Documentos de Académico
Documentos de Profesional
Documentos de Cultura
http://dx.doi.org/10.1257/jel.54.1.98
The Economics of
Temporary Migrations†
Christian Dustmann and Joseph-Simon Görlach*
Many migrations are temporary—a fact that has often been ignored in the economic
literature on migration. Such omission may be serious in that expected migration
temporariness can impart a distinct dynamic element to immigrants’ economic
behavior, generating possible consequences for nonmigrants in both home and host
countries. In this paper, we provide a thorough examination of the various aspects
of temporary migrations that matter for the analysis of economic phenomena. We
demonstrate the extent of temporary migrations in population movements. We show
how temporariness can affect the various economic choices and how better data have
improved both the measurement of nonpermanent migrations and the analyses of
various aspects of migrant behavior. We propose a general theoretical framework for
modeling temporary migration decisions, based on which we outline the various motives
for temporariness while simultaneously reviewing related literature and available
data sources. We discuss the possible consequences of migration temporariness for
nonmigrants in both home and host countries. ( JEL F22, F24, J11, J61, K37, O15)
98
Dustmann and Görlach: The Economics of Temporary Migrations 99
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0 10 20 30 40
Years since immigration
Notes: If estimates refer to the fraction of migrants who entered within a time interval and have left by the end
of that interval (as in Bratsberg et al. 2007), the year of immigration is approximated by the interval midpoint,
a choice likely to somewhat overestimate emigration rates given that remigration propensities are generally
higher during the early postimmigration years. The exact numbers used are available upon request.
Sources: The figure is based on estimates taken from Ahmed and Robinson (1994); Alders and Nicolaas
(2003); Aydemir and Robinson (2008); Beaujot and Rappak (1989); Bijwaard (2004); Bijwaard, Schluter, and
Wahba (2014); Böhning (1984); Borjas and Bratsberg (1996); Bratsberg, Raaum, and Sorlie (2007); Dustmann
and Weiss (2007); Edin, LaLonde, and Åslund (2000); Klinthäll (1999); Lukomskyj and Richards (1986);
Michalowski (1991); Nicolaas and Sprangers (2004); OECD (2008); Rendall and Ball (2004); Shorland (2006);
and Warren and Peck (1980).
time since immigration for two groups of close to 50 percent of the original arrival
destination countries: Australia, Canada,
cohort has left the destination country in the
New Zealand, and the United States—all case of Europe and 20 percent in the case
typically viewed as traditional immigration of Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the
countries—and Europe. The graph reveals United States. Third, out-migration rates are
three interesting details. First, immigrant highest during the first decade and then level
out-migration rates are substantial and out. Overall, therefore, the figure empha-
larger from European destination countries sizes the nonpermanence of many migra-
than from the more traditional immigration tions. This fact, although stressed by some
countries. Second, ten years after arrival, authors long ago (e.g., Piore 1979; Massey
100 Journal of Economic Literature, Vol. LIV (March 2016)
1987; see also our more detailed overview in The temporariness of migration thus has
section 2), has been—and still is—ignored important implications for the modeling and
in parts by the empirical literature on immi- empirical assessment of immigrants’ eco-
grant economic behavior. nomic behavior, especially given that migra-
How important, then, is it to consider tion plans are endogenous to many core
migration temporariness when analyzing economic variables, as the following example
various aspects of immigrant economic shows. Figure 2, panel A uses data from the
behavior? We answer this question using the US New Immigrant Survey (NIS) to break
example of a Polish immigrant who arrived out the fraction of working-age immigrants
in the United Kingdom in May 2004, the reporting an intention to stay permanently by
month in which Poland joined the European years of schooling.2 Figure 2, panel B, based
Union and the United Kingdom allowed on data from the German Socio-economic
Polish workers free access to its labor mar- Panel (SOEP), shows the same pattern for
ket. At that time, the average wage in Poland immigrants to Germany. These profiles sug-
was 17 percent of the average nominal wage gest that immigrants’ plans to return differ
in the United Kingdom (40 percent in real along the distribution of premigration edu-
terms).1 We now consider the same migrant cation, albeit in a nonlinear (here inverse
in two scenarios: In the first, the migration is U-shaped) way. Thus, if ignoring temporar-
permanent and the migrant remains in the iness of migrations, differences in behavior
United Kingdom for the remainder of her that are due to different expected migration
life. In the second, the migration is tempo- durations may erroneously be associated
rary and she plans to return home after three with different premigration education.
years. The individual’s behavior under the If these intentions translate into actual
two scenarios (modeled in section 3) will be behavior, then one obvious consequence
distinctly different. Under the temporary is that out-migration may lead to selection,
scenario, the large wage differential between which would affect estimations of immi-
the two countries motivates the migrant to grants’ assimilation profiles. There is a lit-
work hard during the three years of planned erature that investigates the effects such
stay and enjoy leisure later in life, while selection has on the estimation of earnings
under the permanent scenario, the migrant profiles of immigrants (see e.g., Lubotsky
will spread consumption of leisure more 2007; Dustmann and Görlach 2015, pro-
equally over the life cycle. Similarly, under vide an assessment and survey of that lit-
the temporary scenario, she will typically erature). That literature, however, does
have a lower reservation wage and accept usually assume that selective out-migration
jobs that would not be acceptable if immi- is independent of economic behavior, and
gration were permanent. She will also be less disregards the effect return plans may have
willing to invest in human capital that is spe- on economic behavior of migrants. Rather
cific to the United Kingdom (e.g., language than treating economic outcomes as exoge-
proficiency) but may save more and/or remit nous with respect to remigration plans, we
more. Hence, as this simple example illus- focus in this paper on the implications that
trates, migration temporariness may imply different migration plans have for economic
important shifts in immigrant behavior and choices and outcomes, such as employment,
choices.
2 The New Immigrant Survey only samples new legal
immigrants to the United States, and is therefore not rep-
1 http://stats.oecd.org/ (accessed 12.01.2015). resentative for the entire immigrant population.
Dustmann and Görlach: The Economics of Temporary Migrations 101
0.4
0.6
Fraction
Fraction
0.35
0.55
0.3
0.25 0.5
0 5 10 15 20 5 10 15 20
Years of schooling Years of schooling
Figure 2
Notes: Fraction intending to stay permanently by level of schooling: (a) legal immigrants in the United States
aged 18–64 who arrived at age 16 or older; (b) immigrants in Germany aged 18–64 who arrived at age 16 or
older. Gray lines show the 95 percent confidence bounds of the fitted local polynomial regression line.
Sources: New Immigrant Survey (2003/2004); Socio-economic Panel, 2000–2012.
wages and savings. Since these choices are economic conditions in their home country
determined by anticipated r emigration plans environment, as well. The key element that
(rather than ex post realizations), we con- links economic circumstances in the home
sider immigrants as permanent or temporary country and economic choices of migrants
depending on their intended migration dura- in the host country is the intention of the
tions at any given point in time. migrant to remigrate at a later stage, and to
If the intended return itself affects choices spend part of his or her life cycle in the home
such as immigrants’ labor force participation country (or, in more complex settings, in a
and human-capital investment decisions, third country).3 Obviously, researchers have
then this introduces additional complexi- to make choices about which economic deci-
ties into the estimations of career profiles or sions to model and which sources of shocks
other types of behavior over and above those and heterogeneity to consider, depending on
instigated by selective out-migration. We the research question to be addressed. We
illustrate what we view as some of the core will discuss some of these below.
channels generating these complexities in It should be noted that a permanent migra-
figure 3. For nonmigrants or for permanent tion is not always just an extreme case of a
migrants, economic modeling usually consid- temporary migration. Consider, for instance,
ers only the relationship between economic
choices, individual heterogeneity, and eco- 3 In the case of undocumented migration or if a per-
nomic conditions in one location, as in the manent residence is not granted, a return may not be
dotted circle. However, when immigrants voluntary, but forced upon the immigrant. The risk of
expect to return to their home countries, being deported will be taken into account when economic
choices are made, leading to these choices being affected
then this will lead to migrants’ behavior over in a similar way to immigrants who chose their return
their life cycles being affected by (expected) optimally. See also section 3.4.7.
102 Journal of Economic Literature, Vol. LIV (March 2016)
Permanent migration
Labor supply
HC investment
Remittances
Individual
heterogeneity
Home country
conditions
the case where skills that have a high return uration, in other cases, a temporary migra-
d
in the country of origin can be accumulated tion is a conceptually different form of
faster abroad. Many student migrations fit migration.
that scenario. While if faced with the choice The first important question is why migra-
between staying in their home country and tion temporariness has received so little
a permanent settlement abroad, it may be attention despite potentially having major
that individuals choose the former, but they consequences for the analysis of immigrant
may still find it optimal to migrate tempo- behavior. We attribute this lack of attention
rarily to accumulate skills that are highly primarily to the poor quality of available
valued in their home country. Hence, while data. We therefore begin by discussing the
in some cases a permanent migration can advances enabled by better datasets and the
simply be considered as a corner solution of possibilities for linking administrative and
an individual’s choice of optimal m igration survey information across national borders.
Dustmann and Görlach: The Economics of Temporary Migrations 103
We also summarize the key papers that to measure out-migration. Hence, assessing
advance the availability of these higher qual- the degree to which immigrants may later
ity data. leave the country of destination is challeng-
We then consider the individual immi- ing. Nevertheless, recent advances have been
grant’s decision on the optimal length of a made in this area, partly by combining multi-
migration. To do so, we set out a simple flexi- ple data sources, but also by adding items on
ble model framework with which to examine emigration plans into survey questionnaires.
the various motives for why a migration may One useful illustration of the importance
be temporary, rather than permanent, and of measurement when trying to capture the
illustrate the possible impact of this decision degree of out-migration is the estimation of
on certain behaviors, such as savings. We also the fraction of immigrants who, during the
use this framework to review the extant lit- nineteenth century Age of Mass Migration,
erature. Having provided insights into why arrived in the United States and then left
temporary migration may be chosen, we again. That assessment has changed consid-
then extend this framework in various direc- erably with the availability of better data and
tions. First, we outline the different forms of the ability to process large data files using
temporary migrations—including repeat or advanced computer technology. For exam-
circular migrations, undocumented migra- ple, one early assessment by M ayo-Smith
tions, student migrations, and guest worker (1893), which relied on passenger data from
migrations—and how these forms could be the principal shipping lines, estimated that
modeled using extensions of our modeling about 16 percent of immigrants who arrived
framework. Second, we consider the possi- in the United States between 1881 and 1890
bility that temporary migration decisions are left again. Nearly 40 years later, Willcox
made not by an individual, but rather by a (1931), using official emigration records for
nonunitary household, and briefly summa- 1908–1914 and earlier immigration statistics,
rize some of the papers that take such an estimated that, assuming a constant ratio of
approach. Third, we touch on the various net to gross immigration for 1900–1910, the
research areas of migration economics and ratio of departures to arrivals of f oreign-born
how taking migration temporariness into individuals was about 39 percent. Kuznets
account changes the way analyses are con- and Rubin (1954) refined this estimation
ducted, thereby possibly influencing a range by performing similar but separate extrapo-
of econometric estimates. Finally, we briefly lations for males and females and obtained
discuss the consequences of temporary a ratio of 45 percent. A recent paper by
migration not only for the migrants and their Bandiera, Rasul, and Viarengo (2013), in
families, but also for residents in the receiv- contrast, by combining records on all immi-
ing and sending countries. grants arriving at Ellis Island between 1892
and 1924 with census data from 1900, 1910,
and 1920, estimates out-migration rates from
2. Migration Temporariness: Data and
the United States to have been around 60 per-
Measurement
cent for the 1900–1910 decade and around
The fact that migration temporariness has 75 percent for the 1910–1920 decade. Each
been so persistently ignored in the empirical of these out-migration estimations relies on
literature is largely related to the inability to more comprehensive and better data.
measure it. That is, although it is common Not only was out-migration an important
to register newly arrived immigrants, it is far part of US history in the nineteenth century,
less common—and often not even feasible— but more recent migrations are also likely
104 Journal of Economic Literature, Vol. LIV (March 2016)
to have been, to a large extent, temporary. Over the past two decades, much progress
For instance, Warren and Peck (1980), using has been made in migration assessment, with
1960 and 1970 US census data and INS data improvements occurring on several different
on immigrants admitted to permanent resi- fronts and resulting in different approaches
dency within that decade, estimate that more to measure temporariness of migrations. We
than one out of every six immigrants admitted display the different types of data products
during the 1960s emigrated by the end of the that exist and allow assessment of temporar-
decade. Jasso and Rosenzweig (1982), in con- iness in table 1, where we also provide some
trast, using combined administrative and sur- examples of data sets. We now discuss these
vey data to compute lower and upper bounds in detail.
on emigration rates by 1979 for immigrants First, data collection by survey now
who arrived in 1971 from various nations, esti- frequently permits assessment of migra-
mate that the overall emigration rate for the tion temporariness from particular source
entire cohort during those eight years could regions, and the results have been used to
have been as high as 50 percent. Nevertheless, evaluate such aspects as returnees’ pro-
they do find considerable variation by ori- pensity to be self-employed or to estimate
gin country. Moreover, Borjas and Bratsberg the returns to having migrated. Dustmann
(1996) estimate that of the two million legal and Kirchkamp (2002), for instance, evalu-
immigrants who arrived in the United States ate surveys of former Turkish immigrants
between 1970 and 1974, only 1.6 million to Germany who returned home and who
were counted in the 1980 census, implying an retrospectively report their migration his-
out-migration rate of 21.5 percent. Of the 2.6 tories in Germany. Similar survey data are
million immigrants who arrived between 1975 used by Mesnard (2004) for Tunisia; de
and 1980, about 2.1 million were counted by Coulon and Piracha (2005) and Piracha
the 1980 census, implying an out-migration and Vadean (2010) for Albania; Collier,
rate of 17.5 percent. For the 1980s, Ahmed Piracha, and Randazzo (2011) for Algeria,
and Robinson, using census data and life table Morocco, and Tunisia; and McCormick and
survival rates, estimate that of the 1980–1990 Wahba (2001, 2003) and Wahba and Zenou
immigrants to the United States, 8 percent left (2012) for Egypt. Another valuable source
again during the same decade, and of immi- of retrospective migration histories is the
grants included in the 1980 census who had Mexican Migration Project (MMP), which
arrived during the previous decade, 19 per- has been widely used in both the socio-
cent had emigrated again by 1990. In more logical (e.g., Massey, Durand, and Malone
recent estimates, Bhaskar, A renas-Germosen, 2002; Massey and Gentsch 2014) and eco-
and Dick (2013) calculate that about 14 per- nomic literature (e.g., Deléchat 2001;
cent of immigrants who arrived during the Rendon and Cuecuecha 2010; Angelucci
1990s and were recorded in the 2000 cen- 2012; and Reinhold and Thom 2013). Other
sus had left by 2010. It should be noted that Mexican datasets that contain information
these last two estimates refer to out-migra- on previous migration experience include
tion rates conditional on having stayed until the Mexican census used by Chiquiar and
the 1980 and 2000 census dates, respectively. Hanson (2005) and Lacuesta (2010) in their
Given that most out-migration occurs during analyses of emigrant selection, and the
the first few years after arrival (see figure 1), Mexican Family Life Survey used by Gitter,
these figures are likely to underestimate the Gitter, and Southgate (2008) in their study
overall emigration rate of the initial arrival of past migration experience’s effect on
cohorts. employment in Mexico after return.
Dustmann and Görlach: The Economics of Temporary Migrations 105
Table 1
Types of Datasets Available to Research on Temporary Migration
Source country survey Egyptian Labour Force Sample McCormick and Wahba (2001, 2003); Wahba
data Survey (LFSS) and Zenou (2012)
Mexican Migration Project (MMP) Deléchat (2001); Rendon and Cuecuecha
(2010); Angelucci (2012); Reinhold and
Thom (2013)
Destination country German Socio-economic Panel Dustmann (2003); Bellemare (2007); van
survey (GSOEP) Baalen and Müller (2008); Kırdar (2012)
Administrative destina- Dutch Central Register Foreigners Bijwaard et al. (2014), Bijwaard and Wahba
tion country data (Centraal Register Vreemdelingen, (2014)
CRV)
Finnish register data Sarvimäki (2011)
Norwegian register data Bratsberg et al. (2007)
Swedish register data Nekby (2006)
Second, the availability of comprehensive sets, which are used to advantage in Edin,
administrative datasets covering entire pop- LaLonde, and Åslund (2000) and Nekby
ulations, and that record arrival and depar- (2006) for Sweden; Bratsberg Raaum and
ture of immigrants, has allowed precise Sørlie (2007) for Norway; Sarvimäki (2011)
assessment of the temporariness of migra- for Finland; Bijwaard, Schluter, and Wahba
tions for some countries. There are two (2014) and Bijwaard and Wahba (2014)
prerequisites for such measurement: First, for the Netherlands; and C obb-Clark and
not only must such administrative or register Stillman (2013) for Australia. Some of the
data be made available, but they tend to be register datasets, especially, contain not only
useful only when matched with other data- the date of exit, but also information about
sets containing additional variables. Second, the destination country. For instance, Nekby
procedures must be in place that record the (2006) and Bratsberg, Raaum, and Sorlie
immigrants’ length of residence or departure (2007) use register data from Sweden and
date, which is not the case for every country. Norway, respectively, which include infor-
Scandinavian countries, the Netherlands and mation on year of emigration, destination,
Australia, in particular, have been at the fore- and the migration history to and from these
front of developing such administrative data countries backwards in time. Nekby then
106 Journal of Economic Literature, Vol. LIV (March 2016)
links this migration information to additional the working paper version of their paper
data from Statistics Sweden that provides (Abramitzky, Boustan, and Eriksson 2012a),
such information as labor-market outcomes. they take advantage of information from a
Third, data collection has also been supplement to the 1910 Norwegian census,
advanced by a number of recent initiatives which asked individuals who had migrated to
that combine m icrodatasets (such as admin- the United States and returned to Norway,
istrative or census information) across for their departure and return dates, as well
different countries, which allows precise as their occupations in America. This allows
measurement of migrations across national a direct comparison of the occupational
borders. Again, Scandinavian countries are distribution of Norwegian immigrants in
at the forefront of these efforts. Rooth and the United States to those who are known
Saarela (2007), for instance, link Finnish and to have returned to Norway. It confirms
Swedish population registers to investigate their hypothesis of negatively selective
emigrant and returnee selection, using birth out-migration.5
date, sex, municipality of residence, and year Fourth, some recent initiatives link sur-
of migration to match over 85 percent of vey datasets to administrative data sources, a
Finns who migrated to Sweden after 1970 technique used by Hu (2000) and Lubotsky
and who lived there in 1990. Such efforts (2007) to construct stock-based samples for
to merge administrative data across national the United States with which to estimate
borders extend also to historical data, immigrants’ earnings profiles. Similar large-
although such mergers are constrained by scale projects are under way elsewhere. In
the availability of particular variables without Germany, for instance, data from a new
which they are infeasible. All too often, for immigrant sample has been released in 2014,
example, the required information becomes which is based not only on a wide range of
available only after a substantial period has survey questions asked by the SOEP but
passed, such as the practice of not making includes a randomized subsample linked to
US census records publicly available until 72 administrative employment histories from
years after each decennial census. the Institute of Employment Research
An example for the possibilities such (Brücker et al. 2014).
merger allows for analysis of immi- Finally, one notable aspect of return
grants’ return pattern is a recent paper by migration, and one explored in much detail
Abramitzky, Boustan, and Eriksson (2014). below, is that at any point in time, individ-
They match 10 percent of foreign-born uals condition such decisions as how much
men residing in the United States in 1900 to to save or how much to invest in learning on
records from the 1910 and 1920 censuses4 their expected future duration in the host
and use the generated panel to evaluate country. Although these expectations may
selective out-migration of immigrants. Based deviate from realized migration durations
on a comparison of panel and cross-sectional because of uncertainties or access to new
estimates of earnings equations they con-
information over an individual’s migration
clude that immigrants at the lower end of history, they matter when modeling immi-
the earnings distribution were more likely grant behavior because migrants will base
to leave. To further substantiate this, in
5 See also the more detailed discussion on selection in
4 Naturally, out-migration sets an upper limit to the frac- initial and return migrations among Norwegian migrants
tion that can be matched. The match rate for US born men to the United States in Abramitzky, Boustan, and Eriksson
is at 19 percent considerably higher. (2012b).
Dustmann and Görlach: The Economics of Temporary Migrations 107
choices such as human-capital investment in using such data for structured analysis.
on current return migration plans, rather In the next section, therefore, we outline a
than the measured completed migration his- framework for modeling temporary migra-
tory. The SOEP is perhaps the best source of tions that is capable not only of encompass-
longitudinal data on intended length of stay, ing special cases from the literature, but of
while the short-panel NIS (Jasso et al. 2006) accommodating various extensions.
and the cross-sectional National Immigrant
Survey (Reher and Requena 2009) offer sim-
3. Modeling Temporary Migrations
ilar data on legal immigrants to the United
States and Spain, respectively.6 To better understand why migrants return
Temporary migrations may, however, take to their home countries even when wages
more complex forms than simple return are persistently higher in the destination
migration, which poses additional challenges country and how migration temporariness
to measurement. For example, individuals affects migrant behavior, we develop a sim-
may transit across different countries before ple dynamic model that formulates the
settling in a final country or may repeat migrant’s decision problem as a dynamic pro-
migrate, in the sense of only staying in the gram. This provides a simple unified frame-
host country for a limited period before work that not only describes many motives
returning home and then migrating back at a for return migration discussed in the litera-
later time. Many migrations in Europe are of ture, but encompasses most of the models
this type, as are migrations between Mexico used therein. The exposition draws on ongo-
and the United States.7 This “circular migra- ing work by Adda, Dustmann, and Görlach
tion” may create measurement problems (2015), where we formulate and estimate a
as for instance in surveys, time since immi- structural dynamic discrete choice model
gration is often not clearly linked to a first of return migration and economic behavior.
or more recent arrival. One possible way to There are few similar models developed else-
measure circular or transitory migrations where (e.g., Deléchat 2001; Colussi 2003;
is to combine administrative data sources Bellemare 2007; van Baalen and Müller
across countries, or to draw on retrospec- 2008; Thom 2010; Rendon and Cuecuecha
tive surveys such as the MMP. Constant and 2010; Kırdar 2012; Lessem 2013; Nakajima
Zimmermann (2011) use information from 2014a, 2014b; Girsberger 2015; and Görlach
the SOEP on household members who tem- 2016) that address aspects of temporary
porarily leave Germany to assess the preva- migration. Using this model, we first identify
lence of circular migration. and graphically simulate the possible trig-
As is apparent, progress has been made in gers of temporary migration and then, while
recent years on measuring migration tempo- referencing pertinent studies, develop the
rariness and collecting information that fol- implications of return plans for some eco-
lows migrants across different d estinations. nomic behaviors, including human-capital
Nevertheless, although such progress is investment, labor supply, and savings.
encouraging and will certainly positively We focus on aspects of international migra-
affect future research, challenges still remain tion, as do most of the studies to which we
relate our discussion. However, the literature
on internal movements is concerned with
6 Figure 2 is based on such expectations from the NIS
many similar issues. Much of this research
and the SOEP.
7 See Constant, Nottmeyer, and Zimmermann (2013) analyses rural–urban migration (see e.g., the
for a recent survey. classic papers by Sjaastad 1962, and Harris
108 Journal of Economic Literature, Vol. LIV (March 2016)
and Todaro 1970), and—as the early litera- Djajić and Milbourne (1988), for exam-
ture on international migration—treats such ple, explain return migration in terms of
movements as a permanent change of loca- location-specific preferences. Dustmann
tion. More recent papers introduce tempo- (1995, 1997b, 2003) shows that further
rariness, such as Morten (2013), who analyzes motives for a return migration are a high
temporary migration as an insurance mech- purchasing power of the host country’s cur-
anism in rural areas in India. These papers rency in the migrant’s home economy and
restrict attention to choices between two higher returns back in the home economy
locations, an origin and a destination, as does to human capital accumulated in the host
the model we formulate below. An extension country. Dustmann and Kirchkamp (2002)
to multiple locations is feasible, albeit com- also illustrate that a higher rate of return
putationally demanding. Kennan and Walker on self-employment activities in the home
(2011) estimate a model of internal mobility country may trigger return migration, while
in the United States that allows for sequen- Mesnard (2004) shows that return migra-
tial moves based on income expectations in tion may be one way to overcome credit
different locations. To the best of our knowl- constraints. Dustmann, Fadlon, and Weiss
edge, there are no estimated structural mod- (2011) further demonstrate that return
els of international migration that allow for a migration can be induced by migration to
choice among multiple foreign destinations, “learning centers,” countries in which human
which may be due to the computational chal- capital that has a high value in the home
lenge, but also because of the data availability country can be accumulated more quickly.
problems discussed previously, especially for We focus here on the individual’s
third-country destinations.8 postmigration maximization problem, but
extensions to the primary migration decision
3.1 A Theoretical Framework for Analyzing
are straightforward. We also discuss exten-
Migrant Choices
sions to a family context with more than one
As shown in the previous sections, tem- decisionmaker. In our basic framework, indi-
porary migrations are frequent—perhaps viduals decide on consumption and optimal
the rule rather than the exception. Hence, duration in the destination country, consid-
the literature over the last two decades ering changes in earnings potential in both
has offered numerous explanations for countries brought about by human-capital
migrant return even in the face of higher accumulation. This dynamic model of return
earnings in the host country. Hill (1987) and migration, although simple, not only encom-
passes most of the return motives discussed
8 Using survey data from Burkina Faso, Girsberger
above, but is flexible enough to accommodate
(2015) shows that migrants from rural areas sort into inter- a variety of extensions that capture different
nal and international migration along education levels, types of temporary migration, including cir-
with less educated individuals migrating to neighboring cular (repeat) migrations.
countries, rather than to urban centers. Bridging the lit-
eratures on internal and international migration, a number 3.2 Model Setup
of studies investigate the location choice of immigrants
within the destination country (see e.g., Bartel 1989, To illustrate the motives for a temporary
Kaushal and Kaestner 2010, and Kritz, Gurak, and Lee
2011 for the United States; and Reher and Silvestre 2009, migration in a simple model of migrant
and Silvestre and Reher 2014 for Spain). Spatial concen- optimization across consumption and
tration of c onationals is found to be a major determinant of location, we use V L( Ω a)
, with state space
internal location choices, which in turn has been shown to
be important for immigrants’ economic outcomes (Edin, Ω a = {a, A, S}
, to designate an individual’s
Fredriksson, and Åslund 2003; Damm 2009). value of being in country Lat age a, where
Dustmann and Görlach: The Economics of Temporary Migrations 109
Adenotes the stock of assets and S the which is why—for now—we abstract from
individual’s skills. Here, L ∈ {d, o}, where d randomness. Nevertheless, our setting can
and odenote destination and origin country, easily be generalized to a situation in which,
respectively. Skills are accumulated accord- for instance, π is subject to unforeseen
ing to S a = Sa−1 + θS L , where θS L ≥ 0is the shocks or πchanges over time if immigrants
increase in the skill stock in every period, get accustomed to a host country, as in ratio-
which may differ between countries. We nal addiction models (see e.g. Becker and
further assume that human capital summa- Murphy 1988).
rizes individual skills in terms of produc- While in the host country, a migrant
tive capacity, which may also differ across decides at the beginning of each period
countries according to parameter α1 L . Thus, whether to return to the country of origin
human capital Hin location Lis given by or to stay for at least one more period. The
H L = S α1
L
, which reflects the notion value function is thus given by
that individuals may be able to enhance
their human capital through migration. V(Ω a) = max{V d(Ω a) ,V o(Ω a)},
Accordingly, log real earnings in country L
for an individual with skills S are given by
with the value of being in the destination
(1) ln Y L(S) = y L(S) country expressed as
fer (e.g., because of different technologies) consumption decisions are made conditional
or because the rates of return to skills α 1L on the location choice at the beginning of the
differ (e.g., because of different industry period. The law of motion for Sis specified
structures and thus different skill demands). as above.
Per period utility in the destination Assuming for now that there are no mul-
country is given by u d(π, c), where c is con- tiple migration spells (i.e., being back in the
sumption and πis a (positive) preference country of origin is an absorbing state), the
parameter that affects the marginal utility value of having returned to the country of
of consumption and captures the preference origin is
for the host relative to the home country.
Utility in the country of origin is u o(1, c), V o(Ω a) = mcax o(c) + β V o(Ω a+1)
u
with the preference parameter normalized
to one;9 that is, an individual prefers con- s.t. x Aa +1 ≤ (1 + r)xAa + Y o(Sa ) − c a,
sumption at home whenever π < 1. The
mechanisms driving return decisions can
be illustrated using a nonstochastic model,
10 To abstract from the additional choice of the location
where assets are held, we assume real interest rates in the
9 We assume that countries of origin and destination to be equal. See section
∂ u ∂ u < 0 _
∂ u
∂ ∂ π > 0, _ > 0, _ > 0.
d L 2 L 2 d
u 3.4.3 for a discussion of differential investment opportuni-
___ ∂ c ∂ c 2 ∂ π ∂ c ties in the two locations.
110 Journal of Economic Literature, Vol. LIV (March 2016)
where assets are converted by the real terms reveals that the choice is between a
exchange rate x to adjust for the p urchasing current utility gain from returning now and a
power of the host-country currency in the future gain from staying for at least one more
country of origin. Y o( S) and Y d(S) denote period:
real income in the home and host coun-
try, respectively, each depending on accu- (2)
mulated skills S (see (1)), and adjusted by
u o(Y o(Sa ) + ( 1 +
) − u d(π,Y d(Sa ) + (
r)xAa − xAa o+1 )
1 + r)Aa − Aa d+1
each country’s price level.11 The analysis
current utility gain from returning this period
below assumes that upon immigration,
a = a 0, A = A0 , and S = S0 . At the end of [V(a + 1, A
= β , Sa + θ dS) − V o( a + 1, xA , Sa + θ oS ) ] .
d o
a +1 a +1
the individual’s time horizon, T, his or her future gain from staying one more period
host country. We detail each of these return Intuitively, the trade-off a migrant faces
motives separately in the next section. is that between a higher lifetime income
(and higher consumption) from staying lon-
3.3 Reasons for Return Migration and ger and the loss in foregone utility (inability
Behavioral Implications to consume at home) from spending addi-
tional time in the host country. In the sce-
3.3.1 Preference for Consumption in the nario graphed in figure 4, the migrant would
Country of Origin return to the country of origin at a = 14. The
purpose of migration in this case would be
Individuals may have an incentive to the accumulation of assets in the host coun-
return despite persistently higher earnings try in order to finance higher consumption
in the host country (y d(Sa ) > y o(Sa ), ∀ Sa ) after return to the country of origin where
if the marginal utility of consumption in the the marginal utility of consumption is higher.
country of origin is higher than that in the This motive for migration is the most com-
host country ( π < 1). Continuing to assume monly cited in the early economic literature
that currencies do not differ in their purchas- on return migration (see, e.g., Hill 1987;
ing power (x = 1)and no differences exist in Djajić and Milbourne 1988; Dustmann
human-capital accumulation (θS d = θS o ), then 1995).
individuals will migrate if initially V d(Ω a 0) The consumption and earnings profiles for
> V o(Ω a 0) . The migration will be permanent this scenario are illustrated in panel B of fig-
if earnings in the host, relative to the home, ure 4. While in the country of destination,
country are high and/or if the marginal util- consumption is lower than earnings and the
ities of consumption are not too different migrant accumulates savings; upon return,
across the two countries, so that the value earnings drop because of lower wages in
of being in the host country exceeds that of the country of origin, but consumption aug-
being in the country of origin throughout ments because of an increase in the marginal
a migrant’s lifetime. Apart from the corner utility of consumption. Thus, migrants save
solutions of no migration and permanent while abroad and then de-save back in the
migration, there may also be an internal country of origin.13
solution, where the values of being in the two The pattern of asset accumulation is illus-
locations intersect within an individual’s time trated by the dashed line in panel A of fig-
horizon. Such a case is depicted in panel A ure 5. In the figure, we also illustrate asset
of figure 4, in which the dashed line shows accumulation for a migrant with all the same
the instantaneous utility gain from returning characteristics but a higher consumption
at any given age (first term in (2)), while the utility in the host country, π(depicted by the
solid line is the future gain from staying in solid line in figure 5, panel A). There are two
the host country for at least one more period differences between this latter migrant and
(second term in (2)).12 that depicted by the dashed line: first, he or
she stays considerably longer; and second,
although the overall stock of assets accumu-
12 In the simulations, we assume that u o = c 1/2 lated during the migration is only slightly
and u d = πc 1/2 . The parameter values common for all
simulations are r = 0.05, β = 1/ (1 + r), T = 30, A0 = 0, lower, the smaller difference in m arginal
a 0 = 0, and S0 = 2. In the scenario of location depen-
dent preferences (depicted in figure 5 and panel A
of o figure 6), we set x = 1, θS d = θS o = 0, e α0 = 0.5,
d
13 This point also has been made by Galor and Stark
e = 0.25, α1 = α1 = 0.3, and π
α0 d o
= 0.75 (π = 0.8in the (1990), albeit in a model in which immigrants face an exog-
high preference asset profile). enous probability of return.
112 Journal of Economic Literature, Vol. LIV (March 2016)
Earnings
Consumption
5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30
Years since immigration Years since immigration
Panel A. Preference for the home country Panel B. Higher purchasing power of the
host country currency
Savings under low host country utility Savings under low purchasing power
Savings under high host country utility Savings under high purchasing power
5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30
Years since immigration Years since immigration
utilities from consumption in the countries the instantaneous cost of staying abroad
of origin and destination induces much increases because the migrant is prevented
higher consumption and lower saving rates from consuming a larger bundle of goods
in the host country, as shown by the flatter in the country of origin. At the same time,
asset accumulation profile. because life is finite and due to a decreasing
marginal utility of consumption, the future
3.3.2 High Purchasing Power of the
benefit also decreases. At the time of return,
Host-Country Currency
the migrant experiences an increase in his
A second motive for temporary migration or her accumulated savings in real terms, as
is that price levels in a migrant’s home coun- shown in panel B of figure 5, which depicts
try are lower because the destination coun- the asset paths for two different purchasing
try’s currency has a higher purchasing power power parities.14
there. In such a case, by migrating and sav- Similar to the above scenario, differences
ing while abroad, migrants may be able to in purchasing power are compatible with
increase their lifetime consumption through the target saving behavior of temporary
return migration even if earnings in the two migrants. One important difference from
countries are the same, in terms of purchas- the locational preferences scenario, how-
ing power in the respective countries. For ever, is that a high purchasing power of the
example, a Polish migrant to the United host-country currency alone can trigger a
Kingdom may be able to buy one restaurant migration, despite the same earnings in the
meal for each hour worked in the United two countries. Nevertheless, it will not on its
Kingdom and an identical restaurant meal in own induce permanent migration because
Poland for each hour worked in Poland, but the incentive to spend time abroad arises
when she spends the salary for one hour of solely from the purchasing power of that
work in the United Kingdom in Poland, she currency in the country of origin. Thus, in
can afford two restaurant meals. This sce- this scenario, without earnings differences
nario may characterize many migration sit- between the two countries, migrations will
uations, with price differentials, especially in always be temporary. This can be seen by
the nontraded goods sector. They may even noticing that the instantaneous utility gain
extend to traded goods, if migrants have a from returning at any age is positive, versus
high demand for goods produced in their the zero future gain from staying in the last
countries of origin that must be shipped to period of the individual’s time horizon.
their respective host countries and are thus
3.3.3 Temporarily Higher Earnings in
more expensive than if purchased and con-
the Destination Country
sumed in the country of origin.
To show how these differentials may gen- Although we have so far abstracted from
erate return migrations, we again assume human-capital accumulation, this model
no differences in human-capital accumu- offers two scenarios in which human-capital
lation ( θS d = θS o )and, as in the benchmark accumulation may make it worthwhile for an
case, no locational preferences (π = 1). individual to migrate temporarily. In the first,
We further assume that wages (in terms which again assumes individual indifference
of each country’s price level) are identical to consumption in either location (π = 1) and
(y o( S) = y d( S))
. Supposing, however, that
the currency in which host-country wages 14 Here, we set x = 1.5 (x = 1.1in the low p
urchasing
are paid has a higher purchasing power power asset profile), θ Sd = θS o = 0, e α0 = e α0 = 0.5,
d o
no differences in either currency’s purchasing debt later in life. Nevertheless, the point at
power (x = 1), human capital is accumulated which he or she starts repaying debt need
at the same positive pace in both countries not coincide with the time of return (as is
(θ dS = θ oS > 0). Assuming also that the rate the case in panel A of figure 6) because in
of return for skills is higher in the origin this scenario, both initial emigration and
country (α o1 > α d1 )but that the log rental rate return are entirely driven by wage differen-
for human capital is higher in the destination tials. Moreover, in contrast to the two pre-
country (α o0 < α d0 ), then migration may be vious cases, consumption will be perfectly
attractive because wages are initially higher smoothed because individuals are indiffer-
abroad. As skills accumulate, however, return ent to consumption in either location and
may become increasingly appealing because price levels do not differ across countries.
the new skill level raises the migrant’s human It is also worth noting that here we have
capital. This scenario may characterize a sit- abstracted from individual heterogeneity.
uation in which the advanced technology in However, if individuals differed in their
the host country shifts the entire log wage innitial skill endowments, then under this
distribution upwards, but the relative scar- scenario, those who migrated would be neg-
city of skills leads to higher skill returns in the atively selected from the overall population
home country, a situation implicitly assumed of the home country, and those who return
by Chiquiar and Hanson (2005) in their anal- migrated would be positively selected from
ysis of the selection of migrants from Mexico the migrant population. This pattern corre-
to the United States. sponds to the motivation for a return migra-
In this scenario, migration occurs if the tion in Dustmann (1995) and Borjas and
initial wage differential, driven by high rental Bratsberg (1996) in which migrants increase
rates in the host country α d0 , is positive. If their earnings potential in the country of
this initial wage differential is very large, the origin after having spent some time in the
differences in returns to skills modest, or United States. The other possible reason for
skill accumulation relatively slow, migration return proposed by Borjas and Bratsberg is
will be permanent. However, if differences limited access to earnings information in the
in skill prices are large, migrations may be country of destination. The model discussed
temporary because, at some point, the immi- here can be extended to include this case by
grant’s higher productivity potential in the assuming that prior to immigration, individu-
origin country will overcompensate for the als are unsure of either the earnings function
differences in rental rates. The earnings and parameters α d0 and α d1 or how successful they
consumption profiles in such an intermediate will be in skill accumulation in the country of
case with an interior solution are graphed in destination, θ dS.
panel A of figure 6.15 Although skill accumu-
3.3.4 Faster Accumulation of Skills in
lation is the same in both locations, earnings
the Destination Country
increase more strongly after return because
the returns to skill are higher in the coun- A second case in which human capital can
try of origin (α o1 > α d1 ) . As earnings increase be a motive for a temporary migration is
throughout the individual’s working life, the when skills can be accumulated more quickly
migrant will initially borrow and then repay in the destination country than in the origin
country (θ dS > θ oS ) , a condition examined by
15 The parameters in this case are set to x
Dustmann, Fadlon, and Weiss (2011) using
= 1,
θ S d = θS o = 0.1, e α0 = 0.5, e α0 = 0.25, α1 d = 0.3, α1 o = 0.9,
d o a dynamic Roy (1951) model with different
and π = 1. skill dimensions. This scenario is typified by
Dustmann and Görlach: The Economics of Temporary Migrations 115
Earnings Consumption
Consumption Earnings
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Years since immigration Years since immigration
student migrations in which the knowledge migration will not occur because the sole
acquired abroad is more valuable in the purpose of migration is accumulation of an
home country or migrations in which skills asset (in this case, human capital), which
can be more easily accumulated in the work- is of higher value for income generation in
place in the destination country; for example, the origin than in the host country. As in the
through the higher skill levels of coworkers. previous case, the instantaneous utility gain
To illustrate this case, we again assume from returning increases with time in the
that x = 1and π = 1and that although the host country because the migrant returns
rate of return to skills is higher in the ori- with a larger stock of skills that are valued
gin country (α o1 > α d1 ) , the log rental rate more highly in the country of origin. The
for human capital is equal in both countries earnings and consumption paths for this sce-
(α 0 = α 0 ) . As a result, earnings are always
o d
nario are depicted in panel B of figure 6.16 At
higher in the individual’s home country, and the time of return (here, at a = 5), earnings
migration will typically not occur. There is, exhibit a discontinuity because of the higher
however, an incentive for temporary migra- return to skills in the country of origin.
tion if skills can be accumulated more Again, since income increases over the indi-
quickly in the destination country. Although vidual’s lifetime, he or she initially borrows
seemingly similar to the previous situation and, given the parameter values chosen, will
in which wages are initially higher in the start repaying only after having returned.
destination country, there is one important
difference: just as when a disparity exists in 16 Here we let x = 1, θS d = 0.2, θS o = 0.1, α0 d = α0 o = 0.5,
currency purchasing power, a permanent α1 d = 0.3, α1 o = 0.9,and π = 1.
116 Journal of Economic Literature, Vol. LIV (March 2016)
A combination of these two scenarios can Vreyer, Gubert, and Robilliard (2010) find
help explain the observation in some empirical significantly higher earnings for workers from
literature of positive (negative) returns in the a number of West African cities who have
origin country to having spent time abroad. spent some time abroad.
Nevertheless, the evidence on such returns
3.3.5 Discussion
is mixed and suggests considerable hetero-
geneity in both the returns to skills and the Whereas the above analysis isolated each
rates at which skills are accumulated. Ramos return motive separately to illustrate the
(1992) and Enchautegui (1993), for example, different reasons for return migration and
find that Puerto Rican returnees from the US their effects on consumption behavior and
mainland, especially those who have stayed selection, in real migration situations, both
abroad for a long time, suffer penalties that emigration and remigration decisions are
individuals who never migrated do not. This likely to be driven by a combination of these
situation corresponds to one in which skills motives.17 Nevertheless, our analysis offers
are accumulated at a lower rate abroad or several interesting insights: First, differ-
skills that are productive in the country of ences in purchasing power can be a power-
origin depreciated while the individual was ful motive for return migrations and, given
abroad. Emigration and return in such a case differences in consumption preferences, can
may be driven by higher average wage levels induce particular savings patterns that are
on the US mainland. Lacuesta (2010), draw- commonly associated with temporary migra-
ing on Mexican census data, on the other tions. Second, alternative highly plausible
hand reports that Mexican returnees from scenarios exist when a return is driven by dif-
the United States do have higher earnings ferential rental rates to human capital or dif-
than nonmigrants, which is more similar to ferent skill accumulation possibilities that can
the parameterization chosen above. He also lead to situations of no savings accumulation
finds, however, that this difference is already in the host country. Third, two of the scenar-
observable for returnees who have remained ios outlined above create a situation in which
in the United States for less than a year and a migration will only take place in conjunc-
does not increase with length of migration. tion with a return; in both cases, a migration
This latter points to a positive selection of allows the individual to attain a higher level of
emigrants from the origin country, rather than lifetime consumption, in one case driven by
an accumulation of human capital. Contrary price differences; in the other, by faster skill
to Lacuesta (2010), who uses Mexican census accumulation in the host c ountry. Temporary
data, Reinhold and Thom (2013) do find a migrations, therefore, may be forms of
significantly positive effect of longer migra-
tion durations in the United States on work- 17 In the above baseline model, the four scenarios dis-
ers’ wages after their return to Mexico, which cussed so far amount to necessary conditions. As pointed
they ascribe to the more continuous mea- out in the discussion, however, depending on the actual
parameter values, migration may not occur in the first
surement of lifetime migration experience by place or may (in two of the scenarios) turn out to be per-
the Mexican Migration Project. Findings for manent. Sufficiency for migrations to occur and be tempo-
other countries, however, are mixed: whereas rary requires an interior solution to indifference condition
(2): that is, that initially V o( a 0, A0 , S0 ) < V d( a 0, A0 , S0 ) so
Co, Gang, and Yun (2000) identify a posi- that an individual finds it optimal to emigrate, while for
tive wage premium for female returnees to a certain age a ∈ {a 0 + 1,T}, the value of returning must
Hungary from OECD countries, Barrett and exceed the value of staying in the host country, V o( a, Aa , Sa )
> V d( a, Aa , Sa ) , where {Aa } Ta= and {Sa } Ta=
a 0+1 a 0+1
are the se-
O’Connell (2001) report a wage premium for quences of asset and human-capital stocks resulting from
male, but not female, Irish returnees, and De optimal consumption and location choices.
Dustmann and Görlach: The Economics of Temporary Migrations 117
skill dimensions (Dustmann, Fadlon, and labels “target earning,” a factor he considers
Weiss 2011), a m ultiskill framework that the main motive for temporary migrations.
has interesting implications for the way we This distinction between migration motives
should think about migrations, brain drain, is important because it implies different indi-
and brain gain. In particular, not only may vidual responses to changes in economic con-
different skills have different prices in the ditions. That is, dependent on the relative
origin and destination countries, they may magnitudes of income and substitution effects,
also accumulate differently, producing emi- a change such as an increase in host-country
gration and remigration patterns that select wages can have ambiguous effects on optimal
individuals into the migrant and return migration durations in the baseline model
migrant populations according to their (see Dustmann 2003). For borrowing con-
innate skill endowments. strained target savers, on the other hand,
for whom the purpose of migration is the
3.4.3 Borrowing Constraints
accumulation of sufficient assets to cover
Self-employment can be an attractive
investment cost Ia , an increase in host-coun-
option for many returnees and is a choice try wages will always reduce the time spent
likely to interact with decisions to migrate in abroad (Yang 2006; Djaji ć and Vinogradova
the first place (see Dustmann and Kirchkamp 2015). If the returns to accumulated assets
2002). For example, migration may have differ for employed workers versus entrepre-
been chosen in response to borrowing con- neurs, with higher returns for the latter (so
straints by individuals hoping to set up a that r s > r e), the budget constraint becomes
business in their country of origin (Mesnard xA a +1 ≤ ( 1 + s a r s + ( 1 − s a ) r e ) x A a +
2004; Yang 2006). Individuals who face bor- s aYs o ( Sa ) + (1 − s a)Ye o ( Sa ) − c a − Ia . Then,
rowing constraints that prevent them from contrary to the former case and the base-
accumulating the necessary assets to set up line model without entrepreneurs (where an
their own businesses may choose migration increase in Y o( S)always shortens migration
as a means to accumulate the required ini- duration), an increase in r s in the country of
tial capital. In this case, self-employment origin, interpretable as improved investment
swould be an additional choice in the opportunities, has an ambiguous effect on
model set out above, perhaps also as a fur- the optimal time spent abroad, given higher
ther argument of the utility function so that wages and more easily accumulated assets.
u o = u o( c a, s) . Adjusting the budget con- For instance, Lindstrom (1996) finds that
straint in the country of origin to reflect improvements in investment opportunities in
this extension yields xA a +1 ≤ (1 + r)xAa + the origin communities of Mexican migrants
s a Y so ( S a ) + ( 1 − s a ) Y eo ( S a ) − c a − I a , to the United States tend to increase migra-
with Aa ≥ R, where Ris the borrowing con- tion durations as asset accumulation becomes
straint and s aindicates whether the individ- more valuable. The importance of borrowing
ual chooses to be self-employed. Further, let constraints for migration is emphasized by
Ys o ( Sa ) and Ye o ( Sa ) be the earnings after return Görlach (2016), who shows that estimates of
one can obtain when being self-employed the effect of origin country earnings on migra-
or dependently employed, and let I a be the tion dynamics crucially depend on assump-
level of initial investment required to set up tions about a migrant’s access to credit.
the business, which is equal to zero once the
3.4.4 Household Migration Decisions
business is set up or if the individual chooses
not to become self-employed. Then such a In contrast to our basic model in which
scenario corresponds to what Piore (1979) decisions are made by one individual, some
Dustmann and Görlach: The Economics of Temporary Migrations 119
evidence—particularly for developing coun- empirical applications, does not change the
tries—suggests that migration decisions are model’s qualitative implications. In fact, the
frequently made on the household level framework can further be extended beyond
(Stark 1991; Lessem 2013). Such household the unitary household setting. Having more
decisions, sometimes taken with the aim than one decisionmaker choose his or her
of reuniting with family, may lead to dif- location in conjunction with, for instance,
ferent remigration patterns. For instance, a spouse’s migration decision requires solv-
Bijwaard (2010) shows significantly lower ing for an equilibrium outcome, which
out-migration hazards for immigrants to tends to be computationally demanding.20
the Netherlands who immigrated for family Approaches taken in the literature to deal
formation or family reunification reasons, with this challenge include assumptions
as compared to labor or student migrants. about w ithin-household transferable utility
Poutvaara, Junge, and Munk (2014) doc- (Gemici 2011) and categorizations of house-
ument far lower out-migration rates from hold members as primary and secondary
Denmark for couples than for either single movers, with the secondary movers condi-
men or women. Likewise, for the United tioning their choice(s) on decisions made by
States, Van Hook and Zhang (2011) plausi- the primary mover (Lessem 2013).
bly show out-migration rates to be lowest for
3.4.5 Repeat or Circular Migrations
married immigrants whose spouses reside in
the United States. Focusing on highly skilled It also is possible to extend our focus on
individuals from the Pacific region, Gibson temporary migrations in which return is
and McKenzie (2011) document that fam- an absorbing state to other, possibly more
ily related determinants of both emigration complex, forms of temporary migrations,
and return migration decisions may well be such as repeat (circular) migrations. In a
more important than income differentials. nonstochastic setting, repeat migration may
In line with that, Vadean and Piracha (2010) occur if the relative preference for being in
find the decision to migrate repeatedly to be the destination country, π, decreases with
strongly affected by marital status. the uninterrupted time spent in that country.
Our model can be extended to allow for For instance, long periods away from family
the possibility that migration and r emigration and home environment may create a cost for
decisions are taken in a household frame- the migrant that increases with separation,
work. For example, if a migrant must finance but returns to its initial value once the indi-
the family in the origin country, a simple vidual has spent some time at home, as in
extension would include a per period utility Nakajima (2014b). In such a case, it might be
while in the destination country, adjusted to preferable for migrants to split their optimal
include not only the migrant’s consumption total migration duration into several stays.
but also that of family members back home, The vector of state variables would then also
u d(π, c ad , c ao ), and possibly the location vec- include years since last immigration, and the
tor of other family members. Abstracting
from the choice of location in which finan-
20 See Mincer (1978) for a model describing the inter-
cial assets will be kept, the budget constraint
is then extended to A a+1 ≤ (1 + r)Aa + play between family migration and marital stability in
a static setting. Building on this, Djaji ć (2008) analyzes
Y d( Sa ) − c ad − xc ao
, possibly also including potentially conflicting interests of parents and children
income from other family members. This in their return decisions. An intuitive implication of these
models is that the probability of all family members staying
modest extension of the baseline model, or moving jointly increases with the option of intrahouse-
though likely worthwhile considering in many hold transfers.
120 Journal of Economic Literature, Vol. LIV (March 2016)
per period utility in the country of destination then use these structural models to predict
would be given by u d(π (ysm), c a). Return to the effect of changes in US border enforce-
the country of origin would then no longer ment on migration decisions.
be an absorbing state, so that regardless of
3.4.7 Legal Constraints, Undocumented
migrant location, his or her value would be
V L( Ω a) = max{V d( Ω a) ,V o( Ω a) },
Migration, and Border Controls
given by
L ∈ {d, o}. We recognize, however, that in If the risk of being prevented from
a stochastic environment, repeat migra- entering or staying in a destination country
tions may occur for other reasons, including increases, perhaps because of stricter visa
unforeseen events. Moreover, many repeat requirements or, in the case of illegal immi-
migrations, such as agricultural migrations, grants, stricter border controls, it may affect
are likely to be determined by the types the return decisions of immigrants currently
of jobs available to immigrants. Similar in the host country.21 For instance, in a
to return decisions, repeat migration will model of circular migration, a tightening of
depend on economic conditions and events visa requirements or border controls would
in the destination country, as well as in the either constitute a cost Cof immigration, so
migrant’s country of origin. that V o( Ω a) = max{V d( Ω a) − C,V o( Ω a) },
or, in the case of illegal migrations, might
3.4.6 Risk and Uncertainty
increase the probability pof being appre-
To assess risk and uncertainty, the model hended at the border and forced to stay in the
can be augmented with stochastic terms that country of origin, so that V o( Ω a) = pV o( Ω a) +
induce return and possibly repeat migra- (1 − p) max{V ( Ω a) , V ( Ω a) }. Importantly,
d o
tions. For instance, if unforeseen exchange- many legal migrations take place under tem-
rate fluctuations change the value of porary visa schemes. If these are binding and
accumulated savings back in the home coun- granted durations of residence are shorter
try, they may affect return decisions. Such a than they would be if chosen optimally, for-
situation is observed for Filipino migrants by ward looking individuals will anticipate the
Yang (2006), who uses exchange-rate shocks risk of not being granted a visa extension
during the 1997 Asian crisis to distinguish tar- and adjust their choices accordingly. For
get savers from migrants whose return deci- instance, immigrants expecting a relatively
sions seem driven by classical lifetime utility short stay in the host country (voluntarily
maximization. If such fluctuations reverse or not) will have higher savings and/or send
individual economic prospects, a returned more remittances to their home country.
migrant may choose to remigrate. Similarly, Enforcement directed at undocumented
if an undocumented migrant who optimally immigrants who are already in the host
would have chosen to stay longer is deported, country could be modeled as a stochastic
that individual may want to remigrate. In term denoting migrant deportation irrespec-
our model, return or repeat migrations may tive of the relative magnitudes of V d( Ω a) and
also be triggered by time-variant locational V ( Ω a) . If such enforcement and the risk of
o
preferences πor income Y L( S), fluctuations being deported imposes a permanent cost C ̃
that also determine the location choices of to utility while in the host country, then V d( Ω a)
Mexican migrants in the models estimated
by Colussi (2003), Thom (2010), and Lessem
21 Border enforcement may also affect the initial migra-
(2013). These authors formulate a migrant’s
tion decision, as suggested by Orrenius and Zavodny (2005)
decision problem as a dynamic program in a in a study of the selection of undocumented M exico–US
framework not too different from ours and migrants.
Dustmann and Görlach: The Economics of Temporary Migrations 121
= p̃ V o ( Ω a ) + ( 1 − p̃ ) m ax{ V d ( Ω a ) − cycle, immigrants would reoptimize their
C̃ ( ysm) ,V o(Ω a)}, where p̃ is the probability investment decisions. Adda, Dustmann,
of being deported and C ̃ varies with years and Görlach (2015) develop a model that
since immigration. This cost to utility may, includes endogenous skill accumulation,
for example, be higher for immigrants who which demonstrates that, for instance, pol-
have just arrived and may lack knowledge icies that induce uncertainty about immi-
about the destination country or who have grants’ chances of remaining permanently in
yet to establish a secure network. The model the destination country may lead to e x post
thus allows analysis of the effect that border suboptimal human-capital investment.
controls have on the probability of migrants Similarly, when labor supply is endoge-
returning to their countries of origin. nous, the anticipated time spent in either
Existing analyses of the effect of US border location will be important in choosing
enforcement on Mexico–US migration flows, between leisure and labor supply, see Galor
for instance, all find that an increase in US and Stark (1991). Hence, whereas in our
border enforcement not only discourages the basic model, the planned migration dura-
inflow of undocumented Mexican migrants, tion is important for consumption choices,
but also increases the average time migrants this duration will generally influence every
who have crossed the border remain in the additional choice allowed for in the model.
United States (Thom 2010; Angelucci 2012; As a result, when migrations are temporary
Lessem 2013). An equilibrium argument and migrants choose the optimal migration
regarding why a tightening of immigration duration, all other choices will be taken in
control may lead to a longer stay of earlier conjunction with their planned duration
immigrants is suggested by Greenwood and abroad, which obviously introduces consid-
Ward (2015), who investigate the introduc- erable complexity and heterogeneity into
tion of US immigration quotas in the 1920s. immigrants’ economic decisions.
With a reduction of new arrivals, labor-mar-
3.4.9 Guest Worker Migrations
ket prospects of earlier immigrants improve
and possibly raise the value of staying in the Many migrations are temporary by defini-
United States tion; for instance, when migration is firmly
linked to a particular work contract, such as
3.4.8 Human Capital and Labor Supply
the exchange of financial service providers
Another extension would replace the across national borders, teaching or domes-
assumption that human capital accumulates tic positions in the Middle East, or seasonal
rather deterministically and only dependent agricultural work in Europe or the United
on location decisions with a scenario in which States. In these cases, the optimization prob-
migrants choose when and how much human lem simplifies considerably because now the
capital to accumulate. Under that condition, length of the migration is predetermined
if there is uncertainty about future earnings and cannot be chosen by the migrant. As a
or locational preferences (e.g., because of result, although decisions in the host country
uncertain developments in the destination continue to be affected by work contract and
or home country), the immigrant’s antici- expected economic conditions in the home
pated length of stay in the destination coun- country after return (e.g., wages), the migrant
try would affect human-capital investment will no longer choose the optimal time of
decisions at any point over the migration return because this is now set exogenously.
cycle. Because such anticipated durations When the constraint becomes b inding, it may
of stay may change over the m igration result in different decisions than in the case
122 Journal of Economic Literature, Vol. LIV (March 2016)
of an optimal m
igrant-chosen duration. For To illustrate, we plot the changes in immi-
instance, in our first scenario, in which the grants’ return intentions over time in figure 7
migrant has a preference for consumption in for the United States and for Germany. For
the home country (section 3.3.1), the decreas- the United States, we use the two waves of
ing marginal utility from consumption implies the NIS to show the fraction of immigrants
that a shorter guest worker contract would who intend to stay permanently, conditional
reduce consumption and increase savings on having stayed until the second wave (fig-
during the stay in the host country. ure 7, panel A). The longer time span of the
SOEP allows the fraction to be plotted by
years since immigration (figure 7, panel B),
4. Optimal Migration Duration and
again for the subsample of immigrants who
Economic Behavior
are observed throughout the first twenty
years of their stay. Both parts of the figure
4.1 Measuring Migration Durations
show a tendency for these immigrant subsa-
Although, as previously stressed, measure- mples to revise their migration plans over the
ment is a major problem for temporary migra- migration cycle toward a permanent stay.22
tion research, even if data were available that
4.2 Return Migration and Economic
allowed assessment of migration length, it is
Behavior
questionable how useful such information
would be for assessing the relation between As already discussed, a temporary, as
immigrants’ economic behavior and migration opposed to a permanent, migration affects
duration. For example, using information on immigrant behavior in virtually every dimen-
completed durations to understand its impact sion. For instance, immigrants who intend to
on behavior would inherently assume that remain only temporarily in the host country,
expected durations always equal immigrants’ and who will spend the remainder of their
completed durations and that the optimal lives in the origin country, condition any
migration duration is the same at any point present-day choice on expectations about
over the migration cycle, which would indeed their future situation in the country of origin.
be the case in the deterministic baseline Thus, if wages back home are far lower than
model sketched above. Such is unlikely to be in the host country, for example, it may lead
the case, however, once we introduce stochas- to an intertemporal substitution of leisure
tic shocks to earnings and preferences into the whose extent may differ between migrants
model, as in that case individuals reoptimize dependent on individual expectations or
and the optimal remigration decision may length of intended migration. This variation
change over the life cycle. Thus, at different introduces heterogeneity into immigrant
stages in their migration history, immigrants economic behavior that depends on vari-
may condition on different expected migra- ables that may be difficult to measure and
tion durations, meaning that information on thus have consequences for such empirical
the length of a completed migration may give work as analyses of life cycle wage profiles or
little indication of planned migration duration estimations of labor supply elasticities.
just after arrival in the host country, when
immigrants make choices about investments
in, for example, language acquisition. What
22 This observation cannot, of course, be shown for
is needed, rather, is information on intended
entire immigrant cohorts, as those who revise their
migration duration, which is only available in intended length of stay downwards are more likely to select
a few surveys. out of the observed samples.
Dustmann and Görlach: The Economics of Temporary Migrations 123
Fraction planning to
0.6 0.6
stay permanently*
stay permanently*
0.5
0.4 2003/2004
0.4
0.2 0.3
0 0.2
* Conditional on being observed in both waves 0 5 10 15 20
Years since immigration
* Conditional on staying for at least 20 years
Notes: (a) legal immigrants in the United States aged 18–64 who arrived at age 16 or older. (b) immigrants in
Germany aged 18–64 who arrived at age 16 or older. Grey lines show the 95 percent confidence bounds of the
fitted local polynomial regression line.
Sources: New Immigrant Survey (2003/2004 and 2007–2009); Socio-economic Panel, 1984–2012.
potential. Return plans may also affect immi- (2010b) show that temporary migrants are
grants’ investments in their children and more likely to hold assets in their home
impact savings and consumption choices. countries. In terms of remittance as insur-
There are also consequences for the sending ance, migrants planning to return at some
country: immigrants who intend to return future time may contribute to the home
home may not bring their families with them, community in order to “pay their way” back
but instead make higher remittances, or they in. This remittance motive may also serve as
may return with knowledge or initiatives that an insurance mechanism for migrants who
aid development in their country of origin. currently do not plan to return. For instance,
In this section, we briefly examine such con- Batista and Umblijs (2014), in an analysis of
sequences and review related analyses. the relation between risk aversion and remit-
tances among immigrants in Ireland, find
5.1 Consequences of Temporary Migrations
that both more risk-averse individuals and
for the Sending Country
individuals with higher wage risks are more
likely to remit, possibly to ensure a welcome
5.1.1 Remittances
back home if their migration must be termi-
The arguably most important channel by nated. Such transfers may have important
which migration affects individuals who stay consequences for the home community.23
behind in the origin country is via remit- To illustrate the importance of taking into
tances, whose impacts are the subject of a account expected migration duration at the
large body of literature (see Rapoport and time decisions are made, we consider the
Docquier 2006, and Yang 2011, for sur- remittance behavior of immigrants to the
veys). The focus of such studies ranges from United States and to Germany, as sampled
effects on nonmigrant family members’ by the NIS and SOEP, respectively. Panel
labor supply (Rodriguez and Tiongson 2001; A of figure 8 depicts remittance profiles by
Amuedo-Dorantes and Pozo 2006) to sub- years of schooling separately for immigrants
jective well-being (Gibson and McKenzie who report an intention to stay in the United
2014), and the aggregate effects on the States only temporarily and those who plan
wider economy (Durand et al. 1996; Taylor to stay permanently. The figure clearly shows
and Wyatt 1996; Taylor 1999; di Giovanni, that highly educated immigrants who intend
Levchenko, and Ortega 2015). Dustmann to stay permanently remit less on average
and Mestres (2010a), defining remittances as than those planning to leave and presumably
“all transfers from the immigration country
to the immigrant’s home country,” distinguish
three primary motives for such transmis-
sions, each likely to be affected by migration 23 A number of papers attempt to disentangle differ-
temporariness: support for remaining family ent remittance motives, including Lucas and Stark (1985)
members, savings for future consumption or using data from Botswana, whose results do not support
altruism (defined as utility from consumption of family
investments held in the origin country, and members) as the sole cause of remittances. Similarly, Cox,
insurance against a future return. The first Eser, and Jimenez (1998) find that remittances received
motive is likely to be more common in tem- by Peruvian households increase with pre-transfer income,
contradicting the pure altruism hypothesis. Faini (1994),
porary migrations because in these cases, however, identifies a negative relation between remit-
immigrants are more likely to leave their tances sent by foreign-born workers in Germany and
families behind (see Funkhouser 1995, for a recipients’ incomes as predicted by an altruistic remittance
motive. Likewise, Agarwal and Horowitz (2002), who test
simple model of this remittance motive). As altruism against a r isk-sharing motive, find evidence for the
regards the second, Dustmann and Mestres altruistic explanation.
126 Journal of Economic Literature, Vol. LIV (March 2016)
Euros
2,000 2,000
1,000 1,500
Stay Return
0
1,000
0 5 10 15 20 5 10 15 20
Years of schooling Years of schooling
Notes: (a) legal immigrants in the United States aged 18–64 who arrived at age 16 or older. (b) immigrants in
Germany aged 18–64 who arrived at age 16 or older. Grey lines show the 95 percent confidence bounds of the
fitted local polynomial regression line.
Sources: New Immigrant Survey (2003/2004); Socio-economic Panel, 2000–2012.
obtained by immigrants abroad. Defining a remit more. These tendencies affect the
reduction in the per capita human capital contributions made to the receiving coun-
in the home country as a brain drain and an try in terms of taxes and productivity. On
increase as a brain gain, emigration will lead the other hand, temporary migrants tend to
to a brain drain or brain gain based on the spend their most productive years in the host
type of individuals who emigrate. In their country, while spending costly childhood and
two-dimensional skill model, however, a
retirement years in the country of origin.
brain drain resulting from high-skilled emi-
5.2.1 Fiscal Impact
gration may be mitigated and even reversed
by returning migrants if their skills are highly Although a multitude of studies assess the
valued in the origin country. net fiscal contribution of immigrants to their
Such “brain circulation” resulting from host country’s finances (see e.g., Smith and
return migration does indeed seem to be an Edmonston 1997; Auerbach and Oreopoulos
important aspect that should be considered 1999; Lee and Miller 2000; Storesletten
in any brain drain analysis. The extent to 2000, for the United States; and Dustmann
which it benefits sending countries, however, and Frattini 2014, for the United Kingdom),
depends on the tendency of highly skilled most do not distinguish temporary from per-
migrants from these countries to return, with manent immigrants, even though the fiscal
considerable heterogeneity across source position of each can be expected to differ.
countries. For instance, Rosenzweig (2008), On the one hand, as previously discussed,
using the US NIS pilot and Occupational temporary immigrants may have flatter earn-
Wages around the World (OWW) data- ings profiles than permanent immigrants,
base to investigate the determinants of for- meaning they pay lower income taxes. They
eign student return decisions in the United may also, however, consume less (and remit
States, shows that higher skill prices in ori- more) and thus pay less in indirect taxes. On
gin countries lead to higher return rates. the other hand, some or even most of the
His results also indicate that, conditional on high fiscal burden during old age may be
skill-prices, Asian students are among the borne by the country in which the migrants
most likely to return. Finally, return migrants settle after retirement.
may shape their home country’s institutions. Storesletten (2000) incorporates this latter
Spilimbergo (2009) presents support for a point into an overlapping generation model,
positive association between the number of which is calibrated to reflect the structure
student migrants at academic institutions of immigration to the United States. Using
in democratic countries and the quality of out-migration rates, postmigration take-up
institutions in their countries of origin, while rates of social benefits, and other param-
there is no such association for students in eters based on estimates from the litera-
nondemocratic host countries. ture, he finds that the net present value of
high-skilled immigrants’ fiscal contribution
5.2 Consequences of Temporary Migrations
would be lower in a scenario without out-mi-
for the Receiving Country
gration if these immigrants arrived at ages
Among the obvious consequences of close to retirement. For younger immigrants,
migration temporariness for receiving coun- the opposite is true. Nevertheless, because
tries is the tendency for temporary migrants he assumes that out-migration is random,
to invest less in their host country’s specific even across age groups, Storesletten ignores
human capital than permanent migrants, selection and abstracts from temporary
while still tending to save and sometimes immigrants having different career paths
128 Journal of Economic Literature, Vol. LIV (March 2016)
than permanent immigrants. Kırdar (2012), half a billion dollars per year contributed
in contrast, endogenizes out-migration in a by those who stayed more than two years
dynamic structural model more similar to (Access Economics, 2008).
that outlined in section 3, which he estimates
5.2.2 Other Consequences
using data from the SOEP. By quantifying
the effect of immigration on host countries’ The aforementioned studies treat taxa-
insurance systems, he shows that taking the tion and redistributive policies as exogenous.
endogeneity of return decisions into account However, such policies may be themselves
increases the net expected gain to the host endogenous, giving rise to interesting politi-
country’s finances because negatively selec- cal-economy issues. Abstracting from poten-
tive out-migration implies that the migrants tial wage effects, Freeman (1986) argues
most prone to be beneficiaries are likely to that in a laissez-faire state, temporary immi-
return first. gration programs should be uncontroversial
Findings on the fiscal impact of immi- across different interest groups (see also
gration are summarized in a recent OECD Freeman 2006), while in a welfare state,
(2013) report, which emphasizes the redistributive issues may lead to differences
important differences between native-born between governments and employers in how
populations and immigrants in general or restrictive policies, even regarding tempo-
temporary immigrants in particular.25 For rary migration, should be. Ortega (2010)
example, the report notes that, compared discusses a model in which native workers
to the w orking-age population, the average of a given skill group, when voting on immi-
annual social expenditure in OECD coun- gration and redistributive policies, trade off
tries is more than twice as high for children lower current wages due to immigration of
and almost six times as high for individuals substitute workers against future political
over sixty-five, which has important impli- support for their preferred redistributive
cations for assessing the fiscal position of policy if immigrants or their children can
temporary migrants. Nevertheless, among acquire the right to vote and policy prefer-
OECD members, Australia is the only coun- ences are homogeneous within skill groups.
try that provides official estimates of immi- He shows that in the presence of intergen-
grants’ fiscal contributions, drawing mostly erational upward mobility, long-run support
on the Longitudinal Survey of Immigrants for a welfare state can be maintained under
in Australia (LSIA) and a model that— ius solis, i.e., if the children of immigrants
although not a life-cycle model—reflects acquire citizenship and thus voting rights,
immigrants’ fiscal position by visa category but not under ius sanguinis (if second gen-
over a twenty-year period. Not surprisingly, eration immigrants stay in the host country,
the model predicts a strong positive contri- but without voting rights) or if migration is
bution for temporary business migrants. For temporary. Beyond the direct effects on a
instance, the 87,000 immigrants in this visa host country’s finances, the form of immigra-
category who arrived during 2 006–07 stayed tion may thus have implications for choices
an average of two years and contributed an of host-country populations, hence on policy
estimated one-billion-plus Australian dollars parameters themselves.
during their first year of stay, with almost Many other implications of temporary
versus permanent migrations for the receiv-
25 See also Kerr and Kerr (2011) for a recent survey
ing country follow directly from the behav-
of this literature, and Preston (2013) for some theoretical ioral differences between the two types. For
considerations on the fiscal impacts of immigration. instance, as Adda, Dustmann, and Görlach
Dustmann and Görlach: The Economics of Temporary Migrations 129
(2015) point out, temporary migrants may therefore, supply shocks on natives at other
invest less in social capital, which has poten- parts of the wage distribution than at their
tial consequences for their social assimilation initial position, giving rise to an interest-
and the segregation of immigrant communi- ing dynamic of wage effects. According to
ties. A host country’s optimal immigration our previous discussion, the pace by which
system thus also depends on its society’s immigrants move through the native wage
taste for cultural diversity (Jain, Majumdar, distribution may partly depend on the tem-
and Mukand 2016).One straightforward con- porariness of their duration. Out-migration
tribution to the extant literature on migra- will also lead to negative labor-supply shocks,
tion’s trade enhancing effect26 is Jansen and in the same way that immigration leads to
Piermartini’s (2009) gravity-style regres- positive labor-supply shocks. Again, how
sion of bilateral trade flows with the United that affects native wages will depend on who
States, which includes proxies for the num- emigrates and where emigrants are located
bers of both temporary and permanent immi- along the native wage distribution.
grants from the respective trading partners. A continuing supply of low cost temporary
These authors’ results indicate that tempo- foreign workers may also induce employers
rary migrants play a larger role than perma- to reduce capital accumulation and move
nent migrants in fostering both imports and toward labor-intensive production technolo-
exports with their origin countries, which gies. This may have negative effects on the
suggests that the probably lower integration marginal productivity of labor. Borjas (2009)
of temporary migrants in the United States adds another aspect, by highlighting the
may be compensated for by better knowl- importance of remittances on labor-market
edge of the home country market through outcomes in a general equilibrium setting.
stronger links these migrants maintain with He argues that a reduction in aggregate
their home societies. demand due to higher remittances of immi-
Temporary migrations are also likely to grants will affect native wages negatively.
affect wages and employment of natives in Although he does not distinguish between
destination countries differently from per- different forms of migration, it follows from
manent migrations. The large literature on our discussion above that remittances may
the labor-market effects of immigration is be higher when migrations are temporary.
largely static and focuses on immediate wage However, as yet, empirical evidence of these
and employment effects.27 However, in the secondary effects of temporariness of migra-
longer run, immigrants are likely to move up tions for receiving economies is scarce and
the distribution of native wages, and impose, leaves much room for future research.
and consider the dynamic implications for Model: 2008.” Update from the Department of
immigrant behavior. Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous
Affairs.
To this end, we propose a general dynamic Adda, Jérôme, Christian Dustmann, and Joseph-Simon
framework that allows analysis of immigrant Görlach. 2015. “The Dynamics of Return Migration,
behavior under different assumptions about Human Capital Accumulation, and Wage Assimila-
reasons and motives for return. This model tion.” Unpublished.
Agarwal, Reena, and Andrew W. Horowitz. 2002. “Are
can be extended in different directions to International Remittances Altruism or Insurance?
investigate the behavioral consequences of Evidence from Guyana Using Multiple-Migrant
temporary migrations, making it a potentially Households.” World Development 30 (11): 2033–44.
useful starting point for researchers wishing Ahmed, Bashir, and J. Gregory Robinson. 1994. “Esti-
mates of Emigration of the Foreign-Born Population:
to study temporary migrations and their con- 1980–1990.” US Bureau of the Census Population
sequences. We illustrate the model’s flexibil- Division Working Paper 9.
ity by suggesting several possible extensions Alders, Maarten, and Han Nicolaas. 2003. “One in Three
Immigrants Leave within Six Years.” http://www.
and discussing the few existing papers that cbs.nl/en-GB/menu/themas/bevolking/publicaties/
explore these avenues. artikelen/archief/2003/2003-1116-wm.htm.
One major reason for the paucity of Altonji, Joseph G., and David Card. 1991. “The Effects
research on migration temporariness, we of Immigration on the Labor Market Outcomes of
Less-Skilled Natives.” In Immigration, Trade, and
believe, is the lack of appropriate data. In the Labor Market, edited by John M. Abowd and
recent years, however, considerable prog- Richard B. Freeman, 201–34. Chicago and London:
ress has been made on this front, resulting in University of Chicago Press.
higher-quality data not only from better-de- Amuedo-Dorantes, Catalina, and Susan Pozo. 2006.
“Migration, Remittances, and Male and Female
signed surveys, but also from the linking of Employment Patterns.” American Economic Review
administrative data sources and the com- 96 (2): 222–26.
bination of administrative and survey data. Angelucci, Manuela. 2012. “US Border Enforcement
Such datasets promise to enhance research and the Net Flow of Mexican Illegal Migration.”
Economic Development and Cultural Change 60 (2):
progress in this important field and to 3111–57.
improve our understanding of immigration Auerbach, Alan J., and Philip Oreopoulos. 1999. “Ana-
and its consequences. Within this context, lyzing the Fiscal Impact of U.S. Immigration.” Amer-
the framework proposed in this study may ican Economic Review 89 (2): 176–80.
Aydemir, Abdurrahman B., and George J. Borjas. 2007.
serve as a valuable instrument for analyzing “Cross-Country Variation in the Impact of Interna-
more complex forms of migrations. tional Migration: Canada, Mexico, and the United
States.” Journal of the European Economic Associa-
References tion 5 (4): 663–708.
Aydemir, Abdurrahman B., and Chris Robinson. 2008.
Abramitzky, Ran, Leah Platt Boustan, and Katherine “Global Labour Markets, Return, and Onward
Eriksson. 2012a. “A Nation of Immigrants: Assimi- Migration.” Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue
lation and Economic Outcomes in the Age of Mass Canadienne d’Economique 41 (4): 1285–1311.
Migration.” National Bureau of Economic Research Bandiera, Oriana, Imran Rasul, and Martina Viarengo.
Working Paper 18011. 2013. “The Making of Modern America: Migratory
Abramitzky, Ran, Leah Platt Boustan, and Katherine Flows in the Age of Mass Migration.” Journal of
Eriksson. 2012b. “Europe’s Tired, Poor, Huddled Development Economics 102: 23–47.
Masses: Self-Selection and Economic Outcomes in Barrett, Alan, and Philip J. O’Connell. 2001. “Is There a
the Age of Mass Migration.” American Economic Wage Premium for Returning Irish Migrants?” Eco-
Review 102 (5): 1832–56. nomic and Social Review 32 (1): 1–21.
Abramitzky, Ran, Leah Platt Boustan, and Katherine Bartel, Ann P. 1989. “Where Do the New U.S. Immi-
Eriksson. 2014. “A Nation of Immigrants: Assimi- grants Live?” Journal of Labor Economics 7 (4):
lation and Economic Outcomes in the Age of Mass 371–91.
Migration.” Journal of Political Economy 122 (3): Batista, Catia, and Janis Umblijs. 2014. “Do Migrants
467–506. Send Remittances as a Way of Self-Insurance? Evi-
Access Economics. 2008. “Migrants Fiscal Impact dence from a Representative Immigrant Survey.”
Dustmann and Görlach: The Economics of Temporary Migrations 131
Centre for Research and Analysis of Migration Dis- Economic Research Working Paper 14796.
cussion Paper 08/14. Borjas, George J., and Bernt Bratsberg. 1996. “Who
Bauer, Thomas K., and Mathias G. Sinning. 2011. Leaves? The Outmigration of the Foreign-Born.”
“The Savings Behavior of Temporary and Permanent Review of Economics and Statistics 78 (1): 165–76.
Migrants in Germany.” Journal of Population Eco- Bratsberg, Bernt, Oddbjørn Raaum, and Kjetil Sørlie.
nomics 24 (2): 421–49. 2007. “Foreign-Born Migration to and from Norway.”
Beaujot, Roderic, and J. Peter Rappak. 1989. “The Link In International Migration, Economic Development
between Immigration and Emigration in Canada, and Policy, edited by Çağlar Özden and Maurice
1945–1986.” Canadian Studies in Population 16 (2): Schiff, 259–91. Washington, DC: World Bank; New
201–16. York and Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.
Becker, Gary S., and Kevin M. Murphy. 1988. “A The- Brücker, Herbert, et al. 2014. “The New IAB–
ory of Rational Addiction.” Journal of Political Econ- SOEP Migration Sample: An Introduction into
omy 96 (4): 675–700. the Methodology and the Contents.” The German
Bellemare, Charles. 2007. “A Life-Cycle Model of Out- Socio-Economic Panel Study Survey Paper 216.
migration and Economic Assimilation of Immigrants Card, David. 1990. “The Impact of the Mariel Boatlift
in Germany.” European Economic Review 51 (3): on the Miami Labor Market.” Industrial and Labor
553–76. Relations Review 43 (2): 245–57.
Ben-Porath, Yoram. 1967. “The Production of Human Card, David. 2001. “Immigrant Inflows, Native Out-
Capital and the Life Cycle of Earnings.” Journal of flows, and the Local Market Impacts of Higher
Political Economy 75 (4): 352–65. Immigration.” Journal of Labor Economics 19 (1):
Bhaskar, Renuka, Belkinés Arenas-Germosén, and 22–64.
Christopher Dick. 2013. “Demographic Analysis Card, David. 2009. “Immigration and Inequality.”
2010: Sensitivity Analysis of the Foreign-Born Migra- American Economic Review 99 (2): 1–21.
tion Component.” US Census Bureau Population Chiquiar, Daniel, and Gordon H. Hanson. 2005. “Inter-
Division Working Paper 98. national Migration, Self-Selection, and the Distribu-
Bijwaard, Govert E. 2004. “Dynamic Economic tion of Wages: Evidence from Mexico and the United
Aspects of Migration.” Medium Econometrische Toe- States.” Journal of Political Economy 113 (2): 239–81.
passingen 12 (3): 26–30. Chiswick, Barry R. 1978. “The Effect of Americaniza-
Bijwaard, Govert E. 2010. “Immigrant Migration tion on the Earnings of Foreign-Born Men.” Journal
Dynamics Model for the Netherlands.” Journal of of Political Economy 86 (5): 897–921.
Population Economics 23 (4): 1213–47. Co, Catherine Y., Ira N. Gang, and Myeong-Su Yun.
Bijwaard, Govert E., Christian Schluter, and Jackline 2000. “Returns to Returning.” Journal of Population
Wahba. 2014. “The Impact of Labor Market Dynam- Economics 13 (1): 57–79.
ics on the Return Migration of Immigrants.” Review Cobb-Clark, Deborah A., and Steven Stillman. 2013.
of Economics and Statistics 96 (3): 483–94. “Return Migration and the Age Profile of Retirement
Bijwaard, Govert E., and Jackline Wahba. 2014. “Do among Immigrants.” IZA Journal of Migration 2: 20.
High-Income or Low-Income Immigrants Leave Collier, William, Matloob Piracha, and Teresa Ran-
Faster?” Journal of Development Economics 108: dazzo. 2011. “Remittances and Return Migration.”
54–68. Institute for the Study of Labor Discussion Paper
Böhning, W. R. 1984. Studies in International Labour 6091.
Migration. New York: St. Martin’s Press. Colussi, Aldo. 2003. “Migrants’ Networks: An Esti-
Bollard, Albert, David McKenzie, Melanie Morten, mable Model of Illegal Mexican Immigration.”
and Hillel Rapoport. 2011. “Remittances and the Unpublished.
Brain Drain Revisited: The Microdata Show That Combes, Pierre-Philippe, Miren Lafourcade, and
More Educated Migrants Remit More.” World Bank Thierry Mayer. 2005. “The trade-creating effects of
Economic Review 25 (1): 132–56. business and social networks: evidence from France.”
Borjas, George J. 1985. “Assimilation, Changes in Journal of International Economics 66: 1–29.
Cohort Quality, and the Earnings of Immigrants.” Constant, Amelie F., Olga Nottmeyer, and Klaus F.
Journal of Labor Economics 3 (4): 463–89. Zimmermann. 2013. “The Economics of Circu-
Borjas, George J. 1987. “Self-Selection and the Earn- lar Migration.” In International Handbook on the
ings of Immigrants.” American Economic Review 77 Economics of Migration, edited by Amelie F. Con-
(4): 531–53. stant and Klaus F. Zimmermann, 55–74. New York:
Borjas, George J. 2003. “The Labor Demand Curve Edward Elgar.
Is Downward Sloping: Reexamining the Impact of Constant, Amelie F., and Klaus Zimmermann. 2011.
Immigration on the Labor Market.” Quarterly Jour- “Circular and Repeat Migration: Counts of Exits
nal of Economics 118 (4): 1335–74. and Years Away from the Host Country.” Population
Borjas, George J. 2009. “The Analytics of the Wage Research and Policy Review 30 (4): 495–515.
Effect of Immigration.” National Bureau of Cortes, Kalena E. 2004. “Are Refugees Different from
132 Journal of Economic Literature, Vol. LIV (March 2016)
Economic Immigrants? Some Empirical Evidence Temporary Migrants.” Journal of Population Eco-
on the Heterogeneity of Immigrant Groups in the nomics 6 (2): 153–68.
United States.” Review of Economics and Statistics Dustmann, Christian. 1995. “Savings Behavior of
86 (2): 465–80. Return Migrants.” Zeitschrift für Wirtschafts- und
Cox, Donald, Zekeriya Eser, and Emmanuel Jimenez. Sozialwissenschaften 115: 511–33.
1998. “Motives for Private Transfers over the Life Dustmann, Christian. 1997a. “Differences in the Labor
Cycle: An Analytical Framework and Evidence for Market Behavior between Temporary and Perma-
Peru.” Journal of Development Economics 55 (1): nent Migrant Women.” Labour Economics 4 (1):
57–80. 29–46.
Damm, Anna Piil. 2009. “Ethnic Enclaves and Immi- Dustmann, Christian. 1997b. “Return Migration,
grant Labor Market Outcomes: Quasi-experimen- Uncertainty and Precautionary Savings.” Journal of
tal Evidence.” Journal of Labor Economics 27 (2): Development Economics 52 (2): 295–316.
281–314. Dustmann, Christian. 1999. “Temporary Migration,
de Coulon, Augustin, and Matloob Piracha. 2005. Human Capital, and Language Fluency of Migrants.”
“Self-Selection and the Performance of Return Scandinavian Journal of Economics 101 (2): 297–314.
Migrants: The Source Country Perspective.” Journal Dustmann, Christian. 2003. “Return Migration, Wage
of Population Economics 18 (4): 779–807. Differentials, and the Optimal Migration Duration.”
Deléchat, Corinne. 2001. “International Migration European Economic Review 47 (2): 353–69.
Dynamics: The Role of Experience and Social Net- Dustmann, Christian. 2008. “Return Migration,
works.” Labour 15 (3): 457–86. Investment in Children, and Intergenerational
De Vreyer, Philippe, Flore Gubert, and Anne-Sophie Mobility: Comparing Sons of Foreign- and Native-
Robilliard. 2010. “Are There Returns to Migration Born Fathers.” Journal of Human Resources 43 (2):
Experience? An Empirical Analysis Using Data on 299–324.
Return Migrants and Non-migrants in West Africa.” Dustmann, Christian, Itzhak Fadlon, and Yoram Weiss.
Annals of Economics and Statistics 97/98: 307–28. 2011. “Return Migration, Human Capital Accumu-
di Giovanni, Julian, Andrei Levchenko, and Fran- lation and the Brain Drain.” Journal of Development
cesc Ortega. 2015. “A Global View of Cross-Border Economics 95 (1): 58–67.
Migration.” Journal of the European Economic Asso- Dustmann, Christian, and Tommaso Frattini. 2014.
ciation 13 (1): 168–202. “The Fiscal Effects of Immigration to the UK.” Eco-
Djajić, Slobodan. 2008. “Immigrant Parents and Chil- nomic Journal 124 (580): F593–643.
dren: An Analysis of Decisions Related to Return Dustmann, Christian, Tommaso Frattini, and Ian Pres-
Migration.” Review of Development Economics 12 ton. 2013. “The Effect of Immigration along the Dis-
(3): 469–85. tribution of Wages.” Review of Economic Studies 80
Djajić, Slobodan, and Ross Milbourne. 1988. “A Gen- (1): 145–73.
eral Equilibrium Model of Guest-Worker Migration: Dustmann, Christian, and Albrecht Glitz. 2011. “Migra-
The Source-Country Perspective.” Journal of Inter- tion and Education.” In Handbook of the Economics
national Economics 25 (3–4): 335–51. of Education, Volume 4, edited by Eric A. Hanushek,
Djajić, Slobodan, and Alexandra Vinogradova. 2015. Stephen Machin, and Ludger Woessmann, 327–439.
“Overshooting the Savings Target: Temporary Migra- Amsterdam: Elsevier, North-Holland.
tion, Investment in Housing and Development.” Dustmann, Christian, and Joseph-Simon Görlach.
World Development 65: 110–21. 2015. “Selective Out-Migration and the Estimation
Docquier, Frederic, and Hillel Rapoport. 2012. “Glo- of Immigrants’ Earnings Profiles.” In Handbook of
balization, Brain Drain, and Development.” Journal the Economics of International Migration: Volume
of Economic Literature 50 (3): 681–730. 1A: The Immigrants, edited by Barry R. Chiswick
Domingues Dos Santos, Manon, and Fabien Pos- and Paul W. Miller, 489–536. Amsterdam: Elsevier,
tel-Vinay. 2003. “Migration as a Source of Growth: North-Holland.
The Perspective of a Developing Country.” Journal Dustmann, Christian, and Oliver Kirchkamp. 2002.
of Population Economics 16 (1): 161–75. “The Optimal Migration Duration and Activity
Domingues Dos Santos, Manon, and Fabien Pos- Choice after Re-migration.” Journal of Development
tel-Vinay. 2004. “The Impact of Temporary Migra- Economics 67 (2): 351–72.
tion on Human Capital Accumulation and Economic Dustmann, Christian, and Josep Mestres. 2010a.
Development.” Brussels Economic Review 47 (1): “Remittances and Temporary Migration.” Journal of
77–88. Development Economics 92 (1): 62–70.
Durand, Jorge, William Kandel, Emilio A. Parrado, Dustmann, Christian, and Josep Mestres. 2010b. “Sav-
and Douglas S. Massey. 1996. “International Migra- ings, Asset Holdings, and Temporary Migration.”
tion and Development in Mexican Communities.” Annals of Economics and Statistics 97/98: 289–306.
Demography 33 (2): 249–64. Dustmann, Christian, and Yoram Weiss. 2007. “Return
Dustmann, Christian. 1993. “Earnings Adjustment of Migration: Theory and Empirical Evidence from the
Dustmann and Görlach: The Economics of Temporary Migrations 133
Kırdar, Murat G. 2012. “Estimating the Impact of McCormick, Barry, and Jackline Wahba. 2001. “Over-
Immigrants on the Host Country Social Security seas Work Experience, Savings and Entrepreneur-
System When Return Migration Is an Endogenous ship amongst Return Migrants to LDCs.” Scottish
Choice.” International Economic Review 53 (2): Journal of Political Economy 48 (2): 164–78.
453–86. McCormick, Barry, and Jackline Wahba. 2003. “Return
Klinthäll, Martin. 1999. “Homeward Bound: Return International Migration and Geographical Inequal-
Migration from Sweden to Germany, Greece, Italy ity: The Case of Egypt.” Journal of African Econo-
and the United States during the Period 1968–1993.” mies 12 (4): 500–532.
Unpublished. McKenzie, David, and Hillel Rapoport. 2010. “Self-Se-
Kritz, Mary M., Douglas T. Gurak, and Min-Ah Lee. lection Patterns in Mexico–U.S. Migration: The Role
2011. “Will They Stay? Foreign-Born Out-Migration of Migration Networks.” Review of Economics and
from New U.S. Destinations.” Population Research Statistics 92 (4): 811–21.
and Policy Review 30 (4): 537–67. Merkle, Lucie, and Klaus F. Zimmermann. 1992. “Sav-
Kuznets, Simon, and Ernest Rubin. 1954. “Immigra- ings, Remittances, and Return Migration.” Econom-
tion and the Foreign Born.” NBER Books. ics Letters 38 (1): 77–81.
Lacuesta, Aitor. 2010. “A Revision of the Self-Selection Mesnard, Alice. 2004. “Temporary Migration and Cap-
of Migrants Using Returning Migrant’s Earnings.” ital Market Imperfections.” Oxford Economic Papers
Annals of Economics and Statistics 97/98: 235–59. 56 (2): 242–62.
Lee, Ronald, and Timothy Miller. 2000. “Immigration, Michalowski, Margaret. 1991. “Foreign-Born Canadian
Social Security, and Broader Fiscal Impacts.” Ameri- Emigrants and Their Characteristics (1981–1986).”
can Economic Review 90 (2): 350–54. International Migration Review 25 (1): 28–59.
Lessem, Rebecca. 2013. “Mexico–U.S. Immigra- Mincer, Jacob. 1978. “Family Migration Decisions.”
tion: Effects of Wages and Border Enforcement.” Journal of Political Economy 86 (5): 749–73.
Unpublished. Moraga, Jesus Fernandez-Huertas. 2011. “New Evi-
Lindstrom, David P. 1996. “Economic Opportunity dence on Emigrant Selection.” Review of Economics
in Mexico and Return Migration from the United and Statistics 93 (1): 72–96.
States.” Demography 33 (3): 357–74. Morten, Melanie. 2013. “Temporary Migration
Long, James E. 1980. “The Effect of Americanization and Endogenous Risk-Sharing in Village India.”
on Earnings: Some Evidence for Women.” Journal of Unpublished.
Political Economy 88 (3): 620–29. Nakajima, Kayuna. 2014a. “The Fiscal Impact of Bor-
Lubotsky, Darren. 2007. “Chutes or Ladders? A Longi- der Tightening.” Unpublished.
tudinal Analysis of Immigrant Earnings.” Journal of Nakajima, Kayuna. 2014b. “The Repeated Migration
Political Economy 115 (5): 820–67. Puzzle: A New Explanation.” Unpublished.
Lucas, Robert E. B., and Oded Stark. 1985. “Motiva- Nekby, Lena. 2006. “The Emigration of Immigrants,
tions to Remit: Evidence from Botswana.” Journal of Returns vs Onward Migration: Evidence from
Political Economy 93 (5): 901–18. Sweden.” Journal of Population Economics 19 (2):
Lukomskyj, Oleh, and Peter Richards. 1986. “Return 197–226.
Migration from Australia: A Case Study.” Interna- Nicolaas, Han, and Arno Sprangers. 2004. “Immi-
tional Migration 24 (3): 603–32. grants Come and Go.” http://www.cbs.nl/en-GB/
Manacorda, Marco, Alan Manning, and Jonathan Wad- menu/themas/bevolking/publicaties/artikelen/
sworth. 2012. “The Impact of Immigration on the archief/2004/2004-1552-wm.htm.
Structure of Wages: Theory and Evidence from Brit- Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Develop-
ain.” Journal of the European Economic Association ment. 2008. International Migration Outlook 2008.
10 (1): 120–51. Washington, DC and Paris: Organisation for Eco-
Massey, Douglas S. 1987. “Understanding Mexican nomic Co-operation and Development.
Migration to the United States.” American Journal of Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Develop-
Sociology 92 (6): 1372–1403. ment. 2013. International Migration Outlook 2013.
Massey, Douglas S., Jorge Durand, and Nolan J. Washington, DC and Paris: Organisation for Eco-
Malone. 2002. Beyond Smoke and Mirrors: Mexican nomic Co-operation and Development.
Immigration in an Era of Economic Integration. New Orrenius, Pia M., and Madeline Zavodny. 2005.
York: Russell Sage Foundation. “Self-Selection among Undocumented Immigrants
Massey, Douglas S., and Kerstin Gentsch. 2014. from Mexico.” Journal of Development Economics 78
“Undocumented Migration to the United States and (1): 215–40.
the Wages of Mexican Immigrants.” International Ortega, Francesc. 2010. “Immigration, Citizenship,
Migration Review 48 (2): 482–99. and the Size of Government.” BE Journal of Eco-
Mayo-Smith, Richmond. 1893. “Immigration and the nomic Analysis and Policy 10 (1).
Foreign Born Population.” Publications of the Amer- Ottaviano, Gianmarco I. P., and Giovanni Peri. 2012.
ican Statistical Association 3 (21–22): 304–20. “Rethinking the Effect of Immigration on Wages.”
Dustmann and Görlach: The Economics of Temporary Migrations 135
Journal of the European Economic Association 10 Rooth, Dan-Olof, and Jan Saarela. 2007. “Selection
(1): 152–97. in Migration and Return Migration: Evidence from
Pinger, Pia. 2010. “Come Back or Stay? Spend Here or Micro Data.” Economics Letters 94 (1): 90–95.
There? Return and Remittances: The Case of Mol- Rosenzweig, Mark R. 2008. “Higher Education and
dova.” International Migration 48 (5): 142–73. International Migration in Asia: Brain Circulation.”
Piore, Michael J. 1979. Birds of Passage: Migrant Labor In Annual World Bank Conference on Development
and Industrial Societies. Cambridge and New York: Economics—Regional 2008: Higher Education and
Cambridge University Press. Development, edited by Justin Yifu Lin and Boris
Piracha, Matloob, and Florin Vadean. 2010. “Return Pleskovic, 59–84. Washington, DC: World Bank.
Migration and Occupational Choice: Evidence from Roy, Andrew Donald. 1951. “Some Thoughts on the
Albania.” World Development 38 (8): 1141–55. Distribution of Earnings.” Oxford Economic Papers
Piyapromdee, Suphanit. 2014. “The Impact of Immi- 3 (2): 135–46.
gration on Wages, Internal Migration and Welfare.” Sarvimäki, Matti. 2011. “Assimilation to a Welfare
Unpublished. State: Labor Market Performance and Use of Social
Poutvaara, Panu, Martin Junge, and Martin D. Munk. Benefits By Immigrants to Finland.” Scandinavian
2014. “International Migration of Couples.” Beiträge Journal of Economics 113 (3): 665–88.
zur Jahrestagung des Vereins für Socialpolitik. Shorland, Philippa. 2006. People on the Move: A Study
Preston, Ian. 2013. “The Effect of Immigration on Pub- of Migrant Movement Patterns to and from New
lic Finances.” Centre for Research and Analysis of Zealand. Wellington: New Zealand Department of
Migration Discussion Paper 23/13. Labour.
Ramos, Fernando A. 1992. “Out-Migration and Return Silvestre, Javier, and David Reher. 2014. “The Internal
Migration of Puerto Ricans.” In Immigration and the Migration of Immigrants: Differences between One-
Work Force: Economic Consequences for the United Time and Multiple Movers in Spain.” Population,
States and Source Areas, edited by George J. Borjas Space and Place 20 (1): 50–65.
and Richard B. Freeman, 49–66. Chicago and Lon- Sjaastad, Larry A. 1962. “The Costs and Returns of
don: University of Chicago Press. Human Migration.” Journal of Political Economy 70
Rapoport, Hillel, and Frédéric Docquier. 2006. “The (5 Part 2): 80–93.
Economics of Migrants’ Remittances.” In Handbook Smith, James P., and Barry Edmonston, eds. 1997. The
of the Economics of Giving, Altruism and Reciproc- New Americans: Economic Demographic, and Fiscal
ity: Applications: Volume 2, edited by Serge-Chris- Effects of Immigration. Washington, DC: National
tophe Kolm and Jean Mercier Ythier, 1135–98. Academies Press.
Amsterdam and Boston: Elsevier, North-Holland. Spilimbergo, Antonio. 2009. “Democracy and Foreign
Rauch, James E., and Vitor Trindade. 2002. “Ethnic Education.” American Economic Review 99 (1):
Chinese Networks in International Trade.” Review of 528–43.
Economics and Statistics 84 (1): 116–30. Stark, Oded. 1991. The Migration of Labor. Cam-
Reher, David, and Miguel Requena. 2009. “The bridge, MA: Basil Blackwell.
National Immigrant Survey of Spain: A New Data Storesletten, Kjetil. 2000. “Sustaining Fiscal Policy
Source for Migration Studies in Europe.” Demo- through Immigration.” Journal of Political Economy
graphic Research 20: 253–78. 108 (2): 300–323.
Reher, David, and Javier Silvestre. 2009. “Internal Taylor, J. Edward. 1999. “The New Economics of
Migration Patterns of Foreign-Born Immigrants in Labour Migration and the Role of Remittances in
a Country of Recent Mass Immigration: Evidence the Migration Process.” International Migration 37
from New Micro Data for Spain.” International (1): 63–88.
Migration Review 43 (4): 815–49. Taylor, J. Edward, and T. J. Wyatt. 1996. “The Shadow
Reinhold, Steffen, and Kevin Thom. 2013. “Migration Value of Migrant Remittances, Income and Inequal-
Experience and Earnings in the Mexican Labor Mar- ity in a Household-Farm Economy.” Journal of
ket.” Journal of Human Resources 48 (3): 768–820. Development Studies 32 (6): 899–912.
Rendall, Michael S., and Deborah J. Ball. 2004. “Immi- Thom, Kevin. 2010. “Repeated Circular Migra-
gration, Emigration and the Ageing of the Over- tion: Theory and Evidence from Undocumented
seas-Born Population in the United Kingdom.” Migrants.” Unpublished.
Population Trends 116: 18–27. Vadean, Florin, and Matloob Piracha. 2010. “Circular
Rendon, Silvio, and Alfredo Cuecuecha. 2010. “Inter- Migration or Permanent Return: What Determines
national Job Search: Mexicans in and out of the US.” Different Forms of Migration?” In Frontiers of Eco-
Review of Economics of the Household 8 (1): 53–82. nomics and Globalization: Volume 8: Migration and
Rodriguez, Edgard R., and Erwin R. Tiongson. 2001. Culture, edited by Gil S. Epstein and Ira N. Gang,
“Temporary Migration Overseas and Household 467–95. New York: Emerald.
Labor Supply: Evidence from Urban Philippines.” Van Baalen, Brigitte, and Tobias Müller. 2008. “Return
International Migration Review 35 (3): 709–25. Intentions of Temporary Migrants: The Case of
136 Journal of Economic Literature, Vol. LIV (March 2016)