Young returnees' sustainability of return: The case of Bulgaria

Mihaela Misheva; Antoaneta Getova; Mihaela Misheva; Antoaneta Getova

doi:10.3934/geosci.2023023

AIMS Geosciences

2023, Volume 9, Issue 3: 426-440. doi: 10.3934/geosci.2023023

Previous Article Next Article

Research article Special Issues

Young returnees' sustainability of return: The case of Bulgaria

Mihaela Misheva ¹,
Antoaneta Getova ^{2
,
,}

1.
Department of Economic Sociology, University of National and World Economy, St. Grad "Hristo Botev", Bul. 8 dekemvri, Sofia, Bulgaria
2.
Department of Sociology, Sofia University St. Kliment Ohridski, Sofia, Bulgaria

Received: 14 December 2022 Revised: 23 May 2023 Accepted: 07 June 2023 Published: 14 June 2023

Return migration flow to Bulgaria is constant but not high, except for the past two years. Here, we argue that subjective and objective reasons should both be considered in line to explain life prospects of young returnees at home. An innovative approach to balancing the subjective-objective dichotomy in return migration phenomena is measuring sustainability of return through re-emigration, captured by and tested through a re-emigration index based on a national representative survey of returning Bulgarian migrants. The main hypothesis is that the sustainability of the return of young people depends on a complex group of factors, including social and emotional motives. The main findings are about the magnitude of the return migration flow and its sustainability: The factors for the return of young Bulgarians in the pre-Covid research show strong non-economic character, which intensifies in times of crisis. There are no significantly different tendencies for re-emigration/return among young people compared with all returnees.
- return migration,
- sustainability of return,
- young returnees
Citation: Mihaela Misheva, Antoaneta Getova. Young returnees' sustainability of return: The case of Bulgaria[J]. AIMS Geosciences, 2023, 9(3): 426-440. doi: 10.3934/geosci.2023023

Related Papers:

Abstract

Return migration flow to Bulgaria is constant but not high, except for the past two years. Here, we argue that subjective and objective reasons should both be considered in line to explain life prospects of young returnees at home. An innovative approach to balancing the subjective-objective dichotomy in return migration phenomena is measuring sustainability of return through re-emigration, captured by and tested through a re-emigration index based on a national representative survey of returning Bulgarian migrants. The main hypothesis is that the sustainability of the return of young people depends on a complex group of factors, including social and emotional motives. The main findings are about the magnitude of the return migration flow and its sustainability: The factors for the return of young Bulgarians in the pre-Covid research show strong non-economic character, which intensifies in times of crisis. There are no significantly different tendencies for re-emigration/return among young people compared with all returnees.

References

[1]	Thomas WI, Znaniecki F (1976) Chlop polski w Europie I Ameryce. wyd. Polskie Warszawa.
[2]	Glorius B (2021) Social innovation within transnational flows of knowledge: The example of student mobility from Bulgaria. Popul Space Place 27: e2452. https://doi.org/10.1002/psp.2452 doi: 10.1002/psp.2452
[3]	Bakalova M (2021) Education and Migration: The (Non)Return of Better Educated Migrants to Bulgaria. Economic Studies 2021: 166–186.
[4]	Black R, Koser K, Munk K, et al. (2004) Understanding Volun tary Return. Sussex Centre for Migration Research: Home Office, Online Report 50/04. Available from: https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukgwa/20110220105210/rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs04/rdsolr5004.pdf.
[5]	Nonchev A, Minchev V, Boshnakov V, et al., (2020) Returning migrants, UNWE Publishing complex.
[6]	Stoilova R, Dimitrova E (2017) Emigration from the Perspective of the School-to-Work Transition in Bulgaria. Czech Sociol Rev 53: 903–933. https://doi.org/10.13060/00380288.2017.53.6.380 doi: 10.13060/00380288.2017.53.6.380
[7]	Cassarino JP (2014) Return Migration and Development: The Significance of Migration Cycles, In: Triandafyllidou A (ed.), Routledge Handbook of Immigration and Refugee Studies. New York: Routledge, 216–222.
[8]	Handbook on Measuring International Migration through Population Censuses (2022) UN Available at: https://unstats.un.org/unsd/demographic-social/Standards-and-Methods/files/Handbooks/international-migration/2022-UNSD-Handbook-Meas-Intern-Migration-E.pdf.
[9]	Aronson E (2011) The social animal, 11 edition, Worth Publishers.
[10]	Misheva M, Getova T, Bakalova M (2020) Returnees' Reintegration "Back at Home" and Sustainability of Return. In Return Migration: European and Bulgarian Perspectives, Conference Proceedings Papers, UNWE.
[11]	Nonchev А, Hristova M (2018) Segmentation of returning migrants. Econ Stud 27: 3–24.

Reader Comments

Your name:*

Email:*
© 2023 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)