Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

French

As global economies become increasingly interconnected, the movement of people across borders has intensified, generating significant debate on the implications for both sending and receiving countries. Amid this debate, studies continue to report the return of some migrants to out-sourcing countries. While extra-regional return migration (henceforth, return migration) to Africa has received scholarly attention, there is no periodic systematic literature review to establish emerging themes on this topic. In this paper, we use standard procedures to analyse twenty peer-reviewed articles published between 2000 and 2022. From the findings, it emerged that return migration is a complex process shaped by multiple factors, such as family considerations and policies. The findings also highlight the differential experiences of returnees as they reintegrate into life in their home countries. Therefore, stakeholders should provide the necessary policy support to enhance the contributions of returnees to development.

Keywords

Africa migration return migration systematic review

Introduction

Migration has become a defining feature of the global economy (Bove and Elia, 2017). Estimates from the 2022 World Migration Report suggest that there were about 281 million extra-regional migrants in 2020 (IOM, 2022). The same report indicates that Europe is currently the largest destination for extra-regional migrants, with 87 million migrants (30.9 per cent), followed by the 86 million extra-regional migrants living in Asia (30.5 per cent). However, these figures are most likely underestimated given the recent increase in global migration partly driven by globalisation, and the overreliance of some developed economies on migrant workers (e.g. Canada, United States of America, and Italy) (Oklikah et al., 2024). Most migrant workers gravitate towards regions with greater opportunities as economies grow, and labour markets evolve (IOM, 2022). As a result, regions like Africa witnessed substantial emigration to high-income economies, especially Europe and North America. For instance, the number of Africans living outside the region increased from around 17 million in 2015 to over 19.5 million in 2020 (IOM, 2022). As of 2020, most African-born migrants living outside the region reside in Europe (11 million), Asia (nearly five million), and North America (around three million) (IOM, 2022). Most of these migrants maintain transnational connections to their home countries (Levitt and Jaworsky, 2007; Levitt et al., 2003), with some of them returning home at some point.

Return migration has been hailed as an integral element that connects sending and receiving countries (Dhar and Bhagat, 2021). The first strand of human mobility and migration-related literature examines the drivers of return migration, focusing mainly on why people make such decisions (Adebayo, 2020; Kleist, 2017; de Haas et al., 2015). What is common from this body of scholarship is that return migration decision-making is a complex process, often moderated by individuals, households, and macro-factors, such as family considerations, economic circumstances, personal aspirations, and existing policy regimes in both host and native countries. Moreover, what is clear from these studies is that return migration can either be voluntary or involuntary. The second strand of literature investigates the contribution of returnees to the socio-economic development of their sending countries (Bensassi and Jabbour, 2022; Sinatti, 2019). In the current migration literature, there is no consensus on the socio-economic and political contributions of return migrants to out-sourcing communities (Sinatti, 2019; de Haas et al., 2015). Significant debates and contentions about return migration still linger within policy circles (Zhao, 2002). The third strand of literature examines the implications of return migration and the challenges associated with re-integration (Nwozor et al., 2022; Samari, 2021).

In Africa, existing research on return migration mainly focuses on its determinants (Adebayo, 2020), post-return migration experiences (Kleist, 2020, 2017), and the contributions of returnees to the development of their home countries (Sinatti, 2019; Fransen et al., 2017). Moreover, return migration remains a comparatively understudied aspect of extra-regional migration within the African context. Most research on this subject tends to focus on how extra-regional migration affects migrants’ savings and remittances – and the extent to which return migration affects human capital accumulation (El-Mallakh and Wahba, 2021). Despite the growing literature on return migration in Africa, there has not been a systematic literature review and analysis of existing studies that highlight the role of migrants and returnees as development agents.

To address this gap, our study centres on the literature about return migration in Africa. It focuses on peer-reviewed studies published between 2000 and 2022. Twenty-two years is a sufficient timeframe to allow the study to extensively analyse themes involving return migration on the continent. Our search strategy focused on studies about the impacts of return migration on development in Africa. The following questions guide the study: (1) what themes have emerged within the return migration literature in Africa regarding the impact of returnees on the development of their home countries, and (2) how do these themes fit within the larger literature on return migration?

This study highlights some key issues on return migration on the continent that need attention. It also captures the diverse factors shaping return migration to the African region. The study also has policy implications for African governments seeking to effectively design strategies that integrate returnees into mainstream development and migration policies. The study promotes a context-sensitive analysis of the return migration subject by including literature using empirical methods in the review. For the purposes of this review, extra-regional return migration is defined as the relocation of individuals to their country of origin after spending a significant amount of time in destinations outside of the African continent. Therefore, studies on internal return migration, return intentions, visitations, and vacations to Africa were excluded from this review.

The next section provides an overview of return migration. This is followed by a presentation of the methodology used in conducting the systematic literature review. Next, the emerging themes from the reviewed studies are outlined and then discussed, and their implications for return migration scholarship and development policy are analysed.

Return Migration: An Overview

Globally, there is substantive scholarly interest in return migration, with most studies focusing on the determinants of return decisions, the various impacts of return migration on both host and home countries, as well as the socio-economic status of returnees (Efstratios et al., 2014). Current research demonstrates that return migration is marked by different ambitions and outcomes (Sinatti, 2015). However, there is no scholarly consensus on what determines return and the circumstances under which it occurs (Adebayo, 2020). Return migration is a complex and multi-layered process that can happen in different ways, either planned or spontaneous through voluntary or coercive means (Mensah, 2016).

Studies on return migration identify factors that shape people's return migration decisions, including economic, social considerations, among others (Kyeremeh et al., 2023). Other scholars also outline the differences between highly skilled and unskilled migrants. Some scholars, for instance, argue that highly skilled migrants have a higher propensity to return compared to lower skilled migrants, perhaps possessing higher skills makes it more likely for returnees to find well-paid job opportunities in their home countries if they choose to come back (Massey and Akresh, 2006; Reinhold and Thom, 2009). In the case of Vietnamese skilled return migrants, evidence suggests that highly skilled migrants with foreign or dual nationality are more likely to return home because of the advantages that their status confers on them in their country of origin (Nguyen-Akbar, 2017). Furthermore, in Egypt, return migration increased the probability of upward occupational mobility among highly educated returnees (El-Mallakh and Wahba, 2021; Wahba, 2015). Furthermore, some returnees contribute financially to their countries by transferring their savings to local banks (Black and Castaldo, 2009), while others transfer the skills acquired abroad for local activities (Sinatti, 2019). Chacko (2007), for instance, observed that several Indian return migrants might be attributed to the rigid immigration laws and the integration challenges faced by migrants.

In examining the motivations of Turkish return migrants from Western Europe, Kunuroglu et al. (2018) identified perceived discrimination and a strong sense of belonging as the most important factors in the return decisions. A study with Albanian returnees also revealed that restrictive immigration policies in Greece influenced return decisions (Efstratios et al., 2014). However, restrictive migration policies might discourage returning because migrants know that remigration may be problematic (Flahaux, 2017; Flahaux and Reeve, 2015).

Some researchers interrogate the connection between return migration and transnationalism. The decisions to return are not only shaped by the availability of transnational ties in the home country; but also by the possibility of maintaining post-return transnational networks (Sinatti, 2019; Carling and Erdal, 2014). This is specifically important for returnees who rely on connections to their former place of residence for their livelihood (Sinatti, 2019). Social considerations (e.g. family reunification) also play a role in influencing people's decisions to return. For instance, a study involving Senegalese migrants demonstrated that those with families in Senegal were more likely to return than those with families in Europe (Flahaux, 2017). Likewise, family considerations are deemed important determinants of return migration for Nigerians living in Guangzhou, China (Adebayo, 2020) and ranked among the top three causes of return in Ghana and Côte d’Ivoire (Elijah, 2013; Tiemoko, 2004).

Studies also investigate the difficulties migrants face in their struggle to adjust to life back home (Bisong, 2022; Kleist, 2020). From this perspective, some scholars examined the dynamics of what is called returnees’ “economic embeddedness” (van Houte and Davids, 2008), which depicts the extent to which returnees can build sustainable livelihoods. From this perspective, involuntary returnee migrants may struggle to build their livelihoods, especially those in economically weak societies (Kleist, 2017; van Houte and Davids, 2008). Van Houte and Davids (2008) used the concept of “psychosocial embeddedness” to assess the experiences of returnees. The degree to which a returnee has had a “successful” migration experience strongly affects how returnees are viewed by the sending-country society (Kleist, 2020). Returnees whose migration projects “fail” are usually stigmatised, shamed, and discriminated against negatively affecting their sense of belonging in their native communities (van Houte and Davids, 2008). The unplanned returns and “unsuccessful” migration projects occasionally burden family members – especially in less wealthy households – who helped finance journeys by selling their property or taking loans (Bisong, 2022). This can cause tension between the returnee and their family, which negatively affects their sense of “social embeddedness” upon return (Kleist, 2020). Therefore, when migrants choose to return, a process of re-acculturation starts. Re-acculturation is the readjustment process after significant time spent away from one's own culture (Kunuroglu, 2021). This process can generate additional psycho-social stresses for returnees. Studies have shown that returnees who have the support of their family members fare better in reintegrating and adapting to life after returning compared to those who have weak social support from family (Bisong, 2022; Kleist, 2020).

Other studies also show that return migration decisions are influenced by the availability of robust support systems (e.g. child support, health services, etc.). A study conducted on an Austrian return migrant group demonstrated that their return decisions were shaped by their home country's high quality of life, security, and social welfare system (Konzett-Smoliner, 2016). However, unstable and poor societies could spiral into crisis because of additional strains of returnees on an already fragile economy and social support systems (van Houte and Davids, 2008). Thus, poorly executed return programmes may worsen migrants’ vulnerabilities rather than aid their integration (Bisong, 2022).

The preceding section demonstrates the trends across the general return migration literature. To date, no systematic analysis of the themes across the African return migration literature has been conducted despite its relevance for the continent's policymakers. Hence, there is a need for such a review to examine emerging trends around some of the issues discussed.

Method

This study aims to systematically synthesise existing scholarship on extra-regional return migration in Africa through a rigorous process based on predefined criteria. This approach enables researchers to analyse a wide range of studies on a particular subject (Akobeng, 2005). To achieve this, we modified and used a version of Mengist et al.'s (2020) six-step process for systematic literature review (i.e. protocol, search, appraisal, synthesis, analysis, and report). To address the research questions, search terms were adjusted to identify relevant literature, while adhering strictly to inclusion criteria. Given the extensive body of literature on the topic, employing a systematic literature review approach was deemed necessary to ensure transparency and replicability (Mengist et al., 2020).

Inclusion Criteria

All the articles included in this review were based on the following criteria. Notably, no studies on return migration to southern Africa were included, as no studies on return migration in the region met the proceeding four criteria for inclusion.

First, the study focused on extra-regional return migration to Africa. Thus, studies on return migration to non-African contexts were excluded as were comparative studies that included African and non-African contexts.

Second, the study focused exclusively on extra-regional return migration (as operationalised by the study). The study focuses on extra-regional migration because of the unique scale and scope of prospects and challenges associated with this type of migration, which differs from internal and regional migration. This is premised on the assumption that emigrants acquire new skills, resources, or knowledge when they migrate outside of Africa. These developments may impact trends in their reintegration and contribution to development on return to their respective home countries in Africa.

Third, the articles selected were primary data studies published in peer-reviewed journals. Primary research in this context refers to studies where research data were directly collected by the author(s). We omitted non-peer-reviewed articles, such as working papers, presentations, keynotes, book chapters, and grey literature.

Fourth, the study focused only on articles written in English for the past twenty-two years (2000–2022); consequently, our findings do not represent trends from Francophone and Lusophone literature. The temporal scope of 2000–2020 was chosen as this period witnessed a renewed interest in return migration to Africa among African emigrants from the continent. We focused on African migrant returnees who emigrated for various reasons, including war, education, and economics. The year 2022 was selected given the recent revamp of the back to Africa movement epitomised through “The Year of Return” celebration in 2019 to mark 400 years of slavery. The 2000–2022 timeline is of the essence and worthy of appraisal to understand trends and developments in returnee experiences to Africa.

Search Strategy

The study commenced with the selection of five databases: Google Scholar, Science Direct, Scopus, Web of Science, and JSTOR. The databases are renowned for their comprehensive academic citation directories, which are useful for bibliographical cross-checking. The official search for articles employed keywords operationalised through Boolean operators (i.e. AND, OR, NOT, quotation marks “”, parentheses (), and asterisks *). Additionally, search phrases were truncated to broaden the search results (see Figure 1). The search strings mainly concentrated on “return migration,” “Africa” (determinants of return), and “development.” Various phrases were entered into the search engines, including combinations like (international ret[urn] migrat[ion], deport[ed], remov[ed], displac[ed]) AND/OR (Africa, North Africa, South Africa, East Africa, West Africa,) AND (development, economic dev*, social dev*, political dev* OR cultural dev*). Search terms were run separately or with phrases that met the eligibility criteria.

Figure 1.

Flowchart of the Study Methodology.

Initial searches yielded 501 articles from the designated database, with an additional 51 articles from Google searches. Using Zotero, titles and abstracts were reviewed, removing duplicates and unrelated topics, reducing the count to 74. A reference list for the 74 articles was compiled and exported to Covidence for further screening. Three reviewers conducted a meticulous examination of title and abstract, resulting in a working list of 45 articles. Throughout the identification and screening process, articles that did not meet the inclusion criteria were excluded. Consequently, a final list of 17 papers was assigned to team members for in-depth reading. From the main text reading, four articles from a reference check were added to the working list, bringing the total to 20 articles.

Data Synthesis

Figure 1 gives an insight into the data collection, aggregation, and synthesis process of the articles identified, screened, accepted, and selected for final review. The flowchart also includes useful information on the search terms, locations, study criteria, sample size, and number of final articles reviewed.

Results

The 20 articles covered nine African countries in total: Morocco, Nigeria, Ethiopia, Burundi, Ghana, Senegal, Kenya, and Côte d'Ivoire (see Table 1). Six of the articles reported on the experiences of voluntary and involuntary returnees, determinants of return migration, and returnee health professionals in Ghana. Two other studies examined the role of the family in return migration and the contributions of returnees to development using data from Ghana and Côte d'Ivoire. In addition, four articles discuss the mental health of Ethiopian returnees, socio-economic reintegration challenges, and the effects of gender and age on the marriage prospects of returnees. Returnees’ labour reintegration and entrepreneurship were the subject of two studies on Senegal. Two articles on Burundi examined return migration, post-conflict violence, and economic outcomes in conflict-affected regions. The subject of one article was Moroccan returnees and domestic politics. Another study investigated the impact of returnees on repeated migration in Nigeria, while return migration challenges, liabilities, and entrepreneurship in Kenya were the subject of one article. One study discussed return migration and economic development in Cabo Verde. Surprisingly, no empirical studies focused on return migration in Southern Africa. The publications made two explicit observations. First, most of the selected studies concentrated on countries in eastern and western Africa, with only one study examining the dynamics of return migration in North Africa. Second, since 2000, the number of studies on this topic has increased, indicating growing significance.

Table 1.

Summaries of Reviewed Studies.²

No.	Authors(s) and title	Study context	Methodological approach	Primary findings
1.	Schwartz (2019)	Burundi	258 Semi-structured interviews with returnees, organisations, and local communities.	1. Informal and formal land-governance practises contributed to conflict among returnees and non-migrants. 2. Patrilineal land inheritance contributed to land ownership disputes. 3. Land disputes often occurred between males with different migratory histories.
2.	Fransen et al. (2017)	Burundi	Survey with participants.	1. There is a large livestock ownership gap between returnee and non-migrant households in rural Burundi. 2. Returnee families are more susceptible to crime and health complications.
3.	Åkesson (2011)	Cabo Verde	Twenty-six interviews made in 2010 with migrant returnees.	1. Returnees from countries experiencing unrest had limited opportunities to acquire useful skills. 2. It took decades to accumulate sufficient resources for a profitable return. 3. The skills and resources of some returnees did not adapt to local conditions.
4.	Tilahun et al. (2020)	Ethiopia	Employed a mixed-methods approach in studying 517 returnees.	1. There were high mental health symptoms among Ethiopian returnees from the Middle East. 2. Physical abuse, previous history of mental illness, detention, non-accomplishment of migratory goals, and denial of health care contributed to the health crises among returnees.
5.	Teferra (2017)	Ethiopia	In-depth interviews (20) and focus group discussion.	1. Returnees had inadequate financial support, less social support, and more housing issues. 2. Returnees adopted several strategies, including reliance on extended family for support to start a business.
6.	Nisrane et al. (2021)	Ethiopia	Qualitative data was collected from forty-eight female returnees.	1. Returnees were stigmatised and marginalised by Ethiopian society's patriarchal attitudes toward gender. 2. Some returnees disassociated themselves to cope with stigma. 3. Female returnees from the Middle East faced difficulties, which triggered a desire to re-emigrate.
7.	de Regt and Tafesse (2016)	Ethiopia	A quantitative and qualitative study with 168 deported returnees.	1. Some returnees were happy to return home, ending their plights in Saudi Arabia. 2. Some returnees were frustrated as their anticipations for economic integration failed. 3. Returnees relied on their relatives for assistance.
8.	Asampong et al. (2013)	Ghana	A qualitative method with sixty interviews.	1. Returnees were influenced by the desire to contribute to the country of origin and personal projects. 2. Returnee health professionals used relevant skills acquired abroad. 3. Some returnees viewed family reunion as a chance to support family.
9.	Elijah (2013)	Ghana	Survey with 120 returned migrants in Berekum Municipality, Ghana.	1. Family ties were the primary reason for the decision to return home, followed by a desire to invest in Ghana. 2. Most returnees received information from non-migrant networks which influenced their decision to return.
10.	Kyeremeh (2020)	Ghana	In-depth interviews with ten returnees.	1. Reasons for returning included old age, a lack of professional contracts, and threatening illnesses. 2. Other reasons for return included family reunification and the desire to contribute to the home country.
11.	Setrana and Tonah (2016)	Ghana	The study used the snowball technique to recruit 120 respondents.	1. Returnees maintained ties with host countries for businesses and other supports. 2. Some returnee businesses were small and operated for subsistence purposes yet employed some Ghanaians.
12.	Issifu (2018)	Ghana	Questionnaires were administered to 240 returnees.	1. Most returnees invested in businesses in their home country, particularly information technology, finance, and insurance. 2. Financing posed a direct hindrance to returnee entrepreneurship. 3. Returnees’ access to credit and business training facilitated entrepreneurial endeavours in Ghana.
13.	Setrana and Tonah (2014)	Ghana	The authors interviewed thirty returnees.	1. Family interferences influence returnees’ return decisions. 2. Returnees faced challenges in obtaining housing, employment, contacting friends, meeting family expectations, and adjusting to the city's inadequate infrastructure. 3. Returnees overcame their challenges through social support.
14.	Tiemoko (2004)	Ghana & Côte d’Ivoire	Survey with 600 participants.	1. Families played a significant role in return migration among elites and less-skilled return migrants to Côte d'Ivoire and Ghana.
15.	Black and Castaldo (2009)	Ghana & Côte d’Ivoire	Survey with 300 returnees to Ghana and Côte d’Ivoire.	1. In Ghana and Côte d'Ivoire, returnees’ savings, networks abroad, and work experience abroad facilitate entrepreneurship.
16.	Mreji and Barnard (2021)	Kenya	In-depth interviews with twenty returnee entrepreneurs operating in Nairobi, Kenya.	1. The underdeveloped business environment presented both opportunities and obstacles for returnees. 2. Locals’ expectations for financial support from returnees strained interpersonal relations. 3. Locals restricted returnees’ access to local networks and support systems.
17.	de Haas and Fokkema (2010)	Morocco	A qualitative and quantitative study conducted between 1998 and 2008.	1. Most households used emigration as income insurance. 2. Most returnees travel alone initially but reunited with their families. 3. Those who did not reunite with their families cited financial and legal obstacles to reunification.
18.	Togunde and Osagie (2009)	Nigeria	A survey of 678 university students.	1. The United States was the desired destination from migrants. 2. Most migrants noted that returnees’ behaviours influenced their desire to travel.
19.	Kveder and Flahaux (2013)	Senegal	A quantitative with forty-six returnees in Dakar.	1. Returnees were skilled workers who were self-employed. 2. Involuntary returnees were unlikely to be employed. 3. Returnees with an international education had little chance of finding skilled employment.
20.	Sinatti (2019)	Senegal	This qualitative study used data from sixty returnees.	1. Returnees invested in business to stabilise their finances. 2. Reunification with family was a factor that influenced returnees’ decision to return home. 3. Entrepreneurial returnees used transnational networks to operate businesses.

The authors identified five major themes from the literature and organised the analysis accordingly: drivers of return migration (i.e. why migrants return to their home countries), post-return lived experiences (i.e. what are the returnees’ experiences – both negatives and positives), returnees-socio-economic development nexus (i.e. the role of returnees in the socio-economic development of their home countries), involuntary return migration, and returnees’ roles in further migration (i.e. how returnees influence non-migrants to cultivate the desire to migrate overseas).

Drivers of Return Migration

A recurrent topic in the reviewed studies is the drivers of return migration, which are evaluated at the macro, meso, and micro level and operate either independently or jointly to influence return migration decisions. Five out of the 20 studies explored issues pertaining to the drivers of return migration (Kyeremeh, 2020; Sinatti, 2019; Elijah, 2013).

At the micro-level, evidence suggests that the desire to enjoy retirement in their homeland or family reunification were some of the motivations for return migration (de Haas and Fokkema, 2010). For example, in Senegal, family reunification is the topmost motivation among Senegalese entrepreneurs in their return migration decision-making (Sinatti, 2019). Besides, these returnees leveraged their transnational networks to run successful businesses (Sinatti, 2019). These findings also align with Åkesson's (2011) study, which found that feelings of moral responsibility to family members and the social importance of homecoming are drivers of return migration among Cape Verdeans. Among Ghanaians, some of the determinants of return migration are family-related factors and the quest to invest in Ghana (Kyeremeh, 2020; Elijah, 2013; Tiemoko, 2004). Specifically, among elite and less-skilled return migrants to Côte d’Ivoire and Ghana, Tiemoko (2004) found that familial considerations play an important role in return decisions. Another study also indicated that ageing and career-threatening ailments are push factors driving return migration among Ghanaian footballers (Kyeremeh, 2020).

Post-Return Lived Experiences

The reviewed articles also commonly addressed post-return migration experience. It is evident that the issue of how returnees fare upon return is a major research interest from the eight studies that address this theme (see Mreji and Barnard, 2021; Kleist, 2020; Teferra, 2017).

Evidence suggests that returnees’ differential migration experience plays a major role in their reintegration process in the labour market of their home countries. This is the case in Senegal, where returnees with short stays abroad are more likely to be unemployed compared to their counterparts who work abroad and are more likely to establish their own businesses (Kveder and Flahaux, 2013). Moreover, the nature of the return – voluntary or involuntary – affects the re-integration outcomes of returnees. In Ghana, the notable challenges voluntary returnees face in Kumasi are meeting the high expectations of family members, difficulty securing jobs, and adjusting to the poor amenities in the city, among others (Setrana & Tonah, 2014). Similarly, in examining the challenges that Ethiopian returnees face after their mass deportation, Teferra (2017) documents inadequate financial support, lack of support systems, housing issues, and unemployment issues as noteworthy challenges. However, in both Ghana and Ethiopia, returnees address these challenges primarily through the support of social networks, such as family and friends, who provide financial support as initial capital to returnees to start businesses (Teferra, 2017; Setrana and Tonah, 2014).

Setrana and Tonah (2016) discuss the use of transnational links by return migrants. In examining this nexus, Setrana and Tonah (2016) identify three typologies of returnees who sustain transnational ties for the growth of their business: professionals, business, and investor returnees. The authors indicate that returnees’ transnational connections allow them to obtain resources (mostly financial) that might not be handy, thereby increasing their business competitiveness in Ghana. More so, returnees improve their quality of life by offering specialised services in education, health, and other fields (Setrana and Tonah, 2016).

In Ethiopia, the primacy of common mental disorders (CMDs) is high among returnees from the Middle East. Participants’ level of CMDs upon return is mediated by the lack of pre-migration preparation and unsafe migration trajectories, where migrants are exposed to abuses and exploitation (Tilahun et al., 2020). Upon return, certain integration factors may likewise affect returnees’ well-being. For example, returnees may be deterred from seeking medical assistance in instances where they resettle in different localities from their original hometown, within their native country, due to their unfamiliarity with that locality's healthcare systems or languages.

Other studies report stigmatisation, marginalisation, mistrust and mismanagement of assets, and cultural tension as one of the post-return experiences of returnees. In a more recent study, Nisrane et al. (2021) demonstrate that gendered attitudes in Ethiopia rooted in patriarchy interact with age and other experiences of returnees to create stigmatisation and marginalisation. Consequently, returnees tend to dissociate themselves from others or keep their experiences secret as a coping mechanism and to increase their marital prospects, as well to avoid stigmatisation (Nisrane et al., 2021).

Evidence also suggests that returnees experience cultural tensions. Explicitly, Mreji and Barnard (2021), note that Kenya returnees, by virtue of a Western lifestyle, develop a more individualistic approach to life even after their return. This individualism is at odds with the communitarian value system in their home country. The locals perceive the returnees as part of a collective culture, where their initial overseas journey was through the collective support of community resource pooling. However, there were also cultural tensions that heightened returnees’ suspicion and mistrust for locals. Illustratively, de Haas and Fokkema (2010) find that Moroccan returnees from Europe observed a lack of trust, poor work ethic, sharp socio-economic disparity, and materialistic mindset among Moroccans and public officials. Kyeremeh's (2020) study of Ghanaian returnees also highlights similar findings with the most notable challenge being the mistrust and mismanagement of assets – a situation that left some returnees disappointed and contemplating remigration.

The Returnees-Socio-Economic Development Nexus

Five of the studies explored the relationship between returnees and the socio-economic development of their home countries (Issifu, 2018; Fransen et al., 2017; Asampong et al., 2013). This focus is unsurprising because the migration-development nexus is a hotly debated topic – compelling scholars, such as de Haas (2010), to describe the migration-development nexus as swinging like a pendulum. The assumption underpinning the presumed migration-development relationship is that migrants are expected to possess social and financial remittances and skills that contribute to poverty reduction and lead to sustainable long-term development. It is envisaged that returnees facilitate development in their home regions through the ideas, skills, and resources acquired overseas. Åkesson (2011), for instance, explores the role that returnees’ skills and savings play in local development, especially through the lens of entrepreneurial activities. It becomes clear that returnees play a significant role in local development, where a growing number of returnees use their experiences and savings from abroad to establish strong entrepreneurial ventures (Åkesson, 2011). Similar evidence of returnees contributing to the socio-economic development of their home country is found in other studies. Issifu (2018)'s study of Ghana, however, finds that access to finance directly hinders returnees’ entrepreneurial activities. In a comparative study exploring factors that facilitate socio-economic development through entrepreneurship among Ghanaian and Ivorian returnees, Black and Castaldo (2009) reveal that the most important predictor is work experience acquired overseas.

The health sector is another sector where returnees’ contributions manifest. Findings from Ghana indicate that health professional returnees offer employment opportunities to locals through the establishment of clinics, diagnostic centres, and laboratories (Asampong et al., 2013). They apply their skills acquired abroad in areas such as in-vitro fertilisation, dialysis, oncology, haematology, and paediatrics (Asampong et al., 2013). Similar findings of employment generation in Ghana are reported among football player returnees (Kyeremeh, 2020). However, the returnees’ role as development agents in the home country is not mechanical and must be contextualised in the broader socio-political and economic structures that impact their abilities to augment positive development (Åkesson, 2011). Notwithstanding the socio-economic development contribution of returnees, evidence also suggests that returnees concurrently experience challenges upon return: the lack of support from governmental agencies and the health sector, the long wait to secure appointments for interviews, and interpersonal challenges, mostly manifesting at workplaces (Asampong et al., 2013).

Does geographic context matter regarding the returnee–socio-economic–development nexus? In Burundi, which experienced large-scale conflict-induced emigration and post-war return, Fransen et al. (2017) note that compared to non-migrant households, returnees’ households have considerably lower levels of livestock – a principal form of capital accumulation. The fact that returnees in Burundi have lower wealth than non-migrants presupposes that their ability to contribute to their home country's development is limited. Among the barriers to capital accumulation by returnee households are the legal restrictions imposed economic activities, which resulted in high inactivity and potential loss of skills (Fransen et al., 2017). This revelation suggests that factors outside contexts have the potential to support or hinder returnees’ efforts as development agents.

Phenomenon of Involuntary Return Migration¹

Deportation has implications for returnees, their families, and the receiving community. In exploring the pre-, during and post-deportation experiences of returnees, de Regt and Tafesse (2016) reveal that Ethiopian returnees initially feel delighted to be home because of the stressful experiences during their incarceration in Saudi Arabia. However, returnees become frustrated after their return due to inadequate assistance from the Ethiopian government to re-integrate. Specifically, “almost all of them complained about the lack of opportunities and facilities to realise their aspirations to work” (de Regt and Tafesse, 2016: 241). As such, their economic prospects were limited or non-existent. Inadequate support systems for returnees to fully re-integrate and contribute to home countries is a common finding in other studies (Teferra, 2017; Asampong et al., 2013).

Security Implications of Return Migration

Another study focuses on the security implications of return migration. Even though the large-scale repatriation of refugees to their homelands symbolises greater peace and stability, it also represents a source of fear, particularly for countries that are recovering from civil conflict. In Burundi, Schwartz (2019) argues that return migration can aggravate old rivalries, and create new divisions, between returnees and locals. Specifically, segregation, animosity, and tensions between returnees and non-migrants are the most common sources of conflicts over land – where returning to the country is not a matter of just crossing the border into Burundi but also about regaining a portion of ancestral land (Schwartz, 2019). Thus, the contestation over land is a source of tension between returnees and residents in the Burundian context.

Returnees’ Roles in Further Migration

Only one study of the twenty reviewed articles interrogates the returnees’ role in propelling further migration. Examining this connection, Togunde and Osagie (2009) reveal that among Nigerian undergraduates, returnees create numerous senses of America through their mannerisms, economic success, lifestyles, and frustrations – which collectively influence their intentions to migrate or otherwise to the United States. Specifically, “71.2% of the students think that the United States is a land of socio-economic opportunities. Furthermore, four out of ten students in our sample [are] actively participating in the annual U.S Lottery Visa Program” (Togunde and Osagie, 2009: 126).

Discussion: Implications for the Broader Literature and Future Research

The study systematically reviewed the relevant literature to identify themes that have emerged from extra-regional return migration in Africa. Our review found that while several factors contribute to return migration in Africa, family considerations are among the most significant individual-level drivers of return migration in Senegal, Ghana, Cabo Verde, and Côte d’Ivoire (Adebayo, 2020; Kyeremeh, 2020; Åkesson, 2011). Similarly, in the broader return migration literature, the significance of family considerations was found in various contexts, like Pakistan, Norway, and Italy (Sala and Baldassar, 2017; Erdal et al., 2016). These observations indicate that return migration is not solely influenced by economic factors. Rather, “return migration is not always a process of simply going home” (Ruben et al., 2009, p. 908) and complex factors influence post-return experiences. The extent to which returnees’ migration projects are branded as “failure” or “success” impacts the ways in which their societies perceive them. Returnees with “failed” projects are usually stigmatised or marginalised, which negatively affects their sense of belonging in their native communities (van Houte and Davids, 2008).

A striking feature of the reviewed studies is the focus on (in)voluntary return migration, which brings out different dynamics about the drivers, post-return experiences, and implications for development in returnees’ home countries. This suggests that the different typologies of return migration have implications for returnees’ immediate family (micro-level), community (meso-level), and home country (macro-level). For instance, the contribution of involuntary returnees to their home country is limited and sometimes unplanned, which can be a burden to their immediate family and country. This suggests that studies could benefit from exploring the causal relationship between how voluntary the return was and the returnees’ consequent social reintegration.

Surprisingly, none of the reviewed studies investigate how educational qualifications and skills influence return decision-making. This issue has been substantially covered in the broader return migration literature. For example, highly skilled migrants are noted to have a higher propensity to return to home countries because of stronger human capital, which makes it easier for them to penetrate the labour market (Nguyen-Akbar, 2017; Massey and Akresh, 2006). Therefore, an area that the extra-regional return migration in African literature should investigate is the extent to which education and skills affect decisions to return to the continent.

Relatedly, the reviewed studies reveal that returnees primarily contribute to the socio-economic development of their countries through the transfer of skills and knowledge. These skills and knowledge can potentially be tapped to steer local economic development and revitalise the healthcare and education sectors, among other pressing priorities across the continent. However, there is a recognition that the contribution of returnees to the socio-economic development of their home countries is not an automatic process; it is largely shaped by broader political, economic, and social structures that impact the returnees’ abilities to augment positive development in their homeland (Åkesson, 2011). This is a critical observation because the labour market conditions in returnees’ home countries might not be conducive to effective reintegration. Most African countries have been facing significant economic challenges over the years. Given these realities, to what extent can return migrants contribute to the economic development of their home countries by applying their skills and experiences under conditions of shrinking labour markets? This is not a simple question to answer, but it is clear that returnees with solid professional networks in their home countries are more likely to fare well in terms of applying their skills compared to those without access to such networks. Therefore, such dynamics require a more robust and nuanced analysis of how the differential social conditions (education, skills, experiences, and/or professional networks) influence their contribution to the countries’ socio-economic development.

Notably, the reviewed studies do not adequately explore the gendered dynamics of return migration in Africa, despite the increased evidence that both men and women are engaged in extra-regional migration, and that their experiences may differ. The feminisation of migration has become a relatively recent phenomenon due to globalisation and its influence on migration processes. For instance, questions on the extent to which the experiences of skilled male and female return migrants differ are important to investigate. Thus, future research should consider the gendered dynamics of extra-regional return migration in order to ensure a more holistic understanding of the socio-economic drivers of return migration, and experiences thereof.

Conclusion and Policy Implications

This systematic review has provided a comprehensive overview of the existing literature on extra-regional return migration in Africa based on insights from twenty studies. The findings suggest that return migration is a complex and multi-faceted phenomenon that is influenced by a wide range of micro, meso, and macro-level factors. First, at the micro level, family considerations emerged as one of the most important drivers of voluntary return migration. Second, the studies reviewed suggest that returnees face a range of challenges, including difficulties reintegrating into their home communities and accessing employment, health, and other essential resources. Third, some returnees can leverage the skills and experiences acquired abroad to enhance their status and opportunities in their home countries, potentially strengthening their social mobility prospects. Our systematic review reveals that the body of evidence on return migration in Africa is still limited, and there is a need for more rigorous and comparative studies to further our understanding of this phenomenon on the continent. Future research should also examine the potential impacts of return migration on sending and receiving countries and explore the experiences of different subgroups of returnees, such as women and youth, skilled and unskilled, voluntary and involuntary.

Although the study highlights key issues regarding extra-regional return migration in Africa, some limitations of the study include the exclusion of non-English peer-reviewed papers. Also, the study does not include research on regional return migration in Africa. Notwithstanding these limitations, the findings of this study have implications for policymakers in the fields of development and migration. For example, the Migration Policy Framework for Africa (2018–2027) recognises the need for governments to implement sustainable re-integration of return migrants through investing in social, economic, and psychological support services. As most reviewed studies reveal multiple social, economic, and psychological challenges facing returnees, African governments and development partners should establish effective response support structures and systems to ensure proper integration of returnees. These support structures, systems, and services should target voluntary and involuntary returnees. By doing so, governments can effectively harness and mobilise the skills and experiences of returnees to support their social and economic development goals. The policies, programmes, and strategies aimed at supporting returnees should be based on holistic and evidence-based approaches that consider returnees’ differential experiences and needs to create favourable conditions for their integration and enhance their contributions to development.

Furthermore, there is a need for greater collaboration between sending and receiving countries to facilitate the smooth transition of returnees to ensure full participation in home country socio-economic and political development. This collaboration can be operationalised through multi-lateral and bilateral agreements and treaties, where return, readmission, and reintegration are given urgent policy attention not only among sending and receiving countries. There have been return, readmission, and reintegration (3×R) agreements between the European Union and some African countries. The 2018 African Union (AU) Migration Policy Framework for Africa (MPFA) has developed protocols and guidelines grounded in legal statutes and policies to facilitate the return, readmission, and reintegration of excluded migrants in accordance with pertinent international legal frameworks (African Union, 2021). Following these commitments, several African countries such as Cameroon, Malawi, Morocco, Mauritius, and Nigeria have minimal legal and policy frameworks on return, readmission, and reintegration (African Union, 2021). This suggests that other regions could learn from the African experience and develop policies that encourage multi-lateral approaches to promoting reintegration.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Author Contributions

Conceptualisation: [Senanu Kwasi Kutor and Godwin Arku], writing – original draft preparation and methodology: [Desmond Oklikah Ofori, Elmond Bandauko, Senanu Kwasi Kutor, and Akosua Boahemaa Asare]; writing – review and editing: [Desmond Oklikah Ofori, Elmond Bandauko, Senanu Kwasi Kutor, Akosua Boahemaa Asare, Reforce Okwei, and Amanda Odoi]; supervision: [Godwin Arku].

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Desmond Ofori Oklikah

Notes

Author Biographies

Desmond Ofori Oklikah is a PhD student and an SSHRC fellow in the Department of Geography and Environment at the University of Western Ontario, London, Canada. His research interests include the African diaspora; migration, housing, and food insecurity; socio-technical changes and smallholder digitalisation in Sub-Saharan Africa.

Elmond Bandauko is currently a PhD candidate and SSHRC Vanier Scholar in the Department of Geography and Environment at the University of Western Ontario, London Ontario, Canada. He is also a graduate fellow with the Center for Urban Policy and Local Governance at the University of Western Ontario. Elmond's research interests cut across areas such as urban transformation in Global South cities (gated communities and new cities), urban informality, urban governance and the micropolitics of the urban poor, residential satisfaction, and place attachment among others. His doctoral research is funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC). Elmond also holds the 2022–2023 PhD studentship from the International Journal of Urban and Regional Research (IJURR) foundation and the International Doctoral Research Award from the International Development Research Centre (IDRC) for his doctoral study on urban governance and the spatial politics of street traders in Harare, Zimbabwe. Elmond's work has been published in journals such as Cities, Urban Research and Practice, The Canadian Geographer, African Geographical Review, Housing Studies, and International Planning Studies among others.

Senanu Kwasi Kutor is an SSHRC PhD fellow at the Department of Geography and Environment at the University of Western Ontario, London, Canada. His research interests span transnationalism, geographies of wisdom, rural-urban migration, urban informality in cities of the developing world, international migration, and migrants’ integration.

Akosua Boahemaa Asare is a PhD student in the Department of Geography and Environment at Western University. Her main research interests include addressing spatial inequalities in access to urban services, financing urban infrastructures, urban governance, and issues relating to urban households’ vulnerability and resilience in Africa. She has a master's degree in City and Regional Planning from Cornell University.

Reforce Okwei is a PhD student and an EDSSDF scholar at the Department of Geography and Environment, University of Western Ontario-Canada. His research interests include climate change vulnerabilities and slum communities in Africa.

Amanda Odoi (PhD) is an Early Career Scholar with the Department of Geography and Environment, University of Western Ontario, and a Research Fellow at the Centre for Gender Research, Advocacy and Documentation (CEGRAD), University of Cape Coast. Amanda's research focuses on Gender-Based Violence, Masculities, Climate Change, Sexualities, and Feminist Activism. Through these works, she seeks to explore and highlight the implications of social constructions, internalisation, and the symbolism of these constructs and their performance for development and gender interventions.

Godwin Arku (PhD) is a professor in the Department of Geography and Environment, University of Western Ontario. Godwin's research spans “urban” and “economic” subdivisions of human geography, especially as they relate to the transformation of urban systems in a changing global environment. He is also interested in issues of third-world development. Specific areas of present research interests are regional and local economic development policy and planning, urban development and policy analysis, and immigrant integration and development issues.

References

Adebayo

(2020) I don’t want to have a separated home’: reckoning family and return migration among married Nigerians in China. Migration Studies 8(2): 250–270.

African Union. (2021). Study on Return, Readmission and Reintegration Programmes in Africa. Retrieved from https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5cfe2c8927234e0001688343/t/60d3449b32b3600dbb5c94c3/1624458405076/RRR+Study_EN_FINAL.pdf [06:05:2024].

Åkesson

(2011) Making migrants responsible for development: Cape Verdean returnees and northern migration policies. Africa Spectrum 46(1): 61–83.

Akobeng

(2005) Understanding systematic reviews and meta-analysis. Archives of Disease in Childhood 90(8): 845–848.

Asampong

Harrison

Yarney

, et al. (2013) Back to my roots: a study of “returning” emigrated health professionals in the Greater Accra region of Ghana. Africa Today 59(4): 118–130.

Bensassi

Jabbour

(2022) Beyond experience and capital. Is there a return to return migration? The Journal of Development Studies 58(4): 730–751.

Bisong

(2022). Return, precarity and vulnerability in West Africa: evidence from Nigeria. In Teye

(ed) Migration in West Africa: IMISCOE Regional Reader. Cham: Springer International Publishing. pp. 211–236. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-97322-3_11 .

Black

Castaldo

(2009) Return migration and entrepreneurship in Ghana and Côte D’ivoire: the role of capital transfers. Tijdschrift Voor Economische En Sociale Geografie 100(1): 44–58.

Bove

Elia

(2017) Migration, diversity, and economic growth. World Development 89: 227–239.

10.

Carling

Erdal

(2014) Return migration and transnationalism: how are the two connected? International Migration 52(6): 2–12.

11.

Chacko

(2007) From brain drain to brain gain: reverse migration to Bangalore and Hyderabad, India’s globalizing high tech cities. GeoJournal 68(2): 131–140.

12.

Collyer

Shahani

(2023) Offshoring refugees: colonial echoes of the UK-Rwanda migration and economic development partnership. Social Sciences 12(8): 451.

13.

de Haas

(2010) Migration and development: a theoretical perspective. International Migration Review 44(1): 227–264.

14.

de Haas

Fokkema

(2010) Intra-household conflicts in migration decision making: return and pendulum migration in Morocco. Population and Development Review 36(3): 541–561.

15.

de Haas

Fokkema

Fihri

(2015) Return migration as failure or success? Journal of International Migration and Integration 16(2): 415–429..

16.

de Regt

Tafesse

(2016) Deported before experiencing the good sides of migration: Ethiopians returning from Saudi Arabia. African and Black Diaspora: An International Journal 9(2): 228–242.

17.

Dhar

Bhagat

(2021) Return migration in India: internal and international dimensions. Migration and Development 10(1): 107–121.

18.

Efstratios

Anastasios

(2014) Return migration: evidence from a reception country with a short migration history. European Urban and Regional Studies 21(2): 161–174.

19.

El-Mallakh

Wahba

(2021) Upward or downward: occupational mobility and return migration. World Development 137: 105203.

20.

Elijah

(2013) A study of the underlying determinants of return migration of international return migrants to the Berekum municipality, Ghana. International Journal of Sociology and Anthropology 5(8): 297–310.

21.

Erdal

Amjad

Bodla

, et al. (2016) Going back to Pakistan for education? The interplay of return mobilities, education, and transnational living. Population, Space and Place 22(8): 836–848.

22.

Flahaux

M-L

(2017) The role of migration policy changes in Europe for return migration to Senegal. International Migration Review 51(4): 868–892.

23.

Flahaux

M-L

Reeve

(2015) Return migration to Senegal and the democratic Republic of Congo: intention and realization. Population 70(1): 97–125.

24.

Fransen

Ruiz

Vargas-Silva

(2017) Return migration and economic outcomes in the conflict context. World Development 95: 196–210.

25.

International Organization for Migration (IOM) (2022) World Migration Report 2022. IMO. Retrieved from https://publications.iom.int/books/world-migration-report-2022.

26.

Issifu

(2018) Empirical investigation of impediments to returnees’ entrepreneurship in Ghana: an application of structural equation modelling. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences 9(1): 155–170.

27.

Kleist

(2017) Disrupted migration projects: the moral economy of involuntary return to Ghana from Libya. Africa (London. 1928) 87(2): 322–342.

28.

Kleist

(2020) Trajectories of involuntary return migration to Ghana: forced relocation processes and post-return life. Geoforum; Journal of Physical, Human, and Regional Geosciences 116: 272–281.

29.

Konzett-Smoliner

(2016) Return migration as a ‘family project’: exploring the relationship between family life and the readjustment experiences of highly skilled Austrians. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 42(7): 1094–1114.

30.

Kunuroglu

(2021) Psychosocial adaptation of Turkish return migrants and factors affecting their intention to remigrate to Europe: personality, perceived discrimination, ethnic identity. International Journal of Intercultural Relations 82: 265–277.

31.

Kunuroglu

Yagmur

Van De Vijver

FJR

, et al. (2018) Motives for Turkish return migration from Western Europe: home, sense of belonging, discrimination and transnationalism. Turkish Studies 19(3): 422–450.

32.

Kveder

CLM

Flahaux

(2013) Returning to Dakar: a mixed methods analysis of the role of migration experience for occupational status. World Development 45: 223–238.

33.

Kyeremeh

(2020) Exploring the return migration experience of football migrants: a case study of Ghanaian footballers. African Geographical Review 39(3): 224–239.

34.

Kyeremeh

Kutor

Annan-Aggrey

, et al. (2023) The double return experience: rationale for return from Canada to Ghana and Ghana to Canada. Canadian Journal of African Studies 57(2): 369–390.

35.

Levitt

DeWind

Vertovec

(2003) International perspectives on transnational migration: an introduction. International Migration Review 37(3): 565–575.

36.

Levitt

Jaworsky

(2007) Transnational migration studies: past developments and future trends. Annual Review of Sociology 33: 129–156.

37.

Massey

Akresh

(2006) Immigrant intentions and mobility in a global economy: the attitudes and behavior of recently arrived U.S. Immigrants*. Social Science Quarterly 87(5): 954–971.

38.

Mengist

Soromessa

Legese

(2020) Method for conducting systematic literature review and meta-analysis for environmental science research. MethodsX 7: 100777.

39.

Mensah

(2016) Involuntary return migration and reintegration. The case of Ghanaian migrant workers from Libya. Journal of International Migration and Integration 17(1): 303–323.

40.

Mreji

Barnard

(2021) The micro-foundations of the returnee liability: the interpersonal challenges of returnee entrepreneurs in Kenya. Journal of International Management 27(2): 100846.

41.

Nguyen-Akbar

(2017) The formation of spatial and symbolic boundaries among Vietnamese diasporic skilled return migrants in Ho Chi Minh city, Vietnam. Sociological Perspectives 60(6): 1115–1135.

42.

Nisrane

Ossewaarde

Need

(2021) I should get married as soon as possible, but the relationships I start do not work: marital prospects of Ethiopian female return migrants from the Arabian gulf. Journal of Family Issues 42(2): 231–252.

43.

Nwozor

Oshewolo

Olanrewaju

, et al. (2022) Return migration and the challenges of diasporic reintegration in Nigeria. Third World Quarterly 43(2): 432–451.

44.

Oklikah

Abada

Arku

(2024) Canada (live-in) caregiver program (LCP) and care workers’ lived experiences: a systematic literature review. Journal of International Migration and Integration 25(2): 933–971.

45.

Reinhold

Thom

(2009) Temporary Migration and Skill Upgrading: Evidence from Mexican Migrants (SSRN Scholarly Paper No. 1443944). https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1443944 .

46.

Ruben

van Houte

Davids

(2009) What determines the embeddedness of forced-return migrants? Rethinking the role of pre- and post-return assistance. International Migration Review 43(4): 908–937.

47.

Sala

Baldassar

(2017) Leaving family to return to family: roots migration among second-generation Italian-Australians. Ethos (Berkeley, Calif ) 45(3): 386–408.

48.

Samari

(2021) Coming back and moving backwards: return migration and gender norms in Egypt. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 47(5): 1103–1118.

49.

Schwartz

(2019) Home, again: refugee return and post-conflict violence in Burundi. International Security 44(2): 110–145.

50.

Setrana

Tonah

(2014) Return migrants and the challenge of reintegration: the case of returnees to Kumasi, Ghana. Ìrìnkèrindò 7: 97–127.

51.

Setrana

Tonah

(2016) Do transnational links matter after return? Labour market participation among Ghanaian return migrants. The Journal of Development Studies 52(4): 549–560.

52.

Sinatti

(2015) Return migration as a win-win-win scenario? Visions of return among Senegalese migrants, the state of origin and receiving countries. Ethnic and Racial Studies 38(2): 275–291.

53.

Sinatti

(2019) Return migration, entrepreneurship and development: contrasting the economic growth perspective of Senegal’s diaspora policy through a migrant-centred approach. African Studies 78(4): 609–623.

54.

Teferra

(2017) Labor migration, forced return and returnee reintegration in Ethiopia. Journal of Ethiopian Studies 50: 27–72.

55.

Tiemoko

(2004) Migration, return and socio-economic change in West Africa: the role of family. Population, Space and Place 10(2): 155–174.

56.

Tilahun

Workicho

Angaw

(2020) Common mental disorders and its associated factors and mental health care services for Ethiopian labour migrants returned from Middle East countries in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. BMC Health Services Research 20(1): 81.

57.

Togunde

Osagie

(2009) Icons of progress: returnees’ effects on decisions by Nigerians to migrate to the US. International Review of Modern Sociology 35(1): 115–135.

58.

van Houte

Davids

(2008) Development and return migration: from policy panacea to migrant perspective sustainability. Third World Quarterly 29(7): 1411–1429.

59.

Wahba

(2015) Selection, selection, selection: the impact of return migration. Journal of Population Economics 28(3): 535–563.

60.

Zhao

(2002) Causes and consequences of return migration: recent evidence from China. Journal of Comparative Economics 30(2): 376–394.

Extra-Regional Return Migration to Africa: A Systematic Literature Review

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Return Migration: An Overview

Method

Inclusion Criteria

Search Strategy

Data Synthesis

Results

Drivers of Return Migration

Post-Return Lived Experiences

The Returnees-Socio-Economic Development Nexus

Phenomenon of Involuntary Return Migration 1

Security Implications of Return Migration

Returnees’ Roles in Further Migration

Discussion: Implications for the Broader Literature and Future Research

Conclusion and Policy Implications

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

Author Contributions

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

ORCID iD

Notes

Author Biographies

References

Phenomenon of Involuntary Return Migration¹