Cobas, J. A. (1980). Assimilation or consciousness—perceptions of United-States society among recent Latin-American immigrants to the United-States. Social Forces, 59(1), 200–224.
Reniers, G. (2001). The post-migration survival of traditional marriage patterns: consanguineous marriages among Turks and Moroccans in Belgium. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 32(1), 21–45.
Rodriguez, V., & Egea, C. (2006). Return and the social environment of Andalusian emigrants in Europe. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 32(8), 1377–1393.
Sjaastad, A. H. (1962). The costs and returns of human migration. Journal of Political Economy, 70(5), 80–93.
Snel, E., Engbersen, G., & Leerkes, A. (2006). Transnational involvement and social integration. Global Networks - A Journal of Transnational Affairs, 6(3), 285–308.
Stark, O. (1991). The migration of labor. Cambridge: Blackwell.
Thomas-Hope, E. (1999). Return migration to Jamaica and its development potential. International Migration, 37(1), 183–207.
Todaro, M. P., & Maruszko, L. (1987). Illegal migration and US immigration reform: a conceptual framework. Population and Development Review, 13(1), 101–114.
Vasta, E. (2007). From ethnic minorities to ethnic majority policy: multiculturalism and the shift to assimilationism in the Netherlands. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 30(5), 713–740.
Waldorf, B. (1995). Determinants of international return migration intentions. Professional Geographer, 47(2), 125–136.
Acknowledgement
Hein de Haas’s research is part of the DEMIG project and has received funding from the European Research Council under the European Community’s Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013) / ERC Grant Agreement 240940.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
de Haas, H., Fokkema, T. & Fihri, M.F. Return Migration as Failure or Success?. Int. Migration & Integration 16, 415–429 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12134-014-0344-6
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12134-014-0344-6