Vertaile menetelmiä

	Onward Migration Analysis	Return Migration Analysis
Tieteenala	Migration Studies	Migration Studies
Menetelmäperhe	Survival analysis	Process / pipeline
Syntyvuosi	1980	2004
Kehittäjä	Migration theory tradition (Conway; Massey et al.)	Jean-Pierre Cassarino
Tyyppi	Competing-risks hazard analysis of secondary moves	Conceptual-analytic framework for theorising and assessing return migration
Alkuperäislähde	Conway, D. (1980). Step-Wise Migration: Toward a Clarification of the Mechanism. International Migration Review, 14(1), 3-14.	Cassarino, J.-P. (2004). Theorising Return Migration: The Conceptual Approach to Return Migrants Revisited. International Journal on Multicultural Societies, 6(2), 253-279.
Rinnakkaisnimet	Secondary Migration Analysis, Onward Movement Analysis, Re-migration Analysis, Transit-to-Third-Country Migration	Return Preparedness Framework, Cassarino Return Typology, Resource-Mobilization Analysis of Return, Reintegration Readiness Assessment
Liittyvät	3	3
Tiivistelmä	Onward migration analysis studies what happens after a migrant's first move: rather than settling permanently or returning home, many migrants move again to a third country or region, a secondary or 'onward' move that conventional origin-to-destination analysis misses entirely. The analytical core is event-history modeling with competing risks. From the moment a migrant arrives at a first destination, several mutually exclusive futures compete — moving onward, returning to the origin, or remaining — and the method models the hazard of each as a function of time since arrival and of the migrant's characteristics and conditions. This framing draws on the step-wise migration tradition that David Conway clarified in 1980, in which migration unfolds as a sequence of moves rather than a single transition, and on the synthesis of migration theories by Massey and colleagues in 1993, which supplies the human-capital, network, and structural mechanisms that drive secondary movement. A central question is selectivity: onward movers are typically not a random subset of arrivals but are differentially selected on skills, legal status, and ties, so comparing the determinants of onward moves against those of return and staying reveals who keeps moving and why.	Return migration analysis examines why and how migrants go back to their countries of origin and, crucially, what determines whether that return succeeds. Jean-Pierre Cassarino's 2004 reconceptualization shifted the field away from asking only whether return signals economic failure or success, toward two organizing ideas: preparedness — the migrant's willingness and capacity to gather resources before returning — and resource mobilization, the tangible and intangible assets a returnee brings home. Set within a social-network and cross-border-embeddedness framework, the approach treats return not as the end of a migration but as a stage whose outcome depends on how prepared and resourced the returnee is and how connected they remain to networks in both origin and host societies. Analytically it is a conceptual pipeline: it situates a return within competing theories, assesses preparedness, inventories mobilized resources, evaluates network embeddedness, and classifies the return — distinguishing prepared, voluntary returns likely to reintegrate well from failure-driven or forced returns that are not. The framework reoriented return studies around readiness and reintegration rather than a simple success/failure verdict.