Abstract
AbstractThe people my study attempts to understand are part of a small cohort in absolute terms, and particularly small relative to the staggering numbers of people either leaving or trying to leave Bosnia and Herzegovina. Their return is voluntary because each study participant could stay in the host state, as most of them have also attained full citizenship status. There was also no direct political, economic, social, or family pressure for them to return, and they were not part of an assisted return program. They are of full working age, still in the process of building a retirement nest egg and thus, the decision to return to Bosnia and Herzegovina entailed a considerable amount of financial risk. The circumstances of their departure from BiH were, most times, violent and traumatic, while their years of life as a refugee in the host state were filled with other kinds of struggle. However, at the time of their return, they are no longer refugees. After gaining citizenship of the host state and managing to re-build their shattered lives abroad, they decide to come back. This chapter attempts to understand why and what happens to them later on?
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Reference89 articles.
1. Achenbach, R. (2017). Return migration decisions: A study of highly skilled Chinese in Japan. Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden.
2. Ahearn, F. L. (2000). Psychosocial wellness: Methodological approaches to the study of refugees. In F. L. Ahearn (Ed.), Psychosocial wellness of refugees: Issues in qualitative and quantitative research (pp. 63–80). Berghahn.
3. Ahmed, I. (2000). Remittances and their economic impact in post-war Somaliland. Disasters, 380–389.
4. Asiedu, A. (2005). Some benefits of migrants’ return visits to Ghana. Population Space and Place, 11(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1002/psp.350
5. Axel, B. (2004). The context of diaspora. Cultural Anthropology, 19(1), 26–60.