Similarly, migrants who find it difficult to join labour markets as well as those without easy
access to the social security system and health care system will probably not be reluctant to
return (Reagan and Oslen, 2000; Jensen and Pedersen, 2007; Nekby; 2006). In the structural
approach and unlike the NELM, Gibson & McKenzie (2009) contend that the decision to return
is strongly linked to family and lifestyle reasons, rather than the income opportunities in
different countries.
In addition, the structural approach shows the importance of financial
and economic resources brought back to countries of origin in the return decision and the reintegration of migrants. By correlating migrants’ expectations and contextual circumstances
in the home countries; Cerase (1974) analyses Italian returnees from the United States
emphasising the complex relationship between their expectations and the social and
economic context at home. Cerase (1974) formulates a typology of four types of returnees
namely; return of failure, return of conservatism, return of retirement and return of
innovation. The conclusion is that this typology of returnees prevails in many countries and
constitutes an attempt to show how migrants’ contexts and situations are pre-requisite in
determining whether return was a success or failure.