The Quagmire of Return and Reintegration: Challenges to Multi‐Stakeholder Co‐ordination of Involuntary Returns

Abstract

The institutional aspect of return migration has received little attention in the theoretical and empirical literature on return migration. This research fills the apparent lacuna by unearthing institutional challenges to multi‐stakeholder coordination, at different spatial levels in crisis situations and negative effects on reintegration of forcibly returned migrants. We use the evacuation of Ghanaian migrants from Libya who occupied very low socio‐economic positions, experienced racism and discrimination, including physical attacks and arbitrary arrests in 2011, as a case study to understand institutional challenges to forced return when migrants’ carefully tailored plans are thrown into disarray and they are forced to return unprepared. This study employed mainly qualitative research methods among six different categories of actors and engaged an adaptation of Cassarino's “returnee's preparedness framework” to expand theoretical understandings of return migration from the institutional perspective and to highlight what can go wrong when institutions are unprepared for involuntary returnees.

Gendered Dynamics in West African Migration

“…Similar findings have been found in Ghana in studies of primarily male deportation and large-scale evacuation from the civil war in Libya in 2011 (Kandilige & Adiku, 2020;Kleist, 2017aKleist, , b, 2020. While some of these returnees were young single men, many were (also) providing for their families as fathers, husbands, or brothers, and some were mature men with extensive family responsibilities.…”

Return, Precarity and Vulnerability in West Africa: Evidence from Nigeria

“…In line with other studies, it finds that some returnees may find themselves in a worse or similar condition than prior to emigration (Kleist 2020). The chapter finds that remigration as an option is actively explored despite the known dangers en route, regardless of whether or not reintegration programmes are successfully completed by the migrants (Kandilige & Adiku, 2020). While some returnees find themselves in a better position than prior to migration, these become posters of the government and international organisations to promote reintegration dialogue.…”

“…Post return life is further complicated by failures in multi-stakeholder coordination at the institutional level which contributes to further exacerbating the uncertainty faced by returnees. In Ghana as in other West African countries, institutional challenges to the reintegration of forcibly returned migrants are pronounced when migrants' journeys are interrupted or their return is unplanned (Kandilige & Adiku, 2020;Tiemoko, 2004). This section examines the lived reality of returnees and identifies how their experiences of return may differ based on how they returned from where they returned and the support that they received.…”

“…More so, the institutional failure of governments in supporting return migration has been well documented and this contributes to exacerbating the uncertainty in which returnees find themselves in and their exposure to harm and lack of access to services (Tiemoko, 2004;Kandilige & Adiku 2020). As a result of this lack of interest by the government in providing a supportive reintegration system, returnees are doubtful of the socio-economic programmes provided to support Nigerians such as Sure -P and N-Power, which have also not worked.…”

Unsettling Migrant Reintegration: The Serial Risk‐Taking of Returning Overseas Filipino Workers (OFWs) to Cordillera, Philippines

“…It has moved fast into certain national government spaces, which are put under global pressure to return and reintegrate their migrants “back home”. Scholarship soon began following suit, with some focusing on the specific state institutional and labour conditions (Boccagni 2011; Kandilige and Adiku 2020; Mensah 2016) that ultimately shape the reintegration process of returnees. While these are certainly welcome, some critics have cautioned that studies may be making unqualified and generalised calls for stronger development interventions by sending states (Bakewell 2008; Van Houte and Davids 2009).…”