To return permanently or to return temporarily? Explaining migrants' intentions

Abstract

This paper studies migrants' intentions to return to their origin country by making the distinction between permanent return, temporary return and participation in temporary return programmes. Using survey data from first generation migrants in the Netherlands, we explore how migrants' experiences regarding both the origin and destination countries are linked to their return intentions. We show that there are significantly more people interested in temporary return than permanent return. Moreover, we demonstrate that while economic integration has no clear link with return intentions, individuals with a lower socio-cultural integration are more likely to intend to return permanently. We also find that social homeland engagement predicts intentions for all types of return. Considering the potential positive impact of (temporary) return on development through the transfer of skills, financial resources and experiences, this research provides insight into the profile of migrants who could be the target of programmes and policies on return for development.

The Impact of Socio-Cultural Integration on Return Intentions: Evidence from a Survey on Romanian Migrants

“…Better integration of the Romanian migrants at a social and cultural level translates into a greater willingness to stay in the country of residence. Those with lower social-cultural integration are more likely to intend to return, results which confirm the findings of earlier research (Bilgili and Siegel, 2017).…”

“…A similar effect can be observed for the partnership dissolution between migrants and their partners in their country of origin (Bettin, Cela and Fokkema, 2018). The socio-cultural integration refers to language proficiency (Anniste and Tammaru, 2014;Bilgili and Siegel, 2017), informal social contacts with natives (Snel, Engbersen and Leerkes, 2006;Anniste and Tammaru, 2014), orientation towards migrants' own culture (Bilgili and Siegel, 2017), endorsement of society's prevailing moral standards and values in the country of residence (Snel, Engbersen and Leerkes, 2006). So far, these components of social-cultural integration have been treated in isolation without a comparative assessment of their potential impact on the intention to return.…”

An Intergenerational Perspective on (Re)migration: Return and Onward Mobility Intentions across Immigrant Generations

“…Finally, the survey provides no information on the expected timing of migration or duration of stay abroad. The lack of this information is significant for this study, since migration motivations widely differ between and among short-time return visits, longer-term relocation, and settling in a third country for some years as part of one’s professional career (Bilgili and Siegel 2017). 14 In any case, this article is interested in migration intention in itself for what it says about immigrants’ relationship to the country of residence and expected destination, rather than for how/whether it works as an exact proxy of population movements.…”

The Economics of International Student and Scholar Mobility: Directions for Research

“…There are both host country and home country factors that affect stay rates. Among the host country factors, marriage-related migration was important for the Surinamese in the Netherlands (Bijwaard and Rodriguez, 2013) while the length of study resulting in migration to the country was important for other nationals (Ooosterbeek and Webbink, 2009), with the well-educated more likely to stay (Bilgili and Siegel, 2017). Constraints and opportunities were the main factors affecting stay rates in Denmark (Mosneaga and Winther, 2013).…”