Understanding family influences on return migration : the case of Morocco

(1)

Understanding family influences

on return migration: the case of

Morocco

Author: Sanda Vantoni

UvA student ID number: 10866957 DU student ID number: 99910544 UCD student ID number: 15202531

Supervisors:

University of Amsterdam: Dr. Anja Van Heelsum

Universidad de Deusto: Dr. Concepción Maiztegui Oñate University College Dublin: Dr. Steven Loyal

MISOCO MASTER THESIS

May 4th, 2016

(2)

1

Declaration

I hereby declare that this thesis is my own work, and that to the best of my knowledge, it

contains no material written by another person except where due reference is made.

I also declare that I have been informed of the completion and assessment rules of the MISOCO

Programme.

Sanda Vantoni

(3)

2

List of abbreviations

IOM= International Organization for Migration NELM= New Economics of Labour Migration SES= Socioeconomic Status

(7)

6

1. Introduction

The role of the family in migration studies has long been neglected because of a

tendency to focus on economic perspectives to understand migration (Kofman, 2004), and it is

only recently that the family has gained attention in migration studies. By underlining social

aspects of migration, some scholars have highlighted that migration cannot be understood as

independent from family influences (Kraler, Kofman, Kohli & Schmoll, 2011). They have

insisted on showing how migration affects family structures (Kofman, 2004; Kraler et al., 2011; Yeoh, Graham & Boyle, 2002), and how the family plays a role in shaping the migrant’s

experience in the emigration phase and in the host country (Boyd 1989; Koser 1997). In

contrast, there is a clear lack of studies focusing on the role played by the family in the return

phase. Return migration is a complex and multifaceted process that involves a multitude of

factors (Cassarino, 2004), and as such, it cannot be fully comprehended unless family

influences1 are taken into consideration.

By studying family influences on Moroccan return migration, this research thus

combines two distinct fields of study: return migration and the family in migration. As this

study will highlight, the importance of understanding family influences on return migration lies

in the fact that it contributes to developing a theory of return migration capable of grasping the social factors that shape returnees’ experiences.

The family is accorded a central place in Moroccan society (CERED, 1996; El Harras,

2006), and the modern Moroccan family still heavily relies on its moral values of the past that

are based on solidarity, support and respect between family members of the extended family

1_{By “family influences” I refer to the complex set of ways in which the family can affect the return process and}

(8)

7

(El Harras, 2006). In such a context, Moroccan return migration cannot be understood without

taking into account the role that families play in the return process. The family is in fact

embedded in a series of relationships that are emotional, cultural and economic, and no matter

how independent a Moroccan individual may be, he will always be able to count on some form

of family support but at the same time be subject to moral obligations towards his family, even

after having spent years away from his family and his own country (CERED, 1996; El Harras,

2006).

Furthermore, as a result of the economic crisis that has affected destination countries

(Bastia, 2011), and because of economic pull factors in Morocco (Arango & González

Quiñones, 2009; Tounsi, Ezzahid, Alaoui, & Nihou, 2013), return migration flows tend to have

increased in recent years, but little is known about the post-return experiences of these returnees

or about their re-emigration intentions2 (Arango & González Quiñones, 2009; “La comunità

Marocchina in Italia”, 2013). Prior studies have highlighted that Moroccan returnees often face

high expectations and pressures upon return (Schaeffer, 2001), but most studies have focused

on retired Moroccan returnees (Khachani; 2006; Khachani, 2009; Schaefer, 2001). However,

return has lately affected Moroccans across age categories (Arango & González Quiñones,

2009; De Bree, Davids & De Haas; 2010; “La comunità Marocchina in Italia”, 2013), and if

the economic dimensions of Moroccan post-return experiences have been covered to a certain

extent by the literature (Cassarino, 2008; Mabrouk, 2013; Werth & Yalcintas, 1978), little is

known about the social aspects of post-return experiences related to the family.

In such a context, it is thus necessary to provide a study that would contribute to the

understanding of Moroccan return migration by highlighting how the family influences

(9)

8

different stages of return migration, and how it may act as a source of support and pressures

for returnees.

In order to understand family influences on Moroccan return migration this thesis uses Cassarino’s theoretical framework of return migration (2004). The particularity of his theory

is that it highlights that return migration may not be understood as independent from other

stages of the migration trajectory. Furthermore, by looking at each stage of the return process,

Cassarino provides theoretical tools that allow to get a comprehensive understanding of return.

He underlines in fact that return motives, preparation for return and post-return experiences are

all central elements for the understanding of return. His framework is intended to study the link

between return and development, and post-return experiences are thus studied with the aim of

understanding which typology of returnees will contribute to the development of the economy

of the home country.

This study on the other hand uses his framework to understand how families influence

the whole return process, and by doing so brings his theory one step forward by highlighting

the importance of including also the family as a central factor shaping return experiences. From

a theoretical point of view, the uniqueness of this research thus lies in the fact that it elaborates

a complex framework that combines two large bodies of research that are generally studied

separately: return migration and the role of the family in migration.

From an empirical point of view, this thesis is the first attempt to comprehensively

study family influences on Moroccan return migration, and it thus contributes to gaining a

better understanding of the experiences of Moroccan returnees. Understanding how families

affect return motives, preparation for return and post-return experiences is in fact essential to

(10)

9

tools to organizations and NGOs that are elaborating projects aimed at facilitating returnees’

reintegration into their home country3.

The main research question guiding this study is the following: What influence does the

family have on Moroccan return migration?

The research question is divided in three sub-questions that each investigate a specific

aspect of family influences on return migration:

a) How has the family influenced the migrant’s return motives? Do family influences on the emigration phase have repercussions on return motives? If so, how?

b) How has the family influenced the migrant’s preparation for return?

c) How does the family affect post-return experiences? In what ways do post-return experiences and family influences have an impact on re-emigration intentions?

In order to answer the research question, field-work was conducted in Morocco over a

period of two months (January and February 2016), mainly in the urban areas of Rabat and

Casablanca. These cities were chosen because they are the two major urban areas of Morocco,

and therefore allowed to reach respondents from different backgrounds.

Most of the data was collected by means of in-depth interviews (28) with a sample of

diverse respondents. The respondents were purposely chosen from different backgrounds so as

to understand family influences in different return contexts. Observations were also used as a

means to gather data, in particular with regard to general attitudes towards return migrants.

In accordance with Cassarino’s framework of return migration, the data was analysed

by focusing on three important elements that shape the return experience: return motives,

3_{To have an example of such projects consider NIRVA (Italian Network for Assisted Voluntary Returns). The}

aim of this Italian network created in 2008 is that of assisting and supporting migrants upon return in their home country. It was funded by the Ministry of Interior and by the European Union. The projects are run by IOM (International Organization for Migration), as well as Italian and local NGOs.

(11)

10

preparation for return and post-return experiences. For each one of these three core components

of return migration, the influence of the family was underlined, as well as the influence that

these three main components have on each other was highlighted.

Theories of return migration tend to approach migration on a large scale and focus on the returnees’ contributions to the economy of the home country (Cassarino, 2004). By doing

so, these theories standardize the returnees’ experiences and classify their return as successful

or unsuccessful merely based on their economic contributions to the home country (Cassarino,

2004). Furthermore these perspectives obscure the fact that particularly for community based

societies as the Moroccan one, migration cannot be seen as merely the result of individual

interests, but rather has to be considered as embedded within traditions and family influences. By focusing on the returnees’ experiences of return and on family influences, this study

highlights the necessity of also considering more small scale phenomena-such as family

influences-to fully comprehend return migration.

This thesis is structured as follows: Chapter two provides a brief historical overview of

Moroccan migration and highlights some trends in studies of Moroccan return migration. It

also highlights the importance of the family in modern Moroccan society. Chapter three

exposes the theoretical framework for this thesis. It underlines the relevance of studying family

influences in migration and gives an overview of theories of return migration. It then introduces Cassarino’s theoretical framework of return migration and explains how it has been adapted to

answer the theoretical problem raised by this study. Chapter four describes the methods of data

collection and of data analysis applied in this study, as well as it raises a series of ethical

considerations. Chapters five, six and seven report the main findings of this study and reflect

the three sub-questions leading the study. Chapter five investigates return motives and

highlights in what ways the family influences the emigration phase, as family influences on the

(12)

11

what form of family support migrants can count on in the preparation for return phase. Chapter

seven describes family influences on post-return experiences and highlights how families may

be both sources of support and of pressures. It also highlights that family influences play a role

on re-emigration intentions. Chapter eight is the conclusive chapter, and among highlighting

the main findings in this study, it gives recommendations for further research and underlines

(13)

12

2. Moroccan return migration and the

family

This chapter gives a brief overview of Moroccan migration and traces its evolution

through existing studies in order to highlight the relevance of studying family influences on

return migration for the case of Morocco.

2.1 Brief overview of Morocco’s emigration history

In the second half of the twentieth century, Morocco became one of the world’s

leading emigration countries, and nowadays Moroccans form one of the largest and most

dispersed migrant communities in Western Europe (De Haas, 2007). In 2010, the estimated

flow of Moroccans towards OECD countries was at 123,754 individuals (Migration Profile

Morocco, 2013).

Moroccan emigration started in the mid-1960’s after agreements with north-west

European countries to recruit guest workers, which were mainly unskilled labour (De Haas &

Fokkema, 2010). Moroccan migration flows were initially directed towards France, the

Netherlands, Belgium and Germany (De Haas & Fokkema, 2010), and since the mid-1980’s,

as a consequence of the harsher immigration policies adopted by central and northern

European countries, Italy and Spain also became important destination countries (De Haas &

Fokkema, 2010).

In the 1960’s and 1970’s Moroccan immigration was regarded as primarily temporary,

but contrary to expectations and despite the numerous return policies implemented by

destination countries after the 1973 oil crisis, the majority of Moroccan migrants ended up

settling in these European countries (De Haas & Fokkema, 2010). This was paralleled by a

(14)

13

Fokkema, 2010), which explains how gender parity has been attained in the numbers of

Moroccans having settled in these receiving countries (Migration Profile Morocco, 2013).

Furthermore, a good number of Moroccans abroad nowadays are students. In fact, about 60.000

Moroccan students live in OECD countries, and as such Morocco is the fourth principal non

OECD country source for students (Bommes, Fassmann & Sievers, 2014).

According to data from 2012, 90.6% of Moroccans abroad live in Europe, mainly in

France (35.4%), Spain (19.9%) and Italy (14.4%) (Migration Profile Morocco, 2013). The

9.4% of Moroccan migrants that live outside of Europe are documented to live in Canada,

Libya and Algeria (Migration Profile Morocco, 2013). In European countries of immigration-

especially Italy and Spain-most migrants have low levels of education and occupy low-skilled

jobs, whereas in Northern American countries such as Canada, the majority of Moroccan

migrants is tertiary educated (Migration Profile Morocco, 2013).

2.2 Moroccan return Migration

Even if for the majority of Moroccan migrants return has not been the natural end of

the migration cycle (Khachani, 2006; Khachani, 2008; Schaeffer, 2001), it has happened for a

relatively significant number of Moroccans (Khachani, 2006). According to the national

Moroccan census of 2004, about 111.111 returnees live in Morocco (Khachani, 2009), and due

to the recent economic crisis in destination countries, together with pull factors in Morocco,

there is reason to believe that the number has recently significantly increased.

Evidence suggests in fact that the sectors in which migrants are overrepresented tend to

have been among the worst hit by the crisis (Bastia, 2011), and one of the consequences of the

crisis has been that some countries have been renewing fewer residency permits (“La comunità

(15)

14

Among negative push factors in the host countries, Moroccan return migration is also

to be understood in terms of pull factors in the home country. Morocco has only slightly been

affected by the global financial crisis, because its banks did not contain subprime assets and

because its economy heavily relies on natural resources-such as phosphate-and on agriculture

(Knufken, 2008). Agriculture accounts for 15% of the GDP and employs about 45% of the

labour force (2015 Index of Economic Freedom, 2015). Morocco also relies on a large tourism

industry and on a consistent manufacturing sector (2015 Index of Economic Freedom, 2015),

and its economy was picking in 2015 thanks to the exceptional agricultural season of

2014/2015 (The World Bank, 2016). Such an economic situation is therefore likely to also have

played a role in increasing recent return flows.

Such a context suggests that economic factors played a role in shaping recent return

flows, but they cannot alone explain for the complex phenomenon of Moroccan return

migration. In order to be fully comprehended, social aspects of migration also need to be

considered. In fact, in many cases, the return decision is influenced primarily by non-economic

factors (Ferro, 2010).

However, Moroccan return migration has been studied primarily from an economic

perspective that has insisted on how economic factors shape the return decision and how

returnees re-integrate the labour market upon return (Cassarino, 2008; Mabrouk, 2013; Werth

& Yalcintas, 1978). This insistence on economic factors is to be understood as a result of the

growing interest in the nexus between migration and development, and in fact many studies

have primarily focused on the economic impacts that Moroccan returnees could have on the

development of their home country (Cassarino, 2008; Khachani, 2009).

In comparison, very few studies have focused on the more small scale level of the

(16)

15

& Faber, 2015), and this constitutes an important lacuna in the study of return migration.

Investigating how different factors shape both the return decision and the post-return

experience is essential in order to get a more contextualized understanding of return

migration. Such an understanding would in fact acknowledge that returnees are embedded in

complex social frameworks and that economic factors alone may not explain for their

experiences.

The few studies of Moroccan return migration that have stepped away from a purely economic perspective and that have rather focused on the returnees’ experiences-thus

highlighting the importance of social aspects of migration- have in fact highlighted that

returnees often face difficult experiences. These experiences are due to reintegration struggles

that are societal and cultural, and that are often embedded in the expectations and pressures

they face from family members and society at large (De Bree et al., 2010; Schaeffer, 2001;

Van Meeteren et al., 2015).

Van Meeteren et al.’s recent study (2015) has on this regard brought a great

contribution to the understanding of Moroccan return migration. The authors rely on the

approach proposed by Cassarino that highlights the importance of understanding the returnees’ post-return experiences. They argue that post-return experiences are to be

understood by taking into account a multitude of factors, such as transnational contacts, social

networks, return motives, human capital, gender, socio-economic integration in the host

country and legal status. By doing so, they underline that adopting one perspective alone is

(17)

16

depend on the migrant’s return motives and preparation for return, which is shaped by both

the migrant’s preparedness and his4_{resource mobilization}5_.

Van Meeteren et al.’s study is useful as by considering the co-acting effects of

different factors it gives a general understanding of Moroccan returnees’ post-return

experiences, and even if it is not the focus of their study, they briefly touch upon family

influences. They highlight in fact that the family may be a source of pressure and thus

negatively influence post-return experiences. Their observation is useful as it underlines that

the family is to be considered as a factor shaping post-return experiences, but given that the

family is not the focus of their study, they do not investigate how it can, at the same time, be

a source of support and how it influences each phase of return, and not only post-return

experiences.

2.2.1 The family in Moroccan return migration

In most Arab countries, the family has undergone sensible changes from what it was

three generations ago. Arab societies have in fact been affected by changes introduced by urbanization, colonization, school development, women’s entry in the labour market,

technology and migration; all factors that have affected the traditional community based

structure of the family (Ben Salem, 1989; El Harras, 2006).

This structural change has resulted in a move from the extended to the nuclear family,

and scholars have questioned how this shift had affected Moroccan society and family relations

(Behnam, 1994). What emerged is that if the family intended as extended family is still

predominant in rural areas, in Moroccan urban areas families are often intended as primarily

4_{In this thesis I often use masculine pronouns when referring to migrants. However, when using them I refer to}

migrants in general, that is both men and women.

5_{Preparedness and resource mobilization are the concepts at the heart of Cassarino’s theory of return migration,}

(18)

17

nuclear (CERED, 1996; El Harras, 2006). However, this refers mainly to the fact that in urban

areas extended families rarely live under the same roof, and that households are rather

composed of nuclear families (CERED, 1996; El Harras, 2006). But in general terms, the moral

values of the past highlighting the importance of solidarity, support and respect between family

members of the extended family, has been widely preserved (CERED, 1996). Nuclear families

in the Arab world are in fact consistently different from nuclear families in the west (Behnam,

1994): far from being isolated entities, in the Arab world nuclear families are embedded in a

network of solidarity with relatives and friends that is maintained no matter how long

individuals stay away from their country and their family (Behnam, 1994). Moroccan return

migration is thus to be understood as embedded within a complex framework of family

relations, that provide solidarity, protection and a sense of belonging (CERED, 1996), but that

at the same time involve responsibilities, obligations and sometimes pressures (Van Meeteren

et al., 2015).

The few studies documenting family influences on Moroccan migration started once it

was clear that immigration was not to be perceived as temporary. The large process of family

reunification and family formation that began in the late 1970s led scholars to investigate how

Moroccan families were being affected by the new life styles in the host countries, as well as

some studies underlined how remittance flows could not be understood without taking into

consideration family roles and obligations (CERED, 1996).

For the specific case of Moroccan return migration, studies focusing on social aspects

of migration have highlighted that families often have high financial expectations towards their

migrant relatives (Schaeffer, 2001), and that this often results in strong pressures towards the

returnee. Van Meeteren et al. (2015) have for example underlined that some Moroccan

migrants decide to return to a city different from the one their family lives in order to avoid

(19)

18

What emerges from these studies is that negative family influences on Moroccan return

migration have to a certain extent been covered by the literature, but the understanding of why

some returnees face family pressures while others do not still remains hazy. Furthermore, there

lacks a comprehensive study of family influences that would not only investigate how the

family can be a source of pressures, but that would also highlight that families can also be a

source of support for returnees. Furthermore certain returnees such as first generation retired

individuals or labour migrants, are overrepresented in the literature documenting return

experiences (e.g., Khachani, 2009; Schaeffer, 2001), whereas other typologies of

returnees-such as second generation return migrants (SGRM) or women- are rarely studied.

The aim of this study is thus that of looking at family influences across categories of

Moroccan returnees from a perspective that would allow to more comprehensively understand

family influences at different stages of the return process.

2.3 Discussion

This chapter has highlighted the importance of including the family in the study of

Moroccan return migration. No studies up to date have focused on understanding what role the

family plays in Moroccan return migration, and due to the importance accorded to the family

in Morocco, it is essential to investigate family influences on migrants’ experiences of return.

Such a study could in fact provide a deeper understanding of return experiences and thus

contribute to highlighting what type of family influences favour positive post-return

experiences as well as it would highlight which are the returnees that are the most exposed to

(20)

19

3. Theoretical framework

Understanding family influences on Moroccan return migration requires a complex

framework that would allow to theoretically frame return migration by highlighting at the same

time the importance of the family in this process. This thesis thus relies on two main theories:

return migration and the family in migration.

This chapter highlights how these two broad fields of study are necessary to frame the

study of family influences on return migration and explains why Cassarino’s framework of

return migration is suited to study this topic.

3.1 The family in international migration

The family in international migration has only recently been gaining attention, as until the 1980’s it had been widely neglected (Kofman, 2004). This neglect is primarily due to the

fact that migration studies have generally adopted an economic perspective that has

overemphasized the individual and his own interests, and this attitude has recently led scholars

to argue that migration studies tend to suffer from a form of methodological individualism

(Kraler et al., 2011).

Furthermore, the neglect of the family in migration studies is also to be understood as

a result of the fact that gendered migration was generally framed within the dichotomy of

female reproducer and male producer (Kofman, 2004), and this narrow perception of gendered

migration has thus neglected its embeddedness within family dynamics (Kofman 1999;

Kofman, 2004). As a result of a predominantly economic perspective, most studies have

focused on male labour migrants, thus neglecting other members of the family such as women,

(21)

20

Scholars also pointed out that the family is often defined in extremely restrictive terms

in EU countries, with policies accepting as families only nuclear families composed of spouses

and children still dependent on their parents (Kofman, 2004). However, the family is a product of given societies, and as such it “is not timeless and culture-free” (Barret & McIntosh, 1991,

p. 33). The western based model of the family intended as nuclear isolated family can in fact

hardly be applied to more community based societies.

The study of family influences in migration has gained importance only in the last thirty

years when scholars started insisting on the relevance of social aspects of migration (Fleischer,

2013), thus highlighting the importance of family influences to understand migration

trajectories (Kraler et al., 2011). Scholars started to document how families were to be

understood as socializing agents that were the source of networks of information, obligations

and assistance (Kofman 2004). They insisted on the fact that the family represented the

interface between the social and the individual; between the public and private spheres

(Kofman, 2004).

Among scholars arguing that migration could not be understood as the product of an

individual decision, Nauck and Settles (2001) underlined that migration also depends on the

family life cycle and important events of the life course. By saying this, they highlighted that

migration was not to be viewed as merely a response to labour market characteristics.

Furthermore, studies relying on transnationalism and social network theory have

highlighted how migration impacts family forms and relations (Yeoh et al., 2002), and have

underlined how the family influences migration decisions (Nauck & Settles, 2001) and how it

plays a role both in the emigration phase of a migrant and in his integration in the home country

(22)

21

Several studies have thus highlighted the importance of the family in the receiving

country (Kofman, 2004) and for the emigration phase (Boyd 1989; Koser 1997). In contrast,

very few studies have investigated family influences in the home country when return takes place. To date, Fleischer’s study (2013) on Armenian return migrants is the only case in the

literature focusing on family influences on the return phase. She bases her study on social

network theory, and thus insists on the importance of looking at the resources that migrants can

mobilize in the return process. She also highlights that transnational ties with the family are

important to prepare for return. Rather than investigating different post-return experiences, her

focus is to understanding in what ways the family acts as a form of support during the return

process.

This provides an important contribution to the study of family influences on the return

phase, but it leaves out the more small scale aspect of the phenomena, such as the lived

experiences of returnees and how families can also be sources of pressures and expectations.

When family influences are investigated in the literature, the focus seems to be either on how

families can be sources of support or on how they can be sources of pressures for migrants, but

there lacks a more comprehensive framework that would investigate family influences

globally.

In order to elaborate a theoretical framework that would allow to have a more

comprehensive approach to family influences on return migration, it is necessary to highlight

the importance that has been accorded to the family within different theories of return

migration, so as to elaborate a framework suitable to grasp family influences on the returnees’

(23)

22

3.2 Theories of return migration

The previous section has underlined the place the family has been accorded within the

broad field of international migration, and it has briefly highlighted that within migration

studies focusing on the family, few are those that have looked at return migration. This section

thus focuses on return migration specifically, and by providing an overview of the main

theories of return migration it underlines which are the theories that have acknowledged family

influences. By reviewing these theories, this section lays the ground to elaborate a framework

of return migration that would allow to study family influences on the whole return process.

Return migration has been studied from various perspectives since the 1960’s, however,

it gained considerable importance among scholars only in the 1980’s, when the debate about

return and its impact on origin countries emerged (Cassarino, 2004). The main perspectives

dealing with return have been neoclassical economics, the new economics of labour migration

(NELM), structuralism, social network theory and transnationalism (Cassarino, 2004).

3.2.1 Neoclassical economics

The oldest and probably the best known theory is that of neoclassical economics

(Massey, Arango, Hugo, Kouaouci, Pellegrino & Taylor, 1993). It focuses on macro factors

such as differences in wages between countries, and also looks at micro factors by considering

migration as an individual decision aimed at income maximization (Massey et al., 1993). The

neoclassical theory views return as the outcome of a failed migration and the focus is on labour

migrants that had miscalculated the costs of their migration (Cassarino, 2004). According to this perspective, “return cannot but be motivated by a failed migration experience, in terms of

expected earnings, employment and duration” (Cassarino, 2004, p. 255). By viewing migration

(24)

23

economics perspective neglects the effect of family influences on migration. Furthermore, by

focusing on labour migrants it does not allow to investigate the experiences of other typologies

of returnees.

3.2.2 The NELM theory

The NELM theory on the other hand was one of the first to acknowledge the importance

of the family in migration. It underlines that instead of being viewed as exclusively based on

individual decisions, migration processes should rather be understood in the context of family

strategies (Stark, 1991). As such, the NELM theory does not view return as a failure but rather

as the outcome of a calculated strategy (Cassarino, 2004). Furthermore, it looks at migration

from a broader perspective that considers also other factors among the labour market and

highlights that migration is to be seen as a household decision aimed at guaranteeing the

economic wellbeing of the family (Massey et al., 1993). The great contribution of this theory

is that it highlights that the unit of analysis of migration processes is the household rather than

the individual (Stark, 1991), and thus underlines that the migration decision is socially

contextualized.

In the NELM theory, return is seen “as the natural outcome of a successful experience

abroad during which migrants met their goals (i.e. higher incomes and accumulation of savings)

while naturally remitting part of their income to the household” (Cassarino, 2004, p. 255).

According to this perspective remittances benefit both the migrant and his family, given that

each party may be a beneficiary at different phases (Stark, 1991). This is to be seen as a contract

between the migrant and his family: migrants may have higher wages because they have been

provided with education from their families, and they then repay the families though

remittances. These allow the family to take more investment risks in the home country,

(25)

24

remit with the hope of being well positioned in the ultimate inheritance (Stark, 1991). This

view of migration shifts the focus from individual independence to mutual interdependence

(Stark, 1991) and thus allows an understanding of migration as shaped by family influences.

The NELM theory provides a great contribution to the understanding of family

influences on return migration, but it presents a series of shortcomings. By focusing on

remittances it only allows to study labour migrants and thus excludes other typologies of

migrants (i.e. students) from its analysis. Furthermore, by depicting remittances as the

materialization of an invisible contract between the migrant and his family, it leaves no space

for the understanding of return for migrants that are not sending remittances. However, due to

unstable legal documentation and low socioeconomic status (SES) in the host country, migrants

are not always in the position to support their family back home (Van Meeteren et al., 2015).

Furthermore, by defining return as the successful outcome of migration for migrants having

achieved their goals, it does not leave space for other-potentially less successful- returns.

3.2.3 Structuralism

The structuralist perspective on the other hand contributes to the understanding of

return by insisting on the importance of the context in the home country (Cassarino, 2004). By

doing so structuralists relate the return experience to the economic context of the home country,

with the aim of providing an understanding of how return may affect the home country (Lewis

& Williams, 1986). The main contribution of the structuralist approach is that it highlights that return should not be viewed as exclusively shaped by the migrant’s experiences in the host

countries. However, by focusing on how the returnee could favour the economic development

of his home country this perspective leaves aside the more personal post-return experiences of returnees. Returnees’ experiences tend in fact to be seen simply in terms of skill acquisitions

(26)

25 3.2.4 Social network theory

Social network theory highlights how ties and exchanges with people in the home

country can contribute to making a return successful (Cassarino, 2004). Ties with family and

kin are in fact essential for migrants to prepare their return (Fleischer, 2013). By focusing on

the relationships between people, the social network theory allows to go beyond a

conceptualization of return migrants as simply embedded in a system of remittances, and thus

allows the understanding of return migration for various typologies of migrants. An important

contribution of social network theory is that it gives central importance to both the tangible and

intangible resources that migrants might mobilize to make their return successful (Cassarino,

2004), but by insisting mainly on the migrant’s mobilization of resources it explains negative

post-return experiences simply in terms of lack of resources rather than as shaped by multiple

factors.

3.2.5 The transnational perspective

Transnationalism on the other hand contributes to the theory of return migration by

highlighting the cross border mobility of migrants and on their hybrid identity (Cassarino,

2004). It also insists on the importance of resources that can be mobilized by migrants, and

underlines that migrants entertain cross-border ties with family and friends throughout the

whole migration process (Fleischer, 2013). Furthermore, it acknowledges that migration phases

are interconnected and highlights that migrants having emigrated for different motives have

different post-return experiences (De Bree et al., 2010).

3.2.6 Reconceptualising return migration

What emerges from this brief overview of theories of return migration is that different

(27)

26

that none of these theories alone gives a comprehensive understanding of the phenomenon. In

order to understand family influences on return migration, there is a need for a

reconceptualization of the above mentioned theories. Combining various elements of these

theories would in fact allow to go beyond a merely economic perspective and would put the focus on more small scale levels of return such as the lived experiences of returnees’ and how

they are influenced by family support and family pressures. It would also allow to look at return

as a process that requires resources and that is to be understood as interconnected to the other

migration phases.

In light of these theoretical needs, Cassarino’s theory of return migration emerges as the most

effective framework to understand family influences on return migration.

3.3 Cassarino’s theoretical framework of return migration

Cassarino (2004) provides a theoretical overview of how return has been dealt with and

analyses the various approaches that have studied return migration. He emphasises the

advantages and disadvantages of these approaches and takes them one step further by

introducing the notion of preparation for return. He argues that preparation for return is highly

dependent from return motives and that it is central in understanding different post-return

experiences. His theory is therefore based on three main pillars: return motives, preparation for

return and post-return experiences.

Furthermore, he insists on how legal status in the host country and emigration motives

in the first place are essential to understand return migration. Among these factors, SES is also

important to understand return migration (Gmelch, 1980). Questioning if migrants emigrated

with the intention of sending remittances is for example important to understand potential

pressures and expectations towards returnees upon return. Cassarino also highlights how

(28)

27

negative post-return experiences generally expressing the strongest re-emigration intentions.

By adopting this perspective he thus acknowledges that migration phases are interconnected

and that to be fully comprehended return cannot be studied as an isolated phase.

The focus of his theory is on the link between migration and development in the home

country of the migrant, and therefore he uses these concepts as a means to understand why

some returnees will appear as actors of change in their countries while others will not. He argues that “the propensity of migrants to become actors of change and development at home

depends on the extent to which they have provided for the preparation of their return”

(Cassarino, 2004, p. 271).

Preparation for return is understood as both preparedness and resource mobilization. Preparedness refers not only to the migrant’s willingness to return home, but also to his

readiness to do so, and readiness is supported by the gathering of information and resources

about post-return conditions in the home country. Resource mobilization is indented as the

possibility to access tangible resources (i.e. financial capital) and intangible resources (i.e.

contacts, relationships, skills, acquaintances)6. Thus, according to this framework, the more a

migrant has prepared return, the more likely he is to have positive post-return experiences and

not to have re-emigration intentions. His theory also shows that how prepared a returnee may

be is not only dependent on his experience abroad, but also on factors in his home country.

Based on resource mobilization and on preparedness, Cassarino describes three degrees

of preparation; returnees with a high level of preparedness, returnees with a low level of preparedness and returnees with no preparedness. He explains how the level of a returnee’s

preparedness is shaped by pre and post return conditions, by the length of the stay abroad and

6_{Among tangible and intangible resources Cassarino also introduces social capital as a third component of}

resource mobilization. In this thesis, social capital is intended as part of the intangible resources that a migrant can rely on.

(29)

28

by status in the host country. The higher the level of preparedness of a returnee, the more likely

he is to have a positive post-return experience. He argues for example that migrants having

faced deportation generally return unprepared and have negative post-return experiences. The main elements of Cassarino’s theory are summarized in the following table:

Table n° 1: Cassarino’s theory

Return motives -They affect both preparation for return and post-return experiences; -Emigration motives are also essential to understand return motives

Status in the host country and length of stay abroad are also essential to understand return motives, preparation for return and post-return experiences Preparation for return Resource mobilization Tangible resources

Intangible resources Preparedness Willingness

Readiness

Post-return experiences Post-return experiences tend to influence re-emigration intentions

3.3.1 Advantages of using Cassarino’s theory

Cassarino’s framework is useful in the sense that it conceptualizes return as referring

to a preparation process that does not depend solely on the migrant’s will but to a great extent

to the environment and to factors in the home country. Such an approach allows to consider

the family as one of these factors and to conceptualize its influences.

In order to understand return migration Cassarino looks at emigration motives and at

situation in the host country. Furthermore he highlights that post-return experiences influence

re-emigration intentions. This approach allows to embed return migration in the wider

framework of the migratory experience. Sayad (1990) underlines in fact that migratory phases

are interconnected and may not be understood independently from each other. This aspect of

Cassarino’s theory is essential for the study of family influences on return because it allows to

conceptualize how families influence the emigration phase. Investigating what role the family

played in the choice of the destination country, and what type of family support migrants could

(30)

29

whole migration process. Furthermore, it allows to investigate what role family expectations

related to remittances play in the return phase.

His insistence on the importance of the returnees’ readiness and willingness to return

constitutes an essential tool to look at family influences on return. Families often affect return

decisions (Nauck & Settles, 2001), and the concepts of readiness and willingness thus allow to

understand how they affect return motives and decisions across typologies of returnees. This framework “regards various types of migrant ranging from economic, skilled and unskilled to

refugees” (Cassarino, 2004, p. 272), and by providing a broad framework to look at return

migration it also allows to look at other typologies of returnees such as students.

Finally, his theory is useful because it highlights the importance of migrants’

experiences. There are two academic perspectives that may be applied to understand

post-return experiences. The first seeks to investigate post-post-return experiences by comparing the economic and social particularities of the returnees, and the second is based on the migrants’

personal assessment of their post-return experiences (Van Meeteren et al., 2015). Given that the focus of this study is on social aspects of migration, pertaining to the returnees’ lived

experiences, the analysis of post-return experiences in this study is based on the respondents’

subjective assessment of their situation.

3.3.2 Overcoming shortcomings of Cassarino’s theory

Overall, for the above mentioned motives, Cassarino’s framework emerges as the best

theory to study family influences on return migration. However, it presents some problematic

elements that need to be addressed.

Within his framework, Cassarino only acknowledges the negative role of the family in

post-return experiences for those returnees with a low level of preparation for return. By doing

(31)

30

neglect positive family influences, his framework provides the tools to look at family

influences globally. The concept of resource mobilization appears in fact essential to analyse

what type of resources the family may put at the disposition of a returnee, as well as it allows

to see what type of migrants do not receive family support and if this affects their post-return

experience.

Furthermore, Cassarino categorizes returnees based on their level of preparedness. This

categorization emerges as problematic for the study of family influences. In fact, instead of

giving an understanding of how different returnees prepare for return, it gives a general

assessment of the levels of preparedness so as to calculate the potential of a returnee to

contribute to the development of his home country. This thesis thus uses preparation for return

as a means to understand and conceptualize how the family influences return migration, and

not to hierarchize returnees based on how prepared they are.

His definition of the concept of willingness also deserves particular attention.

According to Cassarino, a migrant is willing to return when return is a voluntary decision. In

this sense he considers as not willing to return only those migrants that were deported, and thus

physically forced to return. However, it cannot be assumed that all migrants that are not facing

legal issues are willing to return. Other non-legal circumstances such as family issues or

structural characteristics of the host country may in fact be forcing migrants to return. In this

sense, when in this thesis I say that a migrant was not willing to return, I mean that he had to

return because of external reasons (e.g. family issues, deportation, job loss etc.) that can be

caused by multiple factors.

The main shortcomings of Cassarino’s theory lie in the fact that his framework is

conceived to look at how returnees can influence the development of their home country, rather

(32)

31

he uses in his theory appear ideal to conceptualize family influences on return motives and to

understand post-return experiences. By applying his framework to the study of family

influences, this thesis thus lays the basis to further develop and refine his framework so as to

include family influences among the factors that shape return migration.

3.4 Discussion

By reviewing the position of the family in studies of international migration, and more

precisely in the theory of return migration, this chapter has highlighted how to conceptualize the role of the family in the return process. By adapting Cassarino’s existing theory of return

migration, it has elaborated a theoretical framework suitable to analyse family influences on

(33)

32

4. Methods

The aim of this study is to understand in what ways the family influences Moroccan

return migration. This research thus combines two distinct fields of study (i.e. return migration

and the family in migration) and uses Cassarino’s theory of return migration to conceptualize

family influences at various stages of the return process.

In order to grasp the complex experiences of returnees this study adopted a qualitative

methodology. Interviews and observations were used to collect data about Moroccan return

migrants and about the impact of the family on their migration trajectory, with the aim of

understanding the complex ways in which the family influences return migration dynamics.

The collected data was transcribed, translated, categorized into five themes and finally

coded in order to answer the research question.

4.1 Setting

4.1.1 Geographical setting of the study

The majority of the interviews took place in the cities of Rabat and Casablanca. These

urban areas were chosen because of the presence of a diverse range of return migrants, both

students and work migrants (Khachani, 2009). Given that this study wanted to understand

family influences for different return migrants, it was important to choose a location that would

give access to study migrants, work migrants as well as other typologies of returnees.

Rabat, capital of Morocco, counts 1.967 million inhabitants and is the second major

urban area after Casablanca (The CIA World Fact Book, n.d.). It is known as the administrative

heart of the kingdom and has a high concentration of universities. Casablanca on the other hand

(34)

33

A minority of interviews took place in the smaller towns of Kenitra, Chefchaouen and

Beni Mellal. According to “Progetto Mondo Mlal”, an Italian NGO located in Beni Mellal,

Beni Mellal is known in Morocco as the town of immigrés Italiens7 (personal communication,

February 23rd, 2016), because it has high rates of emigration to and return from Italy.Interviews

from these smaller cities were useful to get an overview of the return experiences of migrants

returning to small urban areas.

4.1.1.1 Limitations

The fact that all the interviews were conducted in urban or sub-urban areas is a

limitation of this study. NGOs8 in Rabat and Beni Mellal reported that migrants returning to

rural areas face completely different post-return experiences compared to those returning to

urban areas (personal communication February 3rd_{, 2016; personal communication February}

23rd, 2016), and being able to compare family influences on return in both urban and rural areas

would enrich this study and broaden its scope. However, this study decided to focus on urban

and sub-urban areas because of time constraints. Reaching respondents in rural areas would in

fact have required much more time and the use of an interpreter9.

4.1.2 Spatial setting

The interviews were conducted mainly in cafes. The cafes were generally close to the respondent’s work place so as to facilitate meetings during lunch breaks. In some cases the

interviews took place at the respondents’ home or in their office. The respondents were free to

choose where they wanted to be interviewed. Allowing the respondents to choose to be

7_{Moroccans often refer to return migrants as “the immigrants”.} 8_{CEFA and Progetto Mondo Mlal.}

9_{According to the NGO CEFA, people in rural areas are less likely to speak French or other European}

(35)

34

interviewed in environments of their everyday life is in fact essential to contextualize the

respondents experience (Flick, 2009).

4.2 Sample/participants

Twenty eight returnees were interviewed over the months of January and February 2016

for the purpose of this study.

4.2.1 Reaching empirical saturation

When I started fieldwork, I was hoping to find at least fifteen interviewees. As is often

the case in qualitative research (Flick, 2009), it is difficult to know beforehand how many

respondents will allow to reach empirical saturation. In qualitative research, it is in fact

generally accepted that there is no such thing as an ideal and pre-determined number of

interviews to be conducted (Baker & Edwards, 2012). However, these twenty eight interviews enabled me to reach empirical saturation, without “imposing the hardship of endless data

gathering” (Baker & Edwards, 2012, p. 9) that I would have otherwise faced due to time

constraints had I interviewed a higher number of returnees.

4.2.2 Characteristics of the sample

The sample of respondents gathered for this research is not representative of the

population of return migrants in Morocco. However, by using purposive sampling as a

procedure to gather respondents it was possible to reach out to a relatively diverse set of

respondents in terms of gender, age, length of stay abroad, destination country, time period the

respondent was abroad and status.

The term “return migrant” refers to people that return “to their homelands to resettle”

(Gmelch, 1980, p. 136). Based on this definition the participants were restricted to those having

(36)

35

for a relatively long period of time. This means that people having returned for holidays or for

other short term motives were not included in the sample.

Different destination countries tend to have different typologies of Moroccan migrants

in terms of employment and education levels (Migration Profile Morocco, 2013), thus I decided

to interview migrants returning from different countries so as to enhance the diversity of my

sample. This methodology also allowed me to reach empirical saturation within the time

constraints of this thesis. The following table gives basic information about the respondents:

Table n° 2: Interviewees Returnee Ge nd er Age Host country SGRM Total years abro ad Year of return Status in host country

Profession City the respondent lives in 1 Abdel Adi M 65 France _/ ₂ ₁₉₈₄ No visa require at the time Doctor Rabat

2 Akim _{M 26} Italy _/ ₁₁ ₂₀₁₂ Residency

permit

Housing manager/ student Rabat

3 Amin A. _{M 24} Italy _yes ₁₆ ₂₀₁₄ Italian

nationality

Secretary for Italian Embassy

Rabat

4 Amin C. M 36 Italy / 7 2005 Undocume

nted

Causal work Casablanca

5 Bubker _{M 52} Spain _/ ₁₂ ₂₀₁₄ Residency

permit

Spanish and Arabic teacher Rabat

6 Chakim _{M 38} France _/ ₅ ₂₀₀₆ / _{Beauty centre manager} _Chefchaouen

7 Fatima F 61 France / 1 1984 No visa

required at the time

Retired Rabat

8 Hajar F 22 Italy yes 20 2013 Italian

nationality

Call centre employee Rabat

9 Hassan M 66 France / 12 1989 No visa

required at the time

University professor Rabat

10 Houssam M 32 Canada / 5 2013 Study

permit

New technologies company

Casablanca

11 Ilias _{M 24} France _yes ₉ ₂₀₀₁ Residency

permit

student Rabat

12 Lisa _F ₃₃ France _yes ₃₀ ₂₀₁₃ French

nationality

Theatre-impro Casablanca

13 Maha F 24 France / 2 2013 Study

permit

Student Rabat

14 Mao M 34 Italy yes 30 2012 Italian nationality

Housing manager Casablanca

15 Moham

med K.

M 46 Italy / 25 2013 Italian nationality

Cultural mediator Kenitra

16 Moham

med H.

M 33 Italy _yes ₂₆ ₂₀₁₃ Residency

permit Telecommunications _manager Rabat

17 Moham

med R.

M 24 Italy _yes ₁₅ ₂₀₁₂ Italian nationality

Unemployed Rabat

18 Nabil M 36 Italy / 14 2013 Residency

permit

Quality analyst Casablanca

19 Nada F 25 France yes 11 2014 French

nationality

Language school Casablanca

20 Naima _F _/ Germa

ny

yes / / German nationality

University professor Fes

21 Nora F 39 Italy / 9 2012 Residency

permit

(37)

36 22 Omar M. M 31 US / 9 2011 Residency permit Various businesses manager Casablanca

23 Omar P. _{M 56} Italy _/ ₂₀ ₂₀₀₀ Undocume

nted

Painter Rabat

24 Rachid B.

M 39 Italy _/ ₆ ₂₀₁₂ Undocume

nted Field agent for Italian _{NGO [CEFA]} Beni Mellal

25 Rachid C.

M 39 Italy / 7 2009 Residency permit

Unemployed Casablanca

26 Rania F 23 France / 1 2015 Undocume

nted Student Rabat 27 Reda M 29 Italy/ Turkey / 5 2013 Study permit Manager at Spanish cultural centre Rabat

28 Taha M 24 Canada / 2.5 2014 Study

permit expired and not renewed

Farm manager/ student Rabat

The majority of the interviewees had lived in Italy and France, which are among the

countries with the highest percentage of Moroccan immigrants (Migration Profile Morocco,

2013). However, the fact that a significant number of respondents had returned from Italy is to

be seen as a consequence of the methods of data collection10_{. Other countries included Spain,}

Germany, the US, Canada and Turkey. One of the respondents had lived in two countries before

returning to Morocco. Furthermore, the majority of respondents returned relatively recently

(most respondents returned between 2011 and 2015), thus allowing to get an understanding of

recent Moroccan return migration trends. Participants in this study included students, workers,

unemployed individuals and one retired woman. This diversity within the sample was essential

in order to grasp family influences at different life stages.

4.2.2.1 Limitations

The fact that only one respondent in the sample was retired constitutes a limitation as

this study could not explore family influences on return experiences of retired individuals. This

could be explained by the fact that the majority of respondents were reached by using social

networks such as Facebook groups, and retired individuals were thus probably less active on

these online social networks. However, retired individuals have been widely studied in the

literature (e.g. Khachani, 2009; Schaeffer, 2001), and there is therefore a greater need to

(38)

37

investigate the experiences of other types of returnees, in particular SGRMs11 that often tend

to be neglected in studies of return migration (Reynolds, 2010).

4.3 Measurement instruments

This qualitative study was conducted by relying on in depth interviews and observations.

4.3.1 Using a qualitative research method

This qualitative research method was chosen because of its specific relevance for the

study of social phenomena involving lived experiences such as that of returnees. Interviews

and observations allowed me to familiarize myself with the lives and experiences of returnees,

thus allowing a more human approach to the experiences of the respondents (Flick, 2009). Such

a methodology does not reduce the objects of study to single variables, but rather represents

them globally and does not separate them from their everyday context (Flick, 2009).

4.3.1.1 The metaphor of the interviewer as a traveller

While conducting the interviews and collecting data through observations I tried to

align myself with the metaphor of the interviewer as a traveller (Kvale & Brinkmann, 2009).

This metaphor stands in sharp contrast with that of the interviewer as a miner which sees

interviewees as mere treasure mines from which to extract objective knowledge (Kvale &

Brinkmann, 2009). Furthermore, according to the miner metaphor the researcher is a neutral

entity that does not affect the interview (Kvale & Brinkmann, 2009). On the other hand the

traveller metaphor acknowledges that the researcher is not neutral and considers the interview

as a means to construct knowledge with the respondent rather than merely extracting it (Kvale

& Brinkmann, 2009).

11_{Some of the SGRMs in the sample were born abroad, thus rather than returning to Morocco they migrated to}

Morocco. However, to avoid complicating definitions they will be referred to as second generation return migrants.

(39)

38

The data in this study is thus to be seen as the product of a conversation with the

respondents. In accordance with this perspective, the pre-designed interview guide was often

amended in order to include new insights that I learnt from talking with the interviewees and

informants.

4.3.2 Interview guide

A pre-designed interview guide was created to identify the ways in which the family

impacts return migration and the dynamics surrounding it. The interview guide was divided in

seven sections and investigated different phases of the migration trajectory so as to have a

global understanding of the context in which family influences operate.

The first section of the interview guide was designed to gather demographic

information and other basic data about the respondent (i.e. occupation, if the respondent lived

and worked with his family, where the respondent had immigrated to, family composition etc.).

The second section of the interview guide focused on the family. The aim of this section was

to understand the importance of the family in the respondent’s everyday life, as well as to

understand the migration history of the family. The third section focused on the emigration

phase. Understanding the context of emigration and the role that the family might have played

in it was essential in order to fully comprehend return dynamics. This section included

questions investigating the main motives for emigration, if the respondent emigrated with

family members and whether he had family members abroad he could count on. The fourth

section contained questions aimed at understanding the situation of the respondent abroad. Understanding the respondent’s context in the host country was essential to contextualize

return decisions. The fifth section focused on return. It focused on return motives and had a

special section investigating the returnee’s preparation for return. The sixth section investigated

Understanding family influences on return migration : the case of Morocco