Are Return Migrants Moving Back or Moving Forward?
Part of the Migration, Diasporas and Citizenship book series (MDC)


In this chapter, Van Houte argues that there is a mismatch between the allocation of development budgets and the development potential of return migrants. While the bulk of the budgets promoting return, development and peace-building go to de facto involuntary returnees, this group is unable to contribute to development. On the contrary, this potential is undermined by restrictive immigration and asylum policies. On the other hand, while a proportion of voluntary returnees can potentially contribute to development and peace-building, only small shares of migration and development budgets promote their initiatives. Van Houte argues that only if return occurs under the condition of continued transnational mobility and strengthened human capacity, it may meet the goal of promoting development and peace-building, which justifies funding from official development budgets.


Host Country Asylum Seeker Return Migration Migration Experience Undocumented Migrant 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Bakewell, Oliver. 2008. ‘Keeping Them in Their Place’: The Ambivalent Relationship Between Development and Migration in Africa. Third World Quarterly 29(7): 1341–1358. doi: 10.1080/01436590802386492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Black, Richard, and Saskia Gent. 2006. Sustainable Return in Post-conflict Contexts. International Migration 44(3): 15–38. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2435.2006.00370.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Carling, Jørgen. 2002. Migration in the Age of Involuntary Immobility: Theoretical Reflections and Cape Verdean Experiences. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 28(1): 5–42. doi: 10.1080/13691830120103912.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cassarino, Jean-Pierre., eds. 2014. Reintegration and Development. Florence: European University Institute and Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies.Google Scholar
  5. Castles, Stephen. 2007. Twenty-First-Century Migration as a Challenge to Sociology. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 33(3): 351–371. doi: 10.1080/13691830701234491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Castles, Stephen, Hein De Haas, and Mark J. Miller. 2014. The Age of Migration: International Population Movements in the Modern World. 5th ed. Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Castles, Stephen, and Mark J. Miller. 2009. The Age of Migration: International Population Movements in the Modern World. 4th ed. Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  8. Cramer, Christopher, and Jonathan Goodhand. 2002. Try Again, Fail Again, Fail Better? War, the State, and the ‘Post-Conflict’ Challenge in Afghanistan. Development and Change 33(5): 885–909. doi: 10.1111/1467-7660.t01-1-00253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Emirbayer, Mustafa, and Ann Mische. 1998. What Is Agency? American Journal of Sociology 103(4): 962–1023. doi: 10.1086/231294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Frouws, Bram, and Ton Grimmius. 2012. Migratie en Ontwikkeling. In Beleidsevaluatie van het Nederlandse Migratie- en Ontwikkelingsbeleid sinds 2008. Eindrapport: Research voor Beleid and Maastricht University.Google Scholar
  11. Gammeltoft-Hansen, Thomas, and Ninna Nyberg Sørensen. 2012. Introduction. In The Migration Industry and the Commercialization of International Migration, ed. Thomas Gammeltoft-Hansen and Ninna Nyberg Sørensen. Abingdon and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  12. Hammond, Laura. 1999. Examining the Discourse of Repatriation: Towards a More Proactive Theory of Return Migration. In The End of the Refugee Cycle? Refugee Repatriation and Reconstruction, ed. Richard Black and Khalid Koser, 227–244. New York and Oxford: Berghahn.Google Scholar
  13. ICMPD and ECDPM. 2013. Migration and Development Policies and Practices. A Mapping Study of Eleven European Countries and the European Commission. Vienna and Maastricht: ICMPD and ECDPM.Google Scholar
  14. Kalir, Barak. 2013. Paper read at Migration, Stockholm and Beyond: The Follow Up of the 2009 Stockholm Programme on Migration Governance; The Need for Further Steps, December 9, at The Hague.Google Scholar
  15. Mai, Nicola, and Russell King. 2009. Love, Sexuality and Migration: Mapping the Issue(s). Mobilities 4(3): 295–307. doi: 10.1080/17450100903195318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Monsutti, Alessandro. 2008. Afghan Migratory Strategies and the Three Solutions to the Refugee Problem. Refugee Survey Quarterly 27(1): 58–73. doi: 10.1093/rsq/hdn007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Omata, Naohiko. 2013. The Complexity of Refugees’ Return Decision-Making in a Protracted Exile: Beyond the Home-Coming Model and Durable Solutions. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 39(8): 1281–1297. doi: 10.1080/1369183X.2013.778149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Portes, Alejandro. 1999. Conclusion: Towards a New World—The Origins and Effects of Transnational Activities. Ethnic and Racial Studies 22(2): 463–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Sewell, William H. Jr. 1992. A Theory of Structure: Duality, Agency, and Transformation. American Journal of Sociology 98(1): 1–29. doi: 10.2307/2781191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Skeldon, Ronald. 2008. International Migration as a Tool in Development Policy: A Passing Phase? Population and Development Review 34(1): 1–18. doi: 10.1111/j.1728-4457.2008.00203.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Sørensen, Ninna Nyberg, Nicholas Van Hear, and Poul Engberg-Pedersen. 2002. The Migration-Development Nexus: Evidence and Policy Options. International Migration 40(5): 49–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Stigter, Elca. 2006. Afghan Migratory Strategies—An Assesment of Repatriation and Sustainable Return in Response to the Convention Plus. Refugee Survey Quarterly 25(2): 109–122. doi: 10.1093/rsq/hdi0129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Van Houte, Marieke, and Mireille De Koning. 2008. Towards a Better Embeddedness? Monitoring Assistance to Involuntary Returning Migrants from Western Countries. Nijmegen and Amsterdam: CIDIN and AMIDSt.Google Scholar
  24. Van Houte, Marieke, Melissa Siegel, and Tine Davids. 2015. Return to Afghanistan: Migration as Reinforcement of Socio-economic Stratification. Population, Space and Place 21(8): 692–703. doi: 10.1002/psp.1876.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.International Migration Institute Department of International DevelopmentUniversity of OxfordOxfordUK

Personalised recommendations