Article
Reference
Settlement or mobility? Immigrants' re-migration decision-making process in a high-income country setting
STEINER, Ilka
Abstract
In the context of important migration flows within the EU/EFTA countries, understanding the process of migration decision-making is central to better comprehending current migration patterns in today's legal context of free movement of persons. By means of newly collected survey data, this paper examines the emigration intentions and plans of German immigrants living in Switzerland. This migrant group presents a lower duration of residence at emigration than other nationalities and is highly educated and integrated in the labour market. The results show that labour market considerations prevail over family obligations. Furthermore, they confirm the heterogeneity between groups regarding emigration intentions, a finding that cannot be confirmed for emigration planning. Moreover, whereas emigration intentions are explained by perceived opportunity differentials and wishful thinking between the place of residence and the destination, emigration planning is based on real opportunities. Migration policy and, more specifically, integration policy have a small impact on emigration, since planning an emigration is triggered by [...]
STEINER, Ilka. Settlement or mobility? Immigrants' re-migration decision-making process in a high-income country setting. Journal of International Migration and Integration, 2019, vol.
20, no. 1, p. 223-245
DOI : 10.1007/s12134-018-0602-0
Available at:
http://archive-ouverte.unige.ch/unige:123403
Disclaimer: layout of this document may differ from the published version.
Settlement or mobility? Immigrants’ re-migration decision-making process in a high-income country setting
Abstract
In the context of important migration flows within the EU/EFTA countries, understanding the process of migration decision-making is central to better comprehending current migration patterns in today's legal context of free movement of persons. By means of newly collected survey data, this paper examines the emigration intentions and plans of German immigrants living in Switzerland. This migrant group presents a lower duration of residence at emigration than other nationalities and is highly educated and integrated in the labour market. The results show that labour market considerations prevail over family obligations. Furthermore, they confirm the heterogeneity between groups regarding emigration intentions, a finding that cannot be confirmed for emigration planning. Moreover, whereas emigration intentions are explained by perceived opportunity differentials and wishful thinking between the place of residence and the destination, emigration planning is based on real opportunities.
Migration policy and, more specifically, integration policy have a small impact on emigration, since planning an emigration is triggered by external or personal factors.
Keywords: stated-preferences, international migration, re-migration, intra- European migration, free movement of persons, intentions and plans
Introduction
In the context of expanding globalisation, European integration has induced a shift towards a Europeanisation of migration flows. Switzerland, although not a member of the European Union, has also undergone this shift, notably since the Agreement on the Free Movement of Persons (AFMP) with the EU came into force in June 2002. With its principle of free movement of persons, who have the right to move, travel, study, work, settle and retire anywhere within the EU/EFTA, current migration patterns can no longer be captured adequately within a traditional labour migration paradigm (King 2002). Due to these changes, temporary and circular forms of migration have become more commonplace (e.g., Faist 2008). In particular, globalisation has led to increasing mobility among young workers and students (Eurostars) (Favell 2008). In particular, the increasingly international labour market has given rise to a new highly mobile class of young professionals and students – the so-called Eurostars (Favell 2008) – profiting from these new opportunity structures. However, migration within EU/EFTA countries is driven not only by economic factors. According to Santacreu et al. (2009), ‘migrants moving under the provision of free movement generally reflect emerging characteristics of European societies: privileging flexibility in time and space, alternative modes of consumption and leisure, and a search for healthier environments, self-fulfilment, new lifestyles and the search of a better quality of life’.
As underlined by van Dalen and Henkens (2013), ‘In the current era of globalization, understanding the decisions behind international migration is of increasing importance.
However, only limited in-sights have been gained thus far into the reasons that underlie the emigration decisions of individuals in highly developed countries.’ In social demography, migrants’ point of view regarding their migratory intentions is commonly studied using stated preferences. It is viewed as one of the most reliable predictors of
future behaviour (e.g. De Jong 2000; van Dalen and Henkens 2013) and embodies the respondent’s attitude towards the migration experience. Recently, scholars have begun to examine differences between various pre-move thoughts instead of considering just one simple act in the international migration decision-making process. In addition, even though research has shown that migratory patterns diverge according to the migrant’s profile, no study has so far adopted a comparative approach in the migration decision- making process regarding different types of migrants.
Based on newly collected survey data, our paper aims to understand the factors intervening in the migration decision-making process – by differentiating mobility intentions and plans – of different types of migrants in today’s legal context of free movement of persons between two high-income countries.
For this purpose, we examine the case of German immigrants living in Switzerland, which has been the biggest immigrant group in Switzerland since 2002. Over 50% of German citizens living in Switzerland are in their early career stage (20-44). The young age structure also explains why almost half of all Germans are single (46%) as well as the high percentages of persons living in a one-person household or as a couple without children (both at 31%). Moreover, Germans present an above-average share of individuals holding a tertiary degree (53%) and the highest share of employed persons (78%) among all population groups. This brief description of Germans’ socio- demographic characteristics already indicates a higher independence regarding migratory decisions and movements. In addition, they actually stay on average for a shorter period in Switzerland than other nationalities do, suggesting that they predominantly follow more temporary migration patterns.
First, this paper reviews the literature findings regarding the different stages of the migration decision-making process and its determinants. This is followed by a second
section reviewing the research question and the hypotheses and a third section presenting the survey data and the methods. The fourth section shows the results, focusing first on the typology of German migrants, second on some descriptive results regarding the migration decision-making process, and third on the factors that determine the intentions and plans to leave Switzerland. The paper closes with a discussion of the main results and conclusions.
Migration decision-making process
Migratory projects are studied applying the revealed-preferences approach or the stated- preference approach. The latter is principally used by demographers, geographers and psychologists and regards the intentions to remigrate, settle or naturalise, since research has shown that these can determine actual future behaviour (e.g. De Jong 2000; van Dalen and Henkens 2008; Armitage and Conner 2001).
What follows is a review of the empirical research adopting the stated-reference approach and therefore considering the determinants of the migration decision-making process. We do not consider the revealed-preferences approach, because the SETMOBIL Survey data do not include any information on actual emigration.
The operationalisation of the stated-preferences approach in the empirical literature differs according to the types of moves considered. Whereas the question of return migration projects has been tackled for several decades in the contexts of both
‘Gastarbeiter’ migration (for Switzerland Bolzman et al. 1993; e.g. for Germany Stegmann 2007 and Richter 2004) and (assigned or self-initiated) business expatriation (e.g. the literature review of Dabic et al. 2015), onward migration intentions (Barbiano di Belgiojoso and Ortensi 2013), or the intentions to lead a transnational life, are developing fields due to the diversification of migration patterns.
Either migrants are considered as one group or scholars have begun to study specific migrant categories, for example regarding their sociodemographic and professional profile, such as highly skilled migrants or expats, or the type of migrant, such as students or workers. The literature on the stated-preference approach has so far not compared different types of migrants.
In addition, the question on pre-move thoughts tends to differ in the conceivable time horizons, varying from ‘currently wanting to move’ to ‘move in the next couple of years’. However, there is evidence that expectations about relocation are more reliable if they are reported with respect to a relatively short period (e.g., some months) than with respect to a long period (Kley 2011).
Finally, many studies reduce the migration decision-making process to one simple act, compressing the time horizon to a single moment. This is mainly due to a reliance on secondary survey data, which often include only one question on pre-move thoughts (Kley 2011).
Different stages
Inspired by marketing research regarding consumer behaviour, scholars analysing residential mobility were the first to identify different stages in the migration decision- making process. Rossi (1980), investigating the reasons for the relocation of families within the metropolitan area of Philadelphia, identified a differentiation between inclinations to move and intentions to move. Other authors similarly conceptualise the move as a result of a series of preference-formation and decision-making and preparation steps (Brown and Moore 1970; Speare 1974; Kley and Mulder 2010;
Fassmann and Hintermann 1998; Kalter 1997; Piguet 2012). Kley (2011) differentiated considering and planning because, according to her, the psychological and behavioural consequences of a ‘wish’ deviate from those of a ‘plan’. In addition, when formulating a
wish, desire or willingness to move, the actual feasibility is less considered than when an intention or a plan is expressed (Lu 2011). Stegmann (2007; 2011) showed for example that the ‘Gastarbeiter’s’ (guest-worker’s) wish to return can also have a socio- psychological function, in terms of commitment to his/her own national group or as a protection against discrimination and his/her precarious legal status. According to Remhof et al. (2014), the willingness ‘refers to a more reactive decision-making, while individuals’ propensity to consider an international assignment (intention) refers to reasoning and planning to accomplish specific goals and, therefore, intended decision- making’.
Sell and De Jong (1983) underlined that the process of decision-making does not need to be linear and sequential. Events in the lives or labour force careers of household members can directly trigger desired or undesired moves. Unless anticipated, such moves are unlikely to occur following a lengthy and sequential decision-making process. Tharenou and Caulfield (2010) use the term ‘shocks’, which can be either positive (e.g., a wedding back home) or negative (e.g., the death of a close relative), and can occur in the host country (e.g., being fired) or the home country (e.g., a new political regime taking over the government).
Determinants of re-migration intentions
In the empirical literature, different factors were found to be determinants in the migration decision-making process. We categorised these determinants into five groups:
demographics, life course events, transnational ties, feasibility and preparedness (including prior migration settings), and embeddedness in the host country.
First, research has underlined heterogeneity in re-migration patterns according to the migrant’s profile and the initial immigration intention (Güngör and Tansel 2008; Soon 2008). For instance, the migratory intentions and plans of family migrants differ
considerably from those of workers and students (Mak 1997). Age plays a crucial role, as the intentions to migrate usually decrease with increasing age (Ette et al. 2014;
Coulter et al. 2011). However, Waldorf (1995) showed an increase in intentions just before retirement for guest-workers in Germany. Other anticipated life course transitions, such as beginning tertiary education or a job, leaving the parental home or forming a union, have also been shown to influence mobility intentions (Mulder and Wagner 1993; Kalter 1997).
Contrary to the actual migratory behaviour, little or no gender differences are found in the stated-preferences literature (van Dalen and Henkens 2013). Marital status has been shown to be an important factor, where singles are more likely to have emigration intentions, due to their independence and higher flexibility, even though when spouses or partners live abroad, intentions are also more frequently formulated (Waldorf 1995;
van Dalen and Henkens 2013). Family and relationship ties generally influence the intention to remigrate (de Haas et al. 2015; Carling and Pettersen 2014). There is even evidence that they might prevail over economic aspects in the return intention (Harvey 2011). Lastly, property owners in the origin country show a higher probability to intend to return (Massey and Akresh 2006).
The feasibility of and the preparedness for moving constitute another important set of factors (Tharenou and Caulfield 2010). Previous mobility experiences increase the likelihood to intend to remigrate (de Haas and Fokkema 2011; Massey and Akresh 2006). According to Cassarino (2004) the preparedness to return depends on sufficient tangible (e.g., financial capital) and intangible resources (contacts, relationships, and skills) that were gathered before or during the migration process. In addition, a high level of education is associated with migratory intentions, due to career requirements for
mobility (van Ham et al. 2001) and better access to job openings and information (Ette et al. 2014; Coulter et al. 2011).
Finally, migrants’ embeddedness and living and working satisfaction determine remigration intentions (Mara and Landesmann 2013; Ivlevs 2015; Hercog and Siddiqui 2014; Jensen and Pedersen 2007). Empirical research findings are concordant regarding the negative dependency of the return tendency on the duration of stay (e.g. Pungas et al. 2012; Khoo and Mak 2000). Most of the theories on migrant integration or assimilation suggest that as the duration of residence increases, migrants integrate better and are thus more determined to settle (e.g. van Baalen and Müller 2009). However, Barbiano di Belgiojoso and Ortensi (2013) recently showed that ‘duration of residence does not automatically determine a higher propensity to settle in Italy. Instead, a crucial role is played by additional factors (economy, job situation, presence of the family)’.
Other authors confirm this finding. Namely labour market integration hinders re- migration intentions. Ryan and Mulholland (2014) showed that on the labour market,
‘there are many advantages routed in local knowledge, which is not necessarily transferable to other countries’ and thus tempers return intentions. In contrast, over- education (Pungas et al. 2012) and an apparent unemployment risk can cause migratory intentions. Living with a native partner (Pungas et al. 2012), having school-aged children (e.g. Khoo and Mak 2000; Massey and Akresh 2006), owning a household business (de Haas and Fokkema 2011), and having friends and/or family (van Dalen and Henkens 2007, 2013; de Haas et al. 2015; Carling and Pettersen 2014) and language competences in the local language (Steiner and Velling 1992; Dustmann 1999; Ette et al. 2014) also have a negative effect on a migrant’s intention to remigrate.
According to the literature, the formulation of pre-move thoughts can be hindered by competing plans in one’s life, namely, between the family and work situations. Thus,
having a partner, children and family at the place of residence might outweigh the impact of a perceived unemployment risk (Kley 2013) or not being satisfied with the work situation (Khoo and Mak 2000).
Different determinants for different pre-move thoughts
Empirical research has revealed that different pre-move thoughts (e.g., considering and planning) can be determined by different factors. Kley and Mulder (2010) showed that whereas life-course events and perceived opportunities in several life domains are important predictors for considering and planning migration, perceived opportunity differentials (e.g., labour market conditions) between the place of residence and other places for the achievement of personal goals only enhance the likelihood of considering migration. Anticipated life-course events and new ties at a possible destination are particularly important in triggering the decision in favour of migration. Beginning tertiary education or entering the labour market have a significantly greater influence on planning than on considering migration.
Furthermore, variations in planning migration in different phases of the life course can be explained with the changing importance of instrumental goals. According to Kley (2011), in young adulthood, opportunities for pursuing one’s own interests are more important than in other phases of the life course: Perceiving opportunities for one’s career trigger considerations and plans to move in all phases of the life course, but it is the strongest predictor in favour of migration only for young adults without children.
According to Coulter et al. (2011), while desiring to move is strongly associated with dwelling dissatisfaction or disliking the neighbourhood, mainly spatially flexible individuals such as young, highly educated private renters expect to be able to realise this desire. Older individuals, those with lower incomes, and social housing renters tend to express a desire to move without an expectation that this will be quickly
accomplished. Finally, life events such as union formation or dissolution strongly affect the desire to move only if they are held in conjunction with an expectation to move.
Research question
Our paper aims to understand the factors intervening in the migration decision-making process of different types migrants within the legal context of free movement of persons and considering migration between two high-income countries.
First, we expect the initial migratory intention to be among the most important determinants of emigration intentions. Capturing the heterogeneity of the actual migration process, scholars have proposed different typologies of immigrants (see for example for different types of immigrants within a national foreigner group Garip 2012;
for Germans living in the UK Mueller 2012; for EU movers Braun and Arsene 2009) and emigrants (Prognos AG 2008; Ette and Sauer 2010). Contrary to the revealed- preference approach, the literature on the stated-preference approach has so far not compared different types of migrants. Therefore, we test the prevalence of different types of immigrants using cluster analysis and determine if they differ regarding their future migration intentions and plans.
Second, due to the context of our study and the specific migrant group, we expect that professional considerations outweigh family obligations in the formulation of re- migrations intentions and plans (competing plans hypothesis, Khoo and Mak (2000).
Third, we expect that intending and planning an emigration can be determined by different factors, the signification of an intention being very different from that of a plan and thus involving far less consideration of feasibility (Kley and Mulder 2010).
Fourth, we expect the decision-making process to not necessarily be sequential. As stressed by Haberkorn (1981), ‘not all decisions are primarily rational and follow carefully calculated means-ends combinations’.
Data and methods
SETMOBIL survey
Our study is based on the 2015 survey Settlement or Mobility? (SETMOBIL 2017).
The Swiss Federal Statistical Office’s sample register (SRPH), which is drawn from Swiss population register, served as sampling frame and provided the postal addresses necessary for the mailing of the invitation letters.
The target group was composed of immigrants born in Germany and holding German citizenship who arrived after June 2002 in Switzerland (when the bilateral Agreement on the Free Movement of Persons between the EU and Switzerland entered into force) and who were at least 18 years old at the moment of immigration. Finally, we selected only individuals holding a settlement permit (the C permit is for foreign nationals after five or ten years’ residence in Switzerland and is not subject to any time restrictions or conditions), a residence permit (the B permit is valid for five years and issued if the foreign national is in possession of an employment contract of at least twelve months’
duration or of unlimited duration) or a short-term permit (the L permit is for foreign nationals with an employment contract valid from three to twelve months).
To represent different stages in the life course, a stratified random sampling strategy according to age (18-24, 25-34, 35-44, 45-64 and 65+) was applied. Since the distribution of duration of residence and gender varied between the five strata, the representation of these variables was assured by a disproportionate stratification by gender and duration of residence (<1 year, 1-2 years, 2-5 years, 5 or more years).
There were no coverage problems, since the SRPH is an individual, exhaustive listing.
Furthermore, the abovementioned inclusion criteria for the target population were observable in the register. However, only 29% of the addresses in the gross sample were associated with a phone number, compared to 76% for the total population (Joye et al.
2012). Therefore, two modalities of participation were proposed: self-administered online questionnaire (CAWI) and computer-assisted telephone interviewing (CATI).
The questionnaire was in German and took approximately 30 minutes to complete.
Because of the register-based sampling, post-stratification weights were calculated (considering age, gender and duration of residence) to adjust for potential non-response error. In total, 2003 Germans completed the interview, which corresponds to 175,614 weighted observations.
In line with the project, the central questions of the survey are the following: ‘How often have you considered moving away from Switzerland in the last three months?’,
‘Do you plan to move away from Switzerland within the next twelve months?’, and
‘Have you already undertaken steps to move away?’. Depending on the response to these three questions, the target population is divided according to four different profiles with increasing migratory intentions: 1) no intentions and no plans to move away 2) intentions but no plans to move away, 3) intentions and plans but no steps undertaken to move away and 4) intentions, plans and steps undertaken to move away. In this paper, the terms ‘intending’ and ‘considering’ are used alternatively and represent the same concept.
Methodology
In a first step, to better reflect heterogeneity in the migration decision-making process across individuals, the prevalence of different types of migrants is tested using cluster analysis. Cluster analysis is a method for classifying observations with similar characteristics into groups (Kaufman and Rousseeuw 2009). Because our first hypothesis is on differing migratory intentions by groups of immigrants, we consider the following four variables on initial reasons for immigration to Switzerland in our cluster analysis: Professional reasons, educational and/or study reasons, relational or
family reasons, and the wish to gain new experiences and to broaden one’s mind. The responses to these variables all range from 0, ‘not at all important’, to 7, ‘very important’.
The K-means method, a partitioning method that iterates between computing K cluster centroids by minimising the within cluster variance and updating cluster memberships, is used in this paper (Hastie et al. 2009). Even though the number of clusters can be randomly chosen to initiate the clusters, we can apply the Variance Ratio Criterion (VRC) (Caliński and Harabasz 1974) for the k-means method to determine the best cluster solution (Mooi and Sarstedt 2011). For each cluster solution, the VRC is equal to the sum of the F-values. The best cluster solution is given by the lowest value when comparing the VRC values of solutions with one segment less than K and with one segment more than K (wk). In the case of the typology of German immigrants, the five- cluster solution scores the lowest values and is therefore the best solution (Mooi and Sarstedt 2011).
Because cluster analysis is a purely descriptive method, we run generalised ordinal logistic regressions (following the example of Kley 2011, Williams 2006). This choice is first based on the fact that there is an order to the categories of the outcome variable (not considering -> considering -> planning), and second it allows us to relax the hypothesis of the proportional-odds assumption in ordered logistic regression. The effects of the independent variables can therefore vary across different stages of the migration decision-making process. In fact, the test of the proportional odds assumption was significant in our model (p= <.0001), indicating that proportional odds do not hold and suggesting that separate parameters are needed across the logits.
As dependent variables, we first introduced the five types of migrants obtained by the cluster analysis (family migrants=reference (ref.)). Second, the demographic factors
comprise gender (male=ref. and female), age at the moment of the survey (continuous, 19-95 years) and relationship status (married/registered partner=ref., not in a relationship, in a relationship). Third, five variables are part of the anticipated life course events, for all of which the reference category corresponds to ‘not anticipating’:
a professional change, birth of a child, separation from the partner/spouse, marriage or moving with the partner/spouse and a job change of the partner/spouse. Fourth, five variables approximate the preparedness and the feasibility of the move, wherefore the reference is again “not’: having had a positive experience abroad before migrating to Switzerland, having lived in other country(ies) than Germany or Switzerland, regretting having moved to Switzerland, coping with the household income and being highly qualified (approximated by holding a tertiary degree). Fifth, transnational ties are composed of one’s own housing abroad (no=ref., yes), the place of residence of friends (in Switzerland=ref., in Switzerland and abroad) and having a partner abroad (no=ref., yes). The last set of factors, embeddedness and satisfaction with life in Switzerland, comprises binary variables, where the reference category corresponds to “not’: feeling well integrated in Switzerland, having school-aged children (aged between 7 and 16 years old), owning housing in Switzerland, planning on becoming a Swiss citizen, being satisfied with life in Switzerland, being employed and perceiving a risk of becoming unemployed. Finally, the duration of residence since immigration to Switzerland is a continuous variable (1-14 years).
Results
Five types of migrants
The interpretation of our five-cluster solution follows the cluster centres of the variables included. We obtain 1) labour and family migrants, for whom new experiences were
also an important migratory motif (27%), 2) family migrants (14%), 3) students, for whom professional reasons and new experiences have also played an important role (16%), 4) labour migrants who were also looking for a new experience (38%) and 5) lifestyle migrants (5%) (see Table 1). The interpretation of the five clusters is further confirmed by the findings in Table 1, presenting the migrants’ demographic and socio- professional characteristics by cluster membership. This underlines that the variables measuring migratory motifs are a good measure of migrants’ heterogeneity.
The first cluster – labour & family migrants – contains an above-average percentage of women and a large share of migrants aged between 25 and 44 years. In line with the initial migratory intentions, it is characterised by a high percentage of individuals who are in a relationship or married and who have children. In addition, this cluster is composed of an above-average percentage of individuals having recently immigrated (duration of residence of up to two years, holding a residence permit). Finally, regarding the socio-professional composition, the cluster corresponds to the average when considering full- and part-time employment and educational attainment, with two-thirds of all migrants who are highly educated. Furthermore, it is composed of an above- average percentage of housewives/men and has the highest share of unemployed persons (3%). Among the employed, it contains the highest share of employed persons.
Table 1
The second cluster – family migrants – is rather similar to the first one regarding the family component, containing the highest share of women (64%), individuals who are married (58%) and who have children (44%). However, it is also characterised by two above-average age categories, 35-44 years and 65+ years, and a slightly longer duration
of residence in Switzerland than cluster 1 (one to five years). Regarding the professional components, it contains a low share of highly educated individuals and the highest share of inactive persons (23%), who are mainly unemployed, housewives/men (15%), and retirees/pensioners.
The third cluster – students – is characterised by an above-average share of men and presents the highest percentage of individuals aged 18 to 34 years (62%).
Unsurprisingly, it is composed of the highest share of singles (in a relationship or not, 69%) and an above-average percentage of individuals without children. In addition, it presents the highest percentage of migrants with a short-term or residence permit (61%).
Finally, it contains the highest share of students (14%) and highly educated individuals (72%).
The fourth cluster – labour migrants – is composed of the highest share of men (67%) and individuals aged between 35 and 64 years (72%). It contains a high percentage of migrants who are not in a relationship and who do not have children. In addition, it presents the highest share of migrants holding a settlement permit (58%) and therefore a duration of five or more years of residence (54%). Regarding socio-professional attributes, it contains an above-average percentage of highly educated migrants, and the highest share of individuals who have full-time employment (85%) or hold a position with managerial and supervision responsibilities (41%).
The fifth cluster – experience seekers – is quite similar to the labour migrants regarding their demographic profile, with an above-average share of men and the highest shares of migrants who are not in a relationship (28%) and who do not have children (80%). It is also composed of the highest share of individuals around retirement age (45+, 45%) and presents the highest shares of both migrants who have a duration of residence of up to one year (18%) and between two and five years (39%). Finally, it presents the lowest
share of highly educated individuals (58%) and, in hand with the age distribution, the highest share of retirees/pensioners (7%).
Migratory projects
The general analysis of the migratory projects reveals three aspects. First, a very large share (68.8%) of our sample did not at all consider moving away from Switzerland during the three months preceding the survey. This result is somewhat surprising, when considering a turnover of 66% between German immigrants and emigrants in 2014.
26.6% of the participants have had intentions to emigrate, whereas 4.5% have had plans.
Among the latter, two-thirds have even undertaken steps to emigrate. Planning a move is therefore often associated with already taking more or less concrete steps in preparation of the move.
Second, return migration is very important among the Germans who have had intentions (with or without plans) to emigrate: 59% would like to return to Germany, 25% do not yet know where to move and 17% would like to move to another country (see Table 2).
Unsurprising, the more concrete the move, the lower the share of an unknown destination becomes (intention=25%, plans no steps=13%, plans and steps=3%). In addition, the more concrete the move, the higher is the share of Germans who indicated Germany as the destination (intentions=59%, plans and no steps=73%, plans and steps=79%). This shows that as long as the move is less concrete, the panoply of possible destinations remains large. Therefore, the intention to move to another country is either wishful, with realisation not necessarily a concrete option, or the realisation of this intention (and therefore the passage from an intention to a plan) is difficult in organisational, psychological, etc. terms. Hence, returning to Germany presents a more feasible solution.
Table 2
Third, even though three fourths of all intentions (with or without plans) are according to the participants based on a wish, the more concrete the move becomes, the larger the share that is based on a necessity and not on a wish. Whereas 24% of the intentions to move are based on a necessity, 27% of the plans to move are based on that reason (see Table 2). In line with the results regarding the destination, this last result is mainly influenced by onward migration, with only 10% of intentions to emigrate and 38% of plans being based on a necessity. Hence, planning a move to a third country is much more often triggered by a necessity, maybe again because of the difficulties associated with such a move – obtaining a work permit, etc.
The results vary considerably according to the type of migrant (see Figure 1). Students (61%) followed by labour migrants (68%) present a below average share of neither migratory intentions nor plans, whereas labour and family migrants (71%), experience seekers (72%), and family migrants (74%) have an above-average share of neither intentions nor plans. One third of students have intentions to emigrate, indicating first, their preassigned limited stay in time in Switzerland, given by their studies, and second, their greater flexibility and independence allowing for migratory intentions. The latter might also explain the above-average share of migratory intentions among labour migrants (27%), who are seldom married or in a relationship and who rarely have children, unlike the three other types of migrants. Finally, the plan (with or without steps) to emigrate is also above average for students (6%), followed by labour migrants and labour and family migrants (5%). The last group, having below-average migratory intentions, seems to need to have more concrete migratory projects, perhaps triggered by the wish or the necessity to be mobile in the labour market, but do not have the
luxury of thinking about possible emigration because of the family. In addition, whereas students are found as often to have plans without having taken steps as with having taken steps (either 3%), labour migrants (3%) and labour and family migrants (4%) more often have already taken steps than have only planned an emigration. Again, this might be explained by their lower flexibility but also most likely by the fact that a move is motivated by a concrete job opportunity abroad.
Figure 1
It seems that the two dimensions, socio-professional integration and family obligations, mostly shape the continuum of emigration intentions: The former triggering intentions and the latter hindering them. The high share of emigration intentions among students can be explained by their preassigned limited stay time in Switzerland, given by their studies, and their greater flexibility and independence. The latter might also explain the above-average share of migratory intentions among labour migrants, a group that is seldom married or in a relationship, and has rarely children, unlike the three other types of migrants.
When considering the origin of the migratory project, we see that the intention of labour and family migrants and labour migrants is more often based on a necessity (respectively 28% and 27%) than for the three other types of migrants (18%). This might be due to the demands of the labour market or for the advancement of their career. However, with the concretisation of the move, the necessity to move decreases to 24% for labour and family migrants and to 16% for labour migrants. The wish becomes more important especially for labour migrants, which underlines once again their flexibility; having no constraints, they can do what they want and plan their move
according to their wishes. Unfortunately, the numbers for the other three profiles are too low to be discussed. However, as soon as the family is involved (labour and family migrants), flexibility is less given. For family migrants, the necessity is even more important.
This hypothesis is further underlined when considering the destination. Family migrants present the highest share of return intentions (70%). Contrary to the four other groups, this percentage decreases with the concretisation of the move (plan, 51%). The move of a family migrant is less often based on a wish, and it is also often motived by an onward move (42%), perhaps for professional reasons for the partner. The highest share of return plans is present in labour migrants (83%), followed by students (78%). For both types of migrants, this might indicate a return to Germany after having improved one’s CV, by gaining new professional experiences or a new diploma, and having better job opportunities back home. Finally, the least decided group regarding the destination is experience seekers, of whom over one third do not yet know the destination of their migratory intention.
Explaining migratory intentions and plans
Table 3 presents the results of the logistic regressions (estimates), modelling the probability of considering vs. not considering emigration (M1) and of planning vs considering emigration (M2).
As shown above, emigration intentions are partially explained by the reason for immigration and therefore in our case the type of migrant (see Figure 2). Students show the highest probability to declare considering emigration, whereas family migrants less often consider leaving Switzerland. However, for emigration planning, we do not find any significant differences between the different profiles.
When comparing the five types (see Figure 2), three results need to be pointed out.
First, students always show a significantly higher probability of considering emigration compared with all other types of migrants. However, although not statistically significant, they show a lower probability to plan an emigration, except when compared to family migrants. Due to their young age structure, they rarely have family obligations. In addition, they often come to Switzerland with a predetermined duration of stay according to their studies undertaken. A potential emigration is therefore less often preceded by a lengthy decision-making process – a process that might not be necessary due to their higher flexibility, rendering a move that is much easier and quicker.
Second, family migrants show the lowest probability to consider and – even though not significant – to plan an emigration compared with all other groups. The comparison with labour migrants and labour and family migrants in particular is interesting. The latter also often having children and being married or in a partnership, the labour component seems to make the crucial difference in triggering emigration intentions.
Interestingly, when comparing the labour migrants with the labour and family migrants, we do not find any significant differences. The family component, once combined with the labour dimension, does not have the same hindering effects on emigration intentions and plans as when it is considered alone.
Finally, the estimates in both models for experience seekers are never significant, except when compared to students’ emigration intentions. This might be because it is a rather heterogeneous group regarding its demographic and socio-professional characteristics as well as to the low number of cases in the analysis.
Figure 2
For both models, we do not find any gender differences. However, confirming other research, considering and planning emigration decrease with age. An unexpected result regards the relationship status. Married persons and those in a registered partnership show a higher probability to consider emigration than people who are in a relationship.
The later situation might hinder such intentions because an actual emigration could jeopardise the relationship, even more so if the partner stays in Switzerland. In addition, when married, the actual move might not put a relationship at risk. In a more binding relationship, a move most often happens together. No significant differences can be found between these two groups in the second model. In addition, for individuals who are not in a relationship, the probability of planning an emigration is significantly lower than for married persons and those in a registered partnership. For students, their higher flexibility might allow for a quicker decision regarding emigration and therefore no lengthy and dual decision-making process.
Regarding anticipated life course events, we find only marriage or moving inwith a partner and a job change of the partner or spouse to have a significant and positive impact on considering and planning an emigration. When considering that marriage and, to a lesser degree, moving in often are the first step in establishing a family, the wish and the actual plan to emigrate and maybe even to return to the home country to raise the children becomes stronger. The increasing emigration intention when a job change of a partner or spouse is anticipated might be explained by his or her imminent unemployment and therefore the need to look for a job elsewhere. Anticipating a professional change or marriage/moving in with a partner are the only two factors in this category that have a significant impact on planning an emigration. Regarding the former, either having a concrete job offer or being certain about losing one’s job seems
to necessitate the planning of an emigration without considering it, or when inversing the causality, when planning an emigration for other reasons, one has to find a job in advance, before leaving the host country.
Several variables in the category ‘preparedness and feasibility of the move’ explain emigration intentions. Unsurprisingly, having had a positive experience living abroad before migrating to Switzerland, having lived in another country than the home country and Switzerland, and regretting having moved to Switzerland increase the probability of considering emigration. The last item shows the highest estimate of all factors in the model and also plays a significant role in planning an emigration. Coping with the household income and the qualification level are not significant factors in considering emigration. However, the latter plays a role in explaining emigration planning, with the highly educated being more inclined than the lower educated to plan an emigration.
This result goes hand in hand with the professional change discussed above: A job opportunity for the highly qualified directly triggers planning an emigration without considering it.
Transnational ties also seem to be very important in triggering emigration intentions:
Owning housing abroad and having friends abroad both increase the probability of considering leaving Switzerland. They would allow for a more rapid resettlement or reintegration in the case of an emigration, increasing in a certain way the feasibility of the move. Having a partner or a spouse living abroad has no significant influence on emigration intentions but directly triggers planning an emigration.
Table 3
Finally, embeddedness and satisfaction about life in Switzerland greatly influence the intentions to emigrate from Switzerland. On the one hand, perceiving good integration, owning housing in Switzerland, planning on becoming a Swiss citizen, and being satisfied with life in Switzerland all decrease the probability of leaving the country. In contrast, the sole perception of a risk to become unemployed and the duration of residence are positively correlated with emigration intentions. Regarding emigration planning, good integration in Switzerland surprisingly increases the probability, whereas owning housing in Switzerland, planning on becoming a Swiss citizen (the strongest factor for planning) and being satisfied with life in Switzerland all decrease the risk.
Due to the unavailability of the data, other factors that were shown to have an influence could not be integrated into the analysis, such as psychological resources (van Dalen and Henkens 2013; Canache et al. 2013; Cai et al. 2014) or societal dimensions (e.g., the political climate and the legal context regarding foreigners (Reitz 1998; Ette et al.
2014), or the experience of discrimination (Taylor 1976). In addition, we could not control for the language region in which the migrants live, because we did not dispose of this information. Moreover, for anticipated life course events, information about the place of the events or the beginning or the end of an event (e.g., starting a job or losing one) was not solicited. Other factors were not introduced in the model due to collinearity with other variables (e.g., residence permit and duration of residence).
Finally, due to the very low response numbers, the distinction of onward and return migration could not be pursued in the inferential analysis.
Discussion and conclusions
Empirical research has shown heterogeneity in the migration process across individuals, and our paper aimed at understanding the factors intervening in the migration decision-
making process of different types of migrants. Moreover, we focused on a high-income country setting, within the context of free movement of persons and focusing on a migrant group that is highly educated and integrated in the labour market.
Because we expected the initial migratory intention to be one of the most important determinants of the migration decision-making process, we tested the prevalence of different types of immigrants using cluster analysis and found five rather distinct types:
labour migrants, family migrants, students, labour and family migrants and experience seekers. The cluster analysis underlined that the variables measuring migratory motifs are a very good measure of migrants’ heterogeneity. In a second step, drawing from the literature, five sets of factors were tested to explain emigration intentions and planning:
demographics, life course events, feasibility and preparedness, transnational ties, and embeddedness in the host country.
First, emigration intentions significantly vary between the five types of migrants, with students showing the highest probability, followed by labour migrants, labour and family migrants, experience seekers, and finally family migrants. However, once the migration decision-making process becomes more concrete, we do not find any significant differences for emigration planning.
Second, we find evidence for competing plans between family obligations and professional considerations. In fact, the family component, once combined with the labour dimension, does not have the same hindering effects on emigration intentions and plans as when it is considered alone. In general, against other literature findings, the labour component seems to make the crucial difference in triggering emigration intentions.
Third, the same factors do not trigger emigration intentions and emigration planning.
On the one hand, the categories of factors that have the biggest influence on emigration
intentions are the preparedness and feasibility of the move, transnational ties, and embeddedness and satisfaction with life in Switzerland. They are therefore explained by wishful thinking or a feeling of longing to live elsewhere. Hence, being well integrated and satisfied with life in the host country hinders such intentions. Being young and flexible boosts such intentions, whereas having a family hinders them. Planning an emigration, on the other hand, is based on concrete events and facts and mainly linked to two factors regarding the professional and personal life course: finding a job abroad or having a partner who lives abroad. Therefore, the plan to leave the host country can be explained as a necessity. The initial migratory intention and therefore the demographic profile do not play a role.
The emigration intentions of Germans in Switzerland are thus explained by perceived opportunity differentials between the place of residence and a possible destination, whereas emigration planning is based on real opportunities. Moreover, the almost complete separation of significant factors in the two models indicates a non-lengthy decision-making process: Once a real opportunity abroad opens up, the plan to emigrate is made without considering the emigration beforehand.
These results need to be put into context. First, rather few Germans seem to have emigration intentions, and even fewer have actual emigration plans. This result can also arise from a selectivity bias in the sample: Individuals who have intentions might not want to participate in such a survey or have actually already left the country. Second, among the Germans who have had intentions (with or without plans), return migration intentions and plans are very important (e.g., three out of four Germans who plan to leave the country would like to return to Germany). Switzerland and Germany are two industrialised and neighbouring countries that share to a great extent the same language and culture. Economic prospects, security situations, living standards and lifestyles are
similar, if not slightly better in Switzerland. Therefore, an emigration or a return will take place only if there is a real opportunity offered in Germany. Hence, even good integration in Switzerland does not hinder planning an emigration. Therefore, migration policy seems to have a rather small impact on the emigration of well-educated and well- integrated Germans, since planning an emigration is triggered by external or personal factors.
References
Armitage, C. J., & Conner, M. (2001). Efficacy of the theory of planned behaviour: a meta‐analytic review. British journal of social psychology, 40(4), 471-499, doi:10.1348/014466601164939.
Barbiano di Belgiojoso, E., & Ortensi, L. E. (2013). Should I stay or should I go?
Exploring migrants' intentions. The case of Italy. Rivista Italiana di Economia, Demografia e Statistica.
Bolzman, C., Fibbi, R., & Vial, M. (1993). Les immigrés face à la retraite : rester ou retourner ? Revue suisse d'économie politique et de statistique, 129(3), 371-384.
Braun, M., & Arsene, C. (2009). The demographics of movers and stayers in the European Union. In E. Recchi, & A. Favell (Eds.), Pioneers of European integration. Citizenship and mobility in the EU (pp. 26-51). Cheltenham:
Edward Elgar Publishing.
Brown, L. A., & Moore, E. G. (1970). The intra-urban migration process: a perspective.
Geografiska Annaler. Series B, Human Geography, 52(1), 1-13, doi:10.2307/490436.
Cai, R., Esipova, N., Oppenheimer, M., & Feng, S. (2014). International migration desires related to subjective well-being. IZA Journal of Migration, 3(1), 1-20, doi:10.1186/2193-9039-3-8.
Caliński, T., & Harabasz, J. (1974). A dendrite method for cluster analysis.
Communications in Statistics, 3(1), 1-27.
Canache, D., Hayes, M., Mondak, J. J., & Wals, S. C. (2013). Openness, extraversion and the intention to emigrate. Journal of Research in Personality, 47(4), 351- 355, doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2013.02.008.
Carling, J., & Pettersen, S. V. (2014). Return migration intentions in the integration–
transnationalism matrix. International Migration, 52(6), 13-30, doi:10.1111/imig.12161.
Cassarino, J.-P. (2004). Theorising return migration: the conceptual approach to return migrants revisited. International Journal on Multicultural Studies, 6(2), 253- 279.
Coulter, R., van Ham, M., & Feijten, P. (2011). A longitudinal analysis of moving desires, expectations and actual moving behavior. Environment and Planning A, 43(11), 2742-2760, doi:10.1068/a44105.
Dabic, M., González-Loureiro, M., & Harvey, M. (2015). Evolving research on
expatriates: What is ‘known’ after four decades (1970–2012). The International
Journal of Human Resource Management, 26(3), 316-337, doi:10.1080/09585192.2013.845238.
de Haas, H., & Fokkema, T. (2011). The effects of integration and transnational ties on return migration intentions. Demographic Research, 25, 755-782.
de Haas, H., Fokkema, T., & Fihri, M. F. (2015). Return migration as failure or success?
The determinants of return migration intentions among Moroccan migrants in Europe. Journal of International Migration and Integration, 16(2), 415-429, doi:10.1007/s12134-014-0344-6.
De Jong, G. F. (2000). Expectations, gender, and norms in migration decision-making.
Population Studies, 54(3), 307-319, doi:10.1080/713779089.
Dustmann, C. (1999). Temporary migration, human capital, and language fluency of migrants. The Scandinavian Journal of Economics, 101(2), 297-314,
doi:10.1111/1467-9442.00158.
Ette, A., Heß, B., & Sauer, L. Tackling Germany's demographic skills shortage:
Permanent settlement intentions of the recent wave of labour migrants. In European Population Conference (EPC), Budapest, 25-28 June 2014
Ette, A., & Sauer, L. (2010). Auswanderung aus Deutschland: Daten und Analysen zur internationalen Migration deutscher Staatsbürger. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
Faist, T. (2008). Migrants as transnational development agents: An inquiry into the newest round of the migration–development nexus. Population, Space and Place, 14(1), 21-42, doi:10.1002/psp.471.
Fassmann, H., & Hintermann, C. (1998). Potential east-west migration. Sociologický časopis / Czech Sociological Review, 6(1), 59-72.
Favell, A. (2008). Eurostars and eurocities. Free movement and mobility in an
integrating Europe (Studies in Urban and Social Change). Malden: Blackwell.
Garip, F. (2012). Discovering diverse mechanisms of migration: the Mexico–US stream 1970–2000. Population and Development Review, 38(3), 393-433,
doi:10.1111/j.1728-4457.2012.00510.x.
Güngör, N. D., & Tansel, A. (2008). Brain drain from Turkey: an investigation of students' return intentions. Applied Economics, 40(23), 3069-3087,
doi:10.1080/00036840600993999.
Haberkorn, G. (1981). The migration decision-making process: some social- psychological considerations. In G. F. De Jong, & R. W. Gardner (Eds.), Migration decision making: multidisciplinary approaches to microlevel studies in developed and developing countries (pp. 252-278). New York: Pergamon.
Harvey, W. S. (2011). Immigration and emigration decisions among highly skilled British expatriates in Vancouver. In K. Nicolopoulou, M. Karatas-Özkan, A.
Tatli, & J. Taylor (Eds.), Global knowledge work: diversity and relational perspectives (pp. 33-56). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Hastie, T., Tibshirani, R., & Friedman, J. (2009). The elements of statistical learning:
data mining, inference, and prediction (2ed.). New York: Springer.
Hercog, M., & Siddiqui, M. Z. (2014). Experiences in the host countries and return plans: the case study of highly skilled Indians in Europe. In G. Tejada, U.
Bhattacharya, B. Khadria, & C. Kuptsch (Eds.), Indian skilled migration and development. To Europe and back (pp. 213-235). New Delhi: Springer India.
Ivlevs, A. (2015). Happy moves? Assessing the link between life satisfaction and emigration intentions. Kyklos, 68(3), 335-356, doi:10.1111/kykl.12086.
Jensen, P., & Pedersen, P. J. (2007). To stay or not to stay? Out‐migration of immigrants from Denmark. International Migration, 45(5), 87-113, doi:10.1111/j.1468-2435.2007.00428.x.
Joye, D., Pollien, A., Sapin, M., & Stähli, M. E. (2012). Who can be contacted by phone? Lessons from Switzerland. In S. Häder, M. Häder, & M. Kühne (Eds.), Telephone surveys in Europe: Research and practice (pp. 85-102). Berlin:
Springer-Verlag.
Kalter, F. (1997). Wohnortwechsel in Deutschland. Ein Beitrag zur Migrationstheorie und zur empirischen Anwendung von Rational-Choice-Modellen. Opladen:
Leske + Budrich.
Kaufman, L., & Rousseeuw, P. J. (2009). Finding groups in data: an introduction to cluster analysis. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.
Khoo, S.-E., & Mak, A. (2000). Permanent settlement or return migration: the role of career and family factors. Paper presented at the 10th Biennial Conference of the Australian Population Association, Melbourne, 28 November to 1 December King, R. (2002). Towards a new map of European migration. International Journal of
Population Geography, 8(2), 89-106, doi:10.1002/ijpg.246.
Kley, S. (2011). Explaining the stages of migration within a life-course framework.
European Sociologie Review, 27(4), 469-486, doi:10.1093/esr/jcq020.
Kley, S. (2013). Migration in the face of unemployment and unemployment risk: a case study of temporal and regional effects. Comparative Population Studies, 38(1), 109-136.
Kley, S., & Mulder, C. H. (2010). Considering, planning, and realizing migration in early adulthood. The influence of life-course events and perceived opportunities on leaving the city in Germany. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 25(1), 73-94, doi:10.1007/s10901-009-9167-8.
Lu, M. (2011). Analyzing migration decisionmaking: relationships between residential satisfaction, mobility intentions, and moving behavior. Environment and Planning A, 30(8), 1473-1495, doi:10.1068/a301473.
Mak, A. S. (1997). Skilled Hong Kong immigrants' intention to repatriate. Asian and Pacific migration journal, 6(2), 169-184, doi: 10.1177/011719689700600202.
Mara, I., & Landesmann, M. (2013). Do I stay because I am happy or am I happy because I stay? Life satisfaction in migration, and the decision to stay permanently, return and out-migrate. Norface Migration Discussion Paper, 2013-08,
Massey, D. S., & Akresh, I. R. (2006). Immigrant intentions and mobility in a global economy: the attitudes and behavior of recently arrived US immigrants. Social Science Quarterly, 87(5), 954-971, doi:10.1111/j.1540-6237.2006.00410.x.
Mooi, E., & Sarstedt, M. (2011). A concise guide to market research. The process, data, and methods using IBM SPSS statistics. Berlin Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.
Mueller, D. S. (2012). Middling transnationalism and translocal lives: young Germans in the UK. Doctoral thesis, University of Sussex,
Mulder, C. H., & Wagner, M. (1993). Migration and marriage in the life course: a method for studying synchronized events. European Journal of Population, 9(1), 55–76, doi:10.1007/BF01267901.
Piguet, E. (2012). The move to move - What motivates West African university students to consider leaving their countires. SNIS working paper.
Prognos AG (2008). Gründe für die Auswanderung von Fach- und Führungskräften aus Wirtschaft und Wissenschaft. Endbericht im Auftrag des Bundesministeriums für Wirtschaft und Technologie,
Pungas, E., Toomet, O., Tammaru, T., & Anniste, K. (2012). Are better educated migrants returning? Evidence from multi-dimensional education data. Norface Migration Discussion Paper, 2012-18,
Reitz, J. G. (1998). Warmth of the welcome: the social causes of economic success for immigrants in different nations and cities. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press.
Remhof, S., Gunkel, M., & Schlaegel, C. (2014). Goodbye Germany! The influence of personality and cognitive factors on the intention to work abroad. The
International Journal of Human Resource Management, 25(16), 2319-2343, doi:10.1080/09585192.2014.884613.
Richter, M. (2004). Contextualizing gender and migration: Galician immigration to Switzerland. International Migration Review, 38(1), 263-286,
doi:10.1111/j.1747-7379.2004.tb00196.x.
Rossi, P. H. (1980). Why families move. Beverly Hills: Sage.
Ryan, L., & Mulholland, J. (2014). Trading places: french highly skilled migrants negotiating mobility and emplacement in London. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 40(4), 584-600, doi:10.1080/1369183X.2013.787514.
Santacreu, O., Baldoni, E., & Albert, M. C. (2009). Deciding to move: migration projects in an integrating Europe. In E. Recchi, & A. Favell (Eds.), Pioneers of European integration. Citizenship and mobility in the EU (pp. 52-71).
Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Sell, R. R., & De Jong, G. F. (1983). Deciding whether to move: Mobility, wishful thinking and adjustment. Sociology & Social Research, 67(2), 146-165.
SETMOBIL (2017). Settlement or mobility? Survey data file 2015. Lausanne: FORS, FORSbase.
Soon, J.-J. (2008). The determinants of international students' return intention.
University of Otago. Economics Discussion Papers, 0806,
Speare, A. (1974). Residential satisfaction as an intervening variable in residential mobility. Demography, 11(2), 173-188, doi:10.2307/2060556.
Stegemann, T. (2011). Die Rückkehr immer wieder aufgeschoben. terra cognita, 18/2011, 64-67.
Stegmann, T. (2007). Einflussfaktoren auf die Rückkehrorientierung ehemaliger Gastarbeiter in Deutschland. Saarbrücken: VDM Verlag Dr. Müller.
Steiner, V., & Velling, J. (1992). Re-migration behaviour and expected duration of stay of guest-workers in Germany. ZEW Discussion Papers, 92-14,
Taylor, E. (1976). The social adjustment of returned migrants to Jamaica. In F. Henry (Ed.), Ethnicity in the Americas (pp. 213-229). The Hague: Mouton.
Tharenou, P., & Caulfield, N. (2010). Will I stay or will I go? Explaining repatriation by self-initiated expatriates. Academy of Management Journal, 53(5), 1009-1028, doi:10.5465/AMJ.2010.54533183
van Baalen, B., & Müller, T. (2009). Return intentions of temporary migrants: the case of Germany. Paper presented at the Second Conference of Transnationality of Migrants, Louvain, 23-24 January
van Dalen, H. P., & Henkens, K. (2007). Longing for the good life: understanding emigration from a high-income country. Population and Development Review, 33(1), 37-65, doi:10.1111/j.1728-4457.2007.00158.x.
van Dalen, H. P., & Henkens, K. (2008). Emigration intentions: mere words or true plans? Explaining international migration intentions and behavior. Discussion Paper CentER, 2008-60,
van Dalen, H. P., & Henkens, K. (2013). Explaining emigration intentions and behaviour in the Netherlands, 2005–10. Population Studies: A Journal of Demography, 67(2), 225-241, doi:10.1080/00324728.2012.725135.
van Ham, M., Mulder, C. H., & Hooimeijer, P. (2001). Spatial flexibility in job
mobility: macrolevel opportunities and microlevel restrictions. Environment and Planning A, 33(5), 921-940, doi:10.1068/a33164.
Waldorf, B. (1995). Determinants of international return migration intentions.
Professional Geographer, 47(2), 125-136.
Williams, R. (2006). Generalized ordered logit/partial proportional odds models for ordinal dependent variables. The Stata Journal(6), 1.
