Difficulties in assessing return and circular migration: the case of Argentina Marcela Cerrutti y Alicia Maguid Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas, CONICET, Argentina

Presentation 1. Official statistics and registers for the study of return migration/repeated migration and circulation (Spain and Argentina). 2. Alternatives sources: binational studies, immigrant surveys. Pros and cons. 3. What can be done to study return (from Spain) and circular migration in Argentina?: our survey, purposes and difficulties.

What do we know about migration using official statistics? SPAIN Census data; Municipal Register and Residential Variation Statistics; National Immigrant Survey (ENI, ); Active Population Survey (EPA) Variations in immigrant stocks, inflows and outflows. Migrants social, labor and economic traits (integration). Useful information to assess selectivity processes. More restricted to study immigrants who leave Spain as well as temporal dimensions of migration. International migrant: define by nationality or country of birth.

Our study of return migration based on official statistics from Spain  We estimated inflows and outflows trends and annual return rates for four South American immigrant groups.  Return increased after the crisis for all groups. More likely to return: men, non-citizens, Bolivians. Problems we faced: a)Exact date when immigrants left Spain in Municipal Registries. When did they leave? a)Identify the new countries of residence for immigrants who left Spain. Where did they go?

Our study of return migration (cont.) using Census data from origin countries  We assessed the number of returnees (using the variable prior residence, 5 years before census)  We described some sociodemographic traits. We were able to compare returnees with: immigrants in Spain (return selectivity) non migrants in countries of origin (their potential contribution) This was possible only if 2010 census round was collected and if specific country of prior residence was included as a question.

2. Alternatives: What has been done to study return and circulation?

Migration Surveys (an appraisal of our previous experiences)  Binational studies, random households surveys collected in origin communities complemented with identical questionnaires to migrants from the same communities sampled in destination (Massey and Durand Ethnosurvey).  Immigrant surveys in destination countries Both approaches have pros and cons, depending on the nature of migratory flows, previous information, and characteristics of sending and receiving areas.

Paraguay-Argentina binational survey (1999 and 2003/4)  Able to study factors (at various level) that affect migration decisions, migrants selectivity, and impacts of migration on origin households.  Gathering complete migratory trajectories allow to study first migration, return, multiple trips (circularity).  Retrospective information on various domains (family, fertility, labor, assets, etc.) useful to understand migratory process within a life course perspective.

Features and Preconditions  Some members of migrant`s households have to remain in origin (complete migrant households are missing).  Ideal for small maneagable areas or with high geographical concentration of households with migratory experience (rural areas, small communities).  Complete labor and migration histories for heads and spouses only. For others more limited. Gender bias.

Why this approach is not appropriate to study return from Spain in Argentina? Immigrants originate and return to very large cities. Tiny portion of population, geographically dispersed in large metropolitan areas. Most Argentines migrated to Spain with their complete families, not leaving household members behind (Cerrutti and Maguid, 2009, 2011). We do not have external official data on where returnees are located.

Immigrant surveys in destination countries to assess circularity  Spain, ENI : study circular migration and its motives. Requirement of one year stay or intention to stay, has not been conducted again.  In 2012 a National Immigrant Survey was applied in Dominican Republic with a pioneer methodology to capture the Haitian population (hard to interview): Circular migration was assessed by the number of previous migrations to Dominican Republic. Limitation: underestimation of circular migrants (many can be in the origin country or someplace else at the time of survey).

3. What can be done to study return and circular migration in Argentina: A returnee survey

Purpose To generate information on return migration from Spain to Argentina on the following aspects:  Motives of return  Profiles of returnees  Migratory trajectories and temporality of migration  Processes of labor, social and cultural re- integration: facilitators and restrictions.  Impact/potential contributions in origin.

Constrains: probability sample 2010 Census did not ask on the specific country of previous residence. We can identify returnees but don’t know from where. Permanent Household Survey does but sample size too small. Not useful to design a sample frame, identify location or define quotas. No register of returnees (consulate has information only about a small portion and is not in an accessible data base) Repatriation programs: are biased (scientists or migrants in critical situations)

Overcoming the adversity: a purposive sample We will employ a non-probability purposive sample of 500 cases that will increase its validity and approximate a random selection, by eliminating as many sources of bias as possible. Snowball as a system to get potential interviewees (returnees from Spain since year 2000). Considerable number of snowball maximizing heterogeneity (SES, location, type of occupation, etc.). Contacts: Arg. Assoc. in Spain, Arg. Residents in Spain, DNM in Arg., social networks, among others. Quota sampling Not fixed, just as orientation. We do know the heterogeneity of migrants (not returnees)

Specific aspects  Last migration to Spain a)Time of arrival b)Original expectations c)Family situation and migration of family members d)Legal situation e)Labor integration, income f)Education attendance g)SES h)Linkages with origin i)Remittances j)Financial liabilities

Specific aspects (cont.)  The return experience a)Decision making process (who made the decision), was Argentina the first option? b)Motives c)Labor situation d)Income e)Support received from different sources for returning (including repatriation plans, return programs, loans, unemployment insurance, family support) f)Expectations regarding reintegration in origin country

In the origin country  Arriving and living in Argentina a)Family situation and the sequence of return b)Date of return c)Labor situation (both at arrival and at time of survey) d)Satisfaction with return decision e)Expectations and migratory plans f)Participation in associations or collective activities g)Keep linkages and contacts with Spain h)Household socioeconomic condition

Methodological decisions Comparable questions and compatible classification systems  To study selectivity in return: similar questions to ENI Compare returnees vs. migrants at the immigration peak.  To assess the potential contributions of returnees and modes of integration: similar questions to Permanent Household Survey and Census data from Argentina. Compare returnees vs. no migrants Argentinians.  Compatible variables for LBF, occupations, sectors of activity, education level, etc.

Other methodological decisions  Who should be interviewed and why? Arrived to Argentina since year 2000 onwards Live in Spain for at least three months and was not for tourist purposes. Age range years old If spouse of returnee is also a returnee and they were a couple in Spain she/he will answer part 2 of the questionnaire. If spouse is returnee but relationship started after return to Argentina, separate interviews will be conducted.

Thank You!