University of Amsterdam
Graduate School of Social Sciences
MSc Political Science and International Relations
Migration against the flow
An analysis of tertiary educated migrants who returned to Moldova
Name Jean-Silviu Dupouy Student number 11262559 Supervisor Dr. Seiki Tanaka Second reader Dr. Jeroen Doomernik Date 23 June 2017 Word count 14,4453
Abstract
This study analysed high skilled migrants who returned to Moldova, and particularly investigating why they returned. The literature on return has seldom focused solely on the highly educated group, and even less so in attempting to explaining the phenomenon. To answer the research question, an argument was developed utilising two theories – structuralism and human capital accumulation. The proposed argument suggests that return is planned before starting the process of migration and is part of the individual’s career goals, in which a learning component is necessary. The mechanism is such that the learning component is acquired most efficiently outside of the state, thus triggering the migration process and eventual return. Utilising a sample of 14 returnees and two Moldovan migrants, the mechanism and its factors were investigated through a series of interviews. The results support the migration mechanism to a great extent, but do not explain return as aptly. It is found that factors such as having patriotic elements tied to the home state and the existence of high-ranking positions in the home country do explain skilled return to a significant extent.
Keywords: return migration, high skilled, structuralism, human capital accumulation theory
Table of contents
1. Introduction 4 2. Literature review 8 3. Theoretical framework 13 3.1 Structuralism 14 3.2 Human capital accumulation theory 16 3.3 Concepts and operationalisation 18 3.3.1 Patriotism 3.3.2 Long-term optimism 3.3.3 Efficiency and skill 3.3.4 Transferring skills to the home country 4. Methods 21 4.1 Research design 21 4.2 Data and sample 22 4.3 Interview roadmap of questions 25 4.4 Analysis 26 5. Results 27 5.1 Structural theory expectations and empirical evidence 27 5.1.1 Patriotism, long-term optimism, and planned return 5.2 Human capital accumulation theory expectations and empirical evidence 29 5.2.1 Field of study specific to home country 5.2.2 Mismatch of skills 5.2.3 High-ranking positions in the home country 5.3 Unexpected results 37 5.4 Unifying theory 37 6. Discussion 39 6.1 Limitations and improvements 39 6.2 Policy and practical implications 39 6.3 Theoretical implications 41 6.4 Future research 41 7. Conclusion 43 8. References 44 9. Appendix 461. Introduction
International migratory trends have evolved constantly over the years, triggered, amongst others, by the formation of new states, the loosening of borders and the existence of large wage differences. The central idea of migration is that the outcome would lead to an improvement such as safety, financial stability, or family reunification. Within the study of economic migration, the majority of the focus has been oriented towards the effects of immigration on the hosting society. However, since the 1970s, growing attention has been directed at return migration, particularly with Cerase (1974), where he examines pre-migration and return migration of Italians in the US.
In light of standard of living, wage, and working condition discrepancies between states, the decision to return represents a counter flow; a rather anomalous behaviour, deviating from the expectation of migration as a way to improve one’s life conditions. The official number on returning migrants is imprecise and varies from country to country. The estimates vary from 5% to 50% (De Zwager & Sintov 2014, Martin & Radu 2012, Gmelch 1980). This select portion of the migrants is a minority group, who permanently move back to their country of origin. Particularly in the context of developing-developed migration, it generally entails a step-back: an aggravation in one’s standard of living, wages, or other benefits that come with the host state.
The majority of the literature on return migration aggregates the examined population regardless of their educational attainment. The fact is that individuals holding university qualifications are generally employed in starkly different types of work than those who do not. This is an indication that the mechanism of migration, encompassing goals and behaviours, will be different for the high-skilled group from the low-skilled group. This study focuses only on the return experience of those who hold tertiary education, as little is known about within-variation of the group. It has been observed that low and highly educated individuals have the highest rates of return, at 4.3% and 5%, whereas those in between the spectrum are the least predominant group, at 1.6% (Dustman et al. 2011). Desegregating the return group by educational attainment is one of the available steps in better understanding the behaviour of a more select, but substantial group. A more comprehensive understanding of return is crucial for the implementation of effective policies in emigration countries. The emigration of the highly educated, known in the literature as the brain drain, is arguably depriving the home state of skilled workforce. The opposite, a return, would entail a consequent brain gain. Policies aimed at fostering return would thus have a considerable potential in boosting the state’s economy, industries and general morale.
To this end, I am examining the returnees of the Republic of Moldova (hereafter, Moldova). The state was formed in 1991, upon the collapse of the Soviet Union. The transition to a market-based economy has been marked with high unemployment, institutional failure, and plummeting incomes, leading to large-scale emigration (Makaryan 2015). The current situation is that the largest group of emigrants is aged 25-29, with all sources of data confirming that those who leave are in “best working age” (IOM 2012). The advantage of carrying out this study in Moldova is that its findings can be applied with relative ease to countries that are found in a similar position with regards to migration within the EU, particularly other post-Soviet states.
A net migrant-exporting country, Moldova has one of rates of population decline. According to the two most recent population censuses, the population declined by 11.4%, from 3.383 million citizens in 2004 to 2.998 million in 2014 (BNS1). This is due to a combination of factors, notably, a greater rate of emigration than immigration, and a greater rate of death than birth (World Bank 2016). With these two rates continuing, the UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs estimates a population decline rate of more than 15% by 2050 (UN DESA 2015).
Currently, migratory linkages represent a lifeline to Moldova’s economy, with 26% of its GDP supported by remittances (World Bank 2016). In terms of remittances as part of GDP, Moldova is among the world’s largest recipients, estimated at 26%, only behind Tajikistan (42%), Kyrgyz Republic (30%), Nepal (29%) and Tonga (28%) (World Bank 2016). The process of migration is therefore at the core of the economy, politics and society of Moldova.
As a percentage of the nation’s population, Moldova’s rate of emigration of the tertiary educated is among the top 30 in the world, estimated at 19.0% (World Bank 2016). Among European states, Moldova is in 5th position, behind Malta (36.5%), Albania (31.3%), Luxembourg (22.4%), Romania (20.6%), Ireland (20.3%) and Croatia (19.8%). In the year 2013 alone, 370.000 Moldovan citizens were engaged in long-term migration, for work or studies, while 44.000 citizens returned (De Zwager & Sintov 2014). It is noted that there is a significant tendency for migrant graduates to remain abroad after completing their studies (Baruch et al. 2007), given that a sizeable number of individuals see “a western degree as a ticket to employment in the more industrialized countries” (Iredale 2001). While the exact numbers are highly unreliable, due to a lack of systematic accounting of migratory flows, it still points out to the existence of return channels that have the potential to be opened more.
This has led to the following research question of this study: Why do highly educated migrants decide to return to Moldova after migrating to a developed state?
Understanding the decision to return would mean a more comprehensive approach to alleviating the brain drain by making sure the state provides adequate conditions for the highly skilled to remain and contribute to their home country. By focusing only on the tertiary educated migrants and returnees, one can better differentiate long-term, migration from short-term, repeated, low-skilled migration. It is clear that the highly educated are selected for when submitting applications, leading to a greater freedom of movement where their skills can be utilized appropriately. It is less clear why some return, in spite of the benefits available in a developed country. The focus of this study is on long-term migrants, defined here as taking part in an experience that lasts at least one year abroad. This is done in order to differentiate between seasonal or circular migration, where parts of the high skilled abroad regularly are underemployed. At last, the return of the tertiary educated migrants means a brain gain, an influx of professionals that are able to slowly change the landscape of Moldova. These insights would answer my research question of why highly skilled migrants decide to return to their transitioning home country after studying or working in a developed country.
This study contributes to the literature on migration by directly examining variation within the high skilled returnees to Moldova. Previous studies have the tendency to examine return of all migrants rather than focusing on a specific segment. By focusing solely on the high skilled returnees, the study can gather more precise information on a specific, essential group of the population. Furthermore, I contribute to the literature by examining return behaviour post-factum, taking the perspective of the home country. Generally, the previous studies focus on return intentions, taking the perspective of the host country. This study thus looks at the process from a different perspective.
To answer the research question, I develop an argument that combines the theories of structuralism and human capital accumulation. This is done in light of the de Haas et al. (2015) observations, that no single theory can explain the process of return. By combining the two theories, I aim to see how well they can explain the return of the high skilled. The argument put forward examines the role of patriotic and long-term optimistic elements in shaping a pre-migration return plan, in which the person of concern accumulates and applies human capital in the most efficient way.
To examine return, this study utilises a research design based on semi-structured interviews. This method is preferred due to the explorative nature of this study. Interviewing leads to a greater flexibility in the respondents’ expression, allowing more types of responses to be recorded rather than a standard survey, and without the subject being influenced by the presented responses.
The findings indicate rather strong support for the mechanism relating skill acquisition and migration, as part of the human capital accumulation theory. There is relatively strong evidence for structuralism too, in the form of planned return and patriotic elements. The study, however, remains ambiguous on the timing in which factors take effect on the subject.
In the following section, Literature Review, the research will present the evolution of research on return migration, and the past efforts in examining high skilled return. The mechanism of the two theories used to answer the research question will be described in detail in the Theoretical Framework section, at the end of which four hypotheses will be derived. In the Methods section, the research design is expanded on, outlining the selection of the sample of interviewees, a roadmap of the interview questions, and how their responses will be analysed. In the Results section, the responses are analysed in conjuncture with the derived hypotheses. The penultimate section, Discussion, offers a critical look on how the study was carried out, offering suggestions for improvement. It also provides with practical and policy implications and what future studies could potentially examine. Finally, the Conclusion section offers a summary of the research.
2. Literature review
The literature body on interstate migration is vast and continuously growing, accounting for the behaviour of nearly 3.3% of the world population, or 244 million individuals (UNFPA 2017). Correspondingly, the majority of the focus has been oriented towards the effects of economic immigration on the hosting society, given its intense politicisation. However, since the 1970s, growing attention has been directed at return migration, particularly initiated with Cerase (1974), where he examines pre-migration and return migration of Italians in the US. This new focus challenged the idea that migration is a single, one-time event that ends with the person living in the host country. Thus, the research body on return represents a growing minority of efforts in examining the process of migration.
The literature on return migration examine key components of the process, such as how long they stay abroad before returning; what sort of activities they engage in after return; and what occurs with their wages after return in comparison to the non-migrants. These questions are related to each other in the grand scheme of making the decision to return, finally contributing in determining why they return.
The time spent in the host country varies along the income spectrum. In a study in the Netherlands, it was found that both the lowest and highest income groups have the highest levels of re-emigration, with those who remain longer in the host country being overly represented by the middle-income group (Bijwaard & Wahba 2014). They conclude that there are two competing elements when it comes to income earned abroad – the higher wages acts as a motivating factor for remaining, whereas the benefits from staying abroad decrease over time, reducing the marginal utility of migration. It is established that the correlation between education and wages is positively correlated for the non-migrants (Blaug 1972), and to a certain extent, so will be the case for migrants, particularly when they migrate to a developed state, where there is a shortage for the high-skilled, and legal protections are set in place.
Part of the literature has examined the forms of employment and activities the returnees engage in upon return. There exist several tendencies for engagement in entrepreneurial work upon return, particularly of those who have higher skills, as evidenced in a study in Egypt (McCormick & Wahba 2001), and in a study of Albanian returnees (Piracha 2009). In the context of Moldova, however, the results are less clear-cut. It is found that the better-educated returnees are less likely to seek formal employment, with the authors citing the overbearing tax code that
It is highly likely that most returnees will be giving up a comparably higher wage when deciding to return home (Gmelch 1980). However, the literature points out that the wages of returnees end up being higher than non-migrants, particularly when their experience abroad has involved the learning of new skills (Co et al. 2000), ranging between 10% and 45% for Central and Eastern Europe returnees (Martin & Radu 2012). This aspect of wage premiums upon return has implications on the understanding of return behaviour, where their economic activity shifts to a middle-ground position between the high wages abroad and the low wages at home.
Finally, the question of why people return has seen numerous attempts at being explained, through theories and empirical evidence. Cerase (1974) laid down the groundwork with his pioneering study, identifying several tendencies for why people returned, by utilising interview data of Italian returnees from the US. The first one, identified as the return of conservatism, the migrants hope to attain a better life upon return by accumulating wealth abroad. The second one,
return of innovation, the migrant returns with newly learned skills and aims to pursue change in
their home country. The third one, return of retirement, which concerns those who are in their latter stages in life, wanting to spend the remaining years in the comfort of their home country. Finally, the last type is the return of failure, where the migrant has led an unsuccessful experience in the host state, both in the labour and social context. This typology has helped develop the subsequent theories that attempt to explain why people return.
The typologies above have led to the creation of competing theories, usefully compiled by Cassarino (2004). For economic migration, the Neoclassical Economics (NE) and New Economics of Labour Migration (NELM) compete in their interpretation of return. NE interprets return as a “failure,” where the migrant is unable to pursue their activities in the host society, generally due to a lack of information, leading to an underestimation of migration costs or labour competition. NELM, on the other side, interprets return as a “success,” where the migrant accomplishes their pre-emigration goals of accumulating a certain level of assets - material or otherwise – and consequently return home. However, de Haas et al. (2015) observe that both NE and NELM theories have rather mixed value for understanding return, suggesting that there is more explanatory value when utilising both theories complementarily. Thus, the binary paradigm that “winners” settle, “losers” return is currently being broken down through empirical research.
The theories of Structuralism, and Transnationalism share significant results, both pointing out attachment to home and household as a motivation for return (Cassarino 2004). The
structural approach emphasises the role of the origin country as serving the context to which one can understand whether the migrant’s experience was a success or failure. In contrast to NELM and NE, this approach emphasises the origin country as the leading context of migration and return, rather than focusing on the host state.
The strand of theory that touches upon educational attainment’s role in migration is derived through the modelling of human capital accumulation, the most notable work done by Dustman et al. (2011). Their framework is based on the idea that individuals migrate to states where they can gather skills more efficiently. Since not all skills are applicable in their home country, only some will be able to apply their improved skills upon return.
One of the main criticisms of the aforementioned studies on general return migration is that they present several leading behavioural mechanisms to explain return, “rather than researching the individual and contextual factors which determine return” (de Haas et al. 2015). The general literature indicates important push-pull factors of the host and home countries respectively. Amongst the push factors are noted elements such as an economic recession, unemployment within a single industry, discontentment with host country (Gmelch 1980), and socio-cultural degradation, such as the rise of nationalism in host country (Filimonau and Mika 2017). It’s important to note that these factors will affect the migrant differently depending on the skillsets possessed and which consequent industry they’re positioned in. For example, a high-skilled professional may be more impervious to economic changes within the host state, especially when concerned with the growing anti-immigrant stance against the low-skilled, as exemplified with the large return of low-skilled Polish migrants from the UK in the past year.
The pull factors are primarily linked with family ties, such as needing to return due to family circumstances – ailing and elderly parents, inability to bear the psychological costs of separation from close friends and familiar environment, especially within strong family ties and nostalgia for family (Gmelch 1980, Filimonau & Mika 2017). Having a spouse in the home country has also a significantly accelerating impact on return migration (Constant & Massey 2002). Non-social elements of the pull factors are characterized by improvements or perception of improvements in the economy of the host country, living and work conditions (Filimonau & Mika 2017, Song 1997). Lower costs of living in home country are accentuated too. Finally, government-led incentive programs and reintegration campaigns are also noted factors (Filimonau & Mika 2017).
The study of return within the European context has been covering in detail the research on guestworkers in Germany, coming from countries such as former Yugoslavia and Turkey and the portion of population that eventually returned (Constant & Massey 2002). Other studies have looked at the migration and return flows after the enlargement of the EU, particularly the 2004 one that saw a significant number of Central and Eastern European (CEE) countries, such as Poland, Hungary and Romania, joining in (Karolak 2016, Martin & Radu 2012).
Overall, the literature on why people return is still relatively slim. For a number of reasons, however, they fail to consider variation within the high skilled. First of all, there have been rather few cases of return migration that contained predominant groups of high skilled individuals. They have occurred in select states, such as CEE states, China, India and South Korea, in the presence of large institutional efforts to attract the skilled emigrants (Gaillard et al. 2015, Klagge & Klein-Hitpaß 2010, Song 2007) The scarcity of these large-scale events is thus poorly evidenced. Without enough information circulating about high skilled returnees, there has not been enough attention to analysing the process. Another reason would be the serious lack of reliable data. Few states keep a detailed and rigorous collection of data on human movement, concentrated more in the group of developed states. The data on cross-border migration, particularly if measured from the perspective of the industrializing country, will most likely be severely incomplete. Another issue on examining the return of the high skilled is their increased levels of freedom of movement, given that they are more likely to be selected for when applying for work. This leads to a portion of migrants moving to a third country in the process. This additional complication puts a potential researcher into pressure in finding accurate, representative data. And finally, the return process is relatively new and is subject to change over time, as the origin states close the development gap and subsequently improve the standard of living. It should be expected that more studies would be carried out as the process becomes increasingly common.
The main contribution of this study to the literature on migration is through the examination of variation within the highly skilled returnees to Moldova. No other study has been carried out on the topic of return for the country-specific context of Moldova. The study helps to better understand the demographic behaviour of the recently formed state, particularly where the return is carried out without the presence of a large flow of return or large institutional effort for repatriation. This context leads to operating within an environment that is not influenced in significant parts by the movement of others. The findings will thus indicate factors that are directly influencing return at the individual level.
A final form of contribution to the literature is through the argument that will be proposed in the next section, which adds structuralism to the human capital accumulation theory to attempt at answering the research question. The pairing of the two theories offers an unprecedented take at understanding return. More specifically, the structural element of taking into account the origin-state’s institutions and conditions, is rather overlooked within the literature.
3. Theoretical framework
This section will present the core argument for why the highly skilled migrants return. This will be followed by a more detailed inspection of the mechanisms of the two main theories – human capital accumulation theory and structuralism - that shape the argument for return. The observable implications and factors will then be identified.
The fact remains that some individuals are compelled, or required to return, based on the program they have been enrolled in or due to visa restrictions. The proposed argument, however, is to be emphasised on voluntary return, rather than imposed return. The argument I propose does not fit with the core strands of theory, but rather, combines key elements from several in order to provide a potentially more detailed explanation for high skilled return. This study thus aims to formulate a separate theoretic strand.
Overall, most migrants will have familial and home ties pulling them home. Unless it is a serious matter, such as an ailing relative, this factor is not powerful enough by itself to motivate migrants to return. However, most returnees do express the value of returning to their family and home as part of their reasoning for return. Thus, I propose that two more influencing factors have to be considered.
First, the returnees’ motivations are to be understood within the origin-country context, as per the structural approach (Cassarino 2004). This context forms their desire to migrate and the conditions under which they return. I argue that the majority of returnees have formulated the idea of return prior to emigrating. This is due to them having a stronger sense of patriotism, coupled with a heightened optimistic view of the long-term development of their home state. This optimism is in high contrast to the general pessimism within the country – the latest five public opinion polls between April 2015 and April 2017 have shown strong discontentment with the way things are going in the country, at an average rate of 79% (BOP2 2017). This sense of patriotic optimism thus drives the migrants to accept the short-term challenges of reintegration and under-developed institutions for the long-term benefit of taking part in the development of the state they identify with the most.
Second, the application of the theory of human capital accumulation on migration further supports the return mechanism. All forms of employment and especially studies abroad provide
the immigrant with certain skills, be it soft – such as speaking a language more fluently or communicating more clearly, or hard – such as technical, methodical knowledge. The accumulated skills abroad will, in the majority of cases, be best applied in the host state, due to the institutions and industries present working within the same sphere of mentality and network. A minority, however, will see their acquired skills better utilised - or matched - back in their home country. This is particularly the case where the skill earned abroad is, to a great extent, transferrable to the home country. For example, following a postgraduate course that addresses a specific issue, such as environmental engineering, can aid the person of concern to solve the puzzle in their home country. Another example would be a person employed in an IT company, where the learning experience can be readily applied to the home country. In both cases, the returnee uses the value derived from migration experience in order to gather knowledge that can then be applied to the context of the home country.
3.1 Structuralism
The core principle of structuralism is that the decision to return is to be framed within the social and institutional factors in the home country, not relying solely the migrant’s experience abroad (Cassarino 2004). I deem this home-country contextual element to have crucial explanatory value in understanding return, which has been overlooked when only using the host-country one. The emphasis is thus on the pull-factors affecting the migrants abroad, a rather useful addition of analysis to the lacking literature from this perspective.
When emphasising the source-migration country context, one can take a different view on why people leave the state - putting into focus what is lacking for the well being and development of the person in question. This perspective has the quality of understanding migration for how it affects the home country in the long-term.
Another concern within structural migration theory is that of time spent abroad. King (1986) expresses that for a migrant to have a clear impact on the threads of their home society, they have to spend a considerable amount of time abroad, gathering enough experience. While the optimal amount of time needed is up for debate, a minimum of a year is a commonly used threshold. When combined with tertiary educated migrants, who are more likely to engage in either pursuing further studies or be employed where there are opportunities to learn on-the-job, a year would thus represent a considerable experience.
The structural theory implies that “returnees have a limited innovative influence in their origin societies,” however, I argue that the case is different when looking solely at the highly skilled. While not all skilled migrants will be successful in conducting change in their home country, I reason that they are de facto more likely to promote change, due to their previous activities and resources.
The outcome of the application of this theory on the central question of this study is return. The explanatory variable, however, is the loose combination of a patriotic and optimistic mind-set that exists prior and during the period of migration. These two factors are interrelated, as a strong sense of patriotism connotes an intensified sense of optimism for the long-term nature of the state. Patriotism on its own, just like familial ties, is generally not able on its own to generate return, and it affects the skilled and generally unskilled alike. The optimism factor, however, acts as a multiplier effect in influencing return. That is particularly the case for the high skilled, who may have a more positive outlook on being able to bring about change, by utilising their experience and knowledge. These variables are rather subjective, for the topic of return is often dependent on the perceptions of the person, such as where they see themselves standing in the hosting or home society, what kind of priorities they set themselves, and what they value most.
The operationalisation of patriotism is done through inquiring the participating interviewee about their relationship with the home country; their sense of responsibility towards the wellbeing of the state, and their perceptions on what advantages they derive from living in their home country once again. To operationalise optimism, questions are posed regarding their perception on how impactful their efforts are, while particularly paying attention at how it evolves prior to, during and after the migration period.
The mechanism is rather simple. The person of interest grows in the state they identify with for a number of years, establishing a symbolic, patriotic connection with the area. In concomitant with patriotism, they identify key issues in the home country that, once solved, would bring the state to a higher degree of efficiency and standard of living. Thus, due to a number of reasons, they choose to migrate in order to fulfil a specific goal that is related, in the long-term, with their home country. They then create a migration plan that leaves the door open for considering return. Upon return, the aim is to apply the learned skills in order to address the identified issues previous to migration.
In light of the above, the following hypothesis is formulated.
Hypothesis 1: “A higher sense of patriotism and long-term optimism will lead the highly skilled to create and carry out a plan for return prior to the period of migration”
3.2 Human capital accumulation theory
The second part of the argument is the application of human capital accumulation theory, a mechanism though which one understands the process of migration and return through the relationship between skill acquisition, its application and location. It answers the question of why people migrate to a certain place, particularly when there is a case of learning – on the job or through educational institutions. At its core, it is based on efficiency – where a skill can be learned at the lowest cost, and where it can be applied to earn the greatest reward (Dustmann et al. 2011). To address the question on why most people choose not to return once they are engaged in long-term migration, Dustman & Weiss (2007) indicate that “those who remain in the host country are those who have more skills that are usable there.” This statement supports the idea that – voluntary or not – some level of skill mismatch exists between certain migrants and their host country. The mismatch can thus be solved through return, where the skills may be applied more effectively. In the context of cross-border migration, the theory has significant explanatory value in analysing student and skilled labour migration.
The case of student migration is increasingly prevalent and consequential in the modern context, with the increasing internationalisation of tertiary educational institutions (Gaillard et al. 2015, Iredale 2001). It is known that the educational institutions in developed states are closely related to the state’s industries (Etzkowitz & Leydesdorff 1995). It should be repeated, too, that migrating students have the tendency to remain in the host country (Baruch et al. 2007) Despite the tuition costs being much higher than in the home state, the rewards of labour market employment within the same host country are enough to cover for the costs. Thus, the employment offers and their corresponding wages will benefit mostly those who had previously pursued their academic experience in the same state. However, not all courses taught match the industries active in the host country, leading to graduates moving to a third country or return. Some courses, particularly specialised postgraduate ones, tend to tackle a specific issue. Due to these narrower fields, they may be more in demand in some states than others. I argue that some higher education courses will stand to fit and be better rewarded in the home countries of the migrants, leading them to return and apply their newly acquired skills.
In the case of labour migration, the process of learning-on-the-job occurs. Here, the question is more centred on skills, and how they are utilised. For the majority of migrants, they remain in the host country or move to a third country, where their skills are better rewarded. This is due to the way industries are structured around hubs, where both the employers and the employees are located within a geographical region. Some migrants are concerned about their skills being underutilised while abroad, having to undergo a process of steps before being assigned more challenging and rewarding tasks (Gibson & McKenzie 2012). A portion of them would see a return to their home country as the solution to better matching their skills. In numerous cases, the transferring of skills from the work done in the host-country can be applied to work in the home country. These skills, generated through the experience abroad in a developed industry would lead to large advantages when considering return to the home country, to apply the knowledge on the same, underdeveloped industry. Underdeveloped industries mean lower entry competition, both for a new firm as well as within the labour market. The developed capacities while abroad would mean an important advantage when competing for a high-ranking position. These outcomes from the decision of return illustrate the existing mechanisms of return.
In order to apply the theory to the context of return, the concept of reward has to be understood within relative wages, rather than absolute wages. This is because in most cases, the absolute wages in developed states will be greater than those in the home state. Relative wages, in this case, is observed as the difference between the person of interest’s wage and the national average for a given industry. Given that the industries in the home state are more likely to be developing, it leads to the situation that a person is able to ascend the career ladder in fewer steps, due to fewer people competing for the same roles. A skilled professional may thus be selected for higher leadership roles upon return, thanks to the accumulated human capital abroad.
The outcome from this theory when applied to the context of return migration is that the person of interest has the choice between remaining in the host state; engage in chain migration by moving to a third state; or returning to their home country. The mechanism of the country-selection is through the individual’s awareness of where they can be best rewarded for applying their skills. The majority of migrants will engage in the first and second category – staying abroad or moving to another developed state, where generally, the industries are well developed.
To operationalise these variables, the questions addressed to the interviewee will focus on the way their skills were utilised prior and after return; how their degree specialisation reflected
the demands of the host and home countries, and how their experience abroad could be transferred into the labour market upon return.
The mechanism, thus, has two strands that end with the same result – the return of the skilled migrant. What differs is in their motivation for return – whether they only migrated to gain an experience to readily apply at home, or whether they gained skills that would lead up to considering a return amidst the low levels of competition. In each case, however, transferable skills are present and necessary for a successfully productive return.
With the given framework on human capital accumulation, the following three hypotheses are formulated in answering the research question.
Hypothesis 2: “The pursuing of a postgraduate degree that matches the necessities of the home country best will lead the skilled migrant to return home.”
Hypothesis 3: “The mismatch between the migrant’s skills and their work responsibilities will lead the skilled migrant to return home in order to utilise their skills more appropriately.” Hypothesis 4: “The low levels of industry development leads to the existence of high-ranking positions and high-mobility within an industry in the home country, which will in turn lead the skilled migrant to return home.”
The idea that the decision of returning is made prior to emigrating, as explored within the first part of the argument, is also significant in supporting the human capital accumulation theory. Specifically when the migration experience is used in order to have a closer reach to the opportunities available within the home country. The two strands of theories are thus complementary to each other.
3.3 Concepts and operationalisation
In this sub-section, the concepts above are derived into observable variables.
3.3.1 Patriotism
The concept of patriotism is here broken down into terms such as performing civic duties, the desire to contribute effort to the betterment of the home country, volunteering or being
labelling oneself as a patriot bears a certain amount of weight and expectations, which not all individuals are ready to take on. Particularly in Moldova, where the concept of identity is troubled by its relatively history, there are different competing forms of self-identification: are the citizens Moldovan or Romanian, and consequently – are they speaking Moldovan or Romanian. Identifying yourself as a patriot thus has the elements of choosing sides on the identity debate, which is not the scope of this study. To some non-migrants, leaving the country in the first place is a breach of patriotism. Hence, understanding the interviewee through indicators for patriotism is a more efficient path to follow.
3.3.2 Long-term optimism
The concept of long-term optimism is operationalised by asking questions relating to the participants’ pre-return enthusiasm and how it has evolved over time through living in home country. The expectation here is that it is higher at first, motivated through the return prospects, but diminishing over time, due to the challenges faced in the process of reintegration. Furthermore, when the return is acted voluntarily, the recorded enthusiasm should match a higher degree than when the return is compelled. Other indicators include a general pre-return confidence on being able to attain own goals upon return – whether they are about setting up a new firm or wanting to see the success of a certain national project.
3.3.3 Efficiency and skill
At the core of the human capital accumulation theory is the idea that certain skills are acquired more efficiently in certain places. Breaking down this concept into operationalised terms, the study looks for indicators where the reasoning for migration out of Moldova is in relation to learning – both academically and on-the-job. In the case of academic learning, the indicators consist of identifying cross-country differences, where the host country offers better quality education. In the case of learning on-the-job, the indicator consists of identifying work experience within a certain industry that is highly active in the host country. This higher level of activity denotes a greater flow of information, of which a migrant can take advantage.
3.3.4 Transferring skills to the home country
To operationalise the concept of skills transfer, the study looks for indicators such as to what sort of activities the interviewee engaged in while prior, during and after the period of migration. This concept is activated through the identification of elements within the interviews that point out to how the experience abroad has helped the returnee in securing work or
completing a certain task using the knowledge acquired abroad. The key indicator is some form of cross-country linkage, where what is learned abroad is applied upon return.
4. Methods
This section delineates the research process utilised in this study in order to gain an answer to the research question. Thanks to the flexibility that interview processes allow, the research can take an explorative look at why the high skilled return. This, in turn, provides the general literature with a deductive approach for theory testing. This section will also provide a detailed account on the way the interviewees have been selected and to what extent they are representational to the overall population of high skilled returnees. The section will conclude with a brief overview on how the interviews will be analysed.
4.1 Research design
To repeat, the paper is a single case study of Moldovan migrants that hold tertiary education, who have returned after lived in an OECD country for at least one year. To analyse their decision to return I decided to carry out semi-structured interviews with a group of returnees.
The most common method used in the literature concerning why people return is survey-based. They typically look at return intentions (e.g. de Haas et al. 2015, Gibson & McKenzie 2011), or in other words - asking the migrants in the host country about their intention to return, assuming - to a largely correct extent - that intention would translate into behaviour. This research method is preferred in the context that only select countries systematically record immigration and emigration flows, resulting in scarce and unreliable data (Martin & Radu 2012). Migrant-sending states record return even less so, given the low productivity of institutions. Given that there is more attention on migration to and from developed states, the population data in host countries is much richer. This study, however, will utilise interviewing techniques instead.
I opted for the freedom of response provided by the interviewing method, where the respondent is able to formulate their reasoning for migration and return in their natural language. The ability to ask follow-up questions is an important advantage to the surveying method. This more flexible and receptive method allows the study to be able to refine and generate new theories on why people return by being open to new ideas, particularly where the scene of migration has evolved with the increased freedom of movement and internationalization of education and labour. This method also allows for a more in-depth understanding of the process, allowing the research to capture the responses in a more nuanced way. Carrying out interviews allows for a more descriptive understanding of the process of migration, which can lead to
advancement in the field. Needless to say, the findings of this study will need to be corroborated using quantitative methods such as surveys, with a large enough sample to be deemed representative of the entire return population.
In light of the research trends mentioned above, authors such as Snel et al. (2015) suggest that the literature body on return intentions needs to be complemented with studies in return
behaviour in the home country. This means analysing the question of return post-factum, rather
than ex-ante. A discrepancy between the two forms of observations exists (de Haas et al. 2015), and the literature is not conclusive on which approach is objectively better at explaining the process. However, because this study highlights the influence of the origin-country context, an
ex-post approach is more sensible. It also takes into account the pre-emigration plan and its
execution, a direct take on the first hypothesis.
The ideal design would have included a group of equal sample size of Moldovan migrants, in order to examine if and how the same existing factors affect them. However, due to time and logistical constraints, only two interviews have been conducted with current migrants, which cannot be representational for the overall migrant population. In spite of this, the attention on reports and studies conducted on Moldovan migration has largely focused on why people migrate and remain abroad, rather than why they return. This secondary research material is thus utilised for better understanding the context of the Moldovan migrants that are reluctant to return.
The ideal study of return would also focus on home country to host country relationships. For example, linking Moldovan citizens living in the Netherlands and understanding why they return from the Netherlands, and why some decide to work or retire in a third country. This intensive set of interstate studies would lead to a greater cooperation and maximized efficiency, as it would better understand the migration reasons, their length of stay, and how they are able to contribute both to the host and home state. This approach would thus take into consideration the country-level context of both home and host states, both of which shape the migration and return experience.
4.2 Data and sample
The data utilized for supporting the arguments of this study is composed primarily of 14 semi-structured interviews with Moldovan individuals who have returned, and 2 with Moldovan migrants. The unit of observation is thus at the individual level.
The 14 interviews with returnees were conducted in Chișinău, the capital of Moldova. To a great extent, most of those who migrate in order to carry out higher education abroad or to be employed in work that requires educational certificates come through or from the city. Furthermore, returnees are more likely to return to the capital city, where the city acts as a hub for the main firms, industries, institutions and government. It is also where higher wages are offered, alongside more comprehensive public services and general infrastructure. At the research level, this geographically constrained sample can be said to be representative of the overall population of highly skilled returnees. Focusing on the capital alone may lead to a more practically efficient way of both finding the individuals as well as securing interviews with them during the two-week field research trip. Naturally, the ideal study would include within the sample skilled migrants who have returned to other localities than the capital.
The selection of the respondents was made in a semi-random pattern, by first interviewing known contacts that have returned. Upon finalizing the interview, each respondent was invited to put me into contact with other acquaintances that fall within the same category of returnees. With the presented suggestions, I tried to select a group of respondents that were employed in different sectors and industries, so that the small sample could enrich the study with accounts from a range of professions. Inter-industry differences account for the context of the home country, and are thus essential when examining return using the structural approach described earlier. The respondents were part of public institutions such as governance institutions, aid organizations and the educational sector. Within the private sector, the respondents were part of the industries of IT, business consultancy, creative solutions and local entrepreneurs. Each of them are, to a large extent, familiar with their own industry and have been able to describe how their time abroad has influenced their position within the industry, their role in the industry, and the characteristics of the industry they engage with. While some have worked alongside the Moldovan diaspora and returnees, thus are informed of the experience of others too, the majority of the respondents only have had first hand experience in the process. More descriptive information concerning the interviewees is attached in the appendix.
The two current migrants were contacted through the returnees and interviewed using Skype. The first works within the field of IT at a large corporation in Sweden, and the second works in the field of development at an international organisation in the UK. The latter was once a returnee, due to the student Visa restrictions on Moldovan citizens in the UK. Neither of the two intends to return.
Similarly, the participants were chosen to match a wide age group, from those who returned immediately after finishing their studies, to those who spent more than a decade abroad. Having a wider age group would allow the study the flexibility to manifest different reasoning amongst the younger and older highly skilled migrants. Despite those efforts, the sample is over-represented with migrants who have returned within five years of completing their studies abroad.
They were asked permission for audio recording and for including their names in the final version of the study. Five of the interviewees declined to have their personal details shared. I have therefore masked their names as Returnee 1, 2, and 3 for returnees and Migrant 1 and 2 for the current migrants. Their occupations are masked as well, to preserve their anonymity.
The relatively small sample size, with 16 interviewees, ought to be taken in consideration as to how representative it is for the general population. The selection described in the previous paragraph is one of the attempts at reaching a representation of the overall group. By having interviewees engaged in different industries and public sector, they can each give an insight on the context of return from their own perspective. The similarities shared across the participants will thus be indicative of the validity of certain influencing factors.
There are some organizations, such as IOM (International Organization for Migration) and ODIMM (Organisation for the Development of Small and Medium Enterprises) that are set up to provide assistance in the process of return; however, I have not had the chance to conduct an interview with a representative member. In spite of this, I have asked the respondents of their interaction with institutional assistance for return. Their responses, analysed further in the next section, have had the common pattern of receiving little to no assistance, some for lack of information and others for a mismatch of agreements.
Some secondary data is utilized in this study to support the descriptive statistics and arguments, mainly in the form of reports on the emigration of the workforce in Moldova. The main sources of data for migration comes from the Eurostat database, border crossing data, labour force surveys and through the population registry (IOM 2012). A final difficulty in estimating correctly the number of Moldovan migrants abroad is the fact that a considerable number of them have been eligible for acquiring Romanian citizenship, with the condition that their parents or grandparents were born in the interwar period (1918-1940). With Romania being part of the EU and Moldova not, holding the burgundy-coloured passport opens the individual
estimates of Romanian migrants in the EU and other developed states are in fact Moldovan nationals.
4.3 Interview roadmap of questions
Questioning the returnees directly on what motivated their decision is insufficient. As Gmelch (1980) points out, the respondents have the tendency to simplify the myriad of factors down to a few, thus overlooking certain influential factors. For this reason, the addressed questions have been designed after the theoretical framework elucidated above, while maintaining the flexibility of open-ended questions to delve into more detail if and when a respondent mentions a new factor.
At the start of the interview, the respondents were first asked to describe their migration experience, detailing the number of years they’ve spent in each country. This free-form account of their experience generated a useful overview, from which I was able to select specific questions related to their experience as a student and/or employee in the host country. The core questions are described below, and a copy of the questions is attached in the appendix. Not all the present questions were asked to each participant, as the majority of them had answers that covered several questions at a time. Some questions were improvised on the spot, while discussing with the returnee, particularly when an unexpected factor or motivation was introduced.
The organisation of the questionnaire can be divided into three themes. The first was related to pre-emigration, and was concerned with the factors leading them to migrate and their migratory plan of action. This section sheds light on their migration strategy, particularly whether the return was already planned. The second section of the questions were related with their time spent as a migrant, whether there were deviations from the pre-emigration plan, and the decision-making process when considering return as a viable option. The third section of the questions was related with their return, and their experience of reintegration in their own home country, and the ways in which their time abroad has changed their position on the labour market at home. They were asked about factors that would make them consider re-emigration, and their opinions of other Moldovan citizens returning. These three themes helped organise the thought process of the interview and generate opportunities to ask for more details at a given step.
4.4 Analysis
The interviews have been conducted in the national language of Romanian. Once the interviews were conducted and recorded electronically, they were then transcribed onto Word documents. For the purpose of this study, only the responses specifically relevant to the topic of migration were transcribed, while the original recording will be kept until the completion of the study. The quotations included in this study are direct translations from the transcripts.
I opted to organise the content of the responses manually, selecting the relevant quote from each interviewee according to a specific topic, such as “planned return before emigrating.” The theoretical framework’s hypotheses, questions, and recurring answers are at the core of the organisational scheme of the thematic analysis. This has been conducive in structuring the results in a comprehensive manner. This method of categorizing helps discerning and organizing patterns within the responses. I chose not to use specific software for qualitative analysis, like ATLAS.ti, because of the rather small sample size. It is reasonable to say that using software would alleviate the analysis from potential bias more than when doing so manually. However, caution has been used in selecting and translating the quotations for the relevant topic. Particular care has been put in the translation, where the interpretation can suffer from bias, by actively listening to the context of the overall topic within the interview. Ideally, an additional number of researchers would have coded the same transcripts in order to minimise the bias effect. However, due to time constraints, this extra step has not been carried out.
5. Results
This section is allocated to the analysis of the 16 interviewees’ transcriptions, carried out during the two-week long field research in Chișinău, Moldova. The structure will first follow the enumerated hypotheses developed in the theoretical framework, and to what extent the empirical evidence supports the expectations. The following subsection will present an analysis of unexpected results – answers that have not been expected within the above framework. The final subsection will delve into developing a unifying theory based on the presented results that would account for the return of the skilled migrants.
Overall, the overwhelming majority of the interviewees have migrated for the purpose of education. Specifically, 14 out of the 16 were first defined as student migrants. Following the completion of their course, however, 8 out of the 14 gained employment in a host or third state. Therefore, only 6 out of the 16 were strictly student migrants. A table below illustrates the above statements.
Table 1: Occupational choice during the migration period
Student migration only
Labour migration only
Student migration,
followed by labour migration Total Number of
interviewees 6 2 8 16
These numbers are not to be taken as representative of the ratios for the occupational choice of migrants and returnees. However, they do align with the previous findings on student migration behaviour, such as the tendency to remain abroad after completing the studies and using the studies as a way to access the labour market abroad (Iredale 2001). The fact that a significant number of participants make use of the educational institutions available in order to qualify for the national and regional labour market is thus far consistent with the mechanism.
5.1 Structural theory expectations and empirical evidence
This section analyses the interviewees’ responses in the structural framework set earlier. The derived hypothesis is thus challenged with the empirical evidence.
5.1.1 Patriotism, long-term optimism, and planned return
Hypothesis 1: “A higher sense of patriotism and long-term optimism will lead the highly skilled to create and carry out a plan for return prior to the period of migration”
Out of the 14 returnees, 10 of them expressed an indirect form of patriotism in relation to the country. Only two respondents labelled themselves as a patriot; however, that was part of the expectations derived above. The existence of this pattern across the majority of selected returnees does indicate that the conceptual relationship between the returnee and the state has a certain level of relevance. It is, however, debatable if patriotism alone is enough in motivating return. This is because out of the 10 identified, only 5 had expressed having a pre-migration plan to return. When looking at those who had an open-ended migration plan, 7 out of 14 were identified. To sum up, 7 of the examined group had an open-ended migration plan that did not focus on returning at a specific date; while only 5 have expressed both patriotic and pre-migration return intention elements.
Out of the 5 respondents that support the hypothesis, the following account was the most expressive:
“When I left Moldova, I was sure that I wanted to return. I left with the idea that I have to return and change things, that I’d be able to succeed, to contribute something to the country.”
(C. Potorac-Ciumac)
When comparing patriotic indicators with planned return, it is likely that it plays a certain role in influencing the motive for return, in combination with other factors. The results do indicate that this hypothesis holds for a significant number of respondents, but not all. Given that the decision to return is largely subjective, it is not surprising that this explanation for return does not have enough explanatory value for all. However, the fact that it holds for a number of returnees does mean that some of its elements are conducive to return.
To deepen the analysis within the components of the hypothesis, the attention changed towards asking about changes in enthusiasm about the prospects of living in Moldova, to test for long-term trends in optimism. It was found that a small majority (nine out of 14) expressed having a greater sense of optimism prior to return. Once returned, their optimism eroded over time, faced with the challenges of reintegration, the rigid institutions and social characteristics.
“I have to admit that it was difficult, because I returned with great aspirations. With ambitious ideas to make a change. Here, people aren’t ready to do this. People need additional argumentation. It’s somewhat difficult to come and be really enthusiastic and optimistic. A lot can be done, but there is no will.”
(Returnee 1) “It changed, yes. It didn’t change for the better, and it’s not even about the labour market or job loss – it’s about the general condition that the state is offering you. You don’t feel like a citizen that is taken into account. There is no satisfaction of living in your own country.”
(M. Ungureanu)
These results bear a significant role in this study. Namely, the identified enthusiasm is strongly correlated with return, regardless of patriotic elements connected with the state. This broader factor has a greater explanatory value, which can encompass for a wider segment of the high-skilled returnees. The main issue with this factor is that it is likely caused itself by a series of other factors. When the interviewees were asked to expand on what particularly made them feel enthusiastic, each responded with a personal factor that was largely related to their career aspirations, such as working on projects that are “somewhat useful to the Moldovan society” (P. Negura). This enthusiasm derived from their career aspirations will be explored in more detail in the next subsection.
5.2 Human capital accumulation theory expectations and empirical evidence
To recapitulate the main idea of the theory on human capital accumulation – it theorises migration by examining where the individual is able to gather knowledge most efficiently, and where the same individual can apply the knowledge in order to reap the most significant reward.
As was observed at the start of this section, 14 out of the 16 interviewees have at some point migrated with the objective to receive knowledge from an educational institution abroad. A significant number of respondents (eight out of 16) noted that the quality of education in Moldova is subpar in comparison to what can be learned abroad. Several others (four out of 16) noted that some courses were not offered in Moldova. One participant noted that she was “really disgusted by the stories of corruption happening in [the] educational institutions. Bribery, the way teachers mark students, how exams are paid for, all kinds of obstacles” (M. Ungureanu). One of the interviewees points out that “[Moldova has] good professors too, but few have remained – the majority leave” (Returnee 1). Several studies have been conducted on the deteriorating educational institutions in Moldova, in which Cheianu-Andrei (2012) notes a significant pattern
of emigration of Moldovan professors, particularly due to persistent low wages, which have reduced the stature of the pedagogic profession. Thus, there is a persistent trend in looking for education abroad of Moldova, in face of lacking reforms. Only a small part of those who study abroad, however, return.
Given that this study is also interested in searching for variation within the high skilled, investigating differences between strictly student migration and labour migration behaviour can yield valuable information. On the one hand, there were six of the participants have migrated solely for educational purposes, without working in the host nation. While on the other hand, ten have engaged in labour at some point during their migration experience. In sum, there are a sufficient number of respondents who have engaged in both forms of migration to arrive at significant, valuable results.
5.2.1 Field of study specific to home country
Hypothesis 2: “The pursuing of a postgraduate degree that matches the necessities of the home country best will lead the skilled migrant to return home.”
In the context of transitioning states, and most particularly Moldova, numerous industries and institutions are still underdeveloped in comparison to the levels encountered in OECD states. The 6 respondents that take part in this category of migrants shared the linkage between the knowledge accumulated abroad and directly applied upon return. Despite them studying different material and engaging in different areas within the economy, they have a common pattern – the ability to create a significant impact once returned.
As mentioned earlier, the educational sector in Moldova is in need of reform. Two of the participating returnees, Returnee 2 and C. Cincilei, have engaged in the educational reform. Although they had been compelled to return, due to their program arrangement, their migration experience does reveal the mechanism involved between the study of a particular subject abroad and its application upon return. Both of the respondents’ experience abroad occurred after having worked in Moldova for a number of years, henceforth their courses were tightly related to their field of expertise.
“I was a university professor, and it was very important for me to be exposed to a foreign teaching model, especially in a country where it is taught in English, because
