COVID-19 Led Return to Kerala: A Comparative Analysis of Return Emigrants

The Indian Journal of Labour Economics https://doi.org/10.1007/s41027-024-00497-2 ARTICLE COVID‑19 Led Return to Kerala: A Comparative Analysis of Return Emigrants S. Irudaya Rajan1 · Balasubramanyam Pattath2 Accepted: 4 June 2024 © The Author(s) 2024 Abstract This article concerns emigrants who returned to Kerala between May and December 2020 in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic. We study and document the experiences of 1985 return emigrants (REM) through a quantitative survey conducted via Computer-Assisted Telephonic Interviews. The study utilises a comparative classificatory framework that categorises return emigrants into three groups: normal REM, distressed REM, and REM who returned to re-emigrate. While the REM have been a demographically, politically, and economically significant component of Kerala’s population, the COVID-19 REM represent a unique case in history that has the potential to not only affect the economy, society, and psyche of Kerala for many years to come, but to also provide valuable insights into the future of global labor migration governance. Keywords COVID-19 · Return migrants · Remittances · Kerala JEL Classification E24 · F22 · F24 · H75 · J60 · J61 1 Introduction Return emigration is an optional yet natural consequence of emigration. The predominant pattern of international migration from Kerala results in large swathes of emigrants located in the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries. In contexts where permanent residence remains a pipe dream, return emigration is inevitable for the average emigrant. This phenomenon firmly roots their identity and social * Balasubramanyam Pattath S. Irudaya Rajan 1 International Institute of Migration and Development, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala, India 2 Department of International Economics, The Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies, Geneva, Switzerland 13 Vol.:(0123456789) ISLE The Indian Journal of Labour Economics networks in the context of Kerala. Despite the prevalence of emigration opportunities from Kerala to the GCC countries, these opportunities have been decreasing due to rising competition from other states and nations. Consequently, Keralites have started to explore new destinations, gradually establishing new migration corridors. However, in early 2020, global mobility was halted by an unparalleled migration shock, the effects of which continue to unfold, profoundly impacting the patterns and implications of emigration. The COVID-19 pandemic precipitated waves of return migration across the globe, leading to a negative increase in the stock of international emigrants (Boillat & Zähringer 2020; International Organization for Migration 2020; Migration Data 2021; World Bank Group & KNOMAD 2020; 2021). According to the 2021 budget speech by the Finance Minister, approximately 1.433 million emigrants returned to Kerala from May 2020 to April 2021, representing a significant portion of the estimated 2.1 million Keralites living abroad (Arokkiaraj 2020; Rajan, 2020; Harikrishnan 2021; Purayil & Purayil 2020; Philip 2021; Prakash 2020). Unlike other Indian states that send more migrants, Kerala’s economy heavily relies on remittances, accounting for 36% of its GDP (Kannan & Hari 2020; Prakash 2020). Historically, international migration has crucially shaped Kerala’s socio-economic and cultural trajectory (Zachariah et al. 2001a, 2001b, 2003; Kannan & Hari 2020). The state’s notable socio-economic standing and its initial adept handling of COVID-19 are attributed to the substantial human capital accrued from decades of migration, highlighting the Kerala model’s complexities and its dependency on migration (George et al. 1998; Kurien 1995; NP 2013). In light of this setting, this paper utilises unique survey data collected between January and May 2021 from the Return Emigrant (REM) Survey Kerala. The survey was conducted from January to May 2021 on a total sample size of 1985 REM from 1871 households. The survey was conducted by the Centre for Development Studies (CDS) and the International Institute of Migration and Development (IIMAD) using the Computer-Assisted Telephone Interviewing method. The sample was randomly drawn from a partial list of expatriates who returned to Kerala from any international destination during April 2020 to November 2020. The sample is not weighted by the population of the districts, and hence lacks representativeness on that dimension and is broadly a non-probability sample. The questionnaire is divided into sections regarding the emigration history of the REM, the demographic and family characteristics, return experience, future plans, remittances, and household assets (see the appendix for the questionnaire). In this paper, we report the results from this survey and comment on future migration governance from Kerala by providing policy recommendations. 2 Who are the COVID‑19 Return Emigrants? 2.1 Categorising the REM In this section, we explore the factors influencing the return of REM during the COVID-19 wave of repatriation. Drawing on past crises such as the 2008–2009 13 ISLE The Indian Journal of Labour Economics global financial crisis and an initial COVID-19 survey of REM conducted by the Centre for Development Studies, we identified determinants for emigrants’ return (Zachariah et al. 2001c, 2006, 2011; Zachariah & Rajan 2010; Rajan & Akhil 2019, 2021; 2022; Rajan & Batra 2022; Rajan & Pattath, 2020; 2022). We categorised return emigrants into three types: normal REM (NREM), distressed REM (DREM), and REM who plan to re-emigrate (RREM) (Rajeev 2021). NREM, outlined in reasons 1–5 in Table 1, may have returned as part of their planned migration cycle, potentially hastened by the pandemic. DREM, shown in reasons 6–15 in Table 1, were compelled to return due to direct impacts of the pandemic. RREM encompasses those with strategic plans to migrate again. The level of coercion varies, being more acute for DREM. Family migration decisions often reflect householdlevel considerations including long-term utility preferences, which affect the choice of destination, duration of stay, and potential return (Djajic & Milbourne 1998). These decisions are also shaped by pre-emigration factors such as education or training. Table 1 details the primary reasons for return among these categories. The majority of our sample, comprising 1751 REM, is classified as DREM, indicating widespread impact of COVID-19. This group represents those in the REM workforce potentially dissatisfied with their migration experience, necessitating Table 1  Frequency of primary reason for return by REM type Primary reason for return Number NREM DREM RREM Others Total To retire 28 0 0 0 28 Missed family 29 0 0 0 29 Care for elderly 11 0 0 0 11 Accomplished goals 13 0 0 0 13 Prefer to work in Kerala 13 0 0 0 13 Lost job/laid off 0 955 0 0 955 Illness/accident 0 70 0 0 70 Expiry of contract 0 89 0 0 89 Sc (...truncated)