Austria

Return migration makes up 13% of total immigration to Austria (data refer to 2010). In 2010, 16.000 Austrians returned to their home country (Eurostat database: migr_imm1ctz 1998-2010). Until now, only few study deal with return migration to Austria (Morano-Foadi 2005; Forstlechner 2010) and with high-skilled emigration from Austria (Warta 2006; Breinbauer 2008).

Breinbauer (2008) conducted a quantitative survey with Austrian mathematicians (N=59) living abroad. He finds that high-skilled Austrian workers mainly emigrate to gain new qualifications and competences as well as to improve their career chances (Breinbauer 2008: 182). Further, he explores that only 7 out of 10 emigrants are in contact with research institutes in Austria and about one third of the Austrian mathematicians living abroad do not hold any professional contact with other scientists of Austrian citizenship. In this context, Breitenbauer (2008) sums up that scientists abroad do not perform a bridging function for other Austrian scientists residing in Austria. With respect to researchers’ return potential, Breinbauer (2008) finds that it is fairly small. According to his results, two thirds of the respondents state that they want to stay in the destination county. Interestingly, half of the respondents recommend to junior scientists to go abroad but return after several years (Breinbauer 2008: 185). Breinbauer (2008) asked Austrian emigrants about how they think brain drain from Austria could be avoided. In this context, most respondents highlight the following changes in the Austrian science system: increased internationalization, development of a transparent and competitive scientific structure, reduction of bureaucracy and hierarchies, greater openness and more stable career opportunities for talented young scientists. In addition, there should be the honest willingness to work with international experts abroad (Breinbauer 2008: 188).

In line with these results, Warta (2006) analyses tertiary-educated Austrians who took part in an FWF mobility program (Erwin Schrödinger) and finds that “the use of new methodologies and techniques” as well as “specialisation” are major factors which drive Austrian researchers to go abroad. In terms of return migration, her research shows that only 50% of former grant holders went directly back to their former position in Austria, 12% got another job in Austria, 8% received another research grant or further funding form the FWF, and 29% of tertiary-educated Austrians decided to stay in the destination country after the scholarship expired. This number even increased in the recent years (Warta 2006: 21). This rate appears high, but it is relatively low compared with the rate of researchers who received another funding, namely the Marie-Curie scholarship. 43% of former high-level Marie-Curie fellows stayed abroad after their fellowship expired (Warta 2006: 21). Warta (2006) analyses the reasons for not returning and shows that most Schrödinger fellows state that they had problems finding a job on the Austrian labour market. Warta (2006) believes that this reason may once have been important, but questions its validity for current times. Today the labour market for researchers has internationalized. Warta (2006) believes that low return rates can be attributed to the following factors: fellows tend to stay abroad because:

1. ‘foreign work experiences promote the research career
2. the home institution of the fellow may not be able to integrate the fellow and his new competencies, and
3. a high proportion of fellows become professors, positions open to international competition (Warta 2006: 24f)’.

Contrary to Warta (2006), Biffl (2006) highlights that the segmentation of the Austrian labour market may still be one of the main barriers for nationals residing abroad. In Austria, only a profession in the internal labor market segment provides good wages and career prospects; but entering internal labor markets and career paths is very difficult and often only possible via internal career ladders. “A characteristic of Austrian career developments are low entry wages in an international comparison and slow wage increases as turnover is still high close to the entry port. Thus, entry wages tend to be below productivity but continued employment bears the prospect of recuperating foregone earnings from the age of the mid 30s onwards” (Biffl 2006: 26) Natives, residing abroad, may decide against a return to Austria, because they are not willing to start at the very beginning of a career path. As empirical research on this topic is missing, this aspect remains an open question.

To understand the reasons for return, Forstlechner’s research (2010) is very useful. In his comparative, qualitative study on self-initiated return migrants to the UK, France, Germany and Austria, he conducted 42 interviews (5 qualitative interviews with Austrian returnees) and showed that respondents returned to their home countries because of a multitude of reasons: family reasons, financial reasons, employment contract termination in the host country as well as bureaucratic issues (e.g. problems with visa for partner and children). When returning, Forstlechner (2010) finds that most respondents did not receive, seek or expect any help from the government. When asked about how the government could incentivize and accompany the return progress, the majority of returnees either did not discuss this question or reacted with surprise. According to Forstlechner (2010) “14 out of the 25 respondents rejected the concept of government help for repatriation entirely” (Forstlechner 2010: 168). Those respondents who provided recommendations, identified the following possibilities that could – at least partially- ease the return process: financial incentives (e.g. tax breaks), help with procedures (e.g. educational attestation of children’s education) and better support and advice from the embassy in the host country (Forstlechner 2010: 169).

Morano-Foadi (2005) conducted research dealing with the international mobility of scientists in the discipline of physics and life science in the United Kingdom, Portugal, Italy, Austria and Greece. For Austrian returnees she finds that ‘the longer one is away, the more complicated the return is’ (Morano-Foadi 2005: 150). Although she generally finds that mobility is considered a ‘plus’ (Morano-Foadi 2005: 156) in Austria, returning scientists are exposed to various return and reintegration problems, which are not further described in the study. Morano-Foadi (2005) concludes her research saying ‘returnees are not welcomed back’ (Morano-Foadi 2005: 156).

To sum up, from previous research we know that highly-skilled emigrants leave Austria to gain new qualifications and skills and to boost their career. Most of them are very satisfied with their stay abroad and considerable shares of them do not hold any professional contact with other researchers in Austria. The return potential among Austrian emigrants is fairly small- the majority fears problems on the Austrian labour market when coming back. If they return, main reasons for repatriation are family reasons, financial reasons or bureaucratic issues.

Literature:
Breinbauer, A. (2008): Mobilität österreichischer und ungarischer Mathematiker. Ein Beitrag zur Brain Drain-Debatte in einem kleinen Segment Hochqualifizierter. Vienna University Press.
Forstlechner, I. (2010): Brain Drain in Developed Countries. Can Governments do Anything to Bring Expatriates Back? Public Policy and Administration 25: 156-174.
DOI: 10.1177/0952076709356853.
Morano-Foadi, S. (2005): Scientific Mobility, Career Progression, and Excellence in the European Research Area. International Migration 43 (5): 133-162.
Warta, K. (2006): Evaluation of the FWF Mobility Programs Erwin Schrödinger and Lise Meitner, July 2006. Wien, verfügbar unter: http://www.fwf.ac.at/de/downloads/pdf/fwf_mobility_report.pdf

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Center for Social Innovation (ZSI)
Linke Wienzeile 246
A-1150 Wien

Mag.a Stefanie Smoliner
Phone: +4314950442-73
E-mail: smoliner@zsi.at