Skip to main content

Perception of institutional quality differences and intention of migrants to return home: a case study of Vietnamese diaspora

Abstract

This study extends the literature on the role of institutional quality in international migration to an under-researched aspect: the intention of international migrants to return to the home country. We examined whether the perception of differences in institutional quality between OECD destination countries and Vietnam and the stated importance attached to such differences influence the intention of Vietnamese migrants to return home. We used data from a web-based survey (N = 159) conducted in 2016. The countries where the respondents resided comprised approximately 90% of the Vietnamese diaspora in the world. We considered six different dimensions of institutional quality. We found, both descriptively and by means of weighted logistic regression analysis, that Vietnamese migrants who perceive a greater difference in institutional quality between the destination country and Vietnam are less likely to report intentions to return. This effect is stronger for those who attach greater importance to institutional quality. However, gender shows notable heterogeneity, with the effects of institutional quality being more robust and closer to the theoretical expectations for men than for women.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Notes

  1. 1.

    Case studies of return intentions include: Turkish immigrants in Germany (Tezcan 2019); Moroccans in Italy (Paparusso and Ambrosetti 2017); immigrants and refugees in the Netherlands (de Vroome and van Tubergen 2014); Central Asian migrant women in Moscow (Agadjanian et al. 2014); Estonian migrants in Finland (Anniste and Tammaru 2014); skilled migrants from Turkey (Güngör and Tansel 2014); international students in the United States (Alberts and Hazen 2005); and skilled Hong Kong immigrants in Australia (Mak 1997).

  2. 2.

    For a study of the impact of diasporas on institutional quality in home countries, see Tran et al. (2021).

  3. 3.

    The full questionnaire is available at https://bit.ly/2OG8bPj.

  4. 4.

    New Zealand is the country where the research was based and it was therefore possible to conduct a postal survey there. Hard copies of the questionnaire were distributed to Vietnamese associations in New Zealand to recruit respondents to the extent that they were able to do so. The New Zealand respondents were also asked to state their willingness to pay for higher institutional quality in Vietnam in terms of an acceptable reduction in their desired wage (see Tran et al. 2019b).

  5. 5.

    Regressions were conducted in Stata 15. The programming code and data are available from the authors upon request.

  6. 6.

    These differences are statistically significant at the 1% level.

  7. 7.

    Principal component analysis is a dimensionality-reduction method that is often used to produce low-dimensional representations for datasets that contain various interrelated variables. This reduction is achieved by creating new uncorrelated variables, i.e., the principal components, that successively maximize variance (Jolliffe 2002). One criterion for selecting the optimal number of principal components is that all eigenvalues are greater than one.

  8. 8.

    Definitions of each of the six dimensions of institutional quality and a full description of the indicator variables assigned to the six dimensions are available at: https://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi/Home/Documents.

  9. 9.

    “Don’t know” and missing answers do not alter the value of the index.

  10. 10.

    The results of robustness checks are available upon request from the authors.

References

  1. Acemoglu D, Robinson JA (2012) Why nations fail: the origins of power, prosperity and poverty. Crown Publishers, New York

    Google Scholar 

  2. Agadjanian V, Gorina E, Menjívar C (2014) Economic incorporation, civil inclusion, and social ties: plans to return home among Central Asian migrant women in Moscow, Russia. Int Migr Rev 48(3):577–603

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Alberts HC, Hazen HD (2005) “There are always two voices…”: International students’ intentions to stay in the United States or return to their home countries. Int Migr 43(3):131–154

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Anniste K, Tammaru T (2014) Ethnic differences in integration levels and return migration intentions: a study of Estonian migrants in Finland. Demogr Res 30(13):377–412

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Baudassé T, Bazillier R, Issifou I (2018) Migration and institutions: exit and voice (from abroad)? J Econ Surv 32(3):727–766

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Bilgili Ö, Siegel M (2017) To return permanently or to return temporarily? Explaining Migrants’ intentions. Migr Dev 6(1):14–32

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Buján RM (2015) Gendered motivations for return migrations to Bolivia from Spain. J Immigr Refug Stud 13(4):401–418

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Carling J, Pettersen SV (2014) Return migration intentions in the integration–transnationalism matrix. Int Migr 52(6):13–30

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Caro R, Fernández M, Valbuena C (2016) Predicting return intentions in Madrid. Migr Lett 13(1):116–130

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Cassarino J-P (2004) Theorising return migration: the conceptual approach to return migrants revisited. Int J Multicult Soc 6(2):253–279

    Google Scholar 

  11. Cerase FP (1974) Expectations and reality: a case study of return migration from the United States to Southern Italy. Int Migr Rev 8(2):245–262

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Chabé-Ferret B, Machado J, Wahba J (2016) Return Plans and Migrants’ Behavior (IZA Discussion Paper Series No. 10111). Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA), Bonn

  13. de Haas H, Fokkema T (2011) The effects of integration and transnational ties on international return migration intentions. Demogr Res 25:755–782

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. de Vroome T, van Tubergen F (2014) Settlement intentions of recently arrived immigrants and refugees in the Netherlands. J Immigr Refug Stud 12(1):47–66

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. de Haas H, Fokkema T, Fihri MF (2014) Return migration as failure or success? J Int Migr Integr 16(2):415–429

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Dillman DA, Reips U-D, Matzat U (2010) Advice in surveying the general public over the internet. Int J Internet Sci 5(1):1–4

    Google Scholar 

  17. Dustmann C, Görlach J-S (2016) The economics of temporary migrations. J Econ Lit 54(1):98–136

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Dustmann C, Mestres J (2010) Remittances and temporary migration. J Dev Econ 92(1):62–70

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Güngör ND, Tansel A (2014) Brain drain from Turkey: return intentions of skilled migrants. Int Migr 52(5):208–226

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Hao X, Yan K, Guo S, Wang M (2017) Chinese returnees’ motivation, post-return status and impact of return: a systematic review. Asian Pac Migr J 26(1):143–157

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Jensen P, Pedersen PJ (2007) To stay or not to stay? Out-migration of immigrants from Denmark. Int Migr 45(5):87–113

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Jolliffe IT (2002) Principal component analysis, 2nd edn. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  23. Kaufmann D, Kraay A, Zoido-Lobatón P (1999) Governance matters (Policy Research Working Paper). The World Bank, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  24. Kunuroglu F, van de Vijver F, Yagmur K (2016) Return migration. Online Read Psychol Cult. https://doi.org/10.9707/2307-0919.1143

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Lamm A, Lamm K (2019) Using non-probability sampling methods in agricultural and extension education research. J Int Agric Ext Educ 26(1):52–59

    Google Scholar 

  26. Mak AS (1997) Skilled Hong Kong immigrants’ intention to repatriate. Asian Pac Migr J 6(2):169–184

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Mohamed M-A, Abdul-Talib A-N (2020) Push-pull factors influencing international return migration intensions: a systematic literature review. J Enterp Communities People Places Glob Econ 14(2):231–246

    Google Scholar 

  28. Morrison PA (1967) Duration of residence and prospective migration: the evaluation of a stochastic model. Demography 4(2):553–561

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. OECD (2008) International migration outlook: SOPEMI-2008. OECD, France

    Book  Google Scholar 

  30. Paparusso A, Ambrosetti E (2017) To stay or to return? Return migration intentions of Moroccans in Italy. Int Migr 55(6):137–155

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Pham AT (2011) The Returning Diaspora: Analyzing Overseas Vietnamese (Viet Kieu) Contributions toward Vietnam’s Economic Growth (Depocen Working Paper Series No. 2011/20). Vietnam: Development and Policies Research Center (DEPOCEN)

  32. Ratha DK, Plaza S, Dervisevic E (2016) Migration and remittances factbook 2016. The World Bank, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  33. Reips U-D, Buffardi LE (2012) Studying migrants with the help of the internet: methods from psychology. J Ethn Migr Stud 38(9):1405–1424

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Tezcan T (2019) Return home? Determinants of return migration intention amongst Turkish immigrants in Germany. Geoforum 98:189–201

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Tran NTM, Cameron MP, Poot J (2019a) Local institutional quality and return migration: evidence from Vietnam. Int Migr 57(4):75–90

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Tran NTM, Cameron MP, Poot J (2019b) What are migrants willing to pay for better home country institutions? Lett Spat Resour Sci 12(3):257–268

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Tran NTM, Cameron MP, Poot J (2021) How robust is the evidence on the impact of diasporas on institutional quality in home countries? Kyklos 74(1):126–152

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division (2019) International Migrant Stock 2019 [United Nations database, POP/DB/MIG/Stock/Rev.2019]

  39. Vaske JJ, Jacobs MH, Sijtsma TJ, Beaman J (2011) Can weighting compensate for sampling issues in internet surveys? Hum Dimens Wildl 16(3):200–215

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Wahba J (2014) Return migration and economic development. In: Lucas REB (ed) International handbook on migration and economic development. Edward Elgar Publishing, Great Britain, pp 327–349

  41. Waldorf B (1995) Determinants of international return migration intentions. Prof Geogr 42(2):125–136

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Waldorf B, Esparza A (1991) A parametric failure time model of international return migration. Pap Reg Sci 70(4):419–438

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Wolff F-C (2015) Do the return intentions of French migrants affect their transfer behaviour? J Dev Stud 51(10):1358–1373

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ngoc Thi Minh Tran.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix

Appendix

See Tables 7 and 8.

Table 7 Descriptive statistics for indicators of integration in the destination country
Table 8 Descriptive statistics for indicators of ties with the home country

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Tran, N.T.M., Cameron, M.P. & Poot, J. Perception of institutional quality differences and intention of migrants to return home: a case study of Vietnamese diaspora. Asia-Pac J Reg Sci (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s41685-021-00212-9

Download citation

Keywords

  • Return migration intention
  • Institutional quality
  • Perception
  • Heterogeneity
  • Vietnam

JEL Classification

  • F22
  • O15