Paying to Go: Deportability as Development
Financial incentives have been a key element of “voluntary” return schemes in Europe since French co-development policies in the 1970s. A new generation of return schemes has been introduced since the late 1990s targetting unrecognised asylum seekers or undocumented migrants, rather than legal residents. These schemes are brokered by the International Organisation for Migration, supposed to monitor the safety of returnees and manage post-return payments. This chapter is based on interviews with migrants whose return to Sri Lanka was financed under a UK scheme designed to offer further support once they returned. The chapter follows the range of return experiences of 50 migrants who returned between 2006 and the end of the conflict in Sri Lanka in 2009. Many took the opportunity to develop their own business, and the widespread failure and disillusionment of the migrants emphasises the problematic assumption that relatively small amounts of money are sufficient to encourage unwanted individuals back across borders.
- Black, Richard, Michael Collyer, and Will Somerville. 2011. Pay-to-Go Schemes and Other Noncoercive Return Programmes: Is Scale Possible?. Washington, DC: Migration Policy Institute.Google Scholar
- Black, Richard, and Saskia Gent. 2004. Defining, Measuring and Influencing Sustainable Return: The Case of the Balkans. Migration DRC Working Paper T-7. Migration DRC, University of Sussex, Brighton http://www.migrationdrc.org/publications/working_papers/WP-T7.pdf.
- Cassarino, Jean-Pierre. 2004. Theorising Return Migration: The Conceptual Approach to Return Migrants Revisited. International Journal on Multicultural Societies 6 (2): 253–279.Google Scholar
- ———. 2015. Return Migration and Development: The significance of Migration Cycles. In Routledge Handbook of Immigration and Refugee Studies, ed. A. Triandafyllidou. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Collyer, Michael, Ummuhan Bardak, Eva Jansova, and Outi Kärkkäinen. 2013. Migration and Skills in Armenia, Georgia and Morocco. Turin: European Training Foundation.Google Scholar
- Dustmann, Christian, and Oliver Kirchkamp. 2001. The Optimal Migration Duration and Activity Choice after Re-migration. IZA Discussion Paper 266, IZA, Bonn.Google Scholar
- ECRE (European Council on Refugees and Exiles). 2003. “Position on Return” PO1/10/2003/Ext/MP. Brussels: ECRE.Google Scholar
- IOM. 2004. Voluntary Assisted Return and Reintegration Programme (VARRP) Reintegration Self-Evaluation Results. Geneva: IOM.Google Scholar
- ———. 2011. Assisted Voluntary Return and Reintegration. Annual Report of Activities 2011. Geneva: IOM.Google Scholar
- King, Russell. 1978. Return Migration: A Neglected Aspect of Population Geography. Area 10 (3): 175–182.Google Scholar
- Koser, Khalid, and Katie Kuschminder. 2015. Comparative Research on the Assisted Voluntary Return and Reintegration of Migrants. Geneva: IOM.Google Scholar
- Office of the High Commission for Human Rights (OHCHR). 2015. Report of the OHCHR Investigation on Sri Lanka. September 16, 2015. http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/HRC/Pages/OISL.aspx. Accessed 20 Jan 2016.
- Transparency Research, and Olga Evans. 2010. The Voluntary Assisted Return and Reintegration Programme (VARRP) 2006: A Process and impact Assessment. Home Office Research Report 39.Google Scholar
- UNHCR. 2004. Handbook for Repatriation and Reintegration Activities. Geneva: UNHCR.Google Scholar
- Vertovec, Steven. 2009. Transnationalism. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Wilson, Brenda, and Olga Evans. 2010. The Voluntary Assisted Return and Reintegration Programme (VARRP) 2007. Home Office Research Report 40.Google Scholar
- Woodruff, Christopher, and Rene Zenteno. 2001. Remittances and Microenterprises in Mexico. UCSD, Graduate School of International Relations and Pacific Studies Working Paper, San Diego.Google Scholar
- World Bank. 2016. Economic Data 2016. http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD/countries/GH?page=2&display=default. Accessed 20 May 2016.