Counting Migrants and Migrations: Comparing Lifetime and Fixed‐Interval Return and Onward Migration

Abstract

Lifetime measures of return and onward migration that use place of birth may be rather arbitrary, as they may not capture the essence of "home" region and therefore may not adequately represent ties to place, including where an individual grew up or went to school. The recent availability of census data that include information on place of residence five years prior to the census, one year prior, and at the time of the census allow an alternative definition of return and onward migration based upon fixed-interval data. Employing data from the 1996 Canadian census, in this paper I first compare and examine the incidence, composition, and spatial patterns and explanations of return and onward migration through measures of lifetime and fixed-interval data. I then suggest a typology of return migration. Findings indicate that although both measures result in similar patterns and demographic effects, fixed-interval measures provide additional detail into the processes at work. Planned returns among younger and older adults that are most likely associated with education or employment and represent 24 percent of returns define two types of return migration. A third type is more consistent with the stereotypical image of a "failed" migration.

Migration of the Highly Educated: Evidence From Residence Spells of University Graduates*

“…Family 8 ties (Mincer, 1978) and home ownership (Helderman et al, 2006) discourage migration, but little is known whether these household factors have a similar influence on all migration decisions. Newbold (2001, p. 35) found that married (and the highly educated) individuals are less likely to return to their previous province of residence. Personal and regional unemployment, and low financial assets, may encourage migration as a result of job seeking and a lower attachment to the local labor market (Pissarides and Wadsworth, 1989; Tervo, 2000; Haapanen and Ritsilä, 2007).…”

“…3 3 Faggian et al (2006, 2007a, 2007b) refer to onward migrants as “repeat migrants,” however, we prefer to call the group of onward and return migrants as repeat migrants (as in DaVanzo, 1983, and Newbold, 2001). The latter return to their home region whereas the former move to some another region. …”

Floating Choices: A Generational Perspective on Intentions of Rural–Urban Migrants in China

“…Drawing upon previous theoretical and empirical research, we divide the determinants that might affect decisions to remain or return into four categories: first, individual factors, including gender, age, marital status, human capital, social capital, and migration motives; second, familial factors such as spousal separation and parent’s health; third, migrant’s working and living conditions in the host city; fourth are the social and economic conditions in the origin and host societies. Among individual factors, human capital such as education, language proficiency, and work experience have always been emphasized (Borjas, 1989; Newbold, 2001; Wang and Fan, 2006). How migrant’s human capital is rewarded at both origin and destination can affect migrants’ decisions to return or to remain.…”

Residential Experience and Residential Environment Choice over the Life-course

“…Several studies have found that people tend to return to places where they lived before (DaVanzo, 1981;DaVanzo and Morrison, 1981;Fischer and Malmberg, 2001;Morrison and DaVanzo, 1986;Newbold, 1997Newbold, , 2001; for the Netherlands: Harts and Hingstman, 1986;Nicolaas and Sprangers, 2000). Return moves are made for several reasons: because of ties to the place of origin (that is, the social space and activity space); as a corrective move (out of regret about having moved away; see Morrison and DaVanzo, 1986;Newbold, 1996); or emotional attachment to a place (Rubinstein and Parmelee, 1992;Feldman, 1996).…”