Circularity Within the EU: The Return Intentions of Latvian Migrants

Abstract

Recently, much attention has been paid in the literature to circular migration because of its perceived potential to reduce permanent migration and to promote development. This is probably a result of a perfect combination of interests benefiting not only sending and receiving countries, but also the migrants themselves (Vertovec 2007; Adepoju et al. 2010; Castles and Ozkul 2014). Circularity allows migrants to gain experience and acquire skills, and to apply them on returning to their countries of origin, thereby contributing to development (Cassarino 2004; de Haas 2010, 2012), transforming brain drain into brain gain, and at the same time contributing to their positive effects on labour markets in both the sending and the receiving countries (Stark et al. 1997; Dustmann et al. 2011). In addition, circular migration shares many features with transnationalism as migrants engage in back-and-forth movement between two or more countries to sustain their economic, cultural or political interests and activities (Portes et al. 1999; Vertovec 2009). Contemporary migration patterns in Europe show an increase in, and diversification of, international migrant flows as a result of differences in wealth levels, the removal of restrictions on the free movement of labour, reduced transportation and communication costs, the expansion of formal and informal labour recruitment networks, and initiatives by governments and employers to recruit labour into specific economic sectors (Massey and Taylor 2004; Hooghe et al. 2008; King 2012). The emergence of a new migration system in Europe is followed by a number of concepts to describe a more diverse reality—incomplete migration (Okolski 2012), lasting temporariness (Grzymala-Kazlowska 2005), mobility (Wallace 2002; Sheller and Urry 2006), free movers (Favell 2008), liquid migration (Engbersen et al. 2010; Glorius et al. 2013) and multiple migrations (Ciobanu 2014). Return and circular migration are becoming increasingly important in post-enlargement Europe, and Eastern European migrants are most likely to engage in this temporary circular and transnational mobility (Favell 2008; Martin and Radu 2012).