Return Migration
Author(s): George Gmelch
Source: Annual Review of Anthropology, Vol. 9 (1980), pp. 135-159
Published by: Annual Reviews
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2155732
Accessed: 11/01/2010 13:25
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=annrevs.
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
Annual Reviews is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Annual Review of
Anthropology.
http://www.jstor.org
Ann. Rev. Anthropol 1980. 9:135-59
Copyright ? 1980 by Annual Reviews Inc. All rights reserved
RETURN MIGRATION
.9652
George Gmelch'
Departmentof Anthropology,StateUniversityof New York,
Albany,New York 12222
International migration today differs from that of the last century. Then
migration was largely a one-way movement with major streams of migrants
leaving Europe and Asia for North America. It was generally assumed that
those who left the Old World never returned. As early as 1885, however,
Ravenstein (64) had noted the principle of return migration in his renowned
list of migration laws: "Each main current of migration produces a compensating counter-current."Nevertheless, the view of migration as a once-andonly phenomenon which arose from the nineteenth century transatlantic
experience dominated migration studies (38). The thousands of migrants
who returnedto their homelands, including an estimated one quarterof the
16 million Europeans who arrived in the United States during the early
decades of this century, were barely noticed by social scientists. In a migration bibliography published as recently as 10 years ago by Mangalam (51),
only 10 of the 2051 titles listed were studies of return migration (8). There
were actually several times that many studies, but still a triffing effort.
Rhoades (68) has suggested several other reasons for the neglect of return
migration. The massive urbanization occurring in most parts of the world
led to a "rural-urban"analytical framework in which geographical movements were viewed as occurring in one direction only-rural to urban. The
nature of traditional anthropologicalfieldwork which involved research for
a limited period of time (customarily one year) in a limited space (a single
village) may also have led to a view of migration as a static event. Finally,
return is the most difficult aspect of the migration cycle to quantify. While
1J wishto thankRichardFelson,SharonGmelch,DonaldHill,RobertRhoades,andWalter
P. Zennerfor their helpfulcommentson an earlierdraft, and John Cullen at the Irish
Foundationof HumanDevelopmentandConorWardat UniversityCollege,Dublinfor their
supportand serviceswhichenabledme to undertakethis review.
135
0084-6570/80/1015-0135$01.00
136
GMELCH
most countriesgatherinformationon incomingaliens,the same does not
applyfor returningcitizens.
In the last 15 years,however,anthropologyandits sisterdisciplineshave
begunto treatmigrationas a system,examiningboth streamand counterstreams;andworkingat bothends-sending andreceivingsocieties.In this
essay I will reviewthe findingsof the now growingliteratureon return
migration,attemptingto pull togetherthe insightsmade by fieldworkers
and to arriveat some generalizations.
Treatedwill be typologiesof return
of returnees,and
migrants,reasonsforreturn,adaptationandreadjustment
the impactof returnmigrationon the migrants'home societies.
Beforeproceeding,I shouldmakeclearwhat is meantby returnmigration.Perhapsreflectingthe subject'srecentemergenceas an areaof inquiry,
therehas beenmuchterminologicalsloppiness(8). A widevarietyof terms
has been used to describereturnmigration:refluxmigration,homeward
migration,remigration,returnflow, second-timemigration,repatriation,
and at a recent AAA meetingone speakersuggested"retromigration."
Followingits usagein most of the worksreviewedhere, returnmigration
is definedas the movementof emigrantsbackto theirhomelandsto resettle.
Migrantsreturningfor a vacationor an extendedvisitwithoutthe intention
of remainingat homearegenerallynot definedas returnmigrants,though
in somesettingsit is difficultto distinguishanalyticallythe migrantsreturning home for a short visit or seasonallyfrom those who have returned
permanently.A relatedconceptis reemigration.This refersto peoplewho
move back to their homelandsand then emigratea secondtime. The frequent movementbetweentwo or more places, such as in seasonallabor
migration, is referred to as circular migration (8, 54).
In this reviewI am primarilyconcernedwithinternationalreturnmigration in which the returneescross culturalboundaries.I will not be concerned with the returnmovementsof migrantswithin a single cultural
system such as Africanwage laborersgoing from the city back to rural
villages.This type of domesticreturnwhich frequentlycomes underthe
headingof circularmigrationhas beentreatedelsewhere[see,for example,
Graves& Graves(29) and Petersen(60)]. Most of the returnmigration
literaturedealswith personswho originallymigratedto urban-industrialized countriesor regions,notably in northernEuropeand northeastern
North America,who have returnedto their homelandsin less developed
areas, particularlythe southernand easternfringes of Europe and the
Caribbean,but also to ruralhinterlandswithinindustrializedregions,such
as the west of Ireland.
Data on the sociodemographiccharacteristicsof returnmigrantsare
limitedbut do permitus to makesome generalizationsabout whoreturns
(1, 2, 9, 27, 35, 44, 49, 56, 57, 66, 70, 71, 76, 78, 85, 87, 93). Most return
RETURN MIGRATION
137
migrantsoriginallyemigratedfromruralareasandsmalltownsin developing regions.Theirdecisionto leave was voluntary,yet motivatedby economic necessity-high unemployment,declinein the amountof available
of familyholdings,andso forth.More
agriculturalland,the fragmentation
men than womenleft, most while in theirlate teens or earlytwentiesand
centerswhere they obstill single. Most went to majorurban-industrial
tainedunskilledjobswhichneverthelesspaidfarmorethantheycouldhave
earnedat home.Theyfolloweda patternof chainmigration,goingto places
wheretheirkinsmenor friendshad alreadybecomeestablished.Amongthe
marriedcouples,the men usuallywent first, sendingfor their wives and
childrenlater,once a homehad beenset up. Upon returningmanysettled
in largetowns and citiesbut many also went home to their ruralplace of
origin.Few, however,resumedthe agriculturaloccupationsthey had held
beforeemigration.
TYPOLOGIES OF RETURN MIGRANTS
Most typologiesof returnmigrationhavedealt with two dimensionsalong
whichthereis considerablediversity:the lengthof time migrantsintended
to remainabroadand theirreason(s)for returning(8, 13, 44, 49, 66, 72).
In each schemea basic distinctionis made betweenthose migrantswho
intendedtheiremigrationto be temporaryand those who intendedit to be
permanent. The formerusuallyreturnedto their countryof origin after
accomplishingthe specificobjective(s)they had set out to achieve,most
oftento accumulatea sumof money.By returningthey aremerelyfulfilling
theiroriginalplans.The secondtype, on the otherhand,had intended,or
at least hoped,theiremigrationto be permanent-that they wouldbe able
to createa betterlife abroad.But for variousreasonsthey decidedor were
forcedto return.King (44), Lianos(49), and Cerase(13) categorizetwo or
migrantsaccordingto the cause
moresubtypesamongthese "permanent"
of their return.First are those who were forced to returndue to some
outsidefactor,eitherfamilycircumstances,such as the need to look after
an ill or elderlyparent,or falteringeconomicconditionsin the hostcountry.
These migrantsweresatisfiedwith their situationabroadand would have
preferredto remainhadtheybeenableto do so. Secondarethosewhofailed
to adapt to the way of life in the host society, perhapsbecauseof the
strangenessof the language,people,andcustomsor becausethey couldnot
bearthe psychiccostsof beingseparatedfromclosefriendsandthe familiar
environmentof home.
The corefeaturesof the variousclassificationscan be abstractedinto the
followingcompositetypology:
138
GMELCH
1. Returneeswho intendedtemporarymigration.The time of theirreturn
is determinedby the objectivesthey set out to achieveat the time of
emigration.
2. Returneeswhointendedpermanentmigrationbut wereforcedto return.
Theirpreferencewas to remainabroadbut becauseof externalfactors
they were requiredto return.
3. Returneeswho intendedpermanentmigrationbut choseto return.Failure to adjustand/or homesicknessled to their decisionto return.
The typologiesreviewedhere do help clarifybasic types of returnmigrants.Neverthelessthereareproblems,especiallyin attemptingto categorize migrantsaccordingto their intentionsat the time of emigration,i.e.
temporaryversuspermanent.Most migrantssimply do not have definite
plans(8, 26, 73). They go on a trialbasis,lettingtheirdecisionof whether
or not to returnandwhento returnbe guidedby the opportunitiestheyfind
in the new society. Bretell(10) shows that the Portuguesemigrantsshe
studied,even aftermanyyearsaway,retainan "ideologyof return."That
is, most,no matterhow settled,keepopenthe possibilitythatthey will one
day go home. They take action to that end in sendingremittancesand
maintainingclosecontactswithpeopleat home.An ideologyof returnand
perpetuallypostponinga decisionon permanentsettlementhas been describedamongothermigrantgroupsas well (16, 36, 74).
MOTIVES FOR RETURN MIGRATION
Whydo migrantsreturnto theirhomelands?Whyaremanywillingto give
up a comparatively
highstandardof livingin one of the advancedindustrializednationsof the worldin orderto returnto a less developedsociety?
In reviewingthe evidenceon the reasonsfor returningI will concentrate
on those migrantswho either intendedpermanentemigrationor lacked
definiteplans.I am not concernedwith the forcedrepatriationof refugees
during or followingwar (8, 53, 73, 81) when obviouslylittle choice is
involved,nor with circularlabormigration.
A few writingspoint to unfavorableeconomicconditionsin the host
society, such as recessionor layoffs and unemploymentwithin a single
industry,as the primarycause of returnmigration(35, 41). HernandezAlvarez(34) reportsthatmanyPuertoRicanmigrantsin the UnitedStates
returnedto PuertoRicoin the 1960sas a resultof beingdisplacedfromtheir
jobs by automationand mechanization.Kayser (40, 41), King (46), and
Rhoades(66, 67, 69) have documentedthe massivereturnflows of Eufrom Germanyand otherindustrialropeanguestworkersor Gastarbeiter
ized northern European nations due to recent economic recessions
RETURN MIGRATION
139
(1966-1967and 1972-1973)whichhad theirmost seriousimpacton those
sectorsof the economy-factoryandconstruction-in whichmostmigrant
workersareemployed.Moststudies,however,reportnoneconomicfactors
as the primaryreasonsfor returnmigration(1, 8, 16, 19, 22, 26, 42, 57, 72,
77, 78, 85, 93). Most frequentlymentionedare strongfamilyties and the
desireto be in the companyof one's own kin and longtimefriends.The
desire to returnoften surfacesduringvacationtrips home. Perhapsnot
entirelysatisfiedwithfactoryworkandcity life, andexaltedby openspace,
blue sky, cleanair,an easygoingpace of life, and the friendlinessof people
at home,the migrantbeginsto seriouslyconsidera newlife at home.Many
Newfoundlandreturneesindicatedthatthey had madethe finaldecisionto
returnwhilein Newfoundlandon holidays,and althoughthey had always
thoughtaboutreturning,madethe actualdecisionsuddenly(Gmelchet al,
in preparation).Somereturnedto theirhomes in Toronto,Montreal,and
other Canadianmainlandcitiesjust long enoughto pack theirbelongings
and put their housesup for sale.
Ailing or elderlyparentsobligatesome migrants,particularlythe eldest
children,to return.They go back to look aftera sick relativeand to run
the familybusinessor farm.Initiallythey may haveintendedto reemigrate
to the host countryonce affairsat home weresortedout, but aftersettling
in againthey soon gave up thoughtsof leaving.The importanceof family
ties in returnmigrationis reflected,I believe,in the sizablenumbersof
migrantswho returnto theirhomecommunitiesin ruralareas.One might
expectall but retiredandindependentlywealthyreturneesto settleinstead
in urbanareaswhereemploymentopportunitiesare greaterandthe attractions of city life, to which they had becomeaccustomed,are present.Yet
in studies where data are availableon the place of resettlement,from
one-thirdto one-halfof the migrantsreturnedto rural areas or small
towns (23, 26, 27, 49).
Feelingsof loyaltyor allegianceto the home society is also cited as an
importantconsiderationamongmanymigrants.In severalstudieswherea
seriesof reasonsfor returnwerescaledand quantitativelymeasured,"love
of homeland"or a similarlywordedconceptwas cited as the most important factorin the decisionto return(26, 70, 85). This was particularlytrue
amongIsraeli,Irish,and Newfoundlandmigrants.For many of these returneesthe social and culturaladvantagesof life in their native society
outweighsthe economiccosts-the expenseof movingand the declinein
earningpower-of returning.This is less often the case, however,in the
poorerdevelopingnationswherethe home economycannotprovidemany
returneeswith adequateemploymentand a comfortablestandardof living.
Only in the hinterlandsof the industrializedworldare the economiccosts
of returnsmall enoughto be affordable.
140
GMELCH
In some cases the decisionto returnwas also influencedby negativeor
"push"factorsin the host country.Jamaicanmigrantsin Britainencountered painfulexperiencesof racial prejudiceand discrimination(19, 82).
This was also reportedto be a factorin the returnof some PuertoRican
migrantsfromthe UnitedStates(34). Emigrantsfromthe warmerclimates
of south Asia and the Caribbeanhad difficultyadjustingto the comparativelysevereEuropeanandnorthernNorth Americanwinters(16, 19, 82).
And, as previouslymentioned,poor economicconditionsforce some migrantsto return.
Overall,however,the attractionsor positiveattributesof the homesociety-"pull" factors-have more influencein returnmigrationdecisions
than factorsinherentin the host societies.This was conclusivelydemonstratedby severalquantitativestudiesof migrationin which the relative
influenceof pushandpullfactorsas motivesfor returnwerecompared(26,
85).
The most common method used to elicit migrationmotives in these
studieshas simplybeen to ask migrantsdirectlywhy they returned(standard motive).Thereare severalpotentialproblemsin this approach.For
one, it implicitlyassumesthat migrantsknow what motivatedthem and
that they will state those factorswhen asked. Moreover,as Taylor (83)
points out, there is a tendencyfor people to reduce the wide varietyof
factors which influencedtheir decision down to one or two overriding
reasons.This is done to reducethe cognitivedissonanceor psychological
discomfortthatresultsfromhavingto makea decisionwheretherearetwo
or more alternatives.Also, the reasonmigrantsgive may vary with the
identity of the interviewerand the context in which they are asked. A
secondproblemarisesin orderingand classifyingthe widearrayof reasons
given by migrantsinto a set of meaningfuland manageabledimensions.
Nina Toren(84) tacklesbothproblemsin a methodologicallysophisticated
studyof Israelireturneesfromthe UnitedStates.Ratherthanaskreturnees
directlyto explaintheirmotivesfor returning,she presentedthem with a
scaleor "accountingscheme"of 18 reasonsand askedthem to indicateon
a five-pointscale the degreeto which each influencedtheir decision to
migrate.The 18 motivesweregroupedinto threebroadcategories:1. economic and occupational;2. patrioticand social;and 3. familialand personal.Withineach categorytherewerethreereasonswhichindicatedpull
factors(positivefeaturesassociatedwith the homeland)and threeindicating push factors (negativefactors associatedwith the host country).In
effect,Torenoperationalizedthe push-pullmodel of migrationmotives.
A modifiedversionof this methodwas adoptedby Taylor(82) among
Jamaicansand by Gmelchin separatestudiesof Irish and Newfoundland
returnmigrants(26).All fourstudiesusingthistechniquefoundpullfactors
RETURN MIGRATION
141
(the attractionsof the placeof destination)to be far moresignificantthan
pushdimensionsin promotingreturnmigration.Push factorshad surprisingly little effecton the decisionto return.Consistentwith the previously
discussedfindings,social-patriotic
andfamilial-personal
reasonswerestated
by the migrantsto have greaterinfluenceon their decisionto returnthan
did economic-occupational
factors.However,we mustbe cautiousin interpretingthesefindingsas it has not beendemonstratedconclusivelythat the
migrants'ratingsof the variousmotivationalfactorsaccuratelyreflectsthe
realreasonsfor theirreturn.The economicdimensionmaybe moreimportantthanmanyreturneesarewillingto admit.For instance,whencontrolling for socioeconomicstatus, Toren found the more successfulIsraeli
migrantsto be influencedmoreby occupationalopportunitiesbackhome,
whilethe less successfulwereprimarilyinfluencedby patrioticattachments
and loyalty to the home country.For governmentbodiesconcernedwith
returnmigration,thismeansthathigherstatusreturneesmaynot be a good
investmentas theymayleaveagainshouldbetterjob opportunitiesopenup
elsewhere.The lower status migrants,in contrast,are more inclined to
perceivetheir homecomingas the end of the journey(84).
Success or Failure
A questionposedby some researchersis whetherreturneeswerebasically
"successes"or "failures"as emigrants(8, 92). Do they returnbecausethey
have failedto adaptto theirsurroundingsor achievethe "goodlife" they
had expected?Or did they fare reasonablywell, choosingto returnnot
becauseof discontentmentbut becausethey felt therewereimportantadvantagesto livingin theirhomelandwhich were not availableabroad?In
other words,is returnmigrationusuallythe consequenceof a positiveor
a negativeselectionprocess?This questionis of obviousimportancefor
understandingthe effectsof returnmigrationon sendingsocieties.
Thedatasuggestthatmostreturneeswereclearlynot failures,butneither
weretheygreatsuccesses.In herstudyof Israelireturnees,Torenfoundthat
returnmigrationwas nonselective:returnmigrantsresembledthose who
remainedbehindboth in level of educationand in occupationalposition.
Hernandes-Alvarez
(34) foundthat the PuertoRicanreturneeshada small
educationaladvantageover those who remainedin the United Statesbut
had earnedless money. They also had a higher rate of unemployment
(16.7%).Most Irishreturneesappearto be drawnfromthe middleranges
of the socioeconomicladderin the overseasIrish community:returnmigrantsat both the top and bottomare underrepresented
(26). It has been
suggestedthat amongvariousEuropeanmigrantgroupsthe unsuccessful
are disinclinedto returnbecausethey do not wish to admithavingfailed
(26, 42, 43, 75). Moreover,many of those who do not fare well simply
142
GMELCH
cannotaffordthe expenseof a returntrip home. The very successfulare
often not interestedin returningbecauseit would mean givingup secure,
well-salariedpositionswhichcannotbe equaledin the homeland.Returning
may also mean costly obligationsto shareone's wealthwith less well off
kinsmenat home.
Until more is knownaboutthe characteristicsof the migrantswho remainabroad,however,it willbe difficultto knowforcertainthe relationship
betweeneconomicsuccessand the decisionto return.Unfortunately,there
have been very few systematicattemptsto comparereturneeswith their
compatriotswho remainbehind.
ADAPTATION AND READJUSTMENT OF RETURN
MIGRANTS
Therearetwo perspectivesfromwhichthe questionof readaptationcan be
approached.The firstapproachexaminesthe actual economicand social
conditionsof returnees:whetheror not they have foundjobs, adequate
housing,developedpersonalrelationships,participatedin communityorganizations,and so forth(39). Successor failurein adaptationwoulddepend
upon the degreeto whichthe migranthas satisfiedthese objectivecriteria.
The secondapproachfocusesuponthe migrant'sown perceptionsof his or
her adjustmentand the extent to which he feels the homelandhas filled
self-definedneeds and given him a sense of well-being.The literatureapproachesreadaptationfromboth perspectives,etic and emic, to some degree. But the emphasis is clearly on the latter approach in which
readaptationis analyzedas a formof personaladjustmentandmeasuredin
termsof the degreeof "satisfaction"or "dissatisfaction"
expressedby the
migrants(1, 14, 20, 26, 82). Plans to reemigrateare interpretedas a sign
of dissatisfactionor maladjustment(57).
DaVanzo (18) suggeststhat becausereturnmigrantsare familiarwith
their destinationand are likely to have friends and relativesthere, the
barriersto andpsychiccostsof returningwill be lowerthanfor individuals
arrivingfor the first time. Moreover,if there is a degreeof learning-byexperienceassociatedwith migration,then personswho haveemigratedat
least once shouldfindit easierto move again.The data,however,present
a very differentpicture.Somemigrantsdo readjustquicklyand encounter
few problems;evenaftermanyyears'absencethey appearto pickup where
they left off as thoughthey had neverbeen away. But manymigrantsare
unhappyanddisillusioned.Theyareofteneconomicallybetteroffthantheir
neighbors,yet they are disappointedand sometimesbitteraboutlife in the
homeland.Kenny (42) and Rhoades(66) note that youngerSpanishmigrantsreplacetheir Heimwich(homesickness)of Germanywith descon-
RETURN MIGRATION
143
tento (dissatisfaction)in Spain's villages. King (44), Bernard &
Vouyoucalos(6) and Kenny (42) report "reversecultureshock" among
Italian,Greek,andSpanishreturnees,respectively.Taylor(82) reportsthat
61%of the Jamaicanreturneeshe interviewedweredissatisfiedalthoughhis
measuresof adjustmentare less than satisfactory.Paine (57) notes that
TurkishmigrantworkersbackfromGermanyareso dissatisfiedwithconditions at home that a majoritysay they would like to reemigrate.And
one-fifthof the 600 Irishreturneesinterviewedby Gmelchandhis associates
(26)saidtheywouldbe moresatisfiedbackin the host society(UnitedStates
or Britain)then they are at home.
Manymigrantsareill preparedfor theirreturn.They do not realizehow
muchthey or theircommunitieshavechangedduringtheirabsence.Those
returningfromhighlyurban,industrializednationsto the ThirdWorldno
longersharemanyof thebasicnotionsthatunderlietheirtraditionalculture
(16). Relativesand formerfriendsno longersharethe sameinterests,and
seem narrow,overlyprovincial,and in some cases backward(26, 42, 66,
77). On the otherhand,localpeoplehavedevelopednewfriendshipsduring
the absenceof their migrantfriendsand relativesand are not alwaysenthusiasticaboutresumingold relationships(1). A few migrants,the extreme
cases,feel they havebeen so changedby their emigrationexperiencethat
they now havemorein commonwith peopleof the host societythan with
their own ruralcountrymen(20, 26).
Somemigrantsencounterenvyandsuspicionamongtheirlessprosperous
neighbors(16, 19,66). Believingthat all migrantsarewealthy,localssometimestake advantageof migrantsby expectinghigherpaymentfor services
and overchargingfor goods. As one Newfoundlandmigrantexplained,
"Whena Newfoundlander
askshis neighborsto helphim repairhis roofor
fix his boat,they say, 'Sure,just let me know'.But whensomeonewho has
been away asks, they say, 'Sure,how much are you going to pay me?'"
(Gmelchet al, in preparation).
Many returneesare unhappywith the "waythings are done"at home.
A typical complaintconcernsthe lack of efficiencyand punctuality.In
contrastto the fast pace of the urban,industrialhost societies,everything
happensslowlyat home.It seemsto takeforeverto get thingsdone(16, 20,
32, 59). Clerksand cashiersmove at a snail'space, plumbers,electricians,
and otherrepairmenfail to arriveat the appointedtime or do not come at
all. A meddling,insensitive,and inefficientgovernmentbureaucracyis a
source of considerablefrustrationfor some. Dahya (17) reportsthat the
correspondencecolumnsof the Pakistaniimmigrantpressare filledweek
after week with complaintsabout the country'sbureaucrats,including
chargesof bribery,corruption,and nepotism.The returneescomparethis
withthe efficiencyandfairplaytheyexperiencedin the handsof Britishcivil
144
GMELCH
servants.Such complaintsare not uniqueto migrantsin the developing
nations.Norwegianreturneesalso complainedbitterlyabout the lack of
servicesand the interminabledelays,such as a 1-yearwait to have a telephoneinstalled(20).
Althoughmost migrantsdo not returnhome in hopes of gettingrich,
economicconditionsaresometimesworsethananticipated.Jobsareharder
to find,wageslower,and workingconditionspoor to abysmal.SomeIrish
pubownersfoundtheyhadearnedmoremoneytendingsomeoneelse'sbar
in New York or Boston than they could runningtheir own in Ireland.
Taylor(82) reportsthat the Jamaicanreturneeshe studiedwereunwilling
economiclevel becuasethey wouldlose
to takejobs at theirpreemigration
esteemamongtheirneighborsand relativeswho expectedthem to be upwardlymobile.
For manymigrantwomenwho heldjobs while away,problemsof readjustmentare heightenedby theirearlyand usuallyinvoluntaryretirement.
With few employmentopportunitiesfor women in the ruralareasat the
periphery,many migrantwomen are confinedto home (4, 26). Women
returningto theirhusband'shomecommunityratherthan theirown, as is
oftenthe case amongcoupleswho met overseas,experiencemoredifficulty
establishingmeaningfulrelationshipsthan their husbands.Unfortunately,
very little attentionhas been given to the specialproblemsof femalemigrants.Clearlymoreresearchis neededon sex differencesin migrantreadjustment.The sameis also trueof the readjustmentof childrenin migrant
families.R. L. King, in one of the few studiesthat evenmentionschildren,
reportsthat the problemsassociatedwith returnmigrationto Italy are
"most acute for childrenof school age and teenagers"(44). Unlike preschoolers,this age grouphad alreadystartedtheir educationin the host
country,England.Returnmigrationfor them meantleavingbehindtheir
friendsandEnglish,the languageof instruction.In Italianschoolsat home
they have difficultybecausethey cannot read or write Italian and "the
behaviorof the villagechildrenseemsstrangeto them."Languageis similarlya problemwithsomeSpanishschoolchildrenwho returnto Spainwith
better German than Spanish (R. Rhoades, personal communication).
Jamaicanmigrantsin Britainwho intendto returnavoidtheseproblemsby
sendingtheir childrenback to the islandto be raisedby relatives(19).
With time migrantslearnto cope with manyof the problemsdiscussed
here.Severalstudiesdiscerna periodof adjustmentof from 1 to 2 years(6,
26, 44). AmongIrishreturnees,for example,the percentagewho expressed
dissatisfactionwith their lives in Irelanddroppedfrom 51% amongmigrantswho hadbeenback1yearor lessto 21%of thosewhohadbeenhome
2 or moreyears(26). And amongthose who had beenbackfor morethan
5 years,the numberwho werediscontenteddroppedto 17%.Not included
RETURNMIGRATION 145
in thesefigures,however,arethe estimated5 to 10%who wereso unhappy
that they reemigrated.Bernardand Vouyoucalosdescribereadjustmentas
a processin which the strong allegiancesand preferencesfor traits and
institutionsfoundabroadis blurredwith time. "Lessconciousof the lost
advantagesof this formerhost country,but also less awareof his homeland's shortcomings,he or she settles down" (6). This is not unlike the
"reversecultureshock"or short-termreadjustmentproblemsmanyPeace
Corpsvolunteersexperienceon their returnto the United States.
Why do so many migrantsexperienceproblemsin readjustingto the
culturesin which they were socialized?A theme that runs throughthese
studies is that migrantshave unrealisticexpectationsof what the home
societywouldprovide.The processof adjustmentis not just a functionof
the actualconditions-environmentaland social-of the area,but a function of the expectationsheldby migrants(21, 33). For a varietyof reasons
theseexpectationsareoftenunrealistic.Theirmemoriesof homearenostalgic ones,withpositiveexperiencesstandingout whilenegativeaspectshave
recededfrommemory.Home, afterall, was the place wherethe migrants
spentthe formativeyears,theiryouth,a time when they werehealthyand
relativelyfreefromthe annoyingresponsibilities
of adultlife.Vacationtrips
homedid littleto correctthis idealisticimagesincethey wereusuallymade
duringthe summerwhenthe weatherwasgood andthe atmospherefestive.
For the two or threeweeksthey werehome social activitywas intense,as
it could be for a shortperiodof time to celebratethe returnof a relative.
Lettersfromhomewerealsoa contributingfactor.In hopesof encouraging
the migrantto return,relativesexaggeratedthe benefitsof life at homewhile
underplayingor evenignoringunemploymentandinflation.Togetherthese
factorsraisedthe returnees'expectationshigherthan the realityof life in
the homelandcouldsatisfy,thus producinga sense of relativedeprivation
amongotherwisesuccessfulmigrants.
Someproblemsof readjustment
areattributableto differencesin the scale
of the communitiesin whichmigrantshavelived.Most returneesleft large
metropolitanareas, e.g. New York, Munich, Paris, London, where the
densityof population,heterogeneityof lifestyles,and widerangeof choices
in shopping,food, and entertainmentprovidedmuch stimulation.Those
who livedin "ethnicvillages"withinthe city weresomewhatshelteredfrom
theseinfluencesbut only partially.The migrantsreturn,then,to a developing society-to a remote village or small town in the Mezzogiornoor
Andaluciaor to a quietfishingoutportwith unpavedroadson the coast of
Newfoundland.At home there is a certainuniformityin the work and
outlookof the people.Thereare differences,of course,but they are small
comparedwith whatone experiencedin the city. The paceof life is relaxed
andthereis seeminglylittleto do with one'sfreetimeotherthanplaycards
146
GMELCH
or join a few men in a gameof boccior boules.The contrastmay be a bit
exaggeratedbut manymigrantswouldnot disagree.The pointis that many
of the complaintsmigrantshaveabouthome,the slow pace,the provincial
interestsof local people,and so forth,are due to basicdifferencesbetween
urbanandrurallife. And to somedegreereturneeswouldexperiencemany
of the sameadjustmentdifficultiesif they movedto a ruralareawithinthe
industrializedhost society-to a villagein the EnglishPeaksdistrict,say,
or a farmingcommunityin Vermont.
For those who do not readjust,who do not settle in, reemigrationis one
solution,at least temporarily.Little is known about the numbersof migrants who reemigrate.However,severalsurveysasked returneesabout
their futureintentions.The resultsshow that 25% of Greek(49), 20% of
the Irish (26), 64% of Italian(44), and 85% of ruraland 65% of urban
Turkish(57) migrantsexpresseda desireto reemigrateto the host countries
fromwhichtheyhadreturned.Thesefiguresrequirean importantqualification. They do not distinguishreturneeswho wish to reemigratebecauseof
dissatisfactionfrom those who wish to go abroadagain in orderto earn
more money and who intend to returnhome. Some individualsbecome
"shuttlemigrants,"culturalcommuterswho movebackandforthbetween
home and host societiesneverfully satisfiedwith wherethey are (6).
IMPACT OF RETURN MIGRATION ON HOME
SOCIETIES
The consequencesof emigrationfor the sending societies has been the
subjectof muchdebate(see, for example,7, 8, 63, 65, 80, 92). Proponents
of emigrationarguethatamongotherthingsreturningmigrantsbringback
valuableindustrialworkexperienceand skills as well as capitalneededfor
the economic developmentof their homelands.This position has been
summarizedby ArnoldRose (73):
The migrantworkersare gettingtrainingand experiencein moderntechniquesof productionwhichmanybringback to theirnativelands;the cost of unemployment
paymentsor socialassistanceto the unemployedareavoided;theremaybe lessof a housing
shortage;the migrantssendsomeof theirsavingsto theirrelativesin the homecountry,
which providesforeignexchangeto the governmentsof emigrantcountries,and the
returningmigrantsbringthe rest of their savingshome for investmentin presumably
productiveenterprises[quotedin (65)].
Empiricalstudies of return migration,however, do not support these
claims.In this sectionI will reviewthe literatureon the impactof return
migrationin termsof the introductionof new skills,retumeeinvestmentof
capital,the introductionof newideasandattitudes,changesin socialstructureresultingfromreturnmigration,and the influenceof returnmigration
in encouragingfurtheremigration.
RETURN MIGRATION
147
Introduction of WorkSkills
Becausethe greatmajorityof migrantsworkat unskilledjobs whileabroad,
few returnwith work experiencethat can be consideredimportantto the
developmentof the homeeconomy.Painereportsthatless than 10%of the
TurkishworkersreturningfromGermanyhad receivedany trainingwhile
away.The patternis similarfor Greek(49), Spanish(66, 69), Irish(9, 26),
Italian (15), Mexican (91) and other returnees. Of the migrants who do
obtainbetterjobs while living away, most are only semiskilled.This, as
Castles& Kosack (12) note, usually means "nothingmore than a brief
introduction in how to carry out a specific operation in a specific factory."
Even for the few migrantswho do acquiretechnicalor industrialskills
there is a good chance they will not be able to apply them at home. Rural
areasfromwhichmostmigrantsoriginatelackthe infrastructure
neededto
makeeffectiveuse of theirskills. Moreover,migrantsgenerallyhave little
desireto continuein industrialemploymentupon return.AmongTurkish
returnees,for example,just 3% of those returningto ruralareasand 20%
of thosereturningto citieswerewillingto considerwageemployment(57).
The dreamof mostreturnmigrantsis to be independentandself-employed,
whichusuallymeanssettingup a smallbusinesssuch as a groceryshop or
taxi service,not returningto the assemblyline.
In a study of Algerianmigrants,Trebous(86) offersa strikingexample
of the inappropriateness
of foreignacquiredskills to the economyof the
sending society. Nearly two-thirdsof all Algerian workers in France
workedin a singleindustry-the buildingtrades.With limitedactivityin
this sectorof the economyin Algeria,the workerswho returnedwerelikely
to find themselvesunemployed.Similarly,migrantswho workedin the
rural,agriculturalsectorof the host societyand resettledin ruralareasin
the homesocietymaynot be ableto makeuse of theirforeignworkexperience becauseof differencesin the scale of the two economies.Raymond
Wiest(91) providesan illustrationof this in an excellentstudyof Mexican
wage-labormigration.The skills Mexicanbraceroslearnwhileworkingin
large-scaleagriculture(mainlyfruitpicking)in the UnitedStateshavelittle
relevanceto small-scale(mainlycereal)agriculturein Mexico.
Beforeleavingthis topictwo exceptionsto this patternshouldbe noted.
In a nationalsurveyof PuertoRican returnees,Heranandez-Alvarez
(34)
foundthatover40%werewhite-collarandthatas a grouptheyrepresented
a middlesectorborderingon the nation'seducational,financial,and occupationalelite.His surveywasconductedin 1960,however,at a timeof rapid
expansionof the PuertoRicaneconomywhichattractedmanyprofessionals
home from the United States.Alvarezcorrectlypredictedthat the whitecollarjob marketwouldquicklyreacha saturationpointmakingit difficult
forfuture,skilledmigrantsto findwork.The secondcaseconcernsFilipinos
who had beenawayfor a long periodworkingat variousjobs on Hawaiian
148
GMELCH
sugar plantations.MacArthur(52) credits them with introducingmany
usefulskillsas cooks,carpenters,welders,heavyequipmentoperators,and
the like.
In drawingconclusionsaboutthe role of returnmigrantsin introducing
workskills,an importantqualificationneedsto be made.The bulkof field
researchhas beendone in ruralareas,while a majorityof returnmigrants
in many countrieshave resettledin towns and cities. In an urbancontext
the influenceof the returneemightbe different.Therethey havethe opportunity of findingindustrialor officework which would makeuse of their
foreignacquiredskills.
Investment of Savings
After years of hard work and saving,many migrantsreturnwith sizable
amountsof capital.In additionto their savingsaccountdeposits,cash is
obtainedfrom the sale of theiroverseasassets.As Appleyard(1) notes in
a largelyeconomicstudyof BritishreturneesfromAustralia,"emigration
to a distantoverseascountryandreturnare aboutthe only occasionswhen
a personliquefiesthebulkof his assets."Mostof the possessions-furniture,
car, consumerdurables,and house-accumulated during the migrant's
residenceabroadare sold priorto departureand the moneytransferredto
a bankin the homecountry.Rhoades(66) has beensuccessfulin estimating
returneecapitalby examiningthe bankdepositsof Spanishreturnmigrants.
With this exception,however,thereis little statisticaldata on how much
moneythe averagereturneebringshome.But it is clearthat manyare well
off by local standardsand may even rival the purchasingpowerof local
elites (31, 52, 66).
The key question,however,is not how much migrantsreturnwith, but
how they investtheirearningsat home.Do they investin enterprises,such
as new typesof businesses,new farmingtechniques,or cooperativeswhich
will raisethe productivecapacityof the regionandgeneratefurthercapital?
Or is theirmoneyspenton consumerism,to raisethe livingstandardsand
socialstatusof the individualreturnee?The empiricalevidencesuggeststhe
latter(26, 31, 66, 69, 80, 91, 92).
Housing or the purchaseof a buildingplot for a house is the most
commonformof investment(3, 13, 16, 19, 26, 31, 36, 42, 57, 61, 89, 92).
Overtwo-thirds(69%)of returningYugoslavworkerssurveyedsaid they
intendedto spendtheirearningson a house(3). In the Philippinesthe type
of investmentvariessomewhatwiththe lengthof timethe migranthasbeen
away,buthousingandlandarealwaysthe preferredform(52).Themigrant
who has beenawaya shorttime buildsa traditionalhouse,whilethe "old
timer"with more money to spend builds a largertwo-storycementand
woodhouse.Morelavishyet arethe homesbuiltbypensionados,retirement
RETURN MIGRATION
149
returnees,whopainttheirhousesbrightcolorsandequipthemwithmodern
appliancessuch as stereoand televisionsets, gas stoves, electricrefrigerators,andshowerswhichrequirethe constructionof an elevatedtankoutside
to providesufficientwaterpressure.
It is not uncommonforbetter-offmigrantsto buildlavish,well-appointed
structures.The intentappearsto be as muchto show off to one'sneighbors
as to live comfortably.Dahya (16) describesthis phenomenonin Pakistan
wherethe brick and cementhousesbuilt by returnees,in contrastto the
local mud structures,are intendedmainlyto impress.
"It has moreroomsthanthe needsof the familyjustifyand at the most two roomsof
the pakka housemaybe occupiedby the family.The restof the housewhichcouldbe
threestorieshighis keptempty,furnishedbutunoccupied.But nonethe less,thepakka
structures,with theirtrellisedbalconiesand loggias,multi-coloredglasswindows,and
surrounding
fields,standout for milesto vindicateto one andall the migrant'sandhis
family'sachievedstatus."
It could be arguedthat such behavioris not only for "show"but raises
the statusof returneesandgivesthembetteraccessto villageresources,i.e.
the show has an economicpayoffin the end.
Investmentin housingdoes have some benefitfor the community.In
places where a considerableportionof the local populationhas worked
abroad, the presence of many new or renovated houses has given the areas
a look of prosperity. In the Mezzogiorno of Italy, the explosion of migrantfinanced building is described as "one of the most dramatic features of the
changing rural landscape" (44). The health of returnees living in new hous-
ingis probablyimprovedby the higherlevelof sanitationaffordedby indoor
plumbing,heating,and tile or flagstonefloorswherethere was once dirt.
The new constructionandrenovationdoes increaselocal employment.But
thejobs createdare usuallyof a temporarynature,with theircontinuation
dependingupona regularflow of returnmigrantswith capitalto investin
housing(92). Also, widespreadhomeconstructionrequiresexpendituresby
the local authorityfor the expansionof servicessuch as roads,water,and
electricity.The limitedfundsavailableto local authoritiescould be better
allocatedin more viablegrowthareas(3, 44).
Returneeinvestmentin agriculturalland is disappointing.Only where
newlandsareputintoproductionor new,moreefficientfarmingtechniques
are used do such investmentscontributeto ruraldevelopment.But many
migrantsare no longerattractedeitherpsychologicallyor economicallyto
agriculture(26,42, 49, 66).Greekmigrantsaretypicalin thisrespect.While
almost 30% workedin agriculturebeforetheir emigration,less than 8%
intendedto returnto agriculturaloccupations(49). As a result,landspurchasedby returneesfromsmallpeasantproprietorsoftenstandidle, out of
150
GMELCH
production,in somecasesusedonly as summerretreats.Becauseof this as
muchas 20 to 30%of the landin someSpanishvillagesstudiedby Rhoades
(66) had been takenout of production.
Afterhousingandland,consumergoodsmakeup the nextlargestexpenditure(10, 26, 30, 52, 66, 74, 91, 92). Thehomesof returneesareoftenbetter
equippedwith modernappliancesthan those of nonmigrants.In a few
instancesthe reporteddesireof migrantsfor consumergoods is excessive.
In Spain,Rhoades(66) notes,"Thehome of the typicallong-termaleman
(returnee)is lavishly furnishedand decoratedwith virtuallyeverything
modernmass consumermarketsoffer.It is no exaggerationto definethe
situationas 'conspicuousconsumptionrun amok' . . . nor to describereturnees as rabid Germanophiles in their consumption desires
.. ."
Such
expenditureson consumergoodsbringlittle benefitto the local economy.
Most are purchasedoutsidethe immediatearea,in largetowns and cities.
And the majoritems,fromappliancesto automobiles,areimportsnot even
manufacturedwithinthe country(92).
With strongpreferencefor self employment,a distasteor disinterestin
both agricultureand wage labor, it is not surprisingthat migrantswith
sizablesavingsinvestin smallbusinesses.In Irelandalmosta third(31%)
wereableto set up businessesof theirown. However,the Irishbusinesses,
like those reportedfor Spain(46), Yugoslavia(57), Italy (15), Monserrat
(62), Carriacou(36), and elsewhere,are traditionalones, notably small
shops,bars, and cafes. In many instancesthese businessesare redundant,
adding to an alreadysaturatedmarket.In one Irish village of just 300
inhabitants,for example,there are five pubs. All but one are owned by
returnees.Investingin businessesof this type does little to increasethe
productivecapacityof the community.But as I will discussin the next
section,the causefor this does not rest solely with the returnmigrants.
New Ideas and Attitudes: Innovation or Conservatism
Migrantswho have spenta numberof yearsworkingin the metropolitan
areaof a foreignsocietymay learnalternativeand more efficientways of
doingthingsandto varyingdegreesdevelopan urbanethos.An important
questionis the extentto which migrantsintroducethese foreign-acquired
ideasinto theirhome communities.Bovenkerk(8) phrasesthe questionin
terms of innovationversusconservatism,that is, is returnmigrationan
innovativeinfluencepromotingsocialchangeor a conservativeforceserving
to maintainthe statusquo?
Thewritingson thisissuearedivided.Someanalystsreportthatreturnees
play a positiverole as innovators,while others find they have very little
influence.The most frequentlymentionedinnovationsare in the areasof
materialcultureand housedesign.In one villagein India,returneesintro-
RETURNMIGRATION 151
ducedhome ventilationand separatekitchensandbathrooms(58). On the
Caribbeanislandof Carriacoutheyintroducedthe firstmotorvehicles(36).
In Irelandreturneesfromthe UnitedStateswho had purchasedpubswere
creditedwith introducingpaddedseating,which has now widelyreplaced
the formerhardwoodbenches(26). Similarly,in the early 1960sreturnees
in westernIrelandweresaidto havebeenthe firstto installshowersin their
homes(26). In an Ilocosfarmingcommunityin the Philippines,McArthur
(52)foundthat"shorttime"migrantsfollowedthe traditional,conservative
pattern,while the "old timers"who spent many years in Hawaii were
innovators.Theywerethe firstfarmersto plantnew fast-maturing
varieties
of riceandto use fertilizer,LPG (liquidpetroleumgas)stoves,andtransistor radios.The examplethey set was widelyimitatedby othervillagers.In
Greece,Saloutos(75) reportsthat returneesintroducedmore orderlyand
efficientworkhabitsandcreateda generalatmospherefor advancement.In
severalstudiesmigrantsarenot creditedwith makingspecificinnovations,
but are said to be morereceptiveto change-more willing,for example,to
experimentwith new varietiesof crops(9). In societieswheremost adults
havemigratedat one time or another,such as in some Caribbeannations,
it is difficultto separatechangesinducedby migrationfromothersources
(36).
Apart fromthese examples,there is little evidencethat returneesbring
aboutsignificantchangein the productivetechniquesor attitudesand values in theirhomecommunities.This pointis clearlymadein Cerase's(15)
typology of returnmigrants.Only one of the four types of migrantshe
identifies,the "returnof innovation,"strivesto developnewenterprisesand
makethingsmoreefficient.Thesemigrantsaim to demonstratethat the old
ways are not alwaysthe best. But they are frustratedfromthe very start.
The local powerstructureopposesany attemptsby aspiringreturneesto
startnew businesses,such as buildinga smallhotel, whichwouldcompete
with alreadyestablishedlocal interests.Also they often discoverthat the
availablematerialresourcesare too limitedto developthe enterprisesthey
had in mind.In the end,Ceraseremarks,the innovativereturneeis bitterly
disappointed.
How can we accountfor the limitedinnovativeinfluenceof returnees?In
the case of Ireland,I haveargued(26) that manymigrantshavethe potential to introducechangebut do not largelybecauseof the natureof the
conservative,Catholicsociety they returnto. Ireland,like certainother
emigrationsocieties,has traditionallybeenslow to acceptchange.In order
to gain acceptanceat home, Irish returneeshave found that they cannot
push their ideas or foreignexperienceson local people.They particularly
must not makeunfavorablecomparisonsbetweenIrelandand the country
to which they had emigrated.Many migrantshold differentattitudesto-
152
GMELCH
wardthe church,familyplanning,divorce,andpolitics,but theykeep-their
opinionsto themselves.Those who do not risk being ignoredand labeled
a "Yank."Schrier(77), writingabout an earliergenerationof Irish returnees(pre-1950),suggeststhatthe migrantstransferredverylittleof their
Americanexperienceto Irelandbecausethey werenot viewedby the Irish
as "genuineAmericans.""A groupof strangers,if they do not representa
threatto a community,are generallyrespectedfor their differences,and
overa periodof yearssome of their customsor ideasmighteven infiltrate
and becomeacceptedby the society in which they have settled. But the
returnedYankwasat bestan adapter,a hybridwhoserootswereessentially
in Irishsoil, and he was not respectedas the truebarerof new gifts."It is
conceivablethat in a societyin which people are receptiveto new ideas,
returneesmight play a significantrole in bringingaboutchange.
Bovenkerk(8) notes a numberof otherfactorswhichmay influencethe
innovativepotentialof returnmigrants.One is the absolutenumberof
migrantswho return.Largenumbersof returneesin a communityor region
may providethe criticalmassneededto organizeand bringaboutneeded
reforms.Smallnumbersof returneesare likelyto have little influenceand
be easily reabsorbed.On a similarnote, the concentrationof returneesin
time could have an effect.Manymigrantsreturningaboutthe same time
will have a greaterimpactthan if the same numberwere to tricklehome
overa long periodof time.The durationof the migrants'absencemay also
be a factor.Migrantswho havebeen away a short periodof time will not
have experiencedenoughof the host cultureto have much of an effectat
home. At the otherextreme,those who have been awayfor a long period
maybe alienatedfromtheirhomesocietyor maybe too old to careor exert
muchinfluence.The socialclassof the migrantsmay havean effectin that
returningprofessionalpeople or graduatestudentsare more likely to be
listenedto andheldin highesteemthanreturninglaborers.The differences
betweenthe countryof emigrationand the home society also need to be
considered.Migrantsreturningfromthe metropolitan,industrialworldto
traditional,agriculturalcommunitieswill have fewerskills or knowledge
that are transferablethan migrantsreturningto urbancentersat home.
Finallythereis the natureof the acquiredtrainingand skills.The chances
for innovationwill be greateramongmigrantswho have learnedgeneral
skills.Highlyspecializededucationor workskillshaveless chanceof being
usefulin the home societydue to the limitedtechnologyand relativelack
of economicspecializationin the developingregions.Finally,it shouldbe
notedthatreturnmigrantsmaybe moreof an innovativeforcethanthe field
researchhas so far creditedthem.Ruralpeoplesin mostpartsof the world
today are influencedby many externalforces, e.g. radio and television,
governmentprograms,and tourism,and it is not alwayseasy to separate
RETURN MIGRATION
153
theinfluenceof returnmigrantsfromotherfactorspromotingchange.None
of the studiesreviewedhereattemptto analyzesystematicallythe diffusion
of ideas or techniquesfrom migrantsto the largercommunity.Rigorous
researchin this areamay lead to a differentset of conclusions.
Chain Migration
Someresearchershavesuggestedthatreturnees,eitherby directencouragementor by theirexample,encouragefurtheremigration(8, 26, 46). A major
cost of emigrationto youngpeopletryingto reacha decisionis the separation from familyand friendsthat movementto anotherland necessitates.
The returneeis a livingdemonstrationto young adultsin the community
thatit is possibleto go abroad,see a partof the world,obtaina betterpaying
job, save,andreturnto the homeland,reunitedwith familyandfriendsand
with enoughcapitalto achievea comfortablestandardof living.As Kenny
(42) notes for Spain, "the indiano'striumphantreturnand ostentatious
generosityincite the youth of the villageto emulatehis example."
The oppositeeffectis alsopossibleif migrantsreturnunfulfilled.Hofstede
shows this to have been the case for Dutch emigrantsto Australiaand
Canadawhose unhappyreturnhad a depressanteffecton furtheremigration (citedin 8). It is unlikely,however,that this occursoftensinceunsuccessful migrantsare less inclined to return, especially to their home
communitieswherethey wouldhavethe most influenceon others(75, 77).
Moreover,the naturaltendencyamongmigrantsuponreturnis to extollthe
benefitsof life in the host societyin orderto presenttheir own migration
experiencein a favorablelight.
Impact on Social Structure
While there is ampleevidenceof social mobilityamongindividualreturnees,there is no evidencethat returnmigrationcausesany significant
changein the socialstructureof home communities.Thereare occasional
vaguereferencesto increased"fluidity"or "flexibility"in social structure
broughtaboutby the mobilityof the localpopulation(23, 24),butotherwise
thereis no evidenceof returnmigrationhavingan effectof this kind. The
few scholarswho discussthe issue (65, 66, 80, 91, 92) arguestronglythat
returnmigrationhas failed to bring about any significantchangein the
social order,the desiredchangebeing a reductionof inequality.On the
contrary,RaymondWiest (91) believesthat returnof large numbersof
bracerosto the Mexicantown he studiedactuallyincreasedthe socialand
economicdifferences
betweenthe migrantsandtheirnonmigrantneighbors.
The migrantswerebetteroffeconomicallyin the firstplace,andtheirnewly
acquiredwealth only servedto heighteninequalityand social tensions,
resultingin growingresentmentagainstthe returnees.
154
GMELCH
In a macroscopicstudyinvolvingbothhost anddonorsocieties,Rhoades
(65) examinesan entiremigratorysystembuilt aroundGermanindustrial
capitalism.Unlikesynchronicstudieswhichviewmigrationat one pointin
time,and are characteristicof most returnmigrationliterature,the migration of workersfrom Europe'sagrarian"periphery"to Germancities is
examinedduringthreemajoreras of Germanhistory.From the founding
of the Reich in 1871,an ideologyof migrationas equallybeneficialto the
Europeanindustrialcoreandthe agrarianperipherywentunquestionedby
both the host anddonorsocieties.In theorythe cyclicalflowof manpower
wouldenableindustrialEuropeto sustain"miracle"growththroughadditionallaborsupplieswhilesimultaneouslyassuringthe on-the-jobtraining
of unskilledMediterranean
peasantsandpromotingthe flowof wealthinto
impoverishedsendingregions.
Rhoadesseriouslyquestionsthis interpretation
of functionalinterdependence,which has been labelled"the equilibriummodel."Very few of the
benefitsfor sendingsocietieswhichproponentsof migrationclaimedwould
occuractuallymaterialized.It is true that sendingsocietieshave acquired
much needed foreign currencyfor their economiesand that individual
migrantshaveimprovedtheirown livingstandard.But emigrationdid not
bringthe predictedeconomicboost to the peripheryregions.The unequal
relationshipbetweencore and peripheryregionshas not by any measure
been lessened. Contraryto the notion that cyclical migrationprovides
migrant workerswith importantwork experienceand technical skills,
which upon their returnupgradesthe home labor force, there has been
instead a "rural/workingclass brain drain."The migrantsrecruitedby
Germanemployershavebeenyoung,healthy,and most of them gainfully
employedat the time of emigration.They have also been bettereducated
and trainedthanthe populationleft to managethe economyat home.The
economicproductivityof the sendingsocietieshas been damagedrather
than helpedby this extractionof its most vital manpower.And the industrialcountries,as we haveseen elsewhere,havenot returnedworkerswith
new skills and valuableworkexperience.The industrialcountriesbenefit,
of course,froma "readymade"
workforcewhichhas beenreared,trained,
and educatedat the sendingsocieties'expense.And when workersare no
longerproductive,throughillness,accident,or old age, they returnhome
with theirmaintenancecosts againbeingabsorbedby the sendingsociety.
Rhoadesconcludesthat the purportedbenefitsof emigrationfor sending
societiesare componentsof a "migrationideology"fosteredby West Europeanemployersand governmentsto justify and maintaina migratory
laborsystemthat favorsand facilitatesthe acceptanceof their manpower
policies.
RETURNMIGRATION 155
Rhoades'conclusionsare supportedby the other studiesreviewedhere,
and appearto be moregeneralthanthe Europeanmigratorysystemwhich
has been the concernof many of these writings.
CONCLUSIONS
The studies of returnmigrationreviewedhere vary widely in scope and
and
method. Some are village studies based on participant-observation
informalinterviews(5, 9, 31, 37, 67, 90, 91). Many are surveys,involving
structuredinterviewswith selectedmigrantsfroman entireregion(11, 20,
23, 26, 27, 39, 55, 78); a few are largequestionnairesurveyswith respondentsbeingdrawnfromnationalsamples(34, 56, 71, 72, 85). Two studies
are basedon interviewswith returningmigrantson boardpassengerships
enrouteto their homelands(19, 70).
The writingsarelargelydescriptive.The tendencyhas beento treateach
return migrantpopulationas a special entity with unique experiences.
Investigatorshave given little attentionto the similaritiesbetweentheir
subjectsandotherreturnmigrantgroupsin orderto distinguishthe unique
featuresof each case from what is genericto a set of cases. One of the
of the literatureis a neglect,if not ignorance,of otherwritcharacteristics
ingson returnmigration.Thisis evidentin the openingparagraphsof many
articlesin whichthe authorsbemoanthe dearthof literature.The literature
is small, particularlywhen comparedto the entire corpus of migration
studies,but as this reviewdemonstrates,thereis enoughto allowcomparisons andsomeattemptat modelbuilding.Apartfromthe workof Rhoades
(66, 67), Swanson(80), and Wiest (91, 92), who are primarilyconcerned
with the developmentimpactof returnmigration,little theory has been
appliedto returnmigrationcases, though this is true of the migration
literaturein general.To some extentthis must be expectedin a new field
of inquiry.The researchis interestingin its own right, but it will only
become useful in addressinggeneralquestionswith the developmentof
some generalmodels. It is clear to this reviewerthat more comparative
researchin which thereis a systematicsearchfor the uniformities,if not
universals,in returnmigrationphenomenais needed.Perhapsin no other
areaof populationstudiesarethe similaritiesin behaviorso striking,yet so
little efforthas been made at comparison.
Morespecificdirectionsfor futureresearchhave also becomeevidentin
the courseof this review,andothershavebeensuggestedby Bovenkerk(8)
andWiest(92).The processesof selection(age,sex, maritalstatus,occupation,education)in returnmigrationarenot wellunderstood.Reliablestatisof returnmigrants
tical dataareneededon the demographiccharacteristics
156
GMELCH
andon how they differfromtheircompatriotswho do not return.Not until
this type of data are availablewill we and the home societiesknow what
type of peoplethey are receivingand what the returnees'contributionis
likelyto be. Mostof the writingson returnmigrationconcernpeasantsand
other "have-nots"of the developingworld.We need to balancethis view
migrants.
with moreinformationon the returnof middleand upper-strata
Theinfluenceof thesegroupson the developmentof theirhomeregionsmay
proveto be altogetherdifferentfromwhathas beendocumentedfor returning laborers.Whilemostmigrantsresettlein cities,the bulkof researchhas
been in ruralareas.It is vital that we also examinethose who returnto
urban areas, whose readjustmentand impact is likely to be altogether
differentfrom that of their ruralcounterparts.Questionsof readaptation
have been addressedwith aggregatedata which may mask important
sourcesof variance.The adjustmentinvolvedin returningto one's native
community,for example,needsto be comparedwith returnto an entirely
new community.Returneeadjustmentmust also be examinedin relationship to the significantsocialand environmentalvariables(e.g. community
size, kin support,employmentstatus)in orderto betterunderstandtheir
effect.Moreinformationis neededon the specialreadjustment
problemsof
womenand children;our knowledgehere is particularlylimited.We need
to look at the innovativepotentialof returneesmore systematicallyand
determineunderwhatconditionsmigrants'ideasand skills,howeverminimal, can be used constructivelyto the benefitof the home society.
To addresstheseissuesadequatelywe will needa multimethodapproach.
Statisticalsurveydata are neededto establishthe basic dimensionsof the
problemas well as to understandthe rangeof variationandthe co-variation
of factors.Butequallyimportantwill be the intimateknowledgeandinsight
which will allow us to move
that comes throughparticipant-observation
from descriptionto explanation.
Literature Cited
1. Appleyard, R. T. 1962. Determinants of
return migration: a socioeconomic
study of United Kingdom migrants who
returned from Australia. Econ. Rec.
9:352-68
2. Appleyard, R. T. 1962. The return
movement of United Kingdom migrants from Australia. Popul. Stud.
15:214-25
3. Baucic, I. 1972. The Effect of Emigra-
tionfrom Yugoslavia
and the Problems
of ReturningEmigrantWorkers.The
Hague: Nijhoff
4. Beijer, G. 1963. Rural Migrants in Urban Setting. The Hague: Nijhoff
5. Bennett, B. 1978. Migration and rural
community viability in central Dalmatia (Croatia), Yugoslavia. Pap. Anthropol.20:85-104
6. Bernard, H. R., Ashton-Vouyoucalos,
S. 1976. Return migration to Greece. J
StewardAnthropol.Soc. 8:31-52
7. Bohning, W. R. 1972. TheMigrationof
in the UnitedKingdomand the
Workers
London: Oxford
EuropeanCommunity.
Univ. Press
8. Bovenkerk, F. 1974. The Sociologyof
ReturnMigration.The Hague: Nijhoff
9. Brannick, T. 1977. A study of return
emigrantsin a ruralparish.MA thesis.
Univ. College, Dublin, Ireland
RETURN MIGRATION
10. Brettell, C. 1979. Emigrarpara voltar: a
Portuguese ideology of return migration. Pap. Anthropol. 20(l):1-20
11. Campbell, R. R., Johnson, D. M., Stangler, G. J. 1974. Return migration of
black people to the South. Rural Soc.
39:514-28
12. Castles, S., Kosack, G. 1973. Immigrant Workersand Class Structure in
WesternEurope. London: Oxford Univ.
Press
13. Cerase, F. P. 1967. A study of Italian
migrants returningfrom the U.S.A. Int.
Migr. Rev. 3:67-74
14. Cerase, F. P. 1970. Nostalgia or disenchantment: consideration of return migration. In TheItalian Experiencein the
UnitedStates, ed. S. Tomasi, M. Engels.
New York: Cent. Migr. Stud.
15. Cerase, F. P. 1974. Migration and social
change: expectations and reality: a case
study of return migration from United
States to southern Italy. Int. Migr. Rev.
8:245-62
16. Dahya, B. 1973. Pakistanis in Britain:
transients or settlers. Race 14:241-77
17. Dahya, B. 1974. The nature of Pakistani
ethnicity in industrial cities in Britain.
In Urban Ethnicity, ed. A. Cohen,
A.S.A. No. 12, pp. 77-118. London:
Tavistock
18. DaVanzo, J. 1976. Differences between
out and return migration:an econometric analysis. Int. Migr. Rev. 10:13-27
19. Davison, B. 1968. No place back home:
a study of Jamaicans returning to
Kingston, Jamaica. Race 9:499-509
20. Eikass, F. 1979. You can't go home
again? Culture shock and patterns of
adaptation, Norwegian returnees. Pap.
Anthropol. 20:105-16
21. Eisenstadt, S. N. 1955. The Absorption
of Immigrants. Glencoe: Free Press
22. Elizur, D. 1973. Attitudes and intentions of Israelis residing in the U.S. towards returningto Israel. Int. Migr. (12):3-14
23. Feindt, W., Browning, H. L. 1972. Return migration: its significance in an industrial metropolis and an agricultural
town in Mexico. Int. Migr. Rev.
6:158-65
24. Form, W. H., Rivera, J. 1958. The place
of returning migrants in a stratification
system. Rural Soc. 23:286-97
25. Gilkey, G. R. 1968. The United States
and Italy: migration and repatriation.
In World Migration in Modern Times,
ed. F. D. Scott. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall
26. Gmelch, G. 1979. ReturnMigrationand
157
MigrantAdjustmentin WesternIreland.
Irish Found. Hum. Dev. 62 pp.
27. Gmelch, G., Delaney, L. 1979. Irish return migration: the sociodemographic
characteristicsof return emigrants. Pap.
Anthropol. 20:155-66
28. Gmelch, G., Rhoades, R. 1979. Bibliography on return migration. Pap. Anthropol. 20:187-96
29. Graves, N. B., Graves, T. D. 1974.
Adaptive strategies in urban migration.
Ann. Rev. Anthropol. 3:117-51
30. Griffin, K. 1976. On the emigration of
the peasantry. WorldDev. 4(5):353-61
31. Griffiths, S. 1979. Emigration and entrepreneurship in a Philippine peasant
village. Pap. Anthropol. 20:127-44
32. Handlin, 0. 1956. Immigrants who go
back. Atlantic 198 (July):70-74
33. Heiss, J. 1967. Factors related to immigrant assimilation: the early post-war
migrant situation. Hum. Organ.
26:265-72
34. Hernandez-Alvarez, J. 1967. Return
Migration to Puerto Rico. Berkeley:
Univ. California Inst. Int. Stud.
35. Hernandez-Alvarez, J. 1968. Migration, return and development Econ.
Dev. Cult. Change 116:574-88
36. Hill, D. 1977. The Impact of migration
on the metropolitanfolk society of Carriacou, Grenada. Anthropol. Pap. Am.
Mus. Nat. Hist., NY, Vol. 54(2)
37. Hughes, J., Welan, B. 1976. Emigration
from Ireland: an overview (Mimeo).
Dublin: Econ. Soc. Res. Inst.
38. Jackson, J. A., ed. 1969. Migration.
Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press
39. Johnson, D. 1975. Community satisfaction of black return migration to a
southern metropolis. Am. J. Community Psychol. 3(3):251-59
40. Kayser, B. 1967. The situation of the
returning migrant on the labour market
in Greece: results of surveys. Emigrant
workers returning to their home country. Paris: OECD Suppl., pp. 169-76
41. Kayser, B. 1972. Cyclically determined
homeward flows of migrant workers.
Paris: OECD
42. Kenny, M. 1972. The return of the
Spanish emigrant. Nord Nytt 2:119-29
43. Kenny, M. 1976. Twentieth century
Spanish expatriate ties with the homeland: remigration and its consequences.
In The Changing Faces of Rural Spain,
ed. J. Aceves, W. Douglass, pp. 97-12 1.
New York: Schenkman
44. King, R. L. 1977. Problems of return
migration: case study of Italians returning from Britain. Tidschr. Voor 68(4):241-45
158
GMELCH
45. Deleted in proof
46. King, R. L. 1978. Return migration:review of some cases from southern Europe: Mediterr. Stud. 1(2)
47. Krane, R. E. 1973. Effects of cyclical
international migration upon socio-economic mobility. Int. Migr. Rev.
7:427-36
48. Lee, E. 1966. A theory of migration.
Demography 3:47-57
49. Lianos, T. P. 1975. Flows of Greek outmigration and return migration. Int.
Migr. 13(3):119-33
50. Lopreato, J. 1967. Peasants No More.
San Francisco: Chandler
51. Mangalam, J. J. 1968. Human Migration, a Guide to Migration Literature in
English. Lexington: Univ. Kentucky
Press
52. McArthur, J. 1979. The effects of overseas work on return migrants and their
home communities: a Philippine case.
Pap. Anthropol. 20:85-104
53. McDonald, J. R. 1963. The repatriation
of French Algerians 1962-63. Int. Migr.
3:146-47
54. Mitchell, J. C. 1969. Structural plurality, urbanization and labour circulation
in southern Rhodesia. In Migration, ed.
J. A. Jackson. Cambridge: Cambridge
Univ. Press
55. Nelson, J. 1976. TemporaryVersusPermanent Cityward Migration: Causes
and Consequences. Cambridge, Mass:
Cent. Int. Stud.
56. Nicholson, B. 1976. Return migration
to a marginal rural area: example from
north Norway. Sociol. Ruralis 14(4):
227-44
57. Paine, S. 1974. Exporting Workers:The
Turkish Case. London: Cambridge
Univ. Press
58. Patel, N. 1972. A passage from India.
Transaction 9:25-29
59. Patterson, 0. 1968. West-Indian immigrants returning home. Race 10(1):
69-77
60. Petersen, W. 1978. lnternational migration. Ann. Rev. Sociol. 4:533-75
61. Philpott, S. B. 1970. The implications of
migration for sending societies: some
theoretical considerations. In Migration
and Anthropology, ed. R. F. Spencer,
pp. 9-20. Proc. 1970 ann. Spring meet.
62. Philpott, S. B. 1973. West Indian Migration. LSE Monogr. Sociol. Anthropol. 47. London
63. Piore, M. 1979. Birds of Passage: Migrant Labor and Industrial societies.
Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press
64. Ravenstein, E. G. 1885. The laws of migration. J. R. Statist. Soc. 48:167-227
65. Rhoades, R. 1978. Foreign labor and
German industrial capitalism 18711978: the evolution of a migratory system. Am. Ethnol. 5:553-75
66. Rhoades, R. 1978. Intra-European return migration and rural development:
lessons from the Spanish case. Hum.
Organ. 37(2):136-47
67. Rhoades, R. 1979. From caves to main
street: return migration and the transformation of a Spanish village. Pap. Anthropol. 20:57-74
68. Rhoades, R. 1979. Toward an anthropology of return migration. Pap.
Anthropol. 20:1-111
69. Rhoades, R. 1980. European cyclial migration and economic development: the
case of Southern Spain. In Urban Life,
ed. G. Gmelch, W. P. Zenner. New
York: St. Martin's
70. Richardson, A. 1968. A shipboard
study of some British born immigrants
returning to the United Kingdom from
Australia. Int. Migr. 6:221-38
71. Richmond, A. 1966. Demographic and
family characteristics of British immigrants returning from Canada. Int.
Migr. Rev. 9(1):21-25
72. Richmond, A. 1968. Return migration
from Canada to Britain. Popul. Stud.
22:263-71
73. Rose, A. 1969. Migrants in Europe.
Minneapolis: Univ. Minnesota Press
74. Rubenstein, H. 1979. The return
ideology in west Indian migration. Pap.
Anthropol. 20:21-38
75. Saloutos, T. 1956. They Remember
America: The Study of the Repatriated
GreekAmericans. Berkeley:Univ. California Press
76. Sandis, E. E. 1970. Characteristics of
Puerto Rican migrants to and from the
U.S. Int. Migr. Rev. 4(11):22-43
77. Schrier, A. 1955. Ireland and the
American Emigration: 1850-1900.
Minneapolis: Univ. Minnesota Press
78. Simmons, A. B., Cardona, R. 1972. Rural-urban migration: who comes, who
stays, who returns?The case of Bogata,
Colombia, 1929-1968. Int. Migr. Rev.
6:166-81
79. Stark, T. 1967. Should the migrant
workers in Europe be encouraged to return to their home countries? Migr.
News 16:5-18
80. Swanson, J. 1979. The consequences of
emigration for economic development:
a review of the literature. Pap. Anthropol. 20:39-56
81. Taft, D. R., Robbins, R. 1955. International Migrations, the Immigrant in the
Modern World. New York: Ronald
RETURN MIGRATION
82. Taylor, E. 1976. The social adjustment
of returned migrants to Jamaica. In
Ethnicity in the Americas, ed. F. Henry.
The Hague: Mouton
83. Taylor, R. C. 1969. Migration and motivations: a study of determinants and
types. In Migration, ed. J. A. Jackson.
Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press
84. Toren, N. 1975. The effect of economic
incentives on return migration. Int
Migr. 13(3):134 44
85. Toren, N. 1976. Return to Zion: characteristics and motivations of returning
emigrants. Soc. Forces 54(3):546-58
86. Trebous, M. 1970. Migration and development, the case of Algeria. Paris:
OECD
87. Vander Kamp, J. 1971. Migration
flows, their determinantsand the effects
of return migration. J. Polit. Econ.
79(5):1012-31
159
88. Deleted in proof
89. Virtanen, K. 1975. Disaffection: Finns
leave America. In The Finnish Experience in the WesternGreatLakes Region:
New Perspectives,ed. M. G. Karni et al,
pp. 202-11. Turku: Inst. Migr.
90. Wiest, R. E. 1975. Wage-labour migration and the household in a Mexican
town. J. Anthropol. Res. 29:180-209
91. Wiest, R. E. 1978. Rural community developmentin Mexico: the impact ofMexican recurrent migration to the United
States. Univ. Manitoba Anthropol.
Pap. No. 21
92. Wiest, R. 1979. Anthropological perspectives on return migration: a critical commentary. Pap. Anthropol. 20:
167-88
93. Wilder, 0. F. 1969. The,Return Movement of Jews to Austria. The Hague:
Nijhoff