CC BY
40SOCIO-ECONOMIC CONSEQUENCES OF VIETNAMESE RETURN MIGRATION FROM JAPAN
Hoang Anh Tuan
Thuongmai University, Hanoi, Vietnam E-mail: [email protected]
Phan The Cong
Thuongmai University, Hanoi, Vietnam E-mail: [email protected]
DOI: https://doi.org/ 10.19181/demis.2022.2.1.8
For citation: Hoang Anh Tuan, Phan The Cong. Socio-Economic Consequences of Vietnamese Return Migration from Japan. DEMIS. Demographic Research. 2022. Vol. 2. No. 1. Pp. 94-115. DOI: https://doi.org/l0.l9l8l/demis.2022.2.l.8
Abstract. This paper starts with building a theoretical framework related to the determinants of migration and the phenomenon of return migration. The dynamic process of development and global economic integration are considered the main driver of migration. Return migration is understood as eminent expertise abroad wherever the migrant accomplished the goals of gaining higher financial gain, upper level of education, new skills, foreign work experience, acquaintance with new values and attitudes. Then the article proceeds to reviewing migration links between Japan and Vietnam. Japan is the country that receives the most Vietnamese workers after Taiwan. Also, the number of Vietnamese studying in Japan has sharply risen recently, making Viet Nam the second largest exporter of students to Japan behind China. The results of a survey conducted by the authors revealed that return migrants from Japan have obtained additional degrees and qualifications abroad. In addition, there is a significant improvement in wages and income depending on their employment sector. The highest income group is people working for Japanese companies, followed by a group of those working for private companies and non-governmental organizations, the lowest increase in incomes is observed in the state sector. Furthermore, the returnees believe that their economic conditions have improved, as they have got a better salary and job position than before going abroad, so their lives become wealthier than before.
Keywords: international migration, return migration, economics opportunity, Vietnam, Japan.
Introduction
Migration has become an essentially social phenomenon in a globalizing world. Its importance refers not only to the number of people involved but also to the implications for societies and economies in the countries concerned. Notably, the role of migration in developing countries is becoming a major issue of policy in terms of economic development. More nationals of more countries are on the move, and more countries are affected by migration than ever before.
The movement oflabor from low-wage to high-wage countries stems from differences in income and employment opportunities among economies. In Vietnam, international migration has expanded at a fast pace recently with various means of migration, becoming one of the important determinants to the change of economic and social context in the country. Sending laborers to more developed countries to work is an important strategy for human resources quality development and income generation in Vietnam. According to a report by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Vietnam [cit. ex 1], in 2017, about 800 thousand Vietnamese workers were working in 30 different occupational categories in 40 countries and territories. Korea, Japan, Taiwan, and Malaysia are the main countries that outsource laborers from Vietnam. Exported workers' income increases quickly, and as a result, these workers send back to Vietnam 1.8 to 2.0 billion USD annually, contributing to improving their families' well-being and the country's development.
In recent years, Vietnam's rapid economic growth has been accompanied, as in many other parts of the developing world, by increasingly macro levels of geographical labor mobility. Vietnam is shifting its objectives much towards building long-term impacts rather than just focusing on immediate goals, which are creating jobs and generating income. These more long-term objectives include improving labor quality and labor productivity as well as enhancing human resources development through overseas human resources supply and exchange programs. The Government of Vietnam is prioritizing labor exchange programs in which through work, workers can develop their technical knowledge, occupational skills, and basic skills for future career building, besides traditional factors including jobs and higher incomes1. Japan appears to be the ideal market, which can help Vietnam to achieve almost all of these objectives with many overseas workforce supply programs assisting laborers to improve their technical skills through working.
There is now a standard understanding that the economic, social, and cultural benefits of international migration should be more effectively realized, in which the policy issues of labor migration might be better addressed [2]. Although there have been many studies on the impact of return migration under different approaches [3; 4; 5], however, while proper deal attention is given to the needs and well-being of Vietnamese migrants, inclusive of raising their cognizance of migration, before their departure and at some point of their time overseas, less attention is given to their reintegration upon their coming back to Vietnam, especially, migrant workers returning from Japan to the rural areas when Japan is tending to become a potential labor export market for Vietnamese people. Up to now, the current data sources or statistics regarding migrants returning from Japan are very limited or unavailable, which makes it difficult for researchers to conduct related studies and makes it more challenging for the government to have adequate and efficient policies regarding migration. Meanwhile, the need to develop a thorough understanding of the migration - development linkage is very essential, particularly in an era characterized by increasing human mobility. In particular, developing a sound policy on return migrants, will require a good knowledge of return migration including a deeper understanding of their socio-economic implications after the return.
To bridge that knowledge gap, the purpose of this study is to investigate the socioeconomic situation ofVietnamese migrants after returning from Japan, focusing on the two most common types of migration: through work and study - based on online questionnaire survey data. This paper starts with building a theoretical framework related to the determinants of migration and return migration. Then, the article proceeds to reviewing the context of migration between Japan and Vietnam. Finally, the authors investigate the socio-economic situation of Vietnamese migrants before and after migration.
Theoretical framework
Migration may be defined as a temporary or permanent change in the usual place of residence across space in a given period [6]. It has temporal and spatial dimensions which are often used to classify migrants. For example, in terms of time, migration can be classified as seasonal, or permanent, and spatially, it could be designated as internal, or
1 Vietnam and Japan signed a Memorandum of Understanding on technical intern training [Viêt Nam-Nhât Bàn ky kêt Ban ghi nhd hop tac vê chê dô thuc tap sinh ky nang] // Ministry of Labor, War Invalids and Social Affairs of Vietnam [Bô Lao dông - Thuang binh và Xä hôi Viêt Nam] [site]. 14.06.2017. URL: http://www.dolab.gov. vn/New/TongQuanTTLD.aspx?&LIST_ID=1268&MENU_ID=248&Key=3083 (accessed on 15.02.2019). (In Viet.)
international while internal migration is further classified into four components: namely, rural-urban, rural-rural, urban-rural, and urban-urban, etc. [6]. International return migration, which is the focus of this paper, refers to the act of a person returning to his/her country of citizenship after having been an international migrant in another country and who is intending to stay in his/her own country for at least one year [7].
Determinants of migration
The traditional model of migration is a neo-classical/labor flow approach, in which migration is seen as a response to regional labor market imbalances [e. g., 8; 9]. The neo-classical theory emphasizes individual migration decisions, based on a reasonable comparison of the relative costs and benefits of staying at home or moving. The neo-classical theory holds that potential migrants have excellent knowledge of salaries and employment opportunities in the target areas, and their migration decisions are based entirely on these economic factors. Under the neoclassical model, the existence of economic disparities between different regions is sufficient to create migrants' flow. In the long run, such flows will help to balance wages and conditions in underdeveloped and developed areas, leading to economic equilibrium [10; 11; 12, etc.].
Alternative explanations are needed for the international migration of labor. Such an approach emphasizes the so-called push and pull factors and examines obstacles to explain why people move. Major migrations are a response to some major events in the country of origin where the domestic market cannot respond quickly enough. Income disparities may be less relevant than security considerations in situations of civil unrest, armed conflict, political repression, and natural disasters. Natural disasters, wars, political oppression, or a sufficiently asymmetric shock in one country will lead to a significant push to encourage people to leave. When mobile, people will search for the location that offers the best reward. This model, introduced by L. A. Sjaastad (1962) [5], has been generalized in K. F. Zimmermann's (1996) [13] identification of push and pull factors [14; 15; 16].
According to W. Zelinsky (1971) [17], at t the beginning of the process of modernization and industrialization, there is often an increase in emigration, due to population growth, reduced rural employment, and low wages. As the process of industrialization takes place, labor supply decreases, and domestic wages increase; as a result, emigration falls, and labor migration rises. The new approaches have been characterized as transitional theories by H. de Haas (2010) [18]. These approaches set out to link mobility to processes of development and economic integration. The new approaches include the new economics of labor migration (NELM), which is still in a neoclassical model of income maximization and equilibrium trends. However, it still questions the individualism of the neo-classical theory by emphasizing the role of families and communities in migration decisions. NELM uses methods such as qualitative interviews and household surveys similar to those used by anthropologists and sociologists. Dual or segmented labor market theory analyzes the differential labor demand of employers as a significant factor in the cause and structure of migration. Migration network theory shows the collective authority of migrants and their communities in organizing migration processes and integrations. The transnational approach is the result of new transport and communication technologies, making it increasingly easy for migrants to maintain long-term economic, social, cultural and political links across borders, which makes transnational communities (or diasporas) increasingly important as social actors [18].
In scientific literature, there are also several other explanations for international labor migration. These theories explain why migration sometimes does not occur even when significant expected income disparities exist, or vice versa, why migration sometimes occurs even when there is no income difference. For example, in J. Conley and H. Konishi's view (2002) [19], there may be external influences on migration, such as differences within the scope of regional facilities. These include public goods or merit goods, such as educational opportunities, health care systems, and living conditions or external consumption through the variety and types of market goods available.
Besides, based on O. Stark's research (1991) [20], with the imperfect credit market, migration may generate cash income and alleviate the credit constraint, and therefore migration may occur even if the income gap is expected to be negative. Similarly, migration decisions should be viewed as joint household decisions rather than an individual's choice, and therefore may depend not only on personal characteristics and preferences but also on the characteristics and preferences of other household members.
Return migration
In migration studies, migration has long been considered a one-way process with a starting point (country of origin) and an ending point (destination country). Therefore, migration research mainly focuses on factors that cause migrants to leave the country and their integration process in the destination country [21], resulting in little attention to the topic of return migration.
Based on J. P. Cassarino's point of view, in the 1970s, the theory of return migration viewed the returnee as a migrant who returned home because of a failed migration experience that did not achieve the desired results. For example, the neoclassical migration model considered migrant return decisions as a result of a failed migration experience that does not have the expected benefits. In other words, from a neoclassical point of view, returning migration involves only migrant workers who miscalculate migration costs due to imperfect information before departure and those who do not reap the benefit from higher income. So, the return happenes as a result of their failed experience abroad or because their human capital was not rewarded as expected [9].
However, the focus of migration studies changed in the 1990s. Returning started to be understood as a successful experience abroad when migrants fulfill their goals of earning higher incomes and accumulating the savings while transferring a portion of their income to their households, acquiring higher education, new skills, and foreign work experience, as well as accumulating social capital in the form of networks, values, and attitudes [9]. From the perspective of the new economic model, international migration and return are considered as a calculated strategy to minimize credit market imperfections at the place of origin, in which migration serves to accumulate sufficient savings to provide the capital or at least the collateral needed to obtain credit for home investment, especially in business operations. When migrants achieve their target savings, they return home [20; 22].
One of the most debated issues has been that of human capital gains for emigration countries through the return of migrants [23; 24]. "The human capital model of socioeconomic achievements views migration as a form of investment whereby the individual initiates a geographical move with the expectation of drawing net cumulative gains over his or her working life" [25]. "Brain gain generally indicates that foreigners are returning from abroad with highly skilled technical or intellectual expertise, which creates a positive outcome because they often bring back skills and/or norms" [26]. Brain gain usually has a
positive meaning in the literature because migrants can potentially bring back skills and/or norms and implement them in their home society. G. Gmelch (1980) [27] has distinguished two perspectives from which this question could be measured or approached. On the one hand, the actual social and economic status of returnees can be examined, looking at employment and housing, participation in associations, their earnings and savings, and ownership of capital assets. On the other hand, the return migrants' perceptions can be measured based on their degree of "satisfaction" or "dissatisfaction" after the migration experience [27].
This research follows the new approaches that have been characterized as transitional theories, which have been discussed above by H. de Haas [18] with the main driver of migration is the dynamic process of development and global economic integration. Besides, this study pursues the theory of return migration as the viewpoint of J. P. Cassarino [9]; return then was understood as eminent expertise abroad wherever the migrant accomplished the goals of higher financial gain and also the upper level of education, skills, foreign work experience, values, and attitudes.
Overall trends in international migration between Vietnam and Japan
Vietnam migration profile
Labor and employment
Sending Vietnamese to work abroad is a major policy of the Government of Vietnam. This policy contributes to international integration and promotes Vietnam's relationships and cultural exchanges with other countries worldwide. It is based on the principles of equality and mutual benefit.
International departures for livelihood purposes are the most popular form of migration for Vietnamese, including those who work abroad under fixed-term contracts and self-funded migration of workers to neighboring countries. Table 1 shows the top 5 destinations of Vietnamese laborers in 2012-2016 with Taiwan topping the table. During this period, the number of Vietnamese workers who arrived in Taiwan doubled, while Japan ranked second with an annual increase of about 10,000 workers over the last three years. South Korea, Malaysia, and Saudi Arabia were also among the top destinations. Note that Vietnam's labor figures in the countries/territories referred to in Table 1 show the number of migrants that started to work during the year. If we include those who had already been working in each country, the number of Vietnamese workers in the country is much larger.
Table 1.
Top 5 destinations for Vietnamese workers, 2012-2016
No. Destination 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total
1 Taiwan 30,533 46,368 62,124 67,621 68,244 274,890
2 Japan 8,775 9,686 19,766 29,810 39,938 107,975
3 South Korea 9,228 5,446 7,242 6,019 8,482 36,417
4 Malaysia 9,298 7,564 5,139 7,454 2,079 31,534
5 Saudi Arabia 2,360 1,703 4,191 4,125 4,033 16,412
Source: [1]
Table 2 shows the number of Vietnamese workers working abroad. It could be seen that wages and other income levels of Vietnamese working abroad are much higher than the average wage in Vietnam, especially in countries like Japan and South Korea (according to
the World Bank's statistics, Vietnam's per capita income in 2018 was 2360 USD per person a year, or approximately 200 USD per person a month).
Table 2.
Vietnamese migrants working abroad and their average monthly incomes, 2014
|k|n Number of Vietnam- Average wages (USD/ Average other income
ese workers month) (USD/month)
1 Taiwan 138,926 650 200
2 Japan 26,164 1,400 200
3 South Korea 54,392 1,000 250
4 Malaysia 20,108 300 111
5 Saudi Arabia 16,251 320 100
Source: [1]
Based on the data presented in "Vietnam Migration Profile 2016" [1], Table 3 shows the 25 provinces/cities that sent the majority (over 90%) of migrant workers abroad between 2012 and 2016. This table further shows that the northern provinces dominated the fixed-term contract labor migration marketplace. Of these, 15 provinces have the highest number of migrants working abroad; beside Ho Chi Minh City, the other 14 leading provinces are ail northern and have sent over 74% of total migrant workers abroad during 2012-2016. These provinces are in the Red River Delta, the North Central and Central Coast regions where unemployment rates were the highest among economic regions classified by the General Statistics Office of Vietnam2.
Table 3.
Top 25 labor-sending provinces ofVietnam, 2012-2016
No. Province/City 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total
1 Nghe An 11,000 11,671 10,900 12,811 16,457 62,839
2 Thanh Hoa 11,000 8,092 10,596 9,925 8,119 47,732
3 Ha Tinh 6,000 5,361 5,759 6,150 11,194 34,464
4 Hai Duong N.A. 3,205 3,476 6,716 14,389 27,786
5 Bac Giang 5,000 4,068 4,860 4,374 6,963 25,265
6 Phu Tho 2,500 2,500 2,705 2,535 5,389 15,629
7 Ho Chi Minh City N.A. N.A. N.A. 13,599 1,886 15,485
8 Quang Binh 2,790 2,869 2,876 N.A. 6,029 14,564
9 Ha Noi 4,400 1,500 1,850 N.A. 6,286 14,036
10 Thai Binh 2,100 2,500 2,700 N.A. 5,923 13,223
11 Nam Dinh 2,910 1,944 1,950 1,950 3,910 12,664
12 Hung Yen 2,700 2,700 2,900 N.A. 4,190 12,490
13 Hai Phong 3,200 540 1,671 1,500 3,520 10,431
14 Bac Ninh 2,500 1,200 1,652 1,579 3,402 10,333
15 Vinh Phuc 2,000 2,030 2,247 2,148 1,682 10,107
16 Thai Nguyen 2,000 700 1,597 412 2,007 6,716
17 Ha Nam 1,000 947 848 1,029 1,912 5,736
18 Gia Lai 1,300 1,270 1,315 1,315 265 5,465
2 Employment // General Statistics Office of Vietnam [site]. URL: https://www.gso.gov.vn/en/ employment/ (accessed on 10.09.2021).
No. Province/City 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total
19 Quang Ngai 1,400 1,395 1,402 N.A. 575 4,772
20 Ninh Binh 700 615 640 976 1,740 4,671
21 Quang Tri N.A. N.A. 750 1,497 1,275 3,522
22 Yen Bai 800 775 790 800 316 3,481
23 Dak Lak 650 778 650 580 706 3,364
24 Vinh Long 450 505 500 626 978 3,059
25 Ben Tre 377 339 516 504 1,188 2,924
Source: [1]
Figure 1 shows us the number of migrant workers working abroad in 2016 - this is the year when the data were most fully recorded; and three provinces (Nghe An, Hai Duong, and Ha Tinh) have the largest number of migrant workers.
Fig. 1. Top 25 labor-sending provinces ofVietnam in 2016
Migration for study
Migration to study is becoming a popular trend among school and university students in Vietnam. Most migrant students are self-funded by the family budget and are not
included in the statistics collected by the Ministry of Education and Training (MoET)3. The number of students studying abroad on a scholarship from the state budget or an agreement between the Government of Vietnam and the foreign government managed by the MoET makes up only a small percentage of educational migrants. Overall, it is estimated that more than 100,000 Vietnamese were studying abroad in 2016, and this figure, as forecasted, will continue to increase as the country further integrates into the global community. Migration for study includes not only international students, those attending higher education programs (MA or PhD courses) or colleges, but also contains trainees and interns who are international migrants for vocational training and internship.
According to the Japan Student Services Organization (JASSO) statistics (Table 4), the number of Vietnamese studying in Japan has sharply risen, from 26,439 in 2014 to 38,882 in 2015 and a record peak of 72,354 in 2018, making Vietnam the second biggest exporter of students to Japan behind China4. Besides students, numerous Vietnamese undertake training courses in Japan. According to the data from Japan's Ministry of Justice, there were more than 123,000 Vietnamese trainees in Japan by November 20185. It is apparent that international students are among the major categories of migrants from Vietnam to Japan and their migration experience also has important implications in migration research. That is why international students are also considered as one of the subjects of this research.
Table 4.
Top 10 countries of origin of international students in Japan
Country Number of students
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
China 94,399 94,111 98,483 107,260 114,950
Vietnam 26,439 38,882 53,807 61,671 72,354
Nepal 10,448 16,250 19,471 21,500 24,331
South Korea 15,777 15,279 15,457 15,740 17,012
Taiwan 6,231 7,314 8,330 8,947 9,524
Sri Lanka N.A. 2,312 3,976 6,607 8,329
Indonesia 3,188 3,600 4,630 5,495 6,277
Myanmar 1,935 2,755 3,851 4,816 5,928
Thailand 3,250 3,526 3,842 3,985 3,962
Malaysia 2,475 2,594 2,734 2,945 3,094
Others 17,861 21,756 24,706 28,076 33,219
Total 184,155 208,379 239,287 267,042 298,980
Source: JASSO6
3 Reports and statistics // Ministry of Education and Training of Vietnam [site]. URL: https:// en.moet.gov.vn/reports-and-statistics/Pages/index.aspx (accessed on 20.09.2021).
4 Statistics // Japan Student Services Organization [site]. URL: https://www.jasso.go.jp/en/statistics/ index.html (accessed on 20.09.2021).
5 2018 Immigration Control / Immigration Bureau, Ministry of Justice of Japan. Electronic publication. URL: https://www.moj.go.jp/isa/content/930003769.pdf (accessed on 20.09.2021).
6 The Summary of Result on an Annual Survey of International Students in Japan // Study in JAPAN. Site ran by Japan Student Services Organization. URL: https://studyinjapan.go.jp/en/statistics/zaiseki/index. html (accessed on 20.09.2021).
Features of Japan as a major destination country
Japan has been receiving Vietnamese workers since 1992, mainly under the Japanese Industrial Training Program (ITP) and the Technical Internship Program (TIP) that aim at human resource development and contribute to industrial development in migrant sending countries through the transfer of Japanese industrial and professional knowledge, skills, and technical expertise by accepting many young and middle-aged workers from other countries in Japan7.
The total number of Vietnamese workers sent to Japan between 1992 and 2010 was relatively small (about 52,000), but the annual intake has increased to about 5,000 or more in recent years. Regarding trainees/technical interns (hereinafter, trainees) supported by the Japan International Training Cooperation Organization (JITCO), the number ofVietnamese trainees in the 1990s was fewer than Chinese, Indonesian, Philippine, or Thai trainees [1].
In recent years, the Vietnam-Japan partnership was growing steadily, especially in labor cooperation, which has created great chances for Vietnamese laborers to seek jobs or study opportunities in Japan. According to Japan's Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare, by the end of October 2018, over 310,000 Vietnamese laborers were working in Japan, accounting for 22% of foreign workers in the country and making the Vietnamese community the second largest foreign group in Japan after China with 390,000 people8. The data from Table 5 show us a significant increase in the number of Vietnamese migrants in Japan over the past few years.
Table 5.
The number of Vietnamese nationals residing in Japan by employment status (people)
Year Status 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Total 072,256 099,865 146,956 199,990 262,405
Professor 150 159 152 151 151
Religious Activities 177 190 217 210 232
Journalist 9 8 9 10 9
Highly-Skilled Professional 20 55 168
Business Manager 28 44 78 160 265
Medical Services 21 11 8 9 12
Researcher 39 46 38 48 48
Engineer/Specialist in Humanities/ International Services 4,588 5,875 8,784 13,570 22,045
Intra-companv Transferee 497 515 656 841 909
Skilled Labor 182 212 238 307 403
Technical Intern Training 21,632 34,039 57,580 88,211 123,555
Cultural Activities 39 43 44 49 49
Student 21,231 32,804 49,809 62,422 72,268
Trainee 196 217 197 197 247
Dependent 3,054 3,913 5,365 7,623 11,112
Designated Activities 78 432 1,254 2,428 5,627
Permanent Resident 12,060 12,813 13,539 14,271 14,913
7 Technical Intern Training Program // Japan International Training Cooperation Organization [site]. URL: https://www.jitco.or.jp/en/regulation/ (accessed on 10.10.2021).
8 Sato H. Foreign workers in Japan double in 5 years, hitting record // Nikkei Asia. Business media. 25.01.2019. URL: https://asia.nikkei.com/Spotlight/Japan-immigration/Foreign-workers-in-Japan-double-in-5-years-hitting-record (accessed on 10.09.2021).
Year Status 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Spouse or Child of Japanese National 1,703 1,880 2,182 2,587 3,164
Spouse or Child of Permanent Resident 1,053 1,208 1,429 1,571 1,752
Long-Term Resident 5,513 5,450 5,346 5,258 5,448
Source: 2018 Immigration Control
Based on Table 5, Japan is a choice not only for Vietnamese workers but also an ideal place for studying. Students are more than just learners, they are also a rich source of workforce supplementation, their skills and qualifications can make an important contribution to promoting the country's development. Therefore, in this study, their role is considered similar to those of workers. However, when doing the survey, we were confronted with the difficulty of getting access to technical trainees after their return. They have very few social connections; there is hardly any public information about them, and communication was difficult due to the geographical dispersion. This is also a limitation of the study, as the number of technical workers among the respondents of the survey is low compared to other groups.
Methods and data
The data of this study are based mainly on an online questionnaire survey that was conducted from 09.08.2018 to 11.11.2018 and administered to 113 Vietnamese migrants returning from Japan, including those who went abroad for study and those who travelled for work. We received 101 eligible responses, giving a response rate of 89% (see Figure 2 for the place of birth of respondents). The main category of respondents is international students followed by labor migrants. The respondents were selected through personal channels and networks. The steps for conducting the survey are described in detail as follows:
Step 1. The authors prepared the questionnaire and created an online link on Google Docs. This is to ensure that the link is sharable, and the respondents can answer via their personal computer or telephone with an internet connection instead of having to fill out a printout.
Step 2. Finding the interviewees. Because one of the authors used to be an international student in Japan between 2011 and 2013 in Ibaraki, during that time, the author has established a social network with Vietnamese students and working employees in Japan; this social network is maintained after those people returned to the home country. At the time prior to the survey, the author contacted friends in this social network (via phone calls, messages, Facebook, email, etc.) to present the purpose of the study and request consent to participate in the interview, as well as having people continue to introduce other acquaintances to participate in the interview based on their social network ("snowball" sampling method had been taken into account).
Step 3. After receiving the consent to participate in the survey, the authors proceeded to send the questionnaire link to the participants via email, text message on Facebook, etc. This is to ensure consistency in the investigation, so that participants can respond at the time most appropriate to them and ensure confidentiality of information.
No. Province/city N of respondents
1 Ha Noi 25
2 Nam Dinh 9
3 Ho Chi Minh City 6
4 Thai Binh 5
5 Hai Duong 5
6 Hai Phong 5
7 PhuTho 4
8 Bac Ninh 4
9 Nghe An 3
10 Hue 3
11 Ninh Binh 3
12 Quang Nam 3
13 Da Nang 2
14 Bac Giang 2
15 Ha Nam 2
16 Ha Tinh 2
17 Thai Nguyen 1
18 Dong Nai 1
19 Ca Mau 1
20 Hung Yen 1
21 Lam Dong 1
22 Quang Binh 1
23 Quang Ninh 1
24 Thanh Hoa 1
25 Vinh Phuc 1
26 Yen Bai 1
27 Dak Lak 1
28 DongThap 1
Fig. 2. Place ofbirth ofthe respondents
Based on the questionnaire survey analysis, this chapter provides a general view of the socio-economic conditions of Vietnamese migrants before and after migration. In some cases, when the data need further analysis, we divided the respondents into four groups (Table 6).
Table 6.
Categories of respondents
No Name Characteristics of the Group N ofRespondents
1 Group I People who had a job before going to Japan to study. (These people are currently working in Vietnam and go to Japan to obtain a higher education). 51
2 Group II People who din not have a job before going to Japan to study. (These people are mostly students who are studying or just graduated). 29
3 Group III People who go to Japan for work only. (Including trainees and interns). 16
4 Group IV People who come to Japan for family reunion 5
In the goal of the survey was to collect the data about migrants who go to Japan for work and for study, but the proportion of the respondents who go to study is larger - a total of 80 people from Groups I and II stayed in Japan for study. The cause of this situation lies mainly in the author's social network. It means at least this sample is biased towards those who have come to Japan for study purposes and is not representative of migrants from Vietnam to Japan.
The socio-economic impact of international migration to Vietnamese migrants after returning from Japan
Socio-demographic characteristics of the respondents
The respondents were mostly females (60 respondents, or 59.4%), young or middle aged (28.7% are below 30 years old, and 65.3% are between 31 and 40 years old), married (67.3%). This is consistent with the fact that most return migrants to Vietnam are young and in active working ages, which is beneficial for the socio-economic development of the country. The fact that more than half of the respondents are married is predictable in view of the observation that a large proportion (28.7% + 65.3% = 94%) of them are aged 20-40 years old (Table 7).
Table 7.
Socio-demographic characteristics of return migrants
Background Characteristics Group I Group II Group III Group IV Total
Freq. Percent Freq. Percent Freq. Percent Freq. Percent Freq. Percent
Gender
Female 34 33.3 16 55.2 5 31.3 5 100.0 60 59.4
Male 17 66.7 13 44.8 11 68.7 0 0 41 40.6
Total 51 100.0 29 100.0 16 100.0 5 100.0 101 100.0
Age
Under 30 5 9.8 15 51.7 9 56.2 0 0 29 28.7
31-40 42 82.4 13 44.8 5 31.3 5 100.0 66 65.3
Above 40 4 7.8 1 3.5 2 12.5 0 0 7 6.0
Total 51 100.0 29 100.0 16 100.0 5 100.0 101 100.0
Marital Status
Single 15 29.4 12 41.4 6 37.5 0 0 33 32.7
Married 36 70.6 17 58.6 10 62.5 5 100.0 68 67.3
Total 51 100.0 29 100.0 16 100.0 5 100.0 101 100.0
Language Ability
Japanese 5 9.8 15 51.8 12 75.0 2 40.0 34 33.7
English 38 74.5 3 10.3 2 12.5 0 0 43 42.6
English, Japanese 8 15.7 11 37.9 2 12.5 3 60.0 24 23.7
Total 51 100.0 29 100.0 16 100.0 5 100.0 101 100.0
Duration of stayed in Japan
Less than 1 year 3 5.9 2 6.9 1 6.3 0 0 6 6.0
From 1 to 3 years 29 56.9 9 31.0 9 56.2 1 20.0 48 47.5
Over 3 years 19 37.2 18 62.1 6 37.5 4 80.0 47 46.5
Total 51 100.0 29 100.0 16 100.0 5 100.0 101 100.0
The results showed that a high proportion (47.5%) of the returnees stayed at their destination for 1-3 years, while 46.5% said they stayed abroad for 3 years or more. Only 6% reported staying for less than a year.
Another point worth noting is that while most of the respondents in Group I went to Japan for study and fluently spoke English (up to 74.5%); the remaining Groups had proficiency in Japanese (51.8% in Group II and 75.0% in Group III), excluding those fluent in both languages.
Educational level and the benefits achieved
In this context, because Groups I and II come to Japan mainly to study, Groups III and IV come to work, the benefits from education will mainly fall to Groups I and II. That is why we do not classify them and analyze only the general statistic. The data in Table 8 indicate that before departure, about 84.1% of the respondents had university education followed by those with junior college diploma (6.9%). The results revealed that after their return, some of the migrants acquired additional degrees and qualifications. For instance, whereas only one of the respondents had master's degree and one other hold PhD degree before their departure, after the return, 29.7% acquired master's degrees and 23.8% achieved PhD degrees abroad. This is due to the fact that 79.2% of the respondents came to Japan to study. Thus, it is clear that the educational level of the returnees improved significantly. Over 50% got academic degrees (MA or PhD) abroad. Especially, the number of people with a certificate of Japanese proficiency increased significantly (13.8%).
Table 8.
Educational level
Educational level Before departure After return
Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage
Short-term technical worker N.A. N.A. 5 5.0
Long-term technical worker 2 2.0 1 1.0
Professional secondary school 5 5.0 N.A. N.A.
Junior college diploma 7 6.9 7 6.9
Bachelor's 85 84.1 20 19.8
Master 1 1.0 30 29.7
PhD 1 1.0 24 23.8
Other (Japanese language proficiency) N.A. N.A. 14 13.8
Total 101 100.0 101 100.0
The cohort of college students has the highest percentage of respondents who have acquired higher education levels (master's or doctor's degrees, language skills). This can be considered the biggest opportunity for them because higher qualifications mean better chances of finding a job getting a promotion.
Migration optimists [9; 26; 27] are of the view that migrants through international migration bring back critical skills and experiences which are useful for the developing world. Within the context of this study, skills refer to any formal or informal capacity-enhancing endeavor that is specifically geared toward the acquisition of expertise in a particular vocation or profession. Such skills acquisition could cover broad areas including specialized technical skills, skills in social work, as well as entrepreneurial and managerial skills. Most of these skills are often acquired through job training.
The following question in the survey questionnaire is "What are the beneficial gains when you were living in Japan besides your education and work qualifications attainment?" The results of the survey (Table 9) show that after their return, a higher proportion said they had acquired some benefits. The most benefits achieved is making new friends or extending
social networks such as meeting new collaborators, partners, neighbors, etc. (Group I, Group II, Group III are 82.4%, 65.5%, 81.3% respectively, and 77.2% in total), followed by improving life skills (76.2%) (life skills are abilities for adaptive and positive behavior that enable humans to deal effectively with the demands and challenges of life), then ability to work under pressure (60.4%) (working under pressure means being able to continue doing your job effectively despite demands and stresses like having not enough help, time, money or expertise), and improving Japanese language proficiency (55.4% in total with the highest rate in Group III - 81.3%, and Group II - 72.4%.). Improved Japanese language proficiency will be a huge advantage and an open door to welcome return migrants to work for Japanese companies in Vietnam. One of the notable benefits is that everyone has more self-motivation after they return home (60.4%) (self-motivation is accomplishing what needs to be done without the need for prompting, supervision, influence, or push from others). With those benefits achieved, return migrants can be an important source of growth for the home country through their accumulated knowledge and skills.
Table 9.
Beneficial gains
Beneficial gains Group I Group II Group III Group IV Total
Freq. Percent Freq. Percent Freq. Percent Freq. Percent Freq. Percent
Getting more income 21 41.2 9 31.0 10 62.5 2 40.0 42 41.6
Making new friends or extending networks 42 82.4 19 65.5 13 81.3 4 80.0 78 77.2
Improving Japanese language skills 18 35.3 21 72.4 13 81.3 4 80.0 56 55.4
Improving life skills 41 80.4 21 72.4 12 75.0 3 60.0 77 76.2
Ability to work under pressure 36 70.6 13 44.8 11 68.8 1 20.0 61 60.4
Self-motivation 33 64.7 15 51.7 11 68.8 2 40.0 61 60.4
Number of respondents 51 100.0 29 100.0 16 100.0 5 100.0 101 100.0
Key reasons for migration and return
From the statistics (Table 10), it can be seen that income is not the main factor that makes people migrate to Japan, but knowledge (57.3%) and skills (51.0%) are considered as two main determinants because most of the respondents in this survey are people who come to Japan to study, so that the experiences and knowledge gained are valuable for them. The reason for return is that the employment contract finished, or the course has ended (72.8%), followed by family reasons (53.3%).
Table 10.
The key reasons for migration and return
The key reasons Group I Group II Group III Group IV Total
Freq. Percent Freq. Percent Freq. Percent Freq. Percent Freq. Percent
Migration
I intended to study and get qualifications 44 86.3 11 37.9 N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. 55 57.3
I thought I would learn other useful new skills 29 56.9 12 41.4 8 50.0 N.A. N.A. 49 51.0
The key reasons Group I Group II Group III Group IV Total
Freq. Percent Freq. Percent Freq. Percent Freq. Percent Freq. Percent
I hoped to find a better
job after coming back 16 31.4 13 44.8 10 62.5 N.A. N.A. 39 40.6
to my country
I hoped to learn to speak Japanese that would be useful to me 7 13.7 16 55.2 8 50.0 N.A. N.A. 31 32.3
I thought I would be
able to earn more 5 9.8 4 13.8 7 43.8 N.A. N.A. 16 16.7
money
Number of respondents 51 100.0 29 100.0 16 100.0 N.A. N.A. 96 100.0
Return
The course finished / 43 89.6 13 50.0 10 71.4 1 25.0 67 72.8
job contract terminated
Family reasons 23 47.9 14 53.8 9 64.3 3 75.0 49 53.3
Others (I went to earn
a certain amount of
money and I managed to; because my life was
not as I hoped it would
be in Japan; I came back to set up a new 11 22.9 8 30.8 6 42.9 1 25.0 26 28.3
business or to start a
new job; because of
government schemes that made it attractive
to come back)
Number of respondents 48 100.0 26 100.0 14 100.0 4 100.0 92 100.0
Occupational status and income effect
Another aspect of the skill enhancement of migrants (such as working skills, life skills, professional skills, or language skills) is measured through the occupational mobility of returnees. The impact of skill acquisition on occupational mobility seems to depend on the migrants' education level, with highly educated returnees likely to benefit more from the skills they acquired abroad than unskilled returnees.
Respondents were asked to indicate the type of occupations they were engaged in Vietnam before their migration and after their return. In this section, we eliminated Group II because this group consisted of people who had no job before coming to Japan. The results from Table 11 revealed that migrants tend to move out of previous occupations after the return (42.9%) as a result of their experience abroad. This phenomenon mainly occurs in Group III (87.5%) while only 28.0% in Group I did so. The reason is that Group I consists of public sector employees who are bound by regulations (88.9% of the respondents said that they committed to come back to their previous job), while Group III are people working in the private sector where there are no constraints and they can easily change jobs after the return. 60% of those returnees who moved out of their previous work said that the skills and knowledge acquired abroad were not suitable for their previous job, while others thought that the new opportunities acquired abroad would help them to get a new job with a higher salary (60%) and a higher position (26.7%).
Table 11.
Occupational status after the return
Occupational status after the return Group I Group III Group IV Total
Freq. Percent Freq. Percent Freq. Percent Freq. Percent
After you came back to Vietnam, did you do a different job from the one you held before you left for Japan?
Yes 14 28.0 14 87.5 2 50.0 30 42.9
No 36 72.0 2 12.5 2 50.0 40 57.1
Total 50 100.0 16 100.0 4 100.0 70 100.0
What are the reasons for holding the same job? (Multiple choice)
I committed to come back to my old job 32 88.9 2 100.0 N.A. N.A. 34 85.0
I have a higher salary at this job 4 11.1 N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. 4 10.0
I have a higher position at this job 4 11.1 1 50.0 N.A. N.A. 5 12.5
I could not find a better job 2 5.6 N.A. N.A. 1 50.0 3 7.5
I keep this old job while looking for a better one 5 13.9 1 50.0 1 50.0 7 17.5
Other 2 5.6 N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. 2 5.0
Number of respondents 36 100.0 2 100.0 2 100.0 40 100.0
Wh y did you change your job? (Multiple choice)
The skills and knowledge acquired abroad are not suitable for my previous job 8 57.1 9 64.3 1 50.0 18 60.0
I have a higher salary at my new job 10 71.4 8 57.1 N.A. N.A. 18 60.0
I have a higher position at my new job 2 14.3 6 42.9 N.A. N.A. 8 26.7
I moved to the new job for family reasons 1 7.1 1 7.1 1 50.0 3 10.0
Other 2 14.3 2 6.7
Number of respondents 14 100.0 14 100.0 2 100.0 30 100.0
There is an obvious trend that returnees tend to leave their previous jobs in the state sector and move to work for private, foreign, or joint venture companies of Japan in Vietnam (Figure 3). The most significant change that can be observed is that many return migrants turn to working in private companies, Japanese joint venture enterprises or Japanese companies in Vietnam. It seems like the knowledge and skills acquired during studying and working in Japan help immigrants to find a job in Japanese companies, which can be seen as an important step towards promoting development and economic links between Vietnam and Japan.
We conduct further analysis by looking at the respondent's income and classifying them into 4 groups (some respondents refused to provide any information about their incomes). According to the data from Table 12, the income of Vietnamese return migrants varied significantly depending on the enterprise's type of ownership (state, private, NGO, or Japanese company). In this analysis, we calculated both average income and median income. For a more accurate view, median income was chosen for analysis and comparison.
State-owtied
Private Company
Joii* venlurecompany/Japanes! mmpany in Vietnam
NGO
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 After 9 respond etits) ■Before (6£ recoil dents)
Fig. 3. Employment by types of ownership
Table 12.
Income Effect
Indicator Group I Group II Grou p III Groui IV
Before After Before After Before After Before After
Total Income 283.1 645.1 N.A. 718 55.5 242 40 20
Average Income 6 16.1 N.A. 32.6 5.6 20.2 8 6.7
Median Income 5 12 N.A. 18 5.8 15 10 8
Number of respondents 47 40 N.A. 22 10 12 5 3
Career transition and corresponding income 1. State-owned 40 24 N.A. 2 N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A.
Total Income 222.6 218.1 N.A. 67 N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A.
Average Income 5.6 9.1 N.A. 33.5 N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A.
Median Income 5 6.3 N.A. 33.5 N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A.
2. Private company 6 7 N.A. 14 7 9 4 3
Total Income 48.5 226 N.A. 364 40.5 192 30 20
Average Income 8.1 32.3 N.A. 26 5.8 21.3 7.5 6.7
Median Income 8.5 15 N.A. 17 5 10 7.5 8
3. NGO N.A. 5 N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A.
Total Income N.A. 96 N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A.
Average Income N.A. 19.2 N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A.
Median Income N.A. 17 N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A.
4. Japanese joint venture company in Vietnam 1 4 N.A. 6 3 3 1 N.A.
Total Income 12 105 N.A. 287 15 50 10 N.A.
Average Income 12 26.3 N.A. 47.8 5 16.7 10 N.A.
Median Income 12 21 N.A. 45 6 17 10 N.A.
Number of Respondents 47 40 N.A. 22 10 12 5 3
Note: Unit of income - Vietnam Dong, million
The median income of return migrants in the state sector for Group I was the lowest, at approximately 5 million Vietnam Dong (VND) before migration and 6.3 million VND after the return. This slight increase in salary reflects the nature of the state sector where the wage increase depends largely on the position and seniority. This may explain the reason why many return migrants leave their current state-owned jobs and move to work for private companies, NGOs, or Japanese companies in Vietnam with many attractive opportunities,
remuneration, and commensurate salary. For example, from the table above, it can be seen that out of 40 people (before migration) working for the state sector (Group I) only 24 respondents continued to work at state-owned enterprises after the return (excluding some respondents who did not provide any information). The number of people working for private companies, NGOs, and Japanese companies increased accordingly. This explanation is similar for the other groups.
Group II includes people who did not have a job before going to Japan for study (these people are mostly students who are studying or just graduated). After returning, they demonstrate the most obvious tendency to work for private companies or Japanese companies in Vietnam. Their salary is also higher than the salary of other groups in all three sectors (state, private, and Japanese companies) with median incomes of 33.5 million VND, 17 million VND, and 45 million VND, respectively.
Thus, it is clear that migration has brought great opportunities for returnees, especially those who go to study - after gaining a certain degree they returned and found a better job with higher income. Many return migrants with skills and qualifications gained in Japan also tend to change their jobs, moving from the state sector to the other sectors.
Migration experience and attitudes toward migrants
In this study, the respondents were asked to think about is it easy to find a better job after coming back to Vietnam. Generally, their opinion was acquired after their return. The opinion of returnees regarding their wealth after the return and benefits received from migration is also interesting (Table 13).
Table 13.
Migration experience and attitudes toward migrants
Migration experience and attitudes toward migrants Group I Group II Group III Group IV Total
Freq. Percent Freq. Percent Freq. Percent Freq. Percent Freq. Percent
Do you think that it was easy for you to find a better job after coming back?
Yes 39 88.6 23 82.1 14 93.3 2 50.0 78 85.7
No 5 11.4 5 17.9 1 6.7 2 50.0 13 14.3
Number of respondents 44 100.0 28 100.0 15 100.0 4 100.0 91 100.0
Overall, do you have a better salary and job position than before going abroad?
Yes 37 82.2 24 88.9 15 93.8 2 50.0 78 84.8
No 8 17.8 3 11.1 1 6.2 2 50.0 14 15.2
Number of respondents 45 100.0 27 100.0 16 100.0 4 100.0 92 100.0
Would you sa y that overall, you were wealthier when living abroad than before you left Vietnam?
Yes, I am much wealthier 5 10.0 6 22.2 4 25.0 N.A. N.A. 15 15.3
Yes, I am slightly wealthier 26 52.0 15 55.6 10 62.5 3 60.0 54 55.1
My standard of living is about the same 15 30.0 6 22.2 2 12.5 2 40.0 25 25.5
No, I am somewhat poorer 4 5.0 N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. 4 4.1
Number of respondents 50 100.0 27 100.0 16 100.0 5 100.0 98 100.0
Has living abroad changed any of your views?
Strongly agree 29 58.0 17 60.7 10 62.5 2 40.0 58 58.6
Somewhat agree 21 42.0 11 39.3 6 37.5 2 40.0 40 40.4
Neither agree nor disagree N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. 1 20.0 1 1.0
Number of respondents 50 100.0 28 100.0 16 100.0 5 100.0 99 100.0
In this survey, we took one step further and asked not about life (dis)satisfaction in general but specifically for (dis)satisfaction with the respondents' financial situation to understand the role of opportunities obtained abroad. As apparent from Table 12, more than 82% of respondents in Group I, II, III believe that they have a better salary and job position than before going abroad, and also more than 60% believe that their lives became wealthier than before (when we combine both answers "Yes, I am much wealthier" and "Yes, I am slightly wealthier"); this percentage is above 70% when considering all groups. They returned home with new skills, and for some of the respondents their current activity is greatly aided by their overseas experience.
However, there are still 15 respondents (Group I) who answered that their living standards have not changed, and 4 people (Group I) who answered that their lives became poorer. They are all employees working in the state sector. As mentioned above, state enterprises' wage mechanism depends largely on position and seniority. Although their salary after the return has slightly increased as the economy is growing, they may feel that their standard of living has not changed or they became poorer because others are well-off.
Satisfaction or dissatisfaction about life after returning home is considered an important factor in assessing the results that migration brings. From the survey data, 99% of respondents agreed that living abroad has changed their views, and this is a positive impact that migration brings to migrants.
Conclusions and recommendations
This study presents an attempt to contribute to the research on return migration by framing the discussion in the context of the general socio-economic impact of returning migrants' employment outcomes. This is important because an analysis of the dynamics of the association between returning migrants' educational attainment, economic conditions, job opportunities, and their satisfaction with live is a crucial step towards enhancing our understanding of the processes associated with their socioeconomic reintegration after arrival in their home countries. Beyond the story, the need for developing social policies to better support and simultaneously take advantage of the returning migrants' experiences to the country's socio-economic development.
Based upon the information collected from individuals involved in the survey, the results revealed that return migrants has obtained additional degrees and qualifications abroad, the number of people with a certificate of Japanese proficiency also increased. In addition, return migrants also gain certain benefits, the most benefits achieved are making new friends or extending social networks, followed by improving life skills, the ability to work under pressure, and self-motivation after they return home. With those advantages accomplished, return migrants can be a significant wellspring of development for the nation of origin thanks to the new information and abilities that they aquired.
Also, income is not the primary factor that causes individuals to migrate to Japan, but knowledge and skills are considered as two fundamental determinants in light of the fact that the greater part of the respondents in this survey are people who came to Japan to study. With the skills and experience accumulated abroad, return migrants are normally able to move out of previous occupations, especially, the shift from the public sector to the private sector, non-governmental organizations, and Japanese companies in Vietnam. Some returnees who moved out of their previous jobs said that the skills and knowledge acquired abroad are not suitable for their previous job, while others thought that new
opportunities brought back from overseas could help them to get a new job with a higher salary and a higher position.
Moreover, there is a significant improvement in wages and incomes, depending on the enterprise's form of ownership (state, private, NGO, or Japanese company). Furthermore, the socio-economic conditions of the returnees have improved, as they believe that they have a better salary and a higher job position than before going abroad, so their lives became wealthier than before.
Finally, satisfaction or dissatisfaction about life after the return is considered as a significant factor in surveying the outcomes of migration, and up to 99% of respondents concurred that living abroad has changed their perspectives. This is a positive effect that migration brings to migrants.
The economic literature on migration is an evolving research tradition with strong relevance to policy choices. This study presents recent findings on the socio-economic impacts of return migration with a particular emphasis on Vietnamese migrants returning from Japan. In research terms, this study has revealed a number of important and interesting issues that call for more in-depth investigation.
References
1. Viet Nam Migration Profile 2016. Ha Noi: International Organization for Migration, 2017. 116 p. Reference No. ENG0542. URL: https://publications.iom.int/books/viet-nam-migration-profile-2016.
2. Hoang Anh Tuan. The Impact of International Migration and Remittances on Household Income in Vietnam: An Analysis of the Application of a New Data Set on "Vietnam Household Survey on International Migration in 2009". Journal of Human and Socio-Environmental Studies. 2019. Vol. 37. No 3. Pp. 37-54. DOI: https://doi.org/10.24517/00054187.
3. Co C. Y., Gang I. N., Yun M.-S. Returns to Returning. Journal of Population Economics. 2000. Vol. 13. No. 1. Pp. 57-79. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s001480050123.
4. Dustmann C., Weiss, Y. Return Migration: Theory and Empirical Evidence from the UK. British Journal of Industrial Relations. 2007. Vol. 45. No. 2. Pp. 236-256. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8543.2007.00613.x.
5. Sjaastad L. A. The Costs and Returns of Human Migration. Journal of Political Economy. 1962. Vol. 70. No. 5. Pp. 80-93. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1086/258726.
6. Weeks J. R. Population: An Introduction to Concepts and Issues. Belmont: Wadsworth Publishing Company, 2008. 610 p. ISBN: 0-495-09637-7.
7. International Organization for Migration. International Migration Law No. 34. Glossary on Migration. Geneva: International Organization for Migration, 2019. 236 p. ISSN: 1813-2278.
8. Todaro M. P. A Model of Labor Migration and Urban Unemployment in Less Developed Countries. The American Economic Review. 1969. Vol. 59. No. 1. Pp. 138-148.
9. Cassarino J. P. Theorising Return Migration: The Conceptual Approach to Return Migrants Revisited. International Journal on Multicultural Societies. 2004. Vol. 6. No. 2. Pp. 253-279.
10. Smith A. The Wealth of Nations. California: Createspace, 2018. 524 p. ISBN: 1505577128.
11. Ravenstein E. G. The Laws of Migration. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. 1889. Vol. 52. No. 2. Pp. 241-305. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2979333.
12. Hicks J. R. The Theory of Wages. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2017. 388 p. ISBN: 978-1-34900191-0. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-00189-7.
13. Zimmermann K. F. European Migration: Push and Pull. International Regional Science Review. 1996. Vol. 19. No. 1-2. Pp. 95-128. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/016001769601900211.
14. United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (UNESCAP). Migration Patterns and Policies in the Asian and Pacific Region. New York: United Nations, 2003. 95 p. ISBN: 9211203309.
15. Brocker J., Herrmann H. Spatial Change and Interregional Flows in the Integrating Europe. Berlin: Physica-Verlag Heidelberg, 2001. 270 p. ISBN: 978-3-7908-1344-9.
16. Katz E., Stark O. Labor Migration and Risk Aversion in Less Developed Countries. Journal of Labor Economics. 1986. Vol. 4. No. 1. Pp. 134-149. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1086/298097.
17. Zelinsky W. The Hypothesis of the Mobility Transition. Geographical Review. 1971. Vol. 61. No. 2. Pp. 219-49. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/213996.
18. Haas H. de. Migration and Development: A Theoretical Perspective. International Migration Review. 2010. Vol. 44. No. 1. Pp. 227-64. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-7379.2009.00804.x.
19. Conley J. P., Konishi H. Migration-ProofTiebout Equilibrium: Existence and Asymptotic Efficiency. Journal of Public Economics. 2002. Pp. 243-262. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0047-2727(01)00082-2.
20. Stark O. The Migration of Labor. Hoboken: Blackwell Publishing, 1991. 406 p. ISBNf 1557860300.
21. Jeffery L., Murison J. The Temporal, Social, Spatial, and Legal Dimensions of Return and Onward Migration. Population, Space Place. 2011. Vol. 17. No. 2. Pp. 131-139. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/psp.606.
22. Mesnard A. Temporary Migration and Capital Market Imperfections. Oxford Economic Papers. 2004. Vol. 56. No. 2. Pp. 242-262. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oep/gpf042.
23. Ammassari S., Black R. Harnessing the Potential of Migration and Return to Promote Development. Geneva: International Organization for Migration, 2001. 58 p. ISBN: 9789213629970. DOI: https://doi. org/10.18356/e702d9a1-en.
24. Ferro A., Fullin G., Fellini I., Hunger U. The Political Economy of Labour Migration in the European Construction Sector. IMIS-Beitrage. 2004. No. 25. Pp. 179-200.
25. Wilson F. D. Migration and Occupational Mobility: A Research Note. International Migration Review. 1985. Vol. 19. No. 2. Pp. 278-292. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/019791838501900204.
26. Ardovino M., Brown M. A Brief Literature Review on the Impact of Circular Migration: Brain Gain, Social Capital and Transnational Networks on International Development. Washington: US Agency for International Development, 2008. 16 p.
27. Gmelch G. Return Migration. Annual Review of Anthropology. 1980. Vol. 9. Pp. 135-159. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.an.09.100180.001031.
Bio note:
HoangAnh Tuan, PhD, Lecturer, Thuongmai University, Hanoi, Vietnam. Contact information: e-mail: [email protected]. Phan The Cong, PhD, Associate Professor, Thuongmai University, Hanoi, Vietnam. Contact information: e-mail: [email protected]; ORCID ID: 0000-0002-2487-7064.
Received on 15.11.2021; accepted for publication on 17.01.2022. The authors have read and approved the final manuscript.
СОЦИАЛЬНО-ЭКОНОМИЧЕСКИЕ ПОСЛЕДСТВИЯ ВОЗВРАТНОЙ МИГРАЦИИ ВЬЕТНАМЦЕВ ИЗ ЯПОНИИ
Хоанг Ань Туан
Университет торговли (Университет Туонг Май), Ханой, Вьетнам E-mail: [email protected]
Фан Тэ Конг
Университет торговли (Университет Туонг Май), Ханой, Вьетнам E-mail: [email protected]
Для цитирования: Хоанг Ань Туан, Фан Тэ Конг. Социально-экономические последствия возвратной миграции вьетнамцев из Японии // ДЕМИС. Демографические исследования. 2022. Т. 2. № 1. С. 94-115. DOI: https://doi.org/10.19181/ demis.2022.2.1.8
Аннотация. В настоящей статье проанализированы и обобщены основные теоретические подходы к изучению факторов миграции и феномена возвратной миграции. В качестве основной движущей силы миграции рассматриваются ускорение социально-экономического развития и глобальная экономическая интеграция. Возвратная миграция рассматривается как возвращение мигранта на родину после получения за границей ценного опыта: финансовой выгоды, более высокого уровня образования, новых навыков, опыта работы в зарубежной компании, знакомства с новой
системой ценностей и норм и т. д. Далее в статье анализируются миграционные связи между Японией и Вьетнамом. По числу принимаемых ежегодно вьетнамских трудовых мигрантов Япония находится на втором месте в мире после Тайваня. Кроме того, в последние годы резко возросло число вьетнамцев, обучающихся в Японии, в результате чего Вьетнам стал вторым после Китая крупнейшим экспортером иностранных студентов в Японию. Результаты проведенного авторами социологического исследования показали, что большинство вернувшихся на родину из Японии вьетнамских мигрантов получили там дополнительное образование и новые навыки, повысив свою квалификацию. Также среди них наблюдается значительное повышение заработной платы и доходов, величина которых зависит от сектора экономики. Самые высокие доходы после возвращения получают вьетнамцы, работающие в японских компаниях, за ними следуют занятые в частных компаниях и неправительственных организациях, менее всего возрастают доходы лиц, занятых в государственном секторе. Сами респонденты отмечают, что их уровень жизни повысился, так как возросла их заработная плата и улучшилось положение на работе, таким образом, их экономическое положение стало более выгодным, чем до отъезда за границу.
Ключевые слова: международная миграция, возвратная миграция, экономические возможности; Вьетнам, Япония.
Сведения об авторах:
Хоанг Ань Туан, доктор наук, преподаватель Университета торговли (Университета Туонг Май), Ханой, Вьетнам.
Контактная информация: e-mail: [email protected].
Фан Тэ Конг, доктор наук, доцент Университета торговли (Университета Туонг Май), Ханой, Вьетнам.
Контактная информация: e-mail: [email protected]; ORCID ID: 0000-0002-2487-7064.
Статья поступила в редакцию 15.11.2021; принята в печать 17.01.2022.
Авторы прочитали и одобрили окончательный вариант рукописи.
