Return migration: a failure or success? Evidence from Ghanaian returnees

This blog was written by Karen Salazar Ruiz, a MSc Development Economics student at the University of Sussex and a Migrating out of Poverty Research Assistant. (salazarruizkaren@gmail.com)

Migration is an important part of household livelihoods, often undertaken to improve welfare, or to provide a form of insurance for household members at origin, and sometimes under duress.

Migration is often viewed as a one-way movement, from origin to destination, yet in reality, migration movements are not so linear, often involving movements onwards to other destinations, and also movements back to origin. Therefore, migration is better viewed as a dynamic phenomenon.

The OECD (2013) estimates that on average, about two international migrants in five will leave the host country within five years of their arrival. This is referred as return migration, which can be explained as “the act or process of going back or being taken back to the point of departure” (IOM, 2019). Return migration can be voluntary or forced. The former can be assisted or independent, while the latter involves force, compulsion or coercion.

The decision to migrate is influenced by the opportunity to improve economic, social or political conditions, which is why it is commonly believed that returning to the place of origin represents the case of a failed migration.

However, return migration may be better viewed as the next stage after migrants have achieved their target savings, accumulated assets and knowledge to invest and use in their home countries. These and many other reasons justify the return and support the idea that it cannot always be classified as unsuccessful.

Return migrants bring with them knowledge, expertise and skills that may be beneficial for the economic and social development of the country. Wahba (2015) studied return migration and its multiple potential gains. Living abroad provides migrants with the temporary opportunity to increase their income and savings, and acquire new skill sets to use later in their home country, where they will have higher purchasing power and better rewarded jobs.

In addition, return migrants are more likely to start a business than non-migrants, as the human capital, savings and experience overseas help increase their entrepreneurship (Wahba and Zenou, 2012).

In the case of Ghana, the migration dynamic is based on economic, social, political and environmental factors, such as poverty, landlessness and economic dislocations (Awumbila et al., 2008). The International Organisation for Migration has been an important driver of migrant resettlement and since 2006, they have assisted approximately 2,587 Ghanaian migrants to re-enter and reintegrate to the community.

There is a data gap for returnees due to the lack of definitions and of indicators. The Migrating out of Poverty household surveys include questions on return migrants in three African countries, including Ghana. Returned migrants are defined as “an individual who has been away for at least 3 months over the past 10 years, and who has lived in his/her native place for the last 12 consecutive months”.

The 2018 Ghana survey covers a sample of 1,429 households containing 9,889 individuals in the regions of Brong Ahafo, Northern Region, Upper West, Upper East, and Volta, from which 1,672 are current migrants and the rest are resident members. Given this definition, 308 returned individuals were identified. The reasons these individuals gave for return are the following:

Figure 1. Reasons to return 

Most of the migrants have returned from migration journeys made within the country: 82% of return migrants had been internal migrants. Given that 85% of current migrants (people still away from the household) are internal migrants; it does not appear that the incidence of return is much different between internal and international migrants. Libya, Côte d’Ivoire, Nigeria and Togo were the principal destinations of now returned migrants.

We do not see any evidence that men are more likely to return than women, but we do notice that returnees are generally older, more likely to be married and have children than migrants who are still away. On average, the returned migrants had been away home for 46 months. Around a quarter had acquired educational or work qualifications while being away and 40% had sent money back to their families at their place of origin in the year before they came home.

Regarding their overall experience away from home, 66% ranked it as positive, while the rest were exposed to negative situations. The risks that migrants face are not only financial as they encountered physical injuries, exposure to hazardous chemicals, unhygienic conditions, discrimination and harassment by city authorities. 

Although there are multiple channels through which return migration can be assessed, the Ghana survey highlights the fact that these individuals were able to earn money, support their household and accumulate human capital.

In the context of Ghana, it can be appreciated that the main reasons for return are social not economic. However, this does not imply that return migration does not contribute to economic development, as the data suggests that returnees are successful in accumulating savings and human capital when being away from home. Given that 72% of the returnees were employed at their destination, compared to the 15% of current migrants who report having a job at destination, it can be suggested that return migration should not be seen only as a failed attempt at migration but part of the complex way people and their families seek to improve their situation.

References 

• Awumbila A., Manuh T., Quartey P, Tagoe C.,Bosiakoh T. (2008). Migration Country Paper (Ghana). Centre for Migration Studies. Migration Studies. University of Ghana. African Perspectives on Human Mobility Programme
• International Organisation of Migration <https://www.iom.int/countries/ghana>
• Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. International migration database 2013. 
• Wahba, J. (2015). Who benefits from return migration to developing countries?. IZA World of Labor: 123 doi: 10.15185/izawol.123
• Wahba, J., Zenou, Y. (2012). Out of sight, out of mind: Migration, entrepreneurship and social capital. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 2012, vol. 42, issue 5, 890-903