Djordje Stefanovic (Saint Mary’s University, Halifax)

& Neophytos G. Loizides (University of Kent)

Conflict Research Society, Leeds 2014

The ‘Return Home’ Puzzle What explains voluntary yet difficult

decisions of victims of ethnic cleansing to return home despite:the passage of time and new opportunitieshostile local authoritiesopposition from new occupants/settlers

What explains variation in initial intentions and actual return outcomes?

Global ImportanceGlobal Forced Displacement tops 50 Million for First

Time in post- World War II Era (UNHCR, 2014).

Figures reflect rapid escalation of conflicts in the Middle East and sub-Saharan Africa as well as about 30 protracted refugee situations affecting some 6.4 million refugees (UNHCR, 2013:12)

Contradictory evidence as to whether return is feasible or in some cases even desirable (Jansen, 2009; Adelman & Barkan, 2011)

Irreversibility Thesis Adelman and Barkan are probably the

strongest proponents of the ‘irreversibility thesis’ we aim to question in our work.

They emphatically argue that ‘the ideology and commitment to return conveys the notion of repatriation as a distant, impractical solution in the face of real desperation’ (Adelman and Barkan 2011:xvii).

HypothesesFear of Violence (Lake & Rothchilld, 1996; Walter,

1999) Individual Level Predictors

age, war time loss, genderContextual Factors

settlers, composition of village/city, security forces

Better Life, Employment and Financial Alternatives (Zetter, 1994; IGC, 2002)

Memories of Home (Hammond, 1999; Loizos, 2009; Jansen, 2009)

Social Capital – ‘community effort’ hypothesis (Putnam, 1993; Varshney, 2001)

Research Design

Quantitative AnalysisMeasuring intentions (Cyprus) vs. outcomes

(Kurdish and Bosnia data)Representative samples (Cyprus and Bosnia)

and non-representative (Turkey)Qualitative Analysis

Data Collection: Participant observation and qualitative interviews

(local elites, (non) returnees and new occupants/ settlers)

Secondary reports and press coverage

Table . Odds Ratios for Logistic Regression of Return, Bosnian Returns, 2012

Significance: NS= not significant, †p<.10, *p<.05, **p<.01, *** p<.001.

Independent Variables Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Pre-consisting Factors Age 1.049*** 1.063*** 1.060*** (.007) (.013) (.014) Gender 0.423*** 0.191*** 0.199*** (Male 0 Female 1) (.213) (.375) (.377)

Croat Dummy

1.751 NS (.430)

4.528* (.638)

5.269* (.690)

Serb Dummy Life experiences

0.543** (.213)

2.140* (.381)

2.708* (.398)

Education 0.841* 0.842* (.82) (.085) Close Loss 0.394** .439* (.337) (.346) Memories of Home 0.724*** 0.712*** (.093) (.094) Pre-war local interethnic relations

1.679** (.171)

1.588** (.175)

Community displacement 1.574** 1.605** (.149) (.148) Community return 4.562*** 4.529*** (.177) (.180) Opinions Living with other ethnic groups

1.503** (.135)

Constant 0.155*** 0*** 0*** (.393) (1.604) (1.684) Cox & Snell R2 17 % 52.9% 53.9% Number of Respondents 505 430 427

Findings: Dissimilarities Contrary to conventional wisdom the data suggest that

economic advancement and social integration increase willingness to return home (Greek Cypriot sample)

Integration in a new environment in Western Turkey, measured by economic advancement and knowledge of Turkish, reduces the likelihood of return (Kurdish sample)

Returnees with a better educational profile tend to be more likely to return to their ancestral lands in Greek Cypriot and Kurdish samples, but not in Bosnia

Findings: Common Patterns Older men are more likely to be returnees

Community return matters. Especially, among Kurds and Bosnians there is a strong impact on the chances of individual return

Thank you