Periodic Reporting for period 4 - Reintegrate (Reintegration Governance)
Okres sprawozdawczy: 2025-01-01 do 2026-01-31
The Reintegrate project combined the fields of reintegration and migration governance to establish a new sub-field of reintegration governance. The project developed a conceptual understanding of reintegration governance, its implementation and effectiveness, and a new theoretical framework of how different forms of reintegration governance shape returnees' reintegration outcomes, through an in-depth comparative analysis of four case countries: Nepal, Nigeria, the Philippines, and Serbia. Rooted in the nexus between policies and migrant agency, the project used a trajectories approach to illustrate the role that returnees play in their own reintegration outcomes. The project makes several original contributions. It is the first study to systematically examine how reintegration is governed, highlighting the differences between migration management and migrant protection priorities within reintegration policies. It produced an original comparative analytical framework tested across four countries, each representing a different form of reintegration governance. It also addresses a gap in migration governance scholarship by centring the trajectories and agency of returnees as a critical dimension of analysis.
The European Union makes significant investments in return and reintegration policies, yet these are frequently evaluated as ineffective. The Reintegrate project examined reintegration governance from the perspectives of origin countries, revealing the increasing and innovative role that Nepal, Nigeria, the Philippines, and Serbia are playing in governing reintegration independently of European-led frameworks. A critical finding is that the most vulnerable returnees, including victims of trafficking, deportees, and those facing stigma in their communities, consistently lack access to reintegration services, including those funded by the European Union. This points to a fundamental gap between investment and impact that requires urgent attention. Ultimately, the project argues that effective reintegration is a shared responsibility, one that requires genuine partnership between origin countries, destination countries, international organisations, and local communities, with origin country ownership and local co-production at its centre.
The European Union makes significant investments in return and reintegration policies, yet these are frequently evaluated as ineffective. The Reintegrate project examined reintegration governance from the perspectives of origin countries, revealing the increasing and innovative role that Nepal, Nigeria, the Philippines, and Serbia are playing in governing reintegration independently of European-led frameworks. A critical finding is that the most vulnerable returnees, including victims of trafficking, deportees, and those facing stigma in their communities, consistently lack access to reintegration services, including those funded by the European Union. This points to a fundamental gap between investment and impact that requires urgent attention. Ultimately, the project argues that effective reintegration is a shared responsibility, one that requires genuine partnership between origin countries, destination countries, international organisations, and local communities, with origin country ownership and local co-production at its centre.
The project completed an original comparative dataset of 435 interviews across Nepal, Nigeria, the Philippines, and Serbia, comprising 239 interviews with returnees, 150 with stakeholders, and 46 with family members, providing the empirical foundation for all project findings. The central conceptual contribution is a new framework for reintegration governance, with an initial framework published in International Migration and a full typology to be presented in the forthcoming Handbook of Return Migration and a monograph in preparation. Key findings show that origin country-led reintegration governance challenges prevailing European supranational models, that multi-level governance arrangements exist across all four case countries with varying effectiveness, and that even limited policies matter to returnees by signalling that governments value them. The project also identified stigma and family dynamics as critical and under-explored dimensions of reintegration, contributing to publications in the Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies and the Handbook of Return Migration. A special issue on Structural Violence and Migration is currently under review. Country-specific policy briefs were produced for all four case countries and co-developed with local stakeholders through in-country dissemination workshops that generated significant engagement with local policy processes and real-world impact. The project website reached 8,000 page views from visitors across the globe, and dissemination activities in Nigeria reached over 8 million views, with findings featured in more than 10 media outlets in Nepal.
The project's most significant advance beyond the state of the art is the establishment of reintegration governance as a new and coherent research area within migration studies. Prior to this project, reintegration was studied primarily at the individual or programme level, without a systematic framework for understanding how governance structures at multiple levels shape returnee outcomes. The comparative typology developed by the project is the first evidence base of its kind, and generates findings that challenge prevailing assumptions about how reintegration should be governed and funded globally.
A central and unexpected finding across all four case countries is that the quantity of governance does not straightforwardly translate into better outcomes for returnees. In Serbia, despite significant investment from both EU and national frameworks, reintegration governance functions largely on paper, with returnees accessing support through generic poverty programmes rather than dedicated reintegration services. In the Philippines, one of the most sophisticated reintegration governance systems in the world, persistent implementation gaps exist between policy design and actual service delivery. In Nigeria, evidence shows that receiving support from multiple governance actors improves returnee wellbeing, pointing to the importance of coordination and complementarity rather than volume of investment alone. In Nepal, where formal governance was more limited, locally driven and family-centred approaches proved critical to filling gaps left by national and supranational frameworks. Together these findings reframe how reintegration policy should be designed and evaluated, shifting the focus from the existence of governance structures to their coherence, local ownership, and accessibility for the most vulnerable returnees. These insights are directly relevant for European policymakers and funders whose investments shape reintegration governance across all four case countries.
A central and unexpected finding across all four case countries is that the quantity of governance does not straightforwardly translate into better outcomes for returnees. In Serbia, despite significant investment from both EU and national frameworks, reintegration governance functions largely on paper, with returnees accessing support through generic poverty programmes rather than dedicated reintegration services. In the Philippines, one of the most sophisticated reintegration governance systems in the world, persistent implementation gaps exist between policy design and actual service delivery. In Nigeria, evidence shows that receiving support from multiple governance actors improves returnee wellbeing, pointing to the importance of coordination and complementarity rather than volume of investment alone. In Nepal, where formal governance was more limited, locally driven and family-centred approaches proved critical to filling gaps left by national and supranational frameworks. Together these findings reframe how reintegration policy should be designed and evaluated, shifting the focus from the existence of governance structures to their coherence, local ownership, and accessibility for the most vulnerable returnees. These insights are directly relevant for European policymakers and funders whose investments shape reintegration governance across all four case countries.