Migration, Productive Return and Human Capital: Lessons from the new Governmental Policy on Migration in Ecuador
| Published date | 01 April 2017 |
| Date | 01 April 2017 |
| Author | Alexis Cloquell,Joan Lacomba |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/imig.12314 |
Migration, Productive Return and Human
Capital: Lessons from the new Governmental
Policy on Migration in Ecuador
Joan Lacomba* and Alexis Cloquell**
ABSTRACT
In 2008, the Government of Ecuador initiated a programme for productive return dubbed the
Cucayo Fund, aimed at financing small businesses for migrants who were returning to the
country. This programme has been a cornerstone in the new governmental policy on migration.
In 2015, the IOM considered it an exemplary practice among the instruments enabling the eco-
nomic and social reinsertion of returning migrants. In this article, based on the mining and
analysis of the implementation data from the Cucayo Fund in the three provinces comprising
Administrative Region No 7, we specifically examine the incidence of human capital accumu-
lated by the migrants in the success of their ventures. Our results show that the experience and
knowledge attained by the migrants abroad, and transfer of these to new activities, play a key
and relevant role in the financed ventures and that, therefore, human capital must be incorpo-
rated with greater emphasis into debates on return.
INTRODUCTION
In the main migrant-receiving countries in the North, and among some of the major economic and
international development organizations, concern about the return of migrants has been intermit-
tently present in their agendas, generally depending on the changes occurring in local labour mar-
kets and economic cycles. Meanwhile, the dominant idea since the 1970s that migrants would
return to their places of origin once they no longer meet the labour needs of the local job market –
very much in tune with the neoclassical theory that understands the return as an error in the calcu-
lation of migrants between the benefits and costs of migration (Borjas, 1989) –has been clashing
with the reality of migration which does not solely respond to the laws of supply and demand of
labour, based solely on the economic and labour needs of one or the other at a given time.
The return has once again become topical in both academic fields and areas or research, with
reference to the reactivation of discussions on the links between migration and development
(Nyberg-Sørensen et al., 2002). Meanwhile, the ascertaining of the weight of networks, circuits and
transnational flows has projected greater complexity around the analysis of migrations and return,
questioning the view of flows as situational, and placing greater weight on the migrants’own
mobility strategies, especially as responses to periods of crisis (Vega et al., 2016).
In this context, as Castles (2000) points out, the idea has spread that the return of the migrant
can become a factor of development, provided there is a series of conditions to facilitate and help
* University of Valencia, Spain
** Catholic University of Valencia, Spain
doi: 10.1111/imig.12314
©2017 The Authors
International Migration ©2017 IOM
International Migration Vol. 55 (2) 2017
ISSN 0020-7985Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
channel the human and economic capital gestated in the host country. This would require state
agencies to provide institutional and financial support when starting sustainable productive projects,
or for them to provide information and guidance on the investment of savings.
As a result, the issue of return now occupies a prominent place in the plans and policies of a sig-
nificant number of governments and institutions. Receiving States such as Spain, as well as many
of the source countries of migration in Latin America, in addition to Ecuador, Bolivia, Colombia
and Peru, have set up programmes orientated towards the return of their migrants; and institutions
such as the International Organization for Migrations (IOM) and the Inter-American Development
Bank have encouraged or financially supported those initiatives. They have rather heterogeneous
approaches and interests, from those who consider the return as the mere homecoming of migrants
(receiving States which promote deportations) to those who regard it as a way to reverse the bene-
fits of migration toward the development of the countries of origin (in recent years, this has mainly
consisted of the countries of origin and agencies such as IOM, ILO and the United Nations) (Gil,
2013).
In this vein, in recent years multilateral organizations and a growing number of states have taken
a particularly active role in the implementation of programmes specifically orientated towards pro-
ductive return, although as Baby-Collin and Cortes state in their study on the return of Bolivian
migration, such intervention would have been, at least in the Andes region, infrequent. In the case
of Spanish programmes, the main obstacle would have been the obligation to agree not to return to
Spain for two years, along with the low amount of financial aid provided.
1
In the case of the Boli-
vian governmental programme, Volver a Casa (Return Home), we are speaking of the possibility
of accessing venture loans, yet always associated to a return of capital that would not be within
reach of many returnee candidates (Baby-Collin & Cortes, 2014: 68). Nonetheless, despite this
renewed interest in return, programmes pertaining to this area are still very limited, in both num-
bers and magnitude.
Without being too numerous, the initiatives are increasingly diverse in terms of the actors
involved and the form of cooperation, although not so much in respect to the type of schemes
launched; most of them are aimed toward small service enterprises with the purpose of self-employ-
ment. States of origin have also been featuring more frequently in projects in this field (most of
them at a pilot or experimental level) as demonstrated by initiatives in countries as far away as
Mexico, the Philippines, Senegal and Morocco. Nevertheless, as Black and Castaldo (2009) indi-
cated, despite an increase in programmes for return, they have barely incorporated the analysis of
their impact.
In this respect, one of the most ambitious projects undertaken by the States of origin is repre-
sented by the Welcome Home Plan of the Government of Ecuador, in which the Cucayo Fund is
included, presented by the International Organization for Migration (2015) itself as an international
referent. The purpose of this article is to analyse, which variables could play a role in the success
of these types of schemes, based on the particular case of a programme recently implemented in
Ecuador (known as the Cucayo Fund), paying special attention to the human capital of returnees,
understanding the latter as the set of knowledge, competencies and skills acquired with the migra-
tory experience (Nieto, 2012). Our main hypothesis is that those Cucayo Fund beneficiaries who
have been successful in their ventures do not share a common profile in terms of sex, age or years
spent outside of the home country, but do in terms of the capital they managed to accumulate dur-
ing their migratory period and their ability to apply it to new activities undertaken once having
returned from abroad.
This does not exclude considering the incidence of other key factors of a contextual nature, such
as the administrative obstacles in programme management, or those linked to the migrants’own
careers, such as access to networks or the availability of greater or lesser business capital, a factor
on which we do not have enough information. Likewise, our information on migrant entrepreneurs
outside of the Cucayo Fund is very limited, although the more habitual reasons declared by those
110 Lacomba and Cloquell
©2017 The Authors. International Migration ©2017 IOM
To continue reading
Request your trial