Socio Economic Reintegration on the Fit of Migrant Worker Returnees Policy and Process and Life Satisfaction of Ugandan Migrant Worker Returnees from Middle East
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.47672/ajppa.1711Keywords:
Social Economic Reintegration, Life Satisfaction, Migrant Worker PolicyAbstract
Purpose: The current study was undertaken to establish the contribution of socioeconomic reintegration on the fit of migrant worker returnees policy and process and life satisfaction of Ugandan migrant worker returnees from middle east so as to come up with a unified model for improvements in Uganda. Its objectives main objective was to explore the mediating effect of socio economic reintegration on the fit of migrant worker returnees’ policy and process and life satisfaction of Ugandan migrant worker returnees from Middle East.
Materials and Methods: In an effort to address the set objectives, a cross-sectional survey design which followed both quantitative and qualitative research approaches was adopted. Data was collected from a total quantitative sample of 218 Ugandan migrant worker returnees from Middle East. A qualitative sample of 25 managers of registered labour export companies and ministry officials in Uganda was determined by saturation point approach. The data was analysed at descriptive and inferential level, and later a Path Equation Model was fitted through Structural Equation Modelling in Stata Version 14.0.
Findings: The results indicated exists a positive relationship on the use of Social Reintegration and life satisfaction of the Uganda migrant returnees (r = 0.397 statistically significant since the associated p – value of 0.000 is less than 0.05 (p< 0.001). Results also showed shows that there exists a positive relationship between returnee policy implementation and social economic reintegration of the Uganda migrant returnees (r = 0.398). This relationship is statistically significant since the associated p – value of 0.000 is less than 0.05 (p < 0.001).
The study concluded that that sufficient evidence substantiates significant relationship exists between socio economic reintegration and life satisfaction.
Implications to Theory, Practice and Policy: Finally, the socio economic reintegration and the other strategies had a total causal effect of 92.8% on life satisfaction. However, the life satisfaction referred to only applied to the current environment which did not promise continued Survival into the future. Given that fact the study has proposed the Sustainable Penchant Socioeconomic Partaking Model (SUPSEP MODEL) which guarantees not only life satisfaction but also sustainability. This, therefore, means that if the new Model is adopted, the migrant worker returnees’ will not only be provided a good life satisfaction for a short period of time but will get it for many years to come. The SUPSEP Model is, henceforth, the current study contribution to knowledge.
Downloads
References
Andrews, D., & Sánchez, A. C. (2011). The evolution of homeownership rates in selected OECD countries: Demographic and public policy influences. OECD Journal: Economic Studies, 2011(1), 1-37.
Bachtiar, P., & Prasetyo, D. D. (2017). Return migration and various reintegration programs for low-skilled migrant workers in Indonesia (p. 31). SMERU Research Institute.
Begum, A. (2017). Review of migration and resettlement in Bangladesh: effects of climate change and its impact on gender roles. Bangladesh Institute of Development Studies,
Black, R., & Gent, S. (2006). Sustainable return in post‐conflict contexts. International Migration, 44(3), 15-38.
Cassarino, J.-P. (2004). Theorising return migration: The conceptual approach to return migrants revisited. International Journal on Multicultural Societies, 6(2), 253–279.
Constant, A., & Massey, D. S. (2002). Return migration by German guestworkers: Neoclassical versus new economic theories. International migration, 40(4), 5-38.
De Bree, J., Davids, T., & De Haas, H. (2010). Post‐return experiences and transnational belonging of return migrants: a Dutch—Moroccan case study. Global Networks, 10(4), 489-509.
De Vreyer, P., Gubert, F., & Robilliard, A. S. (2010). Are there returns to migration experience? An empirical analysis using data on return migrants and non-migrants in West Africa. Annals of Economics and Statistics/Annales d’économie et de statistique, 307-328.
Diener, E. (2012). New findings and future directions for subjective well-being research. American psychologist, 67(8), 590.
Farbenblum, B. (2017). Governance of migrant worker recruitment: a rights-based framework for countries of origin. Asian Journal of International Law, 7(1), 152-184.
Fields, G. S. (2007). The Harris-Todaro Model.
Ghosh, B. (2000). Return migration: Journey of hope or despair? United Nations Publications.
Gould, W. T. S. (1995). Migration and recent economic and environmental change in East Africa. The migration experience in Africa, 122-145.
Grossman, G. M., & Rossi‐Hansberg, E. (2012). Task trade between similar countries. Econometrica, 80(2), 593-629.
Khan, A., & Arokkiaraj, H. (2021). Challenges of reverse migration in India: a comparative study of internal and international migrant workers in the post-COVID economy. Comparative Migration Studies, 9, 1-19.
Kipuri, N., & Wessendorf, K. (2001). Seeking space in postcolonial politics: the case of indigenous peoples in East Africa. Challenging Politics: Indigenous Peoples’ Experiences with Political Parties and Elections, 24-75.
Konzett-Smoliner, S. (2016). Return migration as a ‘family project’: Exploring the relationship between family life and the readjustment experiences of highly skilled Austrians. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 42(7), 1094-1114.
Krapf, R. D. J. L. (2013). Travels, Researches, and Missionary Labours: During an Eighteen Years' Residence in Eastern Africa. Routledge.
Kuschminder, K., & Kuschminder, K. (2017). Reintegration strategies (pp. 29-56). Springer International Publishing.
Lewis, W. A. (1954). Economic development with unlimited supplies of labour.
Mulumba, D., & Olema, W. M. (2009). Policy analysis report: Mapping migration in Uganda.
Oberai, A.S., P.H. Prasad, and M.G. Sardana (2016) Identification of migrants and collection of demographic and social information in migration surveys, in R.E. Bilsborrow, A.S. Oberai, and G. Standing, Migration Surveys in Low-Income Countries, published for the ILO Geneva by Croom Helm, London and Sydney: 130-185.
Parvaresh, A., & Amin, M. (2005). Job description and educational needs of different levels of environmental health graduates. Iranian journal of medical education, 5(2), 63-71.
Ritchie, J., & Lewis, J. (2003). The applications of qualitative methods to social research (pp. 24-46). London.
Ruben, R., Van Houte, M., & Davids, T. (2009). What determines the embeddedness of forced-return migrants? Rethinking the role of pre-and post-return assistance. International Migration Review, 43(4), 908-937.
Sauré, P., & Zoabi, H. (2014). International trade, the gender wage gap and female labor force participation. Journal of Development Economics, 111, 17-33.
Scalettaris, G., & Gubert, F. (2019). Return schemes from European countries: Assessing the challenges. International Migration, 57(4), 91-104.
Selezneva, E. (2011). Surveying transitional experience and subjective well-being: Income, work, family. Economic systems, 35(2), 139-157.
Setrana, M. B., & Tonah, S. (2014). Return migrants and the challenge of reintegration: The case of returnees to Kumasi Ghana. Ìrìnkèrindò, 7(Jun), 116–142.
Sonmez, S., Apostolopoulos, Y., Tran, D., & Rentrope, S. (2011). Human rights and health disparities for migrant workers in the UAE. Health & Hum. Rts., 13, 17.
Thomas, J. C. (2013). Citizen, customer, partner: Rethinking the place of the public in public management. Public Administration Review, 73(6), 786-796.
Thomas, K. J. (2008). Return migration in Africa and the relationship between educational attainment and labor market success: Evidence from Uganda. International Migration Review, 42(3), 652–674.
Todaro, M. (1980). Internal migration in developing countries: a survey. In Population and economic change in developing countries (pp. 361-402). University of Chicago Press.
Todaro, M. P. (1969). A model of labor migration and urban unemployment in less developed countries. The American economic review, 59(1), 138-148.
Twinomujuni, R., Mawa, M., Musoke, H. B., & Rukanyangira, N. (2022). The mediating effect of educational decentralization in the relationship between citizen participation and education service delivery of local governments.
Uganda Ministry of Gender Labour and Social Development (MGLSD), annual report, 2022
Van Houte, M., & Davids, T. (2008). Development and return migration: from policy panacea to migrant perspective sustainability. Third World Quarterly, 29(7), 1411–1429.
Vanderkamp, J. (2012) Return migration: its significance and behaviour, Western Economic Journal, December, 10(4): 460-465.
Vara, J. S. (2019). Soft international agreements on migration cooperation with third countries: a challenge to democratic and judicial controls in the EU. In Constitutionalising the External Dimensions of EU Migration Policies in Times of Crisis (pp. 21-38). Edward Elgar Publishing.
Vathi, Z., & Duci, V. (2016). Making other dreams: The impact of migration on the psychosocial wellbeing of Albanian-origin children and young people upon their families’ return to Albania. Childhood, 23(1), 53-68.
Veenhoven, R. (1995). World database of happiness. Social Indicators Research, 34, 299-313.
Vesan, P., & Pansardi, P. (2021). Speaking social Europe: A paradigmatic shift in the European Commission Presidents’ social policy discourse?. Journal of European Social Policy, 31(4), 365-379.
Wynants, M., Kelly, C., Mtei, K., Munishi, L., Patrick, A., Rabinovich, A., & Ndakidemi, P. (2019). Drivers of increased soil erosion in East Africa’s agro-pastoral systems: changing interactions between the social, economic and natural domains. Regional Environmental Change, 19, 1909-1921.
Yamane, T. (1967). Sampling Formula. E-Book www albookez com.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2023 David SSejinja, Nazarious Rukanyangira, Pio Frank Kiyingi
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) 4.0 License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work’s authorship and initial publication in this journal.
