Social Network Theory Social Network Theory and Return Migration The theoretical insights stemming from network

theories allow the analytical framework of return migration to be better explored, while going beyond the embeddedness of the diaspora and kinship relationships. In fact, whereas transnationalism views the returnee as an actor who gathers the resources needed to secure and prepare his/her return to the homeland by mobilizing resources stemming from the commonality of attributes (e.g., religion and ethnicity), social network theory views him/her as an actor who gathers the resources needed to secure and prepare his/her return to the homeland by mobilizing resources stemming from the commonality of interests and available at the level of social and economic cross-border networks. Just like the transnational approach to return migration, social network theory views returnees as being the bearers of tangible and intangible resources. Although the respective impact of tangible and intangible resources on return migrants initiatives is difficult to evaluate a priori, it seems essential to examine return migration with constant reference to these elements. Just like the transnational approach to return migration, social network theory views returnees as migrants who maintain strong linkages with their former places of settlement overseas. However, such linkages are not the direct outcome of the aforementioned commonality of attributes. They are not necessarily dependent on diasporas, as defined by transnationalists. Rather, in a network theoretical stance, linkages reflect an experience of migration that may provide a significant adjunct to the returnees initiatives at home. Resources needed to secure return back home also stem from patterns of interpersonal relationships that may derive from the returnees past experiences of migration. Social structures increase the availability of resources and information, while securing the effective initiatives of actors, namely return migrants. Thus, the composition of networks, which consist of a multiplicity of social structures (Eccles & Nohria 1992), as well as the configuration of linkages, is of paramount importance to examine the fundamentals that define and maintain the cross-border linkages in which return migrants are involved. When analysing cross-border linkages in terms of networks, no pre-established categorical attribute allows the fundamentals of network dynamics to be depicted. Moreover, social network theorists do not take network membership for granted: firstly, because networks are selectively organized (Church et al 2002, 23); secondly, because membership requires a voluntary act from the actor himself as well as the consent of other members with a view to guaranteeing the flows of resources as well as the effectiveness and maintenance of cross-border linkages. As a matter of fact, cross-border social and economic networks correspond to a social entity [that] exists as a collectively shared subjective awareness (Laumann et al. 1983, 21). Furthermore, the formation and maintenance of networks require long-standing interpersonal relationships, as well as the regular exchange of mutually valuable items between actors. This pattern of exchange is maintained thanks to the circularity inherent in these networks. However, it should be noted that other resources are also important to the success of their initiatives and projects, following their return. Arguably, the availability of these resources would also seem to lie in the social capital from which return migrants benefited before migrating. On the one hand, past migration experience alone is not fully explanatory of the returnees initiatives. On the other hand, in terms of social capital, return migrants do not represent a homogeneous group. Social capital, which, in the words of James Coleman, inheres

in the structure of relations between actors and among actors (Coleman 1988, S110) has to be viewed as resources provided by the returnees families or households. In other words, preexisting social and financial resources, which are provided by the family, may shape the performance of return migrants. Social capital pertains to the resources from which the returnees may benefit. It is reasonable to think that social capital and the potential involvement of return migrants in cross-border social networks may be viewed as resources which complement and shape one another. Fundamentally, whether they are highly-skilled or not, economic migrants or refugees, returnees have to be viewed as social actors who may find ways to ensure their return to their homelands, and participate in the dynamics of cross-border networks. The social networks in which returnees are involved constitute systems of social relations that may have a communal or an associative basis. The former refers to long-term relationships between network members whose exchange relations are influenced by their relational contents. The latter refers to a selective group of actors whose relationships are defined in terms of associative membership. Whether they have a communal or an associative basis, the organizational characteristics of cross-border social and economic networks are responsive to the economic, social and political context in receiving and sending countries. The reference to social network theory allows the gap between the organizational structure of networks and the relational content that actors attach to their own involvement and membership in such networks to be bridged. Network theory articulates two levels of study. First, return migrants are seen as social actors who are involved in a set of relational ramifications. By analysing the practice of network membership, other elements of analysis may highlight the multiplicity of involvements of these actors, as well as the types of organization that are influential on their behaviours. Second, different network structures offer different opportunities in a given context, and different orientations and strategies. It may be from this perspective that actors derive their interests and that, at the same time, networks persist. It now appears clear that cross-border social and economic networks differ from transnational relationships, in terms of organizational patterns, goals, and configuration. Networks pertain to a specific type of relation linking a defined set of persons, objects, or events [...] The set of persons, objects, or events on which a network is defined [] possess some attribute(s) that identify them as members of the same equivalence class for purposes of determining the network of relations among them (Knoke & Kuklinski 1982, 12) (Thompson et al. 1991). The seminal definition of David Knoke and James Kuklinski emphasizes the need to consider the relational content of network ties that underpins the network structure to which actors, namely returnees, may belong. Furthermore, returnees are viewed as actors who confer a subjective meaning to their embedded actions, in a given context. In fact, network relationships can be based on the principle of complementarity (Laumann et al. 1978, 462) which may occur in a situation where actors, who differ from one another in terms of access to resources, personal characteristics and ascribed attributes, decide to enter in a partnership which will be beneficial to both parties. Furthermore, one must also take into account the returnees awareness of their network involvement. This can also be defined with reference to the fact that their own vision of the world generates a form of intellectual ambience; a form of distinctiveness the returnees like cultivating. This contention echoes the statements made by Philipps and Potter (2003), as well as by Elizabeth Thomas-Hope (1999), when they respectively interviewed returnees to the Barbados

and Jamaica. Distinctiveness is far from being irrelevant, for it certainly shapes the returnees feelings of belonging to an entity (Weber 1994, 16), which not only generates mutual understanding and conveys referents, but also delimits the boundaries of the social networks in which actors are involved. Moreover, distinctiveness is part and parcel of a process of identification. Distinctiveness not only illustrates the subjective awareness of the actors involved in cross-border social and economic networks, but also indicates this desire to be part of communal social relationships that both delimit the boundaries of the network (between those who are in and those who are out) and may generate mutual understanding. Clearly, when analysing the configuration of cross-border social networks, attention has to be paid to the meaningfulness for actors of being involved in network structures. In the same vein, their perceived position in the patterns of partnerships seem to have a certain bearing on the extent to which these actors subjectively identify themselves with their networks of social relationships. In other words, there exist as many degrees of network embeddedness as there are various types of relational contents. The five theoretical approaches that have been critically reviewed in this study all contribute to better understanding the return migration phenomenon. Whether these approaches focus primarily on the economic aspects of return migration, at the individual or household levels (i.e., neo-classical economics, NELM) or the micro and macro dimensions of return migration (e.g., structuralism, transnationalism, and social network theory), the various ways in which return has been analysed and returnees depicted differ from one another in terms of levels of analysis and research framework. Despite such differences, they are all illustrative of the various stages of development and maturation that characterise international migration streams. In fact, the foregoing comparative analysis of the theories of return migration sheds light on the economic and non-economic motivations for return, and on the need to contextualise return, in an ad hoc manner. Just as there exist several demand-pull and supply-push factors that account for the dynamics of international migration, there also exist various micro and macro factors which motivate return and shape its configuration, under specific circumstances. It is the observers task to identify the factors which predominantly motivate return and shape its preparation.