Equipamiento Interior / exterior

Theoretical work developed in relation to return migration has been primarily linked to classical theories of migration such as neoclassical economics, new economics of labour migration (NELM), structuralism, transnationalism and social-network theory (Cassarino 2004; Massey et al. 1993). Cassarino, among other authors (see also King 2012; Miller 2008), analysed these different theories and developed a framework to understand the diverse aspects of the return phenomenon including migrants’ motivations for return, their role as returnees in their home communities, and the contributions they make to development through their financial and human capital. While Cassarino (2004) analyses and contrasts these theories extensively, it will be impossible to incorporate in detail the main postulates, contributions and flaws of each theory here due to the length limitations of this chapter; however, in order to understand the return migration phenomenon and its theoretical framework I will address the broad contributions of each theory.

Neoclassical theories are based on the idea that migration decisions are made primarily on financial calculations (Massey et al. 1993). Specifically, return is seen by neoclassical theory as the result of a miscalculation of costs, and therefore as a failure. According to the neoclassical rationale, migrants who manage to succeed are those that stay in the host country enjoying the benefits of the wage differential, and those who have very limited human and financial resources are the ones who return, which might represent a challenge for their reintegration (Cassarino 2004; Durand 2004; Massey et al. 2015:1019). Conversely, the NELM views return migration as the logical outcome of a ‘calculated strategy’ defined at the level of the migrant’s household (Massey et al. 2015:1019). Therefore, return can be considered as a successful achievement of the goals or target established previous to departure. This theory proposes that, as there is a strategy in place, migrants have calculated the acquisition and accumulation of sufficient resources to guarantee a successful return. While both theories consider that migrants’ motivations for both migration and return are based on economic factors, the neoclassical and NELM approaches differ in so far as they introduce contrasting sets of interpretations regarding return migration intimately related to their main postulates. The main criticism of these two theories is that they fail to consider a larger set of contextual factors at ‘home’ and in host countries such as social, economic and political matters and the role of the state in shaping migration flows in practice (Cassarino 2004:257; Constant and Massey 2002; Massey et al. 2015:1039).

Additionally, as highlighted by Erdal and Ezzati (2015:1213), these theories fail to consider relevant aspects such as changing obligations to ‘significant others’ in relation to gender roles and life course. Accordingly, I will now present other theories which incorporate a broader set of factors into the analysis.

Structural theory takes various factors into consideration in its analysis of return migration.

For the structural theorists, return appears to be guided by the opportunities that migrants expect to find in their ‘home’ countries but also by the opportunities already offered in their respective host countries. Cassarino (2004) uses Cerase’s model, presented above, to exemplify a theory that considers how situational and structural factors influence the return experience. This model proposes that pre-defining returnees as failed or successful is impossible, as this depends on the interplay of many factors such as human and financial capital, power relations and networks, time and space, as well as traditions and values in locations of return. In this theory, success or failure upon return will be determined by migrants’ level of adjustment into their communities. In particular, researchers argue that

migrants’ sociodemographic characteristics and experience (e.g. age at migration, time spent abroad, education, skills acquired and job experiences), and the geographical space that they return to influence their ability to successfully adjust upon their return (Cassarino 2004; Erdal and Ezzati 2015; King 2000). As Cerase’s typologies exemplify, migrants’

capability to understand and adjust to the dynamics in home communities often lead to a more successful reintegration upon return and increased ability to contribute to the development of their country, or at least to improve the livelihoods of their household (Ammassari and Black 2001). Conversely, migrants’ inability to understand and adjust often leads to high levels of frustration and re-migration intentions.

One of the main contributions of transnationalism theory is that it highlights the strong social and economic links between migrants and their host and ‘home’ communities.

Regarding return migration, transnationalism theory considers that return is not the end of the migration cycle as the transnational experience is sustained either by the identities or movements of migrants and their communities, therefore there is no need for the adjustment suggested by structural theory in either place (Cassarino 2004:261). Important factors that are considered to lead to a successful return include maintaining strong relations with others of common ethnicity or common origin and kinship (commonly termed ‘the diaspora’) through regular contact, including back and forth movements between their host and origin countries. This theory highlights the importance of migrants’ documented status and the relation between migrants and nation-states (including their institutions), highlighting that these interactions might position migrants in a better economic, political and social standing upon their return due to the investment of economic and social remittances (see Bakker 2010; Carling and Erdal 2014; Castles and Delgado-Wise 2007:3; Iaria 2014; King and Christou 2014).

Lastly, the social-network theory views migrants as actors who gather the resources needed to secure and prepare their return to the ‘homeland’ by mobilising resources available within their networks (Cassarino 2004:265). Moreover, according to this theory, the migration of one person within a social network creates a potential motivation for reunion among those left behind (especially within families who have been forcibly separated) but also generates social capital that other network members may draw upon to reduce their costs and risks of movement, motivating some of them to return, thereby expanding the network further to promote a self-feeding cycle of human mobility (Massey et al. 2014:1018).

With regard to the case of Mexican-USA return migration, Jorge Durand (2004) coined the hypothesis of rendimiento decreciente (diminishing returns theory) which is based on Piore’s dual labour market theory (1979). Durand argues that many long-term migrants living in the USA take the decision to return to Mexico once they realise (i) the comparative wage advantage is not as great as before, (ii) they have reached a ‘glass ceiling’ and encounter the difficulty of achieving upward mobility by being confined to the secondary labour market which is characterised by low earnings, job impermanence, and low returns to education or experience, or (iii) their physical performance begins to decline with their advanced age.

Therefore, if after the evaluation of the psychosocial and economic costs of staying in the USA the migrant realises that these are higher than the benefits, people usually prefer to return ‘home’ to enjoy a better quality of life and higher social status than that which they had while living abroad.

These theories highlight not only the multi-faceted nature of the return migration phenomenon but also encourage discussion of how the type of return (e.g. as the result of miscalculation or as an end of a project) influences the post-return phase and migrants’

opportunities of reintegration. In short, some of these theories acknowledge that return has important cultural, economic, political and social consequences for communities and individuals which may facilitate or hinder migrants’ reintegration experiences.

While these theories have been used to inform my fieldwork and analysis of the data, it is important to acknowledge that they do not consider any differences between ‘voluntary’

and forced return (Miller 2012:133) and fail to capture the reality of those migrants who are forced to return, and for whom return as the result of a calculated strategy is not an option.

New policies and enforcement practices in the context of the USA create new ‘contexts of return’, a situation that offers opportunities to refine analytically and empirically this component of the return migration process (Medina and Menjívar 2015:2125). The results of this study aim to improve our understandings of return migration from the USA and the reintegration experiences of migrants in Mexico, and aim to contribute to the development of the above-mentioned theories, taking into consideration the particularities of this case study.