Ahmr vol 3(3) final press (feb 19 2018)

AFRICAN HUMAN MOBILITY REVIEW
Volume 3 Number 3 September – December 2017
Unaccompanied and Separated Children in South Africa: is Return the
Only Option?
Marilize Ackermann
Post-Migration Outcomes and the Decision to Return: Processes and
Consequences
Mary Boatemaa Setrana
Long Term Solutions to Cross-border Disaster Displacement: Lessons
from West Africa
Julia Blocher and Dalila Gharbaoui
“I am Going Home”: How Kenyan Migrants’ Intentions to Return Home
Affect their Transnational Engagements
Jane Njeri Mwangi and Alex Boakye Asiedu
North-South Migration and Problems of Migrant Traders in Agbogbloshie
Razak Jaha Imoro

ii
AHMR
_________________________________________________________________________________
Chief Editor
Prof Mulugeta F. Dinbabo University of the Western Cape, South Africa
Board Members
Dr Beneberu Assefa Wondimagegnhu Bahir Dar University, Ethiopia
Dr Delali Margaret Badasu University of Ghana, Ghana
Dr Edmond Agyeman University of Education, Winneba, Ghana
Dr Ernest Angu Pineteh University of Pretoria, South Africa
Dr Joseph Yaro University of Ghana, Ghana
Prof Laurence Piper University of the Western Cape, South Africa
Dr Linda Oucho African Migration and Development Policy Centre, Kenya
Prof Loren Landau University of Witwatersrand, South Africa
Dr Lothar Smith Radboud University, Netherlands
Dr Meselu Alamnie Mulugeta Bahir Dar University, Ethiopia
Prof Raul Delgado Wise Universidad Autónoma de Zacatecas, Mexico
Dr Razack Karriem University of the Western Cape, South Africa
Dr Sharon Penderis University of the Western Cape, South Africa
Prof Simon Bekker University of Stellenbosch, South Africa
Prof Shimelis Gulema Stony Brook University, New York
Prof Thomas Faist Bielefeld University, Germany
____________________________________________________________________________________
AHMR is an interdisciplinary peer-reviewed on-line journal created to encourage and facilitate
the study of all aspects (socio-economic, political, legislative and developmental) of Human
Mobility in Africa. Through the publication of original research, policy discussions and evidence
research papers, AHMR provides a comprehensive forum devoted exclusively to the analysis of
contemporaneous trends, migration patterns and some of the most important migration-related
issues. AHMR is published by the Scalabrini Institute for Human Mobility in Africa (SIHMA) a
member of the Network of the Scalabrinian Centers for Migration Studies, with institutions in
New York, Paris, Rome, Buenos Aires, Sao Paulo and Manila.
Articles and reviews in AHMR reflect the opinions of the contributors. All rights reserved. No
part of this publication may be reproduced without the written permission from the publisher.
ISSN 2410-7972 (online) ISSN 2411-6955 (print). Webpage: www.sihma.org.za
Copyright © 2018 by the SCALABRINI INSTITUTE FOR HUMAN MOBILITY IN AFRICA
47, Commercial St, 8001 Cape Town – South Africa
Tel. 0027 021 461 4741, Email: editor@sihma.org.za

iii
African Human Mobility Review
___________________________________________________________________________
975 Unaccompanied and Separated Children in South Africa: is Return
the Only Option?
Marilize Ackermann
995 Post-Migration Outcomes and the Decision to Return: Processes
and Consequences
Mary Boatemaa Setrana
1020 Long Term Solutions to Cross-border Disaster Displacement:
Lessons from West Africa
Julia Blocher and Dalila Gharbaoui
1045 “I am Going Home”: How Kenyan Migrants’ Intentions to
Return Home Affect their Transnational Engagements
Jane Njeri Mwangi and Alex Boakye Asiedu
1073 North-South Migration and Problems of Migrant Traders in
Agbogbloshie
Razak Jaha Imoro

975
Unaccompanied and Separated Children in South Africa:
is Return the Only Option?
Marilize Ackermann*
Abstract
Despite recent legislative amendments aimed at stricter border control,
migration by undocumented migrants, including unaccompanied and separated
children, continues to occur. Once in South Africa, no mechanism exists for the
identification or registration of undocumented migrant children. Due to
statutory restrictions, the births of children born to undocumented foreign
parents in South Africa are not recorded. Therefore, the presence of
unaccompanied and separated children in the Republic goes mostly unnoticed.
Under the migration framework, documentation to regularise a foreign child’s
stay is either derived from a parent, or requires significant financial support,
and/or legal intervention, to obtain. The article finds that unaccompanied and
separated children struggle to meet the requirements set to regularise their stay
once in the Republic. In a society where the ability to exercise basic human rights
is intrinsically linked to identification documentation, the few options available
to unaccompanied and separated children make this group highly vulnerable to
exploitation, destitution, abuse, neglect, statelessness and under-development,
due to restricted access to education and essential services. The cases studied
here show that unaccompanied and separated children do not reach social
workers systematically, which means that no or little consideration is given to
finding durable solutions relevant to the particular child. The article finds that a
combination of legislative gaps on one hand and stringent requirements on the
other, result in unaccompanied and separated children struggling to access
education, child protection services, the asylum system, birth registration and
the right to a name and nationality. The article concludes by making a few
pertinent recommendations that address the main concerns raised.
Keywords Documentation, migration, child protection, birth registration,
asylum, refugee, statelessness.
* Advocacy Officer at the Scalabrini Centre of Cape Town. Email: marilize@scalabrini.org.za

976
Methodology
The methodology comprises of a desktop review of the available literature, a
critical analysis of the applicable law and policy and an analysis of qualitative
data collected from 109 case studies.
The cases were collected at the Scalabrini Centre of Cape Town (SCCT), a non-
profit organisation based in Cape Town, South Africa, that provides multiple
services to migrants, aims to alleviate poverty and promotes development in
the Western Cape, while fostering integration between migrants, refugees and
South Africans.1 The Advocacy Programme of SCCT functions as a walk-in
paralegal office and, as such, receives persons who have problems with access
to basic rights connected to documentation, including issues pertaining to
foreign children.
From May 2015 to May 2017, interviews were conducted with 87 caregivers
of 109 unaccompanied and separated children, all of whom sought advice at
SCCT. The cases studied included migrant children and children born to
foreign parents within the South African territory. Data was collected through
semi-structured interviews with the adult caregivers. Over the course of two
years, SCCT was able to track and document the evolution of the individual
cases. From an ethical point of view, all cases encountered were referred to
the Department of Social Development (DSD) for assessment by a statutory
social worker. All children and their caregivers resided in the Cape Town
Metropolitan area.
Shifting Definitions – Unaccompanied and Separated Children
General Comment No. 6 (2005) to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child
defines ‘unaccompanied children’ as “children who have been separated from
both parents and other relatives and are not being cared for by an adult who,
by law or custom, is responsible for doing so.” It goes on to define ‘separated
children’ as “children who have been separated from both parents, or from
their previous legal or customary primary care-giver, but not necessarily from
other relatives.” These may therefore include children accompanied by adult
family members other than parents.
1 The center is registered with the South African Department of Social Development as a Non-
Profit Organisation, as a youth and child care center and as a Public Benefit Organisation with
the South African Revenue Services and is governed by a Trust.

977
The relevance of defining a child as unaccompanied or separated pertains to
child protection and immigration control (UNHCR, 1997). In the South African
context, being categorised as an ‘unaccompanied minor’ has bearing on a
foreign child’s admission to the Republic and the ability to legalise
immigration status subsequent to entry. In the context of border control, the
Regulations to the Immigration Act (No.11, 2002) narrowly define an
unaccompanied child as “a child under the age of 18 years who travels alone.”
With regard to child protection, DSD assumes greater vulnerability of
unaccompanied children and this distinction therefore impacts upon the
child’s ability to access child protection services (DSD, 2009). The
international definition has broader application insofar as it is concerned with
the continued circumstances of the child beyond admission to the country.
Birth in South Africa does not automatically confer nationality. A child born to
two foreign residents is considered, upon birth, as a non-citizen and retains
the nationality of the parent(s) (Manby, 2011: 14). Such children are obliged
to regularise their stay in South Africa in the same manner as foreign migrant
children. Of the 109 cases studied, 12 children were born in South Africa to
foreign parents and 97 of the children had migrated to South Africa. Of the 97,
24 children were in the care of a relative when they crossed the border, and
therefore could be described as ‘separated’; 54 were ‘unaccompanied’; and 19
were accompanied by one or both parents. It was observed that the definitions
‘separated’ and ‘unaccompanied’ refer to fixed points in time. Once the migrant
child or family settles in South Africa, their circumstances change to the extent
that the definition describing their situation of care changes. After some time
in the country, 92 children could be defined as ‘separated’ as they were now in
the care of a relative, while 17 were still considered ‘unaccompanied’ as they
are in the care of persons unrelated to them and previously unknown to them.
This illustrates the fluidity of the definitions of ‘unaccompanied’ or ‘separated’
in the context of migration.
Customary care is widely practiced in the South African and the broader
African context. In brief, customary care refers to family-based care within the
child’s extended family, or with close friends of the family known to the child,
whether formal or informal in nature (UN General Assembly, 2010). The terms
‘customary care’ or ‘kinship care’ are not formally defined in South African law
and there are no particular mechanisms through which parental duties of care
are transferred to the customary caregiver. The customary duty of care is
determined by social or cultural norms and, often, a highly subjective sense of

978
responsibility that an individual caregiver attaches to a child. The evidence
suggests that the customary duty of care may be fluid and shift between
relatives of the child, depending on domestic, social, financial or other
circumstances. In order for care relation to be formalised through foster care
placement, “a need for care and protection” is required by the Children’s Act
(No. 38, 2005). In the context of migration, it must be noted that a customary
duty of care does not confer immigration status or nationality. Therefore,
references to duties of care do not have bearing on the documentation status
of the child, and are uniquely concerned with the well-being or protection of
the child.
All of the children concerned originated from African nations. Set out below is
an indication of the children’s countries of birth in the first column, and the
countries of nationality of their parents (or mothers in the case of mixed
parentage) in the second. The second column incorporates the countries of
origin of the parents of 12 children born in South Africa.
Table 1: The documentation of unaccompanied and separated children
Country of birth Nationality of
parent(s)
Angola 3 4
Burundi 12 12
DRC 58 68
Malawi - 1
Rwanda 4 5
South Africa 12 0
Somalia 13 13
Tanzania 3 0
Uganda 1 1
Zimbabwe 3 4
Zambia - 1
Total 109 109

979
All but one of the 97 migrant children entered South Africa through land
borders. Only three of the migrant children had entered South Africa regularly,
using a passport and visitor’s visa to gain entry. The remaining 94 children
were undocumented upon admission. Fifty-four children were
unaccompanied upon entry. The rules around travelling with children through
ports of entry were significantly tightened by Regulations to the Immigration
Act that entered into force on 1 June 2015. As described in an advisory by the
Department of Home Affairs (DHA) (2015), the intention with the most recent
amendment is to “establish the principle that all minors require the consent of
their parents when travelling into or out of the Republic.” Regulations 12(c)
and (d) require unaccompanied minors and persons travelling with a child,
who is not his or her biological child, to produce a number of certified identity
documents and consent forms from parents. These persons must produce the
contact details of the parents or legal guardian of the child. Parents travelling
with their biological children are also required to produce birth certificates
and consent letters or court orders from absent parents. Of the 97 migrant
children, 32 had entered South Africa after the Immigration Regulations came
into force, 28 of whom were unaccompanied at entry. None of the
unaccompanied children were referred to DSD upon entry to South Africa and
appear to have crossed the borders with relative ease.
It is concluded, therefore, that the application of the Immigration Act and
Regulations as it pertains to unaccompanied minors is inconsistent at land
border posts. Yet, the main point of concern here is not the fact of entry, but
the absence of a mechanism of protection.
The reasons for the migration of unaccompanied and separated children are
varied. Some of the main trends amongst the cases were identified as follows:
conflict related (44%); death of the primary caregiver in the country of origin
(21%); socio-economic reasons (22%) and abandonment in the country of
origin (4%). Migration motivated by socio-economic reasons included
children in search of better education opportunities, those whose caregivers
could no longer care for them due to poverty or poor circumstances in the
country of origin, or duties of parental care diverted to relatives following the
separation of parents. The separated children typically migrated to South
Africa to join a caregiver who was already residing in the Republic. The
children’s duration of stay in South Africa at the time of the interview varied
from one week to 16 years, with 23 children having spent more than eight
years in the Republic. The duration of stay had no impact on the child’s ability

980
to secure documentation. All children had entered South Africa only once,
indicating that migration by this group was not circular.
Conflict related reasons were the most common factor motivating migration
amongst the children. Out of 43 cases, 23 of the children accompanied an adult
asylum seeker (including parents or relatives) to South Africa. Accordingly, 15
children derived asylum (7) or refugee status (8) from a parent (11) or
another caregiver (4), subsequent to their entry to South Africa. Twenty
children were unaccompanied upon entry to South Africa and had migrated in
the context of conflict. In theory, these children should have access to the
asylum system to undergo refugee status determination. Section 32 of the
Refugees Act (No. 130, 1998) deals with unaccompanied refugee children
insofar as any child who appears to qualify for refugee status, and is found
under circumstances that clearly indicate that he or she is a child in need of
care, as contemplated under the Children’s Act, should be brought before the
Children’s Court of the district in which he or she was found. Hereupon, the
Children’s Court may order that the child be assisted in applying for asylum.
According to the data collected, only four of the unaccompanied children who
migrated in the context of conflict were issued asylum seeker permits and
were duly advised by an official at a Refugee Reception Office (RRO) to return
with a Children’s Court order. None of the children had returned with the
required order and all four permits lapsed. At the time of their first contact
with SCCT, none of the unaccompanied refugee children had been referred to
a social worker.
It is argued that Section 32 falls short of providing adequate protection to
unaccompanied refugee children for three main reasons. Firstly, the Refugees
Act presumes that the unaccompanied refugee child is in need of care and
protection, as understood in the context of the Children’s Act, and it does not
envisage assisted asylum claims by separated children who are adequately
cared for by relatives.2 Secondly, it presumes that there is a designated office,
or person, tasked with identifying the unaccompanied refugee child and
ensuring that he or she is brought before the Children’s Court. Lastly, only
three RROs across South Africa were receiving new asylum applications at the
2 Section 150 of the Children’s Act lists the circumstances under which a child is deemed in need
of care and protection. These include abandoned or orphaned children without visible means of
support; street children; children with uncontrollable behavioural issues or drug-abuse issues;
abused, exploited or deliberately neglected children; or children exposed to other types of harm,
amongst other things.

981
time of writing. These are located in Durban, Musina and Pretoria. Were a child
to be brought before the Children’s Court in the Western Cape Province, in the
absence of a legal guardian, the social worker assigned to the case would have
to accompany the child to a RRO in Gauteng or Pretoria. Practically, the
capacity and resources required to achieve this are simply not in place. The
limited number of points of access to the service of Home Affairs spread over
a large geographical area restricts the unaccompanied or separated refugee
child’s ability to gain access to the asylum system.
Table 2: Main reasons for migration
Death of primary caregiver 21
Abandoned in country of origin 4
Accompanied asylum seeker 23
Conflict related 20
Imprisonment of primary caregiver 1
Mental illness of primary caregiver 2
Old age of primary caregiver 1
Socio-economic 22
Relocation of primary caregiver to third country 1
Suspected abduction 1
Accompanied parent for medical care 1
TOTAL 97
Not all foreign children are refugee children and asylum is not appropriate in
the cases of children who migrated for reasons other than those set out under
Section 3 of the Refugees Act. Following their entry to South Africa, only two
of the children had secured documentation under the Immigration Act. One
had obtained permanent residency through an exemption process envisioned
under Section 31(2), which allows the Minister of Home Affairs to grant
permanent residency to a foreigner on “special grounds.” The intervention of
the High Court was required to achieve this result. The second child secured a

982
passport and a study visa by a family member travelling to the country of
origin for this purpose. It was found that the unaccompanied and separated
children whose cases formed part of the survey did not meet the requirements
to obtain documentation to regularise their stays.
In addition to documentation proving legal stay under the migration
framework, the majority of the children lacked any form of identification
documentation. In total, 55% of the children did not have birth certificates.
Birth registration is a prerequisite to accessing citizenship (Lawyers for
Human Rights, 2014: 10-11). The lack of proof of birth or parentage is a factor
that contributes to the risk of statelessness. The lack of documentation
impacts the unaccompanied and separated child’s ability to exercise basic
rights, as discussed below.
The Right to a Name and Nationality and the Risk of Statelessness
The right to a name and nationality is the most basic of human rights.
Internationally and regionally, it is set out under Article 7(1) of the UN
Convention on the Rights of the Child, Article 6(3) of the African Charter on the
Rights and Welfare of the Child, as well as the International Covenant on Civil
and Political Rights. South Africa has signed and ratified these treaties and is
therefore bound by these obligations. Reflecting international obligations,
Section 28(1)(a) of the Bill of Rights sets this out clearly by stating that
“[e]very child has the right to a name and a nationality from birth.” In the same
vein, the right to birth registration is enshrined in Article 7(1) of the UNCRC
and the African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child in Article 6(1).
Birth registration in South Africa is governed by the Births and Deaths
Registration Act (No. 51, 1992) (BDRA) and accompanying Regulations. The
ability to register the birth of a child born to foreign parents in South Africa is
directly linked to the documentation status of the parent(s). Regulations 3, 4
and 5 to BDRA require a child’s parents to have a valid immigration status to
register a birth. These requirements exclude birth registration by those
without any form of identity documentation or legal status to sojourn in the
Republic, those with expired asylum seeker and refugee permits and those
with expired visas in a passport.
The inability of the undocumented parent to register the child’s birth
effectively functions as a form of migration control or punitive measure
towards the parent, but essentially has profound prejudicial impact on the
child. As mentioned earlier, 12 of the children were born in South Africa. Out
of the 12, four did not have birth certificates issued by the DHA. The reasons

983
for not having a birth certificate were cited as follows: the mother passed away
shortly after birth (2); the mother gave birth on a farm, thereafter abandoning
the child with no documentary proof of birth (1) and the mother was
undocumented at the time of the child’s birth (1). Without birth registration
documentation, the foreign child is excluded from accessing identification
documentation. Without strong links to parentage or the country of origin, the
child will not be able to claim the nationality of the parent. Undocumented
children who turn 18 are unable to marry or register the births of their
children in returning to their countries of origin, thereby perpetuating the
cycle of illegality. While four is a comparatively small number, it represents a
sample of individuals who are likely to face insurmountable difficulties to
prove their identities and regularise their presence in South Africa.
It is important to note that not all undocumented persons are stateless.
Whether a person is at risk of statelessness is determined by a number of risk
factors (Lawyers for Human Rights, 2014: 7-8). The main indicators of
statelessness include one or more of the following circumstances (Lawyers for
Human Rights, 2014: 8):
- Birth outside of one’s parent’s country of nationality
- Death or desertion by one or both parents
- Irregular migration across borders
- Mixed nationality parentage
- Inability to produce any form of identity documents or records proving
links to parentage or place of birth
- The operation of nationality laws
Section 1 of the 1954 Convention relating to the Status of Stateless Persons
defines a stateless person as someone who is not considered a national by any
state under the operation of its law. South Africa is not a signatory to the treaty
and, therefore, the mechanisms to prevent and respond to statelessness under
domestic law are mostly lacking. Of the cases studied, 45 of the children had
no document to enable a claim to citizenship. Of the 45 children who had no
documentary link to any particular state, 13 were orphaned and ten had been
abandoned by both parents for at least four years. As there is no single test in
place to determine whether a person is stateless, a combination of factors may
indicate a risk of statelessness. Based on the lack of enabling documentation
and tenuous or no links to parentage or other family members, it was

984
concluded that at least 23 of the children in this study were at high risk of
statelessness.
The Right to Basic Education
Another major concern is the undocumented child’s inability to access basic
education. The laws governing access to education by foreign children in South
Africa are contradictory. Section 29(1)(a) of the Bill of Rights extends the right
to basic education to “everyone” and Section 3(1) of the South African Schools
Act (No. 84, 1996) makes it compulsory for every child to attend school from
age seven until the learner reaches age 15, or the 9th Grade, whichever occurs
first. National policy around the admission of non-citizen learners asks of
school principals to help the parents to obtain the necessary documentation
on behalf of children, where this is not available. In such cases, the child must
be admitted to the school while the parent obtains the required documents
(Admission of Learners to Public Schools, 2001). It states further that “the
child must be admitted to the school conditionally while the parent obtains the
needed documentation. When the required documentation is not available
within three months of the child having been conditionally admitted to the
school, the School Governing Body in consultation with the District Officials
must attend to the matter by liaising with the relevant authorities and parents”
(Admission of Learners to Public Schools, 2001). Contrary hereto, Section
39(1) of the Immigration Act renders instruction by a learning institution to
an “illegal foreigner” an offence for which the school and principal may incur
criminal liability. Additionally, the National Education Policy Act (No. 27,
1996) requires persons classified as illegal aliens, when they apply for
admission for their children or for themselves, to show evidence that they
have applied to the DHA to legalise their stay in the country in terms of the
Aliens Control Act (No. 96, 1991).3 Reflecting this confusing position, which is
no doubt difficult for school administrators to interpret, 63 of the children
whose cases were studied were attending school, while 44 (40%) of the
children were not attending school. The caregivers of 21 of the children
indicated that non-attendance was a direct result of the child not having a
document. Of the children not attending school, 14 were under the age of 15
years. Other reasons for non-attendance included the inability to afford the
costs associated with schooling (6) and language barriers (5). Two children
were indicated as not going to school because they were working. Both were
17 year old males. Two children were not attending school for medical
3 Repealed and replaced by the Immigration Act No. 13 of 2002.

985
reasons. Five of the children were able to enrol for school through legal
intervention on their behalf.
Access to the Child Protection System
Section 28(1)(b) of the Constitution states that “[e]very child has the right to
family care or parental care, or to appropriate alternative care when removed
from the family environment.” Section 28(2) further states that “the best
interests of the child are of paramount importance in every matter concerning
the child.” In line herewith, the Children’s Act does not distinguish between
‘citizens’ and ‘non-citizens’. Supplementing the Children’s Act, DSD Guidelines
of 2009 provide some guidance to social workers as to their approach to
foreign children and specifically stipulate that unaccompanied foreign
children should be assumed to be children “in need of care and protection.” The
evidence suggests, however, that the unaccompanied and separated child’s
documentation status has an impact on his or her ability to access the child
protection system.
Relations between children and caregivers, other than parents, can be
formalised through foster care, guardianship or adoption. The caregiver’s
ability to formalise the relation of care, however, is determined by his or her
documentation status. With regard to non-citizens, only recognised refugees
and permanent residents are eligible foster parents. Following the judgments
in Khosa v Minister of Social Development, Mahuale v Minister of Social
Development and Minister for Welfare and Population Development v
Fitzpatrick, these categories qualify for the foster care grant. Five of the
children were placed in the foster care of their refugee caregivers, although
47, in total, were cared for by caregivers with refugee status. Asylum seekers
are not considered eligible foster parents, given the temporary nature of
asylum seeker status. Twenty-two children were cared for by primary
caregivers with asylum seeker status. Undocumented caregivers are also not
eligible to formally care for children. It is argued that excluding children from
the foster care system, purely based on the documentation status of the
caregiver, is not consistent with the best interest principle. Placement with an
asylum seeker may, in some cases, be in the best interest of a particular child
and formal care could be feasible, especially in light of the lengthy asylum
process. It has been documented that asylum seekers may wait up to 18 years
for the administration of their claims (Amit, 2015: 25). It is submitted that, if
deemed to be in the best interest of the child to be placed in the foster care of

986
a person who might leave the Republic, the child should be allowed to leave
with the caregiver, with the necessary consent of the Children’s Court.
It was further documented that in the cases of 47 children, caregivers had
approached DSD or a designated Child Protection Agency (CPA) in an attempt
to formalise the care relation. Indeed, 14 of the children were placed in foster
care, eight of whom were placed in the care of unrelated South African citizens
and six were placed with relatives holding either refugee status or permanent
residency. The cases of 62 unaccompanied or separated children did not reach
a social worker at all. When asked about the status of their cases with the social
services provider, 15 caregivers indicated that their case was taken by an
intake social worker, but had not yet produced any result. Access to child
protection services was expressly denied in six cases. Reasons given for refusal
include the fact that the child did not have a birth certificate (1) and the fact
that the child was illegal (5). In one case, the social worker did not want to
place the child in foster care as she feared the placement order would “make
an illegal child legal.” Needless to say, a foster care placement order does not
function as immigration status and is purely concerned with the protection of
the child. Six children’s cases were finalised in the form of a social worker’s
report, but did not result in placement as the children were not found to be in
need of care and protection as defined under the Children’s Act.4
The number of cases that did not reach DSD or CPA for an assessment is
somewhat concerning from a child protection point of view and it is clear that
this failure is due to a combination of reasons, notably, limited knowledge on
the part of caregivers, the absence of a clear system of referral and procedures
to follow in the cases of foreign children and the lack of clarity around
eligibility to access foster care.
Guardianship is dealt with under Section 24 of the Children’s Act, where it is
stated that any person having an interest in the care, well-being and
development of a child may apply to the High Court for an order granting
guardianship of the child. Section 25 goes on to treat guardianship
applications by non-South African citizens as inter-country adoptions under
4 Section 155(4)(a) of the Children’s Act, read with Regulation 55, determines that after
investigation, if a social worker finds that the child is not in need of care and protection, the
reasons for this finding must be indicated in a report, which must be submitted to the Children’s
Court for review. According to 150(3) and 155(4)(b) of the Children’s Act, the report should
indicate recommendations to the family/caregiver and measures must be taken to assist the
child through counseling or other relevant services available and relevant to the case.

987
The Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction or
Hague Abduction Convention (The Hague Convention).
While this article will not provide an in-depth analysis on the possibility of
inter-country adoption, as it applies to the cases surveyed, it suffices to say
that inter-country adoptions are challenging for a number of reasons. Firstly,
the adoption of refugee children is exceptional and refugee children are
generally considered not-adoptable (UNHCR, 1995).5 Secondly, the process for
adopting a child with no documentation (especially those without birth
certificates) is extremely challenging, as administrative requirements for
adoption are unfulfilled. Signatory states to The Hague Convention agree to
establish a Competent Authority that functions as the service provider to
children and prospective adoptive parents. Whilst South Africa is a Member
State, a number of African nations are not signatories to The Hague
Convention, including the DRC, Zimbabwe and Somalia. This means that there
is no functioning counterpart to the South African Competent Authority in
such states and, as such, these adoptions are classified as non-convention
adoptions. Non-convention adoptions are dealt with by the International
Social Services (ISS) (DSD, n.d.: 21-22). The success of such adoptions depends
on whether ISS is operational in the country of origin of the child.
Thus, it follows that guardianship over children by refugees and asylum
seekers is not easily accessible and, in fact, it is misleading to say that
guardianship applications are available to non-citizens. The evidence confirms
this finding. Amongst the cases studied, none of the caregivers, whether
citizens or non-citizens, were court appointed legal guardians, nor were any of
the children being considered for adoption. Given the difficulties related to
accessing the formal child protection system, it may be useful to explore
administrative measures to address these cases, but at the time of writing,
such alternatives were not in place and thus this forms part of the
recommendations.
The Right to Basic Healthcare
Section 27 of the Bill of Rights entitles “everyone” to the right to healthcare
services and explicitly states that no one may be denied emergency treatment.
However, an individual’s ability to access healthcare services is determined by
5 The UNHCR and Hague Convention favour family reunification and temporary, alternative care
pending such reunification over adoption, when dealing with refugee children. Particularly, the
UNHCR policy is that “children in an emergency context are not available for adoption.”

988
his or her documentation status and the applicable fees are determined by a
sliding scale used to calculate eligibility for subsidised care. A 2017 study on
migrants’ rights to healthcare in the Western Cape Province found that
undocumented persons were mostly able to access emergency healthcare
services, but outside the context of emergency care, hospital administrators
routinely required valid documentation for care to be administered (Alfaro-
Velcamp, 2017).
Of the cases studied, 30 children had needed healthcare services at some point
during their stay in South Africa. Of the 30, three children were reportedly
denied medical treatment (including dental treatment (1)) due to their
inability to produce a valid document. Two caregivers reported to have been
too afraid to take the undocumented child to a healthcare facility on the
assumption that the undocumented children would be denied services. Four
caregivers were able to access healthcare services either through paying for
private consultation (1) or agreeing to pay maximum fees for public healthcare
services (4).
It is concluded therefore that the children were generally able to access the
right to healthcare; however, the number of individuals who needed
healthcare was small and possibly not representative of the larger population
group.
A Reflection on Durable Solutions
In the words of the UNCRC General Comment No. 6, “the ultimate aim in
addressing the fate of unaccompanied or separated children is to identify a
durable solution that addresses all their protection needs, takes into account
the child’s view and, wherever possible, leads to overcoming the situation of a
child being unaccompanied or separated.”
The search for a durable solution commences with analysing the possibility of
family reunification (UNCRC, General Comment No. 6, par. 79). Practically,
family reunification starts with family tracing (if the whereabouts of the family
are not known). According to paragraphs 81 and 82 of General Comment No.
6, all efforts should be made to return an unaccompanied or separated child to
his or her parents, except where further separation is necessary in the best
interests of the child. Circumstances involving abuse or neglect of the child by
the parents may prohibit eventual reunification, as may a “reasonable risk”
that such a return would lead to a violation of the fundamental human rights
of the child, with particular reference to the principle of non-refoulement.

989
In 13 of the cases in this study, children did not know whether their mother
was still alive; and in ten cases, the child knew the mother was still alive, but
had lost contact with her. This finding indicates a clear need for family tracing.
Unfortunately, ISS counterparts are not operational in a number of African
states, meaning that referrals would not necessarily achieve any results
(Southern Hemisphere Consulting, 2016).
Return to the country of origin should not take place without advance secure
and concrete arrangements of care and custodial responsibilities upon return
(UNCRC, General Comment No. 6, par. 84). Alternatively, a government agency
or child-care agency should have agreed, and should be able, to provide
immediate protection and care for the child upon arrival (UNHCR, 1994). In
none of the cases relevant to this research did social workers consider
placement in alternative care in the country of origin to be an option.
Instruments of international law, as well as the DSD Guidelines, mention
placement in alternative care in the country of origin as a durable solution, but
this option does not appear to be exercised in South Africa. A desktop search
revealed that there is no literature available that explores alternative care in
the country of origin as a durable solution in Southern Africa. Presumably, this
is due to a lack of infrastructure, resources and information.
In cases where return to the country of origin is not possible, local integration
is the primary solution. It is crucial that integration be based on secure legal
status, including residence status (UNCRC, General Comment No. 6, par. 88).
Finding durable solutions for foreign children is an aspect of the statutory
social workers’ mandate that is underdeveloped.
Conclusion
It is believed that the numbers of unaccompanied and separated children are
not overwhelming, yet the individual consequences are significant enough to
merit attention and a search for solutions. The main conclusion of this study is
that the absence of documentation options available to unaccompanied and
separated children restricts adequate child protection and is at the core of the
challenges faced by unaccompanied and separated children. The prevalence of
derivative documentation options under the legal framework, and the
exclusion of caregivers from guardianship, adoption and foster placements,
due to their documentation status, suggest restricted application of the best-
interest principle. A lack of documentation, and thus the inability to access
essential services, renders local integration by unaccompanied and separated
children effectively impossible. Despite the challenges to obtaining

990
documentation, cross-border family reunification is not systematically
pursued as a durable solution in such cases. The concerning and very real
result is that unaccompanied or separated children remain mostly undetected
in South Africa, and at high risk of abuse, neglect and statelessness. This
situation is clearly not conducive to economic growth in South Africa and the
broader region. In light of these realities, unaccompanied and separated
children are basically faced with the choice of either leading a life outside the
realms of formal societal structures, or eventual return to the country of origin.
Recommendations
The following recommendations are made based on the findings in this article:
a) It is important that a mechanism be established to register the
presence of unaccompanied and separated minors within the
Republic. The reasons to maintain such a register would be:
o To enable authorities to keep track of the size of this group, so
as to identify the needs and extent of the State’s duties towards
such children;
o To enable the issuance of a document to a child, registered as
unaccompanied or separated, which would enable access to
basic rights whilst in South Africa pending the active
consideration of appropriate solutions in his or her case;
o To enable access to the right to a name and a nationality,
whether South African or the nationality of the parent(s);
o To enable authorities to make appropriate referrals to ensure
children are adequately protected;
o To assist the State in effective prevention and combating of
trafficking, smuggling and abduction; and
o To position the State with regard to finding regional solutions
to irregular migration by unaccompanied and separated
children.
b) It is recommended that a link be established between DHA and DSD to
liaise over matters concerning unaccompanied or separated children.
The Refugees Act and the BDRA are administered by DHA, however,
these Acts also create statutory duties for other departments,
particularly DSD. It is recommended that a liaison office be established

991
to address cross-cutting issues. It is recommended that a designated
office or officer be appointed to be available to social workers, to
respond to queries, to provide technical support and to prioritise
individual cases that may warrant urgent intervention.
c) With regard to refugee children, it is recommended that the DHA
facilitate simpler access to the asylum system for unaccompanied and
separated children who appear eligible under the Act. To improve
access to this highly vulnerable group, it is recommended that at least
one satellite office within each province should receive asylum
applications by unaccompanied and separated minors. It is
recommended that unaccompanied and separated refugee children’s
cases be prioritised and treated with the necessary attention. The
consideration of an unaccompanied or separated child’s application
for asylum, should not be dependent on the need for care and
protection.
d) To give effect to local integration as a durable solution, it is
recommended that a designated officer be appointed to assist the
Minister of Home Affairs in the timeous and attentive consideration of
exemption applications brought in terms of Section 31(2) on behalf of
unaccompanied or separated minors. This recommendation would not
require any legislative change, but would require reinforcement of
administrative measures already provided for within the legal
framework.
e) With regard to birth registration, it is recommended that the relevant
sub-sections of Regulations 3, 4 and 5 to the BDRA be reviewed to
ensure that every child, regardless of the legal status of his or her
parent(s), can access a nationality from birth, as well as other socio-
economic rights conferred through the Constitution that require
documentation.
f) It is recommended that the inconsistencies between laws and policy
around access to education by unaccompanied and separated children
be reviewed. Section 39 of the Immigration Act, in particular, should
not bar the child’s basic right to education, as this is in contradiction
with the SA Schools Act and Section 29 of the Bill of Rights.
g) It is recommended that Section 24 and 25 of the Children’s Act be
amended to allow guardianship applications by non-citizens, in

992
principle, and to grant jurisdiction to the Children’s Court to deal with
such applications.
h) It is recommended that investment in family tracing and reunification
services be considered; particularly for the DRC, from whence the
largest number of unaccompanied children come. Awareness-raising
to social workers around existing services and networks in this area of
expertise is also needed.
i) Alternative care placements in the country of origin should be studied.
Acknowledgements
Thank you to Miranda Madikane of the Scalabrini Centre of Cape Town for
making the study possible. Thank you to everyone who participated to the
study through sharing their stories.
References
Primary
1954 Convention relating to the Status of Stateless Persons.
1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child.
1990 African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child.
Department of Social Development. n.d. Practice guideline to international
adoption.
Department of Social Development (DSD). 2009. Guidelines on separated and
unaccompanied children outside their country of origin in South Africa.
Republic of South Africa. 1991. Aliens Control Act (No. 96).
Republic of South Africa. 1992. Births and Deaths Registration Act (No. 51).
Republic of South Africa. 1996. Constitution of the Republic of South Africa
(No. 108) as amended.
Republic of South Africa. 1996. National Education Policy Act (No. 27).
Republic of South Africa. 1996. South African Schools Act (No. 84).
Republic of South Africa. 1998. Refugees Act (No. 130) as amended.

993
Republic of South Africa. 2001. Admission of Learners to Public Schools
(General Notice No. 4138).
Republic of South Africa. 2002. Immigration Act (No. 11) as amended.
Republic of South Africa. 2005. Children’s Act (No. 38) as amended.
United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC). 2005. General
Comment No. 6. Treatment of unaccompanied and separated children outside
their country of origin.
United Nations General Assembly. 2010. Guidelines for the Alternative Care of
Children: Resolution/adopted by the General Assembly, 24 February
2010, A/RES/64/142.
United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). 1997. Guidelines
on Policies and Procedures in dealing with Unaccompanied Children Seeking
Asylum.
Secondary
Alfaro-Velcamp, T. 2017. “Don’t send your sick here to be treated, our own
people need it more”: Immigrants’ access to healthcare in South Africa.
International Journal of Migration, Health and Social Care, 13(1): 53–68.
Amit, R. 2015. Queue here for corruption – measuring irregularities in South
Africa’s asylum system. Lawyers for Human Rights and the African Centre for
Migration & Society Research Report. From <http://bit.ly/2Hj4JYk>
[Retrieved June 20, 2017).
Department of Home Affairs (DHA). 2015. Advisory: new requirements for
children travelling through South African ports of entry - Effective 1 June 2015.
From <http://bit.ly/1Jd1HTi > [Retrieved June 6, 2017].
Khosa v Minister of Social Development, Mahuale v Minister of Social
Development 2004 (6) SA 505 (CC).
Lawyers for Human Rights. 2014. Promoting Citizenship and Preventing
Statelessness in South Africa: A practitioner’s Guide.
Manby, B. 2011. Statelessness in Southern Africa, Briefing paper for UNHCR
Regional Conference on Statelessness in Southern Africa.
Minister for Welfare and Population Development v Fitzpatrick [2002] 7 BCLR
713 (CC).

994
Southern Hemisphere Consulting. 2016. Draft Report for System Mapping of
the Protection of Unaccompanied and Separated Migrant Children in South
Africa (Unpublished).
United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). 1995. UNHCR
policy on adoption of refugee children.
United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). 1994. Refugee
Children: Guidelines on Protection and Care.

995
Post-Migration Outcomes and the Decision to Return:
Processes and Consequences
Mary Boatemaa Setrana*
Abstract
This paper examines the decision-making processes of return migrants,
especially since the 2001 introduction of government programmes to encourage
the return of skilled migrants who have the capacity to contribute their quota to
the development agenda of Ghana. Structured questionnaires were used to
gather information on the migration trajectories of 120 return migrants. This
was followed by interviews that primarily sought in-depth understanding of the
decision-making processes of the return migrants. The findings indicate that
these migrants were motivated by, among other factors, the availability of
investment opportunities in Ghana, completion of education abroad, loss of jobs
abroad, the decision to join family, feeling homesick and difficulty in integrating
abroad. The paper recommends that home country governments should develop
conducive policies appropriate for addressing the needs of the categories of
returnees based on their decisions for coming home and how their skills and
resources could be channelled into development.
Keywords Return migration, voluntary and involuntary return, Ghana,
motivation.
Introduction
International migration is a complex global issue that affects every country in
the world. As noted by Ghosh (2000: 4), “international migration is essentially
a multidimensional phenomenon [because] it defies a unisectoral approach.”
The magnitude of population movement on a global scale is increasing rapidly.
The number of migrants who live in a country other than the one in which they
were born has more than doubled from 191 million in 2005 (International
Organization for Migration (IOM), 2005; United Nations, 2006) to 232 million
in 2013 (OECD and UNDESA, 2013) and 244 million in 2015 (UNDESA, 2016).
The occurrence of mass migration, including both regular and irregular
movements, coupled with the growing complexity of migration systems, led
Lidgard (1992: 12) to argue that “current immigration theories do little to
*
Centre for Migration Studies University of Ghana. Email: mbsetrana@ug.edu.gh
mobkjowat@yahoo.com

996
explain the life span of these movements or predict future migrations.” Thus,
it is not surprising when other researchers, such as Ghosh (2000), suggest that
we need a new comprehensive, coherent and internationally harmonised
regime to manage international migration and, in this situation, return
migration.
In recent times, African governments have been positively strategising to
reverse the brain drain into a brain gain for the development of Africa (Tonah
& Setrana, 2017). Since 2001, various governments have introduced
programmes to encourage the return of skilled migrants who have the
capacity to contribute their quota to the development agenda of Ghana.
However, in Ghana, only a handful of researchers have dealt with certain
aspects of return migration. Some have assessed the effect of migration
experience on return and development in the countries of origin (Anarfi et al.,
2005; Black & King, 2004; Black, King & Tiemoko, 2003; Setrana & Tonah,
2016), while others have examined the extent to which return migration
contributes to the development of the home country. Still others have
considered the effects of return migration on the migrant networks (Anarfi et
al. 2010; Grant, 2009) and have highlighted the challenges associated with
return migration (Setrana & Tonah, 2014; Setrana, 2017; Taylor, 2009).
Among this limited number of studies, there are few studies (Wong 2013) that
explore the post-migration outcomes and return decisions for development.
This paper contributes to the knowledge on return migration by providing an
in-depth understanding of the return decision and analysing, comparatively,
the migration and return decisions for development. First, the paper reviews
the literature on why migrants return. This is followed by a presentation of the
research methods, the characteristics of the return migrants and an analysis
of the motives for return. This paper sums up with conclusions and
recommendations.
Theoretical Perspectives on Return Migration
The process of return migration is usually conceptualised under four main
theoretical perspectives, namely the Transnational Approach, the Structural
Approach, the Neoclassical Migration Models (NE) and the New Economics of
Labour Migration (NELM).
Transnationalism explains migration beyond the unidirectional movement of
migrants to emphasise the frequent interaction between the home and host
countries through the use of advanced technology (Glick Schiller et al., 1992).

997
Some scholars have argued that these constant contacts (known as
transnational activities) between host and home countries may serve as
preparatory strategies for the migrants’ eventual return (Cassarino, 2004).
However, this theory is inappropriate for this study because it endorses
circular rather than return migration. It views migrants as individuals who
may not return to their country of origin or to their parents’ birthplace and
therefore does not explain the potential factors driving their return.
Structural theories highlight the significance of contextual factors in the return
process. They argue that no matter the resources acquired by the migrant,
upon return, the political, economic and social factors have an impact on the
productiveness of these resources in the home country (Diatta & Mbow, 1999;
Thomas-Hope, 1999; Cassarino, 2004). These home country factors have an
impact on migrants’ decisions to return. Once again, this theory was not
extensively employed because it pays little attention to how migration
experience, particularly in the destination country, influences return
decisions.
Both the NE and NELM theories emphasise economic factors as the reasons for
migration. While the NE perceives wage differentials between origin and
destination countries as reasons for migration (Massey et al., 1998), the NELM
explains migrants’ departure from the home country as a strategic plan with
the aim of accumulating enough resources in the host country to then return
to the home country (Galor & Stark, 1990; Stark, 1991). According to the NE,
migrants may extend their stay in the host country because of higher wages
(Borjas, 1989). However, if the migrant returns without any indication of
higher wages in the home country, the return is seen as a failure. These two
theories are limited in their explanations of the reasons for return; they only
explain some economic factors, leaving out social factors such as family.
With respect to the limitations above, my study relies mainly on the ‘push-pull’
model of migration that was propounded by Lee (1966). According to Lee
(1966), migration from one place to the other is reliant on factors existing in
the home and host countries. The ‘pull’ factors are the favourable conditions
that attract the migrant to a place, while the ‘push’ factors are the unfavourable
conditions that drive migrants to a place. However, these factors were used by
Lee (1966) to explain the movements of migrants from their countries of
origin to their destinationcountries without linking this discussion to the issue
of return migration. King (2000), in his study of return migration, applied
these push and pull concepts, although he did not refer to Lee’s model. Yet,

998
these ideas are found relevant for this study in that they assist in explaining
the reasons why Ghanaians return (either temporarily or permanently) to
their home country after a period abroad. The study mainly relies on King’s
(2000) explanation of pull and push factors for return.
King (2000) identified individual, economic, political and social factors as both
pull and push factors. The economic pull factors are higher wages and
economic development, while the economic push factor is economic downturn
in the country to which migrants had emigrated (King, 2000). The social push
factors include difficulty integrating in the host country, loss of job
opportunities and death of a spouse or parents in the host country (King,
2000). On the other hand, the social pull factors may include the privilege to
enjoy prestige status once a migrant’s status has improved, the desire to find
a marriage partner, the decision to return to the home country after
retirement, the need to raise children in the home country’s culture, the need
to care for the elderly and the need to be cared for by kinsfolk after retirement
(King, 2000; Gmelch, 1980).
The push-pull model suggests that there are also intervening obstacles that
slow down movement between the two areas (de Haas, 2010). Intervening
obstacles may include issues such as instituted restrictive policies that prevent
or result in a more cumbersome situation for families to reunite, change jobs,
receive social protection and enjoy certain citizenship benefits (de Haas,
2010). Based on this analytical framework, the researcher examines the
intersection between factors that push migrants from developed countries to
Ghana and factors that pull migrants to return to Ghana. Despite the use of the
push-pull model as the main theoretical framework, the researcher also relies
on aspects of the other theories to explain some of the findings.
Research Methods and Data
The study employed a mixed methods approach that provided an opportunity
for the researcher to combine quantitative and qualitative methods. Such a
triangulation of methods was deemed appropriate in view of the strengths and
weaknesses of the individual methods (Bryman, 2012; Cresswell, 2009). It also
allowed for a better understanding of the problem than using either
quantitative or qualitative methods alone (Creswell & Clark, 2007).
Like most African countries, Ghana has no universal registration of returnees
on which to base a random sample. However, Anarfi et al. (2003) found that,
overall, returnees largely mirrored national demographics; thus, an effort was

999
made in this study to find a balanced sample with regards to age and sex. A
representative ethnic mix was a more difficult task because of the diverse
groups as well as the absence of records on the ethnicity of emigrants or
returnees. The study also improved on the quality of data by purposively
selecting four sites, namely Accra and Kumasi Metropolitan Areas and
Dormaa/Berekum and New Juaben Municipal Areas. The international
migration literature (Anarfi et al., 2000; Taylor, 2009) cites these locations as
the established migration flow regions in Ghana. Accra and Kumasi
Metropolitan Areas are more developed than Dormaa/Berekum and New
Juaben Municipal Areas. These differences attract more international return
migrants to the former two study areas than the latter two. However, the New
Juaben Municipal Area is strategically positioned because it is closer to the
capital city of Ghana (Accra), and international return migrants make choices
to live close-by. Dormaa and Berekum were combined because the researcher
experienced difficulty in finding international return migrants in Berekum.
The decision on the field was to work in Berekum and Dormaa since these
areas were not far from each other. Based on the outlined differences, the
researcher assigned a quota of 28% and 22%, respectively, to the four study
sites (Accra and Kumasi Metropolitan Areas, Dormaa/Berekum and New
Juaben Municipal Areas).
The researcher used the snowball technique in identifying respondents,
though this technique has some advantages and setbacks. In order to have as
many diverse responses as possible, key informants with in-depth knowledge
on the survey areas were recruited to assist the researcher in identifying
returnees. In the first round of the survey, 14 returnees were selected.
Through chain referrals by the 14 respondents in the first wave and personal
contacts, the researcher obtained a second wave of respondents who, in turn,
assisted in identifying further respondents for the study.
Out of the total number of respondents, 34 (28%) lived in Accra and Kumasi
Metropolitan Areas and 26 (22%) lived in Dormaa/Berekum and New Juaben
Municipal Areas. In all, the researcher interviewed 120 return migrants. The
survey asked questions relating to the migrants' socio-economic
circumstances before and after return. The survey instrument was pre-tested
by ten international return migrants in the Greater Accra Region in order to
help establish consistency and clarity of questions in the questionnaire. It was
self-administered and the advantage was that all of the questions that were
relevant to respondents were answered. At the end of the structured

1000
questionnaires, respondents were asked to give their consent by providing
their contact details for further in-depth-interviews. Twenty-five of these
respondents were selected based on their sex, age and mode of return. The
qualitative information was a follow-up on the structured questionnaires and
focused primarily on prior and post-return experiences.
Results and Discussion
Profile of Study Sample
Most of the respondents were within working age; the average age was 42.40
years, with males dominating (63%). The educational level of return migrants
was generally high, with 61% having either a university or diploma certificate.
Out of the total 120 respondents, 54% either furthered their education or
earned some kind of qualification or skills abroad. Respondents were found in
all sectors of the Ghanaian labour market, with the majority (23%) of the
skilled returnees working in the educational sector as lecturers, researchers
and high school teachers. Other skilled returnees were involved in banking,
administration, sales/marketing and health. This relates to the high
unemployment situation in the country and the fact that recruitment of skilled
personnel appears limited to the teaching and telecommunication sectors as
well as some non-governmental organisations (Anarfi & Jagare, 2005). Most of
the low or unskilled returnees were engaged in trading/businesses (29%),
including mechanics, drivers, traders, masons, hairdressers and tailors. 8%
are farmers, while 5% have no income earning activity; it must be stressed that
included in the latter category were a student and a housewife (refer to Table
1). More than half (69%) of the respondents were married, while the rest were
single (22%), separated or divorced (8%) and widowed (1%). About 87.5%
returned voluntarily, while 10.8% were involuntary return migrants.

1001
Table 1: Socio-economic and demographic characteristics of return migrants
surveyed. Source: Survey Questionnaire, August, 2011- January, 2012
Characteristics Frequencies Percentages
Gender
Male 75 62.5
Female 45 37.5
Total 120 100
Age (Years)
15-24 2 1.6
25-34 29 24.1
35-44 44 36.6
45-54 30 25.0
55-64 11 9.1
65+ 4 3.3
Total 120 99.7≈100
Education Level
Tertiary 75 62.5
Secondary 40 33.3
Primary 3 2.5
No Formal Education 2 1.6
Total 120 99.9 ≈100
Employment Status
Education 28 23.3
Banking 5 4.2
Health 6 5.0
Administration 9 7.5
Managerial 6 5.0

1002
Communication/ICT 6 5.0
Trading/Business 35 29.1
Farming 10 8.3
Security 2 1.6
Consultancies 7 5.8
No Income Earning Activity 6 5.0
Total 120 99.8≈100
Sample Size: 120
Migration History of the Return Migrants
The return migrants had stayed in different countries in Europe and North
America, with the majority coming from the United Kingdom (41%). This
could be due to the common language and similar educational systems of
Ghana and Britain (Ghana’s former colonial master). The average time spent
abroad was approximately 9 years, with a minimum of 1 year and a maximum
of 44 years.
Table 2: Migration trajectories of the return migrants surveyed. Source:
Survey Questionnaire, August, 2011- January, 2012
Migration Trajectories Frequencies Percentages
Country of Destination
UK 49 41
Italy 23 19
USA 14 12
Germany 8 7
The Netherlands 7 6
Israel 4 3
Others 15 12
Total 120 100
Number of Years
Abroad
1-5 years 51 43
6-10 years 36 30

1003
11-15 years 17 14
16+ years 16 13
Total 120 100
Mode of Return
Voluntary 107 89
Involuntary 13 11
Total 120 100
Number of Years Since
Return
1-5 years 70 58
6-10 years 24 20
11-15 years 15 13
16+ years 11 9
Total 120 100
Sample Size: 120
The most important reasons that motivated respondents to migrate out of
Ghana were to find a better life (16, representing 13.3%), employment
opportunities (14, representing 11.6%), studies (40, representing 33.3%),
family reunion (18, representing 15%), better income (19, representing
15.8%) and peer pressure (14, representing 11.6%). The historical analysis of
Ghanaian international migration shows that migration has been a means by
which Ghanaians improve their human capital and better their living
conditions (Anarfi et al., 2003; Awumbila et al., 2008). This finding is also
evident among the respondents of this study, since many of them had aims to
secure better living conditions, better income or pursue further education
abroad.
Regional analysis of the data shows that the reasons for migrating from origin
communities were diverse. Migrating for further studies was predominant
among respondents who migrated from Accra, Kumasi and New Juabeng. This
was followed by better incomes and family reunion, especially among
respondents from Domaa/Berekum, Kumasi and New Juabeng.

1004
Table 3: Reasons for migrating from origin areas. Source: Survey
Questionnaire, August, 2011- January, 2012
Place of
origin
Better
Life
Emplo
yment
Studies Family
Reunio
n
Better
Income
Peer
Pressu
re
Total
Accra 3 3 18 2 4 4 34
Kumasi 4 5 10 6 6 3 34
New
Juabeng
4 3 10 5 3 1 26
Dormaa
/Bereku
m
5 3 2 5 6 6 26
Total 16(13.
3%)
14(11.
6%)
40(33.
3%)
18(15
%)
19(15.
8%)
14(11.
6%)
120
Sample Size: 120
Motivation for Return
Respondents were asked to choose their most important motivations to
return.
Table 4: Most important reasons for returning home. Source: Survey
Questionnaire, August, 2011- January, 2012
Motivation for Return Frequencies Percentages
Completed education 33 31
Availability of investment opportunities in
Ghana
18 17
Lack of job abroad 17 16
Decision to join the family/retirement 17 16
Feeling homesick 14 13
Difficulty integrating abroad 8 7

1005
Deported/lack of legal documentation 13 11
Overall Total 120 100
Sample Size: 120
The most important reason for participants’ return was completion of
education in the host country. This was followed by the availability of
investment opportunities in Ghana, the loss of employment abroad, the
decision to join family in Ghana, homesickness and difficulty integrating
abroad. The returned migrants expressed their emotions through statements
such as “remember your home whenever you travel out of your home” and
“home is home” (Fieldwork, August, 2011-January, 2012). Indeed, this finding
confirms Manuh’s (2001) description of “home is home” as a place of
“quietness and rest.” Some female return migrants found it necessary to come
home with their husbands and children in order to save their marriages.
Though she had completed her Master’s degree programme, Nancy, the wife
of Edmond, returned for the following reasons:
I came because my husband wanted me to come home with him. I thought
about it. As a married woman I couldn’t just abandon my children and husband
like that. Who would take care of them? Had it not been that, I would have
stayed in Germany. After all, the system is far, far better than Ghana’s; our
system is bad. I wonder! Anytime I visited, the differences were so obvious.
Ghanaians don’t follow or obey any laws (Nancy, interview in Accra, 9th
November 2011).
Although Wong (2013) noted that females had power to make decisions that
were not in favour of their male partners, this study presents a contrary
situation. In Nancy’s case, she preferred to live the rest of her life abroad; yet,
she had to make a decision to come to Ghana to take care of her children and
husband. In addition, families such as Nancy’s who had children found it tiring
and expensive raising the children abroad. However, families who left their
children behind returned to Ghana to provide the best of care for their wards.
The desire to spend more time with the nuclear family was noted as a crucial
expectation of the return migrants. Spending more time with the family is
central to ensuring a happy marriage and a unified family life. Such
expectations of return are particularly ignited by the isolation that
characterises migrants in the western world. It was observed that the western

1006
environment, with its secluding and secular lifestyle, was viewed by return
migrants raising children as not conducive to the children’s upbringing
(Fieldwork, August, 2011-January, 2012). The respondents argued that
though the host countries offered better facilities for their children’s academic
development than Ghana, the moral development of their children could not
be guaranteed in such environments. The concern for the moral development
of children is seen as a form of social investment. Alternatively, other return
migrants with children were of the view that training children in Ghana was
much more preferable than their country of destination because they wanted
their children to imbibe Ghanaian values.
The retiree returnees said that they returned home because they were more
likely to receive better care from their extended families in Ghana than abroad.
They found solace and incentive in the reception and comfort that the elderly
receive within the Ghanaian traditional system. Some respondents had quality
care from extended families because of their age. This is to be expected if
contact with kinsmen was frequent and contribution towards festivities was
regular whilst abroad. Particularly in the matrilineal lineage, the caretaking of
aged uncles and aunts by nieces and nephews is expected from diligent family
members. In this situation, the intervening variable to receiving quality care
upon return was linked to the returnees’ contact with home while abroad (Lee,
1966). One of the respondents echoed these sentiments during the interviews,
noting:
If for nothing at all, in Ghana, when I am here, my grandchildren and
nephews are around [...] I can send them on errands anytime, ask them to
fetch me water and cook for me, at least. Who will do this for me in Italy?
I can only get help when I am admitted to the elderly home (‘Teacher
Burger’, interview in Kumasi, 23rd January 2013).
Others also decided to return to Ghana to inherit leadership positions in their
families and communities. For example, in Dormaa, there is a suburb called
‘Burger Anane’ Street. The return migrants in this community revealed that
the area was named after a wealthy return migrant called ‘Anane [the name of
an Akan male]’. The title Burger was given to him by the community because,
first, he had returned from abroad; second, he returned with “flashy goods”
(visible wealth) and third, he had bought and settled on a large portion of land.
Burger Anane was an accountant who left Ghana for Germany in 1990, with
the aim of finding better living conditions for himself and his wife and children.
Having earned enough money, he purchased this vast plot of land and the

1007
street named after him. In 2005, he returned to Ghana to start and manage his
own businesses.
On the other hand, some respondents indicated that they returned to Ghana
because they were divorced. In order to avoid the shame from the Ghanaian
Diaspora community, some decided to return to Ghana where they could begin
a new life. This finding is confirmed by Manuh (1998), who notes that
Ghanaians abroad adhere to some cultural practices and behaviours such as
the stigma of divorce.
The other factors that influenced migrants’ return are political in nature,
ranging from forced expulsion to incentives for voluntary return. All of the
respondents who ticked political causes were deportees (13, representing
11%).
Characteristics Associated with Motives for Return
This section highlights some socio-demographic and migration characteristics
related to migrants’ reasons for return to their home countries. The main
characteristics analysed include education, age, gender and number of years
spent abroad.
Table 5: Educational level and reasons for returning to Ghana. Source: Survey Questionnaire,
August, 2011- January, 2012
Education
Level
Compl.
Education
Invest in
business
Loss of
job
abroad
Decision
to join
family/
retirement
Feeling
Homesick
Difficulty
integrating
Deportation
Secondary 2 (6%) 13 (72%) 7 (41%) 6 (35%) 3 (38%) 6 (43%) 3 (23%)
Tertiary 31 (94%) 5 (28%) 10
(59%)
11 (65%) 5 (63%) 8 (57%) 10 (77%)
Total 33
(100%)
18
(100%)
17
(100%)
17
(100%)
8
(100%)
14 (100%) 13 (100%)
Sample Size: 120
A large majority of the respondents with tertiary education returned with the
motive of finding jobs in Ghana after completing their education abroad. Some
of the respondents with tertiary education returned due to loss of employment
abroad, while only a little below a third of respondents with tertiary education
returned to invest in Ghana. However, the story is slightly different for
respondents with investment opportunity motives. 72% of returnees with the
motive of investing in Ghana had relatively low academic qualifications
compared to their counterparts with other motives. On the other hand, more

1008
than half of the respondents who returned due to problems integrating abroad
had tertiary rather than secondary education (37%). Among those who came
to join their families, 65% had tertiary education, while more than half (57%)
of those who returned due to feelings of homesickness had tertiary education.
From the findings, it is evident that migrants’ motives for finding jobs in the
formal sector are influenced by their higher levels of education; but those who
had the intention to access the investment opportunities of the home country
may have realised that their lower levels of education were not competitive
enough to secure them ‘white collar’ jobs. In this regard, they sought resources
or means other than their educational backgrounds.
Table 6: Age and reasons for returning to Ghana. Source: Survey Questionnaire, August,
2011-January, 2012
Age Completed
Education
Invest in
business
Lack of
job
abroad
Decision to
join
family/
retirement
Feeling
Homesick
Difficulty
integrating
Total
< 42
years
6 (18%) 10
(57%)
7 (41%) 8 (47%) 5 (63%) 8 (57%) 10
(77%)
> 42
years
27 (82%) 8 (44%) 10
(59%)
9 (53%) 3 (37%) 6 (43%) 3 (23%)
Total 33
(100%)
18
(100%)
17
(100%)
17
(100%)
8
(100%)
14
(100%)
13
(100%)
Sample Size: 120
Table 6 presents the age categories of the returnees. The majority (82%) of the
return migrants who were above the average age of 42 years had the motive
of accessing job opportunities compared to their counterparts of the same age
with investment (44%) and loss of job (34%) motives. Thus, return migrants
are returning home at younger ages and are actively working. More than half
(63%) of the returnees who were 42 years and below were motivated due to
problems integrating abroad, while 57% of them returned due to
homesickness. The finding confirms Anarfi et al.’s (2005) conclusion that more
than half of Ghanaian return migrants are in the economically active age group
of 30-49 years.
The proportion of males (83%) is higher among returnees who came home for
investment opportunities (refer to Table 7). This is followed by 65% who
returned due to loss of jobs abroad, while slightly more than half (55%) had
the motive of accessing job opportunities in the home country (refer to Table
7). Indeed, the finding indicates that more male returnees than female

1009
returnees would make the decision to invest in the home country. For return
migrants who had the intention to join their families, more than half (59%) of
them were females and about 41% were males. The motive to join family at
home is the only motive with more female representation than male
representation. Additionally, 50% of the respondents that noted
homesickness as their motivation were female. Implied in these statistics is
the idea that return decisions such as problems integrating abroad, feelings of
homesickness and joining family were not determined by the gender of the
return migrant.
Sample Size: 120
A higher proportion (88%) of returnees who had lived abroad for nine or
fewer years returned for job opportunities in the home country; 77% returned
due to loss of jobs abroad, while 61% came home for investment opportunities
(refer to Table 7). For respondents who returned for job opportunities, the
time spent abroad was crucial in their decision-making, particularly with
regard to meeting their objectives for travelling. For instance, respondents
who pursued further education had to do so within a limited time frame before
deciding to come home for job opportunities. The majority (75%) of the
returnees who had spent nine or more years came to Ghana due to problems
of integration abroad, while the majority (71%) of those who had spent nine
or fewer years abroad returned due to homesickness. These categories of
returnees could not adjust to the cold weather, racism and other difficulties
integrating after spending some time abroad.
Table 8: Number of years spent abroad and reasons for returning to Ghana. Source: Survey
Questionnaire, August, 2011-January, 2012
Table 7: Gender and reasons for returning to Ghana. Source: Survey Questionnaire, August,
2011-January, 2012
Gender Completed
Education
Invest in
business
Lack of
job
abroad
Decision
to join
family/
retirement
Feeling
Homesick
Difficulty
integrating
Deportation
Male 19 (58%) 15
(83%)
12
(70%)
10 (59%) 1 (12%) 7 (50%) 9 (69%)
Female 14 (42%) 3 (17%) 5 (29%) 7 (41%) 7 (88%) 7 (50%) 4(31%)
Total 33
(100%)
18
(100%)
17
(100%)
17
(100%)
8
(100%)
14
(100%)
13 (100%)

1010
Number
of years
spent
abroad
Completed
Education
Invest in
business
Lack of
jobs
abroad
Decision
to join
family/
retirement
Difficulty
integrating
Feeling
Homesick
Deportation
< 9
years
29 (88%) 11
(61%)
13
(77%)
8 (47%) 2 (25%) 10 (71%) 8(62%)
> 9
years
4 (12%) 7 (39%) 4 (24%) 9 (53%) 6 (75%) 4 (29%) 5(38%)
Total 33
(100%)
18
(100%)
17
(100%)
17
(100%)
8 (100%) 14
(100%)
13(100%)
This last paragraph presents some characteristics on the 13 (representing
11%) deportees. 9 out of the 13 deportees (69%) were males; 10 of them
(77%) had tertiary education, while the remaining 3 (23%) had secondary
education. Again, 10 out of the 13 (77%) were 42 years and below. The
majority of these respondents were educated, economically active and could
establish themselves in the home country if proper reintegration strategies
were put in place.
Exploring the Possible Links between the ‘Reasons for Migration’ and the
‘Reasons for Return’
This segment outlines the most important reasons for departure from home
and compares these reasons with the essential motives for return. In exploring
the reasons for ‘departing from’ and ‘returning to’ Ghana, qualitatively, the
data shows that migrants who migrated to pursue further studies returned
because they had completed their education. These return migrants decided
on their return at a time when they knew they had what was required for them
to compete in the Ghanaian labour market. During the in-depth interviews,
some respondents said that their frequent contact with ‘home’ made them
discover that their classmates in Ghana had ‘made it big’ (secured lucrative
jobs) with similar or even lower qualifications and, therefore, felt the need to
return after the acquisition of similar qualifications (see Box 1).

1011
Box 1: The story of a returned couple
At age 35, the young married teacher from Asoso Secondary School, in the
Ashanti Region left Ghana to visit his wife, who was then a student in
Norway. Instead of coming back to Ghana from his visit, Quame seized the
opportunity to further his education in the same university as his wife.
After obtaining a Master’s degree in Globalisation in 2004, Quame
envisaged getting a better employment at home. Together with his wife,
they returned home to settle permanently in 2005. Quame wanted to find
a job in the labour market but did not apply for any jobs until his return.
However, his high hopes for a job that would let him use his Masters’
degree had to wait for some time as all his applications for employment
received no immediate responses. He secured his first job with an
Insurance Company Limited in 2007, two years after he returned to Ghana.
He obtained this job through his uncle, who was in possession of some
copies of his curriculum vitae. Although news of a new job is received with
joy, it did not meet all of Quame’s expectations. His employers appointed
him based on his Bachelor’s degree. In order to overcome the stigma
attached to the concept of ‘unemployment’, he accepted the offer and kept
on searching, making use of all the available networks he had made.
Meanwhile, he had applied to a Public University for the position of an
Assistant Registrar. Quame was invited for an interview in 2008 after
which he was employed by the university as an Assistant Registrar. He
stated; I will forever be grateful to my uncle and my friend who helped me to
secure jobs in Ghana (interview in Accra, 14th December 2011).

1012
For respondents who returned home due to investment opportunities in
Ghana, it was observed that their main motive for moving abroad was to obtain
“better living conditions.” This finding supports the NELM view that following
the original plans, return migrants would find it prudent to return home after
accumulating resources abroad that could help them continue to achieve their
“better lives” (Stark, 1991).
For respondents who returned home due to loss of job abroad, two main
motives influenced their trips overseas, namely the pursuit of better living
conditions and further studies. Some respondents expanded the description of
loss of job to include temporary occupation, collapse of personal business or
loss of job. Some of the respondents indicated that menial jobs were usually
not permanent, while return migrants from Europe, especially those from Italy
and the UK, said that they were laid off from their jobs. This finding supports
the pull analysis that recent global economic crises have led to the closure of
several industries in some parts of Europe. So, return is possible if migrants
experience such conditions in the destination country. This finding does not
support the proposition by the NE that return migrants would only return
when they experience the loss of a job abroad and fail to achieve their
intentions of having a better life or employment (Stark, 1991). It is more likely
that respondents weighed the costs and benefits of return and realised that
with their levels of education or accumulated capital, they could fare better in
Ghana than abroad.

1013
Box 2: The story of a female returnee
Grace, a single young student at the university, decided to acquire the ‘been
to’ label at age 27 in 2002. Grace’s first attempt to travel to Ireland was not
successful because a travelling agent swindled her. Her desire to travel did
not go away. Her uncle in the UK sent her an invitation for the second trial,
which earned her a six-month visa in her second year at the university.
While in school, Grace travelled to the UK five times during the vacation
periods and on each visit, she spent not more than six months. Even when
school had reopened, Grace, contracted some friends who registered on her
behalf so she could come back later in the semester. Surprisingly, Grace’s
motive for migrating in the subsequent years changed from ‘having a feel of
outside life’ to seeking greener pastures. In 2005, Grace completed her
Bachelor’s studies and applied for a two year visa to the UK, where she
stayed for one year.
Notwithstanding Grace’s satisfaction with her stay abroad, she returned
to Ghana after a year for two main reasons. The first was the threat of
losing her teaching job in Ghana and the second was to prevent the
constant demand from friends and relatives for items such as mobile
phones and clothes. Grace, however, admitted having made enough
money compared to the salary she received in Ghana, though she did not
want to disclose the amount. Making a monthly salary of £1500 in the UK,
Grace managed to save about £500 after paying a monthly rent of £300.
She did not use her savings to purchase a new car or build a house because
she thought she would get married and move to her husband’s house.
However, her savings were compromised by a friend she trusted as a
business partner. The business partner absconded with her money under
the pretext of getting some goods to be sold later for profit. In terms of
finances, Grace seemed to be comfortable, although she admitted that she
was not able to save, a practice she perfected whilst in the United
Kingdom. The then 27 year old adventurous lady is now 35 years old and
single. She hopes to crown her success at work with a ‘wedding bell’ very
soon. She does not wish to travel abroad any longer as she is satisfied with
her return to Ghana.

1014
Among the respondents who returned home to join their families (for reasons
such as retirement), the primary reason for migration out of Ghana was to
better their lives. For respondents who returned home due to
homesickness/retirement, their reasons for migrating included pursuing
further studies, employment, better living conditions and family reunion. For
respondents who came home because of the challenges associated with
integration abroad, their initial migration was motivated by education. Indeed,
the returnees had a well-defined plan prior to their migration that was
influenced more by a social than an economic motive. Alternatively, this also
reflects the strong attachment Ghanaians have to their extended and nuclear
families.
The experiences that occurred during migration processes led to changes in
the original migration intention. This finding confirms du Toit’s (1990)
statement that migration is a process instead of an act or static event. So, pre-
migration intentions may not always match with real migration outcomes
because many obstacles or opportunities may compel the migrants to adjust
their initial plan. For this reason, the migrant may decide to explore better
opportunities, move on to new goals or return to the point of departure with
the same plan. The dynamic nature of migration experiences moves the
argument beyond the ‘calculated strategy’ or ‘set targets’ based on economic
factors as proposed by the NELM.
For many of the deported returnees, two main motives influenced their trips
overseas. These were to further their studies abroad and the desire for better
living conditions. Only one respondent took the risk of reaching Italy via the
desert; all of the other respondents travelled with the correct documents,
namely three months tourist visas, student visas or working visas.
Respondents said that even after their documents had expired, they kept on
with their normal duties until they were arrested. In these instances, the goal
of the migration could not be achieved because of circumstances beyond the
migrants’ control.
Conclusions and Recommendations
Similar to previous studies (King, 2000), the decision to return by these groups
of Ghanaian returnees was based on both social and economic factors,
including available income, accumulated skills or capital, family circumstances
in the home country, old age, retirement and the need for care. These social
reasons could be explained by the structural approach to return migration,
which stipulates that the family and home structures are influential in the

1015
return decision-making. Migrants’ accumulated resources, be they skill or
capital, are invested in job creation and this has multiple effects on the national
economy. On the other hand, the social reasons, though prestigious, Setrana
and Tonah (2016) conclude that they may pose challenges to these returnees
as they attempt to satisfy their own expectations as well as the high
expectations from the community and family. In between the push and pull
factors, the study also identified intervening variables (such as migration
experience factors, age, immigration policies, travel documentation, education
and marriage), which changed the prior-migration decisions as well as the
return decisions. This study supports the argument that migration is not a one-
time event, but a process (du Toit, 1990) that is imbued with several
opportunities and obstacles (de Haas, 2010) that can challenge pre-migration
decisions and influence real migration outcomes.
Furthermore, the positive attractions such as job and investment
opportunities in Ghana were dominant among these respondents in the return
decision. This finding provides evidence that suggests that migrants are
mostly returning for better opportunities in the home country and not only
due to economic crisis or negative circumstances in the host countries, as
suggested in the literature. Indeed, the structural approach to return explains
that migrants who return home are attracted by the home country’s political
or economic conditions that enable them to utilise their acquired resources.
Thus, they invest their financial resources into businesses or set up
enterprises, which has a ripple effect on the economy of Ghana. Based on their
profiles, some of these returnees are also working in the formal sector and are
thereby using their knowledge acquired abroad for the improvement of some
sectors of the economy.
The study, therefore, recommends that Ghana develop reintegration
programmes for addressing the needs of the different categories of returnees
based on their decisions for return and how their skills and resources could be
channelled into development. The reintegration programmes should not only
operate in the capital city but in all the regional capitals and districts of Ghana
in order to serve return migrants who prefer to live outside of the capital
towns.

1016
References
Ammassari, S. 2004. From nation-building to entrepreneurship: The impact of
Élite Return Migrants in Côte d’Ivoire and Ghana. Population, Space and Place,
10(2):133–154.
Anarfi, J.K. Awusabo-Asare, K. and Nsowah-Nuamah, N. 2000. Push and Pull
Factors of International Migration: Country Report Ghana. Working Paper No.
10, Luxembourg: Eurostat.
Anarfi, J.K., Kwankye, S. Ababio, O.M. and Tiemoko, R. 2003. Migration from
and to Ghana: A Background Paper, Working Paper No. C4, Brighton:
Development Research Centre on Migration, Globalisation and Poverty,
University of Sussex.
Anarfi, J., Quartey, P. and Agyei, J. 2010. Key Determinants of Migration among
Health Professionals in Ghana. Sussex, UK: Development Research Centre on
Migration, Globalization and Poverty, University of Sussex.
Anarfi, J.K. and Jagare, S. 2005. Towards the sustainable return of West African
transnational migrants: What are the options? Paper presented at a
conference on New Frontiers of Social Policy, Arusha, December 12–15, 2005.
Anarfi, .J.K., Kwankye, S. and Ahiadeke, C. 2005. Migration, return and impact
in Ghana: A comparative study of skilled and unskilled transnational migrants.
In: Manuh, T. (ed). At Home in the World? International Migration and
Development in Contemporary Ghana and West Africa. Accra: Sub-Saharan
Publishers.
Awumbila, M., Takyiwaa, M., Quartey, P., Tagoe, A.C. and Bosiakoh, A.T. 2008.
Migration Country Paper: Ghana. Accra: Centre for Migration Research,
University of Ghana.
Black, R. and King, R. 2004. Editorial introduction: Migration, return and
development in West Africa, Population, Space and Place, 10(2): 75–83.
Black, K., King, R. and Tiemoko, R. 2003. Migration, Return and Small
Enterprise Development in West Africa: A Route Away from Poverty? Sussex:
Centre for Migration Research, University of Sussex.
Borjas, G.J. 1989. Economic theory and international migration, special silver
anniversary issue: Evidence from Uganda 671 international migration an
assessment for the 90s. International Migration Review, 23(3): 457–485.

1017
Bryman, A. 2012. Social Research Methods, 4th edition. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Cassarino, J.P. 2004. Theorising return migration: A visited conceptual
approach to return migrants. International Journal on Multicultural Societies,
6(2): 253–279.
Creswell, J.W. 2009. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed
Methods Approaches, Sage, London.
Creswell, J.W. and Plano Clark, V.L. 2007. Designing and Conducting Mixed
Methods Research. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Diatta, M.A. and Mbow, N. 1999. Releasing the development potential of return
migration: The case of Senegal. International Migration, 37(1): 243–266.
De Haas, H. 2010. Migration and development: A theoretical perspective.
International Migration Review, 44(1): 1–38.
Du Toit, B.M. 1990. People on the Move. Rural-urban migration with special
reference to the third world: Theoretical and empirical perspectives. Human
Organisation, 49(4): 305–319.
Galor, O. and Stark, O. 1990. Migrants’ savings, the probability of return
migration and migrants’ performance. International Economic Review, 31(2):
463–467.
Ghosh, B. (ed.). 2000. Return Migration: Journey of Hope or Despair? Geneva:
International Organisation for Migration and United Nations.
Glick-Schiller, N., Basch, L. and Blanc, C.S. 1992. Transnationalism: A New
Analytic Framework for Understanding Migration. In: Glick Schiller, N., Basch,
L. and Blanc, C.S. (eds). Toward a Transnational Perspective on Migration:
Race, Class, Ethnicity, and Nationalism Reconsidered. New York: New York
Academy of Sciences, pp.1–24.
Gmelch, G. 1980. Return migration. Annual Review of Anthropology, 9(1):
135–140.
Grant, R. 2009. Globalizing City: The Urban and Economic Transformation of
Accra, Ghana. Syracuse, New York: Syracuse University Press.

1018
International Organization for Migration (IOM). 2005. World Migration: Costs
and Benefits of International Migration. Geneva: International Organization
for Migration.
Jach, Regina 2005. Migration, Religion und Raum. Ghanaische Kirchen in Accra,
Kumasi und Hamburg in Prozessen von Kontinuitaet und Kulturwandel. Lit
Verlag, Muenster.
King, R. (ed.). 2000. Return Migration: Journey of Hope or Despair? Geneva:
International Organisation for Migration and United Nations.
Lidgard, J.M. 1992. Return Migration of New Zealanders: A Rising Tide? MA
Thesis (Unpublished), Hamilton, New Zealand: University of Waikato.
Lee, E. 1966. A theory of migration. Demography, 3(1): 47–57.
Manuh, T. 1998. Ghanaians, Ghanaian Canadians, and Asantes: Citizenship and
identity among migrants in Toronto. Africa Today, 45(3–4): 481–494.
Manuh, T. 2001. Diasporas, unities and the marketplace: Tracing changes in
Ghanaian fashion. Journal of African Studies, 16(1):13–19.
Massey, D.S., et al. 1998. Worlds in Motion: International Migration at the End
of the Millennium. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Nieswand, Boris. 2011. Theorising Transnational Migration: The Status
Paradox of Migration, Routeldge, United Kingdom.
Setrana, M.B. and Tonah, S. 2014. Return migrants and the challenge of
reintegration: The case of returnees to Kumasi, Ghana. A Journal of African
Migration, 7: 116–142.
Setrana, M.B. 2017. Back Home at Last: Factors affecting reintegration of
Ghanaian Return Migrants. Journal of Identity and Migration Studies,
11(1):27-195.
Setrana, M.B. and Tonah, S. 2016. Do transnational links matter? Labour
market participation of Ghanaian return migrants. Journal of Development
Studies, 52(4):549-560.
Stark, O. 1991. The Migration of Labour. MA Thesis (Published), Cambridge:
Basil Blackwell.
Taylor, L. 2009. Return Migrants in Ghana. London, UK: Institute for Public
Policy Research.

1019
Thomas-Hope, E. 1999. Return migration to Jamaica and its development
potential. International Migration, 37(1):183–207.
Tonah, S. and Setrana, M.B. 2017. Introduction: Migration and Development in
Africa: Trends, Challenges and Policy Implications. In Tonah, S., Setrana, M.B.
and Arthur, J. (eds). Migration and Development in Africa: Trends, Challenges,
and Policy Implications, Maryland, USA: Lexington Books.
UNDESA. 2013. Trends in International Migrant Stock: The 2013 Revision.
New York: Population Division, United Nations Department of Economic and
Social Affairs.
United Nations, 2006, International Migration and Development, United
Nations General Assembly, 60th Session, Agenda item 54(c) A/60/871. From:
<http://bit.ly/2CpeAIy> [Retrieved August 22, 2012].
United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA). 2016.
Trends in International Migration Stock: Migrants by Destination and Origin
2015.
OECD-UNDESA. 2013. World Migration in Figures. From:
<http://bit.ly/2CouUt6 >
Wong, M. 2013. Navigating return: The gendered geographies of skilled return
migration to Ghana. Global Networks, 14: 438–457. From:
<http://bit.ly/2o3pgIA>

Ahmr vol 3(3) final press (feb 19 2018)

Ahmr vol 3(3) final press (feb 19 2018)

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Was ist angesagt?

Was ist angesagt? (20)

Ähnlich wie Ahmr vol 3(3) final press (feb 19 2018)

Ähnlich wie Ahmr vol 3(3) final press (feb 19 2018) (20)

Mehr von Scalabrini Institute for Human Mobility in Africa

Mehr von Scalabrini Institute for Human Mobility in Africa (20)

Kürzlich hochgeladen

Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)

Ahmr vol 3(3) final press (feb 19 2018)