CAIRN-INT.INFO : International Edition
Volume
70
format_quote Cite share Share Switch to French

Full-text

1Although studies of return migration have been growing in number, particularly in the last decade (Carling et al., 2011), certain aspects of this question have been largely overlooked. In particular, migrants’ initial intentions to return and the realization of these intentions have not been investigated in depth in the theoretical and empirical literature on international migration.

2As Haas and Fokkema (2011) point out, classical economic theories of international migration present the disadvantage of linking migrants’ return to their initial reason for migration. Thus, for neoclassical theory, which views migrants as rational actors who migrate on the basis of a cost-benefit analysis in order to maximize their income (Todaro, 1969), migration is intended to be permanent from the outset. Return is thus understood as the consequence of failure abroad, reflecting migrants’ inability to benefit from migration as fully as they had expected (Cassarino, 2004; Constant and Massey, 2002). The New Economics of Labour Migration, in contrast, presents migration as one of the strategies used by households to diversify their sources of income in the context of market failures (in access to credit or insurance, for example) (Stark and Bloom, 1985). Under this theory, migrants intend to return to their country of origin after attaining a very specific objective, namely that of acquiring the resources they need to overcome market imperfections so that they can improve their living conditions and those of their families. In this view, the migrants who return to their country of origin are those who have acquired enough financial and human capital to carry out their projects at home (Cassarino, 2004). Neither of these theories takes into account the fact that migrants’ initial motivations and strategies may change over the course of their time abroad (de Haas and Fokkema, 2011). While certain migrants return as they had initially planned to do, others ultimately choose to stay abroad. This may be because their ties to their community of origin have weakened (Guilmoto and Sandron, 2000; Massey et al., 1987), because they have acquired a certain autonomy (El Hariri, 2003), because they are tied down by events in their career or personal life (Hazen and Alberts, 2006), or because the situation has changed in their origin or destination country (Carling, 2004; Cornelius, 2001; Massey and Espinosa, 1997; Massey et al., 2002). In other cases, migrants maintain their plan to return over time, but continually postpone it, to the extent that it becomes a sort of myth (El Hariri, 2003; Sayad, 1998).

3Given the lack of data on the subject, few quantitative studies have specifically examined the question of migrants’ initial return intentions and their realization. Research is generally based on cross-sectional surveys which pose the question of respondents’ intention to return at the time of the survey rather than at the time of their arrival, regardless of the time already spent in the destination country. Moreover, analysis of actual return requires data on the life histories of both return migrants and migrants who have remained in the destination country. Until recently, the only source of such data was the Mexican Migration Project (MMP), which collected data in both origin and destination countries, making it possible to study the determinants of Mexican migrants’ return after living in the United States (Massey and Espinosa, 1997; Reyes, 2004).

4Drawing on data from the MAFE-Senegal and MAFE-Congo life event history surveys carried out in African countries of origin and in European destination countries, which collected information both on migrants’ initial intention to return and on actual returns, this article has two objectives: first, to analyse the migration plans of Senegalese and Congolese migrants to Europe at the time of their arrival, and second, to analyse the actual realization of their initial intention to return.

5The hypothesis tested here is that both migrants’ initial migration plan and their return depend on what they consider best for themselves and their families, but that aspirations to return are constrained by the situation in both origin and destination countries. Deteriorating conditions in the origin country and the implemention of more restrictive immigration policies at destination are expected to have negative effects on individuals’ intention to return. We also postulate that initial return intention will more often fail to be realized if restrictions on migration increase and the situation in the migrants’ country of origin deteriorates. Comparing Senegal and the Democratic Republic of Congo (DR Congo) is interesting in this context, as the political and economic situations in the two countries have evolved quite differently.

6The first section of this article gives a brief review of the literature on the determinants of migrants’ return and intention to return. The second section retraces changes in the situation in Senegal and DR Congo as well as in European immigration policies, and presents findings on the history and role of return in Senegalese and Congolese migration. The third section details the research hypotheses, the fourth section presents the research methodology, and the fifth and final section presents the results.

I – Review of the literature on intentions to return and their realization

7A number of factors influencing migrants’ intentions to return and their realization are highlighted in the literature. [1] This literature review focuses on factors reflecting migrants’ aspirations (reasons for migration) and the constraints that they may face (administrative status, restrictive immigration policies, and deterioration of the situation in their country of origin).

8The reason for moving abroad is a strong determinant. Individuals who migrate for family reasons generally intend to remain in the destination country, as shown by a study on Afghan, Burundian, Ethiopian, and Moroccan migrants in the Netherlands (Bilgili and Siegel, 2012). Another study from the Netherlands confirms that family reunification often results in permanent migration (Bijwaard, 2007). It would seem that migration for educational reasons is more often intended as temporary, particularly if economic conditions in the country of origin are favourable (Baruch et al., 2007). One study has shown that African students in the United States are as likely to wish to return to their country of origin as other foreign students, because they know they will find a job relatively easily on return (Hazen and Alberts, 2006). It is individuals who left their country for political reasons who seem to be the most inclined of all to remain abroad permanently, as revealed by studies in Sweden (Edin et al., 2000) and Norway (Carling and Pettersen, 2014).

9Migrants’ administrative or legal status in the destination country also seems to be important. According to Reyes (2004), undocumented migrants stay in the United States rather than returning to Mexico in the hope of being regularized. The qualitative work of Sinatti (2011) on undocumented Senegalese migrants in Italy suggests a similar conclusion. Along similar lines, research on migrants from Cape Verde (Carling, 2004), Morocco (de Haas and Fokkema, 2010), and Mexico (Cornelius, 2001; Massey and Espinosa, 1997; Massey et al., 2002; Reyes, 2004) suggests that individuals may delay or cancel their return plans due to more restrictive immigration policies in destination countries.

10Finally, the situation in migrants’ country of origin also emerges as a crucial factor. Studies focusing on Morocco (de Haas and Fokkema, 2010, 2011) and Latin America (Moran-Taylor and Menjívar, 2005) suggest that migrants leaving a situation of instability and insecurity often have no plans to return to their countries of origin. Return is also less likely at times of crisis in the origin country, as migrants fear the lack of employment opportunities and the unfavourable political climate.

II – Background of the study

1 – Contrasting political and economic developments in Senegal and DR Congo

11Senegal and DR Congo have followed widely differing political paths since independence. Senegal, a former French colony, has a reputation as one of the most stable countries on the African continent. This is attested by its peaceful changes of government and its ability to surmount crises (Dumont and Kanté, 2009). The history of the DR Congo, on the other hand, which was a Belgian colony until 1960, has been marked by severe political instability. Mobutu, commander in chief of the army, remained in power for 32 years and imposed relative stability by means of a highly centralized and repressive political regime. The failure of the process of democratization that began in the early 1990s plunged the country into a long period of political turmoil marked by riots, army mutinies, and unprecedented pillaging (Braeckman, 2009). A slow transition toward change began in 1997, when Mobutu was ousted by Laurent Kabila, but violence persisted until Kabila’s assassination in 2001 (Hesselbein, 2007). The country’s first elections were organized in 2006. His son, Joseph Kabila was elected president, and re-elected in 2011, although this result was contested by part of the population, particularly in the capital, Kinshasa. [2]

12In economic terms, the living conditions of the Senegalese and Congolese populations have deteriorated over time, notably following the implementation of structural adjustment programmes and the withdrawal of the state from the social services sector (Braeckman, 2009; Thioub et al., 1998). In Senegal, the crisis began to affect the labour market in the 1990s. In Dakar, with growth in unemployment and the expansion of the informal sector, it became particularly difficult for people with higher education to obtain qualified wage employment (Bocquier, 1996). In DR Congo, likewise, the deterioration of the political situation contributed greatly to the worsening of economic conditions. The early 1990s were the darkest years in the country’s history. During this period, Congolese GDP growth dropped sharply, inflation increased, and currency devaluation accelerated (Peemans, 1998). The repercussions were strongly felt by the population. It was not until the early 2000s that the country enjoyed a timid economic recovery and slight improvements in living conditions (Mangalu, 2011). In 2014, the Human Development Index of DR Congo was second-lowest in the world rankings.

2 – More restrictive immigration policies in Europe

13The immigration policies regulating foreigners’ entry to and residence in European countries have evolved considerably over time. Migrating to Europe from a non-European country has become increasingly difficult, although policies have varied by country, origin, and type of migration.

14In the 1960s, a number of European countries relied on foreign workers to fuel their economic growth. At the time, conditions for migration were flexible (Donovon, 1988). France took measures to encourage the free movement of workers from its former colonies, setting up recruitment offices in various countries, including Senegal (Robin et al., 2000). Belgium never had a policy of recruiting Congolese workers, but it granted visas and scholarships to citizens of its former colony with the aim of creating an elite to manage the newly independent country (De Schutter, 2011). Between 1973 and 1974, with the economic crisis, measures were taken by European countries to end the system of recruitment of foreign workers (Castles, 2006). Labour migration was no longer possible, but residence permits for purposes of family reunification were created. Before 1986, Senegalese citizens did not need a visa to enter France (Marot, 1995), and visa requirements were not introduced in Italy until 1990 (Finotelli and Sciortino, 2009). Congolese nationals, on the other hand, were never able to enter Belgium without a visa (Geert, 2011).

15In the 1990s, migration became an increasingly politicized question in many European countries, and restrictions on migration for family, education and work-related reasons became more severe (Gnisci, 2008). Beginning in the 2000s, the problem of undocumented migration became an issue of urgent concern at the European level (Guiraudon, 2000). With the creation of Frontex, the European border agency, an entire arsenal of measures was set in place and extensive resources were deployed to prevent migrants without visas from entering Europe (Carling and Hernández-Carretero, 2011). Procedures for obtaining refugee status of were also made more stringent, and emphasis was placed on sending undocumented migrants back to their countries of origin (Cassarino, 2008).

16Because of the shift at the beginning of the 1990s both in the situation in the origin countries studied here and in immigration policies, the analyses in this article are divided into two periods: before and after 1990.

3 – The place of return in Senegalese and Congolese migration

17The contrasting paths taken by Senegal and DR Congo have influenced the migration histories of their populations, including returns. Few quantitative studies have analysed returns and intentions to return; the existing work which sheds light on the question is mainly qualitative.

The place of return in Senegalese migration

18Initially, Senegalese migrants to Europe consisted mainly of single men from rural areas who came to work in French manufacturing jobs (Timera, 1996). They travelled back and forth between France and Senegal before returning home permanently to be replaced by other members of their community under the noria system (Barou, 2001). However, after 1974, when European countries started controlling their borders, this replacement migration ceased (Barou, 2001), and certain Senegalese migrants chose to use the family reunification system to bring their families to the destination country (Azoulay and Quiminal, 2002). Qualitative studies highlight the central place of return in the migration projects of Senegalese migrants. From the Senegalese point of view, successful migration culminates in a permanent return to the family, after having improved their living conditions (Sinatti, 2011). But return is often postponed, as migrants face family pressure and often find it difficult to invest their savings in personal projects in Senegal (Hernandez-Carretero, 2012). However, data from a 1997 survey of Senegalese migrants in Italy and Spain revealed that only 38% intended to return to Senegal, while 31% planned to remain in Europe, and the remainder were undecided (de Haas and Fokkema, 2011).

The place of return in Congolese migration

19Congolese migration to Europe, predominantly to Belgium for educational reasons, began in 1960 (Kagné and Martiniello, 2001; Schoonvaere, 2010). At that time, although the Congolese state was fragile, it provided social services, and migrants returned to the country after completing their education (Sumata et al., 2004). They were offered high-level positions, good wages, and favourable living conditions in their country of origin (De Schutter, 2011). Subsequently, however, when the situation in DR Congo deteriorated, Congolese migrants began to remain abroad. As explained by Bongo-Pasi Moke Sangol and Tsakala Munikengi (2004), while Congolese families whose children were studying in Europe and North America would previously encourage them to complete their studies quickly and return to the country, today they urge them to remain abroad at all costs and find a job of any kind to provide for family members who have remained in DR Congo. Bazonzi (2010) writes: “After arriving on foreign soil, one is ready to do anything, except return home, for fear of becoming the laughing stock of the neighbourhood” (p. 8). Schoonvaere’s (2010) quantitative study, using data from the Belgian national register, also revealed that Congolese migration to Belgium has become more permanent over time: among those who entered Belgium in 1991, 18% had already left two years later, whereas among those who arrived ten years later, the proportion of returnees had fallen to 8%.

III – Objectives and research hypotheses

20The first aim of this study was to analyse the factors that explain the initial return intentions of Senegalese and Congolese migrants in Europe. If migrants’ reason for migrating is to acquire resources for subsequent use in their country of origin, they may be expected to plan to return. On the other hand, given the deteriorating situation in their country of origin, particularly in the case of DR Congo, they may plan to migrate permanently. Migrants who have had difficulties migrating due to restrictive immigration policies may also be expected to have no return intentions when they arrive in Europe. Such migrants may not wish to run the risk of a return, knowing that it will be difficult for them to migrate again afterwards if they fail to reintegrate in their home country.

21The second goal of the study was to determine whether migrants’ initial intention to return culminates in actual return. The objective was to answer the following question: Who are the migrants who do not return despite having planned to do so, and how can their non-return be explained? The hypothesis pursued here is that the initial intention to return is generally a strong determinant of return, but that restrictive immigration policies and the worsening situation in migrants’ countries of origin cause some to cancel or delay the realization of these intentions; Congolese migrants most of all and Senegalese migrants to a smaller extent, given the lesser severity of the crisis in Senegal. Table 1 presents the research hypotheses.

Table 1

Research hypotheses by factor potentially influencing initial return intention and its realization

Table 1
Type of factor Initial intention to return Realization of the initial intention to return H1: Reason for departure H1a: Migrants from both countries who leave to acquire resources that can be put to use in their country of origin are more likely to want to return. This is likely to be the case for those who migrate for education or work-related reasons; it is less likely among those who migrate for family or political reasons. H1b: Senegalese migrants are likely to realize their initial intention. This is less likely for Congolese migrants. given the deterioration of the situation in their country of origin. H2: Administrative situation H2a: Migrants from both countries who are undocumented when they migrate are less likely to wish to return. H2b: Undocumented migrants from both countries are less likely to return. H3: Came directly from country of origin H3a: Migrants from both countries who did not migrate directly to Europe are less likely to wish to return. H3b: Migrants from both countries who did not migrate directly to Europe are less likely to return. H4: Period and intention H4a: Congolese who left after 1990 are less likely to wish to return; no difference between pre- and post-1990 groups from Senegal. H4b: Before 1990, migrants from both countries with the intention to return are more likely to return than those who do not plan to do so. After 1990, migrants from both countries with the intention to return are not more likely to actually return.

Research hypotheses by factor potentially influencing initial return intention and its realization

IV – Method

1 – Data

22The MAFE life event history surveys are well suited to studying return migration to Senegal and DR Congo. These surveys were carried out both in migrants’ origin countries (in the regions of Dakar and Kinshasa) and in several European destination countries (France, Italy, and Spain for Senegalese migrants, and Belgium and the United Kingdom for Congolese migrants). They collected retrospective biographical data on migrants and return migrants, providing information on individuals’ situation at the time of their arrival in Europe and throughout their time in the destination country. Because identical questionnaires were used in the different countries, they allow comparative analysis of Senegalese and Congolese migrants. The surveys have their limitations, however, in terms of design and sample representativeness.

23First of all, the information on migrants’ return to Senegal and DR Congo is not representative of all Senegalese and Congolese who have migrated to Europe, since the surveys were not performed in all European countries. Nor are the surveys representative of these countries of origin at the national level, as they took place only in the capital regions, Dakar and Kinshasa. Not all of the migrants surveyed were from these regions, however. [3] These limitations suggest a need for caution when generalizing the results; but given that the majority of migrants have already lived in their country’s capital and that the sample was designed to ensure maximum representativeness, we can postulate that migrants who have never lived in the origin country regions where the surveys were performed are not radically different from those who have. Another noteworthy limitation is the small size of the survey samples of migrants, and above all, of return migrants. Despite the oversampling of return migrants in the surveys carried out in the countries of origin, the number of return migrants from Europe is not very high. This reflects migrants’ relatively low propensity to return. In order to include as many returns as possible in the survey samples, the choice was made to include all return migrations, regardless of which European country the migrants had resided in.

24Other limitations are related to the nature of life event history surveys. It is often difficult for respondents to recall their past in detail. Although the questionnaires were designed to make it easier for migrants to remember relevant events, respondents may forget to report certain events, report them partially, or date them incorrectly. They may also have trouble recalling past intentions, such as the intention to return at the time of arrival in Europe. As individuals often reformulate their migration project in response to their own situation or to the person they are speaking to, responses may be influenced by respondents’ current intention – which may have changed since their arrival – or by the fact of their return (ex post rationalization). The open questions on the reasons for departure and return were also retrospective, and biases can occur due to the passage of time.

Initial intention to return and actual return

25The questionnaire did not contain a precise question on migrants’ intention to return at the time of their departure from their country of origin. The variable on the initial intention to return was constructed on the basis of several questions regarding the stay in the first European destination country: [4]

  • “At the beginning, for how long did you plan to stay in ‘country of stay’?” Respondents answered this question with a number of years, or by saying “permanently”. Some answered that they did not know.
  • “When you arrived in ‘country of stay’, (1) You considered it to be your final destination, where you had planned to go to from the outset; (2) You didn’t have a clear idea about the country where you wanted to go; (3) You had in mind to go elsewhere, it was therefore a transit country.”
  • When the respondent reported an intention to go elsewhere (3), they were asked the following questions: “Which country did you want to reach just afterwards?” then “And which country did you want to reach at the very end?” Migrants gave the name of another country in response to this question, but some reported that their final destination was their country of origin.

26On the basis of this information, the variable for the initial intention to return was constructed according to the diagram presented in Figure 1.

Figure 1

Construction of the variable for migrants’ initial return intention

Figure 1

Construction of the variable for migrants’ initial return intention

27The variable for the initial intention to return distinguishes three possibilities:

  • Respondents who reported wanting to remain in the destination country for a particular amount of time; that the country was the final destination of their migration; or that they planned to migrate elsewhere later but with the idea of returning to their country of origin in the end, are considered to have initially intended to return.
  • On the contrary, individuals who reported a wish to stay permanently in the destination country or to migrate elsewhere but without specifying their country of origin as the final destination are considered not to have initially intended to return.
  • If the migrant did not answer the question on the amount of time that they planned to stay in the destination country, they are considered to be uncertain about return.

28Return was defined as a stay of more than a year in the country of origin, or less than a year if the respondent had the intention, at the time of return, to remain in the country. This study focuses on long-term returns; returns intended as temporary, for holidays or on business, are not considered to be returns as such.

Explanatory variables of interest

29The MAFE surveys provide information on individuals’ sociodemographic characteristics throughout their life course. This includes information on their sex, their age and their level of education, which changed with each year they spent enrolled in education. Information is also available on migrants’ individual situation in family, material, work, and economic terms during each year they spent in Europe. The surveys also provide information on migration experiences. They include information on the country to which respondents migrated, the duration and order of their migration, and the circumstances in which their migration took place. Information is available on the reason for migration and on whether the respondents arrived in Europe directly from their country of origin or spent at least one year in another country before reaching Europe. Finally, the surveys included questions on any visits that the migrants had made to their country of origin since their arrival and on their administrative situation in the destination country. These variables are explained in more detail in Appendix A.1.

2 – Analysis methods

30The analyses are divided into two parts. The first concerns migrants’ initial intention to return. This analysis focuses on respondents’ situation at the time of their arrival in Europe. Simple multinomial logistic regressions were performed to analyse the determinants of the initial intention to return. Given that the focus here is on explaining the initial intention to return versus the initial intention to remain in Europe, results on factors of uncertainty about return are not discussed, but they are given in Appendix Table A.2.

31The second part deals with the realization of the intention to return, which requires analysis in terms of time since migration to Europe, during which individuals may return. The analyses take account of the fact that, along with migrants who have returned to their country of origin, some have not yet returned but will, and others have left Europe for a destination other than their country of origin. Information is available on such migrants who went elsewhere because they were surveyed after return to their country of origin or in Europe following a later migration.

32The Kaplan-Meier estimator was used to calculate migrants’ probability of return over time by period of arrival and initial intention to return. Discrete-time event history models were used to analyse the determinants of return. The explanatory variables were measured over the entire duration. They could be fixed (such as sex or reason for migration) or time-varying (such as age, administrative situation, and period). To ensure that the explanatory variables reflected the migrants’ situation during this exposure period and not after experiencing the event, the events of return and redeparture were measured in the year (t – 1) which preceded the return event in year t. A single individual can appear several times in the sample if he or she migrated or returned more than once. Given that they present similar characteristics in each case, this is taken into account in the calculation of standard deviations; to this end, individual clusters are used in the regressions. Additionally, to compensate for the relatively small sample sizes, the jackknife replication method was used for each model. In this technique, multiple samples are generated, each one equal to the total number of observations minus one, and standard deviations are calculated on this basis rather than on the basis of parametric assumptions. This is considered a robust alternative to standard parametric estimation methods because it is less dependent on extreme values. The confidence intervals associated with these standard deviations are generally larger than with parametric estimators. This method thus tends to retain only truly significant results.

3 – Description of the samples

33The Senegalese sample includes 713 migrations, while the Congolese sample includes 521. The return sample size is 104 for Senegal and 86 for DR Congo. The samples are presented in Table 2. It can be seen here that Senegalese migrants’ primary reason for migration is to improve their living conditions, whereas for Congolese migrants it is to pursue their education. The majority of respondents were first-time migrants to Europe; [5] 27% of Senegalese and 16% of Congolese migrants were undocumented in the year of their arrival. Almost all of the migrants arrived directly from their country of origin; only 6 or 7% of migrants had stayed at least one year in a non-European country; 28% of the migrants in the Senegalese sample and 44% in the Congolese sample had arrived before 1990. The two samples thus differ in this respect.

Table 2

Description of the samples of Senegalese and Congolese migrants in the year of their arrival in Europe (weighted results)

Table 2
Variables Categories Senegal % DR Congo % Age 18-29 54 63 30-44 33 31 45+ 4 6 Sex Male 70 59 Female 30 41 Completed level of education None, primary, or secondary 97 57 Higher education 3 43 Reason for migrating Family 20 15 Improvement of living conditions 53 20 Education or work-related 18 45 Political 1 14 Other 8 6 Migration order First 89 93 Not first 11 7 Visit(s) to origin country Never visited 93 95 At least one visit 7 5 Initial intention to return No intention to return 47 43 Intention to return 43 49 Uncertain 10 8 Administrative situation Documented 67 81 Undocumented 27 16 Not specified 6 3 Came directly from country of origin Yes 94 93 No 6 7 Destination Traditional 52 47 New 48 53 Family situation Family in the origin country 38 28 Family in the destination country 12 11 Single and childless 40 43 Family in the destination and origin countries 7 18 Family elsewhere 3 1 Material situation Owner of real estate or business 19 23 No real estate or business 81 77 Employment status In employment corresponding to qualifications 45 4 Under-employed 19 18 Inactive 20 31 In education 16 45 Missing value 0 1 Household’s subjective wealth status More than enough to live on 17 34 Enough or less than enough to live on 83 66 Not specified 1 0 Period Before 1990 28 44 From 1990 onward 72 56 Unweighted sample sizes 713 521

Description of the samples of Senegalese and Congolese migrants in the year of their arrival in Europe (weighted results)

Source: MAFE-Senegal (2008) and MAFE-Congo (2009) life event history surveys.

V – Results

1 – Migrants’ initial intention to return to their country of origin

34At the time of their arrival in Europe, fewer than half of migrants plan to return to their country of origin (43% of Senegalese and 49% of Congolese migrants) (Table 2). The proportion who initially intended to return decreases with time, particularly among Congolese migrants: 64% of Congolese who migrated before 1990 planned to return when they first arrived in Europe, versus 36% of those who migrated in 1990 or later. After 1990, newly arrived Senegalese migrants also less frequently intend to return to their country of origin, but the decrease is smaller, from 51% to 40%. This trend is explained by the deterioration of the situation in both countries. In particular, the political and economic crises of the 1990s and 2000s in DR Congo undermined migrants’ trust in the future of the country, prompting a desire to move permanently to Europe.

35After controlling for migrants’ characteristics and migration experience (Table 3), no difference in initial return intention is found between Senegalese migrants who arrived before 1990 and those who arrived in that year or later. In contrast, Congolese migrants who arrived in Europe in 1990 or later are five times less likely to wish to return to DR Congo than those who migrated before 1990. This result, which confirms hypothesis H4a, shows that the early 1990s marked a turning point in Congolese migration. While the Congolese had some confidence in the future of their country before 1990, after this date the crisis was so profound that they lost any hope of a turnaround. Those with the opportunity to leave for Europe thus did not plan to return.

Table 3

Determinants of the intention to return versus the intention to remain in Europe for Senegalese and Congolese migrants at the time of their arrival in Europe (multinomial logistic regression; results weighted and expressed as odds ratios)(a)

Table 3
Variable Category Senegal (%) DR Congo (%) Gross effect Net effect Gross effect Net effect Age 18-29 (Ref.) 1 1 1 1 30-44 1.31 1.47 2.00 1.90 45 + 1.62 2.11 0.37 1.66 Sex Male (Ref.) 1 1 1 1 Female 0.80 1.68* 0.61 0.75 Completed level of education None, primary, or secondary (Ref.) 1 1 1 1 Higher 14.23** 4.05 0.77 1.32 Reason for migrating Family (Ref.) 1 1 1 1 Improvement of living conditions 2.19* 3.12** 0.53 0.58 Education or work-related 13.81*** 12.55*** 16.71*** 13.56*** Political 2.73*** 0.47 0.88 1.57 Migration order First (Ref.) 1 1 1 1 Not first 1.49 1.22 1.40 0.90 Administrative situation Documented (Ref.) 1 1 1 1 Undocumented 0.71 1.22 0.10*** 0.42** Came directly from country of origin Yes (Ref.) 1 1 1 1 No 0.34* 0.32* 0.10*** 0.17*** Destination Traditional (Ref.) 1 1 1 1 New 0.44*** 0.44*** 0.29*** 0.19*** Family situation Family in origin country (Ref.) 1 1 1 1 Family in destination country 0.60 0.81 0.44 1.14 Single and childless 0.94 0.87 0.50 0.50 Family in destination and origin countries 0.37** 0.46 0.54 0.89 Material situation Owner of real estate or business (Ref.) 1 1 1 1 No real estate or business 0.72 0.97 2.63 1.88 Period of arrival Before 1990 (Ref.) 1 1 1 1 1990 or later 0.56** 0.70 0.24* 0.18*** Constant 0.47 2.64 Number of events 292 224 Number of observations 713 521

Determinants of the intention to return versus the intention to remain in Europe for Senegalese and Congolese migrants at the time of their arrival in Europe (multinomial logistic regression; results weighted and expressed as odds ratios)(a)

(a) The estimates of odds ratios greater than 10 or below 0.1 are subject to a high degree of uncertainty.
Significance levels: *** p < 0.01; ** p < 0.05; * p < 0.10.
Source: MAFE-Senegal (2008) and MAFE-Congo (2009) life event history surveys.

36The results also show that migrants’ return intentions depend on their reason for migrating. Confirming hypothesis H1a, migrants from both countries who headed to Europe for education or work-related reasons are very likely to wish to return: Senegalese migrants who came to Europe for this reason are 12 times more likely to intend initially to return than those who migrated for family reasons, and Congolese migrants 13 times more likely. These migrants believe that they will have opportunities in their country of origin after migration, and that they will be able to take advantage of skills acquired in Europe upon their return. In addition, Senegalese who migrated to improve their living conditions are three times more likely to intend to return to their country than those who left for family reasons; but no such effect is found for Congolese migrants. As the qualitative literature suggests, Senegalese who leave for this reason plan to return after saving money that they then hope to invest in Senegal (Hernandez-Carretero, 2012; Sinatti, 2011). Senegalese migrants are able to undertake such projects thanks to the stable situation in their home country, but this is less true of migrants from DR Congo, where the situation is more uncertain. Finally, migrants who came to Europe for political reasons are neither more nor less likely to plan to return than those who migrated for family reasons.

37Migrants from both countries who spent at least one year elsewhere rather than coming directly to Europe are more likely to intend their migration to be permanent. This result supports hypothesis H3a. It could be that their last stay was an extended transit migration for the purpose of reaching Europe, or that their migration project failed in the previous destination country and they are now trying their luck in Europe. In these cases, given the high cost of migration, migrants tend not to envisage a return to their country of origin.

38Similarly, Congolese who were undocumented in the year of their arrival in Europe are less likely to intend to return than those with legal status. Hypothesis H2a is thus confirmed for Congolese, but not for Senegalese migrants. Driven by a lack of prospects in their country of origin, Congolese migrants make every possible effort to migrate to Europe despite restrictive immigration policies. Their migration must thus have been costly, not only at the financial level – undocumented migration is considerably more expensive – but also at the human level, as they know that they run the risk of being deported. This may explain why they hope that the risks they have taken will allow them to avoid having to return to their country of origin, where they do not see a future for themselves.

2 – Realization of the initial intention to return

39After analysing the factors influencing the initial intention to return, other questions arise. First, does the intention to return influence actual return? The results of the models (Table 4) are unanimous on this point: the initial intention to return is a strong determinant of actual return. Senegalese and Congolese migrants who saw their migration to Europe as temporary on departure are respectively two and three times more likely to return than those who intended to migrate permanently. However, as Table 4 shows, this is not the only determinant. Period also emerges as an important factor in the return of Congolese migrants. Those who were in Europe in the 1990s and 2000s were less likely to return, due to the deterioration in the situation in their country of origin. The shift toward more restrictive immigration policies in Europe also had an effect on return. Congolese migrants who did not come directly to Europe are practically certain to remain (in keeping with their intention on arrival). The high cost of coming to Europe indirectly, in terms of both effort and money, acts as a disincentive to return, as migrants are not willing risk having to repeat the experience. Hypothesis H2b is thus confirmed for the Congolese, but not for the Senegalese, which may be due to the relatively less difficult situation in Senegal. The same is true of hypothesis H3b. Undocumented Congolese migrants are very unlikely to return to DR Congo, and their probability of remaining in Europe is very high (corresponding to their initial intention). These migrants do not return before their situation is regularized, as they know that they will have no assurance of being able to return to Europe in case of problems upon return. The ability to travel to Europe after return thus acts as a condition for return, since it gives migrants an alternative option if they have problems reintegrating in their home country.

Table 4

Determinants of return for Senegalese and Congolese migrants to Europe (discrete time logistic regression; weighted results, expressed as odds ratios)(a)

Table 4
Variable Category Senegal DR Congo Gross effect Net effect Gross effect Net effect Age 18-29 (Ref.) 1 1 1 1 30-44 1.07 1.21 0.63 1.06 45+ 0.66 1.11 0.85 2.93 Sex Male (Ref.) 1 1 1 1 Female 1.26 1.58 0.52 0.63 Completed level of education None, primary, or secondary (Ref.) 1 1 1 1 Higher 1.10 0.67 1.19 2.00 Reason for migrating Family (Ref.) 1 1 1 1 Improvement of living conditions 0.66 0.81 1.19 1.41 Education or work-related 2.78* 2.53* 3.62** 2.71 Political – – 0.07*** 0.07** Migration order First (Ref.) 1 1 1 1 Not first 6.36*** 2.75** 0.70 0.35 Duration 1-2 years (Ref.) 1 1 1 1 3-5 years 0.81 2.18** 0.58 0.86 6+ years 0.28*** 1.75 0.35** 0.59 Visit(s) to origin counry Never visited (Ref.) 1 1 1 1 At least one visit 0.14*** 0.16*** 0.80** 0.68 Initial intention to return No intention to return (Ref.) 1 1 1 1 Intention to return 2.38** 2.43*** 5.16*** 3.42* Uncertain 0.70 1.04 5.76 15.16 Administrative situation Documented (Ref.) 1 1 1 1 Uncertain 1.04 0.59 0.01*** 0.02*** Came directly from country of origin Yes (Ref.) 1 1 1 1 No 2.43 0.84 0.04*** 0.09* Destination Traditional (Ref.) 1 1 1 1 New 0.56* 0.76 0.96 1.32 Family situation Family in origin country (Ref.) 1 1 1 1 Family in destination country 0.18*** 0.15*** 0.03*** 0.18*** Single and childless 0.76 0.67 0.65 1.47 Family in destination and origin countries 0.33* 0.23* 0.57 4.10 Family elsewhere 8.51** 3.75 1.00 1.00 Material situation Owner of real estate or business (Ref.) 1 1 1 1 No real estate or business 0.80 0.58 1.53 0.93 Employment status In employment corresponding to qualifications (Ref.) 1 1 1 1 Under-employed 1.31 1.09 2.27 4.64 Inactive 3.72** 3.40** 4.33*** 13.90** In education 2.82*** 0.71 6.98*** 3.06
Table 4
Variable Category Senegal DR Congo Gross effect Net effect Gross effect Net effect Household’s subjective wealth status More than enough resources (Ref.) 1 1 1 1 Enough or less than enough resources 0.35** 0.99 0.29*** 0.25** Period of arrival Before 1990 (Ref.) 1 1 1 1 From 1990 onward 0.44*** 0.59 0.18*** 0.22*** Constant 0.03*** 0.01** Number of events 104 86 Number of observations (person-years) 8,041 5,893

Determinants of return for Senegalese and Congolese migrants to Europe (discrete time logistic regression; weighted results, expressed as odds ratios)(a)

(a) The estimates of odds ratios greater than 10 or below 0.1 are subject to a high degree of uncertainty.
Significance levels: *** p < 0.01; ** p < 0.05; * p < 0.10.
Source: MAFE-Senegal (2008) and MAFE-Congo (2009) life event history surveys.

40Second, who are the migrants who do not return despite their initial intention to do so? Comparing the values of the variable on reason for migration in Tables 3 and 4 reveals results which partly confirm hypothesis H1b. Migrants from DR Congo who went to Europe for work-related reasons or education, who were highly likely to wish to return at the time of their arrival, are unlikely to do so in the end. Members of this group decided to remain in Europe longer than expected, probably because they did not see prospects for a long-term future in their country of origin. In contrast, Senegalese migrants who migrated for these reasons are highly likely to return. The relatively better situation in Senegal, and correspondingly better job opportunities for these migrants, explains their greater likelihood of realizing their initial intention to return. But Senegalese migrants who left to improve their living conditions, many of whom wished to return, are ultimately unlikely to do so. It may be that the realities of Europe do not correspond to their expectations, and that they have more difficulty accumulating financial capital than expected, which explains the delay in their return. And individuals who migrated from DR Congo for political reasons are even less likely to return than suggested by their intentions at the beginning of their migration. This reflects a certain breakdown in these migrants’ relationship with their country of origin. Moreover, the effect of migrants’ family situation on return shows that those who live with their families in Europe are less likely to return than those whose families are in their country of origin, although this was not reflected in their initial intentions. Over time, then, family life in Europe thus leads to more permanent settlement than originally planned.

41A third question concerns differences between periods in initial intentions to return. The descriptive results shown in Figure 2 show that migrants who arrived after 1990 are less likely to return, and take longer to do so, than those who arrived earlier. Ten years after arrival in Europe, 75% of Congolese who migrated before 1990 with the intention to return had actually done so, whereas this proportion fell to 40% among those who arrived with the same intention after 1990. Among Senegalese migrants, 40% of those who arrived before 1990 had returned to Senegal within 10 years as planned, but only 25% of later arrivals in Europe had done so.

Figure 2

Probability of remaining in Europe by duration of stay and initial intention to return, by period of arrival (weighted results)

Figure 2

Probability of remaining in Europe by duration of stay and initial intention to return, by period of arrival (weighted results)

Interpretation: The curves represent migrants’ probability of remaining in Europe rather than returning, by years since arrival and initial return intention. The origin of the x-axis (year 0) corresponds to the year of departure. In this year, 100% (notated as 1.00 on the y-axis) of the migrants were still in Europe. As time passes, their probability of remaining decreases, and their probability of return increases.
Note: Curves created using the non-parametric Kaplan-Meier estimator. Log-rank test significant at the 5% level.
Source: MAFE-Senegal (2008) and MAFE-Congo (2009) life event history surveys.

42However, all other things being equal, the analyses of the interaction between the variables for period and initial intention to return shown in Table 5 (using the same covariates [6] as in Table 4) suggest that the initial intention to return is not always a major determinant of return. Due to the small sample sizes after introducing the interaction, the model does not improve the quality of fit to the data, and the results must thus be taken with caution. Before 1990, it seems, Senegalese migrants who initially intended to return were more likely in fact to return than those who had not intended to do so. In contrast, the model shows that intentions do not influence returns to Senegal after 1990. This result ties in with a general worsening of living conditions in Senegal after 1990 that discouraged certain individuals from returning, even among those who planned to return at the time of their arrival in Europe. The worsening of economic conditions in Senegal may also have increased the needs of family members who remained at home, increasing the burden placed upon the migrants who are expected to provide for them. Some may thus have stayed in Europe for longer in order to acquire the financial capital needed for their own projects. With regard to Congolese migrants, the results in Table 5 show that, all other things being equal, those who planned to return are not ultimately more likely to do so, either before or after 1990. This may be explained by difficult conditions in DR Congo. Perhaps even those migrants who planned to return do not take the risk of doing so because they know that the situation in their country of origin is unstable. Despite the small sample sizes, these results partly confirm hypothesis H4b and suggest that the role of initial intentions in explaining returns weakened after 1990 among Senegalese migrants.

Table 5

Effect of migrants’ initial intention to return on actual return, by period, among Senegalese and Congolese migrants to Europe (discrete time logistic regression; weighted results, expressed as odds ratios)(a)

Table 5
Variable Category Senegal DR Congo Gross effect Net effect Gross effect Net effect (a) (b) (a) (b) (a) (b) (a) (b) Interaction between initial intention to return and period of arrival Before 1990 without return intention (Ref. in column a) 1 1.08 1 0.92 1 1.48 1 3.18 Before 1990 with return intention 4.83* 5.51 4.89* 4.51*** 6.69** 9.92*** 4.85 15.44*** Before 1990 with uncertainty 0.52 0.56 0.85 0.79 18.40 27.30* 150.75** 490.49** After 1990 without return intention (Ref. in column b) 0.92 1 1.08 1 0.67 1 0.31 1 After 1990 with return intention 1.62 1.74 2.08 1.92 1.75 2.60 1.48 4.69 After 1990 with uncertainty 0.71 0.76 1.37 1.26 0.24 0.35 0.26 0.82 Constant 0.02*** 0.02*** 0.01** 0.00*** Number of events 104 86 Number of observations (person-years) 8,041 5,893

Effect of migrants’ initial intention to return on actual return, by period, among Senegalese and Congolese migrants to Europe (discrete time logistic regression; weighted results, expressed as odds ratios)(a)

(a) The estimates of odds ratios greater than 10 or below 0.1 are subject to a high degree of uncertainty. The variables are the same as in Table 4.
Significance: *** p < 0.01; ** p < 0.05; * p < 0.10.
Source: MAFE-Senegal (2008) and MAFE-Congo (2009) life event history surveys.

Conclusion

43In a 2011 article, de Haas and Fokkema emphasized that analysing change over time in migrants’ initial strategies represents a major challenge for future research. This question is not addressed in traditional theories of international migration, nor is it covered in existing quantitative studies, for lack of appropriate data. Using data from the MAFE project’s life event history surveys of both migrants in Europe and return migrants in their countries of origin, this article offers new insights on the initial return intentions of Senegalese and Congolese migrants, as well as on the realization of those intentions. Note that information on the initial intention to return was obtained retrospectively, and that precise information on migrants’ level of uncertainty about migration plans is lacking; there is potential for further research in this area.

44The present study shows that migrants’ intention to return at the time of their arrival in Europe is linked to what they judge to be best for themselves and their families. Those who migrate to work or study generally plan to return to their country of origin because they know that their migration experience will have a positive effect on their life there after return. However, individuals’ initial migration plans also depend on the situation in their country of origin and on immigration policies. Migrants leaving a country in crisis, such as DR Congo since the 1990s, are less likely to intend to return. Additionally, those who have had difficulty migrating due to restrictive immigration policies often plan to remain in Europe permanently because they know that if they return, it will be difficult for them to migrate again later in case of crisis or reintegration problems.

45The analyses also show that, for all periods combined, the initial intention to return generally influences the probability of actual return, although certain migrants cancel or delay return plans. However, it seems that initial intention to return was no longer a determinant of return for migrants residing in Europe in the 1990s and 2000s. With the deterioration of conditions in Senegal and DR Congo, as well as increasingly restrictive immigration policies, after 1990, the intention to return at the beginning of migration no longer makes actual return more likely. For migrants’ return intention to be realized, then, several conditions must be met: the situation in their country of origin must not compromise their prospects for reintegration, they must have acquired the resources to reintegrate, and the international political context must enable them to anticipate the uncertainty of reintegration by allowing them to circulate more freely between Africa and Europe.

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Bruno Schoumaker and Cris Beauchemin for their comments during all phases of this research, as well as the anonymous reviewers for their suggestions on previous versions of this article. I am also grateful to the Belgian Fund for Scientific Research (F.R.S.-FNRS) and the European Research Council (in the framework of the DEMIG project - ERC Grant Agreement 240940) for their financial support.
Appendices
Appendix A.1

Explanatory variables

Appendix A.1
Completed level of education Distinction between migrants who have completed at least three years of higher education and those who have not. Migration order Distinction between first-time migrants to Europe and those who have previously migrated to Europe. Visit(s) to the country of origin Distinction between migrants who have never made a visit of less than one year to their country of origin for family or work-related reasons and those who have done so. Administrative situation Distinction between migrants who are documented (who hold a visa, residence permit, or other document of this type) or do not require such documents and those with no legal status. Came directly from country of origin Distinction between migrants who lived for at least one year in a country other than their own before arriving in Europe and those who came directly to Europe. Destination Distinction between “traditional” destination countries (France for Senegalese, Belgium for Congolese) and other destination countries. Family situation Distinction between migrants whose family (spouse and children) are in their origin country, their destination country, divided between the two, elsewhere, or who are single and childless. Material situation Distinction between migrants who own real estate or a business in either origin or destination country and those who do not. Work situation Distinction between migrants employed at the level of their qualifications, employed below their level of qualifications, inactive, and students. Household’s subjective wealth status Distinction between individuals living in Europe who reported that their household have more than enough to cover the costs of day-to-day living and those who reported having just enough or not enough.

Explanatory variables

Appendix A.2

Determinants of uncertainty regarding return versus the intention to remain in Europe among Senegalese and Congolese migrants at the time of their arrival in Europe (continuation of the multinomial logistic regression in Table 3; weighted results, expressed as odds ratios)(a)

Appendix A.2
Variables Category Senegal DR Congo Gross effect Net effect Gross effect Net effect Age 18-29 (Ref.) 1 1 1 1 30-44 0.99 1.15 1.05 1.24 45+ 4.14* 2.83 0.61 4.19 Sex Male (Ref.) 1 1 1 1 Female 2.04* 3.08*** 0.39 0.24 Completed level of education Primary or secondary (Ref.) 1 1 1 1 Higher 2.68 2.80*** 0.58 1.01 Reason for migrating Family reunification (Ref.) 1 1 1 1 Improvement of living conditions 0.89 5.49*** 0.75 0.79 Education or work-related 2.13 4.93** 13.67 7.00 Political 2.00* 4.24*** 2.56 2.98 Migration order First (Ref.) 1 1 1 1 Not first 0.69 0.94 1.01 0.70 Administrative situation Documented (Ref.) 1 1 1 1 Undocumented 0.79 1.12 0.48 1.47 Came directly from country of origin Yes (Ref.) 1 1 1 1 No 0.18 0.20 0.21 0.20* Destination Traditional (Ref.) 1 1 1 1 New 0.17*** 0.13*** 0.03*** 0.01*** Family situation Family in the country of origin (Ref.) 1 1 1 1 Family in the destination country 2.28* 2.02 0.89 3.48 Single and childless 1.18 1.13 1.97 2.58 Family in the destination and origin countries 2.98** 2.02 0.97 2.20 Material situation Owns real estate (Ref.) 1 1 1 1 No real estate 0.84 0.89 2.95 2.46 Period of arrival Before 1990 (Ref.) 1 1 1 1 1990 or later 0.46** 0.72 0.26 0.11 Constant 0.08*** 0.73 Number of events 61 44 Number of observations 713 521

Determinants of uncertainty regarding return versus the intention to remain in Europe among Senegalese and Congolese migrants at the time of their arrival in Europe (continuation of the multinomial logistic regression in Table 3; weighted results, expressed as odds ratios)(a)

(a) The estimates of odds ratios greater than 10 or below 0.1 are subject to a high degree of uncertainty.
Significance levels: *** p < 0.01; ** p < 0.05; * p < 0.10.
Source: MAFE-Senegal (2008) and MAFE-Congo (2009) life event history surveys.

Notes

  • [*]
    International Migration Institute, University of Oxford, United Kingdom.
    Correspondence: Marie-Laurence Flahaux, International Migration Institute, Department of International Development, Queen Elizabeth House, University of Oxford, 3 Mansfield Road, Oxford, OX1 3TB, United Kingdom, email: marie-laurence.flahaux@qeh.ox.ac.uk
  • [1]
    For a detailed analysis of the literature, see Flahaux (2013), pp. 107-131.
  • [2]
    Kinshasa is in the west of DR Congo and has seen relatively little of the armed conflict which has devastated more eastern regions.
  • [3]
    For more details on the MAFE project data, see the introductory chapter to this volume.
  • [4]
    In the MAFE surveys, migration is defined as a stay of more than one year in Europe. Stays of less than one year are not included.
  • [5]
    In the Senegalese data, out of 713 migrations, 615 were first migrations, 73 were second migrations, 21 were third migrations, and 4 were fourth migrations. In the Congolese data, out of 521 migrations, 412 were first migrations, 90 were second migrations, 15 were third migrations, and 4 were fourth migrations.
  • [6]
    The effects of these covariables were similar to those in Table 4.

Abstract

English

Using life event history data collected by the MAFE project survey of migrants in Europe and return migrants in their countries of origin, this article aims to analyse, first, the initial return intentions of Senegalese and Congolese migrants to Europe, and second, the realization of those intentions. The results reveal that at the time of their arrival, individuals who migrate to Europe with the objective of acquiring resources for later use in their country of origin plan to return there. However, if the situation in their country of origin seriously deteriorates, as was the case in the Democratic Republic of Congo from the 1990s onward, migrants tend to plan to remain permanently in Europe. Furthermore, the more difficult it is to migrate to Europe, the less likely migrants are to plan to return. Finally, worsening political and economic conditions in the origin country and restrictive immigration policies in host countries discourage migrants who initially plan to return home from following through on those plans.

Keywords

  • intention to return
  • return migration
  • African migration
  • Senegalese migration
  • Congolese migration
  • life event history analysis
  • MAFE
Français

Intention et réalisation de migration de retour au Sénégal et en République Démocratique du Congo

À partir des données biographiques du projet MAFE collectées à la fois auprès de migrants pendant leur séjour en Europe et de migrants de retour dans leur pays d’origine, cet article analyse, d’une part, l’intention initiale de retour des Sénégalais et des Congolais qui ont migré en Europe et, d’autre part, la réalisation de cette intention. Les résultats révèlent qu’au moment de leur arrivée, les individus envisagent de retourner dans leur pays d’origine avec l’objectif d’acquérir des ressources qu’ils pourront valoriser dans leur pays après leur retour. Cependant, si la situation dans le pays d’origine se dégrade fortement, comme c’est le cas en République démocratique du Congo à partir des années 1990, les migrants préfèrent s’établir définitivement en Europe. En outre, plus il est difficile de migrer en Europe et moins les migrants ont l’intention de rentrer. Enfin, la détérioration du contexte politique et économique dans les pays d’origine et les politiques migratoires restrictives des pays d’accueil découragent le retour de migrants qui avaient l’intention de rentrer dans leur pays d’origine au moment de leur arrivée en Europe.

Español

Intención y realización de migración de retorno hacia el Senegal y la República Democrática del Congo

A partir de los datos demográficos del proyecto MAFE recogidos en las respuestas de los migrantes durante su estancia en Europa y de los migrantes de retorno en sus países, este articulo analiza, por un lado, las intenciones iniciales de retorno de los senegaleses y de los congoleños que han inmigrado en Europa et, por otro lado, la realización de esas intenciones. Los resultados muestran que cuando llegan a Europa, los inmigrantes piensan volver a su país con el objetivo de adquirir recursos que podrán valorizar a su regreso. Pero si la situación en el país de origen se degrada fuertemente, como ha sido el caso en la RDC a partir de los años 1990, los inmigrantes se orientan más hacia una instalación definitiva en Europa. Además, cuanto más difícil es entrar en Europa menor es la tendencia de retorno al país de origen. Los resultados sugieren pues que el deterioro del contexto en los países de origen y las políticas migratorias restrictivas desaniman el retorno al país de origen de los inmigrantes que, en el momento de llegar a Europa, tenían sin embargo la intención de volver a su país.

Outline

  1. I - Review of the literature on intentions to return and their realization
  2. II - Background of the study
    1. 1 - Contrasting political and economic developments in Senegal and DR Congo
    2. 2 - More restrictive immigration policies in Europe
    3. 3 - The place of return in Senegalese and Congolese migration
      1. The place of return in Senegalese migration
      2. The place of return in Congolese migration
  4. III - Objectives and research hypotheses
  5. IV - Method
    1. 1 - Data
      1. Initial intention to return and actual return
      2. Explanatory variables of interest
    3. 2 - Analysis methods
    4. 3 - Description of the samples
  7. V - Results
    1. 1 - Migrants’ initial intention to return to their country of origin
    2. 2 - Realization of the initial intention to return
  9. Conclusion

References

References

  • Azoulay Muriel, Quiminal Catherine, 2002, “Reconstruction des rapports de genre en situation migratoire. Femmes réveillées, hommes menacés en milieu soninké”, VEI Enjeux, 128, pp. 87-101.
  • OnlineBarou Jacques, 2001, “La famille à distance : nouvelles stratégies familiales chez les immigrés d’Afrique sahélienne”, Hommes et Migrations, 1232, pp. 16-25.
  • OnlineBaruch Yehuda, Budhwar Pawan S., Khatri Naresh, 2007, “Brain drain: Inclination to stay abroad after studies”, Journal of World Business, 42(1), pp. 99-112.
  • Bazonzi José M., 2010, “Comprendre la mobilité féminine et la dynamique migratoire intra-africaine à partir du courant centrifuge au départ de Kinshasa”, Revue congolaise d’économie, 5(1), pp. 2-19.
  • OnlineBijwaard Govert E., 2007, “Modelling migration dynamics of immigrants: The case of the Netherlands”, IZA Discussion Paper, 2891, 46 p.
  • Bilgili Özge, Siegel Melissa, 2012, “Migrant’s integration, homeland engagement and intentions to return. An analysis based on Afghan, Burundian, Ethiopian and Moroccan migrants in the Netherlands”, paper presented at the workship Return Migration and Transnationalism: Alternatives or Complements, 4-5 September 2012, Peace Research Institute (PRIO), Oslo.
  • Bocquier Philippe, 1996, Insertion et mobilité professionnelles à Dakar, Paris, ORSTOM, Études et thèses, 316 p.
  • Bongo-Pasi Moke Sangol Willy, Tsakala Munikengi Télesphore, 2004, “Réinventer l’université ou le paradoxe du diplôme à l’université de Kinshasa”, in Trefon Théodore (ed.), Ordre et désordre à Kinshasa. Réponses populaires à la faillite de l’État, Tervuren, Musée royal de l’Afrique centrale et L’Harmattan, Cahiers africains, pp. 99-118.
  • Braeckman Colette, 2009, Les nouveaux prédateurs : Politique des puissances en Afrique centrale, Bruxelles, Editions Aden, 394 p.
  • OnlineCarling Jørgen, 2004, “Emigration, return and development in Cape Verde: The impact of closing borders”, Population, Space and Place, 10(2), pp. 113-132.
  • OnlineCarling Jørgen, Hernandez-Carretero Maria, 2011, “Protecting Europe and protecting migrants? Strategies for managing unauthorised migration from Africa”, British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 13(1), pp. 42-58.
  • OnlineCarling Jørgen, Pettersen Silje Vatne, 2014, “Return migration intentions in the integration-transnationalism matrix”, International Migration, 52(6), pp. 13-30.
  • Carling Jørgen, Mortensen Elin B., Wu Jennifer, 2011, A Systematic Bibliography on Return Migration, PRIO Paper, Oslo, PRIO, 287 p.
  • Cassarino Jean-Pierre, 2004, “Theorising return migration: The conceptual approach to return migrants revisited”, International Journal on Multicultural Societies, 6(2), pp. 253-279.
  • Cassarino Jean-Pierre, 2008, “The conditions of modern return migrants – Editorial introduction”, International Journal on Multicultural Societies, 10(2), pp. 95-105.
  • OnlineCastles Stephen, 2006, “Guestworkers in Europe: A resurrection?”, International Migration Review, 40(4), pp. 741-766.
  • OnlineConstant Amélie, Massey Douglas S., 2002, “Return migration by German guestworkers: Neoclassical versus new economic theories”, International Migration, 40(4), pp. 5-38.
  • OnlineCornelius Wayne A., 2001, “Death at the border: Efficacy and unintended consequences of US immigration control policy”, Population and Development Review, 27(4), pp. 661-685.
  • OnlineDe Haas Hein, Fokkema Tineke, 2010, “Intra-household conflicts in migration decisionmaking: Return and pendulum migration in Morocco”, Population and Development Review, 36(3), pp. 541-561.
  • OnlineDe Haas Hein, Fokkema Tineke, 2011, “The effects of integration and transnational ties on international return migration intentions”, Demographic Research, 25(24), pp. 755-782.
  • De Schutter Sam, 2011, “De ‘Anciens de Belgique’ in de Democratische Republiek Congo. Een historisch onderzoek naar de impact van Belgische studies in de Congolese samenleving”, Master’s dissertation, Ghent, Ghent University, 138 p.
  • Donovon Valentin, 1988, “Réalités françaises et conventions franco-africaines de circulation des personnes”, Peuples noirs peuples africains, 59(62), pp. 149-164.
  • Dumont Gérard-François, Kante Seydou, 2009, “Le Sénégal : une géopolitique exceptionnelle en Afrique”, Géostratégiques, 10(25), pp. 107-133.
  • Edin Per-Anders, Lalonde Robert J., Aslund Olof, 2000, “Emigration of immigrants and measures of immigrant assimilation: Evidence from Sweden”, Swedish Economic Policy Review, 7, pp. 163-204.
  • OnlineEl Hariri Saâdia, 2003, “Les femmes et le retour au pays d’origine”, Hommes et migra tions, 1242, pp. 43-52.
  • OnlineFinotelli Claudia, Sciortino Giuseppe, 2009, “The importance of being Southern: The making of policies of immigration control in Italy”, European Journal of Migration and Law, 11(2), pp. 119-138.
  • Flahaux Marie-Laurence, 2013, Retourner au Sénégal et en RD Congo. Choix et contraintes au cœur des trajectoires de vie des migrants, Louvain-la-Neuve, Presses universitaires de Louvain, 336 p.
  • Geert Tiri, 2011, Visa Policy as a Migration Channel in Europe, Brussels, European Migration Network, Belgian National Contact Point, 99 p.
  • Gnisci Donata, 2008, West African Mobility and Migration Policies of OECD Countries, Paris, OECD, Sahel and West Africa Club, 143 p.
  • OnlineGuilmoto Christophe Z., Sandron Frédéric, 2000, “The dynamics of migration networks in developing countries”, Population, An English Selection, 13(2), pp. 135-164.
  • Guiraudon Virginie, 2000, Les politiques d’immigration en Europe : Allemagne, France, Pays-Bas, Paris, L’Harmattan, 277 p.
  • OnlineHazen Helen D., Alberts Heike C., 2006, “Visitors or immigrants? International students in the United States”, Population, Space and Place, 12(3), pp. 201-216.
  • Hernandez-Carretero Maria, 2012, “Morals and belonging in Senegalese transnational dynamics and trajectories”, paper presented at the workship Return Migration and Transnationalism: Alternatives or Complements, 4-5 September 2012, Oslo, Peace Research Institute (PRIO), 15 p.
  • Hesselbein Gabi, 2007, “The rise and decline of the Congolese State. An analytical narrative of state-making”, London School of Economics, Working Paper of the Crisis States Research Centre, 21 p.
  • OnlineKagne Bonaventure, Martiniello Marco, 2001, “L’immigration subsaharienne en Belgique”, Courrier hebdomadaire du CRISP, 1721(16), pp. 5-49.
  • Mangalu José A., 2011, Migrations internationales, transfert des migrants et conditions de vie des ménages d’origine. Cas de la ville de Kinshasa, Louvain-la-Neuve, Presses universitaires de Louvain, 310 p.
  • Marot Nadia, 1995, “L’évolution des accords franco-africains”, Plein droit, 29-30, pp. 96-99.
  • OnlineMassey Douglas S., Espinosa Kristin, 1997, “What’s driving Mexico-U.S. migration? A theoretical, empirical, and policy analysis”, American Journal of Sociology, 102(4), pp. 939-999.
  • Massey Douglas S., Durand Jorge, Malone Nolan J., 2002, Beyond Smoke and Mirrors: Mexican Immigration in an Era of Economic Integration New York, Russell Sage Foundation, 197 p.
  • Massey Douglas S., Alarcon Rafael, Durand Jorge, Gonzalez Humberto, 1987, Return to Aztlan - The Social Process of International Migration from Western Mexico, Berkeley, University of California Press, Studies in Demography, 332 p.
  • OnlineMoran-Taylor Michelle, Menjivar Cecilia, 2005, “Unpacking longings to return: Guatemalans and Salvadorans in Phoenix, Arizona”, International Migration, 43(4), pp. 91-121.
  • Peemans Jean-Philippe, 1998, Le Congo-Zaïre au gré du XXe siècle. État, économie, société 1880-1990, Paris, L’Harmattan, 279 p.
  • OnlineReyes Belinda, 2004, “Changes in trip duration for Mexican immigrants to the United States”, Population Research and Policy Review, 23(3), pp. 235-257.
  • Robin Nelly, Lalou Richard, Ndiaye Mamadou, 2000, Facteurs d’attraction et de répulsion à l’origine des flux migratoires internationaux : rapport national Sénégal, Dakar, Eurostat, 174 p.
  • Sayad Abdelmalek, 1998, “Le retour, élément constitutif de la condition de l’immigré”, Migrations société, 10(57), pp. 9-45.
  • Schoonvaere Quentin, 2010, Étude de la migration congolaise et de son impact sur la présence congolaise en Belgique. Analyse des principales données démographiques, Bruxelles, Centre pour l’égalité des chances et la lutte contre le racisme, 87 p.
  • OnlineSinatti Giulia, 2011, “‘Mobile transmigrants’ or ‘unsettled returnees’? Myth of return and permanent resettlement among Senegalese migrants”, Population, Space and Place, 17(2), pp. 153-166.
  • Stark Oded, Bloom David, 1985, “The new economics of labor migration”, The American Economic Review, 75(2), pp. 173-178.
  • Sumata Claude, Trefon Théodore, Cogels Serge, 2004, “Images et usages de l’argent de la diaspora congolaise : les transferts comme vecteur d’entretien du quotidien à Kinshasa”, in Trefon Théodore (ed.), Ordre et désordre à Kinshasa. Réponses populaires à la faillite de l’État, Tervuren, Musée royal de l’Afrique centrale et L’Harmattan, Cahiers Africains, pp. 134-154.
  • OnlineThioub Ibrahima, Diop Momar-Coumba, Boone Catherine, 1998, “Economic liberalization in Senegal: Shifting politics of indigenous business interests”, African Studies Review, 41(2), pp. 63-89.
  • Timera Mahamed, 1996, Les Soninké en France, Paris, Karthala, 250 p.
  • Todaro Michael P., 1969, “A model of labor migration and urban unemployment in less developed countries”, American Economic Review, 59(1), pp. 138-148.

Authors

Marie-Laurence Flahaux [*]
  • [*]
    International Migration Institute, University of Oxford, United Kingdom.
    Correspondence: Marie-Laurence Flahaux, International Migration Institute, Department of International Development, Queen Elizabeth House, University of Oxford, 3 Mansfield Road, Oxford, OX1 3TB, United Kingdom, email: marie-laurence.flahaux@qeh.ox.ac.uk
Translated by
Paul Reeve
Latest publication on cairn or another partner portal
Abstract Full-textfile_download Download
Latest publication on cairn or another partner portal
Full-textfile_download Download
Uploaded on Cairn-int.info on 02/07/2015
Cite
Distribution électronique Cairn.info pour I.N.E.D © I.N.E.D. Tous droits réservés pour tous pays. Il est interdit, sauf accord préalable et écrit de l’éditeur, de reproduire (notamment par photocopie) partiellement ou totalement le présent article, de le stocker dans une banque de données ou de le communiquer au public sous quelque forme et de quelque manière que ce soit.
keyboard_arrow_up
Chargement
Loading... Please wait