What initiates, what postpones return migration intention? The case of Turkish immigrants residing in Germany

Abstract

This study endeavours to identify the determinants of return migration intentions of Turks living in Germany. The decision‐making patterns of potential return migrants are examined by seeking to answer three main research questions: (a) what are the main factors that push Turkish immigrants to consider return migration? (b) What are the main challenges postponing or promoting hesitation in the return decision? (c) what strategies are adopted to overcome those challenges? I conducted in‐depth interviews with 20 Turks living in Germany. Findings show that return migration intentions are associated with economic conditions, stigmatisation in both countries, social networks, commitment to the homeland, and perceived discriminatory attitudes. This study provides evidence that return migration intentions are formed through complex decision‐making processes based on economic and noneconomic factors. Although these factors may cause hesitation or postpone plans to return, all detected challenges were managed through specific coping strategies.

Change and stability of migration intentions. Evidence from Italy

“…First, the number of migrants declaring this intention at the interview was too small to be one of the alternatives considered in our models (44 among those with an initial return plan, 20 among those intending to settle at their arrival and 85 among those undecided at their arrival). Second, we preferred not to group these respondents with those expressing the will to return or the intent to settle because the motives of onward migrants can differ from those of return migrants (Tezcan, 2018), and migrants intending to settle usually have different characteristics (Barbiano di Belgiojoso, 2016; Barbiano di Belgiojoso & Ortensi, 2013). This reduced our analysis to the options ‘stay’ and ‘return’, the most frequent choices selected by migrants.…”

“…Second, we preferred not to group these respondents with those expressing the will to return or the intent to settle because the motives of onward migrants can differ from those of return migrants (Tezcan, 2018), and migrants intending to settle usually have different characteristics (Barbiano di Belgiojoso, 2016; Barbiano di Belgiojoso & Ortensi, 2013). This reduced our analysis to the options 'stay' and 'return', the most frequent choices selected by migrants.…”

Future plans and integration in the Greek cities: Time as a resource and implication of belonging in refugees’ discourse.

“…For example, research has noted that although there are difficulties for migrants' children to climb up the social ladder, integration patterns are not stable and fixed through time and within different ethnic groups (Crul & Vermeulen, 2003). This is reflected in studies such as the one by Tezcan (2019) in which it is mentioned that the earning potential compared to the past of Turkish immigrants in Germany is a significant factor that contributes to their intention to return to their home country. Specifically, the study notes that the inability of Turkish immigrants to earn wages comparable to those of the original first-generation guestworkers (along with xenophobia and transnational ties with Turkey) is a key driver of intentions to return.…”

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

“…Source country factors were also important. In general, factors affecting the stay rates of Turkish students include the importance of family and homeland, economic and political instability in Turkey as well as the length of study abroad (Tezcan, 2019;Gungor and Tansel, 2008a, b;Tansel and Gungor, 2003). Students from East and South Asia and Eastern Europe were also more likely to stay (Migration Policy Group, 2015).…”