Return Migration as Failure or Success?

The Determinants of Return Migration Intentions Among Moroccan Migrants in Europe
  • Hein de HaasEmail author
  • Tineke Fokkema
  • Mohamed Fassi Fihri


Different migration theories generate competing hypotheses with regard to determinants of return migration. While neoclassical migration theory associates migration to the failure to integrate at the destination, the new economics of labour migration sees return migration as the logical stage after migrants have earned sufficient assets and knowledge and to invest in their origin countries. The projected return is then likely to be postponed for sustained or indefinite periods if integration is unsuccessful. So, from an indication or result of integration failure return is rather seen as a measure of success. Drawing on recent survey data (N = 2,832), this article tests these hypotheses by examining the main determinants of return intention among Moroccan migrants across Europe. The results indicate that structural integration through labour market participation, education and the maintenance of economic and social ties with receiving countries do not significantly affect return intentions. At the same time, investments and social ties to Morocco are positively related, and socio-cultural integration in receiving countries is negatively related to return migration intentions. The mixed results corroborate the idea that there is no uniform process of (return) migration and that competing theories might therefore be partly complementary.


Return migration Integration Transnationalism Morocco Europe 



Hein de Haas’s research is part of the DEMIG project and has received funding from the European Research Council under the European Community’s Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013) / ERC Grant Agreement 240940.


  1. Aparicio, R. (2007). The integration of the second and 1.5 generations of Moroccan, Dominican and Peruvian origin in Madrid and Barcelona. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 33(7), 1169–1193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Asiedu, A. (2005). Some benefits of migrants’ return visits to Ghana. Population Space and Place, 11(1), 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bauer, T., & Zimmermann, K. (1998). Causes of international migration: a survey. In P. Gorter, P. Nijkamp, & J. Poot (Eds.), Crossing borders: regional and urban perspectives on international migration (pp. 95–127). Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  4. Berrada, A. (1990). Le Retour des Travailleurs Migrants au Maroc: Mythe ou Réalité. In Le Maroc et La Holllande. Actes de la Deuxième Rencontre Universitaire (pp. 111–119). Rabat: Université Mohammed V.Google Scholar
  5. Cassarino, J.-P. (2004). Theorising return migration: the conceptual approach to return migrants revisited. International Journal on Multicultural Societies, 6(2), 243–279.Google Scholar
  6. Castles, S., & Miller, M. J. (2003). The age of migration (second revised and updated edition (1998) ed.). Houndmills: MacMillan.Google Scholar
  7. Cohen, R. (2008). Global diasporas: an introduction (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  8. Constant, A., & Massey, D. (2002). Return migration by German guestworkers: neoclassical versus new economic theories. International Migration, 40(4), 5–38.Google Scholar
  9. de Bree, J., Davids, T., & de Haas, H. (2010). Post-return experiences and transnational belonging of return migrants: a Dutch-Moroccan case study. Global Networks - A Journal of Transnational Affairs, 10(4), 489–509.Google Scholar
  10. de Haas, H. (2007). Morocco’s migration experience: a transitional perspective. International Migration, 45(4), 39–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. de Haas, H. (2009). Euro-Mediterranean migration futures: the cases of Morocco, Egypt and Turkey. Working paper. Oxford: International Migration Institute, University of Oxford.Google Scholar
  12. de Haas, H., & Fokkema, T. (2010). Intra-household conflicts in migration decision making: return and pendulum migration in Morocco. Population and Development Review, 36(3), 541–561.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. de Haas, H., & Fokkema, T. (2011). The effects of integration and transnational ties on international return migration intentions. Demographic Research, 25, 755–782.Google Scholar
  14. Diatta, M. A., & Mbow, M. (1999). Releasing the development potential of return migration: the case of Senegal. International Migration, 37(1), 243–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dustmann, C. (2008). Return migration, investment in children, and intergenerational mobility—comparing sons of foreign- and native-born fathers. Journal of Human Resources, 43(2), 299–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dustmann, C., Bentolila, S., & Faini, R. (1996). Return migration: the European experience. Economic Policy, 11(22), 213–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fadloullah, A., Berrada, A., & Khachani, M. (2000). Facteurs d’Attraction et de Répulsion des flux Migratoires Internationaux. Rapport National: Le Maroc (Eurostat Working Papers 3/2000/E/No.6). Rabat: Commission Européenne.Google Scholar
  18. Fokkema, T., & de Haas, H. (2011). Pre- and post-migration determinants of socio-cultural integration of African immigrants in Italy and Spain. International Migration. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2435.2011.00687.x.
  19. Glick Schiller, N., Basch, L., & Szanton-Blanc, C. (1992). Towards a transnational perspective on migration: race, class, ethnicity, and nationalism reconsidered. New York: New York Academy of Sciences.Google Scholar
  20. Harris, J. R., & Todaro, M. P. (1970). Migration, unemployment and development: a two-sector analysis. American Economic Review, 60, 126–142.Google Scholar
  21. HCP. (2007). Les Marocains resident a l’etranger: analyse des Résultats de l’Enquête de 2005 sur l’Insertion Socio-Economique dans les pays d’accueil. Rabat: Royaume du Maroc–Haut-Commissariat au Plan.Google Scholar
  22. Heckmann, F. (2005). Integration and integration policies. Bamberg: European Forum for Migration Studies.Google Scholar
  23. Hooghiemstra, E. (2001). Migrants, partner selection and integration: crossing borders? Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 32(4), 601–625.Google Scholar
  24. Ireland, P. (2008). Comparing responses to ethnic segregation in urban Europe. Urban Studies, 45(7), 1333–1358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Jensen, P., & Pedersen, P. J. (2007). To stay or not to stay? Out-migration of immigrants from Denmark. International Migration, 45(5), 87–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. King, R., & Christou, A. (2007). Cultural geographies of counter-diasporic migration: the second generation returns ‘home’. Sussex Migration Working Paper No 45. University of Sussex.Google Scholar
  27. King, R., & Skeldon, R. (2010). ‘Mind the gap!’ Integrating approaches to internal and international migration. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 36(10), 1619–1646.Google Scholar
  28. Lievens, J. (1999). Family-forming migration from Turkey and Morocco to Belgium: the demand for marriage partners from the countries of origin. International Migration Review, 33(3), 717–744.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Massey, D. S., Arango, J., Hugo, G., Kouaouci, A., Pellegrino, A., & Taylor, J. E. (1998). Worlds in motion: understanding international migration at the end of the millennium. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
  30. McCormick, B., & Wahba, J. (2001). Overseas work experience, savings and entrepreneurship amongst return migrants to LDCs. Scottish Journal of Political Economy, 48(2), 164–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Portes, A. (2003). Conclusion: theoretical convergencies and empirical evidence in the study of immigrant transnationalism. International Migration Review, 37(3), 874–892.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Portes, A., Guarnizo, L., & Landolt, P. (1999). Transnational communities. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  33. Portes, A., Parker, R. N., & Cobas, J. A. (1980). Assimilation or consciousness—perceptions of United-States society among recent Latin-American immigrants to the United-States. Social Forces, 59(1), 200–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Reniers, G. (2001). The post-migration survival of traditional marriage patterns: consanguineous marriages among Turks and Moroccans in Belgium. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 32(1), 21–45.Google Scholar
  35. Rodriguez, V., & Egea, C. (2006). Return and the social environment of Andalusian emigrants in Europe. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 32(8), 1377–1393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Sjaastad, A. H. (1962). The costs and returns of human migration. Journal of Political Economy, 70(5), 80–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Snel, E., Engbersen, G., & Leerkes, A. (2006). Transnational involvement and social integration. Global Networks - A Journal of Transnational Affairs, 6(3), 285–308.Google Scholar
  38. Stark, O. (1991). The migration of labor. Cambridge: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  39. Thomas-Hope, E. (1999). Return migration to Jamaica and its development potential. International Migration, 37(1), 183–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Todaro, M. P., & Maruszko, L. (1987). Illegal migration and US immigration reform: a conceptual framework. Population and Development Review, 13(1), 101–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Vasta, E. (2007). From ethnic minorities to ethnic majority policy: multiculturalism and the shift to assimilationism in the Netherlands. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 30(5), 713–740.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Waldorf, B. (1995). Determinants of international return migration intentions. Professional Geographer, 47(2), 125–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hein de Haas
    • 1
    Email author
  • Tineke Fokkema
    • 2
  • Mohamed Fassi Fihri
    • 3
  1. 1.International Migration Institute (IMI), Oxford Department of International Development (ODID)University of OxfordOxfordUK
  2. 2.Netherlands Interdisciplinary Demographic Institute (NIDI)The HagueThe Netherlands
  3. 3.CEREDRabatMorocco

Personalised recommendations