R
ETURN MIGRATION AFTER GRADUATION
Explaining return of recent Dutch-Caribbean graduates
Rianne Rosalia 11079584
1st supervisor: Agnieszka Kanas 2nd supervisor: Simona Vezzoli
Title: Return Migration after Graduation Name: Rianne Rosalia
Student number: 11079584 1st supervisor: Agnieszka Kanas 2nd reader: Simona Vezzoli
Programme: Master Sociology – Comparative Organisation & Labour Studies Email: rdrosalia@hotmail.com
2
Contents
1. Introduction ... 3 1.1 Relevance ... 4 1.2 Context ... 4 1.3 Human capital ... 5 2. Theoretical framework ... 7 2.1 Return migration ... 7 2.1.1 Economic circumstances ... 9 2.1.2 Family dynamics ... 10 2.1.3 Lifestyle ... 11 2.2 Gender ... 11 3. Research design ... 13 3.1 Sample... 13 3.2 Data analysis ... 13 4. Results ... 15 4.1 Economic circumstances ... 15 4.1.1 Job prospects ... 15 4.1.2 Employment ... 16 4.1.3 Economic status ... 16 4.1.4 Living costs ... 17 4.2 Family ... 18 4.2.1 Parental relationship ... 18 4.2.2 Friendship ... 19 4.2.3 Social capital ... 19 4.2.4 Wellbeing of family ... 194.2.5 Other social motivations ... 20
4.3 Lifestyle ... 21
4.3.1 Culture ... 21
5. Conclusions & Discussion ... 23
5.1 Discussion ... 23
3
1. Introduction
In December 2016, several Dutch news outlets highlighted that the graduates descendant from the Dutch-Caribbean islands Curacao, Aruba and Bonaire do not always return after finishing their studies (NOS, 2016) (Samson & Gibbs, 2016). Each year about 400 Dutch Caribbean students emigrate towards the Netherlands to start with higher education. After finishing their studies, just a small part of this group chooses to return while the rest chooses to stay in the Netherlands (Groot, Pin & Vasquez Villaseca, 2014). Since there is not much diversity of Bachelor’s Master’s and Doctoral programmes within studies among the islands some youngsters opt to follow higher education abroad with the intention to return afterwards. Van Niekerk argues that the islands remain to be developed in various areas such as labour market and education (Van Niekerk, 2007).
It seems that several parties shift the responsibility of development onto the graduates. Particularly the ministry of Foreign Affairs is interested in ways to stimulate this return because he believes that the graduates are needed to share their expertise and knowledge to contribute to private and public development if they can deploy them. This issue has sparked a huge debate on social media about whether the graduates have a moral obligation to their country of origin. Some graduates do feel that they should return to contribute towards the development of their country while other say that each graduate should decide for themselves if they want to return (Samson &
Gibbs,(NTRkwesties) 2016). In response to this issue some foundations such as Stichting WeConnect and Kiva Curacao work on initiatives to facilitate Dutch Caribbean graduates’ return after their studies (Nos, 2016)(Samson & Gibbs, 2016). Isenia from Kiva Curacao also feels that the return of higher educated Dutch- Caribbean graduates is crucial for continuing development on the islands.
While many graduates choose this option a small part of the group still decides to return after graduating. Results from the pre-research done by Groot, Pin & Vasquez Villaseca (2014) show that family, economic reasons and lifestyle primarily affect the return of graduates to the Caribbean. However, it is not known “why” these factors affect the return. Patterns of migration continue to evolve throughout various lifecycles of individuals. This is because patterns of migration are not static but shaped by institutional context or social structures. As institutions continue to change patterns of migration are also affected. This means that the reason why Dutch Caribbean graduates choose to return might differ from reasons mentioned in former theories on return migration. Former
quantitative research found that family, economic reasons and lifestyle are important factors that affect migration (Groot, Pin & Vasquez Villaseca, 2014). In this research, these factors have been identified through qualitative pre-research method but the results do not provide an explanation for why the factors affect the return and are limited to a description about the factors. This description does not suffice to explain why the three factors affect migration. Current research attempts to explain how the three factors affect return migration of Dutch Caribbean graduates with the following main question:
4
Why does family, economic reasons and lifestyle affect return migration of recent Dutch Caribbean graduates?
1.1 Relevance
There is a lot known about the graduates who do not return but quite little from the ones who do return after graduation. Understanding why these graduates decide to return can help us to identify the type of graduate how is potentially suitable and able to contribute to the society provided there is space. It helps to recognize them by identifying their patterns and their considerations behind their motives to return. Therefore, this research points to the lack of information about why certain factors affect the return migration of a small group of Dutch Caribbean graduates. Understanding why the three factors affect their return adds to former theories depicting various characteristics of return migrants. In other words: What makes these graduates the type of graduates whom are more likely to return? This information allows for employers and governmental organizations to recognize this group. On a scientific note, former theories on the typology of return migrants is amplified with possibly new meaning underlying the motives returnees tend to have. Contribution to the typology of return migrants can further add to identifying new patterns or process of return migration. Current study attempts to contribute to the former researches by using the variables they have formerly identified and looking at the reasoning behind them. While current research is focused upon three variables, there remains space to explore other variables as well. Jean-Pierre Cassarino (2004) has developed a framework to study return migrants and their determinants. According to him it is necessary to look at each stage of return migration such as return motives, the preparation for return and post-return experiences. His intention is to study the link between return and societal development where post-return experiences are used to indicate a typology of returnees that can help with the development of the country.
1.2 Context
Interestingly, immigrants’ decisions to return might have different consequences or results. It is important to highlight the context in which return migration happens. The former research (Groot, Pin & Vasquez Villaseca, 2014) about migration and return migration of Dutch-Caribbean graduates found that family dynamics, lifestyle in country of origin and economic circumstances play a role in affecting return migration. Similarly, Upegui (2011) studied return migration of students from Aruba and found that similar factors affect the return migration of Aruban students. Most notably in both studies, the extensive focus lies on identifying determinants of migration and showing to what extent those variables predict migration using quantitative methods. Therefore, both studies only ‘state’ the important determinants of return migration and do not explain ‘how’ the determinants affect return migration. The qualitative part in both studies has the function of ‘identifying’ the important
5
determinants and do not follow up with explanations for ‘why’ the migrants consider the variables important. For example, (Upegui, 2011) considers that a country can have lenient policies which in turn can smooth the return migration process. It might be that lenient policies affect the quality of life of the immigrant and thus become a reason for migration but it might also be that the type of policies in question are a reason for migration. Like the study of Upegui (2011), Groot, Pin & Vasquez Villaseca (2014) identify the variables in the same manner and do not follow up with an explanation for why the variables are important when migrants decide to return. For example, an individual might want to return to a country because of the climate. But the reason why the climate is important may vary. One person would find the climate important because of the plants he could cultivate while others would find the climate important because they are used to that environment. Both example show that individuals consider certain factors beneficial for different reasons. It is important to uncover these reasons as the acquired knowledge can add towards development of welfare in the country of origin. The study of Upegui (2011) and Groot, Pin & Vasquez Villaseca (2014) do not cover the explanation behind the determinants of return migration. It is common for researchers to combine quantitative and qualitative methods whilst conducting research in the migration field as shown in the studies above. Since a lot of migration studies aim to aid in changing policies they are constructed by a statistical nature. Sadly, policies generated to influence migration based on these studies have proven to not work. The two studies of Upegui (2011) and Groot, Pin & Vasquez Villaseca (2014) are also tied government incentives for making changes in migration patterns. Singleton (1999) suggests that broad overviews supported by tables derived from quantitative research give little explanation for the variables being used. Migration involves complex interrelated processes and is motivated by various reasoning’s. Because of the complexity, it is important to not only identify the variables that play a role but to also understand why they affect return migration. decision of immigrants to return. Quantitative method is not sufficient to unearth the explanation. Also, the way the qualitative method is conducted serves a minimal role of exploring the variables, which are later used in the statistics.
1.3 Human capital
Hussain (2015) suggests that accumulation of human capital is important for economic growth in developing countries. Other researchers such as Reynolds (2008) agree that return migration allows for human capital to be transferred back to country of origin. Through transfer of human capital adds to more positive development in country of origin. Part of what disturbs the accumulation of human capital is the concept of ‘brain drain’. Kwok and Leland (1982) define brain drain as the emigration of skilled labour due to better opportunities abroad. The reason why skilled labourers emigrate for better opportunities is because their skills give higher rewards abroad. (Borjas & Bratsberg, 1996). Also, structural constraints in the country of origin may make it difficult for migrants to use their skills in
6
country of origin. Related to the current case, the students do not emigrate to the Netherlands with skills but to rather accumulate skills in the Netherlands with the intention to return after acquiring those skills. From an economic perspective, less developed countries can benefit a greater deal if they have access to the accumulated knowledge that migrants can provide upon return if they are able to deploy these skills. Economic performance of the country may improve if the acquired knowledge allows the country to better compete on the global market. In the case of Dutch Caribbean graduates who do not return to their country of origin, it can be interpreted as a form of brain drain even if the migrants acquired their skills abroad This is because the migrants follow secondary education which prepares them for programmes they want to study abroad due to unavailability. The country of origin does not loose knowledge from higher educated migrants but rather miss out on it. The overall result of brain drain is that the underdeveloped country suffers from loss of knowledge through either one or more forms of migration. Borjas and Bratsberg (1996) explain that brain drain can be slowed down if those who emigrated return with augmented skills which are applicable in the country of origin. If the proportion of graduates who return is large enough it could increase the output per capita implying brain gain (Dustmann, Fadlon, & Weiss, 2011). Additionally, highly valued skills in home country motivates emigration and return migration (Dustmann, Fadlon, & Weiss, 2011). The relevance for society lies in understanding how the three factors affect return migration by explaining how each factor affects return migration. For example, a statement saying that economic circumstances
influence migration would be richer in its foundation if there were explanations about how economic circumstances could affect migration through various patterns. To make a theoretical contribution, this thesis hopes to discover these patterns outlined within the three factors. Without this
understanding, it becomes difficult to stimulate the return because there is no information about where opportunities lie and what makes these opportunities attractive enough to drive return migration of graduates.
7
2. Theoretical framework
The purpose of this literature review is to present the aspects from each sub question which are later relevant to analyse the results from this research. First, the context surrounding the Dutch-Caribbean graduates is explained to reflect the varipus conditions of these students. Secondly, various concepts on return migration are presented and discussed. After that, the focus shifts towards the gender component which affects return migration in general. Finally, the three variables which for the main topics of this research are discussed.
2.1 Return migration
Many terms are used to describe immigrants who return to their country of origin. According to Gmelch (1980) return migration is when immigrants decide to go back to their home country to resettle. If the migrant returns for vacation or longer periods without the intention of settling then it does not account for return migration. This definition of return migration is also used in the works of Borjas and Bratsberg (1996) in their study on foreign-born immigrants in the US. For simplicity, the meaning of return migration is defined as the return to one’s country of origin (Ghosh, 2000). Much of literature on return migration includes immigrants who travel to developed regions such as Europe and later returned to less developed regions such as the Caribbean. Gmelch (1980) explains that former immigrants travelled to the developed countries for economic reasons such as employment rewards or to send back remittances to family in country of origin.
On a side note, Rational Choice Theory (RCT) explains how actors make a choice amongst several options (Voss and Abraham, 2000). RCT suggests that actors base their decisions on rational calculations, act with rationality whilst making choices and choose an option aimed at optimization of their pleasure or profit. Studies about mobility of foreign students (Rosenzweig, 2008) suggest that skills are acquired where the costs are low and applied wherever the price is higher. For Dutch Caribbean graduates, it partly explains why some are likely to stay in the Netherlands after finishing their studies because the rewards for their skills are higher in the Netherlands in comparison to the Dutch-Caribbean areas. Based on current case it means that graduates who return also make a cost-benefit analysis whilst deciding to return or not depending on how they judge the information
received about their country of origin. For return migrants, there is less lack of information since they have been there already and they remain in touch with relatives from the origin country and are thus more up to date with the current situation in the origin country. Therefore, return migrants are familiar with the country of origin and thus able to make a more rational decision to return or not because they don’t have the insecurity of not knowing where they are going (Entzinger & Touburg, 2011).
Notably, this concept of rationality is not sufficient to explain overall return migration because it excludes other aspects of migration which are not based on rational decisions (Carling et. al., 2015). Other factors such as sentiments play a huge role according to Entzinger & Touburg (2011). Many surveys among migrants show that almost everyone who has ever migrated
8
occasionally dwells upon the idea of return. The country of origin, usually the land where they grew up, often determines one's identity and few migrants can let go their memories. Few migrants return, even though many of them continue to dream of return. In the literature, this phenomenon is known as the myth of return (Entzinger & Touburg, 2011). Previous studies show that the willingness to return is greater when the intended time of return is pushed forward (Van Dalen & Henkens 2008) (Klaver et al., 2010). This could explain why most graduates at the start of their journey in the Netherlands are optimistic about returning afterwards due to the intended time of return seeming to be further away. Other examples show that individuals may choose to migrate out of necessity, by force or for other non-monetary gains such as family or lifestyle which is not necessarily to gain benefit from. The factors don’t have to be beneficial to the immigrants but could still be a reason to return. It could also be for example that some graduates see opportunities where others do not in the country of origin. Also, some graduates might find certain aspects in the host country constraining enough to leave which others do not recognize.
A different framework by Ghosh (2000) identifies different modes of migration. One of these modes is innovation. He suggests that some immigrants absorb practices from the destination country and return with the intention of implying those practices in the country of origin. If their initial goal was to return with amplified skills, the return becomes an indicator for their success. King (2000) suggests that immigrants return to their country of origin because of family or non-economic reasons. In current case, the family and lifestyle section are based on his argument. Looking closely at these migration processes, it is unknown ‘why’ these factors described by Ghosh (2000) and King (2000) lead to return migration. Relating Ghosh’s (2000) and Kings (2000) framework to current case, Dutch Caribbean graduates would return to apply their knowledge in country of origin.
But are the graduates in fact able to function as change agents upon return?
The idea that immigrants who return can make changes in their country of origin seems to be elusive and is not backed by empirical evidence. Bovenkerk (1981) has analysed the concept of immigrants as ‘change agents’ for returnees in Suriname. From his analysis, it is evident that returnees are misfits in the country of origin after they return and encounter much difficulty in applying their skills for the sake of development. Examples from Puerto Rico and the Dominican Republic where immigrants attempt to do the same have failed (Bovenkerk, 1981). One of the reasons why they fail is because the type of education that immigrants follow in the host country are not practical for development or too specialized to be applied in the country of origin (Bovenkerk, 1981). Following an example from Jamaica, for returnees to use their skills towards development in country of origin the social and economic conditions in the country of origin need to be improved first hand (Thomas-Hope, 1999). Other studies on the linkages between return migrant’s ability to deploy their skills also confirm that development highly depend on the current local economic and social situation (Haase & Honerath, 2016).
9
2.1.1 Economic circumstances
As described above, the current context of the country of origin is less developed than host country. It follows that graduates receive more monetary rewards for their skills which explains part of the group who ultimately decides to stay in the Netherlands. When it comes to economic circumstances, some researchers would argue that migrants return because of labour market prospects in country of origin. This is because employment provides income to sustain one’s wellbeing and is therefore crucial. As Bijwaard (2010) suggests, economic opportunities in country of origin may drive immigrants to return. While the larger part of the graduates opts to stay in the Netherlands due to better economic opportunities to their discretion, it could be that the graduates who return see opportunities where others don’t or that there might be opportunities available to some more than others. Bijwaard (2010) suggest that beneficial economic circumstances are the sole factors for return. He explains that migrants also return even when it is economically disadvantageous. Also, economic circumstances differ in benefits for some graduates. For example, one graduate might return because of job prospects while the other might return because of working conditions that come along with it. Despite the possibility of employment prospects, living costs could also be a factor influencing the return of migrants. For example, if it becomes too expensive to live in the Netherlands for the graduates, this might push them to leave and return to their country of origin as it might be cheaper there. This notion is related to the relative economic status of migrants. This is because migrants consider their status in society when deciding to migrate. If the migrant is poor in the host country but rich in the country of origin, it may be a reason to return dependent on how the migrants considers his relative economic status. This is could be also the case for jobs or living conditions, where the migrant would have a more prestigious job in the country of origin as opposed to the host country. Basarir (2011) found that men from patriarchical cultures where it is normal for them to be head of the household, that they are more likely to emigrate to improve their economic status.This is because in order for the male to abide by the tough masculine gender role which is part of patriarchy he needs to be able to excersize power trough economic status. If this is harder to achieve in country of destination it could be a reason for return. Other economic hardships in the country of destination might also push immigrants to leave (Ghosh, 2000). The gap in literature lies in there is little information about the type of jobs the returning graduates look forward to, what type of living conditions in the Netherlands or the
Caribbean or relative economic status related to country of origin affect their return. With the help of qualitative research, one could gather information about the nature of these aspects which determine the return. To understand the role of economic circumstances in the effects on graduates’ return the topics identified are: employment prospects, context of employment prospects, relativity of economic status and living conditions. These variables fit under the following sub-question: Why do economic
10
As mentioned earlier immigrants are less likely to return while currently remaining in a better developed country in comparison to their home country. As explained by Dustmann, Fadlon and Weiss (2011) this is because the rewards are higher in the developed country.
2.1.2 Family dynamics
King and Christou (2008) have studied the diasporic landscapes of second generation migrants. Some of these landscapes are family dynamics and lifestyle in country of origin. Some of the second-generation migrants in Reynolds’ study (2011) claim to maintain relationships with the local family members in country of origin as a means for bridging social capital. By maintaining these
relationships, the migrants hope to secure a form of help when themselves or their second generation resettle in the country of origin. In case of Dutch Caribbean graduates, the social capital bridging might require less maintenance of relationship since the parents already live in the country of origin and therefore are able to maintain relationships for the graduates. For other graduates, relationships with friends or family might be necessary to gain employment upon return. In this sense, relationships with locals also serve a purpose of facilitating the return.
Family relation also provide social support. For migrants who do not have family members in host country, relationships with family in the country of origin become very important as form of emotional support. Heering, Van Der Erf, & Van Wissen, (2004) found that women are more dependent on their parents and more tied to family relations which explains the stronger intention to return as opposed to men. Some migrants feel socially excluded while in the Netherlands and contact with family members help to relieve the stress that comes along with being considered an outsider in a different society. As for Dutch Caribbean graduates, the relationship with family members not only serve as emotional support when the migrant is in a different country but could also be necessary in the country of origin (Reynolds, 2011).
Family relationships play a role in affecting the return of recent the graduates due to the support they can receive from family members in country of origin. There might be different reasons that play a role as well when it comes to family dynamics. For example, it is not well known to what extent the urban or rural location of the migrants’ family members matter for his decision to return nor exactly how the family is crucial to their decision to return. Therefore, it is important to gather
information particularly on this point through empirical research. To understand the role of family in the effects on graduates’ return the focus is to identify: important family members, location of family members, wellbeing of family members and opinion of family members on return. These variables fit under the following sub-question: Why does family dynamics play a role in the return migration
11
2.1.3Lifestyle
For some immigrants, lifestyle is another factor determining a decision to return. Reynolds (2008) explains that cultural adjustment is important for people to feel at home. If the culture in the country of origin suits the migrant better than the culture in host country, it could drive the migrant to return. It could be that habit plays a role in return migration. The graduates might be accustomed to a different lifestyle than the one in host country. Notably, the climate could play a role since the Caribbean islands have one seasons with sunny weather whereas in the Netherlands there is four seasons. Since the graduates are accustomed to warmer climate this could explain why it might be a factor to return. Other factors could also be institutional. For example, culture differences might affect how institutions operate in the Caribbean islands as well as the way of life. For example, in the country of origin there are different rules and guidelines when it comes to organizing houses. In the Netherlands, there are stricter rules. The country of origin also allows the Dutch Caribbean graduates to express their national identity fully (Countries and Their Cultures, sd). If the graduates find this beneficial enough, it might be a motivation to return (Bijwaard, 2010). With this factor, the goal is to identify how the current institutional context and culture of the Caribbean islands affects the return of graduates. This means that the space for former habitual behaviour could be important for attracting the graduates to return. To understand the role of lifestyle in the effects on graduates’ return the focus is to identify: climate, institutions such as environment, cultural behaviour and expectations and public law. These variables fit under the following sub-question: Why does lifestyle play a role in
the return migration of recent Dutch Caribbean graduates?
2.2 Gender
In current study, the sample of Dutch Caribbean graduates is differentiated by gender, consisting of male and females. Female migration has been studied since the 1990s. One issue that comes up regularly is the difficulty for women to combine their traditional role as main caregiver in the family with the role of labour migrants working abroad. The concern is mainly with the emotional strain associated with being absent from family and the emergence of social problems due to gender norms being challenged (Olwig, 2012). According to Girma (2016), the return of men is strongly linked with the roles and expectations imposed on them. For example, Somali men tend to feel emasculated in the host country if they are not able to fulfil their role as the main breadwinner. In other cases, men feel the need to return to fulfil their patriotic duties by investing in country of origin or provide political guidance in country of origin. Related to current case, Dutch-Caribbean male graduates might want to return to fulfil their role as breadwinners. According to Azjen (1988) social norms such as gender play a significant role in shaping migration behaviour. Grieco & Boyd (1988) explain that gender
determines the societal statuses of male and female along with the stages in their life-cycle. This means that gender determines the position of individuals in society as well as their opportunities and
12
expectations related to migration. In contrast to Upegui’s (2011) results, he found that gender does not play a role in student’s likelihood of returning within three years because the students are relatively young and the same age. The study of Groot, Pin & Villaseca (2014) shows similar results that both male and female graduates have the intention to return. The gender variable is used only to explain the intention to return between men and women. The studies do not further explain the role of gender behind the motivations to return. The gender differentiation is important because of the expected varying reasons that men and women have with regards to migration. De Jong (2000) considers the role of Thai women in society where it is expected from them to care for children and elderly family members. Other roles include that women ought to repay their parents for raising them. In terms of gender culture, Curacao is known for having a patriarchal gender structure (Bergen, 2017). However, Chevannes (2001) argues that patriarchy in the Caribbean includes a complex combination of
matriarchy. This is because men earn higher wages, are considered tough, are considered important and have less accountability. Women on the other and are respected and in some cases, are head of the household due to unavailability of men in the household. Notably, women occupy top political
positions more easily in comparison to other countries. Related to current study, it means that Dutch Caribbean graduates return for different reasons which could be partly affected by their gender due to their different societal positions and roles in the country of origin. The expectation is that female graduates likely opt to return to fulfil their role as a caregiver or to be in close proximity with family members. For male graduates the expectation is that they return to full a role as a breadwinner. The gender difference is considered for each of the three factors and will be used to analyse the differences between male and female Dutch Caribbean graduates.
13
3. Research design
This research is based on qualitative methods involving in-depth interviews with 20 recent Dutch Caribbean graduates who are returning to their country of origin to settle. The population is
differentiated on gender. This is because of possible differences in explanations for return migration as explained in the Gender section. Differentiation based on each island is not necessary due
similarity in culture and institutional context. Data collection takes place through in depth semi structured interviews. The interviews will take a minimum of one hour as this is sufficient to gather understanding about the variables. It is important to conduct interviews based on the recent graduates and not graduates who stayed In the Netherlands longer than 12 months. Interviewing graduates within this period allows for them to remember more easily why they have or are returning to country of origin. Also, this method allows the graduates to provide variables that are crucial to return
migration only after recent graduation. This is because graduates who wait longer to return might do so for different reasons.
3.1 Sample
The returnees could be currently living both in the Netherlands as well as the Caribbean areas. Therefore, interviews will be conducted through the internet or in person. To not confuse ‘planned’ with actual return amongst the sample of graduates, the students in the Netherlands are asked to provide proof of moving. Non-probability sampling is common for qualitative research method. In current research convenience sampling and snowball sampling method are used to contact the graduates for interviews. Convenience sampling is when candidates are chosen based on availability. This is because the group of students do not display attributes which makes them easily recognizable. Therefore, snowball sampling is also used because of the references the interviewed students provide. The assumption is that students who are returning are likely to know others who are also returning. The graduates are approached first through a personal network. Then they are approached trough communities and organizations which organize workshops specifically for the return of Dutch Caribbean graduates (WeConnect). They range between the ages of 20 to 30 approximately. All the graduates in the sample have grown up or were born on the Dutch Caribbean islands of Aruba, Curacao or Bonaire.
3.2 Data analysis
After data collection, the various patterns of migration are sorted from each interview and then compared with each other. This is done with the use of inductive thematic content analysis. This form of analysis allows the data from the interviews to be coded and then sectioned in tot themes. For current research, this is suitable because the three main factors are arranged according to three themes. Also, thematic content analysis allows for the discovery of patterns (Boyatzis, 1998). The similarities
14
are highlighted and related to the theoretical framework. If needed, further literature will be added to support arguments. The inductive aspect is due to the explanatory nature of the research.
15
4. Results
This section covers the results from the interviews based upon inductive thematic analysis. Each of the three themes have been formerly coded in sub themes which in summary shape the three main variables in current research: economic circumstances, family dynamics and lifestyle.
4.1 Economic circumstances
This section reflects the evidence on the following topics surrounding economic circumstances which affect graduate’s decision to return.
4.1.1 Job prospects
Evidence suggests that job prospects were crucial for the return of returnees. Notably there is a variation between genders as well. The results suggest that males who return have done so because of a secure job prospect awaiting them whilst females only claim to need a job before returning. Both parties emphasized the need for employment in country of origin. This is because upon return they are supported by parents if needed financially, however they are not being taken care of the same as before they left the country. Focusing on the difference between men and women, most females have chosen to return despite not having a secure job prospect awaiting them upon return. This is the case for a graduate from Bonaire:
‘’My partner has a stable income in Bonaire and therefore I’m not that worried about having a secure job prospect before I returned back home.’’ (Interview 6).
In contrast, all the males have chosen to return after having a secure job opportunity upon arrival. A male graduate from Aruba suggest:
‘’I had to take job interviews before arriving to Aruba to make sure that I would have employment.’’ (Interview 2).
Females explain that eventually they expect to receive a job opportunity over time while males take the risk more seriously and choose to return when they have a secure job waiting for them. The males emphasize that financial stability is important do to taking care of partner and or families in the country of origin. In relation to the theory it is evident that gender norms with regards to job prospects play a role. The caregiver role is reflected in the case for female graduates since the pressure to have employment is put upon their partners. As expected, the breadwinner role for males is more important and reflected in their evaluation of the risk to receive employment. In short job prospects are
16
4.1.2 Employment
According to recent graduates, employment is one of the biggest point of concern. Particularly stable employment in country of origin. Acquiring stable employment prior to migration in country of origin was a crucial step when they were deciding to move. One of the reasons why stable employment was important is to support their livelihood in country of origin. Social security in country of origin decreases the quality of life for many graduates and therefore they also wish to have stable
employment before moving. Since employment is huge factor in the migration of graduates most of them claim they would not have return on short term if they would not have employment on standby. They claim to eventually return but at a later point in time. This shows that the time frame between graduates finalizing their studies and the acquirement of employment in country of origin is important.
Evidence suggests that employment is very important for two major reasons, namely financial stability and purpose. Both male and females report that employment is highly necessary to maintain financial stability. The financial means resulting from employment are needed to support their livelihood. Also, evidence suggest that the graduates find it important to have employment because it adds to having a sense of purpose in life. In some cases, for both males and females this sense of purpose is also tied to feeling of completing a goal. A male in Curacao suggest:
‘’Upon return, I feel that I have reached my goal. I came to the Netherlands with the intention to return so after arriving here and having employment it gave me a sense of accomplishment.’’ (Interview 11).
The same person has a family to take care of and thus heavily relies on employment to sustain their livelihood:
“I have a family I need to take care of and my parents are not going to do that for me. I don’t want them to either, I want to take care of my family myself.’’ (Interview 11).
Another interesting point is that females whom are single also heavily rely on employment for
financial stability in order to take care of themselves. While they have the opportunity to be supported temporarily by parents upon arrival they feel that they want to take responsibility for themselves.
4.1.3 Economic status
Evidence suggest that economic status does not play a significant role in the graduates decision to return. Both men and women claim that their position in society was not considered when deciding to return. Some claim that it is not an issue for them as they did not feel it would change or impact their life. In fact, all graduates claim that their relative economic status has remained the same. One explanation for this is that their standard of living did not change: One female graduate from Curacao suggests:
17
“I don’t feel that I have declined in economic status. Sure, some things are more expensive in Curacao than in the Netherlands but the overall relation between income and expenses remain the same. Curacao is expensive in certain areas where the Netherlands is not and vice versa.’’ (Interview 4.) One possible interpretation of this is that graduates may not be that much aware of their economic status upon recent arrival. On a side note, the majority of graduates seem to no be comfortable talking about their economic status. Most likely a cultural explanation for this that speaking about one’s financial assets or status is not encouraged. Relative economic status as defined earlier it was a broad range of relative factors does not play a role in this case. The graduates claim that their salary which they receive in country of origin is sufficient to maintain their standard of living. In this case, the graduates claim to have more money left and thus more spending power. Some even claim that their standard of living has improved in comparison to their period in the Netherlands. The difference between amount of income and living costs such as rent, insurance, water, electricity and
combustibles are like the Netherlands according to graduates. The increase of spending power comes from lesser tax that needs to be paid. Graduates claim to be relieved from paying much tax in country of origin in comparison to the Netherlands. However, this is not a crucial point that pushes graduates to migrate but it facilitates their decision to return due to improving their standard of living through increase of spending power.
4.1.4 Living costs
Evidence suggest that males are more concerned with living costs than females due to role income tied to employment. Living costs are not an issue in terms of deciding where to live in country of origin. Both males and females report that family members are open to temporary support initially in graduate’s living expenses in case of need. In this aspect, there was no gender difference. Most importantly the graduates are very relaxed about their ability to finance their living expenses in the country of origin. This is because they themselves have employment (males) or have a partner which accounts for living costs as well (females). For example, a male from Curacao stated the following: ‘’My parents have multiple housing in the country of origin and therefore are willing to help me initially with living expenses.’’ (Interview 5.)
Notably, graduates claim to receive a cultural shock when returning to their country of origin. Part of this shock is also the change in relationship and expectations with regards to parental support. This is interesting because the graduates migrated whilst receiving support from their parents and suddenly that support is no longer there upon return. Also, the graduates are familiar with the economic environment in the country of origin. This information is used to make a choice upon deciding to return. All graduates claim to have parental support post arrival in country of origin. This support consists of housing and help to establish their life. However, many claims also that this parental
18
support is temporary. Hence the need for stable employment prior migration to help sustain their livelihood.
Other economic circumstances than the ones mentioned above did not affect the graduates decision to return. Overall this suggest that Dutch Caribbean graduates put importance on economic
circumstances with regards to employment upon arrival as this will sustain their livelihood in the country of origin. This is significantly more important to males than females because the males feel the need to provide for their partner or family.
4.2 Family
This section reflects the evidence on the following topics surrounding the role of family which affect graduates decision to return.
4.2.1 Parental relationship
Evidence suggests that parents play a huge role in females decision to return. All females claim that to have a close relationship with their parents, particularly their mother which strengthens the need to be in close proximity with them. A female graduate from Aruba mentions the following:
‘’I love my mom very much. I missed her a lot during my time in the Netherlands and I wished to be close to her. Therefore, I did not want to stay in the Netherlands.’’ (Interview 1).
Another female from Bonaire states the same:
“My mom and I have always been very close. She lives alone and I want to be close to her in case something happens as well. I consider her my best friend. She raised me and supported me a lot during my studies and I cannot imagine my life without her.’’ (Interview 6).
While graduates report that parents do not put much pressure for them to return, a lot of them feel they have a moral obligation to return. A female graduate from Curacao reported that she would want to be there for her parents in case of illness. Most importantly the graduates say that he physical location of their parents is the crucial factor here. If their parents would have moved to the
Netherlands they would have stayed in the Netherlands. Males do not report a significant effect of the parental location and relationship on their decision to return. They would have also stayed in the Netherlands if their parents chose to do so.
This shows that the physical location of parents plays a huge role in affecting the graduates decision to return. Having a strong a relationship with parents strengthens the need to be in close proximity with them. In conclusion, graduates who are more likely to return to country of origin are amongst the ones who have a close relationship with their parents. This does not mean that the ones who do not return have a weak relationship with their parents.
19
4.2.2 Friendship
Evidence suggests that friendship plays no role in the graduates decision to return. Both male and female seem indifferent to the location of their friends when considering their decision to return. A male from Aruba suggest:
‘’I have friends both in Aruba and in the Netherlands. We can stay in touch whenever and most of them visit the country regularly. It’s not that I don’t care about them but they are just not a point of concern for me when deciding to return.’’ (Interview 18).
A female from curacao mentioned:
‘’Friends are nice to have and it is fun to chill with them. But they also come and go. Some even don’t become your friends anymore.’’ (Interview, 14).
4.2.3 Social capital
Evidence suggest that social capital plays some role for both men and women. Social capital is related to having job opportunities in the country of origin. Both males and females report that social capital was important for getting employment in the country of origin. Their network is larger than in the Netherlands and the people in it can advance their position in society if needed. Particularly males tend to use their network in country of origin more extensively to gain a job whilst females are more reluctant in this area. When asked about the reason behind this it is because males are expected to take initiative more easily whilst females are expected to take a more laid-back approach. A male from Curacao suggests:
‘’I have a large network of people that I know which are both in the government and from jobs that I have had before coming to the Netherlands. I also asked my family members for help when searching for a job. In a lot of cases it is easier to get on if you know someone.’’ (Interview 9.)
This shows that social capital is important due to its ability to contribute toward finding employment for the graduates in the country of origin.
4.2.4 Wellbeing of family
Evidence suggest that both male and female graduates are not concerned with the wellbeing of their family when deciding to return. In this case family refers to aunts, uncles, and cousins etc. This is because the family members are in good health already and can sustain themselves. The importance of family member is in the desire of graduates to be in close proximity with them to share important moments in their lives such as birthdays and holidays. One female graduate from Aruba suggests: ‘’I love to celebrate the holidays with the rest of my family. I cannot have the same experience here in the Netherlands.’’ (Interview 15).
20
This shows that wellbeing of family to the graduates in order to share their life experience with them. In contrast to the parental relationship the graduates would not consider the physical location of the rest of the family when deciding to return. The physical location of parents remain dominant.
4.2.5 Other social motivations
Notably, the majority of graduates who decided to return have a partner and some have a family with children. Those who have partners report that their partners are the most important reason they have decided to return. This show that the effect on the graduates decision to return is stronger than the parental affect. Also here there is no difference amongst genders and both males and females put a priority on the physical location of their partners. The physical location of their partners remains with the dominant effect if they would have decided to stay in the Netherlands. For graduates who don’t have a partner, the parental attachment becomes dominant. Another reason is that the majority of graduates report wanting to raise their children in the country of origin. This is because they want their children to grow up with the same cultural values and environment they have grown up in. Overall this shows that partner relationships and parental relationships primarily affect graduates decision to return for both males and females. The preference is first hand for the location of partners and then location of parents. Notably parental and partner relationships play a huge role in graduates’ decision to return. Most graduates interviewed have a partner- relationship living in the country of origin. Because of this relationship, they have a urge to return. Most partners from the graduates also have a stable employment prior to the graduates’ arrival. In this case, the physical location of partners seems to be crucial. This is because the graduates feel the need to be close with their partners. In all cases the partner wants to reside in the country of origin. Some would like to start a family near with each other’s family members. Graduates without a partner put more emphasis on the parental
relationship. In this case graduates claim to have a strong bong with their parents which reinforces the need of being near with them. In this case, physical location matters. For both parental and partner relationships, most graduates claim that they would stay in the Netherlands if their parents or partner migrated there. This shows that partner and parental relationship play the biggest role in graduates’ decision to return. Friendship in country of origin or in the Netherlands plays no role in graduates’ decision to return. Most graduates explain that the expectations with regards to friendship changes and are not directly connected to their decision to return. On the other hand, friendship adds the quality of life of the graduates and increase their social network in country of origin. Part of the students claim that they social network in country of origin was important for their decision to return with regards to helping them finding employment. Via their social network the graduates could access employment easier before returning. However, the return is not related towards maintenance or expansion of their social network but rather a result of their social network providing employment prior return. The wellbeing of family members was also a point of concern. Particularly elderly parents were important. Since the parents are getting older, graduates want to be near their parents to share family moments or
21
to give support in case of emergency. Having a close bond with family members causes the graduates to want to be near them. On a side note, this does not mean that graduates who stay in the Netherlands lack a strong bond with family members.
4.3 Lifestyle
This section reflects the evidence on the following topics surrounding the role of lifestyle which affect graduates decision to return.
4.3.1 Culture
Evidence suggests that culture is also important in the graduates decision to return. This is because the graduates have grown up in the culture in from the country of origin and therefor identify with it the most. A female from Curacao suggests:
‘’I missed my country. I feel like I could express myself completely here. I can speak my language: Papiamentu and communicate with other the way I’m used to. There is nothing wrong with the Dutch way, I just prefer the way I’m used to and I can do that in my own country. There is also a different atmosphere here. People greet each other more openly and I enjoy that.’’ (Interview 20).
A male form Aruba suggests:
‘’ Time is not so much of an issue and that lack of structure allows me to relax more.’’ (Interview 17). For example, Upegui’s (2011) study indicates that ‘’The determinants that affect Aruban students’ decision to return to Aruba are the safety and comfortableness in Aruba and the importance to contribute to the society of Aruba’’ (p. 48). Both male and female graduates report to enjoy the cultural activities their islands have to offer. Culture is important for their decision to return because there are not able to participate in the same manner as in the Netherlands. The culture is not a dominant factor but does contribute to their decision to return from the graduates experience. Climate along with culture is an added bonus since the weather is always sunny on the islands. The warm breeze and sandy beaches are part of habitual life of the graduates before they decided to come to the Netherlands.
Notably some graduates report that they wanted to return in order to improve development on their islands. A female from Curacao suggest:
‘’I am going to work as teacher and I want to help in child social security on the island. Child protection, education. More rules and regulations to oblige professional to help out kids with problems at home. For example, when kids come to school with bruises from home and teachers do not do anything. I have a sense of truly wanting to help my country and see it go forward.’’ (Interview 10).
22
Graduates claim that culture in country of origin is important to their decision to return. This is because the graduates feel that they can express themselves more easily. The self-expression along with cultural norms and activities add to their quality of life. The form of self-expression is more difficult to have in the Netherlands due to different norms and climate. All graduates grew up in the country of origin. Therefore, they took part into the culture due to habit up until they migrated to the Netherlands. In this case, it is approximately 17 to 20 years of participating in the origin culture. Climate also plays a role because it adds to the quality of life from the graduates. Institutions play a small role in part of the graduates’ decision to return. This is because some graduates return is attached to employment within institutions whereby the graduates wants to improve the efficiency of the institution. One example is education. One graduate returned because she received employment in education and wants to improve it. Other that this minor note, institutions or lack thereof do not play a role in graduates’ decision to return because they are like the ones in the Netherlands. Regulations are important and play a faciliatory role. The lack of structure, tax and outdated processes in country of origin allows for much freedom which again add to the quality of life of the graduates. Graduates claim that they save more of their finances and thus have more spending power because the way regulations are organized in country of origin. Next, they claim that the social life in the home country is more pleasant. Notably some returning students explain that there are job opportunities for creative and innovative functions despite that there is widely claimed that employment is scarce in the home country. Finally, some graduates report that bad experiences in the Netherlands is a reason to return. Other studies confirm these factors as motivators for return migration.
23
5. Conclusions & Discussion
Overall it shows that recent graduates return because of returning to a habitual standard of living prior to emigration. Particularly for males, employment remains and important factor for deciding to return in order for them to full their role of breadwinner for their partners or family. For females
employment remains important as well but females are more willing to take the risk of returning without having a steady job upon arrival. The need for employment with regards to sustaining ones livelihood is due to the change in relationship between the graduates and the parents. Notably, all students claim that they knew they would return after their studies for sure. The aspects which stimulate the need for the habitual standard of living lie in the location of parents, partners, family members and culture. These two combined add to the life experience of the student which are big part of the habitual life prior migration. In short economic circumstances, family and lifestyles affect Dutch Caribbean graduates decision to return because they provide the graduate to return his habitual life before migrating to the Netherlands.
5.1 Discussion
An area of concern is the experience of migrants after return (Ghosh, 2000). Immigrants often are optimistic about the change they are going to face in the country of origin. This is because immigrants tend to feel that they are going ‘home’ when returning to country of origin. Ghosh (2000) shows that some of the challenges that migrants may face are difficulty connecting with family members and old friends, or difficulty in adaptation in country of origin due to cultural changes. In some cases, the immigrant sees his return to nationalize himself back to the country of origin after emigration for certain period (Ghosh, 2000).
A former study on the migration process of these students done by Groot, Pin & Vasquez Villaseca (2014) suggests that Dutch-Caribbean graduates may choose to stay in the Netherlands because of the higher reward for their skills. According to Dick Drayer, a correspondent for the Caribbean islands from the Dutch kingdom, there is a case of brain drain happening. However his statement is contradicting since he explains that skilled professionals from Colombia, Venezuela and the US are hired instead to compensate for the lack of return. Thus in reality, there is not much lacking in terms of skills. However the aspect that could be at the root of this issue is the type of education or quality of skils required in the Dutch Caribbean islands. It could be for example that the quality of education in the Netherlands is better that the ones in Colombia, Venezuela and the US which adds to the preference for the Duch Caribbean graduates.
Established theories of ‘brain drain’ predict that highly skilled individuals affect a country’s ability to build up human capital and thus can decrease the buildup of human capital upon emigration. (Dulam & Franses, 2015). Dulam & Franses (2015) emphasize that brain drain is when already high skilled individuals emigrate from a developing country to developed countries while simultaneously reducing the welfare in country of origin. The crucial aspect that is commonly the problem with the
24
topic of brain drain is the effect where human capital is lost when highly skilled individuals emigrate and thus decreasing the welfare in country of origin upon emigration. In comparison to current case the Dutch Caribbean graduates emigrated with secondary education and followed vocational education in the Netherlands. Thus, the difference is the time and place where the graduates
accumulate their skills. In current research, this event is considered as a form of brain drain because the potential skills that students acquired in the Netherlands are not transferred to the country of origin which decreases its welfare.
25
Bibliography
Ajzen, I. (1988). Attitudes, Personality, and Behaviour. Milton: Keynes: Open University Press.
Basarir, H. (2011). Is it all relative? The role of wealth in the. New York: The University of York. Opgehaald van
https://cream.conference-services.net/resources/952/2371/pdf/MECSC2011_0306_paper.pdf.
Bergen, P. v. (2017). Women Rise to Power in Patriarchal Democracies in the Caribbean. Leiden University.
Bijwaard, G. (2010). Immigrant migration dynamics model for The Netherlands. Journal of Population Economics, 23, 1213-1247. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org.proxy.uba.uva.nl:2048/stable/pdf/40925858.pdf
Borjas, G. J., & Bratsberg, B. (1996). Who Leaves? The Outmigration of the Foreign-Born. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 78, 165-176. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org.proxy.uba.uva.nl:2048/stable/2109856
Boyatzis, R. (1998). Qualitative Information: Thematic Analysis and Code Development. Sage Publications.
Christou, A. & King, R. (2008). Imagining ‘home’: Diasporic landscapes of the Greek-German second generation, Geoforum, 41:4, pp. 638-646, DOI:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2010.03.001
Countries and Their Cultures. (sd). Netherlands Antilles. Opgehaald van Every culture: http://www.everyculture.com/Ma-Ni/Netherlands-Antilles.html
De Jong, G. (2000). Expectations, gender, and norms in migration decision-making.
Population Studies, 307-319. doi:10.1080/713779089
Dulam, T. & Franses, P.H. (2015) Emigration, wage differentials and brain drain: the case of Suriname. Applied Economics, 47:23, pp. 2339-2347,
DOI:10.1080/00036846.2015.1005826
Dustmann, C., Fadlon, I., & Weiss, Y. (2011). Return migration, human capital accumulation and the brain drain. Journal of Development Economics, 95, 58-67.
doi:10.1016/j.jdeveco.2010.04.006
Ghosh, B. (2000). Return Migration: Journey of Hope Or Despair? Geneva: International Organization for Migration.
Gmelch, G. (1980). Return Migration. Annual Review of Anthropology, 9, 135-159. doi:10.1146/annurev.an.09.100180.001031
Grieco, E. M. (1988). Women and Migration: Incorporating gender into international migration theory. Center for the Study of Population, 98–139. Florida State University.
Groot, M., Pin, R., & Vasquez-Villaseca, D. (2014). Ayó òf te aweró? Een onderzoek naar migratie-intenties en de belemmerende en bevorderende factoren rondom remigratie naar Curaçao. Retrieved from http://www.coaching-magazine.net/assets/ayo-of-te-awero-1.pdf
Heering, L., Van Der Erf, R., & Van Wissen, L. (2004). The Role of Family Networks and Migration Culture in the Continuation of Morrocan Emigration: A Gender Perspective.
Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 323–337.
doi:10.1080/1369183042000200722
Hussain, S. M. (2015). Reversing the Brain Drain: Is it Beneficial? World Development, 67, 310-322. doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2014.10.023
26
King, R. (2000) 'Generalizations from the History of Return Migration', in Bimal Ghosh (ed.), Return Migration: Journey of Hope or Despair?, Geneva: International Organization for Migration, pp. 7-55.
Kwok, V., & Leland, H. (1982). An economic model of the brain drain. The American Economic Review, 72, 91-100. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org.proxy.uba.uva.nl:2048/stable/1808577
Reynolds, T. (2008). Ties That Bind: Families, Social Capital and Caribbean Second-Generation Return Migration. Retrieved from
https://www.lsbu.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/9435/social-capital-caribbean-migration-families-research-working-paper.pdf
Rosenzweig, M., 2008. Higher education and international migration in Asia: brain
circulation, in “Higher Education and Development. In: edited by Justin Yifu Lin and Boris Pleskovic (Eds.), Annual World Bank Conference on Development Economics Regional, The World Bank, Washington, DC.
Singleton, A. (1999). Combining quantitative and qualitative research methods in the study of international migration. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 151-157. doi:10.1080/136455799295113
Upegui, J. (2011). Return migration of Aruban students. Master thesis Economics, Universiteit van Tilburg, Tilburg.
Van Niekerk, M. (2007). Second-Generation Caribbeans in the Netherlands: Different Migration Histories, Diverging Trajectories. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 1063-1081. doi:10.1080/13691830701541580
Voss, T. & Abraham, M. (2000). Rational Choice Theory in Sociology: A Survey. In: S.R. Quah & A. Sales, eds., The International Handbook of Sociology, pp. 50–83. London: Sage
Chevannes, B. (2001). Learning to be a man: Culture, socialization and Gender Identity
in Five Caribbean Communities. Kingston, Jamaica: University of the West Indies
