Reintegration upon return: insights from Ecuadorian returnees from Spain

Abstract

Using the ECM2 survey data on Ecuadorian migrants returning from Spain, we investigate the determinants of reintegration upon return. We study how the migration experience, but also the before‐ and after‐migration characteristics, correlate with migrants’ outcomes upon return. We adopt a broad conception of reintegration, considering jointly labour market‐related outcomes that proxy for structural reintegration and subjective indicators that provide insights on sociocultural reintegration. The determinants of these two types of outcomes appear to be different: reintegration indeed encompasses multiple dimensions which cannot be captured by a single indicator. Our results suggest that return assistance programmes’ efficiency in helping reintegration could be improved by (I) targeting, ex‐ante, returnees who plan to launch their own business, and, ex‐post, the most vulnerable workers (women, older returnees, unemployed), and (ii) facilitating the labour market integration of foreign‐educated returnees. They also call for further research to better understand the consequences of these programmes.

The statistical properties of the networks of emigrants: the Ecuadorian case

“…Figure shows the connection between the rates x 1 ···, x k , which we assume to represent the time path of X t . The rate x k clearly overestimates the true emigration rate (Herrera et al., ; Paredes, ; Mendieta Muñoz, ; Mercier et al., ). However, it shows the expected downward shape for t ≥ 2007, which coincides with the economic crisis in the US and the EU, and it occurs just before the establishment of the Citizen's Revolution in 2008.…”

“…In 2011, the National Secretariat for Migration reported between 2 and 3 million living abroad, with an emigration rate of 15–23 per cent (Paredes, ). In 2013, around 1.1 million Ecuadorians were still living abroad, with an emigration rate of 8 per cent (Mercier et al., ). Consequently, if the estimated rates are correct, the stock of emigrants decreased by 7 percentage points over 2 years.…”

“…In this extent, Ecuadorian migrants are generally not employed in highly skilled jobs in the destination countries (Bertoli et al., ), which might make it difficult to reintegrate them efficiently in the job market of the origin country, once returned. An ad‐hoc policy for the reintegration in the job market, therefore, would be required (Mercier et al., ). This could start from an extensive knowledge of the migrants’ characteristics, which could be obtained through proper coordination with the receiving countries, or indirectly through surveys to the households receiving remittances.…”

The reliability of recall measurement in assessing migrant reintegration: Evidence from Ethiopia, Somalia, and Sudan

“…Understanding the actual effects of interventions aimed at improving reintegration outcomes is thus of overwhelming practical importance for advocacy organisations, governments, communicators, policymakers, and those working in politics who want to know what constitutes a sustainable, effective, and value‐for‐money policy. There are already significant scientific findings on the challenges and determinants of successful reintegration (Arowolo, 2000; Fentaw, 2018; Mercier et al, 2016) and assisted voluntary return and reintegration more generally (Koser & Kuschminder, 2015; Kuschminder, 2022; following Covid‐19, Le Coz & Newland, 2021). However, the transitory and international nature of migration, often involving developing countries, means that traditional panel and longitudinal approaches, particularly over lengthy periods, are not always possible.…”

Towards a definition for returnees' reintegration processes in the context of rural Ethiopia

“…Table 1 shows that reintegration is mainly measured through economic ( n = 26) and social ( n = 16) dimensions. To a lesser extent, psycho‐social (measured through returnees' psycho‐social well‐being and feelings of self‐worth) and political dimensions (measured using returnees' perceptions of safety, trust in the government and access to justice and citizenship rights) are also mentioned (Cherti et al ., 2013; Brisbois et al ., 2016; Mercier et al ., 2016; Paasche, 2016; Flahaux, 2017).…”