Non-return Migrants Research Articles

Returning home for a better job? Return migration, family background, and labor market outcomes among recent college graduates in China

In previous studies of migration, return migration is usually considered a behavior determined by negative self-selection. This study pools data from three waves of the China College Student Survey (2010, 2013, and 2015) to explore the return migration behavior of Chinese college graduates and its impact on their labor market performance. The results show that graduate return migrants have advantages in terms of family background, although they do not perform as well in terms of human capital. Relative to graduate nonreturn migrants, return migrants have a greater chance of securing positions in governmental organizations, and this advantage is reinforced by family political capital. In addition, income analysis shows that return migrants seem to have an advantage over nonreturn migrants when the effects of migrant selectivity are considered. This study systematically discusses the monetary and occupational returns to return migration of highly educated individuals in a non-Western context, and has important implications for our understanding of the relationship between migration and social inequality.

Environmental characteristics of urban-rural farming migrants in the Republic of Korea and their significance for rural sustainability

ABSTRACTThe number of households migrating to agricultural villages has sharply increased in the Republic of Korea (South Korea) since the late 1990s when the Asian economic crisis developed. This study investigates the environmental behaviour and the socio-economic characteristics of urban-rural migrant farming households and provides insights into their significance for rural sustainability in South Korea. The study is based on survey data collected in 2016 from a sample of 166 migrant farming households and 46 native farming households from the Namwon region in South Korea. The migrant farming households are divided into 29 return and 137 non-return farming households. It was found that most non-return migrants are organic farmers, and can be characterised as anti-urban, amenity-pursuing, green, and lifestyle migrants. It is no wonder that they have a strong intent to make their new home an environmentally, socially and economically sustainable place for their children. Thus, appropriate policy measures need to be designed in such a way to facilitate the synergy between the repopulation of rural areas by farming migrants, their uptake of organic farming, their active engagement in community rebuilding, and regional economic development.

ПОТЕНЦИАЛЬНАЯ МОБИЛЬНОСТЬ ВЫПУСКНИКОВ ШКОЛ МАЛЫХ И СРЕДНИХ ГОРОДОВ СВЕРДЛОВСКОЙ ОБЛАСТИ

The increased flow of the “non-return” migration may cause serious problems in small and average cities. To assess the scale of the problems a study was carried out in three cities of the Sverdlovsk oblast (region) – Revda, Krasnotur`insk and Nizhniy Tagil involving 740 school graduates (secondary school students of 8 – 11 classes). The author used the data of the Russian Public Opinion Center, the Public Opinion Foundation, the Russian Statistics Service and a sociological survey conducted by the State Employment Agency of the Labor Department of the Sverdlovsk region. The author provides a comparative analysis of the results of the survey among school graduates, adult Russians and the needs of the labor market. The reasons behind the desire/refusal to return to the home city upon the completion of the studies are considered in the article. According to the findings of the study, school graduates of small and average cities are mainly non-return migrants; they are driven by their desire to live in a bigger city and the lack of the opportunities in their home city. The most attractive mobility track they choose is from school to the university even if it does not meet the current local labor market needs

Reasons for Returning and Not Returning to Rural U.S. Communities*

Population loss persists in nonmetropolitan America, especially in isolated counties with limited natural amenities. Communities in these counties experience high levels of outmigration among high school graduates, but low in-migration is more important in distinguishing declining from growing nonmetropolitan counties, and return migration is a much more prominent component of in-migration to these locationally disadvantaged areas. This research uses a multisited, interview-based methodology to understand the factors that influence decisions of people in their late twenties to late forties to move back to rural communities and the barriers that keep others from making such moves. The life course segment considered here captures a critical “settling down” period when career and family obligations overlap and return migration peaks. Interviews at high school reunions, the only venues where stayers, return migrants, and nonreturn migrants are found together, show that limited rural employment opportunities are barriers for nonreturnees. Others intent on returning find ways to secure or create employment but are primarily influenced to move home by family concerns. Connections to the larger social and physical environment of the community are important as well. Interviews affirm that factors affecting migration decisions work in combination, and ties to both people and place are critical for understanding rural return migration.

From Potential Returnees into Settlers: Nottingham's Older Italians

This paper analyses the circumstances that played a part in the transformation of some of the older Italians living in Nottingham from would-be returnees into non-return migrants, in other words settlers. Interviews conducted among older Italian immigrants who settled in Britain in the period after the Second World War indicated that going back to their place of origin was initially part of their migratory project. Nevertheless, the full accomplishment of this objective was prevented by a series of circumstances, among which the role of the family appears pre-eminent. The final sections of the paper are devoted to an examination of two examples of attempted return and to discussion of the hypothesis of the renovation of the ‘myth of return’ through the cyclic nature of the immigrants’ return visits to their places of origin.

Regional Differences in the Characteristics of Elderly Return Migrants

We examined return migrants age 60+ and argue from a regional analysis of their population characteristics that they fall into two primary types of movers: provincial return migrants and counterstream return migrants. When profiled as a whole, using 1980 census microdata, return migrants are older and more residentially dependent than nonreturn migrants. However, when regional variations are considered, this generalization breaks down. Perhaps return to one's state of birth is overemphasized in discussions of counterstream migration. Provincial return migration seems strongest in the South, with an interesting racial twist, and counterstream return migration seems strongest in the Northeast. Conceivably it is not a return to one's state of birth that is at issue among counterstream migrants, but rather a return from a Sunbelt retirement move to an earlier place of residence, regardless of whether one was born there.

Reinterpretation of Black Return and Nonreturn Migration to the South 1975-1980

Commonly used classifications of return and nonreturn migrants based on birthplace and previous residence do not accurately reflect the extent of familial and social ties behind recent black migration to the southern US. Analysis of the household context of individual migration confirms evidence from individual interviews with migrants that thousands of black children and adults born outside the South are moving to the region as part of return migration. A reinterpretation of migration categories underscores social trends of overriding importance in explaining destination choices. (authors)

Counterurbanisation and the characteristics of persons migrating to West Cornwall

Studies at the macro-scale have indicated that many remote rural areas are for the first time in over a century experiencing population growth while metropolitan areas are losing population. In this paper theories of counterurbanisation directed towards explaining the redistribution of population at a national or regional scale are criticised and a more localised research framework is proposed. Such a framework is constructed for the examination of migration into West Cornwall. Results from a postal questionnaire survey of seven study areas in West Cornwall are used to illustrate differences between three population subgroups, namely, return migrants, non-return migrants and non-migrants. Clear differences emerge not only between the population subgroups but between the study areas as well. In conclusion, it is suggested that this middle-range approach should be adopted more widely in order to gain greater insight into the counterurbanisation process and to increase the prospect of relating macro-processes to local trends and human experience.

Going home: aged return migration in the United States 1965-1970.

Two related issues concerning aged return migration are explored in this paper. They are: (1) the common features of states that strongly attract their migration-prone native sons and daughters, and (2) what might account for the differences, if any, in the demographic and socioeconomic characteristics of return and non-return migrants. Individual characteristics of persons, age 60 and over, from the 1970 1-in-100 Public Use Sample of Basic Records were analyzed. A cluster of Sunbelt states, and Utah, strongly attract return migrants; otherwise they tend to be attracted by states which are popular destinations for aged migration in general. Using discriminant function analysis and tests for mean differences of migrant characteristics, it was found that return migrants tend to be negatively selected on socioeconomic characteristics relative to other interstate migrants. Comparisons of migrant characteristics in streams from New York and Ohio to Florida with counterstreams from Florida to New York and Ohio were consistent with a model of secondary post-retirement moves to state of birth when service and social support needs increase.

Female migration in Chile: Types of moves and socioeconomic characteristics

This paper examines inter-provincial female migration in Chile for the 1965--1970 period, with a view to describing socioeconomic characteristics of migrant women and to determining differences and similarities in age, educational level, occupation, and type of move (first, return, or repeat) between movers to the capital and to other urban areas. Data are from a five percent sample of the 1970 Chilean census. Findings reveal that non-return migrants to other urban areas are differentiated from those to Santiago by an older age structure, higher educational levels, higher status occupations, and are more likely to be making a second (or higher-order) move. Moreover, educational measures suggest that recent female migration to urban Chile is more prevalent among the upper than the lower strata of the society.

Earnings differentials among nonmigrants, return migrants, and nonreturn migrants.

Growth and ChangeVolume 8, Issue 2 p. 2-7 Earnings Differentials among Nonmigrants, Return Migrants, and Nonreturn Migrants B. F. KIKER, B. F. KIKER The authors are, respectively, Jeff B. Bates Professor of Economics, University of South Carolina, and associate professor of economics, University of North Florida.Search for more papers by this authorEARLE C. TRAYNHAM, EARLE C. TRAYNHAM The authors are, respectively, Jeff B. Bates Professor of Economics, University of South Carolina, and associate professor of economics, University of North Florida.Search for more papers by this author B. F. KIKER, B. F. KIKER The authors are, respectively, Jeff B. Bates Professor of Economics, University of South Carolina, and associate professor of economics, University of North Florida.Search for more papers by this authorEARLE C. TRAYNHAM, EARLE C. TRAYNHAM The authors are, respectively, Jeff B. Bates Professor of Economics, University of South Carolina, and associate professor of economics, University of North Florida.Search for more papers by this author First published: April 1977 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2257.1977.tb00322.xCitations: 5Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat Citing Literature Volume8, Issue2April 1977Pages 2-7 RelatedInformation

New, Repeat, and Return Migration: A Study of Migrant Types

turn migrants in Canada. The non-return classification, however, does not completely adjust for the possible differences in the propensity to migrate. This paper classifies migrants in the United States into three groups by race: (1) migrants returning to their state of birth; and non-return migrants separated into (2) migrants moving for the first .time (new migrants), and (3) migrants making at least their second move (repeat migrants). This separation of migrants corrects possible differences in the propensity to migrate and thus reduces specification bias. The purpose of this paper is to analyze for each type of migrant by race the determinants of mobility. Comparisons are made between migrant types to delineate differences in the relative importance of the explanatory variables on migration rates.

Differences between Return and Nonreturn Migration: An Econometric Analysis

Abstract : The regression equations presented in this report furnish strong and consistent indications that potential return and nonreturn migrants respond quite differently to the factors that condition migration decisions. The importance of treating return and nonreturn migration separately, and recognizing their differences in theories of human migration is underscored. Despite admittedly crude data and some necessary approximations, these differences show through with notable consistency, suggesting that the true underlying relationships may be quite strong. This exercise should be repeated using data that permit a more exact delineation of return migration--for example, residence histories supplemented with information on contemporaneous economic conditions during the reference period. A second notable finding--that return migration probabilities are positively (and significantly) related to distance warrants further investigation with independent data. Finally, this investigation should be extended to other age-sex groups.