COVID-19 return migration phenomena: experiences from South and Southeast Asia

ABSTRACT

Academic interest for the scholarship on return migration has received new vigour owing in part to the massive return migration waves observed because of the COVID-19 pandemic. This special issue consolidates studies conducted in the aftermath of COVID-19 that study return migration experiences from South and Southeast Asia. These studies harness primary as well as secondary data in order to document what happened to migrants as a result of lockdowns and related measures of immobility, the flow of migrants when borders reopened, and the condition since return to their countries of origin. Despite the fact that we draw from the context of the pandemic-induced return migration phenomena, the insights generated by our special issue are important for the scholarship of return migration at large.

KEYWORDS:

• COVID–19
• return migration
• South Asia
• Southeast Asia
• wage theft

The first section focuses on the health crisis and its impact on migrants in the destination country, the disruption of remittance flow to families in the country of origin, the resilience of migrants, challenges faced and the return migration that followed. Return migration in the context of the pandemic and the understanding of the same regarding this special issue is covered in the second section. The third section elaborates on the geographical importance of the regions covered in the special issue and why understanding the migration experiences of these regions is significant in migration governance. This is with regard to the heavy concentration of population, remittance flow, migration corridors and the number of sending countries in South and Southeast Asia. The fourth section takes up the return migration experiences of the migrants, the challenges faced while travelling, after reaching their home country and the reintegration process. The final section of the chapter presents the contents of this special issue.

1. COVID-19 and its impact on migrants

Recovering from the hard blow of a health crisis, countries all over the world are still dealing with the repercussions of the pandemic. COVID-19 created havoc in the health and welfare structures in different nations and induced an economic crisis that led to recession and wide-scale unemployment for many. As of August 2023, more than 770 million cases of COVID-19 had been reported globally and more than 6.9 million people have died (WHO 2023). The progression of COVID-19 in a matter of few months and the devastating effect it brought on was unlike anything seen before. Even the most economically powerful countries of the world experienced challenges in handling the virus that made normal life impossible for quite a while. The unprecedented situation called for quick actions and immediate structural and institutional changes in governance, health and life in general. The quick progression and the dynamic nature of the virus gave the world leaders very little time to prepare effective policies or measures to kerb the crisis that ensued. Quarantining and testing for COVID-19 quickly became the new normal. Lockdowns, work-from-home and other mobility restrictions followed suit. The impact of the pandemic was felt on an international, national and even individual level. The fear of contracting the virus and the lack of information available about the possible effects of the disease had created a tense atmosphere worldwide. The priorities of billions of people changed overnight. The political and economic systems of countries around the world took a hit. Borders were shut down, and isolation was seen as the sole key to controlling the virus's rapid spread. More than a hundred thousand international COVID-19-related travel restrictions had been imposed globally in the year 2020 (IOM 2021b). The global village that was moving towards free trade and with fluid borders came to a standstill. The interconnectedness of the various regions built over the years had to be reconfigured in a manner that could minimise any possible risk. One of the significant patterns observed on a global level was the devastating economic instability caused by the pandemic. Apart from magnifying the shortcomings in the health infrastructure in most countries and the disproportionate effect of the pandemic on developing countries (low/middle-income countries), the pandemic also disrupted the economies of these countries (Suhardiman et al. 2021). Although the impact of COVID-19 was widespread, it especially took a toll on various vulnerable groups. Migrants are one such vulnerable group who faced the immediate socio-economic effects of the pandemic. Most certainly the impact of the pandemic was not uniform throughout the various categories of migrants, and the following discussion regarding challenges faced by migrants during the pandemic is mostly pertaining to those who rank low on the skill and economic ladder. A study exploring the financial burden among different groups of Sri Lankan migrants in Qatar revealed that although all of them faced the serious impact of the pandemic, most of the semi-skilled migrants decided to permanently return back home due to instability in sending remittances as opposed to the high-skilled migrants who relied on their savings to get through difficult times (Ekanayake and Amirthalingam 2021).

Staying away from the home country and the securities that come with it instantly classifies migrants as a vulnerable section of the population who is heavily dependent on the economic returns from their employment. As countries around the globe were trying to kerb the havoc caused by the pandemic, migrants went through their own share of miseries – with some stuck abroad and some trying hard to return home. Job loss and non-payment of wages peaked during this time (Rajan and Akhil 2019, 2022; Subramaniam 2020). Apart from economic insecurities, the migrant groups were also vulnerable due to their crowded living conditions which increased their chances of contracting the virus. Gulf countries and Singapore reported extremely high infection rates with many of the cases being of migrant workers. The dingy living spaces and cramped dormitories were noted as a major reason for the rapid spread of the virus among the migrant community (Castelier 2020). The Ministry of Health in Saudi Arabia reported that migrants constituted 75 per cent of the total people who tested positive for COVID-19 as of May 2020 (Ministry of Health (MOH) Saudi Arabia 2020). Singapore ministry noted that 95 per cent of the total cases registered in the country in 2020 were of migrants living in dormitories (MOH Singapore 2020). In the U.S. more than 50 per cent of the migrants detained by the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency tested positive in May 2020 (Tosh, Berg, and León 2021).

The knowledge gap regarding basic information related to health, economic safety and welfare information due to the high dependency of migrants on their employers also reduces migrants’ capacity to make decisions during a crisis. Migrant status has been a deterring factor for migrants to access basic services, including health care. Most of the migrants in an irregular situation would have found it difficult to seek help due to fear of deportation. Although there were international agreements and organisational efforts made prior to the pandemic encouraged the expansion of services and welfare measures to all categories of migrants (e.g. the Global Health Review on Health and Migration, the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination and the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of their Families) the implementation gap of these efforts were evident in the disproportionate effect of COVID-19 on the migrant population (Benton et al. 2021; Berkhout et al. 2021). Already vulnerable due to staying away from their home countries, most of the migrants faced the harsher side of migrant realities during the pandemic. Irregular nature of female migration – the situation that had also arisen because of the government's restrictive measures on their mobility, for example in Nepal, and the nature of their work (domestic help that curtails them to support network of friends or other formal support) made women migrants especially vulnerable in this pandemic situation. As most studies in this special issue show low-skilled migrants were extremely vulnerable in terms of job cuts, wage theft and discrimination in destination countries and in the process of return to their society (Adhikari et al. 2023; Rahman 2023; Rajan 2021, 2023; Weeraratne 2023). As most migrant workers from South Asia and South East Asia were engaged in low-skilled work, the impact on these countries was significant (Farooq and Arif 2023; Ghani and Morgandi 2023; Opiniano and Ang 2023). With most countries struggling to cater to the needs of their citizens, concerns of migrants became secondary (IOM 2020b). The pandemic exposed inadequacies in the policies governing migration in both countries of origin and destination.

Mobility issues provided a serious challenge at the time of COVID-19 and these issues had devastating effects on the migrants. An analysis done by IOM (2021a) with data collected from 180 countries/territories shows that 68 countries declared a national emergency and almost 77 per cent of the 180 countries had imposed some form of mobility restriction. These measures include the quarantine of international travellers to suspension of visa issuance. Cases of migrants stuck in transit countries, unable to start their migration journey despite having secured a job and those stranded in the destination country due to their job loss were reported. A chapter in this issue (Adhikari et al. 2023) on Nepal, reveals 328,681 aspiring migrants who had possessed labour permits from the government for overseas work were unable to go abroad in 2020 leading to the loss of their investment made for this purpose. Migrants were particularly vulnerable to the economic repercussions caused by the pandemic (Withers, Henderson, and Shivakoti 2022). Even in high-income countries like the United Kingdom, European Union and the United States migrants were likely to be employed in industries that were halted or disrupted due to the pandemic and the restrictive mobility rules especially affected the migrant labourers who were unable to reach their workplace and hence lost jobs or income (OECD 2020a). Many of them reported wage theft, or reduction in their wages and this drastically impacted their capability to send remittances back home (Rajan and Pattath 2021, 2022, 2023).

Countries such as India and the Philippines aided their stranded migrants back home through the ‘Vande Barath Mission’ and Operation ‘Bring Them Home’ respectively, these evacuation missions surely challenged the already shaken administration and economy of the developing low and middle-income countries (Liao 2020). Apart from the logistical challenges of travel, the migratory status of those in irregular situations was another issue of concern. The pandemic and the mobility restrictions that came with it impacted the irregular migrants who now found it extremely difficult to return and at the same time were not able to find adequate services in their destination (OECD 2020). Social vulnerability heightened at the time of the pandemic both with regard to internal and international migrants (Rajan and Bhagat 2022). Seen as potential carriers of the virus, migrants were discriminated against and distanced in society (Rajan, Sivakumar, and Srinivasan 2020; Takenaka et al. 2020). Apprehensions and discrimination against the Asian community were widely reported with even leaders of powerful nations holding a xenophobic undertone in their speeches. The ‘Chinese virus’ and ‘Wuhan virus’ were some of the insensitive terms that were circulating in the popular media which further spread frenzy among the common people (Kurtzman 2021). South Asia's migrant workers mostly employed in the informal sector faced job losses, reduced work hours, withholding of wages and forced unpaid leave (UNICEF 2021). UNICEF studies in Sri Lanka and Bangladesh found that 30 per cent of families had lost all their income in early May 2020, and the number of South Asian children living in poverty could increase to more than 360 million within six months. Most international migrants from South Asia work as low-paid migrant workers in the GCC countries and are often subjected to exploitation (Kaur 2010; Rajan and Saxena 2019). This exploitation seems to have been amplified at the time of the pandemic. In Qatar, migrant workers from Nepal were forcefully deported in March 2020 under the pretence of COVID-19 testing, after being detained with inadequate food or water in overcrowded quarters (Budhathoki 2020; Chaudhury and Basu 2021).

South Asian and Southeast Asian Countries like India, Bangladesh, the Philippines and Nepal top the list of migrant-sending countries and also in the list of remittances received. For countries like Nepal, the remittances received contribute to a significant part of their GDP (25 per cent in 2021). Remittance–GDP ratio was 8.2 per cent in Sri Lanka,7.9 per cent in Pakistan, 5.8 per cent in Bangladesh and 4.6 per cent in Afghanistan in 2019 (KNOMAD 2020). The impact of the pandemic on the global economy was apparent from the decline in the global GDP and this economic shock was deeply felt in developing countries, mostly consisting of low and middle-income countries. Relative to a no-COVID-19 baseline, global losses were estimated at 5.5 per cent, 8.7 per cent of world GDP in 2020 and 3.6 per cent–6.3 per cent of world GDP in 2021, with the corresponding losses for developing Asia amounting to 6.0 per cent, 9.5 per cent of regional GDP and 3.6 per cent, 6.3 per cent of regional GDP in 2020 and 2021, respectively (Sawada and Sumulong 2021).

Lockdown measures in the destination country and the economic instability there forced millions of migrants to return home thereby risking the remittance crisis, especially in countries most dependent on it. The Philippines saw a drastic 75 per cent reduction in the deployment of Overseas Filipino Workers (OFWs) in 2020, the lowest deployment number in over three decades and the number of Returning Overseas Filipinos was nearly 800,000 by the end of 2020 (IOM 2021b). Bangladesh saw a 69 per cent drop in the outflow of the labour force in 2020 with only 217,669 migrating when compared to the 700,000 Bangladeshis who migrated overseas in 2019 (Ansar 2023). Although the World Bank predicted an international remittance decline of 20 per cent, migrant resilience was visible with only a 2.4 per cent decline recorded in 2020. The rising cases of COVID-19 in the home country saw the migrants pushing to provide financial support (remittance) to families in the home country to cushion the impact of the pandemic on their families, thereby giving rise to a steady flow of remittance during COVID-19 (Kpodar et al. 2021). However, this does not take away from the argument of large-scale return migration that was witnessed especially in developing countries of South Asia and Southeast Asia which also happens to contribute a large share of low and semi-skilled labourers. An Oxfam report (2021) estimates the number of people living on less than $5.50 a day has increased by between 200 million to 500 million across the world in 2020. More than two-thirds of the people newly forced into poverty will live in South Asia, East Asia and the Pacific (World Bank 2020). The disproportionate effect of return migration on countries from this region due to the socio-economic standing will be discussed further after looking into the phenomenon of return migration, as what this special issue discusses.

2. Understanding return migration

The United Nations defines returning migrants as individuals returning to their country of citizenship after having been international migrants (short-term or long-term) in another country and who are intending to stay in their own country for at least a year (United Nations 1998).

Although such a rigid definition has undergone changes over the years, the existing studies on return migration have theorised and operationalised the dynamics of return migration under conditions of normalcy and continued human mobility. The massive return migration that was observed during the pandemic cannot be effectively captured by such theorisations. Unlike political or economic crises like a war or a recession that affects a few countries at one time, the pandemic was a global phenomenon. The unprecedented events that unfolded have led to the growing importance of the matter of return migration and migration governance in general. King and Kuschminder (2022) have comprehensively compiled various theories and typologies of return migration. This compendium includes the extensive scope of return migration as a time–space event, a process (economic), an element of transnationalism and a gendered phenomenon. Similarly, there exists a wide range of ‘types’ of return migration shaped by the theories stated above and it also differs in accordance with the lens used to understand the same. Having evolved from Cerase’s (1974) four-fold typology that distinguishes between the return of failure, return of conservatism, return of innovation, and return of retirement, the scholarship of return migration today encompasses more inclusive types of return migration that are mindful of contemporary events. With regard to the return migration discussed in this special issue, Battistella's, four-fold typology of ‘return of setback’ (2018) which is a combination of a voluntary and forced return due to difficulties like unemployment, family obligation and unhappiness and the ‘return of crisis’ due to a crisis situation in the destination country – best suits the narrative of return migration that are being referred in this issue. The conditions of most of the returnees under such a crisis (pandemic) can be understood through the theory of failed migration. Cassarino (2004) explains this theory as the circumstance wherein migrants are unable to meet their expectations and goals of migration such as building a better lifestyle, sending remittances home and improving their financial conditions. Migrants face precarious conditions in employment abroad and may also face multiplying debt, underpayment, violence, or injury. These conditions lead to voluntary return but largely due to an absence of choice. This situation presents challenges such as discrimination from family and community members, loss of self-esteem and problems in achieving socio-economic stability upon the migrant's return.

Return migration is often understood to be an episode of an individual's migration journey rather than a special form of migration (Carling and Erdal 2014). Mostly seen as a simple process as compared to migration, return is much more complex than the decision to migrate. Economic factors contribute largely to the reasons for return but non-economic factors such as socio-cultural factors also shape return migration. Czaika and Varela (2015) elaborate on the same, wherein they state that on a micro level intersection of the life cycle, migratory cycle and family cycle play an important role in the decision to return whereas, on a macro level, it could be the changes in the labour market or occupational structure of the economy back home. However, the reason for return can vary vastly among individuals based on several factors: age, gender, saving, vulnerability, job security and other related reasons. Kuschminder (2017) believes that the failure of reintegration measures to understand the varied needs of different sections of the returnees-such as temporary or permanent, students, refugees or those returning due to health or economic reason is a major reason why such measures meet with limited success. As a result, as explored in one of the articles in this issue, this lack of understanding of the needs of different groups of returnees that the government is not able to make an appropriate reintegration policy (Adhikari et al. 2023).

Although this special issue focuses on distressed returnees who had a hard time returning and reintegrating back home, the inevitability of return for temporary migrants is also given equal importance. Most of the South Asian and Southeast Asian countries are home to millions of temporary migrants, for whom settlement abroad is not an option. The United Arab Emirates’ new immigration policy that offers a 10-year expanded golden visa scheme seeking more professionals does broaden opportunities but in no way promises permanency for these migrants.¹ Though the idea of returning migrants may look like brain gain for the origin country, studies note that there is a higher probability of unskilled and semi-skilled migrants returning as compared to those who are highly skilled (IOM 2020b). Added to this most of the sending countries, are mostly overpopulated and these developing countries do not have a large enough labour market to absorb these sections of return migrants who are mostly semi-skilled or unskilled (Friedmann and Sullivan 1974). Such returns can challenge the absorption capacity and resilience of households, communities and societies in the country of origin (IOM 2019).

Return migration is an inevitable step in the migration journey of temporary migrants. Reintegration models in developing countries are finding it difficult to handle the return of migrants under normal circumstances let alone be prepared for a crisis like that of the pandemic. Large-scale return migration is closely linked to a state of crisis. The pandemic (health crisis), recession (economic crisis) and war (political crisis) form a few of the major reasons for mass involuntary return migration (Appleby and Kerwin 2018). COVID-19 caused one of the biggest human displacements in recent history. The massive return migration observed as a result of COVID-19, and the inadequate support received by a majority of them, both help us understand the implementation gaps that persist in institutional mechanisms governing migration. In the case of Kerala, the state in India that contributes towards the largest share of its international migrants, the survey conducted among 1985 return emigrants during COVID-19 observed that 90 per cent of the respondents were unaware of any rehabilitation programmes run by the government (Rajan and Pattath 2021, 2022). The lack of scholarship on return migration is definitely a contributing factor to the generic reintegration measures currently in place. However, the issues are much deeper in terms of structural challenges faced by migrants from the origin countries of the Global South. Agarwala (2022) looks at this issue from the class lens and effectively points out the lack of attention paid to poor migrants from India and her historical overview of Indian migration policy also observes how the needs of poor emigrants continue to be neglected compared to the country's elite migrants. In addition, the absence of administrative tools to register returning migrants means that in many countries the number of returnees is unknown (Battistella 2018; Zachariah and Rajan 2005, 2007; Zachariah, Prakash, and Rajan 2003). An understanding of the knowledge and skill composition of the returnees is essential to planning and executing effective reintegration measures. Most of the countries in South Asia and Southeast Asia, belonging to the low and middle-income groups, cannot recreate such models with the same level of efficiency and it goes on to do more harm than good. Reintegration is generally understood as a multidimensional process enabling individuals to reestablish the economic, social and psychosocial relationships needed to maintain life, livelihood and dignity and achieve inclusion in civic life (IOM 2020a). Analysing reintegration measures is an important theme of this special issue, with few studies even providing suggestions and frameworks that lead to the successful reintegration of returnees.

3. Migration experience in South Asia and Southeast Asia

The term South Asia and Southeast Asia has been used by academicians over the years to not only denote a geographical region but also a classification of countries that share common socio-economic, cultural and religious characteristics. This includes the level of poverty, development and inequalities observed in these regions. Another commonality within these regions is their emigration pattern which is broadly classified as the following (Jain and Oommen 2016):

1. Indentured labour emigration

2. Kangani/Maistry labour emigration

3. ‘passage’ or ‘free’ migration

4. Brain drain’ type/voluntary emigration to the metropolitan countries of Europe, North America and Oceania

5. Labour migration to West Asia including the Gulf countries.

These trends of emigration can be traced back to a similar colonial past of exploitation and extraction of resources among many South Asian and Southeast Asian countries.

Inefficient health infrastructure, poverty level, low developmental indicators, poor socio-economic conditions, lack of water and sanitation, and overpopulated and crowded living spaces are some of the factors that made tackling COVID-19 extremely challenging for the South Asian and Southeast Asian countries (Rasul et al. 2021). According to the Global Health Security Index (2019), the conditions of more than 70 per cent of South Asian countries push them into the bracket of ‘least prepared’ countries for a global pandemic. Developing countries like India and Pakistan have large slum settlements such as Dharavi (Maharashtra) and Orangi Town (Karachi), housing almost 1.0 and 2.5 million people respectively (Habitat for Humanity 2019). About 42 per cent of households in Afghanistan use unsafe drinking water and more than 50 per cent do not have access to water and soap to wash their hands (ICIMOD 2020). A majority of the population in these regions is either self-employed or engaged in agricultural-related activities with the informal sector services engaging the largest workforce. The service industry and micro, small and medium enterprises (MSMEs) employing these informal workers took a massive blow with the onset of COVID-19 restrictions imposed by the government. Many MSMEs had to close down their operations as they could not sustain operations through the lockdown period leading to widespread unemployment and economic losses (ILO 2020b). The Pakistan Institute of Development Economics (PIDE) predicted layoffs of about 12 million workers and an increase in the percentage of poor from 25 to 55 per cent in 2020 (PIDE 2020). These statistics reflect the deplorable conditions to which the migrants have to return. The above-listed factors in themselves made it impossible for these countries to contain the spread of the virus as effective measures like physical distancing and tapping into the potential healthcare facilities in itself proved to be a herculean task. Naturally, the impact of COVID-19 has significantly affected the countries from these regions that mostly fall into the middle and low-income brackets. Analyses run by various organisations predict extreme risks in terms of macroeconomic stability, monetary burden and overall economic growth for countries belonging to these regions (Rasul 2020).

International migration patterns in South and Southeast Asian countries prevail mainly due to pull factors like economic opportunity, health services, educational opportunity and overall conditions of living. Migrants from these regions have an overwhelming presence all around the globe (World Economic Forum 2017). Central and Southern Asia had the largest share (78 per cent) of its diaspora residing outside the region. Central and Southern Asia was the birthplace of the second-largest number of international migrants (51 million) (World Bank 2023). India, Bangladesh and Pakistan feature in the top ten migrant-sending countries (IOM 2021a). India alone has nearly 20 million people living abroad making Indians the largest emigrant population in the world (World Bank 2023) and migration from Asia to North America reached 17.5 million and to Europe, it stands at 23 million. In the 2019 census, the United States of America reported that India, China and the Philippines were the top three origin countries of immigrants belonging to Asia, with Southeast Asia having 4.4 million of the total immigrant population (DHS 2020). The 2021 Canada census reveals Punjabi to be the fourth widest spoken language after English and French in Canada.² The 2022 census in Australia shows that the Nepali-born population increased by 124 per cent in the last five years.³

Given the socioeconomic conditions of these regions listed above, migration and remittances form an integral part of the economies of all these countries. In 2019, remittances to low and middle-income countries equated to US$540 billion and their value is understood to be larger than that of foreign direct investment (World Bank 2020). The actual decline of international remittance flows (2.4 per cent) was much less than initially projected (20 per cent). With remittances of US $101 billion, India ranked first on the list of the highest inflow of remittances. The Philippines with US $38 billion and Bangladesh with US $21 billion also feature in this list in 2022 (KNOMAD 2020). Remittances account for more than seven per cent of the GDP in Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka (IOM 2021b). South Asia also encompasses one of the largest bilateral corridors of south–south migration (India–Bangladesh). This corridor and another seven connecting South Asian and Southeast Asian countries to various destination countries feature in the top 20 migrant corridors in the world (UNDESA 2020).

The large-scale reverse migration points towards the lack of enabling conditions for migrants abroad. The gaps and irregularities in the policies and laws guarding migrant rights were widely visible at the time of the pandemic. Their transnational status means that their rights may not be protected by domestic host country labour laws and at the same time they cannot access social security in their home country. The COVID-19 pandemic has brought the precarity of temporary migration to the forefront, including the sustainability of remittances as a source of development capital for labour-sending countries (Shivakoti 2022).

4. Reintegration of the returnees

The inevitability of return (both international and internal) became apparent for migrants around the globe, both international and internal as the mobility restriction tightened and life away from home kept getting more difficult. Return migration had a more severe impact on the vulnerable section of the migrants who had lost their jobs, did not receive wages and were facing physical ailments during the pandemic. With little to no services available in terms of access to health care and other social security schemes abroad, most of the migrants especially those who have a temporary status decided to return home. This is evident in the reverse migration trend and the number of rescue operations conducted by countries across the world to bring back stranded migrants. The sub-regional meeting on evacuation and repatriation supported by the International Labour Organisation in 2020 saw representatives from India, Bangladesh, Nepal and Sri Lanka also actively participate in the same (Baruah, Nair, and Chaloff 2021).

A significant proportion of the migrants from South Asia reside in the GCC countries and this section is predominantly constituted of unskilled labourers (Rajan 2017; Rajan and Oommen 2020). The temporary nature of their emigration automatically adds ‘return’ to their migration journey (Rajan and Arokkiaraj 2022). The spike in COVID cases reported in the Gulf countries among migrants showed the severity of the crisis and the disproportionate effect it had on migrant workers in this region. The lack of basic services available, wage theft and abuse faced by migrants made it clear that although migrants compensate for the labour shortage in destination countries the low-skilled workers are often exploited and lack any real social or economic security (Khan and Arokkiaraj 2021). The kafala⁴ system crafted by the Gulf countries limits the assimilation of migrant workers through various policy and institutional measures (Weeraratne 2020). Although the analytical understanding regards assimilation as a mutual process between immigrants and the host society, but theories also suggest that obstacles in assimilation mostly occur due to the prejudices and biases of the majority society and not the immigrants (Laubenthal 2023). Migrant workers are often the first to be laid off in times of economic crisis. A combination of factors motivated migrant workers’ return, including the fear of a worsening COVID-19 situation, job losses or expected job loss (ILO 2020b). The ILO rapid assessment found that 47 per cent of the returnees left jobs because they chose to, and 24 per cent had a contract that was due to end, 16 per cent had employers who permanently or temporarily ended their contracts prematurely (ILO 2020b).

The return journey of these distressed migrants was complicated and challenging. The repatriation flights charged exorbitant flight fares which were reported to be more than normal on some routes (Chowdhury 2020). South Asian and Southeast Asian countries struggled to maximise the potential of their healthcare systems to deal with the rising cases in their regions as receiving migrants required additional resources. Mandatory quarantine carried out in many South Asian countries was reported to be in unhealthy conditions and there were also reports of returnees being locked up in government facilities (Sharma et al. 2020). Even after due process, once they reached home the returnees were greeted upon arrival with apprehension and fear from neighbours as they were seen as potential virus carriers (Lee et al. 2021). As Rahman (2023) show in the case of Bangladesh, the status of migrants changed from ‘economic hero’ to ‘spreader of infection’. Already facing economic difficulties, such distancing and stigmatisation added to the social insecurities of the returnees.

Most of the returnees had not foreseen such a crisis and lacked any preparation for how to handle such a situation. The same applies to the governments of both the destination and the origin country. There are international and national frameworks in place for return migrants and reintegration of returnees mainly focused on assimilation into the labour force (Berlemann and Steinhardt 2017). The volume of returnees and the intensity of the health crisis that engulfed the entire world required reintegration and assimilation frameworks that are much beyond mere labour market reintegration. The 5R (Relief, Repatriation, Recovery, Return and Reintegration) framework developed by the Philippines to ensure the safety of its nationals back to the country helped in assisting affected Filipino migrants in all stages of the migration process during the pandemic. The Indonesian model of comprehensive reintegration is an example of designing context-specific reintegration processes based on three groups of migrants, categorised according to levels of challenges faced in the destination and home country (Bachtiar and Prasetyo 2017).

The involuntary return caused by the pandemic rendered these migrants helpless on their return. Several countries and civil society organisations have tried to navigate resources to support such returnees. Many developing countries such as India and Bangladesh were burdened with their internal migrant crisis. However, measures such as the Skilled Workers Arrival Database for Employment Support (SWADES, a skill-mapping initiative launched by India) and the online vocational-technical training courses of the Technical Education and Skills Development Authority (TESDA) set up in the Philippines were encouraging (ILO 2020b). However, the policies and programmes of the host and origin countries mostly treated migrants as a homogeneous group ignoring the varied vulnerabilities faced by different sections of migrants. Most low-skilled women labourers from the Global South are employed as domestic workers overseas, having limited access to information about their rights or policies that aid migrant labourers (ILO 2018). During the pandemic, a study conducted among Bangladeshi domestic workers in the Gulf countries noted that they were overworked and underwent extreme difficulties in accessing help as regulations about domestic work do not come under national labour laws in the Gulf countries (Ansar 2023). Given that there is a limited labour market for domestic workers in countries of the Global South as compared to countries of the Global North, the employment opportunities for the women who returned during the pandemic were sparse (ILO 2020a). There are also cases wherein the professional qualifications of the return migrants do not match the requirements of existing vacancies and hence they may need additional training. Added to this most of the sending countries, are mostly overpopulated and developing countries like those in South and Southeast Asia, do not have a large enough labour market to absorb these sections of return migrants who are mostly semi-skilled or unskilled. From the point of view of the country of origin, such returns can challenge the absorption capacity in the country of origin (IOM 2020b).

The importance of migration and return migration in South Asia and Southeast Asia was reinstated during the pandemic and the need to have reintegration policies catering to the needs of the returnees gained some attention. As discussed, the scholarship on return migration is one of the lesser-explored facets of migration studies, especially in the policy and institutional context. This special issue responds to the return migration debacle that was observed during the pandemic and the various contributions also systematically analyse what went wrong and what went right in the return experience and reintegration measure to then provide some operative recommendations and suggestions.

5. The special issue

The contributions to this issue provide a comprehensive understanding of a wide range of issues related to return migration as an impact of the COVID-19 crisis. This special issue reflects comprehensively on the challenges and issues identified with the kind of return migration discussed above. This includes the lack of planning and preparedness shown by both the host and country of origin, the discriminatory treatment faced by migrants who are otherwise regarded as integral to the economy and also the inadequacy and implementation gaps in the reintegration measures currently employed. The studies covering South Asian and Southeast Asian countries like India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Nepal, the Philippines and Afghanistan do not merely expand on the problems and challenges of return migration but provide effective frameworks and suggestions that can help address the issues identified.

Weeraratne (2023) dives into the economic crisis experienced by Sri Lankan migrants abroad due to the mobility restrictions imposed in the countries of destination countries. The study's empirical analysis explores the different dimensions of wage theft that were experienced by the majority of migrants during the pandemic. These include non-negotiable wage reductions, delays in payments of dues, non-payment of salary and non-provision of other benefits. The Kafala system that enables employer-sponsorship mechanism (leading to curtailment of the rights of the migrant workers) is also explored. Among the 300 returned migrants who were part of this study, 59 per cent had lost their employment and the majority of them reported various forms of wage theft. The study also provides certain strategical measures as a remedy to the disproportionate effects of wage theft and other grievances faced by migrant workers.

Rahman (2023) elaborate on the involuntary return experience of Bangladeshi migrants in the Arab Gulf states (Castelier 2020). The study investigates returnees’ experiences, right from their arrival in their home country to their travels home. Through documenting experiences at various sites of return migration, they demonstrate how these sites adversely impacted returnees’ experiences and made their return disgraceful. Rahman and his colleagues explain how the development narratives of labour migration swiftly changed from ‘national heroes’ to ‘corona super-spreaders’ during the pandemic. Conceptually, Rahman and his associates have also highlighted that a ‘disgraceful’ return differs from a ‘failed or unsuccessful’ return in the Gulf migration context. Another important section of the study is its understanding of the vulnerabilities faced by involuntary returnees and the paper also stresses the importance of targeted policy measures that can address these vulnerabilities.

Ghani and Morgandi (2023) examine the impact of return migration on labour market outcomes such as wages and employment in South Asia by utilising a computable general equilibrium model. This paper utilises the GMig2 version of the GTAP (Global Trade Analysis Project) model in order to model a labour demand shock due to COVID-19. The migration dataset for the model is provided by KNOMAD (Global Knowledge Partnership on Migration and Development) and the labour force dataset by ILO. The labour demand shock is modelled as a positive change to the available labour force in the country due to the return migration of workers and due to lower levels of outward migration during the COVID-19 period. The study finds that the shock has heterogeneous effects by the skill types of labour and by industry. Overall, manufacturing and services industries gain employment over agricultural and primary industries and skilled labour experiences stronger effects than unskilled labour. These heterogenous effects hint at the important distributional implications of movement restriction policies such as those imposed during the period of COVID-19.

Two of the contributions shed light on the reintegration measures taken in the home countries. Opiniano and Ang (2023) analyse the reintegration measures in the Philippines by understanding how Filipino overseas workers have responded to these services. Not only does this study dig deep into the return migration scholarship in Southeast Asia but also the particular focus on Philippines, (a country with a well-established labour management system that dates back to the 1970s). The paper's documentation of the Philippines’ handling of returnees brings forth an interesting dimension to analysing the government's action during a unique crisis like COVID-19. The combination of quantitative and qualitative methods used in the study and linking research findings to previous studies in similar areas have helped bring forth some effective conclusions and recommendations.

Adhikari et al. (2023) review Nepal's reintegration policies with a key focus on Nepali migrants but through the vulnerability lens. Hence the analysis done here (based on a study conducted in Nepal, surveying almost 3000 respondents and information collected while implementing an reintegration programme), intricately dissects policies that worked and that did not work. This is done using the Disaster Justice framework which argues for the social vulnerability of a migrant to be identified as an important determinant of assessing if a policy benefited the migrant. Apart from pointing out the ineffective government mechanisms that did not allow for the proper implementation of a few relevant policies, the paper also holds into account the discriminatory nature of policies prior to the pandemic that has pushed certain sections like women and low-skilled labourers down the resilience scale as compared to other returnees.

Farooq and Arif (2023) focused on the study of return migrants in Pakistan. The study initially investigates the impacts of the pandemic on overseas migrants and then proposes a policy framework that could aid in the successful reintegration of these returnees and the potential ones into the labour market of the country. This suggested framework is a result of a close analysis of the problems and inadequacies observed in existing reintegration strategies. The new framework stresses the need for awareness among migrants and their families with regard to their reintegration possibilities. The paper suggests redirecting remittances sent by migrants into productive investments which will not only ensure successful reintegration but also the overall development of the country's economy. Looking at reintegration measures from the pre-migration, migration and post-migration phases makes the suggested framework a possible solution for potential migrants worried about returning back and also helps in building the resilience of these vulnerable groups even at a time of crises like the pandemic.

The contributions so far focused on studies understanding the impact of the pandemic on return migrants and analysed the various reintegration measures in place and their effectiveness. The next contribution explores the association between conditions faced by the return migrants in the host country and their country of origin and their decisions regarding re-emigrating or reintegrating. Using the household-level data from the Return Emigration Survey conducted in Kerala and Tamil Nadu in 2021, Rajan (2023) explore a relatively unexplored question of whether mistreatments or bad experiences faced by migrants affect their decision to stay back or re-emigrate on their return to their country of origin. India is the largest migrant-sending country and thereby one of the largest receivers of returnees. The findings of the study are identified as an integral part of migrant governance planning with regard to responding to the future intentions of the returnees to India.

Limani and Arcand (2023) undertake an extensive study of the migration behaviour of 242 Keralites over 20 years of panel dates (1998–2018), based on the five rounds of Kerala Migration Surveys (Rajan and Zachariah 2019; Zachariah, Mathew, and Rajan 2001a, 2001b). With a focus on understanding the remittance pattern of temporary migrants, the quantitative framework aims to break down the motivations behind such remittance patterns. The study finds that remittance behaviour in long run can be explained by understanding migration as a long-term investment decision of the household. The specific findings of the study have helped in forming policy recommendations with regard to the successful reintegration of returnees which can prove extremely viable post the large-scale return migration observed during the pandemic.

This special issue on the COVID-19 return migration phenomenon, with a focus on South and Southeast Asia, does a comprehensive coverage of several topics related to return migration. This includes the immobility of migrant workers during crises in destination countries; factors affecting their decision to return; increased vulnerability of return migrants to racism and xenophobia during crises; socioeconomic implications of return migrant flows for countries of origin; migration governance and policies for return and reintegration in origin countries; and determinants of migration in a post-pandemic world. Apart from adding to the scholarship on return migration, the special issue has adopted an interdisciplinary lens in understanding issues related to return migration thereby bringing in aspects of economics, law, social anthropology and political science. The studies focused on countries like Nepal and Sri Lanka, countries that are often underrepresented in such contexts expands on the ethnic diversity of the sub-population covered.

This special issue makes three major contributions. First is the interdisciplinary lens it has employed in studying return migration, which goes beyond migration and ethnic studies to include aspects and dynamics regarding economics, law, social anthropology and political science. The studies included cover a broad range of disciplines with the required sensitivity and research methods merited by the subjects of these topics. While studying return migration itself becomes complicated because of the unidirectional assumption of urbanisation and the difficulty of measurement, complexity regarding the migrants’ decision to return temporarily vs. permanently as well as the sustainability of permanent return and reintegration into remittance-dependent societies make it an important conversation in migration and development. In addition, multiple dimensions of ethnicity affect the decision to return, the process of adjustment upon return and the transnational community formation that happens over time among sending-communities. The studies cover all these topics rigorously using a mixture of methods. In effect, the studies deliver insights pertaining to the role of networks, family ties, transnational identities, resource constraints and individual as well as collective preferences that determine migration.

Second is the importance of the geographic scope of the studies in the current return migration phenomenon, but also for future migration trends and governance in the post-pandemic world. Notwithstanding the cross-country study the country specific papers on India, the Philippines, Bangladesh and Pakistan which are among the top countries of origin, by including two underrepresented regions in Nepal and Sri Lanka we enhance the breadth and depth of the stories we document. The studies capture information based on the migration corridors of these countries of origin as well as several countries of destination, a less common but increasingly important inclusion in migration scholarship. This increases the scope of this special issue to document the transnational cultural change and community formation in the origin and destination countries. As will be clearer from the studies themselves, the similarities as well as the nuanced differences in terms of destination regions and employment opportunities, education and skill profiles of the migrants, and the migration pattern at large situate this special issue uniquely among the scholarship on return migration.

Third, and most important, is that these studies fill gaps related to return migration as a part of the migration continuum and support their analysis with unique empirical evidence which is either sparse or difficult to measure. Most of the studies rely on new surveys conducted in the aftermath of COVID-19 and have the additional benefit of documenting the dynamics and figures of return migration in their respective countries (Rajan and Pattath 2020; Rajan, Sivakumar, and Srinivasan 2020). These studies are conducted with the support of the relevant country governments and research institutions in these countries, thereby increasing the proximity of the insights derived from these studies to real world policies. Our inclusion of the long-term case study of Kerala, in India which has a rich history of international labour migration is a rigorous exercise that documents the importance of panel data in predicting migration trends accurately. Some of our studies also demonstrate innovative methods of data collection which can serve as examples for future scholars who wish to study migration under resource constraints.

The studies contained in this special issue show not only policy gaps in supporting migrants in destination as well as origin countries when they return during this pandemic, but also identify the areas where further research and policy improvements have to be undertaken. Given that natural disasters like COVID-19 pandemic are growing due to various factors like climate change and environmental deterioration, policies and practices of national and international institutions to help migrants in such circumstances will be become even more important. Research on how to better prepare migrants to cope with such conditions and in developing social, political and economic infrastructures that help migrants in such conditions are urgently needed. As migrants pass through transnational space, co-operation of labour sending countries, destination countries and international institutions, mainly UN agencies, is required for this purpose. At present, such a co-operation has been envisioned in SDGs – for which all countries are responsible. Since migration and remittances could contribute to sustainable development if proper policies are in place, attention should be given to proper reintegration of the returnee migrants. Articles contained in this special issue identify what are these gaps in research and policies and how to resolve them.

Acknowledgements

We acknowledge the research assistance of both Balasubramanyam Pattath (The Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies) and Varsha Joshi (International Institute of Migration and Development) for their support in assisting the special issue.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1 https://www.livemint.com/news/world/uaes-new-immigration-laws-come-into-effect-today-see-changes-11664760611075.html.

2 https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/index-eng.cfm.

3 https://www.abs.gov.au/census/find-census-data/quickstats/2021/7105_AUS.

4 A sponsorship system that binds migrant workers to one employer (a sponsor) in many countries of West Asia.