Return, Reintegration and Re-migration

2. Introduction

Abstract

Return migration has become a critical policy concern for both destination and origin countries. AVRR programmes continue to expand, although their scope is limited within the broader spectrum of return movements motivated by a variety of factors. This chapter also presents conceptual models of return migration, highlighting that return to origin countries only materialises when the desire and aspirations of migrants are supported by tangible and intangible resources.

2.1. Context

Migration is a multidirectional phenomenon. Millions of migrants arrive in OECD countries every year with the prospects of settling permanently. Millions of others arrive for temporary purposes, with plans to return home. In OECD countries, even permanent type movements often turn out to be temporary, with migrants returning to their origin country or moving to another destination (OECD, 2023[1]).

The fate of return migrants was long of little interest to destination countries. Migrants who naturalised remained part of consular responsibility along with other nationals, but other categories of migrants whose bonds with the destination countries lapsed were not of concern. Some OECD countries have focused policy attention on facilitating the return of persons subject to expulsion, and in some cases, have provided assistance in this process. Only in recent years have other aspects of return migration – especially what happens to return migrants after they return – emerged as a critical policy concern for many countries involved in migration pathways.

In origin countries, too, little attention has been historically devoted to returning migrants. The past two decades have instead seen not only rapid development of institutional frameworks for managing migration, but also those for supporting the return of nationals and their post-return integration.

Two major policy trends, especially those in Europe, have also influenced interest in post-return outcomes and decisions to re‑migrate. First, major destination countries have taken a proactive role in influencing the decisions of potential migrants in origin countries. They engage in information provision and targeted campaigns to discourage unsafe migration, sometimes through promoting or even proposing legal migration channels. In addition, reintegration assistance programmes in origin countries have expanded, putting destination countries in the novel position of working with migrants after their return. Both approaches incorporate a development-oriented perspective.

The adoption of specific policy documents reflects this increased attention to return migration in OECD countries (Table 1.1). Government priorities on return have mostly been incorporated in broader migration policies rather than standalone return strategies.

Simultaneously, AVRR programmes in OECD countries have expanded. This marks a significant shift from the earlier AVRR initiatives of the late 1990s, which primarily facilitated return transportation. Current AVRR programmes reflect a more comprehensive approach, integrating various services to enhance the sustainability of returns. At the EU level, co‑ordination mechanisms and networks, such as the European Return and Reintegration Network (2018‑22) and its successor, the Return and Reintegration Facility, have emerged to improve the effectiveness of AVRR efforts. Frontex has been providing reintegration assistance through the Joint Reintegration Services since April 2022.

Table 2.1. Policy documents with reference to return migration

Country	Policy documents	Period
Austria	Sicher Österreich: Strategie 2025 | Vision 2023	2021‑30
Belgium	Note de politique générale: Asile et Migration et Loterie Nationale	2020
Czechia	The Czech Republic’s Migration Policy Strategy	2015
Germany	Germany’s Coalition Agreement	2021‑25
Lithuania	Lithuania’s Migration Policy Guidelines	2014
Mexico	Migration Law (Article 2)	2011, last updated in 2022
	Sectorial Programme of the Ministry of the Interior	2020‑24
	Sectorial Programme of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs	2020‑24
Netherlands	Comprehensive Agenda on Migration	2018
Norway	Return Strategy (Returstrategi)	2017‑22
Poland	Law Dz.U. 2013 poz. 1 650	2013
Spain	Royal Decree 557/2011	2011, last updated in 2022
Slovak Republic	The Slovak Republic’s Migration Policy	2021‑25
Sweden	Sweden’s Tidö Agreement (Tidö avtalet)	2022
Switzerland	Directive on removal enforcement	2008, last updated in 2022
	Directive on return assistance	2008, last updated in 2022
Türkiye	Strategy Document and National Action Plan on Irregular Migration	2021‑25
United Kingdom	Guidance Document: Voluntary and Assisted Returns	2021

Note: Mexico’s Migration Law (Art. 2) and sectoral programmes of the Ministry of the Interior and Foreign Affairs concern the return of Mexican citizens living abroad.

Source: OECD Policy Questionnaire on Return, Reintegration and Remigration (2023).

Many OECD countries continue to adapt their AVRR approach. The most visible changes relate to adjustments in programme and project design, while budget allocation, strategic direction and co‑operation with non-state actors remain steady (Table 1.2).

Table 2.2. Reported changes in AVRR since 2019

	Strategic direction	Programme and project design	Institutional processes	Cooperation with non-government stakeholders	Budget
Austria	X	✓	✓	✓	X
Belgium	X	✓	X	X	X
Czechia	X	X	X	X	✓
Denmark	X	✓	✓	X	X
Germany	X	✓	X	X	X
Ireland	✓	✓	✓	✓	X
Lithuania	X	X	✓	X	X
Mexico	X	✓	X	X	X
Norway	X	✓	X	X	X
Sweden	X	X	X	X	X
Switzerland	X	✓	✓	X	X
Türkiye	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓
United Kingdom	X	✓	X	X	X

Note: The table refers to the 13 OECD countries that reported changes in their AVR approach.

Source: OECD Policy Questionnaire on Return, Reintegration and Remigration (2023).

The past decade has also seen a significant increase in research on return migration, often in the context of reintegration assistance. However, there is a mismatch between this growing knowledge base and the evolving policy landscape. Key gaps remain in understanding why migrants decide to return to their origin countries and the factors that lead them to re‑migrate. This report examines the role of families and communities in decision-making processes and in post-return and reintegration outcomes.

2.2. Definition of return migration and re‑migration

There is no standard definition of return migration. Researchers agree that return migration describes a phenomenon in which migrants leave host countries to resettle in origin countries. Return migration embraces many motivations and can be temporary or permanent. Migrants may choose to return to their origin countries after retirement to reunite with their families or to engage in community work. International students may choose to return and use the skills they have acquired abroad for job opportunities in origin countries. Circular migrants move back and forth between host and origin countries. Cultural reasons and the search for a higher quality of life can also shape return decisions (Klinthäll, 2006[2]; Cobb-Clark and Stillman, 2013[3]; OECD, 2017[4]; Azevedo, 2022[5]; Vega and Hirschman, 2019[6]; Remennick, 2022[7]; OECD, 2015[8]).

Return migration also embraces many statutory circumstances established by policy. Return may be spontaneous, initiated by migrants without state involvement, or organised or enforced by state authorities (Box 1.1).

Box 2.1. Key terminology: Forced, Voluntary and Assisted Voluntary Return

Forced return is “a migratory movement which, although the drivers can be diverse, involves force, compulsion, or coercion.”

Voluntary return is “the assisted or independent return to the country of origin, transit or another country based on the voluntary decision of the returnee.” (IOM, 2019[9]). Voluntary return can be either spontaneous or assisted: Spontaneous return is “the voluntary, independent return of a migrant or a group of migrants to their country of origin, usually without the support of States or other international or national assistance.” (IOM, 2019[9]). Assisted voluntary return (AVR) is the “administrative, logistical, financial and reintegration support to rejected asylum seekers, victims of trafficking in human beings, stranded migrants, qualified nationals and other migrants unable or unwilling to remain in the host country who volunteer to return to their countries of origin” (IOM, 2019[9]).

Assisted return programmes have come to include reintegration assistance in addition to return assistance. In addition to pre‑departure counselling, return and travel assistance, Assisted Voluntary Return and Reintegration (AVRR) programmes offer cash and/or in-kind assistance to support reinsertion in their country of origin. Assistance may involve some or all of these: business start-up coaching and counselling, labour market counselling, vocational training – including on-the‑job training – internships and job placement, housing, healthcare and children’s education.

In practice, return categories are not always distinct and involve varying degrees of voluntariness among the beneficiaries of both AVR and AVRR programmes (Newland and Salant, 2018[10]). For migrants in an irregular situation or asylum seekers with little chances of obtaining protection, AVRR may be a compelled choice, even in the absence of physical coercion. Some see return as voluntary only when individuals have alternative legal options and can make decisions based on a free and informed choice. As persons in these situations represent an expanding group of beneficiaries of AVRR, the line between forced and assisted voluntary return blurs. In contrast to the above terminology, there is no agreed or universal definition of the term “re‑migration”, which has been used to refer to different forms of subsequent migration movements. In this report, the definition of “remigration” is redeparture from the origin country following a return. It does not refer to departure from a destination country.

Source: (OECD, 2020[11]), Sustainable Reintegration of Returning Migrants: A Better Homecoming, https://doi.org/10.1787/5fee55b3-en.

Re‑migration, on the other hand, takes place when return migrants decide to leave their origin country again. Return migrants may choose to re‑migrate:

• to the same destination country where they previously resided;

• to a closer country (e.g. neighbouring country);

• to a new country without specific links (Koser and Kuschminder, 2015[12]).

The decision to re‑migrate may be part of the initial migration decision or due to the conditions in the origin country, including post-return outcomes (Vadean and Piracha, 2010[13]).

2.3. Methodology used for the report

AVRR has been the focus of many studies in the past, including to explain the objectives of AVRR programmes, eligibility and the type of support provided to beneficiaries (Koser and Kuschminder, 2015[12]; Kuschminder, 2017[14]; Lietaert, Broekaert and Derluyn, 2017[15]; Caselli, Kadio and Rizzo, 2022[16]). The OECD also addressed this issue in 2020, publishing a report on the sustainable reintegration of returning migrants (OECD, 2020[11]). It examined factors that contribute to improving the sustainability of reintegration at the individual and programme levels. Beyond AVRR, this report aims to provide a new perspective on return migration by looking at different return categories. For this purpose, the report draws on the following sources:

1. Statistical analysis: The aim of the statistical analysis is to assess the scale of return movements and to draw an indicative portrait of return migrants using data collected in countries of destination and origin, and to have a reference range for comparison of the scale of overall return movements relative to other return categories, such as forced return and AVRR. In destination countries, these measures are based on indirect estimates using changes in the migrant population stock obtained through Labour Force Surveys (LFS) and specialised surveys. Returns reflect migrants leaving the territory (exit rates). In origin countries, population censuses are used to capture the return of native‑born persons entering the country (return rates).

2. Literature review: The literature review provides an overview of the drivers of return migration and re‑migration. These drivers, as reflected in research, are not specific to AVRR, but concern return migration and re‑migration more broadly. The second aim of the literature review was to identify any references to the role of families and local communities in the decision to return or re‑migrate.

3. Policy questionnaire: authorities in 19 OECD countries responded to the policy questionnaire. The questionnaire covered these areas: provisions for legal residents to leave for extended periods without losing their residence status; AVRR programmes (changes, role of community organisations, use of regular channels for re‑migration); reintegration support outside AVRR programmes; and national data sources to measure return migration.

4. Country reports: Reports on Tunisia and Morocco were commissioned in preparation for the country workshops. The country reports use primary data collected through surveys (MED-HIMS) analysing return rates to Morocco and Tunisia since the 2000s. These surveys distinguish between voluntary and forced returns more broadly, but contain no information on AVRR. The reports also include key informant interviews with Tunisian and Moroccan return migrants, implementing partners and national authorities.

5. Workshops: The main purpose of the project was to conduct workshops bringing together different stakeholders working on return and reintegration. These workshops focused on examples from three countries (Tunisia, Morocco and Ukraine) and more general expertise from multiple contexts. Workshops were meant to build networks and involved national government officials, implementing partners – some of which are local community organisations – diaspora organisations, development co‑operation agencies and representatives from OECD countries. Discussions focused on the role of families, communities, and opportunities for re‑migration, and did not explicitly address AVRR programmes. However, much of the interaction with origin countries is related to AVRR beneficiaries, who inevitably have an outsized voice in some of these discussions. Where possible, other aspects were covered, including spontaneous return, regular channels available for re‑migration, and the role of diaspora organisations. Visits were also organised in Tunisia and Morocco to meet with national and local structures providing services to returnees. Workshops were meant also to identify gaps in the understanding of return migration and re‑migration that have been understudied. Workshop findings are by nature highly context-specific and not necessarily representative.

References

[5] Azevedo, L. (2022), “Migração de regresso na reforma: tensões e negociações no casal”, Cidade.

[16] Caselli, M., A. Kadio and C. Rizzo (2022), “Assisted Voluntary Return & Reintegration Policies and Programmes in Four EU Countries: France, Germany, Italy and Spain”, Italian Sociological Review, Vol. 12/2, https://doi.org/10.13136/isr.v12i2.556.

[3] Cobb-Clark, D. and S. Stillman (2013), “Return migration and the age profile of retirement among immigrants”, IZA Journal of Migration, Vol. 2/1, https://doi.org/10.1186/2193-9039-2-20.

[9] IOM (2019), “2018 Return and Reintegration: Key Highlights”.

[2] Klinthäll, M. (2006), “Retirement return migration from Sweden”, International Migration, Vol. 44/2, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2435.2006.00367.x.

[12] Koser, K. and K. Kuschminder (2015), Comparative Research on the Assisted Voluntary Return and Reintegration of Migrants.

[14] Kuschminder, K. (2017), “Interrogating the Relationship between Remigration and Sustainable Return”, International Migration, Vol. 55/6, https://doi.org/10.1111/imig.12378.

[15] Lietaert, I., E. Broekaert and I. Derluyn (2017), “The boundaries of transnationalism: the case of assisted voluntary return migrants”, Global Networks, Vol. 17/3, https://doi.org/10.1111/glob.12141.

[10] Newland, K. and B. Salant (2018), “Balancing Acts: Policy Frameworks for Migrant Return and Reintegration”, Migration Policy Institute.

[1] OECD (2023), International Migration Outlook 2023, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/b0f40584-en.

[11] OECD (2020), Sustainable Reintegration of Returning Migrants: A Better Homecoming, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/5fee55b3-en.

[4] OECD (2017), Talent Abroad: A Review of Moroccan Emigrants, Talent Abroad, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264264281-en.

[8] OECD (2015), “Emigration from and return to Germany: Patterns and motivations”, in Talent Abroad: A Review of German Emigrants, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264231702-6-en.

[7] Remennick, L. (2022), “No place like home: Sociocultural drivers of return migration among Israeli academic families”, Population, Space and Place, Vol. 28/1, https://doi.org/10.1002/psp.2490.

[13] Vadean, F. and M. Piracha (2010), “Circular migration or permanent return: What determines different forms of migration?”, Frontiers of Economics and Globalization, Vol. 8, https://doi.org/10.1108/S1574-8715(2010)0000008026.

[6] Vega, A. and K. Hirschman (2019), “The reasons older immigrants in the United States of America report for returning to Mexico”, Ageing and Society, Vol. 39/4, https://doi.org/10.1017/S0144686X17001155.