Return to Afghanistan: Migration as Reinforcement of Socio ... · of migration, which merges...

POPULATION, SPACE AND PLACEPopul. Space Place (2014)Published online in Wiley Online Library

Return to Afghanistan: Migration asReinforcement of Socio-EconomicStratificationMarieke van Houte1,*, Melissa Siegel1 and Tine Davids21Maastricht Graduate School of Governance, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands2Centre for International Development Issues Nijmegen (CIDIN), Department of Cultural Anthropology andDevelopment Studies, Radboud University Nijmegen, Nijmegen, The Netherlands

(wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/psp.1876

ABSTRACT

This paper explores a new avenue of thehierarchisation of mobility amongst voluntaryand involuntary return migrants toAfghanistan. We introduce the concept ofmultidimensional and multi-localembeddedness as an analytical approach to themulti-sited experience of migration, whichmerges transnationalism and integration into oneanalytical framework. Drawing on an in-depthcase study that focuses on the life histories of 35Afghan returnees from European countries, weargue that socio-economic differences that existedprior tomigration are reinforced by themigrationexperience,which results in stronglydifferentiatedpatterns of multidimensional embeddedness andtransnational mobility. These patterns reinforcepreviously existing socio-economic stratificationand restrict expectations of returnmigration anddevelopment. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley &Sons, Ltd.

Accepted 19 July 2014

Keywords: return migration; embeddedness;mobility; inequality; Afghanistan

INTRODUCTION

I n this globalised world, newer, cheaper, andmore efficient modes of communication andtransportation can facilitate increasing bene-

fits of mobility to migrants who can expand their

*Correspondence to: Marieke van Houte, PhD candidate,Maastricht Graduate School of Governance, Maastricht Uni-versity, The Netherlands.E-mail: [email protected]

social environment across borders and maintainties in multiple social worlds (Vertovec, 2001;Carling, 2002; Hess, 2004; Sherrell & Hyndman,2006; Mazzucato, 2008). Maintaining connectionsto places of origin and destination allows mi-grants to take advantage of geographical differ-ences, diversify their opportunities to improvetheir quality of life, and help guard against potentialdownturns (Carling, 2002; Horst, 2007; Bakewell,2008; Hyndman, 2012; Jain, 2012; Piotrowski & Tong,2013). In addition, different spaces of embeddednessmay serve different purposes in the lives of migrants(Oeppen, 2012). This transnationalisation of mi-grants’ lives implies that integration in receivingsocieties and commitment to origin societies arenot necessarily substitutes but can be comple-ments (De Haas, 2010; Dekker & Siegel, 2013;Erdal & Oeppen, 2013).

The transnational turn therefore raised renewedexpectations on the contribution of migrants todevelopment. In addition to being considered asthe higher educated, wealthy, entrepreneurial,and strongly networked élite, these migrants areexpected to benefit from their migration toindustrialised countries and obtain additionalknowledge, skills, savings, and ideas. Their trans-national ties to the country of origin are expectedto motivate them to invest these material and im-material capacities to benefit the development ofthe country of origin (Al-Ali et al., 2001; De Haas,2005; Sherrell & Hyndman, 2006; Bloch, 2008; Hall& Kostić, 2009). Although discussions on the linkbetween migration and development globallyhave focused on successful economic migrants,countries throughout the European Union haveexpanded this link to also encompass the returnof refugees, failed asylum seekers, and undocu-mented migrants to (post-)conflict countries(ICMPD & ECDPM, 2013).

Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

M. van Houte, M. Siegel and T. Davids

Despite these optimistic expectations, the in-creasing significance and benefits of transnationalties also highlight mobility and the right or capac-ity to migrate as an important dimension of in-equality and social stratification (Bauman, 1998;Portes, 1999; Carling, 2002; Sørensen et al., 2002;Faist, 2008; King, 2012). Mobility, even wartimemigration, is a privilege of a relatively wealthyminority, whereas many others are not as free tomove as they would like (Carling, 2002;Bakewell, 2008; Lubkemann, 2008; King, 2012).The study of migrants’ contribution to develop-ment should therefore recognise the‘hierarchisation of the right to migrate’ (Castles,2005: 218, Castles et al., 2014) and ‘the power ge-ometries of transnational relations and migratorymovements’ (King, 2012).

Research shows that mobility is an essential ca-pacity and desire in the lives of return migrants,leading to strong empirical differences in the post-return experiences of those who are transnationallymobile after return and those who are not (VanHoute et al., forthcoming). Continued transna-tional mobility allows migrants to take advantageof geographical differences (Carling, 2002), whilstit gives a crucial sense of security in instable or(post-)conflict countries, knowing that theywould be able to re-emigrate if needed (Castlesand Miller, 2009). To the contrary, returnees whoare unable to match desires of mobility with theircapacities, because of their lack of legal status inthe former host country and stricter asylum poli-cies, experienced involuntary immobility after re-turn (Carling, 2002), causing a lot of unrest anddiscontent and a feeling that they are ‘stuck’ in apossibly explosive environment.

This article explores this new avenue of thehierarchisation of mobility. Drawing on an in-depth case study that focuses on the life historiesof 35 Afghan returnees from European countries,we compared voluntary returnees, who had thepermanent legal possibility to stay in the countryof destination and involuntary returnees, whoreturned without such possibility (Van Houteet al., forthcoming). Afghanistan’s protracted his-tory of conflict and migration of the last 35 yearsis a relevant case to study a diversity of migrationexperiences that have developed over time(Jazayery, 2002; Stigter, 2006).

In the following,wefirst introduce the concept ofmultidimensional andmulti-local embeddedness asan analytical approach to themulti-sited experience


of migration, which merges transnationalism andintegration into one analytical framework. Afterdiscussing the methodology and a brief overviewof the history of Afghan migration, we analyse thedifferences between voluntary and involuntary re-turnees by exploring the interplay between socio-economic background, the migration experience,post-return embeddedness, and mobility. We con-clude that migration creates unequal opportunitiesto accumulate skills, knowledge, and savingswhilstabroad, which results in strongly differentiated pat-terns of multi-local embeddedness and transna-tional mobility. These patterns reinforce previouslyexisting socio-economic stratification and restrictexpectations of return migration and development.As mobility plays a key role in post-returnembeddedness, we argue alongwith Bakewell thatthe expectations of policies on return migrationand development can only come true if returnpolicies respect and enable the continuedmobilityof migrants (Bakewell, 2008).

MULTIDIMENSIONAL EMBEDDEDNESS

The concept of multidimensional embeddednessprovides an analytical framework to study themulti-sited and complex experience of migrants.Embeddedness was introduced in its currentmeaning by Granovetter (1985) who used it toexplain how individual economic actions are em-bedded in contextual factors such as social net-works. Granovetter used examples of immigrantsto explain the concept of embeddedness, as‘foreign-born communities represent one of theclearest examples of the bearing contextual factorscan have on individual economic action’ (Portes &Sensenbrenner, 1993: 1322).

Kloosterman et al. launched the idea of mixedembeddedness, in which the constant interplaybetween agency and structure is highlighted. Al-though an actor’s choices are to some extent de-termined by structure, actors also have a certaindegree of agency over their choices, which canin turn redefine structures (Kloosterman et al.,1999; Kloosterman, 2010). Agency can be seen asan actor’s effort to match desires and capacities,whilst being shaped by and shaping the structuralcontext, defined as the forces that are external toand impacting on people (Portes & Sensenbrenner,1993; Van Houte et al., forthcoming).

In addition to being mixed, Granovetter ’s ini-tially narrow understanding of embeddedness

Popul. Space Place (2014)DOI: 10.1002/psp

Table 1. Types of return migrants in the case study.

Type of return Female Male Total

Voluntary 4 16 20Involuntary 0 15 15Independent 0 11 11Forced 0 4 4

Total 4 31 35

Source: Afghan return migration study, 2012.

Return to Afghanistan

was extended to a multidimensional concept bysubsequent scholars. Kloosterman et al. highlightedthe crucial interplay between the social, economic,institutional, and cultural contexts (Kloostermanet al., 1999; Kloosterman, 2010). The identificationof different dimensions of embeddedness, althoughsometimes arbitrary, facilitates the understandingof the complex reality of migrants, who may bestrongly embedded on one dimension and less soon the other (Levitt, 2003, in Oeppen, 2009).

We refer to multidimensional embeddednessas an ongoing process of an individual’s identifi-cation with and participation in one or multiplespaces of belonging. Two important advantagesof this approach are highlighted here. First, themulti-local aspect of embeddedness merges un-derstandings of transnationalism and integrationinto one analytical framework. This enables anunderstanding of migrants’ belonging to placesof origin, destination, and potential other spacesof embeddedness as complements rather thansubstitutes (De Haas, 2010; Dekker & Siegel,2013; Erdal & Oeppen, 2013). Second, the multidi-mensional aspect of embeddedness, includinginstitutional, economic, social, and cultural di-mensions helps to provide a holistic understand-ing of the individual’s life. Third, the mixedapproach implies a non-static and non-normativeunderstanding as it does not state how migrantsshould relate to these structures. Rather, it offersan approach to look at migrants’ self-perceivedagency to match their capacities and desires inrelation with the structural context. Structuralforces, desires, and capacities of returnees canplay a role on each of the dimensions ofembeddedness (Van Houte et al., forthcoming).Multidimensional embeddedness has the poten-tial to compare pre-migration with post-returncircumstances as well as migrants with non-migrants. This article will however focus on thecomparison between different types of returneesin order to explore the heterogeneity amongstthem.

METHODOLOGY

The fieldwork for this article took place in Kabulbetween May and July 2012 during two fieldvisits of one month each and was conducted bythe first author in cooperation with an Afghantranslator/assistant. The fieldwork was logisti-cally facilitated by Cordaid Kabul. In total, 35


returnees, notably returning from the Netherlands,the UK, Germany, and Scandinavia, participatedin the study. All returnees with the permanent le-gal possibility to stay in the country of destinationwere considered as voluntary, whereas allreturnees without such possibility are marked asinvoluntary (Van Houte et al., forthcoming). Inaddition, the level of agency was significantlydifferent for migrants who were returned withthe use of force (Schuster & Majidi, 2013).Therefore, a distinction is made between indepen-dent involuntary return, including thosewho partic-ipated in ‘Assisted Voluntary Return’ programmes,and (physically) forced or deported involuntaryreturn. Table 1 shows the number of voluntaryand involuntary returnees in the study.

A methodological challenge was that return mi-grants from Europe proved to be a hidden popula-tion (Bloch, 2008) for a number of reasons. First,returnees from industrialised countries are rela-tively small in number. Second, as there is no centraladministration or long-termmonitoring system ofreturnees, they are easily lost out of sight afterthey have returned (Jacobsen & Landau, 2003;Eastmond, 2007). Third, although voluntary re-turnees are quite visible in society, involuntary re-turnees typically do not want to expose themselves.Tracing them was therefore a labour-intensive task.The result was that the sample could not be ran-domly selected. By diversifying the points of en-try as much as possible, we tried to limit thenegative effects of these limitations.

The characteristics of the research populationinevitably led to a selection bias on multiplegrounds. First, the capital Kabul as a research sitereflected the reality of return: approximately 30%of all returnees settled in Kabul (Stigter, 2006).This general number is higher for returnees fromEuropean countries: Afghans who migrated toEurope were more likely to be of urban



background and were more likely to return toKabul (Turton &Marsden, 2002). This urban focusnevertheless implies that the results are not repre-sentative for return to more remote or rural areas.Second, because of the demographic reality thatmigratory movements are gender selective, therewas a strong male bias on the presented perspec-tives of the returnees. Third, the vulnerableposition of a part of the research group created is-sues of representativeness aswell as ethical issues.Violence and displacement can affect the trust,willingness, or ability to speak (Jacobsen & Landau,2003; Eastmond, 2007). In this study, some returnmigrants refused an interview out of anger anddisappointment with ‘the West’, were untraceable,or had already re-emigrated. These unresponsivegroups are likely to represent the more vulnerablecategories of returnees.

As a research methodology, we focused on theautobiographical narrative to give room to thenon-static and non-normative understanding ofembeddedness. Instead of asking for pre-definedelements, the researcher asked for their life histo-ries as an emic approach to examine how actorsascribe meaning to a particular set of experiencesand to address the socio-spatial ambivalence ofmigrants who are confronted with multiple socialworlds (Eastmond, 2007; Gibbs, 2007; Amelina,2010; Meeus, 2012). When telling their life history,respondents present their narrative as having ameaningful and coherent order, imposing on real-ity a unity that it does not inherently possess.Rather than a reconstruction of factual informa-tion, this narrative organisation shows how indi-viduals frame their story and ascribe meaning totheir experiences from the perspective of todayand with relation to the social context (Ewing,1990; Lutz, 1998; Eastmond, 2007; Gibbs, 2007).The autobiographical exercise was assisted by vi-sual and participatory techniques such as time-line drawing and photographing one’s own life.It was attempted to have at least two individualmeetings with all respondents. In addition, threegroup meetings were held, and key informantswere consulted. All data were systematicallyanalysed with the help of computer-assistedqualitative data analysis software (Atlas.ti GmbHScientific Software Development, Berlin, Germany),from which an empirically grounded understand-ing of embeddedness emerged. Before discussingthese results, we will describe the structural contextwithin which Afghan migration took place.


‘WAVES’ OF AFGHAN MIGRATION

The early phases of the conflict caused the out-flow of refugees from the Afghan élite, consistingof the ‘traditional’ élite that is often defined bylineage, such as belonging to the royal family orlocalised political or religious leaders, and ‘new’élites who accessed higher education and werepart of a relatively wealthy, urban class (Oeppen,2009). In 1979, the Soviet Union invaded Afghan-istan to counter the resistance against the Afghancommunist regime (Collins, 2011). This started afirst wave of élite refugees who were membersof the pre-communist regime or non-leftist intel-lectuals escaping detentions and executions(Jazayery, 2002). In 1992, 3 years after the SovietUnion had withdrawn, the Afghan communistregime was overthrown by the Mujahedeen,causing a second wave of élites who were affili-ated with the communist regime (Jazayery,2002). Despite their sudden departure with fewresources, these élite refugees were often relativelywell equipped to leave the country (Oeppen, 2009).Those with the greatest resources were able totravel directly to the US or Europe and often re-ceived refugee status and permanent residencepermits (Van Houte et al., forthcoming). Althoughthe Afghan élite is a minority of the total Afghanrefugee population, they are therefore overrepre-sented in the industrialised countries (Oeppen, 2009).

The widespread generalised and ethnic vio-lence of the later phases of the conflict causedmassive outflows of migrants. After seizingpower in 1992, several ethnic factions of theMujahedeen fell apart in a civil war (Marsden,1999). The continued civil conflict was a breedingground for the rise of the Taliban in 1994. They vi-olently conquered the country and took power in1996, installing a harsh regime including the eth-nic cleansing of the Shi’a and Hazara population,which coincided with a prolonged drought be-tween 1998 and 2001 (Marsden, 1999; Jazayery,2002; Turton & Marsden, 2002; Collins, 2011).The vast majority of these new migrants who fledcivil conflict, Taliban rule, and drought couldonly travel across the border and sought refugein the neighbouring countries. However, the de-crease of international funds after the end of theCold War caused an increasingly restrictive atti-tude of Pakistan and Iran towards their Afghanrefugee populations (Turton & Marsden, 2002;Blitz et al., 2005; Collins, 2011; Abbasi-Shavazi



et al., 2012). A number of Afghans who did notwant to return and who had the opportunity de-cided to move on to European countries (Turton& Marsden, 2002). These later arrivals of Afghansto Europe encountered more restricted immigra-tion and asylum policies and were often giventemporary asylum status (Jazayery, 2002; Turton& Marsden, 2002; Van Houte et al., forthcoming).

The overthrow of the Taliban in 2002 sparkedboth voluntary and involuntary return move-ments of Afghans from Europe. The greater abil-ity to travel to Afghanistan led to a growingnumber of Afghans with permanent residencestatus that was willing to return voluntarily to in-vest in and contribute to the reconstruction of thecountry (Jazayery, 2002). A small proportion ofthese voluntary returnees stayed in Afghanistanon the longer term (Blitz et al., 2005; Braakman,2005; Oeppen, 2009). In addition, European stateswithdrew temporary asylum statuses, becamestricter on incoming asylum seekers, and initiatedthe return of Afghans without permanent legalstatuses in ‘voluntary’ return programmes(IRIN, 2011; Schuster, 2011). Hereafter, we willdiscuss how these differences in socio-economicbackground and migration experience influenceboth multidimensional embeddedness andpost-return mobility.

VOLUNTARY AND INVOLUNTARY RETURN

In this section, we explore the background and mi-gration experiences of the voluntary and involuntary

Table 2. Circumstances of departure of voluntary and invol

Year of birth Pre-19701970–19801981–1990

Year of departure Pre-19941995–2001Post-2001

Age upon departure 4–1314–2021–3030–50

Means of travel UnaccompaniedWith family



returnees in this case study. Table 2 shows the cir-cumstances of departure of the respondents.

The majority of voluntary returnees in thisstudy were members of the Afghan élite whowere affiliated with the communist regime andmigrated in the period around its fall in 1992.Many left at a young age, mostly together withtheir parents, whereas a number of young maleAfghan migrants were sent ahead by their fami-lies. Because they were able to leave the countryin an early stage of the conflict and because oftheir high profile, they were often granted refu-gee status and eventually citizenship of the coun-try of residence. These refugees were able toparticipate in the new society of residence andhad access to education, opportunities to learnthe language, and employment. Although thesepeople described the period of familiarisation tothe new country as challenging, the experiencealso gave them the opportunity to increase theircapacities and gave them a strong sense of self-worth. Nevertheless, many of these high-skilledmigrants experienced a ‘glass ceiling’, hinderingtheir career, which they related to discriminationand racism (Ammassari, 2004). In addition, espe-cially olderAfghanswho had an influential positionbefore migration often experienced a downwardsocio-economic mobility compared with their élitestatus in Afghanistan (Oeppen, 2009).

Involuntary returnees were of more modestdescent and left mainly during the Taliban pe-riod. Others had already fled during the civilwar and had first resided in Iran or Pakistan be-fore moving on to Europe. All involuntary

untary returnees.

Voluntary Involuntary

1 212 117 216 44 90 210 08 61 71 25 1515 0



returnees travelled alone as unaccompanied mi-nors, young adults, or as married men who lefttheir families behind in Afghanistan or in theneighbouring countries. Although they were notamongst the poorest in Afghanistan, they oftensold property or borrowed money from relativesto pay for the journey. In addition, many stayedin transit countries for several years to savemoney for the rest of the trip and therefore tookup to 9 years to reach Europe. They arrived inEuropean countries in a later stage and claimedbut never received refugee or permanent asylumstatus. Their temporary asylum status or undocu-mented situation restricted their opportunities toenrol in education or improve their languageskills. Being lower educated and with an insecurelegal status, any jobs they found were in the in-formal sector and typically low skilled and didnot generate many new skills or savings. Their le-gal status did not allow them to fully participatein society, and their lives there can be describedas being in that country, but not of it, as theytended to live segregated from the broader desti-nation population (Portes, 1999; Piotrowski &Tong, 2013).

Table 3 shows the post-return circumstances ofthe returnees in this study. Voluntary returneesreturned to Afghanistan when they felt this was,given their individual circumstances, the best op-tion (Cassarino, 2004). The foreign-aid industry

Table 3. Post-return circumstances of voluntary and involun

Year of (first) return 2002–20072008–20102011–2012

Occupation Private business ownerInternational organisationAfghan governmentAfghan non-governmental orgaLow-skilled employee or self-emUnemployedUnclear

Housing Shared house with returnees/gWith familyAlone

Marital status SingleMarried or in a relationship, spMarried pre-migration, living wMarried post-return, living with



and the commercial opportunities in a countrywhere everything needed to be rebuilt after de-cades of conflict offered them the opportunity totake high-skilled jobs or start their own businessthat ran on funds provided by the internationalcommunity. These were highly desirable jobs con-sidering the high expatriate salaries and the op-portunity to work in the Afghan context withinternational colleagues. In this way, althoughmuch had changed since their departure, theycould reclaim meaningful and prestigious posi-tions upon return, and they found themselvesagain at the upper end of the social ladder. Thispleasantly contrasted with their moderate posi-tion in their Western European country of resi-dence. Issues with regard to the reason formigration such as political disputes were remark-ably absent from these returnees’ narratives. Vol-untary returnees, who were single or left theirspouse in Europe, lived with other returnees orindependently. Returnees who were married lefttheir families in the European country and sup-ported them in cash flows that have been calledreverse remittances (Mazzucato, 2011). A minorityof voluntary returnees married after return andlived with their spouse.

Contrary to voluntary return, involuntary returnfelt like a step back rather than an improvement. Ifinvoluntary returnees succeeded economically, thiswas despite rather than thanks to their time abroad.

tary returnees.

Voluntary Involuntary

8 1111 21 28 36 12 0

nisation 2 0ployed 0 8

0 32 0

uesthouse 7 09 144 19 0

ouse in Europe 7 0ith spouse 0 4spouse 4 11



They were often in low-skilled and unstable jobs,informally self-employed, or unemployed. Whilstthey were already less well networked comparedwith the élite returnees, they lost the networks theyused to have and were therefore disadvantagedcompared with a large and equally skilled work-force. In addition, they felt that the working circum-stances for low-skilled labourwereworse comparedwith those in the European host country. Only a fewinvoluntary returnees managed to find low-skilledemployment within civil or military internationalorganisations. Finally, large parts of their previoussavings and belongings had diminished to payfor the journey, and they had not been able to re-trieve them. Their weak economic and institu-tional embeddedness put them in a vulnerablesituation, which put them in dependent relation-ships with their relatives and in which they feltunprotected from generalised violence. Theirmigration experience felt like wasted time andmoney. Although they were not amongst thepoorest within the Afghan society before migra-tion, their migration experiences often left themimpoverished and frustrated. Involuntary re-turnees mostly lived with their spouse and otherrelatives, as they were all married in Afghanistaneither pre-migration or after return.

To further illustrate and explore the differenttypes of return, we will now discuss two casesthat are representative for the voluntary and in-voluntary returnees in this study. The first caseof Nadir is representative for the members ofthe Afghan élite who left after 1992 and returnedvoluntarily, whereas the second case of Omarrepresents the group of more modest descentwho arrived in Europe in a later stage and hadto return involuntarily.

Nadir

Nadir1 is an Afghan voluntary returnee in hisearly thirties whose family belonged to theAfghan urban élite. Nadir and his family escapedto Pakistan in 1992. From there, Nadir was, at theage of 16, the first of his family to travel to theNetherlands with the help of a smuggler, afterwhich his mother, brother, and sisters also cameto Europe. Nadir was recognised as a refugee,received support to build his life in the new coun-try, and eventually received Dutch citizenship.With regard to this period, Nadir said that he al-ways worked hard to keep up with his classmates


because of language and adaptation problemsand existing preoccupations about foreigners: ‘Ihad to fight. It wasn’t easy, but I did everything’.

The events of 11 September 2001 triggered hisreturn. In the rush of attention on the war in Af-ghanistan, Nadir, who was a journalism student,could profile himself as an expert on Afghanistan,who spoke the local language and had followedWestern education. After being an assistant journal-ist and translator for Dutch media in Afghanistan,he was offered a well-paid job at an internationalaid organisation. Ten years after his first return toAfghanistan, he still works there.

InNadir’s life, three spaces of embeddedness canbe identified, which have different meanings forhim. The Dutch society as a space of embeddednessmeans, in the first place, a safe haven. Nadir kepthis Dutch apartment to go to in case the securitysituation in Afghanistan would deteriorate andto escape the stressful working environment ofAfghanistan every now and then. In addition, theNetherlandswas a place of socio-economicwealth,where facilities are better and comfortable housingand leisure activities make life easier. He said:

I have a born love for my country, but a rationalrespect for the Netherlands. It gave me every-thing that I could never get in Afghanistan.(– Nadir [voluntary returnee (m) interview,original in Dutch])

Afghanistan was a place of opportunitieswhere he, as one of the few higher-educated peo-ple in the country, could combine a well-paid ca-reer with a feeling that he could contribute torebuilding Afghanistan. Nevertheless, he foundit sometimes difficult to identify and interact withAfghan social life.

Life here is meaningful. (…) I speak thelanguage and I know the culture and the jobis interesting. The other side is that you don’thave a social life, except for some relations.You cannot have a normal social life (…). Andthe insecurity. That’s really eating up yourenergy. (– Nadir)

Socially, Nadir related to the Dutch space ofembeddedness, where a ‘normal’ social life wouldfor him include having a beer outside a bar with a



couple of friends, although that image now alsoseemed strange. He chose to live separately fromhis relatives as he said he became too Western tohandle the lack of privacy of an Afghan familyhome. Nevertheless, he was still drawn to hisAfghan social network, as he explained that as asuccessful migrant with an international job afterreturn, he was now seen as a role model, and hefelt responsible for the well-being of his extendedfamily. At the same time, the burden to carry theresponsibility for his relatives (Jazayery, 2002) alsodistanced him from them and put restraints on hisbehaviour:

In Afghanistan you’re always playing a role. Ifyou talk with the community, you have toshow that you’re a good Muslim. (…) In theNetherlands, you can be yourself more. (–Nadir)

Nadir was also strongly embedded in the largeinternational community of Afghanistan throughhis employment. His Dutch passport worked likea reliability certificate for these employers, as itsuggested a certain knowledge of and affinitywith the Western working mentality. In turn,Nadir said he felt more comfortable with hisnetwork of international professionals and heidentified more with the international than localAfghan working conditions, as he found it hardto deal with the latter’s widespread corruption.Staying in the secure and well-equipped guest-house of the international development organisa-tion where he worked gave him the logisticalmeasures to deal with the unstable security situa-tion of Afghanistan. Altogether, Nadir said that ifit were not for an international organisation, hewould not be able to work in Afghanistan.

Nadir noticed that the security situation wasdeteriorating and he was becoming tired of thestressful situation. He planned to leave Afghanistanwithin the next few years.

I think it has been enough. I have tried to helpAfghanistan for quite some time, and now I’dlike to go back to do some sports, live a bit,think about myself a bit. (– Nadir)

Leaving Afghanistan would not necessarilyimply going back to the Netherlands as he feltunsure whether he would be able to find a job


in the current economic and political climate thathe felt had become less friendly towards for-eigners. In deciding where his next place to workwould be, he said: ‘I have become a world citizen.I could live anywhere’.

Despite the difficult times he experienced as arefugee and the ongoing dilemmas in his life,Nadir benefitted from his migration experience.His multi-local embeddedness meant that hecould fulfil different needs in different territorialand non-territorial spaces of embeddedness. Histransnational mobility made him less bound bythe structural restrictions of places. He could con-stantly re-evaluate his options for his private andprofessional life in the interplay between his de-sires and capacities for security, socio-economicopportunities, and belonging.

Omar

Omar is an Afghan involuntary returnee in hisearly thirties. His family was not amongst thepoorest in Afghanistan but was not part of theélite either. Omar and his family fled Afghanistanbecause of the widespread generalised violence,which erupted with the start of the civil war in1992, when he was 14. The family lived as refu-gees in Pakistan and Iran. Omar commented onthis period:

[A]ll the Afghanistan people, they just split upand they went to different places. I went to theUK and (…) Afghanistan just broke out like atree. (…) one branch falls down, the otherbranch goes another way, one branch just burnsand the other branch just get dry and then at theend the actual tree has nothing. It’s only a drytree. This is what happened to me and at thistime. (– Omar [involuntary returnee (m), inter-view, original in Dari, via translator])

With the metaphor of the tree, Omar illus-trated how he felt the conflict tore apart the socialstructure of Afghanistan and that of his family:some family members stayed in Iran, some wentback to Afghanistan, and others travelled toEurope and applied for asylum. Omar arrived inthe UK in 2000. He was given a temporary asylumstatus that allowed him to follow English classesand work temporarily at a bakery, before his sta-tus was withdrawn after the fall of the Taliban.



He managed to linger on as an undocumentedmigrant but was finally arrested and agreed toreturn in 2007, because he said: ‘without the visain a strange country you’re just a prisoner ’.

Omar’s multidimensional embeddedness bothin his former host country and in Afghanistan canbe described as weak. As Omar never had a legalbasis to live in the UK and only stayed there in aninsecure temporary asylum situation, he did nothave ongoing economic, institutional, or culturallinkages with the country. Rather, he felt that themigration experience was a waste of time andmoney that prevented him from following educa-tion, doing relevant jobs, or saving money. Afterhis return to Afghanistan, he felt that he lackedthe education, working experience, and local con-nections to find employment. He moved fromone low-skilled temporary job to the other andwas at the time of research working as an electri-cian for a telephone company. Without a Westernpassport, higher education, or sufficient knowl-edge of English or other languages, the doors tothe high-paid jobs in the international communityalso remained closed. The only and importantlink with Europe was through several of hisbrothers and sisters who still lived there and sup-ported the family through remittances.

In Afghanistan, too, Omar’s only basis forembeddedness was his family, who took him inthe family home, where accommodation, food,and income were shared. Omar felt lucky to betaken in by his family, although it also put himin a dependent situation.

[T]he thing is that in Afghanistan once you’rein a circle, if the circle gets tighter and tighteryou have to live with it. And you have to dealwith it, (…) you cannot just get yourself outof the circle. (– Omar)

Table 4. Patterns of migration and return.

BackgroundArrival in Europe Legal status

Élite (Nadir) End 1980s early 1990s Refugee statuscitizenship

Modest (Omar) Mid-1990s early 2000s Temporary asyRejected asylundocumente



Omar indicated that he felt trapped in the ‘circle’he was in. He highlighted the lack of agency overhis own life and that he could only obey the wishesof his family. Although he tried several times toleaveAfghanistan again, he realised that his chanceshad decreased because of tightened asylum regula-tions and his lack of savings. This gave him thefeeling of being stuck in Afghanistan. The feelingof having played and lost the ‘migration game’resulting in an impoverished, immobile, and depen-dent situation had a strong psychological effect onhim andwas a source of anger and disappointment.

DISCUSSION: MIGRATION AND RETURNMIGRATION AS A REINFORCEMENT OFSOCIO-ECONOMIC STRATIFICATION

The life histories of Nadir and Omar are represen-tative cases of voluntary and involuntary returneesfrom European countries to Afghanistan. Theyillustrate the strong patterns of how the socio-economic background, migration experience, post-return embeddedness, and post-return mobility areinterlinked and reinforce socio-economic stratifi-cation, presented in Table 4.

Migrants who were members of the Afghanélite before migration often benefitted from theirmigration experience. Their voluntary return en-abled multi-local embeddedness and continuedtransnational mobility. These returnees often kepttheir social, institutional, and economic ties to theEuropean country of residence. Their relativewealth and dual citizenship gave them the free-dom to constantly re-evaluate their options tostay or move. They could combine the advan-tages of the different dimensions in multiplespaces of embeddedness by moving back andforth between the countries of their citizenship.In addition, their European passport representednot only a feeling of belonging to the country

Return Embedded Mobility

Voluntary Multi-localand strong

Transnationallymobile

lumumd

Voluntary Uni-local andweak

Involuntaryimmobile



but also an internationally recognised documentthat ensured freedom of movement to any placein the world (Nagel & Staeheli, 2004). Some ofthese returnees did not consider themselves asreturned, but rather as living in two places.

On the other hand, migrants of more modestdescent lost rather than won from their migrationexperience. Their involuntary return hamperedtheir embeddedness, which was largely limitedto Afghanistan and resulted in a situation of de-pendence and involuntary immobility (Carling,2002). In the context of Afghanistan, this was verydisempowering. As the opportunities for legal mi-gration or asylum are decreasing both in the regionand inWestern countries, they know that their pos-sibilities to move are limited, and they would haveto resort to even more dangerous and expensivetravel routes, with a higher risk of failure. Theprospect of having nowhere to go in case the secu-rity situation in Afghanistan deteriorates causedan uneasy feeling of being stuck in Afghanistan.

Although the cases of Omar and Nadir repre-sent a very strong general pattern in the data, itdoes not mean that all migration experiences de-velop along the same lines. There were respon-dents in this study with a high social backgroundwho returned involuntarily and returnees of moremodest background who returned voluntarily,which immediately mitigated the stratifying effectof migration and return. Moreover, migrants’ indi-vidual experiences strongly vary within thesegeneral patterns, based on their personal desiresand capacities, which is discussed elsewhere (VanHoute & Davids, forthcoming). The conclusionsof this article will however focus on the remark-ably strong general patterns that we identified.

CONCLUSION

The transnational turn has raised renewed expec-tations within the debate on migration and devel-opment, assuming a number of characteristics ofreturn migrants from industrialised countriesthat enable their contribution to developmentupon return. However, the increasing significanceand benefits of mobility also make inequalities inthe right or capacity to migrate an important di-mension of social stratification. As research showsthatmobility highlights differences not only betweenmigrants and non-migrants but also amongst returnmigrants, this article explored this new avenue of thehierarchisation and social stratification of mobility


(Castles, 2007). Conceptually,we introducedmultidi-mensional and multi-local embeddedness as an ana-lytical approach to the multi-sited experience ofmigration, which merges transnationalism and inte-gration into one analytical framework.

This article showed how previously existingsocio-economic differences were reinforced bythe migration experience, which results in stronglydifferentiated patterns of post-return multidimen-sional and multi-local embeddedness and transna-tional mobility. Returnees who were members ofthe Afghan élite before migration often benefittedfrom their migration experience. Their early arrivaland high profile led to refugee status, which en-abled full participation in the host country, andvoluntary return, which resulted in strong andmulti-local embeddedness and continued transna-tional mobility. To the contrary, Afghan migrantswho were of more modest descent lost rather thanwon from their migration experience. Their latearrival meant that they faced the disadvantagesof increasingly restrictive asylum policies, leadingto insecure legal status. This stood in the way ofparticipating in the host country and resulted in in-voluntary return, which led to aweakmultidimen-sional embeddedness that was largely limited tothe Afghan space. The uneasy feeling of being‘stuck’ in Afghanistan because of their involuntaryimmobility and their relative failure comparedwith successful returnees (Carling, 2004)made themfeel impoverished, disempowered, and frustrated.

The results of this study show, other than theassumptions that underlie migration and devel-opment policies, that not all migrants are élites,not all returnees benefit from their migration ex-perience, and not all are strongly multi-locallyembedded. Rather, the opportunities migrantshave to accumulate skills, knowledge, and savingsin the host country, which theymay invest after re-turn, are unequally distributed amongst differenttypes of migrants. Socio-economic differences thatexisted prior to migration are reinforced by the mi-gration experience, which results in strongly dif-ferentiated patterns of multi-local embeddednessand transnational mobility. This finding restrictsexpectations of return migration and develop-ment. As mobility plays a key role in post-returnembeddedness, we argue along with Bakewellthat the expectations of return migration and de-velopment policies can only be realised if returnpolicies respect and enable the continued mobilityof migrants (Bakewell, 2008).



ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This research was made possible with financialsupport by Cordaid, PSO and UNU-Merit.

NOTE

(1) To protect the privacy of the participants in thisstudy, all names are pseudonyms. For the same rea-son, details such as towns or countries of residenceare sometimes intentionally unspecified.

REFERENCES

Abbasi-Shavazi MJ, Sadeghi R, Mahmoudian H,Jamshidiha G. 2012. Marriage and family formationof the second-generation Afghans in Iran: insightsfrom a qualitative study. International Migration Re-view 46: 828–860.

Al-AliN, BlackR,Koser K. 2001. Refugees and transnation-alism: the experience of Bosnians and Eritreans inEurope. Journal of Ethnic andMigration Studies 27: 615–634.

Amelina A. 2010. Searching for an appropriate researchstrategy on transnational migration: the logic ofmulti-sited research and the advantage of the cul-tural interferences approach. Forum:Qualitative SocialResearch 11.

Ammassari S. 2004. From nation-building to entrepreneur-ship: the impact of élite return migrants in Côte d’Ivoireand Ghana. Population, Space and Place 10: 133–154.

Bakewell O. 2008. ‘Keeping them in their place’: theambivalent relationship between development andmigration inAfrica. ThirdWorldQuarterly 29: 1341–1358.

Bauman Z. 1998.Globalization: The Human Consequences.Polity Press: Cambridge.

Blitz BK, Sales R, Marzano L. 2005. Non-voluntary re-turn? The politics of return to Afghanistan. PoliticalStudies 53: 182–200.

Bloch A. 2008. Zimbabweans in Britain: transnationalactivities and capabilities. Journal of Ethnic and Migra-tion Studies 34: 287–305.

Braakman M. 2005. Roots and Routes. Questions of Home,Belonging and Return in an Afghan Diaspora. LeidenUniversity: Leiden.

Carling J. 2002. Migration in the Age of InvoluntaryImmobility: Theoretical Reflections and Cape VerdeanExperiences. Journal of Ethnic andMigration Studies 28:5–42.

Carling J. 2004. Emigration, return and development inCape Verde: the impact of closing borders. Population,Space and Place 10: 113–132.

Cassarino JP. 2004. Theorising return migration: theconceptual approach to return migrants revisited. In-ternational Journal onMulticultural Societies 6: 253–279.


Castles S. 2005. Nation and empire: hierarchies of citi-zenship in the new global order. International Politics42: 203–224.

Castles S. 2007. Twenty-first-century migration as achallenge to sociology. Journal of Ethnic and MigrationStudies 33: 351–371.

Castles S, Miller MJ. 2009. The Age of Migration: Interna-tional PopulationMovements in theModernWorld. Fourthed. Palgrave Macmillan: Basingstoke and New York.

Castles, S, De Haas H, Miller MJ. 2014. The Age of Mi-gration: International Population Movements in the Mod-ern World, fifth ed. Palgrave Macmillan: Basingstokeand New York.

Collins JJ. 2011. Understanding War in Afghanistan.National Defence University Press: Washington.

De Haas H. 2005. International migration, remittancesand development: myths and facts. Third WorldQuarterly 26: 1269–1284.

De Haas H. 2010. Migration and development: a theo-retical perspective. International Migration Review 44:227–264.

Dekker B, Siegel M. 2013. Transnationalism and inte-gration: complements or substitutes? UNU-MERITWorking Papers. Maastricht Graduate School of Gov-ernance: Maastricht.

Eastmond M. 2007. Stories as lived experience: narra-tives in forced migration research. Journal of RefugeeStudies 20: 248–264.

Erdal MB, Oeppen C. 2013. Migrant balancing acts: un-derstanding the interactions between integration andtransnationalism. Journal of Ethnic andMigration Studies39: 867–884.

Ewing KP. 1990. The illusion of wholeness: culture, selfand the experience of inconsistency. Ethos 18: 251–278.

Faist T. 2008.Migrants as transnational development agents:an inquiry into the newest round of the migration–development nexus. Population, Space and Place 14: 21–42.

Gibbs GR. 2007. Analyzing Qualitative Data. Sage: LosAngeles.

Granovetter M. 1985. Economic action and social struc-ture: the problem of embeddedness. American Journalof Sociology 91: 481–510.

Hall J, Kostić R. 2009. Does integration encourage rec-onciliatory attitudes among diasporas? Global Migra-tion and Transnational Politics Working Paper. Centerfor Global Studies, George Mason University: Fairfax.

Hess M. 2004. ‘Spatial’ relationships? Towards a recon-ceptualization of embeddedness. Progress in HumanGeography 28: 165–186.

Horst HA. 2007. ‘You can’t be two places at once’: re-thinking transnationalism through Jamaican returnmigration. Identities 14: 63–83.

Hyndman J. 2012. The geopolitics of migration andmobility. Geopolitics 17: 243–255.

ICMPD and ECDPM. 2013. Migration and DevelopmentPolicies and Practices. AMapping Study of Eleven EuropeanCountries and the European Commission. International



Centre for Migration Policy Development/EuropeanCentre for Development Policy Management: Vienna/Maastricht.

IRIN. 2011. Migration: Afghan Asylum-Seekers Hitby Tighter Immigration Rules. Retrieved 27 March,2014, from http://www.irinnews.org/Report/92329/MIGRATION-Afghan-asylum-seekers-hit-by-tighter-immigration-rules

Jacobsen K, Landau LB. 2003. The dual imperative inrefugee research: some methodological and ethicalconsiderations in social science research on forcedmigration. Disasters 27: 185–206.

Jain S. 2012. For love and money: second-generationIndian-Americans ‘return’ to India. Ethnic and RacialStudies 36: 896–914.

Jazayery L. 2002. The migration–development nexus:Afghanistan case study. InternationalMigration40: 231–254.

King R. 2012. Geography andmigration studies: retrospectand prospect. Population, Space and Place 18: 134–253.

Kloosterman RC, Van Der Leun J, Rath J. 1999. Mixedembeddedness: (in)formal economic activities andimmigrant businesses in the Netherlands. InternationalJournal of Urban and Regional Research 23: 252–266.

Kloosterman RC. 2010. Matching opportunities withresources: a framework for analysing (migrant) entre-preneurship from amixed embeddedness perspective.Entrepreneurship & Regional Development 22: 25–45.

Lubkemann SC. 2008. Involuntary immobility: on atheoretical invisibility in forced migration studies.Journal of Refugee Studies 21: 454–475.

Lutz H. 1998. The legacy of migration: immigrantmothers and daughters and the process of intergen-erational transmission. In Caribbean Migration.Globalised Identities, Chamberlain M (ed.). Routledge:London; 96–110.

Marsden P. 1999. Repatriation and reconstruction: thecase of Afghanistan. In The End of the Refugee Cycle? Ref-ugee Repatriation and Reconstruction, Black R, Koser K(eds). Berghahn Books: New York and Oxford; 56–68.

Mazzucato V. 2008. The double engagement: transna-tionalism and integration. Ghanaian migrants’ livesbetween Ghana and the Netherlands. Journal of Eth-nic and Migration Studies 34: 199–216.

Mazzucato V. 2011. Reverse remittances in themigration–development nexus: two-way flows be-tween Ghana and the Netherlands. Population, Spaceand Place 17: 454–468.

Meeus B. 2012. How to ‘catch’ floating populations?Research and the fixing of migration in space andtime. Ethnic and Racial Studies 35: 1775–1793.


Nagel CR, Staeheli LA. 2004. Citizenship, identity andtransnational migration: Arab immigrants to theUnited States. Space and Polity 8: 3–23.

Oeppen C. 2009. A Stranger at Home: Integration, Trans-nationalism and the Afghan Élite. University of Sussex:Sussex.

Oeppen C. 2012. A stranger at ‘home’: interactions be-tween transnational return visits and integration forAfghan-American professionals. Global Networks 13:261–278.

Piotrowski M, Tong Y. 2013. Straddling two geo-graphic regions: the impact of place of origin anddestination on return migration intentions in China.Population, Space and Place 19: 329–349.

Portes A. 1999. Conclusion: towards a new world – theorigins and effects of transnational activities. Ethnicand Racial Studies 22: 463–477.

Portes A, Sensenbrenner J. 1993. Embeddedness andimmigration: notes on the social determinants ofeconomic action. The American Journal of Sociology98: 1320–1350.

Schuster L. 2011. Turning refugees into ‘illegal mi-grants’: Afghan asylum seekers in Europe. Ethnicand Racial studies 34: 1392–1407.

Schuster L, Majidi N. 2013. What happens post-deportation? The experience of deported Afghans.Migration Studies 1: 221–240.

Sherrell K, Hyndman J. 2006. Global minds, localbodies: Kosovar transnational connections beyondBritish Columbia. Refuge 23: 16–26.

Stigter E. 2006. Afghan migratory strategies – an assess-ment of repatriation and sustainable return in responseto the convention plus. Refugee Survey Quarterly 25:109–122.

Sørensen NN, Van Hear N, Engberg-Pedersen P. 2002.The migration–development nexus: evidence andpolicy options. International Migration 40: 49–73.

Turton D, Marsden P. 2002. Taking Refugees for aRide? The Politics of Refugee Return to Afghanistan.Issues Paper Series. The Afghanistan Research andEvaluation Unit (AREU): Islamabad.

Van Houte M, Siegel M, Davids T. forthcoming.Deconstructing the meanings and motivations of re-turn: an Afghan case study.

Van Houte M, Davids T. forthcoming. Love (n)or mar-riage: how do afghan return migrants from Europenegotiate belonging to one or multiple spaces ofembeddedness?

Vertovec S. 2001. Transnationalism and Identity. Journalof Ethnic and Migration Studies 27: 573–582.


http://www.irinnews.org/Report/92329/MIGRATION-Afghan-asylum-seekers-hit-by-tighter-immigration-rules



Return to Afghanistan: Migration as Reinforcement of Socio ... · of migration, which merges...

Documents

Transcript of Return to Afghanistan: Migration as Reinforcement of Socio ... · of migration, which merges...