Skip to main content
Article thumbnail
Location of Repository

Return International Migration and Geographical Inequality: The Case of Egypt

By Barry McCormick and Jackline Wahba

Abstract

This paper explores entrepreneurship amongst return migrants, how their business locations and characteristics differ from other businesses, and the implications for rural–urban inequality. First, we examine, amongst returnees, the determinants of investment in a project/enterprise. Secondly, we study the impact of return migration on the characteristics and nature of non-farm small enterprises using a sample of return migrants and non-migrant owners of enterprises. <br/>Our data indicate that although the share of return migrants originating in urban areas is almost equal to those from rural areas, and that migrants tend to return to their origin region, urban areas benefit more than rural areas from international savings. The empirical evidence suggests that overseas savings, and the duration of stay overseas, have positive separate effects on the probability of investing in a project/enterprise amongst returnees. Furthermore, returnees of urban origin are more likely than rural ones to invest in a non-farm enterprise. <br/>The findings also indicate that there is a regional bias in the location of firms and jobs created by returnees compared with non-migrants, in favour of the capital city. Thus, overall, the results support a positive impact of return migration on enterprise investment in urban areas driven by the preference of returnees to invest in urban areas. <br/

Topics: JV, H1
Year: 2003
OAI identifier: oai:eprints.soton.ac.uk:34546
Provided by: e-Prints Soton

Suggested articles

Citations

  1. (1991). Emigration to South Africa’s mines”,
  2. (1986). International migration, remittances and welfare in a dependent economy”,
  3. (1995). International return migration and remittances in the Philippines”,
  4. (1990). Labour migration to the United States: development outcomes and alternative in Mexican sending communities”, Commission for the Study of International Migration and Co-operative Economic Development,
  5. (1991). Mexican migration to the United States: A critical review”,
  6. (1985). Motivations to remit: evidence from Botswana”,
  7. (1993). Occupational choice and the process of development”,
  8. (2000). Overseas employment and remittances to a dual Economy”,
  9. (2001). Overseas work experience, savings and entrepreneurship amongst return migrants to LDCs”,
  10. (1992). Remittances and inequality reconsidered: direct, indirect and intertemporal effects”,
  11. (2001). Remittances and microenterprises in Mexico”, mimeo,
  12. (1999). Return migration and occupational change”,
  13. (1999). Return migration to Jamaica and its development potential”,
  14. (1997). Return migration, savings and uncertainty”,
  15. (1990). Small-scale industry and international migration in Guadalajara, Mexico”, Working Paper No.53, Commission for the Study of International Migration and Cooperative Economic Development,
  16. (2001). Temporary migration and capital market imperfections”,
  17. (1991). The economic uses and impact of international remittances
  18. (2002). The economics of migrants' remittances”, mimeo, forthcoming
  19. (1992). The impact of migration and remittances on inequality in rural Pakistan”,
  20. (1999). The new economics of labour migration and the role of remittances in the migration process”,
  21. (2002). The optimal migration duration and activity choice after remigration”,
  22. (1991). The probability of return migration, migrants' work effort, and migrants performance”,
  23. (1991). Tropical capitalists: US bound immigration and small enterprise development in the Dominican Republic”,
  24. (1989). Workers remittances and inequality

To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.