WP 5.3.1 - Exploring the whole effects of migration in sending
countries (Ecuador-Spain)
Survey report
Ramon Mahia & Anda David
April 2015
This deliverable corresponds to research WP5.3.1, “Exploring the whole effects of migration in
sending countries (Ecuador-Spain)” of which the UAM team is in charge. This research is part of
the NOPOOR Work Package 5.3, “Survey based analysis of the dynamics of international
migration”.
The main objectives of this piece of research are:
1. Describe the migration context
2. Describe living conditions and social integration from the arrival and during the period of
stay in Spain
3. Analyze the impact of Crisis, as external shock, in migration dynamics and migrant’s welfare
4. Understand determinants of return by comparing returnees and stayers
5. Understand determinants of successful return
According to these objectives, this document briefly presents the main results of two surveys, one
conducted in Madrid on Ecuadorian current migrants and one conducted in Quito and its province
(Pichincha) on return migrants in the summer of 2014.
1
Contents
Introduction ............................................................................................................................................. 3
1.
2.
Questionnaire design ....................................................................................................................... 8
1.1.
Common ground between the two surveys ............................................................................. 8
1.2.
The "return expectations" block .............................................................................................. 9
1.3.
The "return" block ................................................................................................................. 10
Sampling and data collection......................................................................................................... 11
2.1.
Current migrants survey ........................................................................................................ 11
2.2.
Return migrants survey ......................................................................................................... 12
2.3.
Sample representativeness ..................................................................................................... 13
Madrid survey................................................................................................................................ 13
Quito survey .................................................................................................................................. 16
3.
Migration profile ........................................................................................................................... 21
3.1.
Who are the Ecuadorian migrants?........................................................................................ 21
Family composition ....................................................................................................................... 21
Education ....................................................................................................................................... 23
3.2.
What was their level of wellbeing prior to migrating? .......................................................... 24
3.3.
Why and how did they migrate? ............................................................................................ 28
Migration reasons and decision making ........................................................................................ 28
Context of migration and arrival in Spain ..................................................................................... 31
3.4.
4.
5.
6.
What are their labor market outcomes? ................................................................................. 36
Migrants’ wellbeing before and after the crisis ............................................................................. 41
4.1.
What was the level of migrant’s wellbeing before the economic crisis in Spain? ................ 41
4.2.
To what extent did the crisis impact the Ecuadorian immigrants? ........................................ 43
4.3.
What was the crisis impact on migrants’ labor market outcomes? ....................................... 48
Integration aspects ......................................................................................................................... 50
5.1.
Economic integration ............................................................................................................ 50
5.2.
Socio-cultural integration ...................................................................................................... 51
Return migration............................................................................................................................ 53
6.1.
How did the crisis shape current migrants’ perception of returning to Ecuador? ................. 53
6.2.
What are the socioeconomic outcomes of return migrant in Ecuador? ................................. 55
Return decision making process .................................................................................................... 55
Labor market outcomes upon return.............................................................................................. 59
Changes in wellbeing after migration............................................................................................ 59
7.
Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................... 61
References ............................................................................................................................................. 66
APPENDIX ........................................................................................................................................... 67
Field work report ............................................................................................................................... 67
2
Introduction

The evolution of migration in Spain offers an excellent setting for researching migration
dynamics.

In this context in which Spain has established itself as a migration destination, the
Ecuadorian immigration is a particularly interesting case study

The approach of a double survey in Madrid and Quito is an innovative stand point that
will allow a better understanding of migration dynamics, its effects on the welfare of
migrants and origin households and, above all, of the factors that promote or inhibit the
return of immigrants.
During the years of the economic boom in Spain (2001-2008), a growth model leaded by low
productivity and high labor intensive sectors boost an extraordinary process of job creation. Around
4.7 million net jobs were created representing 31% of the total EU27 employment generated between
2001 and 20071.
This huge increase in labor demand could only be partially covered by the native workforce, thanks to
slight increase in the native potential workforce, a slight increase in the rate of the native activity rate
and a small rise in the native employment rate. But the combination of these three factors meant that
there were "only" 2 million native employees to meet the labor demand, so the balance (to cover the
4.7 million jobs created) were filled by immigrants.
The total number of economic immigrants living in Spain in 2000 was only around 500,000 people but
from the year, Spain started to experience one of the most intense voluntary immigration flows ever
recorded in Europe. Nearly 4.5 million immigrants entered Spain between 2001 and 2008, with 3.6
million coming from poor countries (Graph 1). A total of 2.7 million immigrants eventually succeeded
in finding employment; by early 20092, the number of foreigners residing in Spain had already
surpassed 5.5 million; an increase representing 12% of its population in just 8 years.
* Faculty of Applied Economics, Universidad Autonoma de Madrid, Madrid.
1
Source: Eurostat. LFS. Seasonally adjusted data.
2
Municipal Register. National Statistics Institute (INE). Population as of 1 January 2009.
3
Graph 1. Stock of foreign population residing in Spain between 1998 and 2014
Residence/Work permits
Labour Survey
Municipal Registers
7,000,000
6,000,000
5,000,000
4,000,000
3,000,000
2,000,000
1,000,000
0
Source: Own elaboration with data from Municipal revision of Register (INE), Labor Force Survey (INE) and Residence
Permits, (Ministry of Interior).
Then the economic bubble burst and the crisis came. The change in migration trend seen in Graph 2 is
clearly explained by a context of extremely high economic difficulties, with a severe decline in labor
demand and increasing unemployment. Additionally, the shrinkage of employment opportunities took
place in a restrictive immigration policy context where the regulation change in 20113 consolidated the
legal link between arrival and permanence of foreigners and job market needs, by means of
considering the national employment situation and enhancing its measurement. In this difficult
context, inflows of immigrants started to reduce very slowly but, at the same time, emigration of
nationals but mainly return of resident immigrants began to rise markedly.
3
Law was approved on december 2009, through Organic Law 2/2009. Immigration Regulations approved by
Royal Decree 557/2011, of April 20. Full text available at http://www.boe.es/boe/dias/2011/04/30/pdfs/BOE-A2011-7703.pdf
4
Graph 2. Stock of foreign population residing in Spain between 1998 and 2014
Immigration
Emmigration and Return
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Immigration
599.074
392.963
360.704
371.335
304.054
291.041
Emmigration and Return
288.432
380.118
403.379
409.034
446.606
547.89
Source: Own elaboration with data from Residential Variation Statistics. (INE).
In this context, Spain emerges as an ideal case of analysis of international migrations. The speed at
which the phenomenon of boom-slowdown-drop occurred allows a distinctive study of migration
dynamics of a single generation of immigrants. Indeed, the emigration from the origin country, the
arrival in Spain, the stay, and the final return or its expectations are still fresh in the minds of the
current residents or return migrants. A single generation of immigrants has undergone these various
stages in just over a decade allowing a quasi-experimental analysis focused on the migration reasons,
the residence context, the return motivations, and the role of an external shock such as the economic
crisis in the migratory journey.
On the one hand, Ecuador is one of the main countries of origin of migrates residing in Spain, only
surpassed by Romania and Morocco, thus ensuring a sufficiently large group of analysis.
It was estimated that between 1.5 million and 2 million Ecuadorians were living abroad in 2013,
representing around 10.3-13.8-2% of the total population. The diaspora is mainly the result of two
waves of migration: a first one in the early 1980s with migration flows towards the US and a second
one in the late 1990s for which the main destination was Spain. This second wave, often characterized
as "mass emigration", was triggered by a severe economic crisis resulting from low oil prices and
floods damaging export crops, all this in a context of political instability and financial mismanagement
(Jokisch, 2014). The economic crisis translated in a steep increase in unemployment, reaching 15%, an
increase in poverty to 56% and a loss of value of the national currency (the Sucre) of more than twothirds, pushing between 500 000 and 1 million Ecuadorians to emigrate between 1998 and 2005. The
5
main destination was Spain, where the lack of visa requirements, common language and significant
demand of low-skilled informal jobs created a perfect destination. Graph 3 presents the evolution of
the number of Ecuadorian nationals residing in Spain between 1998 and 2013 showing a spectacular
increase that peaked in 2005 with the regularization law that granted legal status to almost 200.000
Ecuadorians.
Graph 3. Evolution of the number of Ecuadorians living in Spain between 1998 and 2013
600000
500000
400000
300000
Number of
Ecuadorians
200000
100000
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
0
Source: Instituto Nacional de Estadística (INE)
On the other hand, in the recent years of the crisis, the population of Ecuadorian origin presents a very
strong return dynamic, considerably higher than that of nationals of other countries. For instance,
according to data from the General Secretariat for Emigration and Immigration (Secretaría General de
Emigración e Inmigración), the number of Ecuadorians living in Spain with a residence card fell by
49% between 2009 and 2013 while the population from other Latin American countries only declined
by 21% over the same period, and that from Romania increased by 23%.
According to INE figures, between 2012 and 2013, Spain recorded 56 466 less Ecuadorians, including
those with double nationality (Jokisch, 2014). Along the same lines, the SENAMI estimated having
assisted more than 40 000 Ecuadorian migrant to return between 2008 and 2013.
Return migration is thus a significant phenomenon for Ecuador and our study aims at shedding light
on the wellbeing of current and return Ecuadorian migrants, the determinants of their return and their
socioeconomic integration and the role of the crisis among these determinants.
Usually, the study of return migration is based on surveying returnees in their country of origin
(Cassarino, 2007; Sabadie, 2010), but they face the issue of selection into return; alternatively, return
intentions are evaluated using studies made in receiving countries (Dustmann, 2003; Khoo et al., 2008;
de Arce & Mahia, 2012), but the realization of these intentions are not observed. Therefore, the proper
study of the return determinants requires implementing two surveys, one in the home country and one
6
in the host country, in order to compare the returnees with an adequate reference population of nonreturnees.
In our study, we have chosen specifically this approach; conducting a survey in Madrid and another
one in Quito allowing the comparison of groups of returnees and non-returnees, thus determining more
precisely the factors that drive or inhibit the return. This report presents the main results of the two
surveys, with a focus on the impact of the crisis on the wellbeing of migrants. Thus, we will not
systematically distinguish between current and return migrants, since this will be the focus of an
upcoming research article. However, in some sections we present separately the results for the two
samples, but merely with the scope of fully benefitting of the richness of the data and justifying our
approach.
The report is organized as follows: a first section will be dedicated to the description of the sample and
the field work, a second section presents the questionnaire structure and the third section analyses the
results.
7
1. Questionnaire design
As discussed in the introduction, the methodological design was based on the realization of two “twin”
surveys in Spain and Ecuador. Following the lines of the MIREM survey (EUI, 2007), both contain a
common section dealing with the period prior to migration, the migration episode, and the stay in
Spain. Additionally, the survey conducted in Quito includes a specific module on return, while in the
Madrid survey, conducted on current resident migrants, we added a module of future return
expectations.
Figure 1. Questionnaire design sketch
Specific
SCREENING
modules
Common
MIGRATION
module
Specific
RETURN
modules
QUITO
MADRID
Survey
Survey
Screening for
returnees
Screening for
NON returnees
Pre-migration
Pre-migration
Section
Section
Migration
Migration
Block
Block
After Return
section
Return
Expectations
Section
The common framework for the before and during migration gives us the opportunity to capture the
determinants of the return decision and compare current migrants and return migrants. More
importantly, this structure and the detailed block on the crisis impact will allow us to compare the
socioeconomic wellbeing of individuals before and after the migration and also before and after the
crisis. The two complete surveys are available upon request.
1.1. Common ground between the two surveys
The first two parts of the survey trace the migrants’ characteristics before the emigration and the
detailed context of their migration episode.
8
In the pre-migration block, migrants are asked both individual questions and questions about the
family´s socioeconomic situation during the last year that preceded the individual’s outmigration.

At the individual level, questions focused on personal and family educational background and
labor market situation, in particular concerning the last job.

The questions at the household level concerned the family structure and various aspects of
welfare, using both objective and subjective dimensions of wealth.
In the migration block, one could find again questions at the individual and family /household level.

Some questions are focused on the moment of migration decision: decision making process,
reasons to emigrate and to choose Spain, details on past migration episodes, migration
intentions and expectations and documents used to enter the country.

In terms of family composition, we focus on the family structure at the moment of arrival and
at the moment of the survey for current migrants or at the moment before the return for the
return migrants, as well as on the migration (at the same time as the individual or through
family reunification schemes) and nationality acquisition of the close family members,
changes in marital status, birth and school enrollment of children.

Concerning the labor market situation, we restrict our questions to three key moments of the
migration episode: the first job, the longest job abroad and, if different from the longest job,
the current job (for current migrants) or the last job (for return migrants). The labor market
block contains questions on the activity status, type and level of the job, type of contract,
stability and wages and benefits.

As mentioned, a special block of questions was designed in order to measure the impact of
the crisis in terms of socioeconomic wellbeing. The questions in this block are both at an
individual and household level and cover topics as job losses, working condition deterioration,
household indebtedness, evictions, discrimination and subjective perception of socioeconomic
status.

Finally, we analyze integration asking detailed questions about the social network and social
participation and the remitting behavior.
1.2. The "return expectations" block
For the current migrants, we introduce a block on the expectations of return, aiming to capture their
willingness and their preparedness to return. Therefore, current migrants were asked about their short
and long term intentions to return, their level of information about the return programs and the
Ecuadorian context and their expectations concerning the life after an eventual return.
9
1.3. The "return" block
The questionnaire for the return migrants is slightly longer and contains a small block with questions
on the preparation of the return and a detailed block on the socioeconomic integration after return.
A first set of questions concern the decision making process concerning the return, the reasons behind
it and the expectations relative to the welcome they received. Some specific questions were also added
about whether the respondent had knowledge and eventually participated in assisted return programs
both by the Ecuadorian and Spanish governments.
Furthermore, the “after return” block evolves around four main dimensions: the family composition,
the labor market outcomes, the sociocultural integration and an assessment of the evolution of living
conditions linked to the migration episode.
10
2. Sampling and data collection

The process of selection and training of interviewers was carefully designed as to ensure
random selection of individuals with the required profile for each survey, given the size
and complexity of some of their sections.
A specific annex at the end of this report describes field – work in detail but in this preliminary section
we would like to briefly present the basic design of sampling strategy and some relevant issues
concerning data collection process.
A total of 1.300 individuals were interviewed by means of two different surveys carried out in Madrid
and Quito. Table 1 summarizes some basic data and dates for the different stages:
Table 1. Field work details
Pre-test:
Number of pre-test surveys
completed:
Selection of interviewers:
Briefing of interviewers:
Dates of interviews:
Number of interviewers:
Type of interview:
Language:
Duration:
Survey methodology:
Surveys completed:
Data entry and recording:
Data clean - validation:
Madrid
3 and 4 June
Quito
1: 21-28 April/
2: 30 June-04 July
22
1st wave: 16
2nd wave: 4
1-20 June
1- 20 July
23 and 24 June
21-23 July
26 June-14 August
28 July-31 August
22
20
Personal
Personal
Spanish
Spanish
Aprox. 40 minutes
Aprox. 50 minutes
Random in the Madrid Region
Snowballing from different
(Comunidad de Madrid, CAM)
databases of returnees.
(public venues, public transport,
Screening applied in a first step
work centers, etc.)
and then personal appointment.
906
410
August – September 2014
September – November 2014
2.1. Current migrants survey
The first survey focuses on the analysis of the migratory experience of Ecuadorian migrants still living
in Spain.
When designing the sample, we considered as valid observation units individuals of Ecuadorian
nationality4, residing in Madrid city, with a minimum age at the time of migration of 15 years old and
having been living in Spain for at least one year. Of course another crucial criterion was not having
any other family members who already answered the survey.
4
Independently of having a second nationality (as the Spanish one) or not.
11
The surveyors were carefully instructed to randomly conduct interviews in public places (parks, street,
subway and train stations, Ecuadorian restaurants and bars, shopping areas, ports events, etc.),
approaching individuals and asking them the preliminary questions that ensured that they belonged to
the sample described above. Given that a significant share of the surveyors were of Ecuadorian origin,
they were allowed to survey maximum 2 persons from their family and friends circle as long as they
fitted the sample criteria. Additional instructions have been given during the survey as to orient the
surveyors in order to obtain a sample whose characteristics in terms of sex, age, duration of stay and
labor status would match the official Spanish statistics on Ecuadorian migrants residing in Spain.
The survey took place during the months of July and August.
The final sample consists of 882 individuals, representing around 1.2% of the entire Ecuadorian
population living in Madrid at the end of 2013 (75.298) according to the official municipal statistics.
2.2. Return migrants survey
The second sample consists of return migrants of Ecuadorian nationality, residing in Quito or its
province (Pichincha), having a last migration episode of at least 1 year in Spain and having returned
for at least a year at the moment of the survey.
According to the estimations of the Ecuadorian census itself, the number of immigrants who returned
to Ecuador in the recent years (2005-2010) is of 63.888. Of these, approximately 46% came back from
Spain (29.388). We thus need to bear in mind that our population of interest represents about 0.2% of
the total Ecuadorian population. If we concentrate on a smaller geographical unit, as the province of
Pichincha, with higher rates of return, where we eventually focus our study, the return migrant
population is estimated to be of around 20.000 individuals. If about half of them come from Spain, the
group would consist of no more than 8.500 individuals, out of a population of about 2.6 million in the
province; that is, a group representing 0.3% of the province’s total population.
The main difficulty was the absence of a government census – both in Spain and Ecuador – that would
have provided information for returnees’ location while also informing of their socio-economic status.
Thus, in a first phase we started collecting information on : (i) returnees that attended the workshops
organized for return migrants by the local government; (ii) returnees that filled signaled themselves on
the website we had created for the survey; (iii) returnees that had been identified by the local
associations we worked with; (iv) returnees that had benefitted from some specific return assistance
programs launched at the time by the National Secretariat for Migrants (Secretaría Nacional del
Migrante - SENAMI) and (v) returnees that were registered at the Ministerial job program as
unemployed and looking for a job (in Spanish, Bolsa de Empleo del Ministerio de Relaciones
Laborales de Ecuador).
12
However, since our population of interest was limited to migrants returning from Spain, this narrow
definition made it difficult to obtain a sample large enough to randomly select persons to be
interviewed. Therefore, we have tried to contact all the individuals that matched our criteria, but we
have managed a successful contact with only 10% of them. This constitutes the original base for the
fieldwork, which snowballed from there.
The survey was conducted during the month of August 2014 and the final sample consisted of 410
individuals.
2.3. Sample representativeness

The characteristics of the migrant sample in Madrid are remarkably consistent with the
official data and other available studies concerning the resident Ecuadorian population
in this region and their migratory trajectories. With respect to the sample of returnees,
the analysis of their representativeness is more complex, since there is no official
information on this group. On the other hand, the comparison of the sample of returnees
with a sample of non-returnees is not at all relevant since, precisely, there may be
differences between the two populations specifically related to return. Nevertheless, we
present some indicators that aim to prove the validity of the sample of return migrants.
Madrid survey
First of all, we need to mention that the choice of Madrid for the field work was motivated by the fact
that is host the highest share of Ecuadorian migrants. According to municipal statistics, Madrid has the
largest Ecuadorian migrant population, 75.298 accounting for 28.6% of the total number of
Ecuadorians in Spain (INE).
13
.1
0
.05
Density
.15
.2
Graph 4. Distribution of the sample according the year of arrival
1980
1990
2000
2010
2020
Year of arrival
The sample distribution of arrival year shows that the migrant’s inflow started to appear as relevant at
the beginning of the Ecuadorian economic crisis in 1997/98, significantly accelerated around the time
of the dollarization (years 1999 / 2000) and started to decelerated from 2004 (Graph 4). This is exactly
the same trend as the one observed for the national numbers as depicted in Graph 3. It is known that
Ecuadorian women started the migration process slightly earlier than men, which is also confirmed in
our sample: according to our data, 30% of women surveyed had arrived to Spain in 1999 compared
with 22 % of men surveyed.
Table 2. Basic characteristics of the current migrants sample
Age at the time of migration
Migration duration
Current age (at the time of the survey)
Spanish nationality
N° obs
Men
Women
Total
27
12.9
39.9
55.3%
418
26.1
13.2
39.1
66.6%
464
26.5
13
39.5
52.6%
882
On the average, the Ecuadorian migrants in our sample are 39 years old and they had migrated around
the age of 26 years with a slight difference between men and women related to our previous
commented on the initiation of migration by women (Table 2). Again, if we compare to the age
distribution of the total Ecuadorian population residing in Madrid, we notice that our sample roughly
14
follows the same pattern, since according to INE data (Estadística del Padrón Continuo a 1 de enero de
2013) the highest share or Ecuadorian migrants are aged between 30 and 39 years old.
Graph 5. Age distribution of the Ecuadorian population living in Madrid, 2013
25000
20000
15000
10000
5000
0
0-9
years
10-19
years
20-29
years
30-39
years
40-49
years
50-59
years
60-69
years
70-79 over 80
years years
Source: INE
Concerning length of migration experience, we observe in our sample average migration duration of
13 years old, but we have to point out that this number only reflects the average duration for the
migrants that have not returned.
In terms of nationality acquisition, 52.6% of the migrants in our sample have the Spanish nationality,
which is very close to the national numbers provided by INE, according to which, at the end of 2013 8
Estadística del Padrón Continuo), 53.6% of the Ecuadorian residents had the double nationality. The
percentage of nationality acquisition for the Ecuadorian population is very high and, in fact,
Ecuadorians rank first in terms of naturalizations. This could be easily explained for reasons of
historical and cultural closeness, for being one of the first countries of origin since the beginning of
Spanish immigration era and or for the preferential conditions of access to nationality offered by our
legislation5.
In terms of birthplace, the highest share was born in Quito (30.30%). The other two main origin cities
are Loja (19.40%) and Guayaquil (11.60%).
5
The minimum prior period of residence in Spain required for Latin American citizens (as well as Andorra, Philippines, Equatorial Guinea
and Portugal) is only two years, while generally for other nationalities the period required is 10 years. On the other hand, Latin American
citizens can achieve Spanish nationality without waiving their own, something that does not always occur in the case of nationals from
other countries.
15
Table 3. Main birth places and residence places for the current migrant sample
Top 3 birth place
Quito
Loja
Guayaquil
Top 3 residence place
before migration
30.30% Quito
19.40% Loja
11.60% Guayaquil
38.70%
12.40%
13.00%
If we compare place of birth with residence place before migration, there is a difference in the
distribution across cities (Table 3). Again, most of the migrants were living in Quito and the
percentage is even higher (38.70%), indicating that internal migration might be a pre-step in the case
of Ecuadorian international migration.
As shown in Table 4, significant shares of those not living in the first two major cities (Quito and
Guayaquil), move to Quito before emigrating. The transition matrix also allows us to observe the
subsample of those that has a previous migration experience and did not migrate to Spain directly from
Ecuador (1.1% of our sample).
Table 4. Transition matrix for the main birth place and residence place for the current migrant sample
Residence before migration
Birth place
Quito/Pichincha Guayaquil
Loja
Quito/Pichincha
Ambato
Other
Total
90.6%
4.9%
22.9%
5.6%
18.8%
39.1%
Guayaquil
0.8%
86.3%
1.8%
0.0%
6.8%
12.9%
Loja
0.8%
1.0%
58.2%
0.0%
2.3%
12.4%
Ambato
0.4%
0.0%
1.2%
72.2%
2.0%
4.0%
Abroad
1.1%
1.0%
0.6%
2.8%
1.3%
1.1%
6.4%
266
6.9%
102
15.3%
170
19.4%
36
68.8%
308
30.5%
882
Other
Number of observations
There are slightly more women in the sample (52.6%), but the same trend has been observed in the
various surveys on immigrants in Spain (Jokisch, 2014). Despite the highest share of women, there is
no notable gender difference in age and migration duration.
Quito survey
Following the similar logic as for the Madrid survey, we have conducted the survey in Quito city and
its province Pichincha. The province of Pichincha, in the Andes region, is the second region in terms
of population among the 24 provinces (approximately 2.600.000 inhabitants representing 18% of the
total Ecuadorian population that was estimated at 14.5 millions). However it ranks first in terms of
16
population density. Its capital, Quito, is also the capital of the country and is the residence of more
than60% of the population (approximately 1.6 million). It consists of 8 cantons although 87.6% of the
population resides in the canton of Metropolitan District of Quito. Pichincha also concentrates the
highest share of return migrants – 30.7% (Mejia, 2012). Using the 2010 census, Mejia (2012)
estimates the number of return migrants in Pichincha to be slightly above 50 000 individuals, but this
concerns all migration destinations (USA, Spain, etc.).
.15
0
.05
.1
Density
.2
.25
Graph 6. Distribution of the sample according the year of arrival
1990
1995
2000
Year of arrival in Spain
2005
2010
The distribution of the sample according to the year of arrival follows the same pattern as the sample
of current migrants, with a peak in 2000 and a quick slowdown afterwards (Graph 6).
Table 5. Basic characteristics of the return migrants sample
Age at the time of migration
Migration duration
Time since return
Current age
Spanish nationality
N° obs
Men
29.4
9.7
2.7
41.9
48.5%
194
Women
27.3
9.3
2.9
39.6
52.8%
216
Total
28.3
9.5
2.8
40.7
50.7%
410
The average age at the time of migration is of 28 years for the entire sample, slightly higher than that
of current migrants, especially for men (29.4 versus 27). The quintile distribution (Figure 2) confirms
17
a higher clustering for the first quantiles corresponding to a slightly higher age at the time of migration
for the return migrants.
0
20
40
60
Figure 2. Quintile distribution of the return migrant sample according to the age at arrival
0
.25
.5
Fraction of the data
.75
1
As expected, the migration duration is shorter, 9.5 years, than that of current migrants. This figure
confirms the representativeness of the sample and its comparability with the Madrid sample since this
migration duration in Spain, summed up with the average number of years since return (about 3 years
on average), should match the average period of residence in Spain for the sample of current migrants
(which is indeed of 13 years). That time since the return is on average of 2.8 years, confirming that
return migration is a recent phenomenon. The age distribution is similar to that of current migrants,
with an average age of 40.7 years, and, more importantly, is similar to that return migrants as
computed in Mejia (2012) (Graph 7).
18
Graph 7. Age distribution of the return migrants all destinations pooled, 2010
45000
40000
35000
30000
25000
20000
15000
10000
5000
0
<9 years 10-19
years
20-29
years
30-39
years
40-49
years
50-59
years
60-69
years
70-79
years
>80
years
Source: Mejia (2012)
In terms of double nationality, 50.7% of the sample also has the Spanish nationality. This percentage
is lower than that of current migrants, but this could be explained by two factors: the recent rapid
increase in the number of nationality acquisitions in Spain (from 37.7% in 2011 to 53.44% in 2013)
and the influence of having Spanish nationality as a factor inhibiting return. In terms of main birth and
residence places before migration, the sample is clearly biased in favor of Quito, by construction.
Table 6. Main birth places and residence places for the return migrant sample
Top 3 birth place
Top 3 residence place
before migration
Quito
57.20% Quito
82.17%
Loja
3.67% Loja
0.70%
Guayaquil
2.20% Guayaquil
0.50%
The transition matrix shows nevertheless, that, for the most part, even those who were not born in
Quito/Pichincha, had moved to the capital prior to their migration (Table 7).
19
Table 7. Transition matrix for the main birth place and residence place for the return migrant sample
Residence before
migration
Birthplace
Quito/Pichincha Guayaquil Loja
Ambato
Other
Quito/Pichincha
90.3%
88.9%
66.7%
87.5%
59.6%
Guayaquil
0.0%
11.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.7%
Loja
0.0%
0.0%
20.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Ambato
0.4%
0.0%
0.0%
12.5%
0.7%
Abroad
1.7%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Other
7.6%
0.0%
13.3%
0.0%
39.0%
Number of observations
237
9
15
8
141
Total
78.8%
0.5%
0.7%
0.7%
1.0%
18.3%
410
We are fully aware that concentrating the sample in the province of Pichincha involves a certain
degree of inconsistency with the sample in the region of Madrid: some of migrant returnees
interviewed in Pichincha are not returning from Madrid and some of those interviewed in Madrid do
not come from Pichincha. Limitations to perform two national surveys have prevented the perfect
matching, but, in any case, we will show that the differences between the regions of origin and
destination regions relative to the main variables of analysis are not very relevant.
20
3. Migration profile
3.1. Who are the Ecuadorian migrants?

The Ecuadorian migrant population is strongly marked by the family dimension: a
significant percentage already had direct family in Spain before arriving here and half of
the sample had brought family members through reunification programs after having
arrived in Spain.

The data show a high average level of education among the migrant population in spite
of which, one third of respondents say they have received additional training in Spain.
Therefore, given the low skill of jobs created in Spain in the last decades, half of
respondents feel overqualified for the work done in Spain.
Family composition
In terms of family status, most Ecuadorian migrants were in couple before having migrated (around
47.5% as shown in Table 8).
Table 8. Aggregated family status prior to migration
Pooled sample
CHILDREN
Child with parents in Ecuador
Child with one parent in Spain
Child with both parents in Spain
SINGLES
Single childless
Single & child not in Spain
Single & child in Spain
PARTNERS
Childless with partner in Ecuador
Partner in Ecuador & child not in Spain
Partner in Ecuador & child in Spain
Childless with partner in Spain
Partner in Spain & child not in Spain
Partner in Spain & child in Spain
Pct. having a direct family member in Spain
6.58%
4.49%
4.49%
15.6%
28.2%
8.3%
0.5%
37.0%
3.5%
34.6%
0.4%
1.7%
6.7%
0.6%
47.50%
43.30%
More than 70% of the sample declared having arrived alone in Spain (Table 9). Most of those who
arrived alone in Spain were single and childless (34.1%), with very little difference between women
(34.5%) and men (36.3%). However, slightly more than 33% went to Spain, leaving their spouse and
children behind and this percentage is significantly higher for men (33.4%) than for women (24%).
21
Moreover, if we sum up the various categories, we find that almost 49% of migrants left behind at
least a child. Among those who left behind children, almost 80% brought them to Spain later on
through family reunification schemes.
Table 9. Distribution of migrants who declared having arrived alone in Spain across family type
Family status prior to the migration
Child with parents in Ecuador
Child with one parent in Spain
Child with both parents in Spain
Single childless
Single & child not in Spain
Single & child in Spain
Childless with partner in Ecuador
Partner in Ecuador & child not in
Spain
Partner in Ecuador & child in Spain
Childless with partner in Spain
Partner in Spain & child not in Spain
Partner in Spain & child in Spain
Total
Current
migrants
5.79%
3.05%
2.28%
34.13%
10.19%
0.77%
2.23%
33.18%
0.30%
2.17%
5.49%
0.52%
73.10%
Half of the sample has brought family members to Spain using family reunification schemes (almost
51%) and these reunifications mainly concern children and brothers or sisters (Table 10).
Table 10. Characteristics relative to the family structure
Has brought family through family reunification schemes
Partner
Children
Brothers/Sisters
Changes in marital status
Marriage / Civil partnership
Divorce/separation
Widowhood
Had children during migration
Pooled sample
50.9%
25.7%
50.6%
59.4%
29.8%
70.8%
26.6%
2.6%
47.1%
Almost a third of the sample declared having experienced at least a change in their marital status
during migration. For the most part, this change6 involved getting married or committed in a couple
(about 71%). Furthermore, almost half of the sample has had children during migration.
6
Interviewers were asked to record the last change if there was more than one.
22
Education
The education distribution is similar for current and return migrants, most of them having secondary
education, which is not very far from the results of Mejia (2012), who finds that around 55% of the
Ecuadorians abroad have secondary education. Nevertheless, only around 66% of them have a
diploma. There seems to be evidence of positive selection since this percentage is significantly higher
than the total Ecuadorian population, of which 35% has secondary education (according to the World
Development Indicators of the World Bank). Still, the percentages for the tertiary education are similar
for migrants (around 20% for current and return migrants) and total Ecuadorian population (21%).
Furthermore, we see that around a fifth of the sample was enrolled in school or a type of training at the
moment when they migrated (Table 11). Among those who were studying in Ecuador at the time of
migration, slightly more than 62% also studied in Spain, but this percentage falls to 32.6% if we only
consider those who were enrolled in formal schooling. This is due to the fact that most migrants
underwent workplace training or job seeking training during their migration. Nevertheless, we notice
that among those who were not enrolled in school at the time of migration, slightly over 11% were
enrolled in school or university during their migration.
Table 11. Education characteristics
Pooled sample
Education
None
0.2%
Primary
16.2%
Secondary
66.2%
Higher
17.4%
Holds diploma
66.7%
Enrolled at migration time
20.9%
All type of education/training
Enrolled in Ecuador and studied in Spain
62.3%
Not enrolled in Ecuador but studied in Spain
44.0%
School/university
Enrolled in Ecuador and studied in Spain
32.6%
Not enrolled in Ecuador but studied in Spain
11.2%
Concerning the link between education and labor (Table 12), slightly more than half of the sample of
current migrants and 42% of the return migrants declared having studied during their stay in Spain and
around 34% of those who were working at the time of the survey, for current migrant, or who were
working before the return, for return migrants, had professional training, mainly in the INEM. Among
23
those benefited from professional training, more than 60% of current migrant and almost 74% of
returnees found it useful.
Table 12. Labor and education
Current migrants
Return migrants
50.3%
34.1%
60.1%
42.4%
33.9%
73.7%
32.4%
53.5%
2.7%
11.2%
42.4%
47.7%
2.5%
7.4%
Has studied during migration
Had professional training
The training was useful
Match job-education
Completely
Overeducated
Undereducated
Level match but different field
In terms of matching between the job level7 and their education, most migrants perceive themselves as
overeducated (53% of current migrants and 48% of returnees). Among those who see themselves as
overeducated, only 24% for current migrants and 28% for return migrants have higher education,
while the highest share has secondary education (70% of current migrants and 65% of returnees).
3.2. What was their level of wellbeing prior to migrating?

The data clearly shows that the vast majority of migrants emigrated even if they had a
job in Ecuador with the idea, therefore, to improve their situation. As corroborated by
many other studies, migration can only be met by those who have a minimum level of
resources, linked to having a job and sufficient income, which would allow them to
support the migration costs. Migration, therefore, does not occur in this case with the
aim of economic survival but for improvement and, therefore, it is not related to extreme
poverty in the home country but with relative poverty, originally perceived when the
economic situation is compared with higher living standards that are associated with the
opportunities that migration brings.
With regards to the subjective welfare, slightly more than 60% of the migrants declared that they were
barely balancing their expenses and incomes (or living on a daily basis) before the migration (Table
13). However, we notice that around one quarter of the sample was able to save money prior to the
migration.
7
The job used for this variable is the job at the moment of the survey for current migrants and the last job before
the return for return migrants.
24
Table 13. Perceived wellbeing
Migrants, pooled
sample
Subjective welfare
Was able to save money
Barely balancing income and expenses
Had to spend the savings
Had to borrow money
Subjective economic situation
Very good
Good
Neither good nor bad
Bad
Very bad
30.4%
62.2%
2.2%
5.3%
8.8%
38.4%
45.1%
6.9%
0.9%
Migrants were also asked what is their subjective assessment concerning their economic situation
before the migration and we observe that almost half of the migrants saw their situation as being
“good” or “very good”. Interestingly, as Figure 3 shows, this subjective evaluation is rather well
correlated to the objective situation as proxied by the number of durable goods owned by the
household prior to the migration, with the average number of durable goods being significantly lower
for those who saw their situation being “very bad” compared to those who answered “very good”.
6
4
2
0
mean of dur_good_AM
8
10
Figure 3. Average number of durable goods owned by subjective welfare level, pooled sample
Very good
Good Neither good nor bad
Bad
Very bad
25
As we might have expected, Figure 4 shows that there is correlation between education level and the
perceived economic situation before the migration. As the education level increases, the share of
individuals who report that their economic situation before the migration was “very good” or “good”
increases while the share who perceived their situation as “bad” decreases.
Figure 4. Distribution of subjective economic situation before the migration for each education level, pooled sample
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Primary
Secondary
Very good
Good
Higher
Neither good nor bad
Total
Bad
Very bad
Before the migration, 58.5% of the migrants in our sample were living in a house that they owned
(Table 14). This percentage is slightly lower that that at the national level which is of 65.7%,
according to the figures from the Ecuadorian statistical institute (INEC, 2009).
Table 14. House ownership type
Rent
Migrants,
pooled sample
31.3%
National
18.1%
Own house
58.5%
65.7%
Free/inherited
9.4%
13.7%
Other
0.9%
2.5%
In terms of basic services, Figure 5 shows that both of our samples have almost full access to water,
electricity and sanitation, with percentages higher than the national ones, especially for access to
drinkable water.
26
Figure 5. Access to basic services
95%
99%
96%
95%
99%
96%
95%
90%
68%
Current migrants
Return migrants
Water
Electricity
National
Sanitation
The living standards of the households can also be captured through the durable goods that they
possess. If we restrict the definition of durable goods to technological goods (which might show a less
homogenous distribution), we observe that Ecuadorian migrants systematically rate better than the
national averages (Figure 6). This indicates that emigrant households have better living conditions
than the national averages and confirms the trends that we highlighted on the labor market outcomes.
Figure 6. Technological goods owned by households
Current migrants
89% 91%
93%
Return migrants
National
98%
87%
67% 66%
48%
22%
Refridgerator
Television
DVD/VHS
29%
18%
Computer
27
3.3. Why and how did they migrate?

The results suggest the central role of the family and its wellbeing in the migration
dynamics. The economic improvement appears as the main reason for the migration, but
the choice of the destination is marked by family migration patterns. Thus, improving
living conditions and opportunities are evaluated and performed in a family context
following individual migration dynamics and subsequent reunification.

Upon arrival in Spain, most immigrants declared having found a better country than
they expected, but from that moment, a prolonged irregular stay awaited for them:
about 85% of Ecuadorian migrants resided in Spain in an irregular status for more than
two years. The effect of this irregularity on migrants’ achievements, in meeting their
expectations and in the return is crucial in order to understand the impact of restrictive
immigration policies, as well as that of exceptional or ordinary regularizations.
Migration reasons and decision making
Around 6% of return migrants and 7.6% of current migrants had another migration episode before
coming to Spain. However, we are referring here to international migration, because, as shown in the
simple description, a significant share of migrants had an internal migration experience before leaving
Ecuador.
Among the migrants we have surveyed, 44.6% of current migrants and 39.2% of return migrants
declared that they had a family member abroad8 before their own migration (Table 15). However, as
Figure 7 shows, the percentage of persons that declared having a family member abroad increases with
the year of arrival, signaling an amplification of the network effect on migration. In terms of
remittances, around 17% of each sample declared that they were receiving remittances before having
migrated and the percentage increases to 33% for current migrants and 36% for return migrants if we
limit the sample to those who had family abroad.
8
The family members taken into consideration here were the father, mother, partner, children and
brothers/sisters.
28
Table 15. Migration related characteristics
Current migrants
Had family in Spain
Main emigration reason
Economic
Family related reasons
Other
Main reason for choosing Spain
Had family and/or friends here
It was easier to have a visa or to enter the country
Job opportunities
Cultural proximity
Labor/study agreement
Health reasons
Job transfer
Other
Was receiving remittances
Had another migration experience
Decision making
Own decision
Decision taken by others
Joint decision
44.6%
Return
migrants
39.2%
53.3%
25.2%
21.5%
72.0%
14.6%
13.4%
60.6%
7.6%
12.8%
14.8%
0.2%
0.2%
0.3%
3.4%
17.5%
7.6%
69.0%
13.2%
8.1%
8.8%
0.2%
50.4%
15.8%
33.6%
48.5%
5.4%
46.1%
0.2%
0.5%
17.3%
6.1%
0
.2
.4
.6
.8
1
Figure 7. Percentage of individuals that had a family member in Spain by year of arrival
200020012002 200320042005 200620072008 200920102011 20122013
29
Moreover, these numbers indicate a lower bound for the migrants who already had family in Spain,
since when asked about the reason to choose Spain as a destination, more than 60 to 70% of migrants
declared that it was because they already had family or friends there. The higher percentage is due to
an extended definition of “family” and the inclusion of friends.
Nevertheless, when asked what their main reason for leaving Ecuador was, most individuals conjure
up economic motivations: 53% for current migrants and 72% for return migrants. The qualitative
answers turn around the concept of improving the living conditions and ensuring a better future for
their families. The second major reason for having migrated is related to the family (25% for current
migrants and 15% for return migrants), mainly covering people who reunite with their spouses in
Spain and children reuniting with their parents.
If we define a category for the individuals who migrated the first in their family and define them as
“leaders”, we notice that economic related reasons rank first by large (Figure 8).
Figure 8. Distribution according to migration reasons for the subsample of « leaders »
Other
21%
Family
6%
Economic
73%
When crossing the main motivation to leave Ecuador with the main reason for choosing Spain we
observe that more than 60% of those who declare that they had migrated for economic reasons had
chosen Spain because they had family in the country. Again, this points out to the joint importance of
economic and family-related factors in the migration decision. The category “Other” for the main
reason to emigrate mainly includes answers related to “gaining independence from parents” and
“getting to know another country and/or another question”. Again, between 57% and 60% of them
declared having family and/or friends in Spain, highlighting the pulling effect of networks.
30
Figure 9. Distribution of migrants according to the decision-maker in the emigration process, by emigration reason
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
Own decision
30%
20%
Others' decision
10%
Joint decision
Current migrants
Other
Family
Economic
Other
Family
Economic
0%
Return migrants
As Table 15 shows, around half percent of each sample declared that emigrating was their own
decision, while 34% for current migrants and 46% for return migrants declared that the decision was
taken jointly (most often with their spouses). However, when we cross the emigration reason and the
decision-making (Figure 9), we notice that, in the case of current migrants, when individuals migrate
for family related reasons, the decision was mainly taken by others, this result being mainly driven by
the minor who travelled to Spain in order to reunite with their parents (the percentage falls from 36%
to 15% when we exclude those who left Ecuador before the age of 18). In the case of returnees we do
not observe the same result and this might be due to a lower share of the sample that migrated before
the age of 18 (20% among current migrants versus 10% for return migrants), confirming once more
that children who emigrate might be more reluctant to return, thus we do not capture them properly in
our returnee sample. Among the current migrants for whom the decision to emigrate was taken by
somebody else, women are overrepresented, accounting for 59.7% and their share is even higher if we
exclude those who emigrated as minors, reaching 63%.
Context of migration and arrival in Spain
When asked about their first opinion of Spain compared to the image they had before migrating,
most individuals responded that they had found the country to be better than their expectations (Figure
10). The shares range between 62% for current migrants to 80% for returnees, but no significant
differences appear when we distinguish those who had already family Spain from those who did not or
when we distinguish those who arrived before and after 2003.
31
Figure 10. First opinion of Spain compared to expectations
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
Current migrants
30%
Return migrants
20%
10%
0%
Better
Same
Worse
Doesn't
remember
Had no
expectations
Figure 11 shows that the share of migrants who found upon arrival that the Spain was better than their
expectations increases until 2005 and then starts to decrease, with a marked fall after the crisis.
Actually after 2008, we notice a sharp increase in the share of new comers who found that the situation
in Spain was worse than what they had expected.
32
0
.2
.4
.6
.8
Figure 11. Evolution of the share of migrants who found Spain better/worse compared to their expectations, by year
of arrival
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
mean of expect_better
mean of expect_worse
Given that most migrants arrived before the start of the visa requirements in 2003, most of them
declared that they did not need any document in order to enter Spain (67%). Figure 12 presents the
distribution of migrants according to the documents they used to enter Spain, distinguishing between
those who arrived before and after the visa requirements. We notice that after 2003, the share of
individuals entering Spain with family reunification and work visa increases considerable compared to
the previous period, as well as the percentage of migrants arriving with tourist visas.
33
Figure 12. Distribution of migrants according to the documents used to enter Spain before and after 2003
100%
90%
80%
70%
Other
60%
Student visa
50%
Family reunification visa
40%
Work visa
30%
Turism visa
20%
No document was needed
10%
0%
Before 2003
After 2003
Concerning the first legal status, if we add the migrants without a residence permit to those that
mentioned a tourism visa, we get an estimation of more than 84% of the migrants interviewed with an
irregular residence status upon arrival. The shares are even higher for those who arrived before 2003
reaching 95% for current migrants and 91% for returnees, but they remain significant for those who
arrived after 2003 with 61% of current migrants having been irregular upon arrival and 71% for
returnees. On average, current migrants spent 2.2 years in an irregular situation, while return migrants
only spent 1.5 years on average.
Interestingly, if we compute the average number of years spent in an irregular status according to the
year of arrival (Figure 13 and Figure 14), we notice a decrease over the years before the crisis and an
increase after the crisis, especially for current migrants (since for return migrants, the trend is biased
by their decision to return). The increasing difficulties for migrants to find or maintain a job, and thus
obtain or renew a residence permit, after the crisis, explain this trend.
34
0
.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
Figure 13. Average number of years spent in an irregular status by year of arrival, current migrants
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
0
.5
1
1.5
2
Figure 14. Average number of years spent in an irregular status by year of arrival, return migrants
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
35
3.4. What are their labor market outcomes?

The data clearly shows that the vast majority of migrants, returnees or not, emigrated
even if they had a job in Ecuador with the idea, therefore, to improve their situation. As
corroborated by many other studies, migration can only be met by those who have a
minimum level of resources, linked to having a job and sufficient income, which would
allow them to support the migration costs. Migration, therefore, does not occur in this
case with the aim of economic survival but for improvement and, therefore, it is not
related to extreme poverty in the home country but with relative poverty, originally
perceived when the economic situation is compared with higher living standards that are
associated with the opportunities that migration brings.
The labor market situation of migrants is a crucial element that needs to be grasped in order to
understand their motivations to migrate, but also the evolution of their integration and living
conditions after the migration. Table 16 presents the main labor characteristics of both samples in the
year that preceded their outmigration. It´s very interesting to notice that more than three quarters of
each sample (reaching almost 82% for return migrants) were employed in the year prior to their
migration.
If we cross the labor market with the main migration reason, we notice that 79% among returnees and
64% among current migrants of the active employed declared having migrated mainly for economic
reasons, meaning that having a job did not guarantee a sufficient income as to ensure good living
conditions. Indeed, the qualitative answers reflect a search of better economic conditions and
improving living standards. This also indicates that the good economic situation in Spain was crucial
in attracting Ecuadorian migrants and acts as a powerful pull factor. Moreover, the high percentage of
active employed among the emigrants might indicate that a minimum level of resources was needed in
order to emigrate, in line with the predictions in the economic literature that mention a minimum level
of wealth needed in order to overcome the migration costs, and the implication is that the individuals
who migrated were not among the poorest ones. Nevertheless, we need to qualify the notion of “active
employed” since significant percentages, especially for current migrants, declared not having a
contract or having temporary contracts. Also, the high shares of employed and the low unemployment
percentage, might indicate a high prevalence of underemployment.
36
Table 16. Labour market outcomes in the year previous to the emigration
Current
migrants
Labor status before migration
Active employed
Unemployed
Inactive
Main inactive reason
Studies
Housewife
Other
Self-employed
Type of contract (excluding selfemployed)
No contract
Appointment (in the public sector)
Permanent contract
Temporary contract
Contract for specific task
Job satisfaction
Satisfied
Dissatisfied
Dissatisfied but ok
Very dissatisfied
Return
migrants
76.9%
2.0%
21.1%
81.5%
3.7%
14.8%
61.0%
16.0%
23.0%
25.2%
67.2%
16.4%
16.4%
26.3%
42.7%
5.4%
34.2%
14.7%
3.0%
24.0%
5.3%
35.0%
30.5%
5.3%
62.9%
18.6%
12.5%
5.9%
39.4%
37.6%
15.8%
7.2%
Furthermore, for the inactive, we observe that main inactivity reasons were either related to being
enrolled in school or having household responsibilities. Around a quarter of each sample declared
having been self-employed, mainly in commercial activities (47% for current migrants and 36% for
returnees).
Interestingly, a high share of the migrants declared themselves satisfied with their job at the time of
migration, mainly for current migrants. Despite these high percentages, around 70% of those who
declared themselves “satisfied” have migrated for economic reasons, often mentioning the willingness
to improve their living conditions and ensure a better future for their families. What exudes from the
qualitative answers is that the outmigration was motivated by opportunities and “pull factors” than by
“push factors” such as the lack of jobs and insufficient income.
If we look at the labor market outcomes after migration, we observe that for both current and return
migrants, the first labor status in Spain was “unemployed” (Table 17) and the distribution is very
similar among the two samples. Table 18 matches the labor status in the year previous to the migration
to the first labor status in Spain and we notice that among those who were active and employed before
37
migration around half were unemployed upon arrival in Spain. Furthermore, significant shares of those
who were inactive, declared that they were students upon arrival.
Table 17. Labor market outcomes in Spain
First labor status
Unemployed
Wage worker
Domestic worker
Self employed
Employer
Student
Housewife
Inactive for health or age reasons
Average time before the first job (months)
First job obtained through family/friends
Average time unemployed (months)
Percentage of those who were never
unemployed
Current migrants
Return migrants
44.9%
25.9%
19.2%
0.3%
0.1%
8.6%
0.9%
0.1%
49.5%
28.5%
12.0%
1.0%
0.2%
7.8%
1.0%
4
3
79.6%
82.0%
24
11
22.2%
27.0%
Moreover, a significant share of migrants declared that they were wage workers or domestic workers
almost immediately after arrival and this is confirmed by the relatively short average time to find the
first job (3-4 months), even in spite of not having a work permit in the vast majority of cases. This is
linked to a large offer of informal jobs in Spain before the crisis, mainly in the construction and the
domestic services sectors. Nevertheless, this average of time to find the first job increases for those
arrived after 2003, as shown in Figure 15.
38
Table 18. Transition matrix between labor market status prior to migration and first type of occupation in Spain
Current migrants
Active
Unemployed Inactive
employed
Prior
Return migrants
Active
Unemployed Inactive
employed
After
migration
Unemployed
46.2%
55.6%
39.3%
53.3%
33.3%
32.8%
Wage worker
29.5%
38.9%
11.3%
29.6%
33.3%
21.3%
Domestic
worker
Self-employed
20.4%
16.7%
12.9%
20.0%
4.9%
0.3%
0.5%
1.2%
41.0%
Employer
0.2%
Student
2.8%
Housewife
0.6%
Handicapped
0.2%
0.3%
5.6%
30.1%
1.8%
6.7%
2.2%
0.9%
6.7%
5
0
mean of cdm61_1
10
Figure 15. Average months to find the first job according to the year of arrival for pooled sample
200020012002 200320042005 200620072008 200920102011 20122013
Only around 22% of the current migrants and 27% of the return migrants declared they have never
been unemployed since having arrived in Spain or during their migration, but no clear trend appears
with regard to their year of arrival of education that might indicate better opportunities. For those who
faced unemployment spells, the average total time spent unemployed was of 2 years for current
migrants and of 1 year for return migrants. Interestingly, the time spent unemployed is shorter for
39
return migrants, corroborating, at least in a first bivariate analysis, the qualitative answers according to
which migrants who were unemployed chose to return before their situation deteriorated further .
Moreover, around 80% of each sample declared having found their first job through their family
and/or friends, highlighting the networks’ importance for the Ecuadorian migration.
40
4. Migrants’ wellbeing before and after the crisis
4.1. What was the level of migrant’s wellbeing before the economic crisis in
Spain?

The welfare analysis on migration and return is a central aspect in this study as part of
the NOPOOR poverty project. The results clearly suggest that migration leads to an
improvement in subjective wellbeing compared to the situation in Ecuador, at least when
the baseline for the comparison is the situation in Spain before the outbreak of the crisis.

The perception of the improvement in welfare during their migration in the pre-crisis
period implies that two-thirds of immigrants considered their situation equal or better
than the Spaniards themselves, even though the aggregate figures have always indicated
worse living conditions for the foreigners.
When discussing the wellbeing during the migration, we need to make a clear distinction between the
period before the crisis and after the crisis in Spain. If we compare their subjective welfare level
before the migration to the one after having migrated, but before the crisis (Table 19 and Table 20), we
notice that most of the migrants declared that they were able to save money before the crisis. This
indicates a rather good economic situation almost 80% of the current migrants and 74% of the return
migrants.
Table 19. Transition matrix for the subjective welfare in Ecuador and in Spain before the crisis, current migrants
Spain, before
crisis
Was able to
save money
Was able to save
money
Barely balancing
income and expenses
Had to spend the
savings
Had to borrow money
Before migration
Barely balancing
Had to
income and
spend the
expenses
savings
Had to
borrow
money
Total
81.8%
79.1%
66.7%
80.0%
79.8%
16.4%
19.7%
26.7%
20.0%
18.8%
0.7%
1.0%
6.7%
1.1%
0.2%
1.0%
0.5%
41
Table 20. Transition matrix for the subjective welfare in Ecuador and in Spain before the crisis, return migrants
Before migration
Spain, before crisis
Was able to
Barely balancing
Had to spend
save money income and expenses the savings
Was able to save
money
Barely balancing
income and expenses
Had to spend the
savings
Had to borrow money
80.9%
68.9%
18.0%
25.1%
1.1%
5.5%
0.4%
90.9%
9.1%
Had to
borrow
money
Total
80.6%
73.6%
19.4%
22.1%
4.0%
0.3%
The vast majority of individuals that had to spend their savings or that had to borrow money while
they were in Ecuador, found themselves able to save money upon arriving in Spain before the crisis.
This is confirmed by the high percentage of individuals (around 80% of each sample) who declares
that their economic situation in Spain before the crisis was “Better” or “Much better” than the one they
had in Ecuador. When asked to compare their economic situation to that of other Ecuadorian migrants
living around them in Spain, most of our samples (around 27%) see themselves in a relatively similar
situation, although around 40% of each sample considers having a better economic situation than their
compatriots living in Spain. When it comes to comparing oneself to the Spaniards, a significant
difference appears between current and return migrants, with almost three quarters of return migrants
seeing their economic welfare as not being very different than that of Spaniards before the crisis, while
this percentage if of 47% for the current migrants. More of a third of the current migrants evaluated
their situation as being worse than that of Spaniards before the crisis and only 12% of return migrant
considered themselves as worse off.
42
Table 21. Subjective welfare compared to different groups
Subjective economic compared to before
migration
Much better
Better
Same
Worse
Much worse
Subjective economic compared to other
Ecuadorians
Much better
Better
Same
Worse
Much worse
Subjective economic compared to Spaniards
Much better
Better
Same
Worse
Much worse
Current migrants
Return migrants
28.4%
54.1%
12.4%
4.8%
0.2%
38.5%
41.0%
16.7%
3.8%
6.5%
32.3%
57.5%
2.6%
0.0%
11.6%
29.1%
57.1%
2.2%
2.2%
14.5%
47.2%
33.8%
0.9%
4.9%
12.4%
71.1%
11.1%
0.5%
4.2. To what extent did the crisis impact the Ecuadorian immigrants?

While we know that the crisis would have significantly impacted the immigrant
population, our survey allows a precise quantification of this impact and the changes in
the subjective wellbeing and also in the objective welfare dimensions such as adjustments
in income, deterioration of working conditions, variation in remittances etc.

Interestingly, the crisis seems to have impacted more to those still in Spain highlighting
some positive selection in return: those who have suffered most from the crisis might
have had trouble financing a return on reasonable terms.
In order to capture how the crisis impacted the Ecuadorian migrants, we use two approaches. First of
all, we asked them to assess their economic wellbeing before and after the crisis, thus allowing us to
measure the transitions from a subjective point of view. The second approach consisted in asking
specific questions about various dimensions that are directly related to the crisis impact such as having
suffered job losses or deterioration of living standards.
According to the first approach, we first notice that the crisis seems to have affected more current
migrants, since 35.6% of the return migrants declared that they were able to save money after the
43
crisis, while this concerns only 13.4% of the current migrants (Table 22 and Table 23). This is
probably one of the determinants of return, since savings are needed in order to go back to Ecuador.
Most of the current migrants (almost 70%) declared that they are barely balancing their income and
expenses. As expected, those who were most hit by the crisis were those who declared that they were
able to save money before the crisis and found themselves having to spend their savings or having to
borrow money after the crisis.
Table 22. Transitional matrix for the subjective economic welfare before and after the crisis, current migrants
Before crisis
After crisis
Was able to
save money
Was able to save
money
Barely balancing
income and expenses
Had to spend the
savings
Had to borrow
money
Barely balancing
Had to spend
income and expenses the savings
14.3%
9.9%
12.5%
68.4%
73.5%
75.0%
11.0%
8.6%
12.5%
6.4%
8.0%
Had to
borrow
money
Total
13.4%
75.0%
69.4%
10.5%
25.0% 6.7%
Table 23. Transitional matrix for the subjective economic welfare before and after the crisis, return migrants
Before crisis
After crisis
Was able to
save money
Was able to save
money
Barely balancing
income and expenses
Had to spend the
savings
Had to borrow
money
Barely balancing
Had to spend
income and expenses the savings
Had to
borrow
money
Total
45.8%
6.1%
13.3%
35.6%
34.8%
82.9%
33.3%
45.3%
16.9%
9.8%
53.3%
16.7%
2.6%
1.2%
100.0% 2.4%
With the second approach, migrants were asked which one of the following aspects (Table 24) was
impacted by the crisis (they could have chosen all the aspects as long as they were coherent). Most of
Ecuadorian migrants declared that they had to adjust their daily spending due to the crisis, but the
percentage is significantly higher for current migrants (83%) than for return migrants (61%). What
stands out throughout Table 24 is that current migrants seem to have been significantly more impacted
by the crisis – for both samples, the top-3 events due to the crisis are the same (“Had to adjust daily
44
spending”, “The work conditions have worsened” and “Maintaining a job became very difficult”), but
the percentage of each sample that was affected by these events is each time lower for return migrants.
Also, if we count the average number of events due to the crisis that migrants declare, we obtain a
higher average for current migrants (5 events) than for return migrants (3 events). Interestingly, a
higher percentage of return migrants declared having encountered problems with the renewal of
residence permit (12%) compared to current migrants (8%), which might suggest a link between this
difficulty and their return decision.
Table 24. Crisis impact according to predetermined dimensions
Had to adjust day to day spending
The work conditions have worsened
Maintaining a job became difficult
Some of the household members have lost their job
Had to find secondary jobs in order to maintain income
Has lost job
Had problems paying back loans
Had to borrow money
Had felt rejection as an immigrant
Had lost their house
Some of the household members had to start working
Some of the household members stopped their studies in order to
start working
Had problems to renew the residence/work permit
Some of the HH members have lost their residence/work permits
Had lost the health card and the rights
Average number of events
Current
migrants
82.9%
70.2%
54.2%
49.6%
47.3%
42.2%
41.0%
35.1%
26.7%
22.8%
15.4%
Return
migrants
60.5%
41.6%
39.1%
35.7%
36.6%
26.6%
20.4%
11.6%
25.1%
11.9%
14.1%
8.7%
7.5%
8.0%
7.6%
7.5%
11.9%
5.8%
6.4%
5
3
The second most mentioned event linked to the crisis, for both samples, was the worsening of the
working conditions, either through lower pay, longer working hours with no increase in wages or
stressful working conditions, affecting 70% of the current migrants and 42% of the return migrants. It
is worth noting that one quarter of each sample declared having felt rejection as an immigrant due to
the crisis.
Giving the high degree of correlation among those 15 specific effects, we conducted principle
component analysis with the purpose of aggregating those specific impacts in different crisis
dimension and computing composite crisis impact scores.
45
Attending to the first four principal components finally extracted9 we observed an interesting factor
structure10 summarizing the crisis impact in four separate dimensions that we identified and named as
own labor impact, expenses and living conditions impact, legal status impact and family members
impact.
Table 25. Factor loadings and communalities based on a principle component analysis with varimax rotation for the
15 items of crisis impact (N=1166)
Own labor Expenses and living
conditions
Has lost job
Maintaining a job became difficult
Had to find secondary jobs in order to
maintain income
The work conditions have worsened
Some of the household members had
to start working
Legal
status
Family
members
labor
0.4801
0.5227
0.5145
0.4167
0.5952
Some of the household members have
lost their job
0.3837
Some of the household members
stopped their studies in order to start
working
0.6414
Had problems to renew the
residence/work permit
0.6005
Some of the household members have
lost their residence/work permits
0.3592
Had lost their house
Had problems paying back loans
0.5417
0.5841
Had to adjust day to day expenditures
0.308
Had to borrow money
Had felt rejection as an immigrant
0.3711
Had lost the health card and the rights
0.6219
Note: Factor loadings < 0.3 are suppressed.
Figure 16 shows a negative correlation between education level and crisis impact. Indeed the average
number of dimensions for which the migrants declared they were impacted decreased with the level of
education, indicating that those who were more educated suffered less, probably due to higher labor
9
Those with an eigen value over 1, explaining 51% of the total variation
Varimax rotation used.
10
46
market stability. Indeed, the crisis hit the hardest the service and construction sectors, where the jobs
do not require high education levels.
0
1
2
3
mean of imp_obj_crs
4
5
Figure 16. Average crisis impact for each education level
Primary
Secondary
Higher
The crisis also impacted the remitting behavior of migrants, revealing even further the worsening of
their living conditions. Thus, if before the crisis, more than half current migrants (57%) were sending
remittances at least once per month, only 23% still send once per month (Table 26). More than half of
the sample of current migrants (51.3%) declared not having sent any remittances during the last year.
Among those who were sending remittances at least once per month before the crisis, a third managed
to keep the same rhythm after the crisis, while another third stopped sending altogether.
Table 26. Remitting frequency before and after the crisis, current migrants
Before crisis
After crisis
Almost
Almost
Once per
every day every week
month
Once per month
Several times per year
Once a year
Never
Total
50.0%
50.0%
0.8%
16.7%
33.3%
16.0%
33.3%
0.8%
37.0%
19.4%
5.3%
38.3%
57.4%
Several
times per
year
5.5%
24.2%
12.5%
57.8%
17.0%
Once a
Never
year
Total
4.8%
8.9%
4.8%
81.5%
19.3%
23.5%
17.8%
7.4%
51.3%
11.1%
25.0%
63.9%
4.8%
47
For the return migrants, more than half of the sample still sent remittances at least once per month
during the year prior to their return and almost two third of those who were sending remittances every
month before the crisis managed to maintain the same frequency after the crisis (Table 27).
Table 27. Remitting frequency before and after the crisis, return migrants
Before crisis
After crisis
Almost
Almost
Once per
every day every week
month
Almost every week
Once per month
Several times per year
Once a year
Never
Total
71.4%
28.6%
100.0%
1.9%
0.5%
1.2%
77.0%
11.3%
4.3%
6.3%
69.0%
Several
times per
year
15.0%
48.3%
13.3%
23.3%
16.2%
Once a
Never
year
7.1% 3.1%
35.7% 3.1%
35.7% 3.1%
21.4% 90.6%
3.8% 8.6%
Total
0.8%
57.4%
18.3%
6.7%
16.7%
The amounts remitted also significantly decreased, from 350€ on average per month to 230€ for
current migrants and from 515€ on average per month to 415€ for return migrants.
4.3. What was the crisis impact on migrants’ labor market outcomes?
Besides the crisis aspects linked to the labor market listed above and in order to distinguish the
evolutions that might be due to the crisis, migrants were asked details about their longest job in Spain
and the job at the time of the survey, for current migrants, or the last job before the return, for return
migrants. However, since most of the return migrants returned because of a bad labor market situation
due to the crisis, we cannot analyze both samples using the same criteria. For instance, for most of
returnees (72%), the last job during their migration was also the longest job, thus we cannot compare
the two jobs. We can however compare the conditions of their last job with those of the jobs held by
current migrants.
Table 28. Job quality, current migrants
Longest job
Job stability
Very stable
Stable
Instable
Very instable
Average monthly wage
Average hours worked per month
Current job
14.6%
72.9%
12.1%
0.4%
1,087 €
43
Job stability
Very stable
Stable
Instable
Very instable
Average monthly wage
Average hours worked per month
8.09
67.05
23.7
1.16
932 €
40.5
48
For current migrants, we observe that, if 87.5% of them saw their longest job abroad as stable or very
stable, the percentage of only 75% for the current job (Table 28). We also distinguish a decrease in
wages (from 1087€ in the longest job to 932€ in the current job) and in the average number of hours
worked per month (from 43 hours to 40.5 hours).
At the moment of the survey, almost 68% of the current migrants were employed, mostly in the
services sector (Table 29). Among those who were not employed at the time of the survey, almost
81% were looking for a job and they had been unemployed for more than one year and a half on
average. Unemployment is a serious issue for all Ecuadorian migrants since only slightly more than
20% of our entire sample of current migrants declared never having been unemployed. Among those
who knew unemployment spells, the average total time spent unemployed during their stay in Spain
was of almost 2 years.
Table 29. Current labor market outcomes, current migrants
67.7%
Currently working
Total time unemployed during their migration (months)
23.9
Percentage of those who were never unemployed
22.2%
Currently looking for work
80.9%
Months since unemployed (at the moment of the survey)
20.5
Concerning the migrants who were unemployed at survey time, we notice that most of them are male
(60%), but no significant differences appear regarding the age, education, year of arrival, crisis impact
or integration issues.
For return migrants, the last wage was significantly higher than that of current migrants, reaching an
average of 1125€ per month, but the average number of hours worked is also significantly higher (48h
per week on average). Almost half of the sample was still employed at the moment of return, signaling
that we can refute the simple hypothesis stating that return is correlated with unemployment and a
vulnerable labor market situation (Table 30).
Table 30. Labor market outcomes prior to the return
Employed until their return
48.1%
Percentage of those who were never unemployed
27.7%
Total time unemployed during their migration (months)
Months in unemployment between last job and return
11.0
7
49
5. Integration aspects
5.1. Economic integration
The integration of immigrants has been shown to play a significant role not only in their decision to
return, but also in their re-integration in the home country once they return. The investment behavior
of migrants is not only linked to the wealth level and credit constraints, but also to the return intention
and to the socioeconomic assimilation as shown by Dustmann (2000) and Dustmann and Mestres
(2010). In our data we notice that the investment behavior is rather different between current migrants
and return migrants (Table 31). The percentage of individuals who had not invested during their
migration is higher for current migrants (37.5%) than for return migrants (23.4%), suggesting once
more that current migrants face greater financial difficulties compared to return migrants. For those
who afforded to invest, the share of individuals that only invested in Spain is significantly higher for
current migrants (21% versus 9%) while return migrants favored investments in Ecuador, with half of
the sample having only invested in Ecuador (while the percentage is of 24% for current migrants).
Investments in Spain mainly concerned housing, with 84% of current migrants and 68% of returnees
having declared that they had bought a house. It is important to highlight that among those who bought
a house in Spain, 46 to 48% declared that they had lost their house due to the crisis. Concerning the
investments made in Ecuador, almost 83% of returnees had bought a house or land, while the
percentage is of 96% for current migrants. Almost 14% of return migrants made a productive
investment (opening or buying a business or buying machinery or vehicle meant to be used in a
business) and, as expected, this percentage is significantly lower for current migrants (2.5%),
indicating that some of the returnees might have anticipated their return through investments in the
home country.
50
Table 31. Integration aspects
Investments made during migration
Invested only in Spain
Invested in Spain and in Ecuador
Invested only in Ecuador
Has made no investments
Subjective level of integration
Very good
Good
Neither good nor bad
Bad
Very bad
Member of an association or party
Participating in a neighborhood/school/sport association with
Spaniards
Daily contact with Spanish neighbors
Member of a migrant association
Has voted in Spanish elections
Has voted in Ecuadorian elections during the stay in Spain
Current
migrants
Return
migrants
21.0%
17.7%
23.9%
37.5%
8.8%
17.8%
50.0%
23.4%
19.2%
56.6%
23.0%
1.1%
0.1%
7.3%
39.8%
48.3%
10.0%
1.7%
0.2%
3.4%
15.2%
33.9%
75.2%
18.4%
24.9%
34.9%
81.5%
28.3%
22.0%
50.2%
5.2. Socio-cultural integration
Migrants were also asked to assess their integration level in the Spanish society, with a scale ranging
from “very good” to “very bad”. On average, returnees see themselves relatively more integrated than
current migrants, with 88% of them declaring that they had a “good” or “very good” level of
integration within the Spanish society, while only three quarters of current migrants have the same
self-assessment. This is also confirmed by the slightly higher percentages of returnees participating in
associations with other Spaniards (40% for returnees versus 15% for current migrants), but also who
have daily contacts with their Spanish neighbors (82% versus 75%). If there is no significant
difference between the shares of current and return migrants who voted in the Spanish elections, the
situation is different for Ecuadorian elections, where returnees have had a significantly higher
participation (50% versus 35% for current migrants). This suggests a higher interest in Ecuadorian
political and social context, which might be linked to the intention of return.
Concerning the social bonds, we observe that Ecuadorian current migrants have more contacts outside
work with friends from Ecuador than with Spanish friends, while the opposite is true for returnees
(Figure 17). Slightly over 12% of current migrants declared never having contact with Spanish
friends, while this percentage is of only 3.2% for returnees. The difference might be due, on the one
hand to an increase aversion of the Spanish society towards immigrants after the crisis that is more
51
strongly felt by current migrants than return migrants (among the current migrants who answered that
they felt rejected as immigrants due to the crisis, 17% answered that they never had contact with
Spanish friends over the last year). On the other hand, return migrants might idealize their migration
experience and thus overestimate their integration level.
Figure 17. Frequency of contacts in the last year (prior to survey or prior to return) with networks in Spain
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Never
Once a year
Several times per year
At least once a month
Almost every week
Ecuadorian
friends in
Spain
Spanish
friends
Other
Ecuadorian
immigrants friends in
Spain
Current migrants
Spanish
friends
Other
immigrants
Almost every day
Return migrants
We notice that Ecuadorian migrants remain highly attached to their origin households and more than
62% of each sample had at least weekly contacts with their families in Ecuador over the last year prior
to survey time or prior to the return for the returnees (Figure 18). The higher percentage of migrants
having daily contacts with their origin households among current migrants compared to return
migrants (21% versus 11%) can be explained by the increase in the return migration over the last years
(85% of current migrants have a family member who returned to Ecuador after the crisis).
Figure 18. Frequency of contacts in the last year (prior to survey or prior to return) with networks in Ecuador
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Never
Once a year
Several times per year
At least once a month
Almost every week
Almost every day
Family in
Ecuador
Friends in
Ecuador
Current migrants
Family in
Ecuador
Friends in
Ecuador
Return migrants
52
6. Return migration
6.1. How did the crisis shape current migrants’ perception of returning to
Ecuador?

One third of Ecuadorians still living in Spain consider returning in the short term and
two thirds in the long term. This can be considered, for the most part, a “forced return”,
due to the economic situation and the lack of perspectives, but again, as the emigration
itself, conceived within the family framework.

Interestingly, about 40% declare their intention of a possible re-emigration to another
country in the EU rather than a return.

In terms of design of return assistance policies, respondents stress the need for the
government of Ecuador to help the entrepreneurship and employment of migrants.
When asked how long they had initially planned to stay in Spain, we notice that most of them had
intended to stay between 1 and 3 years (49% of current migrants and 42% of returnees according to
Table 32) and a very small share wanted to stay in Spain permanently (3% for current migrants and
6% for return migrants). When we analyze their intentions and the actual migration duration, we find
no correlation between intended length of stay and migration duration.
Table 32. Initially planned length of stay
Current migrants
Less than 1 year
Between 1 and 3 years
Between 3 and 5 years
More than 5 years
Permanently
Didn't know
10.2%
48.6%
18.6%
4.5%
2.7%
15.3%
Return
migrants
3.9%
41.5%
23.7%
12.9%
5.8%
12.2%
When asked about how often they discussed about the possibility of returning (during the year
previous to the survey for current migrants or during the year previous to their return for return
migrants), we observe that, as expected, return migrants more often discussed about return compared
to current migrants (Figure 19).
53
Figure 19. Frequency of discussing about the return
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
Current migrants
10%
Return migrants
05%
00%
The module on the perception of the return is specific to the survey on current migrants, thus this
section will only focus on this subsample.
Among current Ecuadorian migrants, 35% declared that they were considering returning to their origin
countries in the short term and more than 67% declared that they wanted to return in the long term
(Table 33). The most often mentioned reasons to return in the short term are related to a bad economic
situation and the crisis in Spain (58.3%). 23.5% want to return in order to be reunited with their origin
households or for personal reasons, while only 6.5% want to return because they have accumulated
enough capital or because they want to start a business in Ecuador. When asked about how much
longer they would wish to stay in Spain, most of the migrant (45.1%) answered wanting to stay for a
limited time (on average, 48 months more). However, they think that they will have to stay longer than
the “wished” length of stay and most of them are uncertain (49.4% don’t know how much longer they
will have to stay in Spain). For those who answered that they realistically believe that they will stay
for a limited time, the average length is higher (57 months).
Table 33. Return intentions, current migrants
Intends to return in the short term
Intends to return in the long term
Reasons to return in the short term
Crisis/economic
Family/personal
Adaptation/nostalgy
Plan to return/business opportunities
Other
35.1%
67.5%
58.3%
23.5%
5.2%
6.5%
6.5%
Intended time of stay
Limited time
Indefinetly
Doesn't know
Actual time of stay
Limited time
Indefinetly
Doesn't know
45.0%
21.7%
33.3%
36.2%
14.4%
49.4%
54
Furthermore, 38.7% of the migrants already considered migrating to another country instead of
returning to Ecuador and they mainly want to migrate to another EU27 country. Among those who
want to return to Ecuador, 68% of them would like to return with their families. Nevertheless, only
21.2% of the migrants looked up information about the return assistance programs and most wellknown programs are those offered by the SENAMI, specifically Retorno Voluntario.
59.2% of the
sample thinks that Ecuadorian return programs are appropriate and the percentage slightly rises to
61.5% if we restrict the sample to those who actually looked up information about return programs.
When asked about how the Ecuadorian government could improve its programs aimed at migrants
who want to return, most of the answers were related to job offers and loans in order to start projects.
Finally, most of the migrants (68%) expect that they will be well or very well received by the
Ecuadorian society if they decide to return. Those who think that they will not necessarily be well
received, fear rejection for cultural reasons (32.5%), but also because they expect to be envied (23.8%)
or that they will be seen as having failed their migration experience (17.5%).
6.2. What are the socioeconomic outcomes of return migrant in Ecuador?

The results suggest that, among the group of surveyed returnees, migration was
interrupted involuntarily for economic reasons, reassessed in the family context.
However, upon return, migration seems to have improved the situation before leaving
Ecuador. Especially striking is the high percentage of employment among returnees, a
level of wages above the average of their countrymen, higher entrepreneurship
incidence, capitalization of acquired knowledge, access to home ownership and
improvement of material welfare.
Return decision making process
As already mentioned, around half of the sample of returned migrants had declared that they often
talked about returning during the year prior to their actual return. Only three quarters of the sample
declared that they wanted to return, while the remaining 25% were forced by the circumstances (or
persuaded by family members) to return (Table 34). Slightly more than half of the sample answered
that returning was their own decision and for almost 39% it was a joint decision, mainly taken with
their spouse.
55
Table 34. Return decision and preparation
74.9%
Wanted to return
Decison to return
Own decision
Others’ decision
Joint decision
Returned because of the
crisis
Expectation about welcome to Ecuador
No expectation
35.9%
54.5%
6.9%
Very well received
Well received
39.1%
21.0%
38.6%
43.4%
Received with wariness
Badly received
3.4%
0.5%
The return was mainly linked to the crisis and around 43% of returnees declared that they went back to
Ecuador because they had lost their job (or were on the verge of losing it), their partner lost their job,
they had lost their house or simply could no longer afford to bear the expenses in Spain. Figure 20
confirms that the welfare of the migrants who link their return to the crisis was significantly lower
than for the others.
Figure 20. Subjective welfare distribution according to whether they returned due to the crisis or not
100%
90%
80%
Had to borrow money
70%
60%
Had to spend the savings
50%
40%
30%
Barely balancing income
and expenses
20%
Was able to save money
10%
0%
Returned for other Returned due to the
reasons than the crisis
crisis
Nevertheless, this is a lower bound for the returns due to the crisis since most of those whose answers
were not linked to the crisis, declared that they returned in order to reunite with their families and the
transition matrices show that the families they had in Spain had moved to Ecuador.
From the total sample, only around a quarter looked for information on return assistance programs, but
this percentage reaches 66% for those who declared they wanted to return. The most well-known
programs were those from SENAMI, mainly “Retorno voluntario”. Among those who were interested
in the return assistance programs only 26% actually benefited from these programs and the benefits
56
consisted mostly in tax exemptions and help for looking for a job. For those who did not benefit from
the return assistance, it was largely either because they were not eligible or because they did not have
the time or the means to apply, although some of the interviewees mentioned lack of information or
wrong information about these programs.
When asked about the expectations that they had concerning how they would be welcomed upon their
return, most of the migrants (over 60%) answered that they had expected to be well or very well
received and the reality matched their expectations for the most part.
As mentioned, slightly more than half of the sample (52.4%) declared having returned alone to
Ecuador, but among them, as we can see from the qualitative answers, many had reunited with their
spouses who had already returned. We thus observe that most returnees (55%) live with their partners
in Ecuador and have their children in Spain. Around 20% of the sample consists of single and childless
individuals, most of them being children that had reunited with their parents in Spain and now have
returned.
57
Table 35. Transition matrix for family structure before and after return
Family type in Spain prior to migration
Child with both
parents in Ecuador
Single childless
Single & child not
in Spain
Single & child in
Spain
Childless with
partner in Spain
Partner in Spain &
child not in Spain
Partner in Spain &
child in Spain
Childless with
partner in Ecuador
Partner in Ecuador
& child not in
Spain
Partner in Ecuador
& child in Spain
Child with
parents in
Spain
Child
with one
parent in
Ecuador
79%
13%
38%
Child with
both
parents in
Ecuador
Single
childless
11%
46%
Single
& child
not in
Spain
Single
& child
in
Spain
Childless
with
partner in
Spain
Partner
in Spain
& child
not in
Spain
Partner
in Spain
& child
in Spain
3%
3%
Childless
with
partner in
Ecuador
Partner in
Ecuador
& child
not in
Spain
Partner in
Ecuador
& child in
Spain
5%
20%
5%
3%
13%
4%
11%
2%
11%
4%
61%
50%
20%
3%
50%
3%
8%
25%
22%
13%
34%
31%
3%
50%
60%
68%
2%
74%
50%
85%
40%
12%
5%
20%
9%
4%
20%
10%
4%
11%
5%
3%
4%
33%
7%
3%
5%
26%
58
Labor market outcomes upon return
In terms of labor market behavior, we observe that most of the returnees are working upon return
(86% - Table 36) and the percentage even reaches 92% for men. More than half of the total sample
declared that they were self-employed confirming the literature findings on the high correlation
between return migration and entrepreneurship in the home country (Wahba & Zenolu, 2009, Black &
Castaldo, 2009). Furthermore, around half of the interviewed return migrants needed between one and
three months in order to find a job or start their business. Among those who are employed, over 75%
found their job through family or friends, highlighting once more the importance of networks in the
economic assimilation.
Table 36. Labor market outcomes after return
Labour market status upon
return
Active employed
Unemployed
Inactive
Self employed
Time to find first job
Before return
Less than a week
Less than one month
Less than 3 months
More than 3 months
Means to find first job
86.3%
7.8%
5.9%
55.4%
5.6%
9.4%
22.2%
25.0%
37.8%
Through a family member
Through a friend
Internet
Asking around
Other
Has changed jobs since return
Average number of jobs
Experience abroad helped to find
better work opportunities
Uses experience abroad in daily work
45.1%
30.9%
8.5%
7.3%
8.2%
20.5%
2.4
38.5%
47.5%
Only a fifth of the sample had more than one job since their return and the average number of jobs
held is of 2.4, suggesting a rather stable economic situation. Around 38% of the return migrants find
that their experience abroad helped them to find better work opportunities and 47.5% of the total
sample declared using their experience abroad in their daily work. The skills most often mentioned as
being used are the social and communication skills, as well as work organization and ethics.
Changes in wellbeing after migration
An indicator for the living conditions is the house ownership status and Table 37 shows that most of
those who were renting a house or were living for free in a house, managed to become house owners
after their return. The quality of the housing seems to have improved as well since the number of
persons per room decreased from 1.4 on average before the migration to 1.1 after return.
59
Table 37. House ownership status before and after migration
After return
Before migration
Rent
Own house
Free/inherited
Other
Rent
28.3%
64.2%
5.7%
1.9%
Own
8.5%
86.2%
4.2%
1.1%
Inherited/free
7.0%
71.9%
19.3%
1.8%
Total
Other
50.0%
50.0%
15.9%
75.3%
6.9%
2.0%
Similarly, the index for durable goods, described above owned increased from 8.8 to 12.5, showing an
increase in wealth after migration. Half of the sample declared owning 13 out of the 15 items listed in
the questionnaire.
In monetary terms, the average income of a returnee is of 630$, almost the double of the minimum
wage in Ecuador (which was of 340$ in 2014). This is probably one of the reasons why 80% of the
sample declares that they are “satisfied” or “very satisfied” with the return.
Despite this high percentage, 36% of returnees expressed their willingness to migrate again and the
percentage reaches 60% for those who returned unwillingly. This translates into a lower degree of
satisfaction with the return and, as shown in Figure 21, the migrants who returned unwillingly are less
satisfied.
Figure 21. Degree of satisfaction with the return according to the willingness to return
100%
90%
80%
70%
Very dissatisfied
60%
Dissatisfied
50%
Not very satisfied
40%
Satisfied
30%
Very satified
20%
10%
0%
Willing to return
Unwilling to return
From a subjective point of view, 46% of the sample considers their situation as being “much better” or
“better” than that of the other household in their neighborhood. When asked to compare their situation
to that from before their migration, more than 70% of returnees declared that they were “better” or
“much better” than before from either an economic, family or personal point of view. Even for those
60
who returned unwillingly, more than 60% see their situation as significantly better than before the
migration. Those who found themselves in a worse economic situation than before migration mainly
returned due to family issues (75%) and, for those who were employed, their wage was significantly
lower than that of the rest of the sample (447$ versus 654$).
Figure 22. Comparison of the situation before and after migration from across three dimensions
100%
90%
80%
70%
Much worse
60%
Worse
50%
Same
40%
Better
30%
Much better
20%
10%
0%
Economic
Family
Personal
7. Conclusion
Migration
empirical
studies may
strongly
benefit from
using a joint
samples
approach.

Our first results strongly advocate the use of joint samples for both returnees
and current migrants in migration studies. The differences found between
returnees and current migrants regarding the distribution of some basic and
crucial characteristics across the whole study, should alert researchers and
policy makers about the potentially biased diagnosis of migration issues
when adopting a one - side perspective.

Using two paired - samples for returnees and “stayers” is not only
(obviously) crucial to better understand return determinants, but also to
apprehend some critical issues commonly addressed in migration studies
worldwide: migration welfare effects, impact of shocks in migration plans
and expectations, remittances behavior and their positive or negative effects
at origin and/or destination, interaction between family structure/changes and
migration dynamics, integration….
61

For instance, we notice that current migrants are more often involved in
family reunification schemes and are more prone to have migrated for family
or existential reasons, thus suggesting a differentiated migration profile.
Ecuadorian
labour
migration is
not
about
subsistence,
but
about
improvement

We are not able draw a proper comparison migrants vs. non-migrants, but
according to the analysis about the reasons to migrate (either for returnees
and current migrants) it is clear that those who migrated to Spain were not
among the poorest. Thus, Ecuadorian migration to Spain was not a way out
of poverty, but an opportunity to avoid the worst of the crisis in Ecuador and
to improve one’s living conditions.

From a policy perspective, and especially from the side of Ecuadorian
authorities, these findings have some clear implications:
o
Reducing severe poverty, fighting against strict socio economical
exclusion may not be linked to lower migration outflows (if not the
contrary). A moderate wellbeing combined with the relative
perception of poverty, as a lack of better future opportunities to
improve, is also a powerful driver of outmigration.
o
The same may happens with those policies aimed to promote return
and “brain – gain”: it is not about safeguarding minimum conditions
upon return but about upgrading socioeconomic conditions across
the full range of previous circumstances.
Migrants
succeed fast
in
Spain,
until
the
crisis
erupted.

If migration was about improving welfare, migrants succeed very fast.
Before the outburst of Spanish crisis, and only after 7 years of stay, on
average, in Spain, subjective perception of welfare was better than
before migration for more than 80% of Ecuadorian immigrants. That
positive opinion explains the extremely low return rates of Ecuadorian
immigrants, before the crisis, according to available statistics.

Our findings suggest that, interestingly enough, welfare selfassessment is overestimated by migrants when they compare
themselves with Spaniards living around them. This result might be
interpreted twofold: biased nature of subjective perception of welfare/
poverty or limitations of conventional approach to the measurement of
poverty using measures of income, labour conditions, consumption or
62
disposable goods.

Most returnees experience an improvement of their living conditions
compared to those prior to the migration.
The crisis hit
hard migrant’s
situation
but
impoverishment
was not a return
driver.

Different studies have previously shown the violent effects of Spanish
crisis suffered by immigrants and the disparity of that impact when
compared to Spaniards. Our study describes precisely those negative
effects identifying 3, almost independent, crisis effects: labor, living
conditions and legal status.

We see that the crisis indeed generated a considerable increase in
aggregate unemployment among immigrants, but also a significant
worsening of working conditions for those who managed to keep their
jobs.

Somehow unexpectedly, our first evidences suggest that worsening of
labour and living conditions does not drive return. From the
perspective of immigration or emigration policies either in origin or
destination countries, that entails that return cannot be taken for
granted even in the presence of a shocking shift in the economic cycle.

When the lack of employment turns migrants’ return into a policy
objective in developed countries, proactive and specifically targeted
policies are needed.

On the other side, the lost or weakening of legal status appears as a
prevailing return driver.
Policies should
target migrant’s
family and not
individuals.

Family is a crucial dimension in both the emigration and the return
decision. Expectations, welfare improvement, crisis impact, return
decision or expectations and other crucial element appear to be related
with family structure and dynamics.

In that sense, migration policies should target families. Any policy, in
both origin and destination countries, which lacks in covering family
as the context in which opportunities, risks and expectations are
evaluated, will thus have a limited scope.
63

Despite the high
incidence
of
overqualification,
immigrants want
to pursue further
training.
Half of the migrants, having returned or not, estimate that their
qualification level is higher than the one required by their job in Spain
and, therefore, their expectations about improving their situation with
regards to that of the home country, would be severely dashed.

At the same time, over 50% of surveyed Ecuadorians underwent
training during their stay in Spain, which can be considered a positive
return of non-monetary nature associated with the migration decision.
Enhanced knowledge, however, does not promote return according to
our preliminary results.

From the point of view of migration policies, and especially promotion
of return, the Ecuadorian authorities could insist on programs
promoting education upon return to Ecuador. These types of policies
should be specifically designed for potential returnees, who expressed
their interest in them and estimated such policies as being attractive
opportunities.
There is room
for improvement
in the design of
return assistance
policies.

Finding a job after returning to Ecuador is one of the main
uncertainties for those who want to return and this is confirmed by
those who actually returned. A third of the return migrants had
problems finding a job, and most of these problems are related to age
and lack of experience in Ecuador.

We highlight that the priority should be designing active policies for
the employability of middle-age individuals and prepare returnees to
face the local labour market

The return assistance programs were often taken into consideration,
but only 20% of migrants looked up for precise information and 40%
of those were not able to get any help from them. A significant share
of the sample highlighted their opacity, lack of adequacy and
implementation issues.

This direct negative assessment must be taken into consideration by
the Ecuadorian authorities and seen as demand for redesigning return
assistance policies.

In terms of design of a better design for return assistance policies, our
findings suggest:
o
The need for the government of Ecuador to help the
64
entrepreneurship and employment of migrants (job offers and
loans in order to start projects).
o
The importance of the coherence between political discourse
and reality, with many migrants highlighting the broken
promises made to the diaspora wanting to return.
o
The need to tackle labor market rigidities, especially in terms
of age and qualifications.
o
Migrants with double nationality feel that they were left out of
the return assistance programs.
There
are
intangible returns
to
return
migration.

Around 38% of the return migrants find that their experience abroad
helped them to find better work opportunities and 47.5% of the total
sample declared using their skills and experience abroad in their daily
work. It is not only about technical skills; they also mention frequently
more intangible issues such as social and communication skills, work
organization, ethics...
The return is not
the end of the
migratory process.

Somehow surprisingly, 36% of returnees expressed their willingness
to migrate again and the percentage reaches 60% for those who
returned “unwillingly”. Similarly, about 40% of current migrants
declare their intention of a possible re-emigration to another country in
the EU rather than a return.

Interestingly, this high percentage seems to reflect dissatisfaction with
the migration experience and not with the return itself: 80% of the
sample declares that they are “satisfied” or “very satisfied” with the
return.

From the migration policies point of view, it seems clear that in both
sending and receiving countries, little attention is given to the reemigration issue. The action space between migration policies and
return policies seems to be getting wider and policy makers should
observe this phenomenon with more interest.
65
References
de Arce, R., & Mahia, R. (2012). Have Migrants Bought a" Round Trip Ticket"? Determinants in
Probability of Immigrants' Return in Spain. Global Economy Journal, 12(2).
Cassarino, J. P. (2007). Migrants de retour au Maghreb: Réintégration et enjeux de développement.
Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies, EUI.
Dustmann, C. (2003). Return migration, wage differentials, and the optimal migration
duration. European Economic Review, 47(2), 353-369.
INEC (2009) “Condiciones de vida en las provincias centrales segùn la ECV”, Direccion Regional
Centro, INEC.
Jokisch, Brad D. (2014) “Ecuador: From Mass Emigration to Return Migration?” Migration
Information Source, The Online Journal of the Migration Policy Institute Washington D.C.
Sabadie, J. A. (2010). Migration and skills: the experience of migrant workers from Albania, Egypt,
Moldova, and Tunisia. World Bank Publications.
66
APPENDIX
Field work report
1. Introduction.
This report includes a description of activities carried out by Cidalia, a consulting company that
specializes in diversity within the context of the fieldwork carried out in Madrid for NOPOOR
Project “Enhancing knowledge for renewed policies against poverty”. The EU funded this
project through the Seventh Framework Program.
The activity was performed within TASK 5.3 (Survey-based analysis of the dynamics of
international migration) and consisted of the completion of two surveys, one in Madrid, the other
in Quito (Ecuador) involving the fact of Return Migration.
The following table summarizes the main results of fieldwork carried out in both cities.
Pre-test:
Number of pre-test surveys
completed:
Selection of interviewers:
Briefing of interviewers:
Dates of interviews:
Number of interviewers
Survey methodology:
Surveys completed:
Madrid
3 and 4 June
22
Quito
1: 21-28 April/
2: 30 June-04 July
1st wave: 16
2nd wave: 4
1- 20 July
21-23 July
28 July-31 August
20
Different
databases
of
returnees. Screening and by
previous appointment for the
Quito interview.
1-20 June
23 and 24 June
26 June-14 August
22
Random in the Madrid
Region
(Comunidad
de
Madrid,
CAM)
(public
venues, public transport,
work centers, etc.)
906
410
2. Fieldwork in Madrid.
Following please see the actions undertaken within the framework of the organization and
development of fieldwork in Madrid, including the following:
67
a) Preparatory sessions with the technical team from the Universidad Autónoma de Madrid.
Coordination of activities.
b) Design and organization of the pre-test for the Madrid questionnaire.
c) Selection of interviewers.
d) Selection and briefing of the team of interviewers.
e) Organization and coordination of fieldwork activities.
a) Preparatory sessions with the technical team from the Universidad Autónoma de
Madrid. Coordination of activities.
The coordination meetings with the UAM team took place as of the beginning of the project
(December 2013) and were designed to define the project’s phases and a work schedule for the
completion of the surveys both in Spain and Ecuador.
The chosen schedule was the following:
Activities
May
1923
2630
June
2-6
913
1620
July
2327
304
711
1418
2125
August
28-1
4-8
1115
1822
Sept.
2529
1-5
812
1317
2226
1. Finalization
of the Madrid
questionnaire.
2. Pre-testing in
Madrid.
3. Selection of
interviewers in
Madrid.
4. Adjustments
to the Madrid
questionnaire.
5. Briefing of
Madrid
interviewers.
6. Fieldwork in
Madrid.
7.
Data
collection.
68
b) Design and organization of the pre-test for the Madrid questionnaire.
The Madrid questionnaire pre-test was completed between June 3 and 4, 2014. In order to
organize the pre-test, the Asociación Rumiñahui was called in to collaborate. Rumiñahui is one
of Madrid’s Ecuadorian immigrants’ leading organizations. Rumiñahui provided the following
valuable assistance:
-
A list of contacts for pre-test purposes.
The loan of its facilities for the carrying out of the interviewing sessions.
A total of 22 interviews were completed. The Ecuadorians interviewed had different profiles and
included a diverse sample in terms of gender, ages, employment status, and length of stay in
Spain, among others. This allowed for the assessment of different aspects of the questionnaire,
which in turn served to adapt it to fieldwork conditions.
The UAM technical team completed modifications to the questionnaire and the final version of the
questionnaire was ready on June 24, 2014.
c) Selection of interviewers.
The selection of the team of interviewers was accomplished thanks to the university internship
programs in a number of universities in the CAM. Among them are the following institutions:
-
Universidad Autónoma de Madrid (UAM)
Universidad Rey Juan Carlos (URJC)
CES Felipe II
Universidad Complutense de Madrid (UCM)
Instituto Universitario Ortega y Gasset (IUOyG)
The team of interviewers was made up of 21 persons. Initially they totaled 19 but after two weeks
of fieldwork another two persons joined the team. Please see their profiles:
69
Gender distribution
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Mujeres
Hombres
Age distribution
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
20-25 años
26-30 años
31-35 años
36-40 años
It was essential to rely on a mixed team of interviewers including persons of Spanish origin and
other interviewers either originally from Ecuador or if not with an Ecuadorian father or mother.
This doubtless was instrumental in ensuring that the respondents felt at ease. They identified with
the events and were able to place themselves in time and space in such a way as to complete as
many interviews as viable in the least time possible. No bias has been identified as a result of
availing ourselves of the Ecuadorian interviewers.
70
Distribution by nationality
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Knowledge area
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
d) Selection and briefing of the team of interviewers.
The team of interviewers was briefed at the UAM on June 23 and 24, 2014. The briefing sessions
lasted a total of 8 hours. During these sessions the following material was delivered to the
participating interviewees:
1.
2.
3.
4.
15 questionnaires to begin fieldwork activities.
Interviewer identification badge (please see Attachment 1, a badge model).
Letter describing the project (please see Attachment 2)
Confidentiality agreement to deliver to the interviewees (please see Attachment 3).
71
5. Recommendations and tips to complete the fieldwork (please see Attachment 4).
d) Organization and coordination of fieldwork activities.
Fieldwork was completed between June 26 and August 14, 2014. Two teams of interviewers
were organized with the ultimate aim of covering those districts of the city of Madrid that are most
representative in terms of Ecuadorian population. A total of 11 districts were selected; 86% of the
total Ecuadorian population in Madrid lives in these neighborhoods. The breakdown of
interviewers by district is as follows:
01. Centro
02. Arganzuela
06. Tetuán
08. Fuencarral
10. Latina
11. Carabanchel
12. Usera
13. Puente de Vallecas
15. Ciudad Lineal
16. Hortaleza
17. Villaverde
Total
Resident
Ecuadorians
Interviewers per
District
2,933
3,797
5,798
2,625
8,850
13,305
6,647
12.253
9,716
2,245
7,796
82,316
1
1
1
1
2
3
2
3
2
1
2
19
Two working teams were organized and the Cidalia professionals in charge of ensuring fieldwork
completion were in charge of coordinating them. The breakdown of the two working teams by
district and by interviewers was as follows:
72
Nuria Lores
Jesús Migallón
Centro: Leslie
Tetuán: Paula
Arganzuela: Alexandra González
Latina: Elvira y Edward
Carabanchel: Edwin, Javier y
Jenyffer, refuerzo de Elsi
Puente de Vallecas: Edgar, Jaime
y Alexandra Smirnova
Fuencarral: Jorge
Villaverde: Ana y Carlos (sustituído
por Mercy)
Hortaleza: Vanessa
Ciudad Lineal: Eugenia y Héctor
Usera: Lara y Kerly
The coordinating teams had the following duties:
-
-
-
A. Following up on the interviewers by means of phone calls and e-mails; ensuring that the
interviewer included the amount of surveys completed and the places where they took place;
recommending routes; responding to interviewers’ questions, among others.
B. Providing on-site support to the interviewers: at least once, each interviewer was
accompanied in one outing by the coordinators so that the latter could observe the
development of the interviews, suggest routes, establish contacts and make introductions, etc.
C. Collecting interviews weekly. This is to ensure that quotas were met and to verify that the
different profiles were an accurate representation of the Ecuadorians living in Madrid.
D. Following up, supervising and authenticating completed interviews. The coordinator’s team
took a random sample of at least 10% of each interviewer’s questionnaires (all in all, 110 calls
were made) to corroborate that the interviews had actually been made and were not frauds.
Additionally, all of the surveys were reviewed in order to correct both subjective and objective
errors. In this case, this supervision ensured the clean up of errors in the questionnaire
(essentially in the elaboration of filters and mistakes) in the first wave of interviews carried
out in week 1 of the achievement of fieldwork.
After completing clean up of errors and validation of interviews, 893 questionnaires were
deemed to be valid that had been included in fieldwork activities in Madrid.
e. Registration of the questionnaires:
The questionnaires have been included in an Excel spreadsheet that was then copied into SPSS.
With the aim of controlling to the highest degree possible everything related to records keeping,
73
this was completed in Spain. The 906 surveys completed in Madrid and the 410 surveys
completed in Ecuador were recorded in Madrid, and it was the same team of professionals that
completed both tasks.
The team of records keepers is made up of two persons, a man and a woman. Both of them have a
college education and have experience in recording questionnaires and are familiar with the SPSS
program. Apart from this professional background, one of the two members of the team will have
prior experience as a pollster, and is thus fully familiar with the questionnaire. All of this together
explains the ease with which the recordings were completed. Some of the lapses discovered during
the records keeping activity involve wrong dates having been jotted down, or blanks that were not
filled in, or filters that were incorrectly introduced.
f) Clean up of inconsistent questionnaires, corrections completed.
Upon completion of the clean up process, a number of major inconsistencies have been
discovered in the questionnaires completed by one of the interviewers. Her questionnaires
have been proofread carefully in order to determine whether these errors may be attributed to
the interviewer upon completing the questionnaire or during the registration thereof.
This has been a detailed and multi-phase process. The careful assessment of the questionnaires
has ensured that the information generated is reliable and true. Those questionnaires that did
not meet the minimally acceptable levels have not been included in our study. A total of 18
questionnaires have been turned down.
3. Fieldwork in Quito:
Following please see a description of the actions taken for the organization and development of
fieldwork in Quito:
a)
b)
c)
d)
Getting in touch with Ecuadorian migrants who return from Spain.
Design and organization of the pre-test for the Quito questionnaire.
Selection and training of interviewers.
Organization and coordination of fieldwork activities.
a) Getting in touch with Ecuadorian migrants who return from Spain.
The main objective of NOPOOR Project’s fieldwork in Ecuador was to analyze the role of a return
policy as means to provide poverty relief (successful or worthwhile return). This is a key concept: a
return policy does not work if it encourages only return; it works if the policy makes returning
74
worthwhile – worthwhile being understood as a return which affects the people returning, their
living conditions and their surroundings in a positive way.
With the study in Ecuador, the hope was to attain the profile of a “successful returnee”. As such, the
target group for the poll in Ecuador was returnees from Spain who had been back for, at least, six
months.
The main difficulty was the absence of a government census – both in Spain and Ecuador – that would
have provided information on the number of returnees while also informing of their socio-economic
status.
Knowing this, NOPOOR Project got in touch with several Ecuadorian institutions (please see
Attachment 5) so as have access to different databases from several official programs that would
guarantee solid quality data and would, therefore, allow them to identify and contact returnees from
Spain. Attachment 6 has a list of the databases with pros and cons explained.
UAM’s technical team analyzed and cleaned up the data obtained from the different databases (please
see Attachment 9: Database analysis). As a result of said analysis, a 756 (priority_1) people list was
compiled. The objective was to get in touch with them at an early stage so as to prepare the fieldwork.
Cidalia’s Ecuador team contacted 756 people by phone. Of those 756 people, initially 78 agreed to
take part in the survey (over 10%). These 78 people comprised the original base for the fieldwork,
which snowballed from there.
75
b)
Design and organization of the pre-test for the Quito questionnaire.
Quito’s pre-test was developed in two stages:
-
Stage 1 took place between April 21 and 28, with a first version of the Ecuador test. Anda
David, from UAM’s technical team, was present.
Stage 2 took place between June 30 and July 04, and was overseen by Cidalia’s technical team
from Ecuador.
All in all, 20 Ecuadorians were interviewed. The interviewees had different profiles, such as: sex, age,
work status, time spent in Spain, time as a returnee in Ecuador, etc.
This permitted taking into account different aspects from the questionnaire and adapting the
fieldwork’s future development.
c)
Selection and training of interviewers.
The selection was done with collaboration from the School of Economics of the Universidad Central
de Ecuador (Facultad de Economía de la Universidad Central de Ecuador, UCE). The interviewers’
team included 20 people, both current students and alumni from ISIP, the Institute of Research and
Postgraduate Affairs (Instituto de Investigaciones y Posgrado) of the UCE.
The briefing took place in the School of Economics of the UCE on July 21 and 23, 2014 and was
overseen by Ramón Mahía, NOPOOR Project coordinator at UAM.
The briefing lasted for a total of eight hours and, during the same, the following material was handed
to the interviewers:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Fifteen (15) questionnaires for fieldwork.
Interviewer’s credentials.
Project’s cover letter.
Confidentiality compromise with the interviewed persons.
Guidelines for the fieldwork.
76
d)
Organizing and coordinating process for the fieldwork.
The fieldwork took place between July 28 and August 31, 2014. Two teams of interviewers were
organized. The structure for the fieldwork in Quito was as follows:
Oscar Jara Albán
Fieldwork General Coordinator
Juan Carlos Gordillo
Coordinator for 10
interviewers
Sergio Guamba
Coordinator for 10
interviewers
As opposed to the fieldwork in Spain, in Quito there was no territorial division. This was due to the
fact that the projected methodology was the “snowball method” and it was not possible to foresee
where returnees from Spain to Quito would actually reside.
The coordinating teams had the following duties:
-
-
-
Following up on the interviewers through phone calls and e-mails; ensuring that the
interviewer reported the number of completed surveys and places where they took place;
recommending routes; responding to interviewers’ questions, among others.
Supporting the interviewers: at least once, each interviewer was accompanied during an outing
by the coordinators who observed how the interviews took place, suggested routes and
contacts, made introductions, etc.
Ensuring weekly interview collection. These took place to ensure that quotas were met and
that the different profiles were an accurate representation of the Ecuadorians living in Madrid.
Following up, supervising and authenticating completed interviews. The coordinator’s team
took a random sample of at least 10% of each interviewer’s questionnaires to substantiate that
the interviews had actually been completed and were not frauds.
It is worth noting that a great majority of the interviewees were very wary, since some of them
feared retaliation from Spanish authorities, be it because some of them had debts back in Spain
(they had not paid their rents in full or something similar) or because they feared the truth of
77
rumors hinting that their Spanish nationality would be revoked. In some cases the foundations or
associations were not helpful since they never received assistance from the Spanish and/or
Ecuadorian governments.
Nonetheless, after the clearing up the errors and validation of interviews, 410 interviews were
given the green light during fieldwork in Quito.
e. Registration of the questionnaires:
The questionnaires have been included in an Excel spreadsheet that was then copied into SPSS.
With the aim of controlling to the highest degree possible everything related to records keeping,
this was completed in Spain. The 893 surveys completed in Madrid and the 410 surveys
completed in Ecuador were recorded in Madrid, and it was the same team of professionals that
completed both tasks.
The team of records keepers is made up of two persons, a man and a woman. Both of them have a
college education and have experience in recording questionnaires and are familiar with the SPSS
program. Apart from this professional background, one of the two members of the team will have prior
experience as a pollster, and is thus fully familiar with the questionnaire. All of this together explains
the ease with which the recordings were completed. Some of the lapses discovered during the records
keeping activity involve wrong dates having been jotted down, or blanks that were not filled in, or
filters that were incorrectly introduced.
78