Total for all countries

Based on the reviewed literature in the Comparative Report on Return Migration we come to the following main results:

• Return migration is not a marginal phenomenon in Central Europe.
  According to international data provided by Eurostat for 2009, the share of nationals among immigrants was 75% for Poland (data refer to 2008), 29% for the Czech Republic, 23% for Germany, 13% for Austria, 10% for Slovenia and 8% for Hungary, Italy and the Slovak Republic.
• Central European returnees tend to be younger compared to non-migrants and migrants staying abroad (see Klagge und Klein-Hitpaß 2007 for Poland; Martin/Radu 2011 for Poland and Hungary; and data provided by SORS 2010 for Slovenia).
  When returning, re-migrants are “young enough” to use their human capital to foster knowledge-based development in the origin country.
• Central European returnees are positively selected in terms of education (see Klagge und Klein-Hitpaß 2007 for Poland; Martin/Radu 2011 for Poland and Hungary; data provided by SORS 2010 for Slovenia; Ette/Sauer 2010 for Germany).
  This means that returnees possess the potential to adding to know-how diffusion and the catching-up of the economy of the origin-country.
• CE migrants cultivate connections with their home country when they are abroad (see Horvath 2004 for Slovenia; Szemely/Csanady 2011 for Hungary and Breinbauer 2008 for Austria).
  CE migrants are linked with members of their origin society. This may facilitate the re-integration process upon return.
• CE returnees have a higher probability not to actively participate on the local labour market (see Martin/Radu 2011)
  Although returnees possess valuable human capital resources, they show a comparatively high tendency not to enter the local labour markets. Whether this is because returnees lack important social ties and networks in the origin country or because returnees can just afford to search longer for a job due to savings from higher earnings or because foreign work experience is a signal of being unsuccessful on local labour markets for employers, remains unclear.
• Research provides mixed evidence with respect to:
  • the income pay-offs upon return
    Martin/Radu (2011) show for PL and HU, that returnees receive significant income premia both from self-employment and dependent employment.
    On the other hand, Co et al. (2000) find that there is no wage premium for male returnees in Hungary. But female returnees earn a 67% premium over female stayers.
  • better career opportunities upon return
    Vavrečkova (2009) found that after returning home to Poland most of the returnees (tertiary-educated) managed to make use of the experiences they gained abroad. On the contrary, research by Grabowska-Lusinska (2010) shows that only 8% of Polish returnees could enhance their career after return, but the majority of the respondents state that either nothing has changed in terms of their career path or that the experience of migration has even enhanced the fragmentation of their career.
  • self-employment activities among returnees.
    Martin/Radu (2011) found for Hungary and Poland that returnees are more likely to be self-employed than non-migrants. Different evidence is obtained by Klagge/Klein-Hitpas (2007) for Poland who report that highly-skilled returnees are mainly employees, but less-skilled returnees are more likely to start their own business.

Whether and to what extent returning migrants can help boosting regional development is to large extent dependent on the situation of the economy and the labour market they re-enter.
Data from the 7 case study reports indicate that the regions are predominantly characterised by traditional economy and an oversupply on the labour market with little chances of increased demand in the near future. This offers only limited employment perspectives for returning migrants even though their skills and their experiences and probably also their formal education and vocational training will be higher than average giving them a competitive advantage. A factor in their favour though is the aging of most of the regions, which should generally shorten the current excess labour supply.

Literature:
Breinbauer, A. (2008): Mobilität österreichischer und ungarischer Mathematiker. Ein Beitrag zur Brain Drain-Debatte in einem kleinen Segment Hochqualifizierter. Vienna University Press.
Co, C.; Gang, I.; Yun, M. (2000): Returns to returning. Journal of Population Economics 13: 57-79.
Ette, A.; Sauer, L. (2010): Auswanderung aus Deutschland. Daten und Analysen zur internationalen Migration deutscher Staatsbürger. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
Grabowska-Lusinska, I. (2010): People on the move. Return Migration to Poland. Presentation on the European Job Mobility Day, Brussels, 16th Nov. 2010.
Horvath, V. (2004): Brain Drain. Threat to Successful Transition in South East Europe? Southeast European Politics no.1: 76-93.
Klagge, B. and Klein-Hitpaß, K. (2007): High-skilled return migration and knowledge-based economic development in regional perspective. Conceptual considerations and the example of Poland. Centre of Migration Research No. 19/77.
Martin, R. And D. Radu (2011) Return Migration: The Experience of Eastern Europe, International Migration (forthcoming).
Személyi, L and Csanády, M. (2011): Some Sociological Aspects of Skilled Migration from Hungary. Social Analysis, 1, 1: 27-46.
Vavrečková, J. (2009): The Effect of Brain Drain in the Czech Republic and Earnings Motivation for Qualified Specialists to Work Abroad. Research Institute for Labour and Social Affairs, Prague.

In order to investigate which conditions migrants face upon their return to their home country, case studies were undertaken for altogether 7 regions in 5 countries:

The intention of these case study reports is not to create an absolute theoretical framework of return-conditions, but rather to enable understanding of main underlying trends – supportive, neutral or preventive as they might be – and thus to support a process of political discussions to support re-migration as a means of regional development.

Share of nationals and non-nationals among immigrants, 2009, data source: EUROSTAT, own calculations

Age structure of recent returnees (1 year upon their arrival) and stayers in LFS 2005-2008, weighted data

Using the Labour Force Survey it is possible to identify recent return migrants using the retrospective information on the country of residence one year before the survey and the country of birth.

Recent returnees (1 year upon their arrival) according to gender, in %, LFS 2008-2008, weighted data

Using the Labour Force Survey it is possible to identify recent return migrants using the retrospective information on the country of residence one year before the survey and the country of birth.

Educational attainment of recent returnees (1 year upon their arrival), aged 17-62, compared to that of stayers, LFS 2005-2008, weighted data

low=up until lower secondary level, middle=upper secondary level, high=tertiary level

Labour market status of recent returnees (1 year upon arrival), aged 17-62, compared that of stayers, LFS 2005-2008, weighted data

Using the Labour Force Survey it is possible to identify recent return migrants using the retrospective information on the country of residence one year before the survey and the country of birth.

Occupations of recent returnees (1 years upon arrival), aged 17-62, compared to those of stayers, LFS 2005-2008, weighted data

"managers and professionals"=ISCO100-ISCO200; "technicans"=300; "intermediate occupations"=ISCO400-ISCO800; "elementary occupations"=ISCO900

Recent returnees (1 year upon arrival), aged 17-62, and stayers according to sectors of employment, LFS 2005-2008, weighted data

Using the Labour Force Survey it is possible to identify recent return migrants using the retrospective information on the country of residence one year before the survey and the country of birth.

Recent returnees (1 year upon arrival), aged 17-62, and stayers according to the area of residence, LFS 2005-2008, weighted data

Using the Labour Force Survey it is possible to identify recent return migrants using the retrospective information on the country of residence one year before the survey and the country of birth.