Next Article in Journal
Spatial Patterns and Determinants of PM2.5 Concentrations: A Land Use Regression Analysis in Shenyang Metropolitan Area, China
Previous Article in Journal
Deactivation Patterns of Potassium-Based γ-Alumina Dry Sorbents for CO2 Capture
Previous Article in Special Issue
Crosswalking the EU Nature Restoration Regulation and the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework: A Forest-Centred Outlook
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 16
Issue 12
10.3390/su16125118
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Return Migration and Reintegration in Serbia: Are All Returnees the Same?

by
Milica Langović
1,*,
Danica Djurkin
2,
Filip Krstić
2,
Marko Petrović
2,
Marija Ljakoska
3,
Aleksandar Kovjanić
2 and
Sandra Vukašinović
2
1
Institute of Physics Belgrade, University of Belgrade, Pregrevica 118, 11080 Belgrade, Serbia
2
Faculty of Geography, University of Belgrade, 11000 Belgrade, Serbia
3
Institute of Geography, Faculty of Natural Sciences and Mathematics, Ss. Cyril and Methodius University in Skopje, 1000 Skopje, North Macedonia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2024, 16(12), 5118; https://doi.org/10.3390/su16125118
Submission received: 24 April 2024 / Revised: 30 May 2024 / Accepted: 11 June 2024 / Published: 16 June 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Human Geography: Interrelationships between People, Place, and the Environment)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The Republic of Serbia is traditionally a country of emigration, especially since the 1960s. As a result of this emigration, return migration has become an increasingly intensive migratory process in the 21st century. This study aims to examine the factors behind return migration, as well as to explore the characteristics of the reintegration process in Serbia, including the sustainability of return. This paper is based on a survey (N = 172) and interviews (N = 20) conducted with return migrants in Serbia. The research findings point to the diversity of the return migration factors, among which a longing for the country of origin is singled out as the most important. Regarding the reintegration process, this study highlights several differences that are apparent between retired returnees on the one hand and other returnees (students, employed, unemployed) on the other. The results show that the satisfaction with quality of life upon return is higher among older returnees and that the satisfaction with quality of life decreases as the respondents’ level of education increases. It is also found that the sustainability of return is connected to the life satisfaction and that respondents who plan to migrate again are the least satisfied with the quality of life compared to those who plan to stay and those who have not decided yet. This paper provides insights into some of the critical elements of the return migration and reintegration process in Serbia. Since return migrants can contribute to sustainable socio-economic development due to their human, social and financial capital, this study may be of relevance to the development of strategies and the implementation of policies in the domain of migration governance.

1. Introduction

The Republic of Serbia is traditionally a country of emigration. The first period of emigration began in the 1960s, when numerous baby boomers with different demographic and socio-economic backgrounds left the country in order to achieve a better standard of living abroad, particularly in Western European countries. The second period of emigration began in the 1990s due to the unfavorable political and socio-economic situation in the former Yugoslavia. During this period, there was increased emigration of highly educated people, who emigrated not only to Western European countries but also to countries farther afield, such as the USA, Canada and Australia. A third period of emigration has also taken place in the past decade due to the liberalization of migration policies regarding the employment of foreigners in some European Union countries, especially Germany [1,2,3,4,5,6].
Since every migration flow has a counterflow, these emigration periods conditioned the process of return migration [7]. In the Republic of Serbia, the return migration flows have increased significantly in the 21st century compared to the previous period [5]. Accordingly, in recent years, return migration has been recognized as an important issue for the overall development of the Republic of Serbia, and it is being included in legislative and strategic documents.
The aim of this paper is to examine the basic characteristics of the return migration process in the Republic of Serbia. An emphasis is placed on identifying the reasons for the return of returnees with different socio-demographic characteristics. Special attention is paid to analyzing the reintegration process—namely, economic and social reintegration. Regarding social reintegration, this paper focuses on the returnees’ relationships and connections with household members in Serbia (if any), wider family members and the local population in general. In terms of economic reintegration, this paper analyzes returnees’ experiences, opportunities, and limitations in terms of entering the labor market after their arrival in their country of origin. Other challenges faced by returnees in Serbia are also taken into account. An important component of this research is the identification of returnees’ intentions regarding secondary emigration, as well as a determination of the factors that influence the sustainability of return migration or motivate the returnees to re-emigrate.

2. Theoretical Background and Literature Review

Return migration is one of the most important components of the migration cycle, beginning from the moment the migrant decides to return to their country of origin [8,9]. The United Nations (UN) defines return migrants as “persons who are returning to their country of citizenship after having been international migrants in another country (both long-term and short-term migration) and who are intended to stay in their own country at least for a period of one year” [10] (p. 94). According to the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), 20–50% of migrants return to their place of origin or emigrate to a third country within five years of arriving in their initial destination [11]. Given the intensity and scope of return migration, it is not surprising that this topic is increasingly being discussed by academics in the 21st century [12].
The complexity of the topic of return migration requires a multidisciplinary research approach grounded in an appropriate theoretical and methodological framework. The basis of the theoretical considerations regarding return migration can be found in the scientific work of the well-known geographer Ernst Georg Ravenstein, who defined the laws of migration, in which every migration flow generates a counterflow [7,13,14].
Return migration can be also analyzed in the framework of the theory of push and pull factors, one of the more well-known theories on migration. Push factors have a clear negative connotation and are usually related to the place of origin and certain external conditions (climate/ecological factors, pandemics etc.) that encourage emigration from a particular area. Pull factors, on the other hand, are characterized by the positive features of the destination country (employment opportunities, family reasons, etc.) [15,16]. In the case of return migration, however, the pull factors are mainly related to the conditions in the country of origin, while the push factors are related to the destination country.
It is important to point out one of the most frequently cited typologies of return migration, as outlined by Cerase [17]. The author categorized the following types of return migration: return of failure (failure to adapt to the destination country), return of conservatism (return after having acquired capital abroad), return of retirement (as the result of the returnee’s desire to spend their retirement in their country of origin) and return of innovation (returnees bring into the country of origin new ideas, knowledge and values and act as agents of change) [18,19].
The work of Cassarino is likewise of great importance in defining the theoretical framework of return migration, in which the author in that context highlights the importance of neoclassical economics, the new economics of labor migration, structuralism, transnationalism, and social network theory [18,20]. The theory of neoclassical economics indicates that migration is primarily motivated by differences in income between the places of origin and destination. In standard neoclassical theory, return migration is seen as the result of failed migration projects, as the migrant has not succeeded in economically and/or socially integrating in the host country [21,22]. In the new economics of labor migration, the migration decision is considered to be a consequence of familial and household strategies. Return migration is seen as the result of successfully achieved goals in the host country [20,23,24]. The structural approach is based on the social, institutional and contextual factors of the returnee’s country of origin. It focuses on return migrants’ impacts on their societies of origin. This theory considers that the decision to return is affected by situational and structural factors [20,25,26]. Transnationalism explains that returnees prepare for their return and reintegration into their country of origin by visiting their households and sending remittances [20]. Social network theory emphasizes the importance of relationships and connections between people within a particular social network. Since networks consist of different actors, they can also lead to a return to the country of origin [18,27].
In the 21st century, the results of various studies have shown that the process of return migration is highly complex. A number of researchers [28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37] have found that the decision to return is influenced by various factors, such as family reasons, integration problems in the host country (including discrimination), return at the insistence of partners and/or children, etc. Evidence exists to suggest that migrants’ return plans can be negotiated in the context of a variety of personal, family and professional considerations [38] but also that migrants are much more likely to return for social reasons and much less likely to do so for educational or employment reasons [39]. In some cases, migrants decide to return when they fail to achieve their migration goals or find it difficult to integrate [40]. This confirms the complexity of the return migration process but also that this process takes place under different conditions and circumstances, both in the host country and in the country of origin.
Theoretical considerations regarding the reintegration process have not been elaborated in detail in the international literature. Certainly, researchers have devoted more and more attention to studying this complex process since the end of the 20th and the beginning of the 21st century. The multidimensional nature of the reintegration process is based on the fact that returnees adapt to different conditions after returning to their country of origin: economic, social, cultural, psychosocial and political. The sustainability of return migration is a direct consequence of the success of the reintegration process itself. Returnees undergo several adjustment phases after arriving in their country of origin, with many facing a variety of challenges. In many cases, an extended period of time may be required to successfully reintegrate. This means that there is a possibility that some returnees will not reintegrate into the community of their country of origin, which, in some cases, will lead to their re-emigration [41,42,43,44,45].
As the reintegration of returnees is an integral part of the migration process, its success depends on the returnees’ experiences during emigration, the conditions in the host country/countries during their stay abroad, and the conditions following their return, including satisfaction with the quality of life upon return [46,47]. In addition to individual factors, the sustainability of reintegration is also influenced by contextual macro factors, which are primarily related to the political and socio-economic situation in the country of origin. In this regard, safe and stable socio-economic conditions that include access to resources, an adequate infrastructure, access to education and health systems, and respect for human rights and needs increase the probability of sustainable return migration [48,49]. The sustainability of return migration is realized when returnees remain in their country of origin and do not re-emigrate [50].
Analysis of the reintegration process characteristics shows that a focus is predominantly placed on the issue of economic and social reintegration, while other aspects have not been studied in detail. In a study conducted among returnees in Greece and Albania, Hausmann and Nedelkoska found that returnees are entrepreneurial and about three times more likely to be employed than non-migrants [51]. In contrast, research results from Central and Eastern Europe showed that returnees are unlikely to actively participate in the labor market after returning to their country of origin, especially in the first year after their return [52].
When it comes to social reintegration, a number of challenges that returnees may face upon return have been identified. Wiesbrock found that many highly qualified returnees in India and China have a low level of social interaction with the local population in the country of origin and that the majority do not maintain close contact with friends or colleagues in their former host countries either [53]. Chobanyan highlighted the issue of accommodation as a major problem in the reintegration process of returnees in Armenia. The results of his research further showed that returnees are not sufficiently informed about employment opportunities and do not consider the fact that legal regulations may well have changed since their initial emigration [54].
In the Republic of Serbia, a growing number of governmental and non-governmental organizations are dealing with return migration issues. At the beginning of the 21st century, certain measures and activities were adopted to encourage the return of migrants and diaspora members. In this context, one bank in Serbia developed housing loans specifically for non-residents, enabling Serbian citizens living abroad to purchase real estate in Serbia. In addition, tax benefits for the employment of returnees, customs benefits for returnees themselves, and the right to compulsory health insurance, regardless of whether the person has acquired a pension in Serbia or abroad, have been introduced [55].
One of the most important documents in the field of return migration is the Economic Migration Strategy of the Republic of Serbia 2021–2027 [56]. This Strategy, among other things, provides an appropriate basis for improving the normative framework in the field of voluntary return migration. Return migration is recognized within the Strategy as one of the mechanisms of the migration process, the proper governance and management of which can impact the overall development of the Republic of Serbia.
Research on return migration in the Republic of Serbia has been present in academic circles since the beginning of the 21st century. Such research has primarily focused on the return of highly qualified returnees and the possibilities of utilizing their human and financial capital [57,58,59,60,61]. Related to this is research that has focused on analyzing the characteristics of the transnational entrepreneurship of returnees [62]. An increasingly studied topic among authors in Serbia is that of the attitudes and intentions of individual diaspora members concerning the return to their country of origin, as well as an identification of the factors that influence their intentions [63,64]. In the wake of the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, particular attention has been paid to factors affecting the scope and intensity of return migration and the role of the state immediately following the arrival of returnees in their country of origin concerning their future migration plans [65,66,67,68,69]. In recent years, a number of researchers have focused on the process of reintegration of returnees in Serbia [70].

3. Return Migration in Serbia

Various types of migration processes can be observed in the territory of the Republic of Serbia. The characteristics of spatial mobility in Serbia are related to regional and local differences, as well as to differences between urban and rural areas, especially in the context of economic development [71]. The largest concentrations of migrants are located in the capital of Serbia (Belgrade), as well as in the regional centers of Novi Sad and Niš. Data from the 2022 census show that 46.5% of the population in Serbia are migrants [72].
The issue of emigration is one of the most important topics in Serbia. An increase in the volume of emigration in the 1960s is directly related to the liberalization of emigration policy and economic reform, with these conditions influencing the emigration of the population abroad. The main destination countries for migrants from Serbia in 2011 were Austria (22.5%), Germany (17.9%), Switzerland (13.1%), Italy (7.4%) and France (6.5%). The census data show that the cohort of emigrants consists mainly of men (53.4%), people aged 15–64 (80.5%) and predominantly economically active individuals (56.6%) [5,73].
The intensity of return migration in Serbia is related to the dynamics of international migration. Since the more intensive emigration from Serbia began in the 1960s and 1970s, the return migration flows were registered for the first time in the 1981 census. Consequently, return migration has been evidenced in 1991, 2011 and 2022 (the 2022 census data on return migration and emigration have not been published yet). The total number of returnees in Serbia was 63,801 in 1981, 62,843 in 1991, and 234,932 in 2011. The increase in the number of returnees in the observed period should be considered in light of the methodology applied in the census. Namely, in 1981 and 1991, only returnees who worked abroad were recorded. In 2011, the category of returnees included persons who worked abroad before their return but also family members who stayed abroad with them until their return to Serbia, as well as persons who migrated abroad for other reasons [5]. However, the results of the 2011 census showed that almost a third of return migrants (29.7%) returned to Serbia in the period 2001–2011 (Figure 1).
According to the socio-demographic characteristics of returnees, most of the return migrants in Serbia in 2011 were men (56.9%). More than half of all the returnees (67.7%) belonged to the 15–64 age group, followed by the 65+ age group (30.1%), while young returnees (0–14) made up only 2.2% of the total return migrants. With regard to education, the majority of returnees in Serbia are persons who have completed high school (39.8%). The data on the economic structure show that most returnees (62.9%) are economically inactive [5].
Half of all return migrants in Serbia returned from three EU countries: Germany (26.9%), Austria (14.5%) and France (8.5%). In addition to these countries, Switzerland is also worth mentioning, accounting for 7.4% of all the returnees [5]. Albeit with minor deviations, this shows that the intensity of return migration in Serbia is directly correlated with the dynamics of international migration, i.e., the main destination countries for migrants from Serbia are also those from which most migrants return.
A comparison of the data on the economic activity of emigrants and returnees shows that it is predominantly the economically active population that emigrates from Serbia, with the economically inactive population returning. Considering the fact that 58.7% of the population of Serbia was economically inactive in 2011, it can be concluded that returnees represent the cohort of the population with the largest share of economically inactive persons, both in relation to emigrants and in relation to the total population. If we compare the data on the proportion of highly educated emigrants (15.7%), the total population (16.3%) and returnees (18.9%) in Serbia, we see that returnees comprise the population category with the largest proportion of highly educated individuals [5,74,75].
The 2011 census demonstrated that the capital city of Serbia (Belgrade) and the regional centers, Novi Sad and Niš, had the highest concentration of returnees. These are the most developed parts of Serbia. Nevertheless, the largest proportion of returnees in the total population of municipalities was predominantly registered in the municipalities in the eastern part of Serbia, such as Žabari (13.6%), Malo Crniće (11.9%), Svilajnac (11.7%), Petrovac (11.1%), Golubac (10.3%), Despotovac (10.2%) and Negotin (9%). These areas are traditionally emigrational, which indicates that migrants from these municipalities prefer to return to their place of origin after a certain period of time abroad. Some municipalities in the southeastern part of Serbia, such as Trgovište (1%), Bosilegrad (1.2%) and Bela Palanka (1.2%), had the lowest proportion of returnees in the total population (Figure 2). These municipalities are characterized by negative demographic and socio-economic challenges—belonging to the group of the smallest municipalities by total population and to the category of least developed municipalities in Serbia. As such, they are not attractive to return migrants.

4. Materials and Methods

The target group of this research are returnees who have returned to Serbia. In this paper, return migrants are defined as persons who have spent at least one year abroad and remained in Serbia for at least six months after their returning. The time frame of the stay abroad formulated in this way allows a certain distinction to be made between circular migrants and return migrants. However, it is important to point out that this time frame does not exclude returnees who were not circular migrants during their lifetime, nor does it mean they will not participate in migration again. On the other hand, a duration of stay in Serbia of six months after return is, in the authors’ opinion, significant from the point of view of reintegration process characteristics.
Based on the theories and previous research, the following hypotheses are developed in this article:
  • The return migration of respondents is motivated by various reasons, among which familial reasons are the strongest.
  • Respondents face challenges in terms of both social and economic reintegration.
  • Respondents who are most satisfied with the quality of life in Serbia are least likely to migrate again.
The methodological framework is based on surveys and interviews. The stages of the research process are presented in Figure 3. The survey was conducted in several municipalities in Serbia, and with the mediation of representatives of local municipalities as well as various stakeholders at the local level, and also online in 2023. The online survey was created using Google Forms and distributed to the research target group via e-mail and social networks (Facebook).
The questions in the survey were organized into several segments. An emphasis was placed on questions about the reasons for return, reintegration, and secondary emigration intentions. Given the importance of various factors that condition the process of return migration and reintegration, respondents were allowed to choose multiple answers that encapsulated their attitudes and beliefs regarding individual questions within the questionnaire. The following questions are mainly discussed here:
  • What are the reasons for your return?
  • What kind of difficulties have you encountered in Serbia?
  • If you plan to stay in Serbia permanently, what are the reasons for this?
  • If you plan to leave Serbia, what are the reasons for a second emigration?
  • What conditions must be met for you to stay in Serbia?
The survey data were processed using SPSS Statistics 23.0. First, the basic research questions were processed using descriptive statistics by determining the frequencies and percentages according to the defined categories. Following this, a cross-tabulation statistical method was used to examine the relationship between certain variables. First and foremost, the socio-demographic characteristics of the respondents were cross-tabulated with certain variables to determine the dissimilarities between different categories of returnees in the context of the defined research aims.
Spearman’s correlation coefficient was applied in the context of the respondents’ life satisfaction after their return and the respondents’ age and education. Correlation analysis aims to determine whether there is a quantitative relation between the variations of the observed phenomena. A characteristic of correlation analysis is that the relationship between the variables, if it exists, differs according to the direction and strength. The chi-square test (χ2) is used to determine the relationship between two categorical variables, each of which may have two or more categories. For the test to be statistically significant, the value of the Sig. must be 0.05 or lower. In this paper, this test was applied to determine a statistically significant difference between the socio-demographic characteristics of the respondents and the challenges in the reintegration process. The Kruskal–Wallis H test was used to determine the differences between the returnees’ secondary emigration intentions with regard to their satisfaction with the quality of life in Serbia after their return. It is a non-parametric test and is an alternative to the ANOVA test [77].
In the second part, a semi-structured interview was conducted with the target group of the research; this included a wide range of open-ended questions that allowed an adequate assessment of attitudes and intentions that it was impossible to investigate with a closed questionnaire. In this way, the research findings were supplemented with qualitative data that clarified the process under investigation in many ways. The average length of the interview was 40 min, and interviews were conducted with a total of 20 returnees. Most of the interviews were recorded and transcribed; this made it possible to more easily view, present and analyze the respondents’ general and specific views and opinions. The analysis of the interviews is presented through quotes selected to reflect the overall context of the research findings.

5. Results

In the survey, 172 respondents with different socio-demographic characteristics participated. In accordance with the data from the census statistics and the on-the-ground situation, the majority of respondents were men (66.3%), persons who are married (67.4%) and returnees who are retired (50.6%), with a plurality of respondents also being persons aged 65+ (44.1%) (Table 1). Before returning to Serbia, most of the returnees lived in Germany, Austria, Switzerland or France. In addition to these countries, Russia and Slovenia were also important host countries. Most returnees who participated in the study returned in the periods 2011–2019 (41.9%) and 2020–2023 (34.9%).
The common characteristic of all the respondents is that they have lived and/or worked abroad and returned to their country of origin after a certain period of time, while the other elements of their migration process differ to a greater or lesser extent. However, differences were found between the respondents in terms of the factors that motivated them to return to Serbia and their experiences of reintegration. Some returnees did not face any major challenges upon their return to Serbia, while others faced or still face certain problems that interfere with their reintegration. For some respondents, return is the last phase of the migration cycle, while for others, it is another phase of their migration experience.
The results shows that the reasons for the respondents’ returns are varied and numerous, and they vary according to the socio-demographic characteristics of the different categories of returnees. During this research, it was found that a single factor or a complex combination of different factors can influence the decision to return. The main reasons for return were a longing for the country of origin (18.3%) and a desire of returnees to spend their retirement in Serbia (16.5%). Return initiated by a partner was also an important factor of returning (7.6%), as was the possibility of employment in Serbia (7.1%) (Figure 4). However, respondents had the opportunity to indicate more than one factor influencing their return to Serbia. It turned out that among the combinations of factors, the longing for the country of origin and the return initiated by children and/or parents as well as the longing for the country of origin and an insecure job abroad were singled out most frequently.
This study shows certain differences in the factors that encourage the return of returnees with different socio-demographic characteristics. For example, the return of women is predominantly initiated by a partner, while the return of men is primarily motivated by a longing for their country of origin and the desire to spend their retirement in Serbia. It was also found that the return migration of younger respondents (younger than 45 years old) is mainly motivated by more than one factor. One of the respondents during the interview highlighted that he decided to return because he has a four-year work contract but also because he realizes that living abroad far away from family and friends is not the life he wants to live. Another one explained that the main factors for his return were longing for the country of origin but also his children and wife, who initiated his return. Some of the highly educated persons returned due to the completion of their education abroad and longing for their country of origin.
The return migration of pensioners—who represent the dominant group of returnees in this study (50.6%)—is primarily motivated by the desire to spend their retirement in Serbia. In addition to this, other important reasons that influence their return are longing for the country of origin and their return being initiated by their partner’s desire to return. A number of respondents reflected that their life abroad was a path of challenges and difficulties, and therefore, returning to the country of origin was seen as “the light at the end of the tunnel”. Some pensioners explained that they viewed their return to Serbia as a return to a place where they would be able to recover from a busy life abroad.
“I wanted to come back sooner, but I kept putting things off because I needed money. When I retired, there were no more excuses. Peace and quiet, my house and drinking coffee in my garden every morning was all I wanted for myself.”
(man, 69)
Although many returnee pensioners expressed satisfaction with certain aspects of their stay abroad, especially their income and/or working conditions, the longing for what they had left behind in Serbia haunted their entire migration journey. Some pensioners returned because their pension could no longer maintain the conditions they had enjoyed during their working life or because their partner decided to move back. Pensioners whose return was motivated by a small pension abroad emphasized that they live very well in Serbia with a foreign pension. Some pensioners noted that their return was initiated by their partner’s decision to return, with one partner having a greater desire to return than the other; this was a particularly common reason for return among female retirees.
“My husband had wanted us to return from abroad for a long time. He missed Serbia. I was more in favor of staying with our children and grandchildren in Switzerland. He was persistent that we return together.”
(woman, 71)
Immediately after arrival in Serbia, the returnees began a new stage of their migration journey: reintegration. Satisfaction with life in Serbia can be seen as one of the most important prerequisites for the quality of life of the respondents in the place of return. In this regard, on a scale from 1 (least satisfied) to 5 (completely satisfied), the respondents most commonly rated their satisfaction with life in Serbia as a 4 (42.4%). The research results do, however, indicate certain differences between the respondents regarding their life satisfaction in Serbia. The application of Spearman’s correlation coefficient revealed differences between the returnees in terms of age and education regarding their satisfaction with the quality of life after return. In both cases, it was found that there is a correlation between the given variables (satisfaction with quality of life and age: p < 0.001; satisfaction with quality of life and education: p = 0.002). When looking at the correlation between the variables age and satisfaction with the quality of life after return, a correlation coefficient of rho = 0.357 was determined, indicating a positive correlation; i.e., the older the returnees are, the higher their satisfaction with the quality of life. The correlation coefficient between the variables education and satisfaction with the quality of life after return has a negative value of rho = −0.232, which indicates that satisfaction with the quality of life decreases with an increase in the respondents’ level of education (Table 2).
The results show that more than 90% of respondents feel accepted by the local population after returning to Serbia. Many of them stated that they had participated in transnational activities during their stay abroad, such as frequent contact with family, friends and relatives, and that they had visited their country of origin frequently. Therefore, upon return, most respondents resumed close ties with their friends and explained that the fact that they lived in different countries for a period of their lives did not terminate their relationship. Besides the local population, returnees often socialize and make friends with other returnees. This study has shown that returnees in rural areas are particularly social compared to returnees returning to urban areas, whose level of socialization is somewhat lower. An interview with some pensioners found that the degree of socialization depends on their state of health. This was particularly observed in some respondents over 75 years old and who were therefore limited to some extent when socializing with others.
The social aspect of reintegration is also evidenced through the respondents’ participation and interest in certain social events and activities. Most returnees are familiar with social events in the country. Although the frequency of visits varies, most respondents frequently or occasionally attend cultural and sporting events, as well as religious objects (Table 3). It has been established that people from urban areas mainly attend sporting and cultural events. Visiting religious objects is common among people from both rural and urban parts. Some interviewees stated that they also visited religious buildings during their stay abroad and felt connected to their country of origin in this way. It is evident that they continued this practice after their return.
In contrast to participation in the activities mentioned above, returnees are less interested in membership of one of the returnees’ associations, cultural organizations, or political parties (Table 4). Some cited the lack of desire and time for activities of this kind, which also require a corresponding level of commitment, as the reason for this. One of the interviewees explained that he did not want to get involved in politics because he believed his efforts would not contribute to any change. Pensioners in particular are not interested in joining political parties. However, during the interview, it was noted that many of them vote in elections. A number of interviewees expressed that they would like to become involved in returnees’ associations, but they were unaware of the existence of such.
When it comes to challenges in the process of reintegration, the results showed that the majority of respondents (62.8%) have faced some kind of difficulties, while 37.2% cited that they have not faced any difficulties upon return to Serbia. Most respondents struggle with the difficulties of an inadequate healthcare system (15.1%). It was found that the most common reasons for the dissatisfaction of respondents are the long waiting lists, the lack of necessary equipment in healthcare facilities, inadequately equipped clinics or poor work organization in healthcare centers.
Integration into the labor market is one of the most important prerequisites for successful reintegration in the country of origin regarding the working population. The results show that 34.9% of respondents are permanently employed or have temporary/occasional jobs. However, the post-return labor market opportunities were not particularly favorable for many. Some pointed out that they could not find a suitable job for an extended period of time after their return. Many expressed dissatisfaction with an income that does not cover the cost of living. A low income can also be seen to be one of the main challenges when it comes to the reintegration process of returnees (Figure 5).
It was also found that the economic reintegration challenges often impact other aspects of life. One of the interviewees stated that he and his wife had no plans to expand their family due to their low income and job insecurity. Dissatisfaction with working conditions upon return was one of the challenges faced by individuals, mostly women. It was found that women were generally more satisfied with the working conditions during their stay abroad than in Serbia. Some highlighted that employers abroad appreciated their work more and that they were adequately remunerated, even if the work was not always easy. Some further pointed out that although the work in Serbia is just as difficult as abroad, it is not adequately remunerated. Furthermore, some of the respondents working in the private sector mentioned the attitude of supervisors toward employees as one of the biggest challenges they face in the process of reintegration.
The challenges in the reintegration process were also analyzed with regard to the socio-demographic characteristics of the respondents. For this purpose, the groupings of socio-demographic characteristics were reorganized. In relation to the difficulties in the reintegration process, all the respondents were divided into two groups: those who have difficulties and those who do not. The results show that respondents aged 65 years and above (55.3%), respondents with incomplete/completed elementary school (55.1%) and those who are economically inactive (56.7%) predominantly encounter no difficulties in the reintegration process. On the other hand, respondents aged 20–65 were the most likely to experience difficulties (76.7%), as well as respondents with tertiary education (81.1%), respondents who had completed high school (64.3%) and economically active returnees (83.8%). With regard to the gender structure of the respondents, it can be seen that the proportion of those experiencing difficulties is higher in the female sample (71.9) than in the male population (57.5%) (Table 5).
The chi-square test shows a statistically significant difference between the respondents regarding almost all the socio-demographic characteristics and the difficulties in the reintegration process. This result is primarily based on the data of the significance value, which is less than 0.05 for the variables of age, education and activity, with the value of the χ2 being highest in the area of economic activity, χ2 = 27.77. On the other hand, no statistically significant difference was found in relation to the gender structure of the respondents and the difficulties in the reintegration process (p = 0.067) (Table 6).
Regarding secondary emigration intentions, the results show that the majority of respondents (68%) plan to stay in their place of origin for the rest of their lives. On the other hand, 8.2% of returnees stated that they plan to migrate abroad, while 23.8% have not decided yet (Figure 6). The survey showed that all the respondents over 60 plan to stay in Serbia, with those with incomplete elementary school and those who have completed elementary school being the most likely to stay in Serbia. Certain respondents who have spent an extended period of time abroad (i.e., over 20 years) are also less inclined to move again.
“It’s not ideal abroad either. You can earn more and have more. But I have children and a wife in Serbia. I can’t even work as hard as I used to… 22 years is a long period of time… That is why I will not migrate again.”
(man, 57)
The results show that respondents aged 20–24 and 35–39 are mostly likely to migrate, as well as highly educated persons. Returnees aged 30–34 and 45–54 are the most undecided regarding a second emigration. Women are more willing than men to emigrate again. On the other hand, a combination of the following reasons stands out as the main factor for emigrating again: the inability to find a job in Serbia, the possibility of employment abroad, and the desire for a new experience.
“At the moment, I don’t know what could keep me here. The situation in the country is bad in every way… Should a person live on the margins of society?”
(woman, 37)
The Kruskal–Wallis H test results show a significant difference (p = 0.000) between the groups of respondents who plan to stay, plan to emigrate and are not decided yet regarding their satisfaction with the quality of life upon return (χ2 = 23.58). It was found that the mean results have a greater value in the group of respondents who plan to stay in Serbia (M = 4.22) compared to those who have not decided yet (M = 3.49) and those who plan to emigrate (M = 3.00) (Table 7). In other words, those who plan to stay are the most satisfied with the quality of life after their return, while the respondents who plan to migrate again are the least satisfied with the quality of life in the country of origin.
An important prerequisite for elaborating measures aimed at the sustainability of return migration is the definition of conditions by the respondents that should be fulfilled for them to stay in Serbia. First of all, one cohort of returnees stated that several conditions must be met for them to stay in Serbia permanently—namely, this involves a combination of factors that include the possibility of employment, career advancement, a better standard of living, improvement of the economic situation, and the possibility of higher earnings, with 24.4% of respondents mentioning all four of these factors as playing a role. An improvement in living standards was mentioned by 11% of respondents. It was also found that highly educated persons were more inclined to mention improvements in the field of higher earning potential and career advancement opportunities as some of the conditions that must be achieved in order for them to stay in Serbia permanently. Persons with incomplete primary education mostly stated that they intend to stay in Serbia regardless of the conditions.

6. Discussion

This study can be viewed through the prism of three defined areas of research according to the aims of the paper, relating to (1) the factors of return, (2) the study of the process of social and economic reintegration, and (3) the identification of returnees’ intentions about secondary emigration and the factors that influence them, that is, a characteristic of the sustainability of return migration.
The results confirmed the hypothesis that returnees are a heterogeneous category of individuals with different needs and whose migration and post-migration paths can vary widely according to their different socio-demographic characteristics and depend on various factors, including the time spent abroad, time spent in Serbia after return, etc. The results of this research are consistent with findings [28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40] that the factors influencing return are complex and are, in turn, influenced by a variety of social and economic pull and push factors. In addition, the findings of this research are consistent with certain work [32], which implies that the factors influencing return are increasingly a matter of personal choice, as supported by the fact that the majority of respondents returned either out of a longing for their country of origin or a desire to spend their retirement in Serbia.
However, it is important to note that the family reasons in this research were categorized into six return migration factors (return initiated by partner, return initiated by children and/or parents; care for children in Serbia; care for parents; marriage; divorce). In this sense, it can be concluded that in total, almost a quarter of respondents returned to Serbia for family reasons (24.3%). Therefore, Hypothesis 1: The return migration of respondents is motivated by various reasons, among which familial reasons are the strongest is accepted. However, as the research shows that the category of family reasons is extremely broad, it is necessary for researchers to place a greater focus on the analysis of this in more detail in future studies in order to create a more comprehensive image of the return migration factors.
Considering the various factors that influence return migration, reintegration and the sustainability of return, one can conclude that it is not easy to formulate the process of return migration within the framework of a single theory. As the results of this research have shown, it is very important for future studies to consider more socio-demographic characteristics of returnees in order to better understand this process.
The determinants of return may be highly relevant to the formulation of policies that encourage diaspora members to return to their country of origin. The fact that some recent returnees have chosen to return because of employment opportunities in Serbia indicates that perhaps a solution should be precisely sought through employment opportunities that provide adequate compensation for returnees by creating conditions for their work in Serbia and opportunities for career advancement in their country of origin. Undoubtedly, increasing capacities for the creation of improved opportunities in the labor market for this category of migrants is one of the basic mechanisms by which the state can advantageously manage return migration. Since return migrants bring to the country of origin knowledge, skills and experiences [78], the sustainability of return migration is important in the context of the sustainable demographic and socioeconomic development of Serbia.
Although Serbia has recognized the importance of the return migration process, it is necessary that the strengthening of institutional capacities at the state level goes hand-in-hand with the strengthening of capacities at the local level. Educating employers about the needs of returnees and the potentials of their contributions would be an important step in the process of proper management of return migration at all the territorial levels of the country. Registration and mapping of returnees would form a basis for all the activities in the field of appropriate management, which could facilitate further steps of mutual cooperation and mutual benefit [79].
The results show that there are considerable differences between social and economic reintegration. As far as social reintegration is concerned, returnees do not usually face any major difficulties. On the contrary, the social life in Serbia of most is relatively fulfilling, with most feeling accepted by the local population and many being likewise involved in various social activities. On the other hand, the economic aspect of reintegration requires special attention and systemic changes, as some returnees reported an inability to find work and dissatisfaction with their income, with this opinion being especially prevalent among the cohort aged 30–39. When discussing the difficulties they had faced after (re-)arrival in their country of origin, the interviewees primarily referred to challenges in terms of healthcare. In this respect, Hypothesis 2: Respondents face challenges in both social and economic reintegration is partially accepted.
It is important to point out that the results presented here indicate differences in the post-migration experience between returning pensioners on the one hand and younger returnees on the other.
The first category mainly includes people who emigrated in the 1960s and 1970s. These are returnees who have spent all or a large part of their working life abroad. Returning pensioners are much more satisfied with the living conditions in Serbia and have no intention of moving abroad again; the majority of them have spent more than a decade abroad, acquired a certain amount of financial capital, and have pensions (mostly foreign) that enable them to lead a more carefree life in Serbia. These returnees usually have no desire to participate in the establishment of a business or to deal with issues relevant to the development of local self-government. Mostly, they invest in the reconstruction of their house/property and/or in cases where their family members live in Serbia, they are very willing to help them financially.
The second category of returnees includes persons who emigrated later, mainly in the 1980s and 1990s or at the beginning of the 21st century. The factors that led to the return of this category of migrants are more diverse than for the respondents in the first group. In most cases, their return is motivated by several different factors. Certainly, numerous pull and push factors, such as the care for children in Serbia, return initiated by children and/or parents, and employment contract termination, were mentioned as important factors for the return of this category of respondents. Longing for the homeland occupies a special place, and it is usually relevant in combination with other factors mentioned. Returnees from this category often face some of challenges in the process of reintegration. The most common challenges of economic reintegration are related to the inability to find a job or dissatisfaction with working conditions/income. These individuals are less likely to participate in solving problems in their community. At the same time, they are more likely to plan to go abroad again, especially highly educated individuals, while many are undecided about whether to remain or not. However, even among this category of returnees, a distinction should be made between certain categories, especially in terms of the educational profile and economic activity. It is clear that in these circumstances, appropriate measures should be taken to meet their needs in the reintegration process.
It is therefore important that the state recognizes these problems among returnees and works on establishing reintegration support and assistance measures that facilitate returnees’ adequate access to services in the areas of employment (providing assistance to returnees to find job or start their own businesses), education (providing assistance to those who cannot afford education), counseling (providing helpful information on various aspects of return and reintegration), etc. [80]. As it is the role of the state to receive returnees and help them reintegrate, in certain cases, governments must develop (new) programs to make the reintegration process of returnees as successful and simple as possible [81]. As research has revealed, certain differences exist between returnees in terms of their reintegration, and it is clear that policymakers should take into account such differences between returnees in terms of their gender, age, intention to stay permanently in the country of origin, acquired skills, etc., when formulating reintegration measures [82].
Considering that some respondents declared their intention to migrate again, the research confirms that this type of migration can be of a temporary nature. However, the research likewise indicates that satisfaction with quality of life after return is extremely important for the process of sustainable return migration, thus confirming Hypothesis 3: Respondents who are most satisfied with quality of life in Serbia are the least likely to migrate again. Accordingly, it is very important to examine the elements of returnees’ quality of life that can be improved in further research and to pay special attention to this with policy measures, as it is obvious that this is how sustainable return migration can be realized. Working to create and strengthen the conditions that influence the sustainability of return migration should be an integral part of the return migration management policy, assuming that the goal of the country of origin is to retain its population that has returned from abroad.

7. Conclusions

Population migration, as a process that directly impacts the country’s demographic and socio-economic development, is an issue of national importance in Serbia. Return migration is one of the main migration processes in the Republic of Serbia in the 21st century. The policy of the Republic of Serbia in the field of return migration governance aims to establish and maintain cooperation with the diaspora and encourage return migration. However, research on this topic has not yet been conducted comprehensively in Serbia, especially concerning the reintegration of returnees, i.e., the characteristics of their participation in the socio-economic spheres in their country of origin. Therefore, a question arises not only about how familiar policymakers are with the returnee population and their reintegration but also how well-informed returnees are about their rights and the assistance that Serbia as a country of origin can offer them.
Return migrants in countries that, like Serbia, face unfavorable demographic characteristics can represent a significant population potential and a factor in changing the existing demographic situation. Census data show that most men returning to Serbia are those with a high school degree and those who are not entering employment upon their return. Regarding the age structure, the 65+ age group stands out, accounting for almost a third of all returnees. Under these conditions, return migration can be viewed in terms of increasing the overall population. However, it is clear that the total contribution of return migrants to demographic development would only be achieved if young and fertile people were to participate in return migration to a greater extent. Accordingly, return policies should consider the socio-demographic characteristics of these individuals and emphasize encouraging young migrants to return, while simultaneously working to create conditions within the state that promote and sustain return.
This paper provides a basic insight into the process of return migration and the process of reintegration itself. It represents one of the first research efforts in Serbia on the topic of reintegration, thus providing much room for a more detailed study of this topic in the coming period. Future research should also go a step further and investigate the background of the process of return migration, i.e., determine the influence of other elements of the migration cycle (emigration and immigration) on the process of return migration. Identifying the relationship between emigration factors and the process of integration in the host country with regard to return migration can shed light on new dimensions of this process. Likewise, it is important to point out the need to conduct research in Serbia that includes a larger sample of young returnees and places a greater focus on their reintegration process, which would significantly contribute to the development of the literature in this field of study.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.L. (Milica Langović) and M.P.; methodology, M.L. (Milica Langović) and F.K.; formal analysis, M.L. (Milica Langović), D.D. and F.K.; investigation, M.L. (Milica Langović); writing—original draft preparation, M.L. (Milica Langović), M.P., M.L. (Marija Ljakoska), A.K. and S.V.; writing—review and editing, M.L. (Milica Langović), M.P., M.L. (Marija Ljakoska), A.K. and S.V.; visualization, A.K. and D.D.; supervision, M.L. (Milica Langović), D.D. and F.K. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was funded by the Institute of Physics Belgrade, University of Belgrade, through a grant by the Ministry of Science, Technological Development and Innovations of the Republic of Serbia. This work was also supported by the Ministry of Science, Technological Development and Innovations of the Republic of Serbia (Contract number 451-03-65/2024-03/200091).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all the subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The data are available from the corresponding author upon request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Šantić, D.; Langović, M.; Đorđević, D. Urban sustainability through the lens of migration-Case study: City of Leskovac, Serbia. Econ. Themes 2023, 61, 105–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Arandarenko, M. Migracije, kvaalifikacije i tržište rada. In Ljudski Razvoj Kao Odgovor Na Demografske Promene; Vuković, D., Ed.; UNDP: Belgrade, Serbia, 2022; pp. 98–116. [Google Scholar]
  3. Todorović, M.; Javor, V.; Radić, N. Emigration Potential of Youth in Serbia. Migr. Ethn. Themes 2021, 36, 155–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Poleti, D. Contemporary Labour Migration in European Context–Economic and Political Aspects. Sociologija 2013, 55, 333–348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Stanković, V. Srbija u Procesu Spoljnih Migracija; Republički Zavod za Statistiku RZS: Belgrade, Serbia, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  6. Despić, J. Migracije Visokoobrazovanih Lica iz Srbije od 1991. Godine u Kanadu i Sjedinjene Američke Države. Ph.D. Thesis, Faculty of Economics, University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  7. Ravenstein, E.G. The Laws on Migration. J. Stat. Soc. Lond. 1885, 48, 167–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Cassarino, J.-P. Bridging the policy gap between reintegration and development. In Reintegration and Development; Cassarino, J.P., Ed.; CRIS Analytical Study, Florence, European University Institute: Fiesole, Italy, 2014; pp. 1–18. [Google Scholar]
  9. Thieme, S. Coming Home? Patterns and Characteristics of Return Migration in Kyrgyzstan. Int. Migr. 2012, 52, 127–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. United Nations. Recommendations on Statistics of International Migration, Revision 1; United Nations: New York, NY, USA, 1998. [Google Scholar]
  11. OECD. Return Migration: A New Perspective; Part 3; OECD Publishing: Paris, France, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  12. Ndreka, A. Return migration and Re-integration of Returnees challenges in the origin country. RSC 2019, 11, 4–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Rees, P.H.; Lomax, N. Ravenstein Revisited: The Analysis of Migration, Then and Now. Comp. Popul. Stud. 2020, 44, 351–412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Corbett, J. Ernest George Ravenstein: The Laws of Migration, 1885; Center for Spatially Integrated Social Science: Santa Barbara, CA, USA, 2003; pp. 1–4. [Google Scholar]
  15. Simpson, N.B. Demographic and economic determinants of migration: Push and pull factors drive the decision to stay or move. IZA World Labor 2022, 373, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Lee, E.S. A Theory of Migration. Demography 1966, 1, 47–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Cerase, F.P. Expectations and Reality: A Case Study of Return Migration from the United States to Southern Italy. Int. Migr. Rev. 1974, 8, 245–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. King, R.; Kuschminder, K. Introduction: Definitions, typologies and theories of return migration. In Handbook of Return Migration; King, R., Kuschminder, K., Eds.; EE Edward Elgar Publishing: Cheltenham, UK, 2022; pp. 1–22. [Google Scholar]
  19. Kunuroglu, F.; van de Vijver, F.; Yagmur, K. Return Migration. Online Read. Psychol. Cult. 2016, 8, 1–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Cassarino, J.P. Theorising Return Migration: The Conceptual Approach to Return Migrants Revisited. Int. J. Multicult. Soc. 2004, 6, 253–279. [Google Scholar]
  21. de Haas, H.; Fokkema, T.; Fihri, M.F. Return Migration as Failure or Success?: The Determinants of Return Migration Intentions Among Moroccan Migrants in Europe. J. Int. Migr. Integr. 2015, 16, 415–429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Massey, D.S.; Arango, J.; Hugo, G.; Kouaouci, A.; Pellegrino, A.J. Theories of International Migration: A Review and Appraisal. Popul. Dev. Rev. 1993, 19, 431–466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Gheasi, M.; Nijkamp, P. A Brief Overview of International Migration Motives and Impacts, with Specific Reference to FDI. Economies 2017, 5, 31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Stark, O. The Migration of Labor; Basil Blackwell Ltd.: Cambridge, UK, 1991. [Google Scholar]
  25. Makina, D. Determinants of return migration intentions: Evidence from Zimbabwean migrants living in South Africa. Dev. South. Afr. 2012, 29, 365–378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Farrell, M.; Mahon, M.; McDonagh, J. The Rural as a Return Migration Destination. Eur. Countrys. 2012, 4, 31–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. ISN. Social Network Analysis and Social Capital; ISN Special Issue: Zurich, Switzerland, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  28. Vanthomme, K.; Vandenheede, H. Factors Associated with Return Migration of First-Generation Immigrants in Belgium (2001–2011). Eur. J. Popul. 2021, 37, 603–624. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Saar, M.; Saar, E. Can the Concept of Lifestyle Migration be applied to Return Migration? The Case of Estonians in the UK. Int. Migr. 2020, 58, 52–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Jacobo Suárez, M.; Cárdenas Alaminos, N. Back on your Own: Return Migration and the Federal Government Response in Mexico. Migr. Int. 2020, 11, 1–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Almonacid, F. Migration and Return to Mapuche Lands in Southern Chile, 1970–2022. Sustainability 2023, 15, 4457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Simões, F.; Rocca, A.; Rocha, R.; Mateus, C.; Marta, E.; Tosun, J. Time to Get Emotional: Determinants of University Students’ Intention to Return to Rural Areas. Sustainability 2021, 13, 5135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Duda-Mikulin, E. Should I stay or should I go now? Exploring Polish women’s returns “home”. Int. Migr. 2018, 56, 140–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Kunuroglu, F.; Yagmur, K.; Van De Vijver, F.; Kroon, S. Motives for Turkish return migration from Western Europe: Home, sense of belonging, discrimination and transnationalism. Turk. Stud. 2018, 19, 422–450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Hirvonen, K.; Bie Lilleør, H. Going Back Home: Internal Return Migration in Rural Tanzania. World Dev. 2015, 70, 186–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Wong, M. Navigating return: The gendered geographies of skilled return migration to Ghana. Glob. Netw. 2014, 14, 438–457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Yahirun, J. Take Me “Home”: Return Migration among Germany’s Older Immigrants. Int. Migr. 2012, 52, 231–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Czeranowska, O.; Parutis, V.; Trąbka, A. Between settlement, double return and re-emigration: Motivations for future mobility of Polish and Lithuanian return migrants. Comp. Migr. Stud. CMS 2023, 11, 28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Niedomysl, T.; Amcoff, J. Why return migrants return: Survey evidence on motives for internal return migration in Sweden. Popul. Space Place 2010, 17, 656–673. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Matloob, P. Occupational choice of return migrants. IZA World Labor 2015, 197, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Grosa, D.; King, R. The Challenges of Educational Reintegration and the Psychosocial Wellbeing of Returnee Children: Evidence from Latvia. Int. Migr. Integr. 2023, 24, 407–426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Donato, S. Women Migrant Returnees as Intermediaries: Exploring Empowerment and Agency of Migrant Women Returnees in the EU-MENA Region. Int. Migr. Integr. 2023, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Rajan, S.I.; Amuthan, S. Labour Force, Occupational Changes and Socioeconomic Level of Return Emigrants in India. Int. Migr. Integr. 2022, 23, 865–887. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Kuschminder, K. Reintegration Strategies Conceptualizing How Return Migrants Reintegrate; Palgrave MacMillan: London, UK, 2017; Available online: https://hdl.handle.net/1814/47704 (accessed on 10 June 2024).
  45. Black, R.; Gent, S. Defining, Measuring and Influencing Sustainable Return: The Case of the Balkans; Development Research Centre on Migration, Globalisation and Poverty: Brighton, UK, 2004. [Google Scholar]
  46. Knoll, A.; Veron, P.; Mayer, N. A Sustainable Development Approach to Return and Reintegration: Dilemmas, Choices and Possibilities; The European Centre for Development Policy Management (ECDPM): Maastricht, The Netherlands, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  47. Strachan, A.L. Reintegration of returnees. In K4D Helpdesk Report 572; Institute of Development Studies: Brighton, UK, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  48. Whyte, Z.; Hirslund, D. International Experiences with the Sustainable Assisted Return of Rejected Asylum Seekers; Danish Institute for International Studies (DIIS): Copenhagen, Denmark, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  49. Black, R.; Gent, S. Sustainable return in post-conflict contexts. Int. Migr. 2006, 44, 15–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. OECD. Sustainable Reintegration of Returning Migrants: A Better Homecoming; OECD Publishing: Paris, France, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  51. Hausmann, R.; Nedelkoska, L. Effects of Return Migration on the Non-Migrants’ Wages and Employment; CID Faculty WP 330: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  52. Martin, R.; Radu, D. Return Migration: The Experience of Eastern Europe. Int. Migr. 2012, 50, 109–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Wiesbrock, A. Return Migration as a Tool for Economic Development in China and India. IMDS WP Series. 2008. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/267978454_Return_Migration_as_a_Tool_for_Economic_Development_in_China_and_India (accessed on 17 January 2024).
  54. Chobanyan, H. Return Migration and Reintegration Issues: Armenia; European University Institute Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies: Florence, Italy, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  55. Tačka Povratka. Available online: https://tackapovratka.rs/vodiczapovratnike/ (accessed on 16 January 2024).
  56. Economic Migration Strategy of the Republic of Serbia 2021–2027; No. 21/2020-45; Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia: Belgrade, Serbia, 2020.
  57. Vesković Anđelković, M. Potential Role of Returnees as Intermediaries in the Partnership between the State and Higly Educated Diaspora in Serbia. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Belgrade Faculty of Philosophy, Belgrade, Serbia, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  58. Vasojević, N.; Krnjaić, Z.; Kirin, S. Scholarship holders abroad: Returnees in the academic community in Serbia. Sociološki Pregl. 2018, 52, 938–959. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Vasojević, N.; Kirin, S. Life satisfaction of returnee scholarship holders in Serbia. Stanovništvo 2019, 57, 71–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Bodrožić, Z. The return of highlyskilled migrants to Serbia. Psihol. Istraživanja 2014, 17, 55–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Pavlov, T. Return of Higly Qualified Migrants to Serbia: ‘Brain Gain’ Instead of Facing ‘Brain Re-Drain’. In Return of Highly Qualified Migrants to the Western Balkan; Petronijević, V., Ed.; Group 484, The Balkan Trust for Democracy: Beograd, Serbia, 2011; pp. 7–28. [Google Scholar]
  62. Pavlov, T.; Predojević-Despić, J.; Milutinović, S. Transnational Entrepreneurship: Experiences of Migrant-Returnees to Serbia. Sociologija 2013, 55, 261–282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Šantić, D.; Todorović, M. Between desires and reality: Investigating the return intentions among the second generation members of migrants from Serbia in Switzerland. Matica Srp. Soc. Sci. 2021, 77, 91–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Todorović, M. Challenges of transnationalism among the second generation of Serbian migrants in Switzerland. Bull. Serbian Geogr. Soc. 2019, 1, 69–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Predojević Despić, J.; Lukić, V. Challenges faced by Serbian migrants caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. TEME 2021, 45, 1245–1260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Vesković Anđelković, M. The experiences and expectations of returnees to Serbia during the COVID-19 pandemic. Stanovništvo 2021, 59, 47–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Šantić, D.; Todorović, M.; Perišić, N. The ‘New Normal’ in Migration Management in Serbia in Times of the COVID-19 Crisis. J. Balk. Near East. Stud. 2021, 24, 557–575. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Pešić, J. COVID-19, mobility and self-isolation. Experiences of the Serbia’s citizens in the times of global pandemic. Sociologija 2020, 62, 467–485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Šantić, D.; Antić, M. Serbia in the time of COVID-19: Between “corona diplomacy”, tough measures and migration management. Eurasian Geogr. Econ. 2020, 61, 546–558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Schmitz-Pranghe, C. The role of mobility, networks and reintegration assistance after return: Insights from Bosnia and Herzegovina and Serbia. In BICC Working Paper, 1/2023; Bonn International Centre for Conflict Studies (BICC): Bonn, Germany, 2023. [Google Scholar]
  71. Nikitović, V. Višeslojna priroda depopulacije u Srbiji–noviji trendovi i izgledi. In Ljudski Razvoj kao Odgovor na Demografske Promene; Vuković, D., Ed.; UNDP Serbia: Belgrade, Serbia, 2022; pp. 53–72. [Google Scholar]
  72. Statistical Office of the Republic of Serbia. Migrations Data by Municipalities and Cities 2022; SORS: Belgrade, Serbia, 2023.
  73. Predojević-Despić, J. Prostorne karakteristike emigracije iz Srbije: Od gastarbajtera do migrantskih mreža. Demogr. Pregl. 2011, 11, 1–4. [Google Scholar]
  74. Statistical Office of the Republic of Serbia. Economic Activity Data by Municipalities and Cities 2011; SORS: Belgrade, Serbia, 2013.
  75. Statistical Office of the Republic of Serbia. Educational Attainment, Literacy and Computer Literacy 2011; SORS: Belgrade, Serbia, 2013.
  76. Statistical Office of the Republic of Serbia. Return Migrants in Serbia by Municipalities 2011; Unpublished Data; SORS: Belgrade, Serbia, 2023.
  77. Pallant, J. SPSS Survival Manual: A Step by Step Guide to Data Analysis Using SPSS for Windows, 3rd ed.; Open University Press: Berkshire, UK, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  78. IOM; UN Women. Manual for Inclusive and Sustainable Reintegration of Returning Migrant Workers in South Asia; IOM and UN Women Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific: Colombo, Sri Lanka; Bangkok, Thailand, 2023. [Google Scholar]
  79. Šantić, D.; Konjević, J.; Langović, M. The importance of creating migration profiles in local self-government units for the optimal management of migration and their integration into development documents. In Proceedings of the IX Scientific-Professional Conference with International Participation “Local Self-Government in Planning and Arrangement of Space and Settlements”, Srebrno Jezero, Serbia, 16–18 June 2022. [Google Scholar]
  80. Segeš Frelak, J.; Hahn-Schaur, K. Attract, Facilitate and Retain–Return Migration Policies in the Context of Intra-EU Mobility; ICMPD International Centre for Migration Policy Development: Vienna, Austria, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  81. Segal, U. Opportunities and challenges of return migration. In Migrant Workers: Social Identity, Occupational Challenges and Health Practice; Xu, Q., Jordan, L., Eds.; Nova Science Publishers: Hauppauge, NY, USA, 2016; pp. 171–190. [Google Scholar]
  82. Global Forum on Migration & Development. Available online: https://www.gfmd.org/roundtable-2-background-papers-0 (accessed on 11 January 2024).
Sustainability 16 05118 g001
Figure 1. Intensity of return migration flows in Serbia by period of return until 2011. Source: Authors, based on [5].
Figure 1. Intensity of return migration flows in Serbia by period of return until 2011. Source: Authors, based on [5].
Sustainability 16 05118 g001
Sustainability 16 05118 g002
Figure 2. Share of return migrants in Serbia by municipality in 2011. Source: Authors, based on [76].
Figure 2. Share of return migrants in Serbia by municipality in 2011. Source: Authors, based on [76].
Sustainability 16 05118 g002
Sustainability 16 05118 g003
Figure 3. Research process stages.
Figure 3. Research process stages.
Sustainability 16 05118 g003
Sustainability 16 05118 g004
Figure 4. Reasons for return. Source: Authors, based on research results.
Figure 4. Reasons for return. Source: Authors, based on research results.
Sustainability 16 05118 g004
Sustainability 16 05118 g005
Figure 5. Difficulties in the reintegration process. Source: Authors, based on research results.
Figure 5. Difficulties in the reintegration process. Source: Authors, based on research results.
Sustainability 16 05118 g005
Sustainability 16 05118 g006
Figure 6. Secondary emigration intentions of respondents. Source: Authors, based on research results.
Figure 6. Secondary emigration intentions of respondents. Source: Authors, based on research results.
Sustainability 16 05118 g006
Table 1. Socio-demographic characteristics of respondents.
Table 1. Socio-demographic characteristics of respondents.
Categoriesn%
GenderMale11466.3
Female5833.7
Other//
<20//
20–2452.9
25–2995.2
30–3474.1
35–3952.9
Age40–44116.4
45–49127.0
50–541810.5
55–59127.0
60–64179.9
65+7644.1
Marital statusSingle2112.2
Married11667.4
Divorced127.0
Widowed2212.8
Other10.6
Incomplete elementary school179.9
Completed elementary school3218.6
Completed high school8549.4
EducationHigher school105.8
Bachelor degree2112.2
Master degree63.5
Ph.D.10.6
Employed4224.4
Seasonal/temporary job1810.5
ActivityStudent31.7
Retired8750.6
Unemployed2011.6
Other21.2
Source: Authors, based on research results.
Table 2. Spearman’s correlation coefficient results.
Table 2. Spearman’s correlation coefficient results.
VariablesSig. (2-Tailed)Correlation Coefficient (rho)
Satisfaction with quality of life after return<0.001=0.357
Age
Satisfaction with quality of life after return=0.002=−0.232
Education
Source: Authors, based on research results.
Table 3. Frequency of participation in certain activities (%).
Table 3. Frequency of participation in certain activities (%).
OftenPeriodicallyNever
Cultural events15.158.726.2
Sporting events17.444.837.8
Religious objects33.153.513.4
Source: Authors, based on research results.
Table 4. Membership of certain associations and organizations (%).
Table 4. Membership of certain associations and organizations (%).
YesNo
Returnee associations1.298.8
Cultural organizations3.596.5
Political parties8.791.3
Source: Authors, based on research results.
Table 5. Socio-demographic characteristics of respondents and reintegration process (no) difficulties (%).
Table 5. Socio-demographic characteristics of respondents and reintegration process (no) difficulties (%).
CategoriesNo DifficultiesDifficulties
GenderMale42.557.5
Female28.171.9
Age20–6423.476.6
65+55.344.7
Education (respondents who chose the option other in terms of economic activity were excluded from further analysis)Incomplete/complete elementary school55.144.9
Completed high school35.764.3
Tertiary education18.981.1
ActivityActive16.383.8
Inactive56.743.3
Source: Authors, based on research results.
Table 6. Chi-square (χ2) results.
Table 6. Chi-square (χ2) results.
Socio-Demographic Characteristics/Reintegration DifficultiesAsympt.
Sig (2-Sided)		Continuity Correction/χ2
Gender=0.067=2.76
Age=0.000=16.83
Education=0.002=12.02
Activity=0.000=27.77
Source: Authors, based on research results.
Table 7. Kruskal–Wallis H test results.
Table 7. Kruskal–Wallis H test results.
Secondary Emigration Intention/Satisfaction with Quality of Life upon ReturnNMean (M)Std. DeviationAsymp. SigdfKruskal–Wallis H
Plan to stay1164.220.708=0.000223.58
Plan to emigrate143.001.038
Not decided yet413.491.306
In total1713.940.998
Source: Authors, based on research results.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Langović, M.; Djurkin, D.; Krstić, F.; Petrović, M.; Ljakoska, M.; Kovjanić, A.; Vukašinović, S. Return Migration and Reintegration in Serbia: Are All Returnees the Same? Sustainability 2024, 16, 5118. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16125118

AMA Style

Langović M, Djurkin D, Krstić F, Petrović M, Ljakoska M, Kovjanić A, Vukašinović S. Return Migration and Reintegration in Serbia: Are All Returnees the Same? Sustainability. 2024; 16(12):5118. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16125118

Chicago/Turabian Style

Langović, Milica, Danica Djurkin, Filip Krstić, Marko Petrović, Marija Ljakoska, Aleksandar Kovjanić, and Sandra Vukašinović. 2024. "Return Migration and Reintegration in Serbia: Are All Returnees the Same?" Sustainability 16, no. 12: 5118. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16125118

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop